SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

El Scotch posted:

US legal question for you lot, how can you be convicted of both murder and manslaughter at the same time if there's only one victim?

Jury rejects self-defence claim, convicts Detroit homeowner of murdering Renisha McBride

Well, they're charged with both so if the jury doesn't convict on murder then he can still be convicted on manslaughter. It makes sense to convict him on both so if an appeals court overturns the murder conviction, he's still guilty of manslaughter.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 20:38

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

A conviction of murder likely does preclude a lesser conviction under double jeopardy as a lesser included offense but it's good to the extent that if the murder conviction is thrown out, the manslaughter conviction remains.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:13

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

Javid posted:

A single act can break multiple laws. The general idea of going for multiple charges is that if they couldn't get murder, they might still get manslaughter, which is easier to prove. Conversely a conviction of murder doesn't preclude a lesser conviction as well.

There's also stacking as much poo poo as possible to gain leverage for a plea bargain and probably other reasons I don't even know about

If that's the law I guess that's the law.

Seems bizarre to me as verdicts of murder and manslaughter are mutually exclusive in Canadian law but what is, is.

I know such things may vary by state, but is it not normal to find a lesser-included offence? I can only speak from the Canadian perspective but it's not uncommon for someone to be charged with murder and the defence to argue the judge/jury should convict of the lesser-included offence of manslaughter.

Wistful of Dollars fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Aug 7, 2014

# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:14

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

El Scotch posted:

US legal question for you lot, how can you be convicted of both murder and manslaughter at the same time if there's only one victim?

Jury rejects self-defence claim, convicts Detroit homeowner of murdering Renisha McBride

Detroit: It may be one step away from being a Fallout expansion but it's still better than Florida.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

El Scotch posted:

If that's the law I guess that's the law.

Seems bizarre to me as verdicts of murder and manslaughter are mutually exclusive in Canadian law but what is, is.

I know such things may vary by state, but is it not normal to find a lesser-included offence? I can only speak from the Canadian perspective but it's not uncommon for someone to be charged with murder and the defence to argue the judge/jury should convict of the lesser-included offence of manslaughter.

I don't know Canadian law, but it likely operates the same way US law does. The individual is convicted of both crimes and only one of them ultimately stands. We have the same general preclusion principle (same source, common law) and it likely operates the same way.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:33

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Evil Fluffy posted:

Detroit: It may be one step away from being a Fallout expansion but it's still better than Florida.

The last time I checked my faucet the water was still working down here, so...

# ? Aug 8, 2014 13:43

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

FlamingLiberal posted:

The last time I checked my faucet the water was still working down here, so...

The question of the day is whether you have to boil it. The tap water down there tastes like goddamn pool water. At least it does on the Gulf coast and in Orlando.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 08:51

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I'm not sure where you were staying because I've never had that issue. We actually do have great water quality down here from what I've read (compared to the national quality).

# ? Aug 9, 2014 15:17

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

FlamingLiberal posted:

I'm not sure where you were staying because I've never had that issue. We actually do have great water quality down here from what I've read (compared to the national quality).

I grew up about 30 minutes outside Tampa and went to UCF before moving away a couple months before my 24th birthday. The tap water is more funky than hose water.

# ? Aug 12, 2014 05:02

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Today is national iced coffee day? You might need some after reading this ruling:

Via ScotusBlog

quote:

Early voting in Ohio blocked
With just sixteen hours before polling stations were to open in Ohio, the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon blocked voters from beginning tomorrow to cast their ballots in this year�s general election. By a vote of five to four, the Justices put on hold a federal judge�s order providing new opportunities for voting before election day, beyond what state leaders wanted.

The order will remain in effect until the Court acts on an appeal by state officials. If that is denied, then the order lapses. It is unclear when that scenario will unfold. The state�s petition has not yet been filed formally.

The practical effect of the order will mean that, at the least, early voting will not be allowed this week � a period that supporters of early balloting have called �Golden Week.� That permits voters to register and cast their ballots on the same day.

Depending upon the timing of the state�s filing of a petition for review and the Court�s action on it, Monday�s order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays between now and election day, November 4, and will not be permitted during evening hours � that is, after 5 p.m.

Early voting during �Golden Week,� on coming Sundays, and in evening hours are the opportunities that civil rights groups have said are most important to black and low-income voters and the homeless. State officials, however, contended that those arrangements would raise the risk of voter fraud, and would cost too much for county election boards to implement.

Monday�s order had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito,, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, although their votes were not noted in the order. It would have taken five votes to support such an order.

Dissenting were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. They would have denied the request of the Ohio attorney general and secretary of state to postpone the decision in favor of more early voting by U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus of Columbus.

The judge�s order had been upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, but that ruling no longer controls the case now that it has moved to the Supreme Court. A plea by state officials and the Ohio legislature for the Sixth Circuit Court to reconsider the case en banc is no longer necessary to block the early voting.

The Supreme Court could have hurried along the process of reviewing the case. Ohio officials had suggested that the Court might treat their request for a delay as a formal petition for review, and to grant it. The Court did not do that. It left it to the state to file a new petition, as such, and when that is done, the Court would choose whether to review it.

Even if the state moves quickly to file a petition, and even if the Court grants review and gives it very rapid review, those actions may not come in time to save the early voting opportunities that civil rights groups had sought and that Judge Economus had granted.

As a result of the Court�s new order, Ohioans will have twenty-eight instead of thirty-five days on which they may cast their ballots early for the general election. The legislature had ordered that reduction from a 2005 law�s provisions. The bar to most Sunday and evening early voting was imposed by Secretary of State John Husted. Both he and the state attorney general, Michael DeWine, are Republicans.

It is generally assumed � and often borne out by actual vote counting � that black, lower-income and homeless voters are the ones who most often take advantage of early voting, because they have less opportunity to do so on election day. Sunday voting is said to be very important to black voters, who are organized in groups to go to the polls for early voting after Sunday church services � the so-called �Souls to the Polls� campaign.

One of the arguments that Ohio officials have made, and made again to the Supreme Court, is that Ohio is out in front of most states in the number of early voting days it allows, and that should be sufficient. The expansion of early voting in Ohio was adopted by the state legislature nine years ago in the wake of major problems of delay at the polls in the 2004 elections.

The case as it is now unfolding before the Supreme Court involves major constitutional issues, especially on how far the Fourteenth Amendment�s guarantee of legal equality applies to early voting opportunities, and how courts are to apply Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Section 2 has become newly important to challengers of voting restrictions since the Supreme Court last year struck down a key part of the 1965 Act, Section 5.

In a series of court battles in recent years, restrictions on early voting opportunities and requirements for voter IDs have emerged most prominently.

The Supreme Court may next face a case from Wisconsin focusing on the voter ID question. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has allowed that ID requirement to be in effect for this year�s election.

# ? Sep 29, 2014 22:51

Kugyou no Tenshi: Nov 8, 2005; We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?

FilthyImp posted:

Today is national iced coffee day? You might need some after reading this ruling:

Via ScotusBlog

Motherfucker. This is the same state where the state Republican party chairman literally said that he supported the decrease in early voting days because of the "urban � read African-American � voter-turnout machine". Forget iced coffee. I need bourbon.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 04:19

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Here is the always awesome Lyle Denniston explaining the Ohio early voting situation in light of the constitutional implications:

Is There A Right To Vote Before Election Day?

# ? Sep 30, 2014 13:09

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Green Crayons posted:

Here is the always awesome Lyle Denniston explaining the Ohio early voting situation in light of the constitutional implications:

Is There A Right To Vote Before Election Day?

Looking forward to the 5-4 ruling where the SCOTUS decides votes cast any day other than election day are unconstitutional and they gut the VRA even further while Democrats just hem and haw about it and watch the GOP win the white house in 2016 through the lowest voter turnout in history.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:13

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Evil Fluffy posted:

Looking forward to the 5-4 ruling where the SCOTUS decides votes cast any day other than election day are unconstitutional and they gut the VRA even further while Democrats just hem and haw about it and watch the GOP win the white house in 2016 through the lowest voter turnout in history.

What can you do? This SCOTUS is absurdly partisan and has no reservation about creating or getting rid of laws on ideological or personal whims. There's no way to remove one realistically and any sort of law to fix an issue is just going to be run through the courts by lawsuits created from conservative think tanks until it gets to the fearsome five and nullified. Does anyone honestly think John Roberts is going to let a new VRA stand and just not make up a bullshit reason to rule it unconstitutional?

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Sep 30, 2014

# ? Sep 30, 2014 17:19

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

Having had vote by mail here since before I can remember, it amazes me that some/most states force you to physically go to a place to vote like it's 1862.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 18:56

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

Javid posted:

Having had vote by mail here since before I can remember, it amazes me that some/most states force you to physically go to a place to vote like it's 1862.

I'm pretty sure something like 48 States require you physically go to a polling place

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

There are structural concerns about early voting, most of them theoretical and completely detached from the turnout suppression reasons for which Republicans are opposed to it.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:09

scaevola: Jan 25, 2011

Now I know you basically have nonstop election seasons for one office or another over there in the US, but I can't help feeling like these changes would seem at least a bit more in good faith if they were, say, enacted to take hold from the election two years from now. At least then we could do this dance to the Supreme Court on a normal timetable rather than the constant "rush this through or it won't matter".

# ? Sep 30, 2014 19:50

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

scaevola posted:

Now I know you basically have nonstop election seasons for one office or another over there in the US, but I can't help feeling like these changes would seem at least a bit more in good faith if they were, say, enacted to take hold from the election two years from now. At least then we could do this dance to the Supreme Court on a normal timetable rather than the constant "rush this through or it won't matter".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

They don't care about even the appearance of good faith. The only people who don't think it's about voter suppression are the die-hards who will believe any bullshit that allows them to have an excuse to hate minorities.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:18

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

This one weird trick from a Rhodesian will enshrine continued white minority rule!

# ? Sep 30, 2014 22:47

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

The best part is the only place where any actual fraud takes place is in absentee ballots and there is no push to change that at all.

# ? Sep 30, 2014 23:11

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

I actually represented a voter fraud case one time. The prosecutors were so drat pleased to have one till it turned out it was a schizophrenic woman who wandered from polling place to polling place claiming to be various fictional people.

She's in a good home now with a solid SSDI receiver.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 00:33

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

Hey 'Brick it was a few years ago but thanks for reccing the Tetherballs of Bougainville, enjoyed it.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 00:39

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Mr. Nice! posted:

The best part is the only place where any actual fraud takes place is in absentee ballots and there is no push to change that at all.

Oh, don't worry. They're being very consistent about this issue of making it harder to vote:
https://www.usvotefoundation.org/node/33

The only reason they don't gently caress around with it too much right now is because attacks on absentee voters are also an attack on ARE TROOPS since they vote absentee a lot. The GOP isn't just pushing voter ID. They're also pushing all manner of other restrictions on stuff like early voting/absentee voting/registration.

They're also more concerned about in-person stuff because they're trying to go after the biggest concentrations of Democratic voters. Absentee voters are such a small percentage, and they don't lean either way really. So the GOP considers it kind of a wash, but they're going after it anyway in some places as part of the assault on early voting.

If voter ID becomes solved in a way that the GOP can stop complaining about it then they most certainly will shift to talking about trying to do away with absentee voting for everyone besides the military. They most likely will run up against the Supreme Court on that one, but I can also imagine the Supreme Court coming to some absolutely terrible compromise conclusion that makes absentee voting harder than before.

ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Oct 1, 2014

# ? Oct 1, 2014 01:08

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

Hey 'Brick it was a few years ago but thanks for reccing the Tetherballs of Bougainville, enjoyed it.

That's just how I do, man. No man can question my recitations. I recite with cognizable frequency.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 01:15

Cocoa Ninja: Mar 3, 2007

ErIog posted:

If voter ID becomes solved in a way that the GOP can stop complaining about it then they most certainly will shift to talking about trying to do away with absentee voting for everyone besides the military. They most likely will run up against the Supreme Court on that one, but I can also imagine the Supreme Court coming to some absolutely terrible compromise conclusion that makes absentee voting harder than before.

Aside from the fact that they're not in good faith trying to stop "voter fraud," it strikes me as ridiculous that these same people are adamantly opposed to a free national ID because they see it as a vague step towards tracking people and taking away their guns...or something. Libertarianism mumble mumble. Because a real push towards national ID cards would solve both voter fraud and some attempts to reduce minority voting.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 16:32

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Cocoa Ninja posted:

Aside from the fact that they're not in good faith trying to stop "voter fraud," it strikes me as ridiculous that these same people are adamantly opposed to a free national ID because they see it as a vague step towards tracking people and taking away their guns...or something. Libertarianism mumble mumble. Because a real push towards national ID cards would solve both voter fraud and some attempts to reduce minority voting.

It's not ridiculous. Their goal is to disenfranchise minorities and the poor, and a national ID would be inimical to that purpose because there's no way they can realistically restrict issuing a national ID the way they can play games with shortening the hours at state DMVs and refusing to make them accessible to public transportation or even (in Texas) closer than a three hour drive to impoverished rural areas.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 16:46

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Also some of those people legitimately believe that a national ID heralds the coming of the Antichrist.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 16:48

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

FlamingLiberal posted:

Also some of those people legitimately believe that a national ID heralds the coming of the Antichrist.

Nevermind that most upper middle class people have a national ID. And some of them even give their fingerprints to get a better version of it too!

# ? Oct 1, 2014 17:36

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

My dream is for some judge who's about to retire and just doesn't give a gently caress anymore to rule that, if the state is going to mandate IDs for all voters, then all eligible voters must be provided with ID free of charge in order to enable them to exercise their right to vote. Yeah, I know it would never happen but I want to see how conservatives contort themselves to hate on it. The performance art would be magical to behold :munch:

hobbesmaster posted:

Nevermind that most upper middle class people have a national ID. And some of them even give their fingerprints to get a better version of it too!

Passports?

# ? Oct 1, 2014 20:26

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Munkeymon posted:

Passports?

And Pre-Check/Global Entry.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 20:32

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

FlamingLiberal posted:

Also some of those people legitimately believe that a national ID heralds the coming of the Antichrist.

Yet they continue to eat shellfish, wear cloths of more than one type of fabric, and treat their neighbors like poo poo.

# ? Oct 1, 2014 21:37

patentmagus: May 19, 2013

Gyges posted:

Yet they continue to eat shellfish, wear cloths of more than one type of fabric, and treat their neighbors like poo poo.

Leviticus does not say what you think that it says.

The more learned observation is "Yet they lack neck beards."

# ? Oct 2, 2014 00:54

Cocoa Ninja: Mar 3, 2007

VitalSigns posted:

It's not ridiculous. Their goal is to disenfranchise minorities and the poor, and a national ID would be inimical to that purpose because there's no way they can realistically restrict issuing a national ID the way they can play games with shortening the hours at state DMVs and refusing to make them accessible to public transportation or even (in Texas) closer than a three hour drive to impoverished rural areas.

I don't think I was clear, we're in agreement.

I'm saying it's ridiculous precisely because it's the GOP that keeps trotting out the problem (voter fraud) that a national ID would solve. Their stated objectives are so clearly in conflict that the dog whistle is almost deafening.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 01:15

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Kalman posted:

And Pre-Check/Global Entry.

NEXUS

# ? Oct 2, 2014 16:25

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

So how worried should I be about this ruling on a scale of cheap beer to the Whiskey Sour, the Shelter from the Storm?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/02/3575079/the-supreme-court-will-hear-a-case-that-could-obliterate-fair-housing-law/

# ? Oct 2, 2014 18:25

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Yeah it's not a good sign that they are taking that case in the face of lower court agreement.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 18:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

They may be analogizing the rationale for overturning disparate impact evidence to the recent VRA case.

# ? Oct 2, 2014 19:00

Crows Turn Off: Jan 7, 2008

So, is it possible to actually recover from the rulings of this SCOTUS in my lifetime?

# ? Oct 2, 2014 20:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 20:38

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

How bad would a Supreme Court decision need to be for it to be ignored reverse Andrew Jackson style or result in some some of their removal?

# ? Oct 2, 2014 20:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »