|
GlyphGryph posted:Kalman, can you explain how limitations on straight up "pay politician to do what I want" stuff isn't a violation of free speech? I'd be interested in seeing how you justify it. The System First, it's important to understand the system of government we (in the US) follow. In a representative form of government, the people realize that dealing with the daily issues of government is too cumbersome, so they appoint people who can fulfill their interests, based on some criteria (usually by voting). In the US in particular, representatives are much more independent than in Europe - you don't vote for "The Democratic Party", you vote for "Bob, who's part of the Democratic Party". Because of this increased independence, Bob might vary from the party at large on some issues. It's therefore important to let Bob know how you (the person he's representing) stand on an issue. The usual way you get a politician's attention is by voting. In this method, you promise to support Bob, and in exchange he'll do what you tell him to (or at least keep it in mind). The average representative needs votes from hundreds of thousands of people though, so your individual voice won't make much impact. A lot of people solve this issue by finding likeminded people who can vote for Bob, and making a group. This group says "We will vote for you, if you support [Position X]". Bob is much more likely to listen to them, since they're a larger part of the people who might vote for him. Not everyone is equally invested though. A lot of people might support [Position X] but for one reason or another don't want to be active in this group. If they know Bob supports that position however, they're more likely to vote for him. So this group tells Bob "Hey everyone we know supports [Position X], and if you say you support it, we'll tell everyone about it". Or it might even be something like "Hey Bob, we know you support [Position Y] and we know a lot of people here support it. If you support [Position X], we'll let everyone know how much you support [Position Y] as well." In effect, representative democracy is built on the idea of transactional relationships. Bob supports a position, people who also support that position vote for him. People don't know that Bob supports a position, so people help out Bob in exchange for his support on other bills. Corruption Now let's talk about how corruption. In general, corruption as you probably imagine it is defined by a lack of impartialness. Some examples are: - A politician takes money from an infrastructure project (like a bridge) and puts it in their personal account. - A board that determines who gets a project gives it to a company in exchange for money or gifts. - A judge dismisses a DUI charge against a rich person in exchange for money or gifts. In all of these cases, there is an understood system, and it's violated in some way in exchange for personal gain. The money that was allocated to the bridge had no reason to be part of the politician's bank account. The judge is supposed to be impartial, yet is paid to distribute the law unequally, etc. The rich person isn't paying for everyone to get off of DUIs, just for themselves. The Difference As I elaborated above, it is possible for politicians to be corrupt. That doesn't mean they are impartial either. Politicians are the antithesis of impartial - they are designed to fulfill their constituent's desires, and fulfill this through transactional relationships. You scratch Bob's back, and Bob will scratch yours. That's why elected judges are a very bad idea - Judges (at least in theory) are intended to be impartial, so by having campaigns to fund you are by necessity distorting the law in favor of a certain result. This gets murky when you take into account Common Law tradition, but the basic idea still stands. The controversy people have with corporations exploiting this transactional relationship is that they're not really local at all. A corporation can fund Bob in California just as easily as Jill in Colorado, while your average constituent can't do that. You don't get this issue with (eg) a Union, because the union at least has significant numbers of people in the area. Solutions - Get rid of Single Member Districts. Note that this is not "First Past the Post", though the idea is similar. In a single member district, you vote for a candidate that happens to belong to a party, instead of a party that has a certain candidate. This is how you're able to get people switching parties yet keeping their seats, like Arlen Specter. Switching over to a more proportional system will encourage party unity, and diffuse the effects of transactional relationships at the local level (it'll still be an issue at higher levels, which might be a problem). - Decrease the size of districts. If you can't pass a proportional system, this is the second best idea. The average House member represents nearly 700,000 people, which is too large for most groups to organize and turn out. By increasing the number of districts, politicians have to appeal to fewer people and as such are less swayed by corporate aid. - Remove Judicial Elections. The idea of a judge is to be impartial, and the express goal of elections is to be as partial as possible. This is bad.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
