|
I'm gay
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Hot poo poo, ^ that's awesome. Anyway, seeing as "Remove the 2nd Amendment" isn't on the table for any major party, this is a dumb discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hot poo poo, ^ that's awesome. Maybe it should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Yeah plurality voting by its nature is prone to this sort of nonsense. I don't think those numbers work. If 90% of people vote (R), it's likely that only 10% of people voted for a losing candidate, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I highlighted your problem here. Of course the dissent disagrees with the majority, but that doesn't change a drat thing about it's legal status. DC's law was dumb and was struck down appropriately. Heller is good law and makes perfect sense. The thing is that almost any restriction short of total confiscation is still allowed under Heller. I actually think future Courts will retain the decision Heller, even after the makeup of the Court swings left, partly out of stare decisis and partly because almost any conceivable law short of a total ban on home possession is reconcilable with Heller. The AWB would be fine under Heller; so would a law prohibiting carrying firearms outside the home; so would a law requiring a home gun safe; so would laws requiring waiting periods, etc. etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Maybe it should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I don't think those numbers work. If 90% of people vote (R), it's likely that only 10% of people voted for a losing candidate, for example. But only 10%+1 of those 90% needed to vote for that candidate to win, so 80% are "wasted," according to this rather contrived metric. Plus the 10% for the loser is "wasted", too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Maybe it should be. Oh no, gunchat is definitely a dumb discussion. *re-reads post* Oh. Well, anyway, my point stands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The thing is that almost any restriction short of total confiscation is still allowed under Heller. That's why I have no problem with Heller. DC's law was aggressively stupid and was tantamount to a full ban. VitalSigns posted:I don't see how it's court-stacking for a liberal to appoint justices they agree with any more than it's court-stacking when conservatives do it. FDR threatened to stack the court if they found any new deal laws unconstitutional. That's about it historically for court stacking or threats. And I really don't get what you're going on about, though. Of course different jurists will have slightly different methods of interpreting the constitution. That doesn't mean, though, that they are necessarily partisan. I'll say without a doubt that ever member of the SCOTUS has penned an opinion in their life that they did not personally agree with, but it is what the constitution requires.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Density posted:I agree. The bill of rights should get a good hard look from our government. It's outdated as heck. Well I agree it could do with a bit of an update but uh, ah, I'm not sure if I, you know, actually trust our government as it currently stands to update the thing...
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Stacking the court refers to the very specific idea of Congress adding seats to the SCOTUS and then the President appointing like minded Justices to those seats to gain a majority. Just appointing fellow travelers to vacant seats isn't stacking/packing the court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Density posted:I agree. The bill of rights should get a good hard look from our government. It's outdated as heck. The problem is, the government can't change the BoR. The people have to. If I had my druthers I would severely limit the 2nd and get rid of part of the 7th (jury trials in some civil cases such as oracle v google are loving stupid).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Which is dumb as well. There have been threats of court stacking before and there has been definitely some partisan hackery on behalf of the court (CU), but the entire point of being a judge is to put aside personal bias and rule according to what the law says not what they feel. This is an extremely naive assessment of the Supreme Court. It has always been a political institution, they're just not as good at hiding it any more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:This is an extremely naive assessment of the Supreme Court. It has always been a political institution, they're just not as good at hiding it any more. Ah I see we're back to the "nothing has ever been perfect, therefore we shouldn't try to be good" arguement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:03
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Stacking the court refers to the very specific idea of Congress adding seats to the SCOTUS and then the President appointing like minded Justices to those seats to gain a majority. Just appointing fellow travelers to vacant seats isn't stacking/packing the court. It would technically be packing, if memory serves. Jarmak posted:Ah I see we're back to the "nothing has ever been perfect, therefore we shouldn't try to be good" argument. On a million worlds, on a million dead comedy forums, the great accelerationist debate rolls ever on, from here, unto infinity. Thread request: images of justices in racing gear.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I don't know if it's viable to conflate "a political institution," which is saying that is responsive to political forces (but not necessarily any specific political forces), with "not insulated from the political process," which refers to a very specific set of political forces.Discendo Vox posted:Thread request: images of justices in racing gear. If Scalia's seat is filled by the time Fast & Furious 9 comes around... The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
