|
Once this case finally gets en banc review or SCOTUS (i haven't followed the case closely so I don't have any idea why why same panel of judges issued 3 separate opinions weighing on different levels of constitutional scrutiny) I am pretty sure this unbelievably retarded decision will be reversed. As bad as SCOTUS is it's important to remember that the current court LOVES the First Amendment, to varying ends ideologically, and that would most likely trump this weird imaginary 2nd Amendment right to avoid being told you should not allow your child to kill themselves
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:It's not about whether legislatures can respect speech or not. Restricting 1st amendment rights is usually constitutionally justified by a compelling competing interest; in this case, the absurd precedent being set is that merely telling people that guns are dangerous is a grievous violation of the 2nd amendment. Which is NUTS. Actually the case is literally about if the legislature can restrict the speech of professionals in the course of their duties. That's the literal case. This is not me expressing a positive view of this law but rather me having a basic understanding of how our legal system and judicial system work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Noone is arguing that the legislature can't restrict speech. They can, but it has to be justified. In this case, the court believes doctors telling patients that maybe you shouldn't keep a gun in your office when you are suffering from depression is a violation of the 2nd amendment and justifies that infringement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Noone is arguing that the legislature can't restrict speech. They can, but it has to be justified. In this case, the court believes doctors telling patients that maybe you shouldn't keep a gun in your office when you are suffering from depression is a violation of the 2nd amendment and justifies that infringement. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. There is already established precedent that regulating the speech of professionals in the course of their profession is an allowed area of legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
 The article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/01/florida_s_docs_vs_glocks_bans_doctors_from_discussing_guns.html The quote: quote:Proponents of such laws say these doctor-patient dialogues violate the patients’ Second Amendment rights. If that's not enough - why do you think the district court ruled against the state to begin with? Perhaps they are liberal activist judges with no regard for precedent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:This case has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. There is already established precedent that regulating the speech of professionals in the course of their profession is an allowed area of legislation. Did you read the article? The court has released three separate decisions. The first upheld the law under regulation of professional speech. The third explicitly referred to the 2nd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Our President's middle name is Hussein. I think voters are smart enough to realize there are other Castros besides Fidel. Middle names do not denote parentage. Edit: for example, in the last page of this thread someone treated Hillary as a dynastic candidate even though she isn't a blood relative of Bill because it is our tradition for wives to change their last names to match their husband. She didn't change her name when they got married but was pressured into doing so in Arkansas when voters indicated they could not respect Bill if he couldn't even get his wife to change her name. In contrast, the middle name has no cultural significance. McAlister fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
I applaud Salt Fish's consistency - if the state cannot destroy individuals we should encourage them to liberate themselves from material reality. Suicide Booths at every corner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Middle names denote ideological adherence, especially when spelled in allcaps. I.e. Barack HUSSEIN Obama: very dangerous!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Middle names do not denote parentage. What? They do for nearly half of the population!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I applaud Salt Fish's consistency - if the state cannot destroy individuals we should encourage them to liberate themselves from material reality. Suicide Booths at every corner. I'm not pro gun or in favor of the law that was passed, I'm just in favor of criticizing things for the right reason. Blaming these judges is pointless and scorn is more correctly placed on the legislators. If people actually want to bring about change they need to know how to spend their energy and attention efficiently. Blaming the court for this poo poo law is a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I'm not pro gun or in favor of the law that was passed, I'm just in favor of criticizing things for the right reason. Blaming these judges is pointless and scorn is more correctly placed on the legislators. If people actually want to bring about change they need to know how to spend their energy and attention efficiently. Blaming the court for this poo poo law is a waste of time. Courts should never be insulated from protest or criticism. I'm glad Sandra Day O'Conner felt the Supreme Court lost it's omnipotence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Courts should never be insulated from protest or criticism. I'm glad Sandra Day O'Conner felt the Supreme Court lost it's omnipotence. Did she feel this was a good, bad, or neutral thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:Did she feel this was a good, bad, or neutral thing? She felt it was bad because the Supremes couldn't operate in a vacuum anymore, but also she didn't take too kindly to Supremes getting death threats, which is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
From the guy who brought you the Too Many Chefs parody with all the presidential candidates, What if the State of the Union was a Wes Anderson Movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2nP-hci-AQ