botany posted:And of course if somebody proposed a law that said that only political parties / candidates can run political advertisements, that would violate the first amendment. Got it. Uhhh yes it absolutely would? I don't see how anyone could read the 1A and possibly think otherwise. botany posted:Out of curiosity, what would Kalman etc. think of the way campaign financing is handled in coutries like Germany, where most of the political parties' funds come from public subsidies and membership dues? There's probably no reason why you couldn't give public funding to parties. But such a law would have no bearing on super PACs running their own ads as much as they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 17:57
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
BiohazrD posted:Make all bills be written using only the 100 most common words. That's 86 more words than the GOP needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
botany posted:And of course if somebody proposed a law that said that only political parties / candidates can run political advertisements, that would violate the first amendment. Got it. Unironically correct, not only for first amendment reasons, but also because the distinction between commercial, personal, and political interest isn't always clear-cut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I wasn't being facetious, I just understood where the problem was with a German-style implementation of campaign financing under the current US law and wanted to put it down in writing in case I was wrong on some aspect or had overlooked something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
How jeopardized could the free market of ideas possibly be with the presence of a lightly regulated internet? How much has politics really changed since citizens united? Am I crazy in thinking that the level of activism and hand wringing over citizens united and campaign finance issues are a bit overblown? Eliminating Super PACs wouldn't somehow magically restore people's faith in the government. I'm not saying it would hurt, but using that as a the justification for some kind of major legal shift seems like it would need to be fleshed out pretty significantly. I do like the proposal of just packing the court with 9 like minded judges though. While we're at it we should just appoint someone president for life and dissolve the senate. Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:How jeopardized could the free market of ideas possibly be with the presence of a lightly regulated internet? How much has politics really changed since citizens united? Before Citizen's United, people were complaining about 527 groups. Before 527 groups, people were complaining about bundlers. Before bundlers, people complained about "soft money". I don't remember much about campaign finance reform in the 90s but I think that was a big part of Perot's thing in 92 and 96.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, your reasoning is completely contradictory to basically every First Amendment doctrine in existence. Lets not pretend here that most lawyers understand the law outside of the particular subset they practice, and even half of those have just memorized everything without actually internalizing any of the why. I've observed way too many lawyers being completely loving wrong and/or missing the point, in court in their fields of practice even, to not reflexively eye roll at this comment. At least laymen usually have awareness of the fact they better double check everything they say, attorney's commenting out of their practice area are, to borrow a phrase from my wife, "the most confidently wrong people in the world". The ability to understand the law rests on the ability to see it as a complex system instead of a series of input and outputs, which in my experience is something that is unfortunately only loosely correlated with formal legal training. Avenging_Mikon posted:As a Canadian, reading these past few pages is frankly horrifying. Money is speech, slavish devotion to documents made before mass communication was a thing, and refusal to potentially limit damaging speech because you don't trust your government. Money as speech is loving ridiculous on the face of it, and you can't logically argue that saying money is speech doesn't immediately cause an unequal balance of power. But some people said it once, so gently caress you, it's true forever. "Slavish devotion to documents" is the very foundation that modern liberal society rests on. The idea that using money to purchase television ads isn't a form of speech is loving ridiculous on the face of it and the countries that manage to limit it (I'm assuming Canada is one) do so because they do not have the free speech guarantees in their respective constitutions/governing documents that the US has. RuanGacho posted:He means that you and Kalman are more concerned with soulless pedantry than if your slavish devotion to contemporary judiciary interpretation/policy might have ill effects. This is the loving Supreme Court thread, it's the one thread in the entire loving forum where you don't get to throw a temper tantrum and yell at everyone for being "pedants" because they insist that words actually have meanings and insist you discuss the legal system as it actually exists. If you want to ignorantly mewl about how the only thing standing between us and communist utopia is a cabal of evil corporations that just won't let us flip the "on" switch then please take it to USPOL where it belongs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
