|
Vahakyla posted:So why aren't cameras allowed into the courtroom? Are there reasons that make sense about why the court is so secretive? The Justices historically have said they dislike having snippets of argument taken out of context as sound bites. Mostly though it's "because we can." They're public figures already - I'd imagine they're perfectly happy to have one sphere in which they can exert a little control over that. E: also it's not really fair to call it secretive. Everything they say is transcribed and released. Much of it is released in audio format. The public at large can go in and observe. There's nothing secret about it.
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
It's mainly because the court is conducted in the nude, that's the secret.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's mainly because the court is conducted in the nude, that's the secret. They say "all rise", but I'm way ahead of them.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:So why aren't cameras allowed into the courtroom? Are there reasons that make sense about why the court is so secretive? Tradition, mostly. No. Relevant Last Week Tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9prhPV2PI
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Read all three opinions. Found myself actually agreeing with the principal dissent in the bankruptcy case. Consent can't cure constitutional violations, but this wasn't a violation anyway. The more things we can push to article I judges the better (in general).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. They should compromise and make those ineligible voters worth 3/5 of a voter for representational purposes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
duz posted:They should compromise and make those ineligible voters worth 3/5 of a voter for representational purposes.  
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. It's kind of dumb that felons are counted anyway, especially since they're counted at their place of incarceration rather than their previous home address or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. And with the wonders of modern technology, it's easier than ever to purge ineligible voters from the rolls!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's kind of dumb that felons are counted anyway, especially since they're counted at their place of incarceration rather than their previous home address or whatever. Wouldn't be quite as dumb if we actually allowed felons to vote. Reminder that the most common felony in the US is possession of small amounts of drugs. Also felonies: Disorderly conduct, Curfew and loitering, and public drunkenness.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Also felonies: Disorderly conduct, Curfew and loitering, and public drunkenness. In what jurisdictions?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Also felonies: Disorderly conduct, Curfew and loitering, and public drunkenness. Where do you live that any of those are felonies?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Wouldn't be quite as dumb if we actually allowed felons to vote. On the plus side, it would give states a good reason to push for felons to be given their full civil rights backs.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:In what jurisdictions? I had looked for a list of the most common felonies, and this one cited what sounded like a credible source (and also had a list very similar to others). Note: I didn't bother actually checking the source. Some additional googling seems to indicate that disorderly conduct, loitering, and drunkenness can all escalate to felonies in a number of states, but that it isn't automatic. For example, disordly conduct while carrying a firearm, loitering with "malicious intent", loitering in way that interferes with religious observance, a sex offender loitering in a "community safe zone", criminal nuisance, taunting a police animal (seriously), "rioting" (essentially disorderly conduct charge) etc. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 17:34 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I had looked for a list of the most common felonies, and this one cited what sounded like a credible source (and also had a list very similar to others). Note: I didn't bother actually checking the source. Nope. You're citing to the legal advertising equivalent of One Weird Trick. Also, the felon voting situation is more complicated- the state regimes vary widely. 11 states have a permanent bar, though my understanding is that all of those have some (rarely applied) reversal mechanisms. computer parts posted:It's kind of dumb that felons are counted anyway, especially since they're counted at their place of incarceration rather than their previous home address or whatever. Under democratic principles, their vote would probably be more important in determining the governance of their place of incarceration than their previous home address, to the extent that it makes a ballot difference. The real concern is that the restrictions also apply once they're released- but I'm pretty sure residency doesn't stick to the jail once they're released. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. I have to wonder: if it were permissible to do it the way they want it to be done (by eligible/registered voter) instead of total population and that were something that benefited the GOP... why hasn't Texas already done it?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I have to wonder: if it were permissible to do it the way they want it to be done (by eligible/registered voter) instead of total population and that were something that benefited the GOP... why hasn't Texas already done it? Until recently, Texas was subject to VRA pre-clearance.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded. Congrats to the GOP for their upcoming 5-4 victory that allows them to keep hold of power for an additional decade or more. VitalSigns posted:And with the wonders of modern technology, it's easier than ever to purge ineligible voters from the rolls! Crosscheck is so loving evil that it makes Cheney look decent. "Yeah here's millions of people that are definitely illegal voters, so lets purge them all (and likely never tell them). Oh hey look at all these close races we're winning!"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Lol I remember when progressives were on the other side of this, complaining about city criminals being imprisoned in rural prisons to artificially boost their population. And there's nothing wrong with Crosscheck 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I have to wonder: if it were permissible to do it the way they want it to be done (by eligible/registered voter) instead of total population and that were something that benefited the GOP... why hasn't Texas already done it? Texas would disproportionately lose from doing it by eligible voters.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Perhaps they could compromise, with a fraction even.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Lol I remember when progressives were on the other side of this, complaining about city criminals being imprisoned in rural prisons to artificially boost their population. And there's nothing wrong with Crosscheck You know there's a massive difference between prisoners who are completely isolated from the outside world and non-voters who are integrated in the local economy and society and who use public services. We know that. But apparently you don't know that we know that. So I give that attempt at trolling a pity D-.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:And there's nothing wrong with Crosscheck Got a source on that, champ? I would love to be reassured about the state of our democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
