RIP O’Connor. I will never forgive her decision in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, but I think she was at least sincere in her desire to do good, and she made some good calls along the way. The way they tricked her to resign early was despicable. Politics!
Never heard about them tricking her to resign. I thought that was Justice Kennedy, not her. Details?
Guest
Willim Clinton
December 1, 2023 11:29 am
Maybe first DUIs need to be felonies. Even if routinely pled down I think misdo DUIs are just a slap on the wrist for something that should never happen, not even a little, not even once.
I’ve often said you can’t punish your way out of social problems, but maybe we’re not harsh enough yet. A lot of people getting DUIs are rational people, real penalties might make a dent.
Also, can we please start building a real public transportation system?
I don’t know that increased penalties will have a big deterrent effect. I think most people are just playing the odds. When I was much younger, I drove many times when I probably shouldn’t have, always thinking “I’m fine; I won’t get caught. Everyone does it.” And you know what? I never got stopped, never had an accident, etc. That was a couple of decades ago, and I’m older and wiser now, thankfully having made it through that phase of life without hurting myself or anyone else (plus we have Uber so there really is no excuse). But I think most people who drive over the limit are probably going through that same calculus, and don’t think it will happen to them, hence the deterrent effect of ratcheting up the penalty might be minimal.
Tragic events, while sad are a reality of our existence. Changing the DUI to a felony will result in more inequity. The working class will suffer with the higher penalties, while the bourgeoise will pay for fancy defense counsel and ensure they do not suffer any consequence. That is a terrible idea.
We aren’t going to punish our way out of this problem and ruining the life of someone who blows a .06 at a traffic stop isn’t the same as what happened here. Some people are always going to make the wrong choice. Uber and Lyft are great and leave no excuse for this. Hell…sleeping in your car might get you a DUI, but at least you don’t kill anyone. Public transportation does need improvement…would probably have an impact if done right.
Maybe if we’d put our money towards an actual company with an actual plan for public transit (famously done before, I’m sure we could find good blueprints somewhere) instead of getting starry-eyed over the Boring Company and blowing the wad on an egomaniac that knows nothing about civil engineering…
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2023 12:31 pm
Santos is a despicable person. But I don’t like the expulsion without a conviction. Seems there should be a way to sideline him without setting a precedent for expulsion without conviction.
I respectfully disagree re: expulsion, especially after the release of the fairly damning bipartisan House Ethics Committee report. I think it actually establishes good precedent of accountability—something sorely lacking in DC and statehouses nationwide. Don’t forget—getting 2/3 of the U.S. House to agree on anything is no easy task, and getting over 100 votes from members of the expelled individual’s same party tells me that the alleged bad behavior was severe enough and evident enough to punish. We’ll see if the Senate will do the same thing for the Senior Senator from New Jersey if/when a Senate Ethics Committee report is released regarding his gold bars and foreseeable legal woes.
Have to agree for practicality purposes… Congress (the House especially) has been up to fuck-all for the past year, and sidelining him without expelling him would just be a further waste of taxpayer time. Almost no one gets the luxury of the high bar of conviction of a crime before losing their job.
Expelling Santos is exactly the right precedent to set. The standards to serve in Congress should be higher than “not convicted yet.” There is no slippery slope here. Santos is a clown. These situations are rare enough to be handled case-by-case.
Hard to be unconstitutional when there is an express provision in the Constitution that grants this power. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (hereinafter “the Expulsion Clause”). I could hurl a similar epithet like read the document that you claim to be citing, but that would be crass and rude and you need all of the grace that can be given
Notwithstanding the express Constitutional provision to the contrary, a vote of Congress without a hearing or evidence (even if that’s what happened) isn’t a denial of due process. Due process only attaches to a fundamental right, none of which apply here. I am far from new. What’s your excuse?
Oh brother. Had a (civil) District Court judge in a commercial litigation dispute deny my motion for failure to comply with two sections of Part V of the Eighth Judicial District Court Rules. How can I politely tell this Judge that the 5’s govern Family Court cases. Like really?
How much did those lawyers get paid to put together a 60 page brief arguing about double spacing?
$3.50
Ok Loch Ness Monster.
RIP O’Connor. I will never forgive her decision in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, but I think she was at least sincere in her desire to do good, and she made some good calls along the way. The way they tricked her to resign early was despicable. Politics!