More to the point, if you're using terms from existing law or policy to justify what you think the law should be, you kind of have to stick to those terms as exist. "I think, and you agreed, we should get a Labrador Retriever as a family dog, as it is generally uncontroversial that Labs make good family pets. The Lab I want will be medium-sized, solidly built, short-coated, and with smooth, well-defined musculature. It will have a broad, flat skull, a wide, deep muzzle, and a cropped tail and ears. It will have strong fighting and protective instincts." "What you are describing is a Pit Bull or guard dog, not a Labrador." "No, no, no, I'm not saying we should get a guard dog, that wouldn't be a good pet. Look, maybe what I want doesn't technically conform to the breed standard, but I'm not an expert on dog breeding and I can't be expected to be 100% on point with the technical language before making suggestions for a family pet. To my mind, it's a Labrador, and it is agreed that Labradors make good family dogs. Stop being a pedant. Maybe one of the breeders in this thread should contribute positive suggestions for breeding a Labrador with the qualities I want instead of just being negative and shooting everything down."Avenging_Mikon posted:As a Canadian, reading these past few pages is frankly horrifying. Money is speech, slavish devotion to documents made before mass communication was a thing, and refusal to potentially limit damaging speech because you don't trust your government. Money as speech is loving ridiculous on the face of it, and you can't logically argue that saying money is speech doesn't immediately cause an unequal balance of power. But some people said it once, so gently caress you, it's true forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
Well, there's another way a politician can be "corrupt," in the sense that the politician is not fullfilling the constituent's desires and is engaging in transactional relationships that run counter to the idea of representative democracy. The problem is not so much individual corruption, it's systemic corruption. The reality we're dealing with is that politics is not, in fact, purely transactional in the sense you're describing. The "vote for me, I do what you want" compact doesn't really exist, because politicians and media and advertising actively shape what voters want. Big Money actively shapes constituent desires, and a powerful enough donor (or, for that matter, media conglomerate) can wholly shape the expressed preferences of significant portions of the voter base (Fox News being the clearest example of this). It's not a perfect process at all -- part of the reason the modern Republican Party is a shambles is because the narratives they were selling got out of hand -- but it's real and it's a powerfully damaging force in our electoral process (as the rise of Trump shows). The "can you donate" transaction has functionally replaced or is in the process of replacing the "vote for me" transaction. Constituent voices matter far less than donor voices, because big enough donors let you sway (enough) constituents. As per the article I posted above, some 400 families have donated roughly half of all political spending dollars so far in this presidential cycle. The interests and desires of those elites -- people who get listened to and paid attention to because they're willing to drop immense cash -- are in danger of drowning out the problems and concerns of everyone who isn't a millionaire. This isn't "corruption" in the sense that there's a quid pro quo, but it is a corrupt system, in the sense that the system is not serving the goals and desires of the electorate, but is instead serving the goals and desires of the elites. (This is also why each of the last three or four political cycles has had a major "throw the bums out" theme, and that said theme has gone increasingly manic over time; people know their government is not serving them or their desires or interests, and they're resorting to increasingly radical candidates because nothing else is working. Kawasaki Nun posted:How jeopardized could the free market of ideas possibly be with the presence of a lightly regulated internet? How much has politics really changed since citizens united? Am I crazy in thinking that the level of activism and hand wringing over citizens united and campaign finance issues are a bit overblown? Eliminating Super PACs wouldn't somehow magically restore people's faith in the government. I'm not saying it would hurt, but using that as a the justification for some kind of major legal shift seems like it would need to be fleshed out pretty significantly. What I'm proposing isn't some unprecedented revolution, or at least, it's no bigger a shift than has happened plenty of times before in the Court's history (the overturning of the Lochner era cases, etc.). It's no constitutional amendment and there are plenty of supreme court opinions that can be cited in support of what I've proposed (as I did above). Admittedly almost all of them are dissents, overturned cases, or cases where I'm leaning heavily on the "absent a compelling interest" clause, but it's all supportable or justifiable from existing precedents. quote:
