Courts don't “exonerate” criminal defendants or declare them "innocent" — they adjudicate whether the legal standards of guilt can be established in accordance with the due process protections set forth by the Constitution. You don’t need to have gone to law school to understand this basic concept. And yet, there’s an endless stream of people with
Here’s a very good break down of the court ruling by Canadian lawyer Viva Frei as it seems like vast majority of those crying about this have not real what actually was ruled:
The modern day “liberal” doesn’t actually have principles about whichever social “justice” they are yelling about one day and contradicting and abandoning the next day. One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records (olympics), breaking women’s skulls in mma fighting (Fallon Fox), winning female beauty pageants (Nevada), exposing his dick in women exclusive spas, biological man suing immigrant women salons for not waxing his balls (Jessica Yenev) and countless other examples. They riot and give millions of dollars and a statue to career criminals like Floyd who broke into a pregnant woman’s house with his friends and beat her up with his gun and pushed his gun at her belly all in front of her child. Or Rayshard Brooks or Jacob Blake both with similar history of violence against children and women. Women on the Supreme Court Justice? Only if it’s a “democrat aligned” one. Otherwise she’s worse than orange Hitler. Adopting black kids? Not if it’s ACB- then it’s some white supremacy nonsense.
I also find it ironic that vast majority of the “democrat feminists” are totally okay with this.
The modern liberal claims to care about the blacks but only those who vote a certain way. They praise and cherish when successful black men like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas get his documentary taken down by Amazon during “black history month”. They call names to people like Larry elder, Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens and so on because they don’t vote a certain way. They claim to support lgbt but not if it’s a trump supporter like Richard Grenell or Dave Rubin.
All these are simple pawns to be used and exploited for politics and dumped in the closest dumpster when they have served their purpose.
This is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article. The sort of thought you might have read in the ABA or an ACLU newsletter thirty years ago before they become overtly partisan and movement-oriented.
The evidence of our committment to Free Speech, isn't how we deal with speech that's merely annoying ; it's how we deal with speech that's offensive.
Similarly, the measure of our commitment to both Empathy and Due Process, isn't how we deal with popular issues like Women's Right to Choose, or Discimination in the WorkPlace. It's how we react to verdicts & decisions we don't like, against individuals we detest.
Many of us have failed at this. They've shown their true colors.
Great article. I think this line really boils it down to the basic truth:
"<Popular left-liberal consensus is> an eternally self-justifying, shape-shifting construction — organized around the accrual of power."
I've been trying to figure out why such seemingly unpopular policies remain in place; and the answer I've come to is that the minority of people who favor them are power-hungry and, over the last decade or more, have inserted themselves into powerful positions.
In time I suppose they'll be replaced by power-hungry people of a different ideology. Rinse, repeat for the rest of history.
Well done. It is not unusual for constitutional rights to be affirmed in the criminal law sphere with a disfavored defendant. After all most criminal defendants have committed crimes! But these cases are not really about the defendant getting off, though that may be one result. They are about upholding constitutional rights for ALL of us.
In my view if there is a villian in this case, it is the original DA who decided to forever foreclose the possibility of prosecuting Cosby. That's still "if" because I don't know how close the statute of limitations was to running out (although after it ran there would be no need to pass on prosecution in order to eliminate Cosby's 5th amendment right). The gamble the DA took was that more evidence might develop. Giving a suspect a hard pass is questionable, even if motivated by a desire to aid the victims civil action. And apparently the DA did so without consulting the alleged victim. Something is fishy about the DA decision.
I found the most egregious and disgusting instance of this topic to be the First Step Act and its passing by DJT. Tanesha Bannister was freed after 16 years in jail. Countless others are getting a second chance. The "left" mocked this woman, Trump, and Kim Kardashian with some of the most vile words available. It was a disgusting and repellent display. They did it because Trump!
It was nauseating, based only on Power and Feelz, and one of the most incredible things I've seen. This Cosby episode is more of the same. "Incoherence" ... Mr. Tracey you're being too kind.
"It’s necessary to appreciate that what seems like a constant flitting back and forth between mutually exclusive impulses — which, again, to the untrained eye resembles run-of-the-mill hypocrisy — is actually an integral part of mainstream left-liberalism’s ongoing ascendance. Managing such contradictions doesn’t hinder the left-liberal acquisition of power, or overtaking of institutions. It enables this acquisition. Scoffing at garden-variety “hypocrisy” on Substack, or in a snarky podcast, is not going to make any difference."
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less intellectually corrupt.
Right . . . "so many who attempt to adhere to a consistent set of principles will eventually run afoul of popular left-liberal consensus . . .". But can we coalesce around "a consistent set of principles" broad enough to stop the ascendance of left-liberal [call it what you want] before we're all sent to the gulag?
I honestly can't define any political category anymore.
If I were to steelman the handwringing over Cosby, I'd say that it would be considerably less likely he would have been able to prevail had he been poor. Appellate representation is pricey and hard to come by.
Thank you for sorting that out, liberals make more sense now: no principles at all. When your only goal is power by any means then principles just get in the way. Machiavelli knew it and all psychopaths know it. Things like democracy and free speech are "processes", and when you are seeking a specific end, the means (or the processes) don't matter, in fact they get in the way. Its how dictators work.
The shenanigans going on in NYC mayor elections right now where Democrat candidates are now calling for recounts and audits exposes more hypocrisy of the left:
Here’s a very good break down of the court ruling by Canadian lawyer Viva Frei as it seems like vast majority of those crying about this have not real what actually was ruled:
https://youtu.be/CjrWI_zxG6A
Bill Cosby finally got his white privilege card!