Never heard about them tricking her to resign. I thought that was Justice Kennedy, not her. Details?
Maybe first DUIs need to be felonies. Even if routinely pled down I think misdo DUIs are just a slap on the wrist for something that should never happen, not even a little, not even once.
I’ve often said you can’t punish your way out of social problems, but maybe we’re not harsh enough yet. A lot of people getting DUIs are rational people, real penalties might make a dent.
Also, can we please start building a real public transportation system?
Nevada will never change that.
Ever.
I don’t know that increased penalties will have a big deterrent effect. I think most people are just playing the odds. When I was much younger, I drove many times when I probably shouldn’t have, always thinking “I’m fine; I won’t get caught. Everyone does it.” And you know what? I never got stopped, never had an accident, etc. That was a couple of decades ago, and I’m older and wiser now, thankfully having made it through that phase of life without hurting myself or anyone else (plus we have Uber so there really is no excuse). But I think most people who drive over the limit are probably going through that same calculus, and don’t think it will happen to them, hence the deterrent effect of ratcheting up the penalty might be minimal.
Nevada will never change it. Ever.
CDB for the party town of the USA.
Tragic events, while sad are a reality of our existence. Changing the DUI to a felony will result in more inequity. The working class will suffer with the higher penalties, while the bourgeoise will pay for fancy defense counsel and ensure they do not suffer any consequence. That is a terrible idea.
We aren’t going to punish our way out of this problem and ruining the life of someone who blows a .06 at a traffic stop isn’t the same as what happened here. Some people are always going to make the wrong choice. Uber and Lyft are great and leave no excuse for this. Hell…sleeping in your car might get you a DUI, but at least you don’t kill anyone. Public transportation does need improvement…would probably have an impact if done right.
Maybe if we’d put our money towards an actual company with an actual plan for public transit (famously done before, I’m sure we could find good blueprints somewhere) instead of getting starry-eyed over the Boring Company and blowing the wad on an egomaniac that knows nothing about civil engineering…
Santos is a despicable person. But I don’t like the expulsion without a conviction. Seems there should be a way to sideline him without setting a precedent for expulsion without conviction.
You’re just extremely homophobic.
I respectfully disagree re: expulsion, especially after the release of the fairly damning bipartisan House Ethics Committee report. I think it actually establishes good precedent of accountability—something sorely lacking in DC and statehouses nationwide. Don’t forget—getting 2/3 of the U.S. House to agree on anything is no easy task, and getting over 100 votes from members of the expelled individual’s same party tells me that the alleged bad behavior was severe enough and evident enough to punish. We’ll see if the Senate will do the same thing for the Senior Senator from New Jersey if/when a Senate Ethics Committee report is released regarding his gold bars and foreseeable legal woes.
Have to agree for practicality purposes… Congress (the House especially) has been up to fuck-all for the past year, and sidelining him without expelling him would just be a further waste of taxpayer time. Almost no one gets the luxury of the high bar of conviction of a crime before losing their job.
Expelling Santos is exactly the right precedent to set. The standards to serve in Congress should be higher than “not convicted yet.” There is no slippery slope here. Santos is a clown. These situations are rare enough to be handled case-by-case.
Yeah because Due Process is such an under rated concept. GTFOH!
Serving in Congress isn’t a right. Due process was the vote to expel.
A “vote” without a hearing or evidence is a denial of due process. A fundamental constitutional right.
What are you fkg new?
Hard to be unconstitutional when there is an express provision in the Constitution that grants this power. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (hereinafter “the Expulsion Clause”). I could hurl a similar epithet like read the document that you claim to be citing, but that would be crass and rude and you need all of the grace that can be given
Notwithstanding the express Constitutional provision to the contrary, a vote of Congress without a hearing or evidence (even if that’s what happened) isn’t a denial of due process. Due process only attaches to a fundamental right, none of which apply here. I am far from new. What’s your excuse?
This can’t be real
blog is dead.
Oh brother. Had a (civil) District Court judge in a commercial litigation dispute deny my motion for failure to comply with two sections of Part V of the Eighth Judicial District Court Rules. How can I politely tell this Judge that the 5’s govern Family Court cases. Like really?
Which 5.x specifically? 5.501?
5.501, 5.502 and 5.509
Wow. That’s pretty bad.
THAT is nucking futs!!
A one page Motion to Reconsider.
Respecfully.
Who is it? I need to update my automatic preemption list.