I still maintain that one critical element of Miller was wrongly decided - shotguns, especially sawed-off shotguns, were, at that time, rather common in military service, generally as a defensive weapon. (My evidence is anecdotal, admittedly.) However, the odd case of the defendant and his council not being present didn't allow that to be discussed - why the hell did that happen anyhow? I also maintain that if small arms are the common arms of a soldier, it should be legal to purchase a M-16. I'm not saying I especially like that conclusion, but I can't see how to escape it as a matter of logic. I am not advocating for any specific change in the laws, just that those are the two large inconsistencies I've noticed. I'm not trying to do gunchat, just 'how the heck did that case get to the Supreme Court that way' and 'how does the NFA stand if the M-16 exists as the default rifle of a modern soldier?' I think those are answerable questions. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I don't know if it's viable to conflate "a political institution," which is saying that is responsive to political forces (but not necessarily any specific political forces), with "not insulated from the political process," which refers to a very specific set of political forces. I feel like that conflation is at the heart of the abuse (and uncertainty) of the realist position. The Warszawa posted:If Scalia's seat is filled by the time Fast & Furious 9 comes around... I'm actually specifically thinking of RBG shopped into this: 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
If you go back to Llewelyn, realism is basically "human institutions are inescapably human and subject to all the failings inherent to the human condition." As cognitive and behavioral stuff has gotten more of a foothold in legal academics (or at least the discussion of it has), there's more work pointing to specific mechanisms of bias or erroneous reasoning based on how the human brain builds shortcuts. But that's also the split between the realists and the crits, in my opinion: crits believe they have identified the specific forces that hold sway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If you go back to Llewelyn, realism is basically "human institutions are inescapably human and subject to all the failings inherent to the human condition." As cognitive and behavioral stuff has gotten more of a foothold in legal academics (or at least the discussion of it has), there's more work pointing to specific mechanisms of bias or erroneous reasoning based on how the human brain builds shortcuts. If that's the contribution of realism, it's not much of a contribution- it's analogous to the problem of induction, interpreted narrowly, or the postmodernist social construction critique, interpreted broadly. Neither offers meaningful leverage on its own, though. "Legal academics" remains a joke (as is a lot of the relevant cog/psych research), and its application to produce policy has been as much a politicized, biased process as the formalism it's meant to critique. None of this is the real issue, though- it's that even when Llewelyn was around, readers immediately took the critique as an invitation to an unstructured normative relativism in the interpretation of law- a version of realism that's closer to the form expressed in international affairs. [insert massively overstated argument suggesting that Trump is the product of the legal realist movement] And crits, ugh, crits. When all you want is to nail things, you just get a really big hammer. It'd be fine if folks didn't think it was a valid, comprehensive approach to theory. But hey, I guess that's my problem with realism, too. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Those who see the court as a simple "hurr durr I vote party line" do not understand the complexity and depth of constitutional law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like a big contribution now because we have basically accepted the underlying premise of realism, in part because the increased democratization of education (particularly core education like literacy) makes it clear that there's no arcane wizardry to law. A lot of that predates Llewelyn crystallizing realism but it still has an effect. If you're expecting legal theory to produce policy, of course you'll come away disappointed. The role of legal academia in law is tenuous to say the least. Realism (and critical legal theory by extension, since it arose from realism in this respect) is about attacking underlying assumptions about the processes of the system. It's an incomplete approach to be sure, but I don't think that makes it worse than formalism. I don't think there's value to a comprehensive and all-encompassing theory that gets its broad coverage from flawed premises, but this is the core of the debate I guess. Crits take it further because they do have an explicit aim, but by its nature, there's no consensus on what goes between identifying the problem and achieving that aim. (Of course, ardent crits are going to argue that the whole purpose is to investigate and ascertain what bridges that gap.) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Those who see the court as a simple "hurr durr I vote party line" do not understand the complexity and depth of constitutional law. That's why we need to keep them off the bench.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Who is "them?" Conservative appointments? Liberal appointments? Politicians without backgrounds in constitutional law?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 17:55
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who is "them?" Conservative appointments? Liberal appointments? Politicians without backgrounds in constitutional law? Blacks, clearly.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
All this is to say that when you roll your eyes at gunchat or patentchat, remember that it could be worse. It could be legal theorychat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:What *is* the case history for defining the line between guns being allowable but missiles not? What is the criteria used? The same reason I can’t use a spark gap transmitter at 500 kW: rights are not absolute. A balance must be struck between society’s interests and the rights of an individual. The “small arms” distinction is cute, but SCOTUS’ dirty secret is that they worked backwards from “we absolutely cannot allow things like private nukes”. 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:'how does the NFA stand if the M-16 exists as the default rifle of a modern soldier?' I think those are answerable questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:However, the odd case of the defendant and his council not being present didn't allow that to be discussed - why the hell did that happen anyhow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who is "them?" Conservative appointments? Yes. For an explanation as to why, simply review the cases in which Kagan recused herself for propriety's sake then contrast them to the cases Thomas, whose wife receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from political activists, chose to recuse himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yes. For an explanation as to why, simply review the cases in which Kagan recused herself for propriety's sake then contrast them to the cases Thomas, whose wife receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from political activists, chose to recuse himself. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in those cases (she was firewalled off from certain cases, like NFIB). It isn't really the same as Virginia Thomas being a lobbyist -- even the big push for Justice Thomas to recuse himself in NFIB was based off the appearance of conflict of interest versus an actual conflict of interest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in those cases (she was firewalled off from certain cases, like NFIB). It isn't really the same as Virginia Thomas being a lobbyist -- even the big push for Justice Thomas to recuse himself in NFIB was based off the appearance of conflict of interest versus an actual conflict of interest. There does not need to be an actual conflict, the appearance of one is sufficient to erode faith
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:There does not need to be an actual conflict, the appearance of one is sufficient to erode faith Yes, that's right. The point I was making is that Justice Kagan had a direct conflict and Justice Thomas didn't, and that at the time it did not appear that anyone was overtly imploring him to recuse because they believed him to be actually conflicted because of his wife's lobbying work. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
In a 4 to 3 ruling the majority finds that Cory Booker's Iron "Hope Powered" Man suit constitutes a small arm despite the dissent's opinions that "leveling a city block with a repulsar gauntlet" meets the definition of an assault weapon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I don't think those numbers work. If 90% of people vote (R), it's likely that only 10% of people voted for a losing candidate, for example. This makes sense, since it's similarly spurious to claim that 100% of the people are well represented when a candidate ran literally unopposed (which, by the way, happens frequently in American congressional elections).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I thought a single justice could grant a stay from their assigned circuits. Different rules for different points in a case's life. I'm not well versed with all the powers of a single justice, but once you're at the writ stage, you need 4 to grant, 5 to stay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:There does not need to be an actual conflict, the appearance of one is sufficient to erode faith Whose faith? I doubt even 1 percent of people would even have a clue what you are talking about and anyone who does is already a cynic. Let's worry more about the fact that both of our presidential candidates are disliked and untrusted by a majority of the country when it comes to the publics faith in government,  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:There does not need to be an actual conflict, the appearance of one is sufficient to erode faith
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Guys out of everything in this thread, that's pretty much the least debatable point. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is well established through the country in various bars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Guys out of everything in this thread, that's pretty much the least debatable point. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is well established through the country in various bars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:00
|
|