|
Radish posted: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. I too hate that Antonin Scalia exists but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:except the so named rational basis review has nothing to do with rationality Wikipedia posted:Under rational basis review, it is "entirely irrelevant" what end the government is actually seeking and statutes can be based on "rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data."[7] Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review. Rational basis = does the lawmaker have a justification and goal in mind? It's not in any way at all a high bar to clear, duder. CommieGIR posted:This is not a first amendment issue, regardless of what the courts say. Yes, exactly. Which is why your preference that asking about guns remains legal and conversion therapy being illegal doesn't matter before a court of law. If restricting one isn't a 1A problem then neither is the other, being the setting for both is in a state licensed professional's office. The time to argue a rational basis issue is before the legislature, not the court, and if the legislators don't listen you're up the creek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:16
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yes, exactly. Which is why your preference that asking about guns remains legal and conversion therapy being illegal doesn't matter. If restricting one isn't a 1A problem then neither is the other, being the setting for both is in a state licensed professional's office. Oh, fair enough, that does make sense now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I can't not see the president and Vice President being family as the prelude to an end of a democracy. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I can't not see the president and Vice President being family as the prelude to an end of a democracy. Why would she even say something like that as a joke? Why does it matter that they're family? It's not like VP is an appointed position; they were both elected to their offices
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Hmm, I hadn't drawn that equivalence before. Thank you, that's interesting! It's not an equivalence. One is talking about prescribing a medical treatment, the other is talking about asking a question. e: from that popehat article: "We distill the following relevant principles from NAAP and Conant: (1) doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection, but the government has more leeway to regulate the conduct necessary to administering treatment itself;" There is nothing about administering treatment in this guns decision. If anything the not-bolded part of the above strengthens the argument that the guns decision is incorrect. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...arily_step_downquote:Eric Fanning made national headlines last September when Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee fibbed about his qualifications to become the next Secretary of the Army. Fanning, who is gay, is immensely qualified and was nominated because of his qualifications to serve as the next head of the Army.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
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. Hmm sounds exactly like computer software to me actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
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? That was great and spot on, aside from the weird slow-motion Bobby Jindal, which I shuddered at
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
quote:"Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., placed a hold on Fanning's nomination in protest over Obama's campaign to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility and transfer detainees to the United States," the AP reports, adding that since Army Undersecretary, Patrick Murphy was confirmed last week, there's now someone else to take charge. But remember, Obama could close Gitmo anytime he wants and he's not closing it because he had progressives!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It's not an equivalence. One is talking about prescribing a medical treatment, the other is talking about asking a question. You're trying too hard. The California law bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed professionals whether or not they ever intend to follow up with any treatment, such as prescribing drugs. The courts approved that part of the Cali law as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're trying too hard. The California law bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed professionals whether or not they ever intend to follow up with any treatment, such as prescribing drugs. The courts approved that part of the Cali law as well. Conversation therapy is (quack) treatment, even if it doesn't include drugs. You're trying to hand-wave away a real and meaningful difference between a law banning doctors from asking a broad range of questions versus a law banning doctors from engaging in a kind of treatment. The fact that "doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection" means the First Amendment is at play here even if you've declared it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You're trying too hard. The California law bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed professionals whether or not they ever intend to follow up with any treatment, such as prescribing drugs. The courts approved that part of the Cali law as well. Conversion therapy is treatment. The speech made during that treatment is regulated differently from non-treatment speech, which you'd know if you'd read the article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
If doctors were supposed to be able to give me advice to improve my health, then why aren't they allowed to give me advice to make my health worse? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Conversion therapy is treatment. The speech made during that treatment is regulated differently from non-treatment speech, which you'd know if you'd read the article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I too hate that Antonin Scalia exists but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I dunno. I think that there's enough decent legal minds in the pool so that you can rotate the "good" ones after a long term while not letting the "bad" ones fester forever. If people are consistently voting in one party over the other I believe that should be reflected rather than just getting lucky and the other side's judge happens to have a heart attack during your guy's term of office. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Conversion therapy is treatment. Its not a real treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
