Skip to main content

View Diary: AK-Sen, AK-AL: Tubes going down the tubes (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, we'll be sending one pathological liar home (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDog42, RJP9999, MidwestTreeHugger

    What is it about Alaska? Do all politicians up there feel free to create their own reality?

    Stevens hasn't been convicted of anything.
    Palin hasn't been exonerated of abusing her power.

    Whatever . . .

    "Hey! Where's my applesauce?!!!" This comment brought to you by the Bureau of Brilliant Campaign Imagery and the cheese aisle.

    by Parallax857 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  According to the department of law, (0+ / 0-)

      Stevens has not been convicted and is eligible to vote.  I did a diary when the opinion was reported.

      "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the verdict was guilty (0+ / 0-)

        How is that not a conviction?

        •  He was found guilty by a jury. (0+ / 0-)

          He will be convicted by a judge when the judge enters a judgment of conviction.  That will happen after post-trial motions are dispensed with, after a sentencing report is prepared, and after a sentence is handed down.

          "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

          by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Found guilty by a jury" (0+ / 0-)

            is a four word phrase that is a subset of "convicted."  Period.  (There's also "found guilty by a judge" and "pleaded guilty."

            Conviction occurs when any of these three things happen.  Exactly when that happen.  It does not wait for post trial motions, or a sentencing report, or a sentencing.

            Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it's going Democratic.

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Have you heard the three-word phrase (0+ / 0-)

              "judgment of conviction"?  That is when a person becomes "convicted" according to the Alaska Department of Law, relying on caselaw from Washington, Oregon and California.

              Insisting you are correct, without providing any citations does not make you correct; it merely makes you sound like a braying jackass.

              "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

              by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No, no: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kostalNH

        He has been convicted.

        He is not a convicted felon in terms of voting law.  And colloquially, he may not be a "convict" as he hasn't been sentenced.

        But that's because a "convicted felon" is someone who has been convicted and sentenced by statute.

        He has been convicted.  He has not been sentenced.

        Once again, he's been convicted. Unequivocally.

        The reason why he still has his voting rights is because though he has been convicted, he has not yet been sanctioned.  Sentencing is when you receive your punishment and part of that punishment is (in many states -- and in many depending on the crime) losing your right to vote.

        Even though his sentencing will also receive a fine and very possibly jail time, he has not yet been "imprisoned" or "fined" yet, either.  But he definitely has been convicted.

        Period.

         

        Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it's going Democratic.

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You might want to enlighten the (0+ / 0-)

          Department of Law and the courts in Washington, Oregon and California, because they all disagree with you.

          Unless your true name is Lawrence Tribe, I suspect your opinion is relatively worthless.

          "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

          by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you Lawrence Tribe? (0+ / 0-)

            Then your opinion is worthless, too, by your logic.

            Since both of us agree your opinion is worthless, and I believe my opinion is not, then we have a consensus that Ted Stevens has been convicted.

            Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it's going Democratic.

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not giving you my opinion, I am (0+ / 0-)

              giving you the opinion of the Alaska Department of Law.  Even Professor Tribe cannot overrule that opinion.

              "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

              by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where's the citation? (0+ / 0-)

                And no, I don't want to see something about when someone is "considered a convicted felon" or when "there is finality."

                I want to see something that says being found guilty by a jury of your peers is not being "convicted."

                (If you demand finality, of course, then there are people on death row for 25 years who have not been "convicted" by your logic.  And I say YOUR logic.  Not the Alaska Department of Law.  Not the courts.)

                Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it's going Democratic.

                by Anarchofascist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  PS, also no decisions that (0+ / 0-)

                  use "quoties" and say "for the purposes of this statute" a lot.

                  Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it's going Democratic.

                  by Anarchofascist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  God, you're a jackass. (0+ / 0-)

                  I have never said that someone is not convicted until all appeals are finalized.

                  I have never said that this is my analysis and conclusion.

                  If you want to see the citations to authority, you will have to contact the Department of Law.  All I have ever done is report on the position of the State of Alaska, which is contained in the Department of Law opinion diaried here.  The opinion is reportedly based on case law from Washington, Oregon and California.  I do not know if it is available online, but you could try "the Google."

                  "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

                  by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:49:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm, from today's Anchorage Daily News (0+ / 0-)

                  article titled, "When is a conviction a conviction":

                  Columbia law professor Daniel Richman was at the gym Friday morning when he heard Stevens had said he isn't convicted yet.

                  "I actually smiled, because he's right," Richman said.

                  "Your stupidity gets in the way of any rational discussion." Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly

                  by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Either way, Stevens is wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wu Wei

              Stevens is not making a distinction between a jury verdict and sentencing & entry of judgment. He is making a distinction between trial and appeal, and he is utterly wrong. A conviction may not become final until all direct appeals have been exhausted, but it is certainly a conviction by any standard after the work of the trial court has been completed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site