|
Munkeymon posted:Could a friendly congress modify a law to bring back disparate impact or would the court be doing that whole hear no evil thing like when Roberts decided that corruption has to be obvious to an especially slow four year old to be corruption? With regards to the VRA I think the Supreme Court basically said "Congress should have updated the formula rather than relying on a 40 year old one", so yes in theory you can get that back.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Could a friendly congress modify a law to bring back disparate impact or would the court be doing that whole hear no evil thing like when Roberts decided that corruption has to be obvious to an especially slow four year old to be corruption? Depends, the people arguing against the law were also arguing that the existence of disparate impact claims basically mandates quotas and the like that would violate the 14th amendment. If the conservatives strike down disparate impact claims on that basis they may not be able to patch it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I mean it's pretty obvious that someone can be right in a technical sense but really be wrong. That's some Rumsfeld level deflection there. I disagree. If someone is technically correct, then they are correct. If they are simultaneously "wrong", it is because the aspect of the problem in which they are technically correct is a separate point of disagreement- the two contexts must be evaluated as separate, linked contexts, not merged. (I mean, come on, how could I not bite? It was made for me)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
You're technically correct to say they're correct, but you're still wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I disagree. If someone is technically correct, then they are correct. If they are simultaneously "wrong", it is because the aspect of the problem in which they are technically correct is a separate point of disagreement- the two contexts must be evaluated as separate, linked contexts, not merged. So what you're saying is that is where the notion of "truthiness" comes from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I disagree. If someone is technically correct, then they are correct. If they are simultaneously "wrong", it is because the aspect of the problem in which they are technically correct is a separate point of disagreement- the two contexts must be evaluated as separate, linked contexts, not merged. Technically correct usually means you're using an incorrect definition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So what you're saying is that is where the notion of "truthiness" comes from. I hadn't thought of this, but it's possibly a related concept. Someone can be correct, but ambiguous question boundaries allow the disagreeing party to "feel" like they are still wrong. Truthiness is a way of describing and identifying claims that lack clear criteria, something technical answers can't address. evilweasel posted:Technically correct usually means you're using an incorrect definition. Technically correct means you're using the right definition!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I hadn't thought of this, but it's possibly a related concept. Someone can be correct, but ambiguous question boundaries allow the disagreeing party to "feel" like they are still wrong. Truthiness is a way of describing and identifying claims that lack clear criteria, something technical answers can't address.  "Are we going to do something about this problem?" "Yes." "What?" "We are going to hope it fixes itself."Here is technically correct about "Yes" but it's clearly misleading. Most English speakers use "technically correct" to imply something other than "correct", often emphasizing technically - they do this to mean you are merely technically correct, but not actually correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:When someone accuses you of being merely technically correct they mean you replied to a posed question without answering the obviously implied question (or deliberately answered it wrongly). The word "obviously" does all the work there. The crucial problem is that the party posing the question (the question, mind you, that was actually asked) is really articulating some other question they have, badly. Answering a question correctly is answering it correctly, based on the question actually present. Expecting the responding party to know or read the questioner's implications introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the question. Your hypothetical is very rarely the scenario that occurs, and most importantly, it's not available if the questioner actually asks what they want to know. More often, when I've encountered this response, it's that the other party doesn't like what I've said and wants to do some goalpost or fact shifting. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The word "obviously" does all the work there. The crucial problem is that the party posing the question (the question, mind you, that was actually asked) is really articulating some other question they have, badly. Answering a question correctly is answering it correctly, based on the question actually present. Expecting the responding party to know or read the questioner's implications introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the question. Or the other party is just being an rear end quote:A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communications qquipment. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter's position and course to fly to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter's window. The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign read: "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at her map, determined the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded "I knew that had to be the Microsoft building because, like their technical support, online help and product documentation, the response they gave me was technically correct, but completely useless."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The word "obviously" does all the work there. The crucial problem is that the party posing the question (the question, mind you, that was actually asked) is really articulating some other question they have, badly. Answering a question correctly is answering it correctly, based on the question actually present. Expecting the responding party to know or read the questioner's implications introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the question. Are we doing something about it? Yes. (We are hoping, thinking, and wishing) Would most reasonable humans interpret those things as "nothing" ? Yes. But if you didn't want to include things equivalent to "nothing" as possible responses, you should have been more specific with your question! should not have to ask that second question. is deliberately trying to misunderstand the question, childishly. But, is indeed technically correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