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:From the guy who brought you the Too Many Chefs parody with all the presidential candidates, What if the State of the Union was a Wes Anderson Movie? Sad to see his aesthetic lose all the bright colors, but who can't love Anderson's classic quirkily/irritatingly idiosyncratic characters?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Obama still wants to close Gitmo before his term is up and is considering an EO to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:She felt it was bad because the Supremes couldn't operate in a vacuum anymore, but also she didn't take too kindly to Supremes getting death threats, which is understandable. For me, the layman, it feels like the SCOTUS looks at itself like a computer that you put a legal question in, it computes a billion lines of legal code, and then it spits out an answer based on logic while in reality they are political and subject to ruling based on their personal opinions (admittedly they are able to make legal citations to justify them) just like the unwashed masses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Radish posted:For me, the layman, it feels like the SCOTUS looks at itself like a computer that you put a legal question in, it computes a billion lines of legal code, and then it spits out an answer based on logic while in reality they are political and subject to ruling based on their personal opinions (admittedly they are able to make legal citations to justify them) just like the unwashed masses. They're in a real predicament because the first thing that you described is impossible. Laws are written by committees of humans and are frequently contradictory, poorly defined, or otherwise impossible to analyze objectively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Middle names denote ideological adherence, especially when spelled in allcaps. Soo ... You support my assertion that middle names are not a successful vector for name based attacks? It's not insurmountable - esp if Rubio is the top of the GOP ticket causing the hardcore racists to short circuit - but given that a common slander against Hillary is that she is a commie who wants to be a dictator and take your freedums ... Having the name of someone widely viewed as a commie military dictator who had to make leaving his country illegal to keep people in it on the ticket ... Yeah. It's an unfortunate juxtaposition. Although some of her debate lines make more sense if she is preparing ground for it by firmly establishing "I like capitalism" first to try to immunize against that line of attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:They're in a real predicament because the first thing that you described is impossible. Laws are written by committees of humans and are frequently contradictory, poorly defined, or otherwise impossible to analyze objectively. Worst of all, Congress will sometimes write vague laws to be reinterpreted as needed later, or just refuse to interpret them after the fact, precisely so they can outsource the tough political decision-making to the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Obama still wants to close Gitmo before his term is up and is considering an EO to do it. DemeaninDemon posted:We survived 12 years of Bush rule without transforming into the First Continental Empire of America and they had a Sith Lord as VP for a long while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Once this case finally gets en banc review or SCOTUS (i haven't followed the case closely so I don't have any idea why why same panel of judges issued 3 separate opinions weighing on different levels of constitutional scrutiny) I am pretty sure this unbelievably retarded decision will be reversed. As bad as SCOTUS is it's important to remember that the current court LOVES the First Amendment, to varying ends ideologically, and that would most likely trump this weird imaginary 2nd Amendment right to avoid being told you should not allow your child to kill themselves TheDeadlyShoe posted:Noone is arguing that the legislature can't restrict speech. They can, but it has to be justified. In this case, the court believes doctors telling patients that maybe you shouldn't keep a gun in your office when you are suffering from depression is a violation of the 2nd amendment and justifies that infringement. lol nope, and if any of this was true then conversion therapy for minors in California would also become legal again! That California law uses the exact same legal power that Florida is using here. Whether or not you think it's "justified" doesn't matter because of how rational basis review works. And rational basis is what's currently applied to professional speech regarding conversion therapy and guns. Not strict scrutiny. Basically, as long as the person proposing the bill isn't literally caught on tape going "And I'm doing this because I hate the Jeeeeews!" you're going to pass rational basis. Read more and learn: https://popehat.com/2013/08/29/ninth-circuit-rejects-first-amendment-challenge-to-california-law-banning-conversion-therapy/
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:40
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
McAlister posted:In contrast, the middle name has no cultural significance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:https://popehat.com/2013/08/29/ninth-circuit-rejects-first-amendment-challenge-to-california-law-banning-conversion-therapy/ Holy poo poo, so much Libertarianism in the comments "Deregulate the Medical Industry! Caveat Emptor, patients!" And no, doctors should have the right to counsel their patients on the dangers of firearms. The emotional health of their patients is their business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:lol nope, and if any of this was true then conversion therapy for minors in California would also become legal again! Hmm, I hadn't drawn that equivalence before. Thank you, that's interesting!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And no, doctors should have the right to counsel their patients on the dangers of firearms. The emotional health of their patients is their business. Doctors have options/duties if the patient presents an imminent threat to himself or others, at least. But otherwise I guess doctors could just refuse to treat patients whom they can't counsel effectively? Is that the wrong side of the Hippocratic oath?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:If I remember right at least part of it has to do with Michelle hating DC and not wanting to stick around any longer than they have to. IIRC they want to move back to Illinois or New York, but probably New York. They have connections in New York through some of MIchelle's personal and philanthropic work, Barack has connections there still apparently. There's talks of Martha's Vineyard being a landing spot. It's all up in the air. Maybe they'll stay in the Washington area until both Sasha and Malia are out of highschool. Depends on who you ask. Some of their old Chicago connections who have known the Obamas for a long time say they'll go elsewhere, some say they'll come back. Some are also saying they'll keep their Hyde Park address and come back every so often. Who knows. I kinda hope they comeback. If they do re-settle in a the area it would be cool for them to go to nice south side neighborhood or south/southwest suburb. I can't imagine they would move the North Shore. I grew up on the North Shore. A decent chunk of white rich folk are https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...2899_story.