It isn't. A strawman would be if I attacked a point you hadn't made while pretending it was a point you made. For example, if I responded by saying "you're wrong to claim he's the most ethical Supreme Court justice ever -- what about Oliver Wendell Holmes or Thurgood Marshall?!" That would be a strawman argument, since you never claimed he was the most ethical, so it would be a position I was trying to assign you just so I'd have something to attack. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. It's easier to argue against the idea that he's the most ethical justice ever than it is to take on your actual arguments, and so pretending that was the proposition you'd forwarded would be a straw man.
That isn't the case here, as you can see. I directly addressed an actual point you had made. My argument, obviously, is that citing Thomas's absence from a 2014 article as support for the idea he's not terribly corrupt doesn't make a lot of sense in 2022, when the foremost examples of corruption post-date that article. "Strawman" doesn't mean merely declining to take on each and every point someone offered, and focusing on one specific point.
wow Mina - everyone is kicking your ass in debates.
Nah. Merely amused. I find it funny when the right-wingers project that way.
What makes you think that? While certainly you can find some pet lawyers working within the Rupert Murdoch tabloid empire who argue against recusal, there are a great many legal scholars who have taken the other position:Few legal scholars would side with your recusal claims
https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/03/30/...rrection-cases
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...he-steal-texts
That's also a position supported by the majority of Americans:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...cases-00023377
We're not dealing with a situation where maybe his wife's prestige is on the line, such as a situation where a judge doesn't recuse himself from a case where a spouse had some sort of advocacy role in a partisan issue. In this case, his wife is suspected of involvement in a deadly and criminal attack on our nation, and the issues coming up include access to documents that might establish criminal liability for her. She could literally wind up in jail depending on how the cases come out and what the facts are, and yet Clarence is insisting on running interference for her. That's corrupt.
No, it was not a strawman, since I did not mischaracterize your point in any way. Face it: You didn't have a clue what the term meant, and now that you've been called out on it, you're desperately trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit. Learn from your error and try to use the term correctly next time. Good luck!
precedent. the bar you have to cross is this
“an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
actual legal scholars - not the partisan doucebags you will line up - understand interests don't mean a rooting interest
in your own words - explain Ginny's interest in Bognet v. Boockvar
we will do this case by case - and like all our debates, I will kick your ass because you are a retard
If your argument was "Clarence Thomas was not yet the most corrupt Supreme Court justice as of 2014," a 2014 article that declined to mention him among the worst justices would be decent support for that. But since the corruption he is most often called out for post-dates that article, it isn't a very strong argument for saying Thomas, today, isn't the most corrupt. That's the point I was making.
I see you're struggling here with basic reasoning skills. Let's change the context a bit, to one where your partisan political blindness won't hurt your brain so much. Let's say someone argued that Steph Curry was the greatest three-point shooter ever and you responded with a link to an article that listed four players in contention for that honor, but made no mention of Curry. Say you imagined that bolstered your argument he wasn't the greatest ever.... but say that article was from 2014. Now, obviously, the reasonable response would be to point out that in 2014 he hadn't yet done much of what now gets him listed as the greatest 3-pointer ever. These days, he's pretty much the consensus pick.
She has an interest in remaining out of prison, and that could be substantially affected by the matters being litigated.
It's Trump v. Thompson that I'm talking about. But nice try attempting to assign a position to me. I'd imagine that when someone's debate skills are as weak as yours, it's extremely important to be allowed to assign positions to potential opponents.in your own words - explain Ginny's interest in Bognet v. Boockvar
cuckoo. cuckoo. she is not on trial and never will be
ok - focus on that one tardo. How does Trump’s claims of executive privilege over records from his presidency impact Ginny's texts?It's Trump v. Thompson that I'm talking about. But nice try attempting to assign a position to me. I'd imagine that when someone's debate skills are as weak as yours, it's extremely important to be allowed to assign positions to potential opponents.
She is not seeking executive privilege or attorney-client confidentiality. Nothing in her texts relate to any of these cases or issues.
You just proved you don't understand the interest provision that would require his recusal.
With her corrupt husband running interference, I'm assuming you're right. But an ethical judge doesn't just recuse himself from trials where spouses are actual charged in a crime.
I didn't say they impacted her texts. Again, you're attempting to assign a position to me. Have you not picked up on the fact I don't fall for that bullshit? I get that you're a coward, but do you have to call such attention to it?How does Trump’s claims of executive privilege over records from his presidency impact Ginny's texts?
No charges have been filed against her - and even the biggest shit stains are just saying he should be recused. to claim a criminal element here shows how far on a limb you extremists are. you are crazier than Trump's attorneys at this point
You refuse to actually say anything of relevance. in your own words - explain how that case interests her in a manner that goes beyond what she wants to happen (rooting interest)I didn't say they impacted her texts. Again, you're attempting to assign a position to me.
... and with hubby running interference on document requests, it's unlikely that will change.
Sure. The case involves whether or not discovery can be thwarted -- discovery related to a deadly criminal attack on our nation, where we know the justice's wife, at minimum, had a planning role in setting the stage for the day's events. If she did anything illegal or even just unethical or subject to civil liability, she has an interest in keeping those communications secret. So does Justice Thomas, so he'll make sure he stays in a position to influence that for his wife.in your own words - explain how that case interests her in a manner that goes beyond what she wants to happen (rooting interest)
again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. so retarded strike 1
again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. the discovery is related to executive executive privilege between the president and his lawyer. she is not his lawyer, and her texts have nothing to do with that case so retarded strike 2Sure. The case involves whether or not discovery can be thwarted -- discovery related to a deadly criminal attack on our nation, where we know the justice's wife, at minimum, had a planning role in setting the stage for the day's events. If she did anything illegal or even just unethical or subject to civil liability, she has an interest in keeping those communications secret. So does Justice Thomas, so he'll make sure he stays in a position to influence that for his wife.
Last edited by zymurgy; 05-18-2022 at 03:36 PM.
Bookmarks