Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York

[Phoenixmgs]

"How does it not"? Other medical procedures simply were not banned by the Roe ruling. It concerned abortion, as you say yourself. What on earth are you talking about?



Tautology. It wasn't a state's decision before. Afterwards it was.



Yet the overturn of Roe is what made that possible. It was a direct result.

Hey, if you're happy to defer to SCOTUS justices knowing more about the law than us, will you agree with Clarence Thomas that the Roe reasoning can apply just as easily to Obergefell?

You can use the same argument in Roe for literally any other medical procedure. The argument wasn't at all specific to abortion.

If it wasn't a state's decision before Roe, it's because it was never challenged legally then.

It made it possible but the overturn of Roe didn't take away any rights. Again, Roe was never about giving women any rights, it was giving doctors rights. You're also ignoring the fact that RBG is objectively right and Thomas is objectively wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

You can use the same argument in Roe for literally any other medical procedure. The argument wasn't at all specific to abortion.

Arguments have different weight when applied to different subjects.

For example, note how the SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe states that the only unenumerated rights that are protected are... ones that are "rooted in history and tradition". Does that sound objective to you? They're giving themselves carte blanche to give the argument different weight depending on the topic, to suit their own preference.

If it wasn't a state's decision before Roe, it's because it was never challenged legally then.

Before Roe's *repeal*, it wasn't a state's decision. What you're saying is simple tautology.

It made it possible but the overturn of Roe didn't take away any rights. Again, Roe was never about giving women any rights, it was giving doctors rights.

They had access before. They lost that access afterwards. That's literally what is meant by the right to access abortion.

You're also ignoring the fact that RBG is objectively right and Thomas is objectively wrong.

Because that's not a fact. These are opinions. And I'm sorry to tell you, but Thomas's legal opinion has a hell of a lot more clout in the SCOTUS than yours does.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Arguments have different weight when applied to different subjects.

For example, note how the SCOTUS ruling to overturn Roe states that the only unenumerated rights that are protected are... ones that are "rooted in history and tradition". Does that sound objective to you? They're giving themselves carte blanche to give the argument different weight depending on the topic, to suit their own preference.



Before Roe's *repeal*, it wasn't a state's decision. What you're saying is simple tautology.



They had access before. They lost that access afterwards. That's literally what is meant by the right to access abortion.



Because that's not a fact. These are opinions. And I'm sorry to tell you, but Thomas's legal opinion has a hell of a lot more clout in the SCOTUS than yours does.

“Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.“

How is that statement about Roe v Wade wrong?

I meant before the Roe decision in the 70s.

They who? Doctors or women? Again, women didn't get any rights from Roe v Wade.

Unless the judges that will be arguing to keep gay marriage in place (assuming SCOTOS actually looks at that again, which they won't) are horrible at making a legal argument, then there's no way gay marriage would get overturned. It's a super simple equal opportunity argument that you can't mental gymnastic around. Just like when I said the Rittenhouse case was super simple and it was.

 

[Silvanus]

“Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.“

How is that statement about Roe v Wade wrong?

? It's just opinion.

I meant before the Roe decision in the 70s.

Yeeeees, and the point I was making was that from 1971 until 2022, it wasn't up to the states. So you can say "it's up to the states", but that's just a tautology. It wasn't before. It is now.

They who? Doctors or women? Again, women didn't get any rights from Roe v Wade.

They received access to abortion that they didn't previously have. That is what is meant by the right to access abortion. It is not arguable that they received that access. It's a fact.

Unless the judges that will be arguing to keep gay marriage in place (assuming SCOTOS actually looks at that again, which they won't) are horrible at making a legal argument, then there's no way gay marriage would get overturned. It's a super simple equal opportunity argument that you can't mental gymnastic around. Just like when I said the Rittenhouse case was super simple and it was.

So why should I think your legal opinion will hold more clout than Clarence Thomas's in the SCOTUS?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

? It's just opinion.



Yeeeees, and the point I was making was that from 1971 until 2022, it wasn't up to the states. So you can say "it's up to the states", but that's just a tautology. It wasn't before. It is now.




They received access to abortion that they didn't previously have. That is what is meant by the right to access abortion. It is not arguable that they received that access. It's a fact.



So why should I think your legal opinion will hold more clout than Clarence Thomas's in the SCOTUS?

When opinions meet facts, that's when you get truth.

And...? What's you point? If the decision was wrong, why wouldn't you fix it?

They received access but it wasn't because they were given some right to abortion. And the Roe overturn didn't technically remove access either. And that's what I said.

When have I ever came to a conclusion on a case and my predicted outcome was wrong?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

When opinions meet facts, that's when you get truth.

Did you get that out of a fortune cookie?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Did you get that out of a fortune cookie?

It's Always Sunny

 

[Ag3ma]

Take a look at yourself some time. You are so, so one-sided, for a party not even in your country.

That's an interesting statement from someone who accuses people disagreeing of blindly following a left media agenda, but in doing so conveniently ignores the vast weight of criticism of Trump from within his own party, such as members of Congress (e.g. Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, Romney), Trump's own cabinet officials (e.g. Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, Bolton, even eventually Barr), plus the wide array of civil servants who voiced concerns.

I am absolutely sure that if pressed you can explain why all of them are hucksters we should not trust. It's just funny how everything and everyone is full of bias, lies, scumbaggery, trickery and deceit... except for the guy who has been convicted multiple times of fraud, and openly ran a dishonest election fraud strategy up to and including attempts to cheat the result.