The modern day “liberal” doesn’t actually have principles about whichever social “justice” they are yelling about one day and contradicting and abandoning the next day. One day they can be talking about women rights and feminism while next day they would be praising biological men competing and crushing women sports records (olympics), breaking women’s skulls in mma fighting (Fallon Fox), winning female beauty pageants (Nevada), exposing his dick in women exclusive spas, biological man suing immigrant women salons for not waxing his balls (Jessica Yenev) and countless other examples. They riot and give millions of dollars and a statue to career criminals like Floyd who broke into a pregnant woman’s house with his friends and beat her up with his gun and pushed his gun at her belly all in front of her child. Or Rayshard Brooks or Jacob Blake both with similar history of violence against children and women. Women on the Supreme Court Justice? Only if it’s a “democrat aligned” one. Otherwise she’s worse than orange Hitler. Adopting black kids? Not if it’s ACB- then it’s some white supremacy nonsense.
I also find it ironic that vast majority of the “democrat feminists” are totally okay with this.
The modern liberal claims to care about the blacks but only those who vote a certain way. They praise and cherish when successful black men like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas get his documentary taken down by Amazon during “black history month”. They call names to people like Larry elder, Thomas Sowell, Candace Owens and so on because they don’t vote a certain way. They claim to support lgbt but not if it’s a trump supporter like Richard Grenell or Dave Rubin.
All these are simple pawns to be used and exploited for politics and dumped in the closest dumpster when they have served their purpose.
Powerful writing and gives us the facts the MSM won’t.
This is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned article. The sort of thought you might have read in the ABA or an ACLU newsletter thirty years ago before they become overtly partisan and movement-oriented.
The evidence of our committment to Free Speech, isn't how we deal with speech that's merely annoying ; it's how we deal with speech that's offensive.
Similarly, the measure of our commitment to both Empathy and Due Process, isn't how we deal with popular issues like Women's Right to Choose, or Discimination in the WorkPlace. It's how we react to verdicts & decisions we don't like, against individuals we detest.
Many of us have failed at this. They've shown their true colors.
Great article. I think this line really boils it down to the basic truth:
"<Popular left-liberal consensus is> an eternally self-justifying, shape-shifting construction — organized around the accrual of power."
I've been trying to figure out why such seemingly unpopular policies remain in place; and the answer I've come to is that the minority of people who favor them are power-hungry and, over the last decade or more, have inserted themselves into powerful positions.
In time I suppose they'll be replaced by power-hungry people of a different ideology. Rinse, repeat for the rest of history.
Eww... Michael Tracy and his consistent principles.
Well done. It is not unusual for constitutional rights to be affirmed in the criminal law sphere with a disfavored defendant. After all most criminal defendants have committed crimes! But these cases are not really about the defendant getting off, though that may be one result. They are about upholding constitutional rights for ALL of us.
In my view if there is a villian in this case, it is the original DA who decided to forever foreclose the possibility of prosecuting Cosby. That's still "if" because I don't know how close the statute of limitations was to running out (although after it ran there would be no need to pass on prosecution in order to eliminate Cosby's 5th amendment right). The gamble the DA took was that more evidence might develop. Giving a suspect a hard pass is questionable, even if motivated by a desire to aid the victims civil action. And apparently the DA did so without consulting the alleged victim. Something is fishy about the DA decision.
I found the most egregious and disgusting instance of this topic to be the First Step Act and its passing by DJT. Tanesha Bannister was freed after 16 years in jail. Countless others are getting a second chance. The "left" mocked this woman, Trump, and Kim Kardashian with some of the most vile words available. It was a disgusting and repellent display. They did it because Trump!
It was nauseating, based only on Power and Feelz, and one of the most incredible things I've seen. This Cosby episode is more of the same. "Incoherence" ... Mr. Tracey you're being too kind.
Great article Michael. And the beginning paragraph… tremendous… and so true.
"It’s necessary to appreciate that what seems like a constant flitting back and forth between mutually exclusive impulses — which, again, to the untrained eye resembles run-of-the-mill hypocrisy — is actually an integral part of mainstream left-liberalism’s ongoing ascendance. Managing such contradictions doesn’t hinder the left-liberal acquisition of power, or overtaking of institutions. It enables this acquisition. Scoffing at garden-variety “hypocrisy” on Substack, or in a snarky podcast, is not going to make any difference."
Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less intellectually corrupt.
Right . . . "so many who attempt to adhere to a consistent set of principles will eventually run afoul of popular left-liberal consensus . . .". But can we coalesce around "a consistent set of principles" broad enough to stop the ascendance of left-liberal [call it what you want] before we're all sent to the gulag?
I thought you were a left-liberal? Sort of?
I honestly can't define any political category anymore.
If I were to steelman the handwringing over Cosby, I'd say that it would be considerably less likely he would have been able to prevail had he been poor. Appellate representation is pricey and hard to come by.
Liberals want to do what feels good to us now, conservatives want to do what we said we would do. I don’t see this dynamic changing any time soon.
Thank you for sorting that out, liberals make more sense now: no principles at all. When your only goal is power by any means then principles just get in the way. Machiavelli knew it and all psychopaths know it. Things like democracy and free speech are "processes", and when you are seeking a specific end, the means (or the processes) don't matter, in fact they get in the way. Its how dictators work.
The shenanigans going on in NYC mayor elections right now where Democrat candidates are now calling for recounts and audits exposes more hypocrisy of the left:
https://youtu.be/wFF0ciXfyR8