You should care. The right to justice is a fundamental human right, and if they can take that away from anyone, they can take it away from you too. Due process is an expression of justice, and we minimize it or cast it away at our own peril. In this case it means that law enforcement’s assertions must be proven, as with anyone else. The presumption of our system is that one is innocent until and unless proven guilty, and that goes for anyone.
well it did say “MS13” on his knuckles 🥴
So, am I correct that you don’t care about “innocent unless proven guilty”? That this might as well be removed from your justice system? Or maybe only in situations where it doesn’t matter to you? Should laws maybe be enforced selectively?
I am sorry that justice for all (you talk about it every time you say the pledge of allegiance) means so little to you. Hopefully you will never find yourself in need of justice with no one to deliver it to you.
1) You should reread those docs, then reread this thread. The info in question was from a now convicted corrupt cop, was never verified, and PG county later withdrew their assertions. The judges didnt make a decision based on merit, they deferred to PG county, and when the assertion was withdrawn they also withdrew the decisions.
She obtained a temporary restraining order, it’s true. It was prudent and necessary to give this to her because of the possible risk of harm. It wasn’t permanent because she would have to do more than accuse him of assault; she’d have to prove it. She’d have to prove it for the simple reason that people lie; that’s what our justice system is supposed to protect against. Yes, she accused him of an ugly, despicable crime (more than once, apparently); an accusation is insufficient reason to throw someone into a foreign gulag for life, though.
She also took back the order, they’ve stayed married, and it’s been a long time without a new order. Benefit of the doubt suggests they had a huge fight and mended things
Coke can afford the tariffs… for awhile. But businesses generally don't like to lose money. Anything that eats into profits is investigated. Anything that prevents them breaking even is cause for sacking of executives so they can right the ship. If the current Coca-cola CEO decides to eat the tariffs and they didn't break even that quarter, he would be fired and the next CEO would make the easy and cost-saving decision to leave the USA. Don't like it? Too bad! That's corporatism in the USA! Don't like it, stop using corporate entities to do business… if you even can.
This comes a bit late but according to the NYTimes Tim Cook seems to have upset the Dear Leader, which has led to this new tariff threat. (Gift link)
Tech’s Trump Whisperer, Tim Cook, Goes Quiet as His Influence Fades (Gift Article)
Apple’s chief executive has gone from winning President Trump’s praise to drawing his ire, deepening the company’s woes in a very bad year.www.nytimes.com
I think it’s probably the lack of fawning. Cook needs up his fawning if he is to be taken seriously.
When trump went to the middle east, he wanted Tim Cook to come along, Tim declined. Trump wanted a friend.
Our lord the king will be sore displeased that the judiciary has looked askance at the exertions of his sovereign will to do anything and everything that he pleases without any restraints.