That was an extreme example as a hypothetical. Realistically most of the decisions we've discussed were 5-4 and included Scalia. Appoint a new Souter to Scalia's empty seat and this all becomes at least theoretically possible. Jarmak posted:Lets not pretend here that most lawyers understand the law outside of the particular subset they practice, and even half of those have just memorized everything without actually internalizing any of the why. I've observed way too many lawyers being completely loving wrong and/or missing the point, in court in their fields of practice even, to not reflexively eye roll at this comment. The only difference between a lawyer and a nonlawyer is the ability to finance law school & the bar exam. That said, it's only a matter of time before some idiot gets dinged for malpractice for saying "I am a lawyer and I think X is legal/illegal" on an internet forum and then some drat fool takes that advice and relies on it to their detriment. quote:"Slavish devotion to documents" is the very foundation that modern liberal society rests on. The idea that using money to purchase television ads isn't a form of speech is loving ridiculous on the face of it and the countries that manage to limit it (I'm assuming Canada is one) do so because they do not have the free speech guarantees in their respective constitutions/governing documents that the US has. For the record, I think I've been pretty clear that I agree money is speech for the purpose of this discussion. I'm just saying the discussion doesn't end there. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Unless it wouldn't, because he's making a bog standard crit argument as to how the Court works Yes, and thanks. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only difference between a lawyer and a nonlawyer is the ability to finance law school & the bar exam. And the only difference between a chemist and a non-chemist is the ability to finance a chem degree but you generally don't see laymen arguing in the chem thread about how chirality works in reactions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
So basically, there's nothing going on with the SCOTUS right now?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:So basically, there's nothing going on with the SCOTUS right now? https://whitehouse.github.io/scotus-confirmation-tracker/ Garland is now at the same amount of days as Roberts for the first phase so expect this to start becoming a news story again soon.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:So basically, there's nothing going on with the SCOTUS right now? At this point no more arguments are scheduled this term. Still waiting on a bunch of opinions though, and cert grants/denials continue.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:So basically, there's nothing going on with the SCOTUS right now? I heard they just gave the FBI the greenlight to spy on whomever they want without a warrant, but a google search has a lot of sites I've never heard of and even more with Alex Jones so I have no idea if it's legit or just some crazies misreading something. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I heard they just gave the FBI the greenlight to spy on whomever they want without a warrant, but a google search has a lot of sites I've never heard of and even more with Alex Jones so I have no idea if it's legit or just some crazies misreading something. They adjusted the rules for where you can obtain a warrant in instances in which there's some sort of technological obfuscation of location. You still need a warrant in the same circumstances though, you just don't need to provide one in every single district the computer might be in when you can't nail it down. Also it doesn't go into effect until December, during which time Congress could (theoretically) reject the rule change.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They adjusted the rules for where you can obtain a warrant in instances in which there's some sort of technological obfuscation of location. I find that vaguely unsettling but can't really put my finger on why. Are there any remotely comparable precedents for "here is a warrant to search this [thing], when you figure out where it is"? As far as I can tell the official word of the "decision" was just a thumbs-up for the White House's proposed amendment. Edit: although I guess the worst case scenario here is judge-shopping if it crosses jurisdictions, which isn't the scariest thing the FBI does on any given week.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I heard they just gave the FBI the greenlight to spy on whomever they want without a warrant, but a google search has a lot of sites I've never heard of and even more with Alex Jones so I have no idea if it's legit or just some crazies misreading something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
The EFF still counts as crazy. The reason for the change is that hackers were relying on obfuscation of district. The alternative is frequently "well, I guess we can't do anything about this active criminal enterprise" .