For people that might missed the shitshow that happened in Flint vis a vis poisoning the entire city, here's an article wrapping up the developments and many, many questionsquote:On Tuesday, Governor Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency due to lead in the water supply. The same day, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it is investigating what went wrong in the city. Several top officials have resigned, and Snyder apologized. But that’s only so comforting for residents. They’re drinking donated water supplies—though those donations are reportedly running dry—or using filters. Public schools have been ordered to shut off taps. Residents, and particularly children, are being poisoned by lead, which can cause irreversible brain damage and affect physical health. It could cost $1.5 billion to fix the problem, a staggering sum for any city, much less one already struggling as badly as Flint is. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/what-did-the-governor-know-about-flints-water-and-when-did-he-know-it/423342/
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Conversion therapy is torture, and those who practice it or recommend it should be jailed (and/or beaten by "ex-gay" people forced to go through that poo poo). If you had been reading the thread, you'd see that someone is arguing that if we ban said torture we have to allow states to ban doctors asking about how much fat you eat, if you have the means to commit suicide, how much you drink/smoke, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
IMO, we should ban all surgical procedures because it's illegal for a doctor to drive a broadsword through a patient's chest. They're basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Obama still wants to close Gitmo before his term is up and is considering an EO to do it. Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? And that generally it's kind of corrupt (though I like what Obama's done so far)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? GW's use of them dwarves Obama's exponentially. EDIT: But, yeah, it's not a sign of healthy political system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? People often confuse what exactly an executive order does. Often there are parts of laws or regulations that are not specific and agencies and departments of the federal government can make determinations as to the meaning or intent of the specific the provisions of law. Or another alternative is the agencies have been given specific powers under the law to make decisions on their own a good example is the prosecutorial discretion of the US Justice Department. In both of these cases President Obama as chief executive of the executive branch has the power to instruct his subordinates to either use their legislative granted powers in a specific way or to interpret unclear or ambiguous laws in a specific way. Neither of those uses are corrupt nor a unusual use of American executive power, presidents throughout our history have done similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
As long as the tyranny of doctors recommending that their patients be vaccinated is allowed, why should I get in trouble for cutting out someone's heart and offering it to Xipe Totec?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Have any so-called important people yet drawn a dumb parallel between doctors talking about guns and doctors forcibly counseling women seeking abortions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Phone posted:There's a certain Actually I think you'll find that most people don't like her because of a certain Y-ness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:lol nope, and if any of this was true then conversion therapy for minors in California would also become legal again! Interesting that you support that idiotic SJW safe space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? That ship has long since sailed
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I created a thread for tomorrow's State of the Union speech: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759691
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? Nah https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I created a thread for tomorrow's State of the Union speech: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759691 Hopefully Paul Democrat Ryan will keep Obama from hiding any onions in the podium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Are there any facilities that can convert me away from being straight? I'd like to try out the gay lifestyle, it seems like a great choice and it comes with a pretty cool agenda
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
The Unholy Ghost posted:Serious question: Shouldn't we be worried about the constant use of EOs in the case that it'll encourage future Republican presidents to use them? Shageletic posted:GW's use of them dwarves Obama's exponentially. Scrub-Niggurath posted:That ship has long since sailed If congress would actually do and pass things it wouldn't be a problem, but they famously refuse to do anything and so executive orders are one of the only ways left to get things done. It's similar to the AUMF debacle where we're using the existing AUMF way more broadly that it should be (and our actions in Syria are of a hilariously questionable legality as a result), but the political system is so dysfunctional that there's no other real options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Interesting that you support that idiotic SJW safe space. Interesting that you seem to be using SJW unironically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Are there any facilities that can convert me away from being straight? I'd like to try out the gay lifestyle, it seems like a great choice and it comes with a pretty cool agenda I know this great place called Uncle Elizabeth's that will get you your fill of the gay pretty quickly. The benefits are kind of meh though. No casual Fridays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Are there any facilities that can convert me away from being straight? I'd like to try out the gay lifestyle, it seems like a great choice and it comes with a pretty cool agenda Young man, there's a place you can go. I said, young man, when you're short on your dough. You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find many ways to have a good time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
So how likely is it that the Supreme Court will murder unions with the Friedrichs case today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:So how likely is it that the Supreme Court will murder unions with the Friedrichs case today? I would start making the funeral arrangements
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:So how likely is it that the Supreme Court will murder unions with the Friedrichs case today? Don't worry, it is just public employee unions, which are bad because its our money!!! How dare they argue for increased wages, that comes out of my taxes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Interesting that you support that idiotic SJW safe space. What makes them SJW? I mean besides kicking out the random white supremacist contributor, which is what every decent human being would do in split second.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:56
|
|