What to do about Roger Stone?
July 13, 2020
Good Monday Morning.
Thank you for sending all of the summer drink recommendations. If Tina isn’t able to change the way we talk about news, politics and public opinion, at least we’ll be able to open a bar with one hell of a drink menu. (We’ll send it out shortly.)
Today, we’ve got some questions about fines for not wearing masks, putting off non-COVID medical care because of COVID, the commutation of Roger Stone’s prison sentence, teachers and school re-openings and a user-suggested question about vegetarianism, veganism and pescatarianism. Click on the Let’s Talk button to get started.
Share Tina
Know someone who might want to be heard? Help us grow our community and share Tina with a friend or family member.
Subscribe
If someone else invited you to this party and it’s your first time here, why don’t you add your name (or email address) to the guest list and we’ll make sure you get the invite every day.
Results from July 9, 2020
Question 1: Do you believe Supreme Court decisions are more typically based on fair interpretations of the law or on the justices' political and personal views?
Regarding the Supreme Court- I feel that the judges take their roles seriously and interpret the law, with their own lenses, of course. What is totally biased is the media coverage of the Court. Every news story leads off with the political side of the judge, and which President appointed him or her. That slants the news story.
Whether it’s positive or negative, the Supreme Court became political as soon as it ruled on Marbury v. Madison and established the idea of judicial review. Over the years since that ruling, the court has become more and more divided between activist justices who try to achieve political goals by manipulating laws and and the Constitution and Originalist justices who try to protect the integrity of the Constitution.
The issue with the concept of “fair interpretation of the law” is that it perpetuates the upholding of unjust laws. Our legal system is inherently politicized at all levels of government; it will never be truly neutral. Thus our laws are only as just as the lawmakers (or these days, the lobbyists) who write them. Interpretation of those laws is only as just as the judges elected or appointed to the bench. Sometimes judges are able to strike down laws if they’re demonstrably unconstitutional, but more often, they end up with their hands tied and are forced to hand down judgments/sentences despite their personal objections simply because a law is worded a certain way; or on the other hand, they happily hand down harsher sentences BECAUSE of their personal views.
One user reminds us that a unanimous decision is the court’s most common…
The social issue cases get all the publicity, but SCOTUS’s most common ruling is 9-0. The Court rules 9-0 about twice as often as 5-4. The Justices are competent and committed to the rule of law, most of the time.
While another points a mirror at us.
Honestly, I've been wondering whether our ideological views inform our sense of what's fair and objective.
And, of course…
Question 1 needed an "I'm not sure" option 🙂.
Come on! Where’s the fun in that?
Question 2: Has your opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States changed since the start of 2020?
My opinion of the Supreme Court is slightly more favorable based on some of their decisions in the past few weeks. I am very glad that they have made it clear that no one, including the President, is above the law. The President does not have total immunity.
I feel like we need more people on the Supreme Court like Neil Gorsuch. Has shown he doesn’t fall into either political side exclusively and will vote based on the constitution. I don’t want to know if a judge is liberal or conservative.
Question 3: If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, would you rather your fate be decided by a judge or a jury?
I’ll be interested to hear what the majority white Tina audience has to say when thinking about being wrongfully accused of a crime. *sarcasm drips*
The "judge and jury" question really got me thinking. I'm a white, educated, upper middle class woman who I'm sure would do a good job presenting "innocent" in a room full of judges and lawyers-- I chose judge. I wonder if my answer would change if I were a member of a minority population that is often targeted unfairly by the legal system.
Re: judge or jury - I think the jury is more willing to give a defendant the benefit of the doubt. A judge has heard every excuse/story/etc and would have a tough time separating one person from the next. A jury has one shot to make the right decision and I think would err on the side of leniency.
Question 4: Best dipping sauce for hot wings?
The “correct” answer, according to the anonymous user who suggested this question, was blue cheese, so that user can take solace that all is right in the Tinaverse when it comes to hot wings. And, though it comes as no surprise, there were some… strong takes:
I'm pretty sure the criminals sent to populate Australia were sent there for dipping their chicken wings in ranch. Blasphemy.
I’m not sure that’s historically accurate.
OK i have a lot of thoughts on the hotwings question. First and foremost, NO sauce should be an option because that really good wing sauce should stand alone. The proper sauce is blue cheese for your celery and carrots, but it MUST be chunky and MUST include real blue cheese in an abundant quantity, not some little baby pebbles. I want nuggets in there. FULL ON NUGS. Ranch should be reserved for your potatoes and chicken tenders. I said what I said.
Hey, you said what you said.
I f***ing love hot wings as much as I love America. But sometimes both give me heartburn
#PeptoBismol2020
Question 5: On a scale of 0 (the worst) to 10 (the best), how are you feeling overall?
This is an average of 7.0, which is down from 7.2 last week.
Make it all the way through but forget to answer today’s questions?
Click on the Let’s Talk button below to get started.