“I don’t want to live in a democracy – where we have the rule of law, and where there’s such thing as due process – where people start to state as facts things that are not proven.” – Ann Althouse, blogger and University of Wisconsin law professor
“I don’t want to live in a democracy – where we have the rule of law, and where there’s such thing as due process – where people start to state as facts things that are not proven.” – Ann Althouse, blogger and University of Wisconsin law professor
Is she related to Elena Kagan or Eric Holder?
You may want to take the 4:35 and watch the video.
There’s nothing but a blank white screen.
Update your browser.
Based on listening to the totality of the conversation, it seems apparent to me that the quote is not punctuated in the manner that she intended. I think she meant it this way:
“I don’t want to live in a democracy (where we have the rule of law, and where there’s such thing as due process) where people start to state as facts things that are not proven.”
In other words, the two clauses that I placed in the parentheses are intended to be her description of what a democracy entails (i.e. rule of law and due process). I think her fundamental point is that nobody really knows what the fuck happened in this case, and we ought not to be jumping to conclusions about the stand your ground law based on this case alone – at least until teh facts have been more firmly established via the criminal justice system.
Punctuation adjusted.
I think this could be said of just about everyone.
There is so much flying around in the media, finding an untainted jury at this point is almost impossible.
You will be correct if it proves impossible to find a dozen people without personal agendas to pursue. There is so much conflicting information flying around that, right now, I don’t see how any intellectually honest person can decide who was the criminal. If this goes to trial, the biggest worry jurors will have is whether critical information, that would affect their verdict, is not introduced into evidence.
I totally agree with Ann Althouse and suggest that Charlie watch the video. At first glance the quote Dan provides from the video can easily be misconstrued, but you have to watch and listen to the video to understand that she simply doesn’t want people to state things as facts that are not proven, precisely because we live in a country with the rule of law and due process!
This is also a good opportunity for Dan to see just how many people investigate on their own before reaching a conclusion, rather than jumping to one without all the facts. Good job, Dan!
Yeah that qoute can be easily misread.
I made it through 47 seconds of this excrutiating viddy. Then I had to do something constructive, like rearranging my sock drawer.
By colour, size, material construction, style, a combination of those? Inquiring minds want to know.
Strictly by caliber. I don’t keep socks in my sock drawer.
Arranged by thickness………
We don’t live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic.
No, we live in a dream world.
Ah, somebody gets it. We never experience true reality itself. Rather, we experience our neurological response to outside stimuli. We are distinct yet connected spiritual beings able to create our own dream state. The Buddha and Viktor Frankl got it and now so too does Ralph.
No. I think Ralph just meant we’re a f++d up product of incomplete evolutions or such, and are only dimly in touch with reality moment to moment. I offer, as evidence, his sock drawer. Nonetheless, in my dream world it appears that I live in a democratic republic. Things improve, though, once I fall asleep.
Dude, like that is so totally deep. Maybe if TTAG featured a new post about knives reality would become clear to us much like Colonel Walter E. Kurtz achieved clarity in Vietnam as if shot in the forehead with a crystal bullet.
Are you familiar with this documentary video (linked below) and if yes what are your thoughts on it?
The American Form of Government
http://silverbearcafe.com/private/01.09/americanform.html
Totalitarian, coming our way soon……….
I don’t understand why this statement is controversial or even interesting. The meat of the quote is “people start to state as facts things that are not proven.” The rule of law and due process usually mean two lying idiots having an argument. Calling them “counsel for the defense” and “counsel for the prosecution” doesn’t change the underlying reality.
“I don’t want to live in a democracy … where people start to state as facts things that are not proven.”
So what’s the alternative, an authoritarian regime where people state as fact things that aren’t proven? I’m sure that works out well.
Anyway, “people … stating as facts things that are not proven” pretty much describes the world from the beginning of human communication, doncha think?
“I don’t want to live in a democracy … where people start to state as facts things that are not proven.”
Or, I don’t want to be subject to mob rule, where lynch mobs are driven by emotion to exact vengance.
The rule of law provides indispensible safeguards against injustice: grand juries, presumption of innocence and all the immunities and priviledges provided by the Bill of Rights. So, let the law have its day; George Zimmerman deserves no less.