is also, from any meaningful standpoint, correct. They're not "really" wrong because in that context "really" doesn't mean anything. To the extent that there is some sort of genuine, universally understood element of the question that isn't sufficiently ambiguous to produce confusion or a hiding spot, they cannot be said to be "technically correct" either. I'll take my futurama avatar now. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
duz posted:Or the other party is just being an rear end Another implication of it is that actual implementation and enforcement procedures are often at a slight variance with a literal interpretation of the law. For example, a policeman would be technically correct for giving a ticket to a driver he clocked at 1 MPH over the speed limit, but for a whole host of practical reasons it would be a bad move and likely get tossed and the cop reprimanded for antagonizing the public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Regular human speech (even that occurring in a courtroom) can still have obvious implications. To deny as such is to totally disrespect all manner of human speech and thought for the sheer purpose of being obtuse. Deteriorata posted:Another implication of it is that actual implementation and enforcement procedures are often at a slight variance with a literal interpretation of the law. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I buy this argument socially, but not legally. Why do laws have phrases like "reasonable belief" if how a reasonable human would interpret something is implicit in a statement? Also keep in mind that some laws explicitly recognize non-reasonable beliefs. At 1 mph you could probably do poo poo like question the accuracy of the cop's detection equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:At 1 mph you could probably do poo poo like question the accuracy of the cop's detection equipment. That requires you to show up to court of course. Fun fact: you will not get a ticket in Kentucky for less than 5 over. The statute says no fine and no points for between 0-4 mph over the limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Regular human speech (even that occurring in a courtroom) can still have obvious implications. To deny as such is to totally disrespect all manner of human speech and thought for the sheer purpose of being obtuse. However, most (good) lawyers will make sure to make those "implicit" statements "explicit" on the record through follow up questioning. Otherwise you end up with a nice big fat "objection. arguing facts not in evidence."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:However, most (good) lawyers will make sure to make those "implicit" statements "explicit" on the record through follow up questioning. Otherwise you end up with a nice big fat "objection. arguing facts not in evidence." Yeah. We teach our witnesses "answer the question they actually asked, not the question they should have asked." Not our fault you're a lovely lawyer, plaintiff, and can't ask a question that will get the answer you want!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah. We teach our witnesses "answer the question they actually asked, not the question they should have asked." Not our fault you're a lovely lawyer, plaintiff, and can't ask a question that will get the answer you want! And as an appellate attorney who is stuck with the record as it is printed, I appreciate lawyers like you who leave me with a clear record. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
gov't reply brief in king v. burwell and lolquote:Petitioners do not deny that their interpretation of Section 36B would thwart the operation of the Act’s central provisions in States with federally facilitated Exchanges. Instead, they reverse-engineer a description of the Act’s design and history to fit their misreading of Section 36B. Petitioners insist that Congress intentionally threatened to impose a dysfunctional regime on the States in order to pressure them to establish Exchanges for themselves, and that Congress assumed that every State would comply. That notion is baseless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
quote:Petitioners’ claim of fidelity to the statutory text is thus baseless. Indeed, to accept petitioners’ reading, the Court would have to accept that Congress created a statute that:
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
^^ lol Some analysis out today from Rodriguez v. United States arguments. Looks to be headed towards a decision that a person can't be detained (in this case, to wait for a suspicionless drug-dog sniffs) after the 4th amendment justification has resolved. quote:Various Justices – the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia [and] Kagan in particular — appeared to keep driving the case to its basic question: may the police continue to detain someone, without at least reasonable suspicion, when the Fourth Amendment justification for the stop (that is, the traffic violation) has ended? Toward the end of the argument, Justice Kagan bluntly stated that if the government is arguing “that Caballes gives you … extra leeway to detain people …. I think that’s just not right.” Chief Justice Roberts appeared to agree, rhetorically asking a bit earlier (generating laughter) whether “[i]t’s only a violation of the Fourth Amendment for two minutes, right?” But everybody evaded the issue of whether suspicionless drug-dog sniffs should even be constitutional in the first place (i.e. whether drug-dog sniffs are a "search"). quote:A second point that appears clear from yesterday’s argument is that the Court will not use this case to reconsider Caballes and examine whether a dog sniff should count as a Fourth Amendment “search.” Justice Sotomayor appeared to raise this “fundamental question” briefly – “is that really what the Fourth Amendment should permit?” – but then quickly suggested that the Court should “cabin” it to Caballes’s “simultaneous with writing the ticket” holding. Thus while the Caballes holding appears to be in some tension with the constitutional theory of “search” that Justice Antonin Scalia, among others, has recently advanced, this case will not be used as an occasion to discuss it in the text of the opinion, although it may surface in footnotes or separate opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And as an appellate attorney who is stuck with the record as it is printed, I appreciate lawyers like you who leave me with a clear record. Messy records are fun to leave to someone else though
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
SCOTUS just agreed to review whether the Oklahoma execution procedure violates cruel and unusual punishment clause.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:^^ lol Just saying you can't extend a stop to allow for a dog sniff will put a dent in the all too common fishing expedition because you'd have to have another officer there with the dog ready to go do the sniff while the first does the normal traffic stop stuff. That of course would set things up for a pure challenge of whether the sniff is a search or not because such a setup would require either stupid luck or more likely planning by the officers before the stop was even made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:SCOTUS just agreed to review whether the Oklahoma execution procedure violates cruel and unusual punishment clause. Any room for this to affect the position "capital punishment is cruel and unusual anyway"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Any room for this to affect the position "capital punishment is cruel and unusual anyway"? Not a chance they declare all executions unconstitutional, but it can have pretty big functional consequences. Essentially, nobody will sell states the primary drug needed for "typical" lethal injections, sodium thiopental. Two years ago, states started switching to Midazolam as the first drug administered (followed by other drugs like vecuronium bromide, and potassium chloride). There were concerns that it was untested, but courts let it go forward anyways. In 2014, Clayton Lockett was executed in Oklahoma using Midazolam as the first drug, but he woke up during the procedure and began "twitching and convulsing" until he died of a heart attack 40 minutes later. Last week, SCOTUS declined to stay the execution of Charles Warner, who was arguing that Midazolam-based executions violated his 8th amendment rights, using Lockett as evidence. Sotomayor wrote a good dissent. While being executed, Warner said "[my] body is one fire” and “no one should go through this”. Three other inmates in the state were left as plaintiffs on the initial case (Warner was the 4th, but he is now dead), which just got granted a cert. They're arguing that midazolam does not induce a level of unconsciousness that would be acceptable for surgery, and therefore violates the 8th amendment when used for that purpose in an execution. Depending on the ruling, if they win, it could mean that states have a really hard time finding a new drug. Particularly if SCOTUS institutes some kind of "test" prior to using new drugs. Here's a dick move by SCOTUS though: quote:The inmates are Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole. Glossip, who arranged for his employer to be beaten to death, is scheduled to be executed on Jan. 29. Grant, who stabbed a correctional worker to death, is due to be put to death on Feb. 19. Cole, convicted of killing his 9-month-old daughter, is scheduled to be executed on March 5. The case is scheduled for April. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Anybody have a guess as to which, if any, of the four liberal justices would decide in favor of banning executions under the 8th, if presented with the opportunity to do so? I ask merely out of curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Here's a dick move by SCOTUS though: "Due to the death of defendants, we decline to judge the case on its merits on a 5-4 vote."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Why don't they just use morphine or have the guy inhale helium or something? Breathing helium is supposed to be really fast and painless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
From what I understand worldwide helium reserves are pretty low, since it's not something that naturally occurs on Earth much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Executions aren't intended to be comfortable or humane for the person being executed. If lack of pain was intended they could just be left in a sealed container so they'd get tired, pass out, and when the oxygen runs out that's that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:From what I understand worldwide helium reserves are pretty low, since it's not something that naturally occurs on Earth much. It's a product of petroleum refinement but it's light enough to escape into space unless intentionally captured, and it's only captured if it's economical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Executions aren't intended to be comfortable or humane for the person being executed. If lack of pain was intended they could just be left in a sealed container so they'd get tired, pass out, and when the oxygen runs out that's that. *does not apply to the fruitcakes outside the prisons with signs saying 'burn, baby, burn' and having tailgate parties
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Executions aren't intended to be comfortable or humane for the person being executed. If lack of pain was intended they could just be left in a sealed container so they'd get tired, pass out, and when the oxygen runs out that's that. Has anyone ever taken this angle on an 8A argument against capital punishment? Seems like you could convincingly demonstrate the state's prurient interest in an execution's visibility (for lack of a more precise word) to be cruelty in and of itself. Also any method that isn't quick (like the above) is psychological torture and so still susceptible to 8A arguments, yes? Or am I talking out of my rear end?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:From what I understand worldwide helium reserves are pretty low, since it's not something that naturally occurs on Earth much. Helium is quite common, actually. It's a byproduct of radioactive decay and tends to accumulate in the crust in natural gas deposits. Issues with helium are economic, primarily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Executions aren't intended to be comfortable or humane for the person being executed. If lack of pain was intended they could just be left in a sealed container so they'd get tired, pass out, and when the oxygen runs out that's that. Don't forget "dignity" of the procedure, i.e., minimizing how bad the execution team feels after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Yeah, but there's gotta be enough sociopaths in the state's employ who get hard at the thought of taking a life. Surely there are cops and prison guards who would do it for free with batons or knives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Yeah, but there's gotta be enough sociopaths in the state's employ who get hard at the thought of taking a life. Surely there are cops and prison guards who would do it for free with batons or knives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:It's a product of petroleum refinement but it's light enough to escape into space unless intentionally captured, and it's only captured if it's economical. And the only reason it wasn't economical was because congress passed a law in like the 80s to sell off our helium reserves and didn't adjust the price to the market so anyone who tried to sell helium was undercut by the us government. This was fixed last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 06:13
|
|