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:21 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I find that vaguely unsettling but can't really put my finger on why. Are there any remotely comparable precedents for "here is a warrant to search this [thing], when you figure out where it is"? I am no expert, but won't warrants for a car be like that? Though I suppose those are a bit more specific (may have plates and VIN...)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The EFF still counts as crazy. The reason for the change is that hackers were relying on obfuscation of district. The alternative is frequently "well, I guess we can't do anything about this active criminal enterprise" Except put in some fuckin' police work. That would be hard though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The EFF still counts as crazy. The reason for the change is that hackers were relying on obfuscation of district. The alternative is frequently "well, I guess we can't do anything about this active criminal enterprise" if they can't show where the computer is located, how are they showing the hacking target is the criminal in question? grabbing an IP/mac address off the internet isn't exactly a strong identifier of a machine
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if they can't show where the computer is located, how are they showing the hacking target is the criminal in question? grabbing an IP/mac address off the internet isn't exactly a strong identifier of a machine The non crazy explanation I had read was that the FBI weren't getting a new, local warrant once they had found out where the computer was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
duz posted:The non crazy explanation I had read was that the FBI weren't getting a new, local warrant once they had found out where the computer was. but the eff said this allows for remote hacking of the computer specified by the warrant? i guess i need to read more about this but it does sound concerning
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:but the eff said this allows for remote hacking of the computer specified by the warrant? i guess i need to read more about this but it does sound concerning That's always been allowed and the EFF has never liked it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Eff is a bunch of tech disruption synergy unicorn nerds who worry constantly about the NSA raiding their MLP erotica stashes. This isn't a big deal and no one should be upset about it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Except put in some fuckin' police work. That would be hard though. Unfortunately, the EFF are more likely right, and warrants on tech related crimes are being decided and approved with little or no consideration by people who haven't the foggiest what hacking even is, let alone the technical expertise to decide what counts as exceeding the warrant. And considering the FBIs notorious history with not only exceeding the scope of the law like COINTELPRO and others, the EFF has plenty of good reason to be concerned. Long and short: Both the SCOTUS and the Legislative Branch are extremely technoloically inept, and probably shouldn't be making slap dash decisions on hacking for law enforcement and encryption CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 07:14 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Eff is a bunch of tech disruption synergy unicorn nerds who worry constantly about the NSA raiding their MLP erotica stashes. This isn't a big deal and no one should be upset about it. Affirmed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And the only difference between a chemist and a non-chemist is the ability to finance a chem degree but you generally don't see laymen arguing in the chem thread about how chirality works in reactions. You also don't see physicists claiming to be chemistry experts because they took an intro level general chemistry class while getting their physics degree 10 years ago and "non-scientists" are just incapable of understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And the only difference between a chemist and a non-chemist is the ability to finance a chem degree but you generally don't see laymen arguing in the chem thread about how chirality works in reactions. If you're a lawyer you ought to be able to distinguish between talking about what the law is, and what the law should be, and realize that being a lawyer gives you no particular insight into the latter. I haven't been able to respond to your posts for a bit but the flaw is largely a complete disconnect from the real world and raising purely theoretical concerns while denying real-world impacts that are currently occurring. This is a dumb and lovely way to try to shut down an argument.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if they can't show where the computer is located, how are they showing the hacking target is the criminal in question? grabbing an IP/mac address off the internet isn't exactly a strong identifier of a machine They are showing that its reasonably likely based on the evidence they have, that's part of the standard and not changed by the new rule.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You also don't see physicists claiming to be chemistry experts because they took an intro level general chemistry class while getting their physics degree 10 years ago and "non-scientists" are just incapable of understanding. You would see all sorts of engineers making this exact claim, at least.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you're a lawyer you ought to be able to distinguish between talking about what the law is, and what the law should be, and realize that being a lawyer gives you no particular insight into the latter. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Am I allowed to think that the current state of affairs is actually morally abhorrent and probably impairing our ability to function well as a democracy, while also recognizing that under the law of the country the only way to fix it is going to be a specific constitutional amendment which is politically impossible, and so concede that everything is terrible and unlikely to get better?