 

[tstorm823]

It's just funny how everything and everyone is full of bias, lies, scumbaggery, trickery and deceit... except for the guy who has been convicted multiple times of fraud, and openly ran a dishonest election fraud strategy up to and including attempts to cheat the result.

Like a week ago, in this exact thread, you suggested Trump might have a valid defense in the case, and I disagreed.

 

[Satinavian]

I am absolutely sure that if pressed you can explain why all of them are hucksters we should not trust. It's just funny how everything and everyone is full of bias, lies, scumbaggery, trickery and deceit... except for the guy who has been convicted multiple times of fraud, and openly ran a dishonest election fraud strategy up to and including attempts to cheat the result.

I think the argument regular shifted from denying that Trump cheated and lied to "all the other cheat and lie as well, so singling out Trump is unfair".

 

[Ag3ma]

Like a week ago, in this exact thread, you suggested Trump might have a valid defense in the case, and I disagreed.

So why in your mind is that only a protection for you from accusations of bias?

 

[Ag3ma]

I think the argument regular shifted from denying that Trump cheated and lied to "all the other cheat and lie as well, so singling out Trump is unfair".

"That guy got away with stealing a loaf of bread, so why shouldn't my guy get away with stealing the bakery?"

 

[tstorm823]

So why in your mind is that only a protection for you from accusations of bias?

A) You didn't just accuse me of bias. You accused me of treating everyone at fault but Trump, which is really easily demonstrably false.
B) You never do the actual inverse. You thinking Trump isn't maximum guilty at all times is fine, but the actual inverse of me assuring you that Trump is guilty would you be admitting that my criticisms of Democrats have merit even once. You never, ever do that. (Because your news about the US comes entirely from Democrats, and you refuse to question it)

 

[Ag3ma]

You accused me of treating everyone at fault but Trump, which is really easily demonstrably false.

I think you have poor perception of how much you deflect blame and cast accusations at others in defence of the Republicans / Trump.

 

[Avnger]

It's Always Sunny

You taking life advice from IASIP actually explains a lot about your behavior...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's an interesting statement from someone who accuses people disagreeing of blindly following a left media agenda, but in doing so conveniently ignores the vast weight of criticism of Trump from within his own party, such as members of Congress (e.g. Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, Romney), Trump's own cabinet officials (e.g. Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, Bolton, even eventually Barr), plus the wide array of civil servants who voiced concerns.

I am absolutely sure that if pressed you can explain why all of them are hucksters we should not trust. It's just funny how everything and everyone is full of bias, lies, scumbaggery, trickery and deceit... except for the guy who has been convicted multiple times of fraud, and openly ran a dishonest election fraud strategy up to and including attempts to cheat the result.

You don't even believe in the fact the was no evidence of Iraq having WMDs before the invasion.

You taking life advice from IASIP actually explains a lot about your behavior...

It was a joke because if some facts disagree with Silvanus' worldview, then those facts are swept under the rug.

 

[Kwak]

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-tries-to-change-ny-business-addresses-to-fl-in-fraud-judgment

Donald Trump's attorneys were required to submit a proposed order for Judge Engoron to sign that conformed to his verdict and judgment in the case. They complied, but in the process it seems that Trump is trying to pull a fast one somewhere along the way. The proposed judgment that was submitted had the addresses changed for 6 of Trump's businesses from New York to Florida. It is unclear whether this was something done by Trump before his trial in a feeble attempt to put them out of the jurisdiction of the NY courts, or if it was done after the trial to try to avoid the judgment. As with all things Trump, nothing is on the straight and narrow.

Either way, the Attorney General's Office filed an immediately objection to the proposed judgment over these address changes. In their filing, the AG said "several of the addresses for the Defendants in the proposed judgment are incorrect ... the Court should reject Defendants' attempt to change the business address of six entity Defendants to Florida as the record establishes those entities are located in Trump Tower at 725 5th Avenue in New York, the office building in which the executives who carry out business activities of those entities work."

 

[Hades]

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the state ignored all Trump's corrupt actions for most his life and only now targets him. After all the law should apply the same to everyone.

But in practice American law does not apply the same for everyone. If you're of the upper class and especially if you're from old money you'll be judged by different standards. The upper class judge who precedes the case is likely to be sympathetic to you and the jury is conditioned to believe your extreme wealth comes from virtues you don't actually possess. Its a pretty vile unofficial ''social contract'' in the states and in this case we can argue that its Trump who broke his end of the contract first.

Trump's actions weren't overlooked because he was a Democrat but because for the longest time he was just a quirky billionaire that came from old money and thus the state gave him the courtesy of going easy on him. But what reason does the state have to continue this courtesy when Trump tries to advance himself at their direct expense as all demagogues do? And even if one were to consider Trump turning demagogue as just ''part of the game'' and that his status should still protect him then him doing a coup to try and overthrow the state that kept being so lenient on him should certainly change things. Its the definition of biting the hand that fed him.

In general the US institutions should stop going easy on the ultra rich, and I'm not going to shed any tears if its the corrupt demagogue doing a coup that's the exception to this particular rule.

 

[Worgen]

 

[Silvanus]

When opinions meet facts, that's when you get truth.

And what you posted was devoid of fact. It was pure opinion.

And...? What's you point? If the decision was wrong, why wouldn't you fix it?

Well, because I don't think it was wrong. But regardless: "it's up to the states" remains a tautology. The same statement would just be untrue pre-2022.

They received access but it wasn't because they were given some right to abortion.

Access = the right, as far as people are practically concerned. When people discuss the 'right to abortion', they're talking about the legally unimpeded ability to access abortion. Which is what they had, and which has been taken away.