Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 484 posts

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#291

Post by mullen »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #282
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #270

"Three University of Florida professors were denied permission from the school to testify in a major voting rights case " What the fuck is 'permission to testify'? I thought access to justice was a constitutional right. If you can't get anyone to tesrify, then you have no access to justice. We have surrendered so many rights in various contracts, we hardly have any freedoms left.

I find it fascinating that the supreme court has upheld the ability to forgo so many purportedly inalienable rights via contract.

Well, you did voluntary signed a Contract. As part of a commercial exchange, you agree to do and do not certain things for money. Inalienable Rights can't be signed away, so the argument that you are signing away Inalienable Rights really does not hold water.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#292

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #249
president wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, does anyone have any insight into how we got into this mess? It seems like the past few years has seen a whirlwind of anti-democratic rule at almost every level of government - state, local, and federal.

We got into this mess because the activist wing of the Democratic party doesn't know how to accept a win. For example, in 2019, Pennsylvania did a bi-partisan electoral reform allowing widespread mail-in voting: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/governor-wolf-signs-ele... What did Democratic activists do then? They sued to gut every compromise in that bi-partisan bill, including provisions that are common in mail-…

I don't think I understand how delivered-by could possibly be a better standard than postmarked-by. Once postmarked, delivery is out of the hands of the voter (and, in fact, there are some really fucked up incentives for the party that controls postal delivery).

The postmarked-by standard didn't meaningfully delay the Pennsylvania count (the drastic shift from in-person to mail-in ballots sure did, but the ballots that decided the election on D+4 weren't late-to-arrive so much as they were late-to-count).

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#293

Post by ClumsyPilot »

mullen wrote: post #291
brazzledazzle wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it fascinating that the supreme court has upheld the ability to forgo so many purportedly inalienable rights via contract.

Well, you did voluntary signed a Contract. As part of a commercial exchange, you agree to do and do not certain things for money. Inalienable Rights can't be signed away, so the argument that you are signing away Inalienable Rights really does not hold water.

I need person X to teatify so that I don't go to jail, and I never signed a contract.

Also, did amazom workers voluntarily sign up to pee in bottles?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#294

Post by chuckee »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #166
ajay-b wrote: post #138

That’s… Wow, since when can someone bar someone else from testifying in court? I thought it was the pursuit of truth?

This is not an endorsement, but a clarification. They're allowed to testify in court. They are just not allowed to get paid to do it, nor are they allowed to use their affiliation with the university as credentials when testifying because they are not speaking for the university.

I couldn't find this information in the NPR article - do you have a different source?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#295

Post by notacoward »

andrew_ wrote: post #271
notacoward wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also sad to see a defense attorney's unsubstantiated and self-serving claims presented as Absolute Truth. "Diligence" doesn't mean just cherry-picking whatever source or narrative suits you.

MLive is considered a relatively unbiased production. To call what they've presented as "narrative" reveals your own bias. Perhaps you'd prefer a source closer to your own proclivities [1] which states: > Last week, the lawyer for one defendant filed a motion that included texts from an FBI agent to a key informant, the Iraq War veteran, directing him to draw specific people into the conspiracy — potential evidence o…

I'm familiar with MLive, but even good organizations are capable of making mistakes. As for "evidence presented to the court" that is not what this is. It is a motion to compel discovery in hopes of uncovering such evidence. Such motions can be quite legitimate and well founded, but they can also be desperate fishing expeditions. Either way, they are not evidence in and of themselves. For MLive to report these claims without highlighting the lack of support behind them is sloppy at best.

Please stop misrepresenting the facts. The endless parade of ad hominem attacks isn't helpful either. Read the site guidelines before you decide to keep digging that hole.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#296

Post by dragonwriter »

djoldman wrote: post #287

For the lawyers: Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed? As far as I know, then by law the expert witnesses must testify else risk contempt of court, thereby negating whatever "bar" that the university seems fit to impose.

> Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed?

That depends on the law of the jurisdiction in question; in the US federal system, for instance this is theoretically possible but its kind of a hail mary, rather than a slam dunk; getting an order for s non-retained expert is far from automatic, even when their testimony would be relevant:

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...

Not sure about Florida particularly.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#297

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #29
gpm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private companies are not bound by the first amendment, state actors including this university are.

It’s more complicated than that. State actors have have certain freedom to restrict speech when acting in their capacity as private employers: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473

Ken White writes about this distinction all the time, and it apparently doesn't apply at all in this case (though he'd just refer you to the FIRE lawsuit threat).

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#298

Post by ska »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #270

"Three University of Florida professors were denied permission from the school to testify in a major voting rights case " What the fuck is 'permission to testify'? I thought access to justice was a constitutional right. If you can't get anyone to tesrify, then you have no access to justice. We have surrendered so many rights in various contracts, we hardly have any freedoms left.

> What the fuck is 'permission to testify'?

I suspect this means to function as a (voluntary) expert witness, not as someone formally required to testify.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#299

Post by s5300 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #279
bgorman wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.

> Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I mean, that's trivial. KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro... NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people... CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries lis…

Yeah, 15 seconds of the slightest search efforts can bring any of this up.

I've found time and time again that anybody who believes there is or ever has been even the slightest issue with "dead voters" is somebody who simply can't be reasoned with, and engagement just isn't worth the effort.

They're completely lost and engulfed in a sea of "their own research"

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#300

Post by gmadsen »

djoldman wrote: post #287

For the lawyers: Can't a lawyer wishing to have these professors testify as expert witnesses merely motion for them to be subpoenaed? As far as I know, then by law the expert witnesses must testify else risk contempt of court, thereby negating whatever "bar" that the university seems fit to impose.

I think it that case there must be a tangible direct need to have their personal testimony, not just nice to have due to their expertise.
Post reply on HN