Why are liberals so g-d d-mn st00pid sometimes?

Post Reply New Topic

Had she not done what she had done and boldly defied an unjust, and unconstitutional court order then gag order would still be in place. What she did was ultimately use social media to her advantage. When I say that the law is not a moral authority I mean that under the right circumstances it is not only defensible to break the law, it is the RIGHT thing to do! You sir, have the luxury of living Canada, a country whose legal system is far less corrupt than the one in my country and cases like this are far less common.

You seek to vilify her for breaking the law and say that what happened to her was justifiable because what she did *happened* to be illegal. We don't need armchair lawyers like you from foreign countries defending the American legal business. But given your liberal persuasion I am not surprised but your stance. For the most part, those on the near side of the left(the democratic party)tend to oppose any and every kind of violence unilaterally and have a the law right or wrong mentality because non-violent people derive power from manipulating authority rather than taking matters into their own hands which the American right tends to favor when dealing with these problems as they don't wish to rely on the government for justice and personal protection. And with good reason.

I am grateful that you are unable to vote in American elections nor able to file any sort of petitions to change the law here, my friend.

The "good cause" motive for the judge has several components:



1) Dietrich's "vigilante" tweet exposed corruption which undermines the public's faith in the legal system. Since local judges are elected officials, a judge who attempts to use their power to silence a victim of crime in order to protect the interests of the perpetrators is not only going to be voted out, but runs the risk of being unseated because the American public strongly favors judges and politicians who are tough on crime.


2)In cases like this, juvenile confidentiality laws are in conflict with the constitutional rights of a victim who was NEVER charged with a crime nor entered a legal agreement. And when a victims constitutional rights are trampled on for the benefit of rapists, this is cause for change because this sort of thing shouldn't ever happen in the first place.




As it turns out, people of ALL political persuasions were outraged by why happened to Dietrich, as they should be. The only people in America who think the judges gag order and the rapists attorney's contempt of court motion were acceptable are whiny MRAs and sleazy lawyers who profit from the system and will defend it no matter what. I guess you're in the latter category, eh?

No, because not all sexual assaults are rapes.

I don't know exactly what charge they have pleaded guilty to, but if it isn't rape, they aren't, legally, rapists.

True, but they did plead guilty to rape. So yeah, they are rapists.

How can you pretend to know what a judge would have done with her application to vacate the order in the absence of her violation of it?

I do not disagree with the political proposition that defiance of an unjust law may be necessary. But that defiance comes with an important caveats: a person must exhaust their legal remedies before turning to defiance.



I hope that what I say doesn't come across as villification. She broke the law, she is liable for the consequences. I understand her motivations, and I fully accept the argument that she was caught in circumstances entirely of other people's making. All I have said is that her circumstances did not excuse her behaviour.

As for the political argument, you are partially correct. I abhor vigilateism. I believe in "peace, order and good government," and I believe that the legal system is better equipped to resolve criminal complaints than independent action on the part of individuals.

And bear in mind, I'm not defending the legal business. There are at least three lawyers (doubtless more) involved in this matter--the prosecution, the defendants' lawyer(s) and her own lawyer. There are lawyers arguing all sides of this matter, and there are judges deciding it. The law as it is practiced in Common Law jurisdictions is an adversarial process, and for every lawyer advancing an argument on one side of an issue, there is another lawyer advancing the opposing argument. That's how our justice systems work.



Are you so afraid of the power of my arguments that your only response is to take solace in the fact that I am powerless to give them effect? Am I that convincing? You must believe, then, that a vast number of people think the way that I do. But if that's the case, it might behove you to wonder why that is.

Instead of demonizing liberals as people who want to manipulate government to repress individuals, perhaps you might look at things through a different lens. Perhaps you might consider that liberals want one set of rules to apply to all people, regardless of whether or not they have the capacity to turn to vigilateism to settle their differences.



Neither of the compenents that you cite are bases for the judge's decision to vacate the gag order.

I would suggest to you that a judge who makes a decision based upon the political views of the electorate is perverting the law. How can the law protect a minority interest if every judge must be mindful of the majority's view on a legal question? The proper sphere for the electorate to hold sway is in the legislature, not the courtroom. The independence of the judiciary must exist not only to protect them from interference from the other branches of government, but also to protect the law and the administration of justice from the mob.

You claim there is a violation of Ms. Dietrich's constitutional rights, but you have not made your case. Free expression is not an absolute right, and there is no due process argument, in my view, because the confidentiality of young offenders' identitites is grounded in statute that was created by the legislature of the state. Unless you can demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional you will not persuade me that you have a good argument here.

Finally, bear in mind, I have no axe to grind here. As you correctly point out, I don't live in your country, I am on peripherally subject to her laws, and I earn no profit from any outcome in this matter.

And if you can see nothing but "whiny MRAs and sleazy lawyers who profit from the system," in this argument, then what are you doing in this conversation? Clearly you know that I am neither, or you wouldn't be getting so angry. You are so passionate about the instant case, that you have completely lost perspective on the larger issue of the role of law in society.

You should properly know that I am a reasonable, moderate, civilized and politically centrist person. And yet your parting shot in an argument is to lump me together with "whiny MRAs and sleazy lawyers who profit from the system?" That's an empty remark, which rather suggests that you know my view is well grounded and you are hard pressed to argue it on its merits. A classic example of, "play the man not the ball."