In case you thought that taking those two cases wasn't bad enough, for those of you CS and programmer folks keeping track at home, with the White House's response to SCOTUS today, it is looking increasingly unlikely that SCOTUS will take Oracle v. Google, effectively granting copyright to APIs.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:In case you thought that taking those two cases wasn't bad enough, for those of you CS and programmer folks keeping track at home, with the White House's response to SCOTUS today, it is looking increasingly unlikely that SCOTUS will take Oracle v. Google, effectively granting copyright to APIs. I'm not sure I understand google's claim or the open source handwringing about APIs being copywritable. Google basically rewrote a chunk of Java, but they also flat out copied portions of the Java api without licensing it and then sold it commercially. By preventing that, I don't think the roof is going to fall. Also the article you linked is written by the brother of a google exec and is certainly biased.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
So a state like Texas or Florida will get the benefit of having more reps to count to their population but won't have to include them in their districts? Isn't that unfair to other states who don't have a bigger immigrant population?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:So a state like Texas or Florida will get the benefit of having more reps to count to their population but won't have to include them in their districts? Isn't that unfair to other states who don't have a bigger immigrant population? To be fair, the same is true for California, New York and New Jersey. Of course they would also be losing prison populations, which is going to effect rural areas and Southern States the most. Kids should be somewhat uniform. Assuming every state follows the new rules, I'm not entirely sure this would, in aggregate, benefit either party. It will make gerrymandering somewhat more difficult since Bumfuck, Nowhere's giant prison isn't going to count towards population anymore and minority districts are going to be even harder to justifiably combine in states with redistricting regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Kids should be somewhat uniform. Kids are going to have way more impact than prisons. Under 18 populations, per county, vary between 0 and 42% according to the 2010 census. Guess where kids are most concentrated. fosborb fucked around with this message at 13:12 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Kids are going to have way more impact than prisons. Under 18 populations, per county, vary between 0 and 42% according to the 2010 census. Guess where kids are most concentrated. No, the assessment is right. Counties are a level too low to be really concerned with that effect. You'll be apportioned your # of CDs based on the overall state population, not per county population. Most states are somewhere in the 24-26% range of under-18 voters. Utah and Maine are the major outliers at 31% and 20%. You aren't required to stitch CDs based on county lines either.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
The one-man one-vote case affects only the distribution of representatives in the state, not the number they get, which is fixed by the 14th Amendment as based on the number of actual people, reduced by the percentage of over-21 male citizens denied the right to vote:quote:Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. I don't actually think the 'male' part and the '21' part are amended by the amendments guaranteeing the vote to women and 18-21 year olds.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The one-man one-vote case affects only the distribution of representatives in the state, not the number they get, which is fixed by the 14th Amendment as based on the number of actual people, reduced by the percentage of over-21 male citizens denied the right to vote: I thought the point of contention was what "persons" counted as.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Got a source on that, champ? I would love to be reassured about the state of our democracy. Well democracy is questionably good and felon disenfranchisement is definitely bad, but you accept these premises what's wrong with making sure people aren't registered in multiple locations? Mr. Nice! posted:I'm not sure I understand google's claim or the open source handwringing about APIs being copywritable. Google basically rewrote a chunk of Java, but they also flat out copied portions of the Java api without licensing it and then sold it commercially. By preventing that, I don't think the roof is going to fall. Also the article you linked is written by the brother of a google exec and is certainly biased. Just as a single example, it likely would've been impossible for Firefox to correctly render designed-for-IE pages back when that was a thing without copying Microsoft's APIs. It's a massive change.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
That case has a ton of nuance in it, the Supreme Court could just want to correct some other aspect of the decision. Finding the file/function that was copied irrelevant for example.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:...what's wrong with making sure people aren't registered in multiple locations?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Just as a single example, it likely would've been impossible for Firefox to correctly render designed-for-IE pages back when that was a thing without copying Microsoft's APIs. It's a massive change. That was something that would have been addressed and allowed under fair use or some other sort of legal principle. Google blatantly stole code with the attitude "let them sue us if they don't like it" because they refused to license java. I remember back when the case first came out I read the decision and agreed with it that google violated Oracle's copyright and nothing I've seen since has really made a compelling argument otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That was something that would have been addressed and allowed under fair use or some other sort of legal principle. Google blatantly stole code with the attitude "let them sue us if they don't like it" because they refused to license java. Copying an API is not stealing code.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'm not sure I understand google's claim or the open source handwringing about APIs being copywritable. Google basically rewrote a chunk of Java, but they also flat out copied portions of the Java api without licensing it and then sold it commercially. By preventing that, I don't think the roof is going to fall. Also the article you linked is written by the brother of a google exec and is certainly biased. APIs are definitions on how to interact with software. By definition you have to copy it, otherwise you can't interact with the program. Making APIs copyrightable means that now every single Windows program written by non-Microsoft companies now infringe on Microsoft's copyrights. Unless of course they got permission from Microsoft, which I'm sure they'll never reject anyone for spurious reasons. Or to put it in terms a goon would care about, every single game on Steam would violate Valve's copyrights. duz fucked around with this message at 14:52 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:what's wrong with making sure people aren't registered in multiple locations? 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 14:58
|
|