(02-04-2022 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is the 'tell':


From what source do you jump to that conclusion?

The judges I know would be fairly torqued off at that assessment. In fact, they go to great pains to not do so. And, in fact, their decisions are devoid of that. That is the skillset of a jurist. One that I see day in and day out.

But, here you go making a baseless (most likely wholly uniformed) comment on it. I am glad your supposition (fairly ungrounded one at that) supports your defense of 'perspective' in your own mind. But I just noticed that it is most likely one that is pretty much an unsupported shot in the dark.

Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means a large role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

Plays a large role?

You pulled that one out of thin air.

Not especially. Does 'plays a large enough role to be substantive' work better for you?

As an aside on your push back on 'large', if substantive, that is by definition 'large' considering what a judge does. And, if not substantive, then there is zero basis for a XYZ perspective, and thus, zero basis for a racially deterministic choice to which you defend.

But again, you sidestep and avoid the real issue with the sub-issue of 'large'. Lets just say 'substantive' to placate your issue and get back to the question at hand.

Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

Better for you?

I think it CAN have a substantive impact. That doesn't mean it would play a substantive role in each and every case, but enough for it to matter.

I don't get your continued hammering at side-stepping. Do you really want me to stop contributing here? A good way to do that is to continually tell someone who is trying to engage you that they aren't doing so...

Yes, I asked you the same question twice. The first time you simply responded 'large role'? (i.e. a non-responsive side step).

Here it is:

Quote:Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means a large role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

To assuage your non-answer, I re-asked it:

Quote:Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

You still dont answer, so I now ask it a third fing time:

Since you are now the great proponent of 'racial and background perspective means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved' in order to support a racially deterministic choice, perhaps you should educate us on your deep and sage understanding of that lodestone highlighted above.

If the answer is 'I [lad] have no basis to say whether if "racial and background perspective means at least some substantive role in how cases are resolved"', please state that, or, alternatively, tell us your background on it.

Here is my comment, and my background: The judges I know would be fairly torqued off at that assessment. In fact, they go to great pains to not do so. And, in fact, their decisions are devoid of that. That is the skillset of a jurist. One that I see day in and day out.

But in your great deep and learned opinion that simply is not so. I want to know your basis for that.

Quote:I just have a hard time believing a court with 9 white men, or 9 black women, would be a better judicial body than a court with a few white guys, some white women, a black man, a black woman, a Hispanic woman, etc.

By that comment you are seemingly fairly devoid of what a judge is asked to do, and just about all actually do. The legal process, at the level of a judge, is, and should be, blind to racial perspective. That seemingly eludes you.

Do you "have a hard time believing a [engineering team] with 9 white men, or 9 black women, would be a better [engineering team] than a [team] with a few white guys, some white women, a black man, a black woman, a Hispanic woman, etc." as well?