Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

et_al

Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Friday, May 20, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court denied relief Thursday to a Dominican man seeking to cancel his deportation over an attempted-arson conviction.
Jorge Luna Torres was a lawful permanent resident of the United States when a New York court convicted him in 1999 of third-degree attempted arson.
Though he served just one day in prison, U.S. immigration officials sought to deport Luna on the basis of this conviction seven years later.
A judge then found that Luna's conviction constituted an "aggravated felony," and denied him cancellation of removal. read more


Friday, May 13, 2016

On January 20, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath of office to the 45th president: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Donald Trump is utterly unqualified to keep this solemn pledge to our most fundamental law. We know this because in winning the nomination, Trump has already promised that he will knowingly break the law and violate the Constitution.


Thursday, May 12, 2016

The fire that led to a deadly explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer plant three years ago was deliberate, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Wednesday. The blast devastated the Texas town of West in April 2013 and killed 15 people -- including 12 first responders. The plant exploded with such force it caused a magnitude-2.1 earthquake and left a crater 93 feet wide and 12 feet deep.


Saturday, April 30, 2016

President Barack Obama on Friday announced new efforts to speed up development of so-called smart guns, the latest step in his final-year push to reduce gun violence. Obama also announced the administration is publishing a proposed rule that would ensure that federal mental health records held by the Social Security Administration are included in gun background check systems. Smart guns are weapons that use technological safety features designed to prevent accidental shootings, such as fingerprint activation that allows only designated users to fire the gun. The Obama administration is developing guidelines so that gun manufacturers understand how they can meet law enforcement agencies' needs for smart guns.


Monday, April 25, 2016

A federal judge upheld a sweeping North Carolina law that required voters to show a photo identification before casting a ballot.

In a 485-page opinion, Thomas D. Schroeder of the Federal District Court in Winston-Salem wrote that the law served a "legitimate state interest" in its effort to "detect and deter fraud."


Comments

In these circumstances, arguments for the defense constitute technical absurdities which work only for the very rich.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to tell you your opinion is wrong. The legal definition of fraud applies to all cases alleging fraud and it matters not whether the defendant made a hundred dollars last year or a billion. The court illustrates the issue and result in lay terms:

A simple hypothetical presents the central issue in this case. Imagine that two parties -- A and B -- execute a contract, in which A agrees to provide widgets periodically to B during the five-year term of the agreement. A represents that each delivery of widgets, "as of" the date of delivery, complies with a set of standards identified as "widget specifications" in the contract. At the time of contracting, A intends to fulfill the bargain and provide conforming widgets. Later, after several successful and conforming deliveries to B, A's production process experiences difficulties, and the quality of A's widgets falls below the specified standards. Despite knowing the widgets are subpar, A decides to ship these nonconforming widgets to B without saying anything about their quality. When these widgets begin to break down, B complains, alleging that A has not only breached its agreement but also has committed a fraud. B's fraud theory is that A knowingly and intentionally provided substandard widgets in violation of the contractual promise -- a promise A made at the time of contract execution about the quality of widgets at the time of future delivery. Is A's willful but silent noncompliance a fraud -- a knowingly false statement, made with intent to defraud [at the time the promise was made] -- or is it simply an intentional breach of contract?

This question, not an unusual one at common law, poses a novel issue in the context of the federal fraud statutes before us. Supreme Court precedent instructs us to apply the common-law understanding of fraud principles to these statutes, absent inconsistency with their text. Once we do so, however, the trial record reveals a basic deficiency in proof under the statutes, and accordingly, we conclude the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.

The lede has no relationship to the article, the article linked therein or the court's opinion.

The court presents a straight up exposition of hundreds of years of tort law. "Fraud" requires intent at the time the representation was made. Here, at the time of contract formation. There was no, or insufficient, evidence of intent at the time the contract was formed, thus as a matter of law (that's what appellate courts do for the civics challenged) there was no fraud. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not "the bank meant well." In fact, "meant well" appears nowhere in the opinion. Someone made that up.

One more time, never ever rely on journalists and the media to accurately report on legal matters.

#8

www.drudge.com

Found that link yet?

I see the SJW's are out in force with their shucking and jiving.

Don't guess or believe what the media tells you.

Read what the court said, the one that heard 5 days of testimony and numerous exhibits.

Which no doubt included, "plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows And a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each One was...pictures of the approach, The getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to Mention the aerial photography."

We will if we can gain one more vote on the court. Believe it. Obama's prediction about the effects that CU would have on our elections...

You want the Court to rule based on the "effect" of their decisions instead of what the Constitution says about the issues before them? Seems to me you're asking for the Court become a super-legislature substituting their desired "effects" for the desired "effects" enacted by the legislature.

I've said it before, overruling CU ain't the panacea you think it is.

So Citizens United appears to be a goner at the first opportunity. But how much difference will that make? Much less than people think.

First, the vast majority of political money in the United States still comes from individuals.

Second, overruling Citizens United will not automatically eliminate super PACs.

And even if Speechnow.org itself were reversed along with Citizens United, corporations (and unions) would remain free to spend on ads intended to sway the public on issues.

In addition to Citizens United, a progressive Court majority would likely, at the earliest opportunity, reverse McCutcheon and Bennett. But McCutcheon affects only a small number of very wealthy donors, who could simply shift their efforts to independent spending, where it is harder to track.

The question, then, is: Would the Court go further and overturn Buckley's protection of independent expenditures and of ads that do not "expressly advocate" for the election or defeat of a candidate. Buckley has now been the campaign-finance lodestar for more than 40 years. Would a new, progressive majority overturn that precedent?

If Citizens United Falls, Will Progressives Notice?

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable