Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Global Warming
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Global Warming (Read 1623 times)
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #70 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:36pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:30pm:
Ok, so you are literally saying that if a judge rules evidence inadmissible, the jury will still be able to require it to be shown to them and that their verdicts can never be overturned by judges.  Real good.


In law, what I said is true. Juries are the final arbiters in our system of justice. As such, it is essential they have access to as much information as they believe they need, and they are empowered to demand information from the Kings prosecutors and from the Kings Judge.

How could a jury know that they are rendering a just verdict if they don't have free access to information?

Any jury being refused information by the King's judge or the King's prosecutor would be morally obligated to acquit the defendant, and juries have that power.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #71 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:43pm
Print Post  
Judges are functionaries. Their duty is to conduct fair trials where the truth that is known, all of it, is made available to the jury so the jury can render a just verdict. Juries have jurisdiction over courts where they are empaneled in order that the jury will be enabled to hear the facts and learn the truth. Then the jury renders a verdict. The judge is supposed to be there to make it possible for truth to emerge for the jury, not to hide it from them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #72 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:48pm
Print Post  
Juries have additional powers. A sitting jury can charge anyone with a crime. If, in the course of hearing evidence, the jury hears evidence of a crime other than the alleged crime they are judging, they can demand that an indictment be made and more evidence gathered of the other crime they suspect has occurred.

Tyrants never liked juries and never will.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2989
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #73 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:49pm
Print Post  
Billie wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:36pm:
In law, what I said is true. Juries are the final arbiters in our system of justice. As such, it is essential they have access to as much information as they believe they need, and they are empowered to demand information from the Kings prosecutors and from the Kings Judge.



What King?  Are you now also claiming to be Canadian?

Quote:
How could a jury know that they are rendering a just verdict if they don't have free access to information?


They won't know that if they do have free access to information.  If they have information that is prejudicial moreso than probative, they will likely render an unjust verdict.  For example, if a man is being sued and/or prosecuted for raping an under-aged girl and the jurors found out that he idolizes and often quotes a man who raped under-aged girls they might be biased against him.

Quote:
Any jury being refused information by the King's judge or the King's prosecutor would be morally obligated to acquit the defendant, and juries have that power.


When has that ever happened in the U.S.?  Name the cases.  You have yet to quote me the law that says juries have more authority in a courtroom than the judge and that no appeals judge can over-turn their verdict.  Even if you are right, in practice they do not over-ride judges.  If they did, their first decision would likely be to over-ride the judge's "instruction" that they have to serve on the jury in the first place.



  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #74 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:52pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:05pm:
False also.  If a jury finds a man guilty or a crime or liable for a tort, he can appeal to superior courts up to his state supreme court and to federal courts up to the USSC hoping one of them will reverse the jury's decision as they often do.  If a man is found not-guilty by a jury, he is supposed to be protected from appeal by the double jeopardy principle.  But in practice, the government has found ways around that.  Officer "you're crappity smacked" who shot an unarmed man for pulling up his pants was found not guilty by a jury.  Now the federal government may go after him for the exact same action but call it a civil rights violation to get around double jeopardy.




Yes, rights of appeal to convictions are guaranteed, as is the right to not be tried twice for the same crime.

Calling the identical action both a "civil" crime and a "criminal" crime  in order to evade the law prohibiting people from being tried twice for the same crime is typical "progressive" destruction of rational language in order to promote unconstitutional tyranny.

Trying people sequentially for the same crime in different courts is an even more obvious violation of law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2989
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #75 - Jan 14th, 2018 at 9:16pm
Print Post  
Billie wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:52pm:
Yes, rights of appeal to convictions are guaranteed, as is the right to not be tried twice for the same crime.

Calling the identical action both a "civil" crime and a "criminal" crime  in order to evade the law prohibiting people from being tried twice for the same crime is typical "progressive" destruction of rational language in order to promote unconstitutional tyranny.

Trying people sequentially for the same crime in different courts is an even more obvious violation of law.


Ok, well maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  When you speak of how awesome our jury system is, do you mean it really is that way, or that it is supposed to be that way?


  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6542
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #76 - Jan 15th, 2018 at 4:29am
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 7:32pm:
But once that point is reached, no political or economic system will stop the extinction of all life, right?  So no economic or political system will bring it back.  The only question is whether we would want to live out our remaining days under tyranny or freedom.


Your answer was 100% legit: Let the free market solve whatever it can after the fact.

My point is just that you can't say "property rights and the rule of law to allow the plaintiffs to collect damages" as if it's a solve-all. It's not. I explained to Jeff over and over that this was not a question about standard pollution, but about tipping points. He pretended not to understand what I meant and now we're back to square one and he's weaseling out of answering again, just like when he pretended not to understand what I meant by "standard pollution" even though I explained it. Now, three times.

He doesn't even believe in the rule of law. He wants a judiocracy and special rights for the religious.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.

Not taking Jeff seriously until he admits this is animal abuse (which he says should be illegal): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-IT7_CaE4
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #77 - Jan 15th, 2018 at 6:22am
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 9:16pm:
Ok, well maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  When you speak of how awesome our jury system is, do you mean it really is that way, or that it is supposed to be that way?


I keep saying "in the law" and "our law".

I'm not imagining some hypothetical powers I wish juries would be granted but don't have, I'm talking about the power juries do have, powers they must have to do what they are empaneled to do which is decidedly not to rubber stamp the governments charges.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Billie
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 29286
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Global Warming
Reply #78 - Jan 15th, 2018 at 6:31am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 15th, 2018 at 4:29am:
Your answer was 100% legit: Let the free market solve whatever it can after the fact.

My point is just that you can't say "property rights and the rule of law to allow the plaintiffs to collect damages" as if it's a solve-all. It's not. I explained to Jeff over and over that this was not a question about standard pollution, but about tipping points.
You are imagining "tipping points" caused by "non-standard pollution". You have never told me what "non-standard pollution" is.

Enforced property rights will punish creators/emitters of "non-standard pollution" too, thus preventing "tipping points" caused by human actions.

Here's a timely article illustrating the absurdity of the current "progressive solution" to pollution that essentially exists today only in countries without enforced property rights.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-childrens-climate-lawsuit-agai...

I can't even imagine that a court would allow this to proceed when our courts claim that individuals have no standing to sue polluters, but instead must take proof of harm to the EPA bureaucrats and let them decide if court action should be taken by the EPA on our behalf.

Read it carefully and make a cost benefit analysis of doing whatever it is these people want to do on behalf of future American children.

Destroy America for the children's sake?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9863
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Global Warming
Reply #79 - Jan 15th, 2018 at 11:34am
Print Post  
Billie wrote on Jan 15th, 2018 at 6:31am:
You are imagining "tipping points" caused by "non-standard pollution". You have never told me what "non-standard pollution" is.

Enforced property rights will punish creators/emitters of "non-standard pollution" too, thus preventing "tipping points" caused by human actions.

Here's a timely article illustrating the absurdity of the current "progressive solution" to pollution that essentially exists today only in countries without enforced property rights.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-childrens-climate-lawsuit-agai...

I can't even imagine that a court would allow this to proceed when our courts claim that individuals have no standing to sue polluters, but instead must take proof of harm to the EPA bureaucrats and let them decide if court action should be taken by the EPA on our behalf.

Read it carefully and make a cost benefit analysis of doing whatever it is these people want to do on behalf of future American children.

Destroy America for the children's sake?


The science is all a hoax. jesus would never allow man to destroy the planet.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Global Warming
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy