|
Maarek posted:I don't want to sound like one of those guys who says 'The New York Times is full of lies and your article is wrong' but the Washington Times was literally created by the leader of a cult solely to fight the communist influence of the Washington Post and no one takes it seriously. It's lost billions of dollars since it was founded and basically has been a subsidized platform for Moonie right-wing nonsense. Yeah, I was vaguely aware it was not the best news source...but I tend to not read many US papers with the exception of WSJ. I actually like the London times and Economist for US politics...I think it not being their country, there's a little more neutral detachment. (Holy gently caress, I sound pretentious.)
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
WSJ has become pretty awful since Murdoch bought it. Before that it had much better writing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To bring this anecdote full circle, only time I almost lost (won?) one of these cases, the defense attorney was a Columbia law grad who seemed to miss the point where I was sending a very VERY clear message to the board that the command did not want the person booted, and started delivering this fire and brimstone social justice warrior diatribe about the evils of the homophobic military. Passed note which read "Hey dumbass...I already won your case for you. You are pissing them off and the only way they will be able to express that contempt is by taking it out on your client. For the love of God, sit down and shut up." Tell us exactly what "social justice warriors" are, I am dying to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
mdemone posted:poo poo, I saw 50 new posts since I last read the thread two hours ago, and I was sure RBG had either kicked the bucket or stabbed Roberts. "While the defendant did the deed we find them not guilty via jury nullification."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I suppose like most made up internet pejoratives, what it means depends on who is using it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
What does it mean to you in regards to legal arguments about DADT in military court, is what I was asking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
It was several years ago, so I can't recall his argument verbatim. But it boiled down to a lot of table banging and yelling about the evils of homophobia and how we should all be ashamed to be part of a system that would condone it. A fine sentiment, and one with which I agree, delivered in completely the wrong forum. It wasn't so much the points he was raising, it was the place in which he chose to raise them, and the manner in which he raised them. Your client's future depends on the benevolence of three people. Implying they and their boss all hate gays and are bad people is not effective advocacy. (concern troll allegation in 3...2...1...) Here's the thing, as a lawyer, your job is to advocate for your client. I know a lot of law schools are focusing on "the lawyer as a vehicle for social change" but very rarely does your client care about fixing the universe, they care about not getting hosed personally, and your job is to make sure that doesn't happen. If it helps others down the line, great. Here, client wants to stay in the military. Military sends in a prosecutor to basically roll over and play dead...because military also wants client to stay. Best thing for you to do is just go with it at that point. At that point, the law is what the law is, and the three people you are yelling at can't change that...so as hosed up as the law may be (and I agree DADT was hosed up, and now that it's been repealed, the sky has not fallen) it's much better advocacy to argue the law doesn't apply to your client because of the "queen for a day defense" (seriously...it was used often enough as the loophole that it had its own nickname) than to make your client into an example of all that is wrong with the world so that someone might possibly change the law for someone else down the line. On a philosophical level, I agreed with him (with the exception that he seemed to be laying responsibility for DADT at the wrong feet...if he had been in longer than 5 minutes, he would have known most of the DoD didn't care, so take it up with Congress and POTUS) on an advocacy level, he was being a poo poo lawyer. Here's the difference: Argument: "My client isn't gay!" Response: Bullshit, but we think the law is stupid anyway, and you've given us the excuse we need to go through the motions, say we did our job and send him back to work. Argument: The law is stupid and my client has rights as a gay man. Response: Well, the law says we have to separate him, and we have to follow the law even if it's stupid. DADT was stupid, no doubt. As shown by how often people bent over backwards to say it didn't apply. But that's just it...until repeal, the way to get out of it was to argue, even weakly, that it didn't apply...not that it didn't have to be followed. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I hate the term SJW. I'm not sure exactly where it comes from (my friend seems to think it was invented to make fun of weird people on tumblr) but I sure do know where it is now: a thing that assholes call people. Social justice is a good thing and non-crazy people like the idea of it, considering how MLK is practically a 20th century protestant saint. Calling someone a SJW implicitly suggests that being in supportive of social justice is a silly or ridiculous thing. The same people who complain about 'political correctness' are the people swinging around SJW and now when I hear someone called that I don't think of a tumblr nerd who is angry about fursecution but instead someone who supports feminism or cops not choking black people to death. It sounds like the person arguing that case was a sanctimonious grandstander. Maybe misguided and naive if you want to be charitable. Whatever flaws he had weren't related to what he thought about gays in the military, hell, the rest of the military seemed to agree. Calling blowhards Social Justice Warriors kind of demeans people who have literally died or been violently injured fighting for actual social justice. I wish Cool People would stop doing it, but I guess this thread is not the place for that discussion. Maarek fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I think for some (and again, this is the problem with made up internet terms with no clear definition) there's the difference between the person trying to affect positive change and social justice in the world (MLK being the hallmark example, but you don't need to be an MLK to be out making a real difference in the world...and for what it's worth, even if I disagree with why someone is protesting, I will always...ALWAYS support the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.) And the "I'm going to twitter the poo poo out of this and then  " social justice warrior.I suppose that distinction can be true of most slacktivists. Your use of the term "grandstander" is a good one, because here we have a person who will give a nice self-righteous speech...but has he ever actually done anything for gay equality causes? The difference really comes down to whether or not the word warrior is said sincerely or with air quotes. but yeah, the take home point in this story is opposing counsel was a douchebag and his client was about to get hosed because of it. Which would have been a tragedy because he was a good kid and nobody cared that he liked the taste of a man's dick in his mouth. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
It's the new PC Police, except even more bald-faced. If you are opposed to social justice, then you're pretty much evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I hate the term skeleton warrior. I'm not sure exactly where it comes from (my friend seems to think it was invented to make fun of weird people on tumblr) but I sure do know where it is now: a thing that assholes call people. Social justice is a good thing and non-crazy people like the idea of it, considering how MLK is practically a 20th century protestant saint. Calling someone a skeleton implicitly suggests that being in supportive of social justice is a silly or ridiculous thing. The same people who complain about 'political correctness' are the people swinging around skeleton and now when I hear someone called that I don't think of a tumblr nerd who is angry about fursecution but instead someone who supports feminism or cops not choking black people to death. "skeleton"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:It's the new PC Police, except even more bald-faced. If you are opposed to social justice, then you're pretty much evil. what if you're just opposed to self-righteous twits who think a few tumblr posts make them an activist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:"skeleton"? Some word filter
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
edit: nevermind not SCOTUS stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:what if you're just opposed to self-righteous twits who think a few tumblr posts make them an activist? Then you wouldn't make a point of discussing them in a politics thread, unless you were using them as an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Then you wouldn't make a point of discussing them in a politics thread, unless you were using them as an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater. that's some rather circular logic. I am right, therefore you are wrong. Here's an unrelated statement to prove I am right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
I'd like to suggest that if we're going to argue about the status of social justice warriors, we a) find a definition of social justice so we're not running in circles around our personal intuitions over the term, and b) find a way to make it relevant in the SCOTUSthread of our Warsz 2013.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
In the interest of changing the subject to something, anything else, here are two things: 1) SCOTUS denied BP's petition to reopen the settled oil spill case. 2) There was a pretty interesting study on lawyers who get cert petitions granted. SCOTUSBlog has more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:2) There was a pretty interesting study on lawyers who get cert petitions granted. SCOTUSBlog has more. the supreme court is just the worst
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Interesting study, but some of the conclusions seem a little flawed. There doesn't seem to be much accounting for what area of law these folks practice in and that would certainly have an impact on the likelihood of cert being granted. Some fields are more likely to have SCOTUS level interests than others. Also, excluding the criminal docket seems a little odd as well. I'd be curious to see what impact those cases had on the stats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
That and it doesn't reflect the likelihood that people who want to get in front of the Supreme Court disproportionately go to people with an existing track record at doing so. If you're Chevron, are you going to go with a tiny firm or are you going to try to get Boies, Olson, Waxman, etc. to handle your case? Also, I don't think they excluded all criminal cases - they excluded pro se cases only.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I always assumed the court took cases for political reasons. Maybe I'm not understanding this article correctly but is it suggesting that the highest court in the land might take up a case because they're familiar with the lawyer requesting it? I know they're human beings by the rest of us but there's something funny and a little scary about that idea, especially if you are on the wrong side of Fox v Hen-house. Stultus Maximus posted:"skeleton"? There is a chrome extension that changes SJW to 'skeleton warrior' which someone linked during the gamergate stuff. I had no idea it changes what you type as well and now I am on the record as being a skeletal sympathizer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:That and it doesn't reflect the likelihood that people who want to get in front of the Supreme Court disproportionately go to people with an existing track record at doing so. If you're Chevron, are you going to go with a tiny firm or are you going to try to get Boies, Olson, Waxman, etc. to handle your case? Was it pro se or indigent? I can't pull the article right now but I thought they said indigent. Here indigents get appointed counsel even on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Was it pro se or indigent? I can't pull the article right now but I thought they said indigent. Here indigents get appointed counsel even on appeal. This isn't the case at the federal level (at least not at the cert stage), as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This isn't the case at the federal level (at least not at the cert stage), as far as I know. But a lot of criminal cases that get to SCOTUS are State v blah blah not US v blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:In the interest of changing the subject to something, anything else, here are two things: Is there a link to the actual list of 66 super attorneys? I read the SCOTUSBlog article and skimmed the Reuters report, but didn't find a list. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Was it pro se or indigent? I can't pull the article right now but I thought they said indigent. Here indigents get appointed counsel even on appeal. It was all pro se, including civil pro se, petitions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It was all pro se, including civil pro se, petitions. That makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Was it pro se or indigent? I can't pull the article right now but I thought they said indigent. Here indigents get appointed counsel even on appeal. I thought the last pro se case the Supreme Court heard was in 1978 anyway (when insane libertarian conspiracy theorist Sam Sloan beat the SEC 9-0)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
