CP's reasonable man standard: I am reasonable, probably more reasonable than anyone else I know. I was voted most reasonable poster on Rotten Tomatoes and they loved my reasonable takes in BFI. I am by far the most reasonable person in the Politics forum. Back when I worked with attorneys, they all praised me for being their most reasonable client. I have read Tribes opinion and find it not only reasonable but absolutely correct. In fact, it's undebatable.

Therefore, Thomas failure to refuse himself does not survive the strict scrutiny of my own reasonable person review. I have ordered the Chief Justice to reprimand Thomas and place him on short term objectives subject to termination.

This is just a intellectual blind spot for him. I honestly don't even think it has much to do with the fact that I am a lawyer and he is not. The world is full of non-lawyers who don't struggle with this concept in the way that he does.

Wait, you guys are saying that QP is wrong about the "reasonable man" standard ?

Seems unfathomable.

And yet you are amongst the first to make the Appeal to Authority and to dismiss any other cited lawyers comments as meaningless because 'you lawyers on 2+2 agree'.

How can the citation of other lawyers, that i am certain are more prominent in the legal field than of the 3 of you be hand waved away simply because you guys agree? If i was on Truth Social do you not think I might not find 3 lawyers who agree on some of the more Trumpy legal issues? If I was posting there in conflict with them would it make sense to cede simply because they were 'lawyers who agreed with one another'.

you guys literally hand wave and say you will not watch or consider the words of the lawyers I present who counter your view because 'lol youtubez', thus setting a standard that unless those lawyers post in this forum, nothing they say that disagrees with you should be consider and you being agreement is the decisive factor. That is nonsense.


I do not disagree with Rococo on the majority of legal issues raised in this thread or that pop up in other areas. I think this is only the second one you guys have a united vision on that has went this way. And yet in BOTH, amongst the first things presented is this offense or outrage that I hold a different opinion (shared by other lawyers you refuse to listen to or read) because you are so convinced you are correct because the other 2+2 lawyers agree with you ... thus case closed.

Nonsense. I would not accept that from Truth Social lawyers nor 2+2 lawyers when there is active debate outside these forums on this topic with numerous lawyers echoing my view as well.

The mere fact you guys enter this Appeal to Authority into the debate is flawed and you will not acknowledge and thus we will see it arise again.

As expected Bobo does what Bobo does and jumps in to the circle jerk. This time in an area he has no personal knowledge but sees people on the opposite of me.

Seems unfathomable that he would do that and by 'unfathomable' I mean one of the safest bets in 2+2.

King Spew and Bobo are the same person?

To be clear, which Authority am I appealing to, and in which post did I make the appeal?

I am pretty sure he is referring to the fact that we all recognize he doesn't understand objective vs subjective, the reasonable man standard, burdens of proof, power dynamics of the Supreme Court and the lower courts and gang up on him telling him he is consistently wrong in his application of these concepts.

It gets confusing when everyone is against you. He would love to have enough people on his team for a cicle jerk, but he can't find two followers.

oh for frick sakes. I can never keep those two seperate and now I am not sure which one jumped in prior and which one this is now. I regularly conflate the two and blame them for it.

No that is definitely my fault. One of the rare times you guys get to celebrate actually catching me in a mistake.

The consistent assertion of 'QP disagrees with a lawyers' and using that as a point of mocking as if it is wrong to do, ...is the appeal to authority fallacy.

More plagerization of words he doesn't understand.....

I don't know how many ways to say this. I don't think you are wrong about basic principles of law because other lawyers like grizy and jjjou disagree with you. I think that your misunderstanding of the law is the reason why people like grizy often disagree with you. The first would be a logical fallacy. The second is not.

It's a bad court, a bad constitution and a bad country. Solution is to start over.

Has there been discussion of the Asian/Harvard case here?

There is zero argumentative or debate value in the 'lol, once again QP is at odds with the lawyer and yet persists' statements made with regards to what you say so it does not really matter how many times you say that as that is not the case.

If you think i am getting wrong the basic principles of law, when I do not, and believe I am making arguments to demonstrate that 'lol, once again QP is at odds with the lawyers' ADDS NOTHING to the substantiation of your position or points. It is PURELY an appeal to your authority to suggest because you are lawyers and say it is so, thus 'lol at QP for not acquiescing'.


I also think you are making clear and obvious mistakes on the fundamentals of law in this regard in how you view where the burden or onus of the recusal logic lies. That your arguments on how 'others' including 'Thomas' could reasonably disagree with the a person like Tribe is in any way to be considered with regards to whether Thomas should recuse or not. YOu are just foundationally wrong on your position there. What 'others' or 'Thomas', think about Tribes position is really irrelevant. The test is 'is Tribes view one a reasonable person could hold' and if so, then he should recuse.

it is not about Thomas saying 'well I disagree and I have advocates who disagree so I will stay'.

the purpose is that when the WEIGHT of the State is brought against an individual, that the individual with the presumption of innocence does not have 'reasonable feeling' that he is facing a biased judge. It's INTENT is to be more deferential of HIS view point in that regard if he is reasonable. Thomas telling him 'I disagree and thus I am staying' because my reasonable test on myself is every bit as valid was NEVER the intent. Even if Thomas is right, the intent was that he recuse anyway which is why they said 'PERCEPTION' and not 'PROOF' of bias.

Not yet. Lead us out!

Typical disingenuous rhetorical question. Surprise us with your ridiculous take.

A rhetorical question is one where the answer is known to the questionor. Mine wasn't. For me to have a take I would need to know the percentages of white black and Asian in the US, the present makeup at Harvard, the present drop out/ flunk out rate of each group, and the admission criteria for each of those groups.

If presently the drop out rate for the three groups is about the same, the criteria for whites are stricter than for blacks and are less strict than for Asians, then the correct take is to keep the criteria for blacks as it is and reduce the criteria for Asians while increasing the criteria for whites such that those two are equal. Black people have an excuse for academically underperforming compared to white people but white people have no excuse for underperforming compared to Asians. My scheme underrepresents white people at Harvard but too bad.

Harvard graduates 99+% of its admitted.

They have two or three times as many qualified applicants as they can admit. They could reasonably only admit asian applicants and do no injustice to anybody.

I don't know what the issue is at Harvard, but this seems wrong to me. Black people may be disadvantaged because of their cultural environment (which was shaped in part by racism), but white people and Asian people also are raised in different cultural environments.

The main issue with performance in school is that black people are mostly raised in an environment where formal education isn't seen as important, when compared with that of white people. But Asians are generally raised in an environment where formal education is seen as even more important. If blacks are given more leeway than whites, it seems to me that whites should be given more leeway than Asians.

Now we have two contenders attempting to overthrow King Cuepee.....

Black people deserve extra consideration because they were discriminated against in various ways that resulted in them not having as good an education available to them as compared to white people. The same is not true as regards white people vs Asians. If there had been no past discrimination and the only reason black people had lower grades and test scores was that they didn't value education as much, then they wouldn't deserve extra help any more than white people deserve it as compared to Asians.

This is one of your more lucid posts

Well, there certainly has been plenty of discrimination, and the average black person still doesn't have access to the average white person in terms of pre-college education, but I can't imagine any of those black students who suffered through a terrible education would have been admitted to Harvard.

Also, if you're including Asians who have recently immigrated from another country, or have just come to the US for their university education, they probably did have a better early education available to them than did white people raised in this country.