|
Talmonis posted:The downside of the Federal government giving him back his cattle and leaving, is that it has emboldened the morons who went looking for a fight. This might start to happen a lot more often, in increasingly rediculous situations. Honestly I'm glad they're not in the business of escalating into big dickwaving contests with unstable nutjobs. There's no point - we know where the guy lives and can stop him from profiting by blocking his ability to sell on the open market. At no point does this need firearms involved.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Looks like the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is doing that rear end in a top hat of the Day blog guy's job for him http://dlcc.org/taxonomy/term/365?mobile_switch=standard quote:DLCC SHOWCASES EXTREMIST GOP RHETORIC IN WORST OF THE WORST CATALOGUE
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
A searchable database where you could put in a politician's name and get all the horrible poo poo they've publicly said would be pretty boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Only spotted the one from SC so far but it's a real winner:quote:Republicans opposing expanding Medicaid because "it is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House" At least he's honest about it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is there any comparably complex western economy that has a markedly simpler tax code? Is the US code a giant outlier in its complexity or do we just have a relatively "normal" amount of bureaucratic creep and cruft?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Turns out the university hosed up and told the IRS they didn't bill me anything in 2012, but posted a 1099-T showing they billed me almost 5 grand in qualified expenses which I claimed $915 they're now saying is owed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Radish posted:Between that and "My Ultimate Ann Rand Porn" maybe there are mythological tricksters behind all this... What?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Time_pants posted:What?! It's an anagram for "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:Having to file in both, I can say Canada is by far simpler. I file in the US and France and my French taxes take like 5 minutes. If I'm feeling particularly dumb I can go to the tax office and someone will talk me through filling it out for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Here's a very interesting study on how demographic shifts affect party identification and the (possible) bad news for the Democratic party:quote:In a follow-up study, white subjects who were randomly assigned to read a press release about “projections that racial minorities will constitute a majority of the U.S. populace by 2042” subsequently expressed more conservative policy views than those who read about “the growth in geographic mobility in the United States.” Being prompted to consider the prospect of demographic change produced more conservative views not only on plausibly relevant issues like immigration and affirmative action, but also on seemingly unrelated issues like defense spending and health-care reform. But you should read the whole article.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
White people should be disenfranchised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's a very interesting study on how demographic shifts affect party identification and the (possible) bad news for the Democratic party: Jeez, you'd think this country has a long, detailed, storied history of treating minorities poorly. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Jeez, you'd think this country has a long, detailed, storied history of treating minorities poorly. Hey, just because Oregon banned black people from entering the state for a while doesn't mean they're totally not racist now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
The Atlantic has a chilling article today on the re segregation of the American public education system. The article shows how the erosion of Civil Rights Era desegregation laws is returning the country back into a pre Brown v BOE position. quote:Schools in the South, once the most segregated in the country, had by the 1970s become the most integrated, typically as a result of federal court orders. But since 2000, judges have released hundreds of school districts, from Mississippi to Virginia, from court-enforced integration, and many of these districts have followed the same path as Tuscaloosa’s—back toward segregation. Black children across the South now attend majority-black schools at levels not seen in four decades. Nationally, the achievement gap between black and white students, which greatly narrowed during the era in which schools grew more integrated, widened as they became less so. quote:When President George W. Bush came into office, approximately 595 school districts nationwide—including dozens of non-southern districts—remained under court-ordered desegregation, according to a ProPublica analysis of data compiled by Stanford University researchers. By the end of Bush’s second term, that number had plummeted to 380. Nearly 60 percent of all the districts that have been released from their desegregation orders since 1967 were released under Bush, whose administration pressed the Justice Department to close those cases wherever possible. The trend has slowed under the Obama administration, but it has continued. Today, about 340 districts remain under court order. The whole article is a great, if disturbing, read. It uses the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama as its illustrative example, showing how the release of the district from previous court-ordered desegregation has turned it from one of the most integrated, successful public school systems in the country to one of the most segregated in just 14 years. I think the lesson here goes much further than just public education. In the last decade, we have seen a number of judicial anti-discrimination decisions rolled back under the argument that the problems they were made to address no longer exist in the country. Perhaps the most visible of these was the SCOTUS decision to overturn Article V of the VRA, but resistance to fair pay laws, destruction of labor laws and other show a basic truth; when you remove judicial protection of an oppressed class, whether that be economic, race, gender or sexuality, the buried bigotries that caused those protections in the first place come bubbling back up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:White people should be disenfranchised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Justice Ginsberg put it best that this sort of thing is like having an umbrella and thinking that it's no longer raining since you aren't wet. The people instituting these policies know 100% what the result would be but the man on the street doesn't understand that because he doesn't see the abuses (due to government protection) that they won't come back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:I know this is a joke, but some of us are women and gays too so we kinda need a vote. When I'm bitching about white people I use it in the sense the founders intended: rich white men. Radish posted:Justice Ginsberg put it best that this sort of thing is like having an umbrella and thinking that it's no longer raining since you aren't wet. The people instituting these policies know 100% what the result would be but the man on the street doesn't understand that because he doesn't see the abuses (due to government protection) that they won't come back. It's what makes the VRA decision so odious to me, that the supposed most reasoned, educated jurists in the land can come to the conclusion that the US has fixed all of its racial problems in a generation. We are not that far out from full-on chattel slavery. There are people alive today who's grandparents were slaves, who remember sitting at their knees and hearing first-account stories of slavery. I believe that one day America may actually repair its racial divides, but it sure as poo poo isn't fixed right now. zoux fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:When I'm bitching about white people I use it in the sense the founders intended: rich white men. Greg Proops has a great line about how democracy is great, specifically the original Greek version: women can't vote and you can own slaves. And then you remember it's been barely 100 years since women's suffrage and 150 since the
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
zoux, if you're looking at rollbacks of integration specifically, the Roberts Court doesn't fail to disappoint. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), literally bars voluntary integration programs, even when those programs were the basis for lifting a judicial desegregation order. It's the source of Roberts's Gumpian masterpiece: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." The one "good" thing about Shelby Co. v. Holder is that it didn't overturn Section 5, but just struck Section 4. I mean, it's hilariously dumb still, but if Congress passed a bill saying "we checked, and poo poo's still racist so the old formula is good," that would stand.* *and then it would be appealed up again and we'd lose Section 5 for real. Phone posted:Greg Proops has a great line about how democracy is great, specifically the original Greek version: women can't vote and you can own slaves. It also took ninety-five years to make good on the Fifteenth Amendment, and even then we just keep loving it up. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Oops, I knew I should've reminded myself which section was overturned. One of the things in that article was that in Tuscaloosa, officials and parents and educators swore up and down that splitting up the main school, Central, and adding two more high schools that weren't under any kind of desegregation requirements wouldn't automatically lead to segregated schools. The promised they would maintain parity between races and educational quality. Central High is now 99 percent black students in just over a decade. zoux fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Well, it rendered Section 5 dead letter and it seemed like everyone from Gerken to Hasen (I really should pick election law scholars whose last names aren't right next to each other in the alphabet for that point, but oh well) was expecting a full Section 5 strikedown, so it's understandable. If you want to get really mad, find where Roberts quotes NAMUDNO quoting Katzenbach in Shelby Co., then go read the quote in NAMUDNO, then go read the quote in Katzenbach. It's basically a misrepresentation so stark that it would get you thrown out of law school for trying to pull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If you want to get really mad, find where Roberts quotes NAMUDNO quoting Katzenbach in Shelby Co., then go read the quote in NAMUDNO, then go read the quote in Katzenbach. It's basically a misrepresentation so stark that it would get you thrown out of law school for trying to pull. Can you link for those of me who ain't smart enough to google that poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Wasn't Roberts basically trying to gut the VRA since he worked for the Reagan administration? It doesn't sound implausible that he would knowingly misinterpret the law as to get what he's wanted for over twenty years.Ron Jeremy posted:Can you link for those of me who ain't smart enough to google that poo poo? Yeah I'd be really interested too as IANAL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Shelby County:quote:Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 16, 80 S.Ct. 961, 4 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1960); Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845); and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725-726, 19 L.Ed. 227 (1869); emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567, 31 S.Ct. 688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." Id., at 580, 31 S.Ct. 688. Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle 2624*2624 operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U.S., at 328-329, 86 S.Ct. 803. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U.S., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504. (As a side note, Louisiana is about land rights re: submerged resources, and I don't need to elaborate on the hilarity of quoting pre-Civil War decisions like Lessee of Pollard in a case about voting rights.) NAMUDNO quote:The Act also differentiates between the States, despite our historic tradition that all the States enjoy "equal sovereignty." United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 16 (1960) (citing Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845)); see also Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725-726 (1869). Distinctions can be justified in some cases. "The doctrine of the equality of States . . . does not bar . . . remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared." Katzenback, supra, at 328-329 (emphasis added). But a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute's disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets. Here's the original citation from Katzenbach: quote:The doctrine of the equality of States, invoked by South Carolina, does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms 329*329 upon which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, and cases cited therein. It's not just that Katzenbach didn't bar disparate remedies, it's that it rejected the application of "equality of the states" in any other context but admission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
What do the 2624*2624 and 329*329 refer to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:What do the 2624*2624 and 329*329 refer to? Those are page breaks in the article so that you can pincite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Those are page breaks in the article so that you can pincite. Thanks. Now I can understand that Katzenbach did the exact opposite thing that Roberts said it did. So like, do you think anyone has ever pointed that out to him, and is there even a mechanism for a justice to amend his opinion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Page numbers in the United States Reports or other relevant reporter. Cases are collected in volumes and printed. For example, Parents Involved is 551 U.S. 701 (20070. 551 is the volume number, U.S. is the reporter, and 701 is the page on which the opinions begin in that volume. (2007) is the year of publication, but if it's any other court that parenthetical will also tell you which court decided it. Since the U.S. Reports only collects SCOTUS cases, you can omit that, but as an example, the Ninth Circuit's decision from which the appeal in Parents Involved was taken was at 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2005), because the Federal Reporter collects cases from all the circuit courts. Those page numbers are kept consistent across various media for consistency of citation. zoux posted:Thanks. Now I can understand that Katzenbach did the exact opposite thing that Roberts said it did. So like, do you think anyone has ever pointed that out to him, and is there even a mechanism for a justice to amend his opinion? He does not give a poo poo. Roberts is a pragmatic institutionalist on virtually every other issue before the Court, but when it comes to race he is very much of the view that the most discriminated-against group in modern America is the white man. There is a (likely apocryphal) story that, in private practice, Roberts would represent swindlers, fraudsters, murderers, rapists, and dictators without qualm, but the only case he ever tried to discharge for ethical reasons was the pro bono defense of a university on a challenge to its affirmative action policy. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Help me out here lawyers. That's "freshman undergraduate who didn't do the reading" level misinterpretation there. I'm having trouble concluding something other than a) the Chief Justice is an idiot or b) the Chief Justice is acting in bad faith, literally intentionally warping case law to suit a desired political outcome. Is there another possibility? Incidentally I know a lot of law schools students who go to elite schools and swear up and down that the conservative justices never do anything like that and have totally reasonable and consistent judicial philosophies. I've heard more than one express admiration for Justices Scalia and Thomas. How can such smart people believe such stupid things? Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Page numbers in the United States Reports or other relevant reporter. Cases are collected in volumes and printed. Again, thanks. It was just a bit confusing because by coincidence both page number cites came right after modifiers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
MS Tea Party Candidate Chris McDaniel has a message for Senator Thad Cochran that can only be expressed through poor video production values and good ole' Mississippi ragtime: http://youtu.be/k27-HC90dzc Bonus Laughs: that Neo-Confederate idiot invoking Lincoln at the start of the video. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Help me out here lawyers. That's "freshman undergraduate who didn't do the reading" level misinterpretation there. I'm having trouble concluding something other than The clerk who wrote the opinion was incompetent and the judge didn't care enough to correct him (because the resulting opinion said what he wanted it to say)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The clerk who wrote the opinion was incompetent and the judge didn't care enough to correct him (because the resulting opinion said what he wanted it to say) This isn't much better because clerks for Supreme Court justices are supposed to be the best of the best. There's something hosed about how we decide who is "the best of the best" in this country, that's becoming clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Help me out here lawyers. That's "freshman undergraduate who didn't do the reading" level misinterpretation there. I'm having trouble concluding something other than So, the principle of stare decisis discourages the outright overturning of cases, so what you generally have is people trying to weasel directly opposite principles into law without explicitly overruling anything that came before. It can get a bit awkward, and there're politics behind it too - Parents Involved effectively overturned Brown v. Board, but no one wants to come out and say that Brown is bad law. I'm of the opinion that Justice Thomas is absolutely right that stare decisis is bullshit - that law has been decided doesn't make it more essentially correct. zoux posted:Again, thanks. It was just a bit confusing because by coincidence both page number cites came right after modifiers. It still throws me sometimes. Also, footnotes often show up the exact same way in plaintext renderings, which is just lovely if you're trying to avoid having to retype an entire passage. Hieronymous Alloy posted:The clerk who wrote the opinion was incompetent and the judge didn't care enough to correct him (because the resulting opinion said what he wanted it to say) Whether a clerk wrote the opinion varies from Justice to Justice and issue to issue. For example, Justice Blackmun's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, the case that upheld Georgia's sodomy ban, was written largely if not entirely by now-Deputy Assistant AG for Voting Rights Pam Karlan, his openly bisexual law clerk (I believe she was out at the time). Justice Marshall was well-known for letting his clerks write, which is where Kagan cut her teeth, but most Justices with a distinctive voice like Thomas and Scalia and Roberts (platitudinous as it is) write their own opinions on the issues they care about. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
edit: quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Whether a clerk wrote the opinion varies from Justice to Justice and issue to issue. For example, Justice Blackmun's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, the case that upheld Georgia's sodomy ban, was written largely if not entirely by now-Deputy Assistant AG for Voting Rights Pam Karlan, his openly bisexual law clerk (I believe she was out at the time). Justice Marshall was well-known for letting his clerks write, which is where Kagan cut her teeth, but most Justices with a distinctive voice like Thomas and Scalia and Roberts (platitudinous as it is) write their own opinions on the issues they care about. Right, I was just mentioning the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Robert Reich has a neat video up about just how biased the US Tax Code is in favor of the ultra rich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdV_CfDRjDc Quick someone tell me if Robert Reich is a legit Cool Guy or if there is some failure in his ideological purity that discounts everything he says all the time and forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
No he is a perfect man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Robert Reich owns
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
zoux posted:Robert Reich has a neat video up about just how biased the US Tax Code is in favor of the ultra rich: It's right in the fuckin thumbnail, he's Reich and you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 17:20
|
|