SCOTUS ruled unanimously that workers are not entitled to overtime pay for going through burdensome security checks at work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I thought the last pro se case the Supreme Court heard was in 1978 anyway (when insane libertarian conspiracy theorist Sam Sloan beat the SEC 9-0) Getting a case accepted at the Supreme Court means you're going to have lawyers beating down your door to take the case for free. Someone who is pro se filing for cert won't be pro se at the Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS ruled unanimously that workers are not entitled to overtime pay for going through burdensome security checks at work. Is there a more nuanced explanation to this than 'gently caress labor'? I won't claim to have any technical knowledge of employment law, but it seems clear as day that an employer should be paying non-exempt workers for any time spent on employer-mandated activities. SCOTUSblog seems to be implying that it doesn't count because it's not an "integral" part of the job, but that doesn't make sense on its own. It seems like the same argument could be used to require a cashier to mop floors without after his shift without pay. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is there a more nuanced explanation to this than 'gently caress labor'? I won't claim to have any technical knowledge of employment law, but it seems clear as day that an employer should be paying non-exempt workers for any time spent on employer-mandated activities. It looks like that's because it's what the law says, and if you don't like it then lobby congress (lawl). Haven't read the actual decision yet though. quote:The two workers, who filed a class-action lawsuit, contended that they had to wait up to twenty-five minutes to be searched, then had to remove their wallets, keys, and belts, then pass through a metal detector. Their lawyers argued that this procedure was a required part of their job, imposed by their employer, so they were entitled to be paid overtime for the added time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Yeah, the Court got it right because Congress basically said that this is a situation that doesn't get paid. The history behind the FLSA, and the amendment which is relevant to this appeal, is particularly telling: Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk posted:Enacted in 1938, the FLSA established a minimum wage and overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in each workweek. §§6(a)(1), 7(a)(3), 52 Stat. 1062-1063. An employer who violated these provisions could be held civilly liable for backpay, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees. §16, id., at 1069. Basically, the Court initially read the FLSA broadly, so that employees were being compensated for this type of pre- and post-work, but still on the job, activity. Congress was like "OH NO BUSINESS" and enacted the Portal-to-Portal Act, and you end up with this decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
So call centers have been successfully sued for years for ignoring the first X minutes of the day starting up and logging into the PC as part of time worked. Has that time fallen within Portal to Portal because the PC is a necessary component of a primary work function?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Right, the employer is paying the employee for the value they add. They are not adding value while they are making preparations to go to work, or travelling. It makes perfect sense, actually. I'd clock my 6 years in college as prep for the job if I could. I'd charge them for the time it takes to shave and iron my clothes. This is a good line.fosborb posted:So call centers have been successfully sued for years for ignoring the first X minutes of the day starting up and logging into the PC as part of time worked. In this case, I would say that the employee is ready to work, even if one of his tools needs time to warm up. The employee could do other things like make copies or answer phones, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Right, the employer is paying the employee for the value they add. They are not adding value while they are making preparations to go to work, or travelling. It makes perfect sense, actually. I'd clock my 6 years in college as prep for the job if I could. I'd charge them for the time it takes to shave and iron my clothes. This is a good line. This is about what the law is. It's not about "what the employer is paying the employee" for because you can trivially argue it the other way: the employee is being paid for his time, and that means he's entitled to payment for his time regardless of if you used it well or not. What you can and can't charge the employer for is determined by what the law allows, and your actual agreement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
The court is putting the "Portal" on the far side of the Metal Detector, the employees are asking for it to be the line to get into the building (since the line is 25 min long). This is not the same as asking someone to mop the floor or take out trash as both of those are not part of your travel to / from the job site, both would also result in unpleasant things for the business should they not be done (see what happens if you fail to take the trash out for a week). How long is too long? Based on the courts rules today the law says "as long as you want it to be". As such expect security lines to only get longer for min wage jobs as all places install just 1 metal detector and xray and 2-3 guards to process people. You could easily have a 2 hour long line and demand all workers pass through it daily and still not pay them. Sadly Workers rights are not part of the constitution so there does not appear to be any way to go after this ruling other than Legislation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
PyRosflam posted:How long is too long? Based on the courts rules today the law says "as long as you want it to be". As such expect security lines to only get longer for min wage jobs as all places install just 1 metal detector and xray and 2-3 guards to process people. You could easily have a 2 hour long line and demand all workers pass through it daily and still not pay them. You'd also be able to penalize them for not being on time if screening on the way in took too long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
parasyte posted:You'd also be able to penalize them for not being on time if screening on the way in took too long. PyRosflam posted:How long is too long? Based on the courts rules today the law says "as long as you want it to be". As such expect security lines to only get longer for min wage jobs as all places install just 1 metal detector and xray and 2-3 guards to process people. You could easily have a 2 hour long line and demand all workers pass through it daily and still not pay them. I believe the response from conservatives is that those workers should just use the free market and find work elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:21
|
|