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:But otherwise I guess doctors could just refuse to treat patients whom they can't counsel effectively? Is that the wrong side of the Hippocratic oath? They already do this. A lot of pediatricians are not refusing to see patients that refuse to follow vaccination schedules, because it introduces possible harm to their patients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And no, doctors should have the right to counsel their patients on the dangers of firearms. The emotional health of their patients is their business. I doubt doctors would ever be restricted from doing this in blue states. But that's kind of the trade-off isn't it? You drop the bar from strict scrutiny (assuming it was ever that high for licensed doctors in the first place) in order to stop something like conversion therapy and you have to accept the other team might use that power as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Out of curiosity, why not? Usually people bitching about her are mad that she collaborates to much. And she is the Johnny Appleseed of charities - once they are stable and self sustaining she moves on which requires passing the torch to someone else. People seem to think she's literally Kevin Spacey in 'House of Cards'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I doubt doctors would ever be restricted from doing this in blue states. But that's kind of the trade-off isn't it? You drop the bar from strict scrutiny (assuming it was ever that high for licensed doctors in the first place) in order to stop something like conversion therapy and you have to accept the other team might use that power as well. How is that dropping the bar on scrutiny? That RAISES the bar, especially due to the fact that Conversion Therapy was NEVER a recognized treatment, the APA viewed it as torture even before they removed being gay as a disease from the DSM. Conversion Theory is in the same leagues as Homeopathy and Naturopathy: Its pseudoscience being pushed as valid based on nothing other than religious conviction. The 1st Amendment was never for ensuring the freedom to torture people, especially teenagers and children, to fulfill your religious bias against a sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:People seem to think she's literally Kevin Spacey in 'House of Cards'. The response to Hillary is the clearest sign of propaganda I can think of. No one actually complains about what she *does*, it's always "I just get an uneasy feeling when I think about her".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I doubt doctors would ever be restricted from doing this in blue states. But that's kind of the trade-off isn't it? You drop the bar from strict scrutiny (assuming it was ever that high for licensed doctors in the first place) in order to stop something like conversion therapy and you have to accept the other team might use that power as well. We should be able to draw a line between actively harmful speech masquerading as treatment versus restricting the speech of doctors to ask about the things in someone's life that can cause them harm or death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
There's a certain
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:For me, the layman, it feels like the SCOTUS looks at itself like a computer that you put a legal question in, it computes a billion lines of legal code, and then it spits out an answer based on logic while in reality they are political and subject to ruling based on their personal opinions (admittedly they are able to make legal citations to justify them) just like the unwashed masses. The lifetime appointment was supposed to make it so that justices are insulated from the politics surrounding the issue they're deciding on. Unfortunately, it doesn't insulate them from the politics at the time of their nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We should be able to draw a line between actively harmful speech masquerading as treatment versus restricting the speech of doctors to ask about the things in someone's life that can cause them harm or death. You are able to do just that under rational basis review... with a 51% majority vote in the legislature. And sometimes the other team has 51%. CommieGIR posted:How is that dropping the bar on scrutiny? That RAISES the bar, especially due to the fact that Conversion Therapy was NEVER a recognized treatment, the APA viewed it as torture even before they removed being gay as a disease from the DSM. None of that does anything to tell you whether the level of scrutiny for a given setting is at rational, intermediate, or strict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You are able to do just that under rational basis review... with a 51% majority vote in the legislature. And sometimes the other team has 51%. except the so named rational basis review has nothing to do with rationality
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:None of that does anything to tell you whether the level of scrutiny for a given setting is at rational, intermediate, or strict. Uhhhhhhh....The American Pediatric Association and the American Medical Association would like a word with you... No, seriously, that's some really flawed argument you are presenting there: Nearly everything your doctor does has to follow some sort of rational and prescribed plan that has been tested and reviewed for efficacy. Its part of why doctors are required to constantly attend summits and conferences on new methods. Hell, its why we only allow peer reviewed and approved methods to be used in medical practice. Its ALSO why the Florida Physicians Association is so upset over not being able to ensure their patients are safe, because there is a rational and proven connection to safety in the home and patient health. This is not a first amendment issue, regardless of what the courts say. http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...dium=SocialFlow Planned Parenthood has, for the first time, endorsed a Presidential Candidate in a primary: Its Clinton of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The lifetime appointment was supposed to make it so that justices are insulated from the politics surrounding the issue they're deciding on. Unfortunately, it doesn't insulate them from the politics at the time of their nomination. I think a better way to handle it (at least as far as IANAL myself sees it) would be to give them a set amount of presidential terms (maybe four so basically 16 years) before being forced to retire the position. I don't really understand why someone appointed two decades ago should be making extremely important political decisions now and there is no way for people to do anything at all about it. The SCOTUS shouldn't have to worry about being voted out by a reactionary public but also we should have some way of moving the bench in a direction based on politics reflecting the current country instead of just hoping they die somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:12
|
|