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you're a lawyer you ought to be able to distinguish between talking about what the law is, and what the law should be, and realize that being a lawyer gives you no particular insight into the latter. I haven't been able to respond to your posts for a bit but the flaw is largely a complete disconnect from the real world and raising purely theoretical concerns while denying real-world impacts that are currently occurring. This is a dumb and lovely way to try to shut down an argument. No his posts are absolutely correct and you don't get to just hand waive away away the fact that your ideas as presented are fundamentally incompatible with the first amendment and break poo poo tons of precedent-driven systems of law by saying "no man I'm just talking about what it should be". In my metaphor you're the dickhead telling the physicist "you're the expert you figure it out, I just want it, I'm not talking what exists I'm talking about what's possible" while asking for poo poo that breaks the laws of physics. edit: Shakenbaker posted:You would see all sorts of engineers making this exact claim, at least. Touche
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
The laws of man aren't immutable to the degree of the laws of physics, so that is a terrible argument. As someone previously pointed out, when the simple makeup of the court can define whether something is interpreted one way vs another, you're not existing in a is/is not environment so stop acting like it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No his posts are absolutely correct and you don't get to just hand waive away away the fact that your ideas as presented are fundamentally incompatible with the first amendment and break poo poo tons of precedent-driven systems of law by saying "no man I'm just talking about what it should be". \ He made the crack about "people who aren't lawyers shouldn't argue law" at me, and "handwaving" wasn't even remotely what I was doing. Everything I proposed was grounded in constitutionally valid arguments and interpretation. Not the interpretations that are currently the majority view of the court, admittedly -- as I myself pointed out -- but certainly positions that have plenty of support in dissents and older, now-overturned decisions (which I cited) and positions which the court could legitimately adopt once Scalia's seat is filled.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
joeburz posted:The laws of man aren't immutable to the degree of the laws of physics, so that is a terrible argument. As someone previously pointed out, when the simple makeup of the court can define whether something is interpreted one way vs another, you're not existing in a is/is not environment so stop acting like it. It only seems that way to you because you have no idea what you're talking about. Much of what is is because of hundreds of years of trying to hammer out the best system we can out of edge cases and competing legitimate interests, so coming in and ignorantly demanding a certain outcome that necessarily breaks important parts of that system with no explanation for how to correct it and then yelling "well you guys figure it out" are just as realistic as coming in here and asking for the laws of physics to be broken. edit: Hieronymous Alloy posted:He made the crack about "people who aren't lawyers shouldn't argue law" at me, and "handwaving" wasn't even remotely what I was doing. Everything I proposed was grounded in constitutionally valid arguments and interpretation. Not the interpretations that are currently the majority view of the court, admittedly -- as I myself pointed out -- but certainly positions that have plenty of support in dissents and older, now-overturned decisions (which I cited) and positions which the court could legitimately adopt once Scalia's seat is filled. I disagreed with him about the "only lawyers can understand the law" crack, but the rest of his tear down of your arguments is absolutely on point, they're horribly formulated post-hoc justification of an outcome you desire which requires overturning a bunch of cases which were absolutely correctly decided and basically revolve around stacking the court with justices that will decide cases based on what you want the law to be instead of what the law is, which is not the job of the Supreme Court. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It only seems that way to you because you have no idea what you're talking about. How did we end up with a ridiculously shaped district-based first-past-the-post wing of our legislature? Obviously you can point to a long series of contextually reasonable historical decisions and compromises, and the basis for many of these is so foundational to the US legal system that it would be almost impossible to rework without figuratively breaking the laws of physics. Yet the resulting policy is obviously substantially less democratic from all this - do you just shrug your shoulders because, by golly, we followed the appropriate process to get here? You're also making the assumption that everyone involved is acting in good faith or that the competing interests are 'legitimate'. A bunch of intractable racists significantly slowed down the legal system on civil rights because woah there, we wouldn't want to upset this carefully balanced system constructed by historical racists. When the status quo is producing poor (undemocratic) outcomes, there may be value in damaging or introducing more radical change to the underlying system that's producing those results. e: And yes, quite literally, "you guys figure it out". Significant policy changes would introduce larger questions and contradictions in the existing body of law that would then be up to those trained lawyers to reconcile. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
But if those trained lawyers are telling you "we can do that but here is the cost to do so in terms of impact on speech we all agree is unobjectionable or the danger that it allows under the same argument government control of speech we all want to encourage" you should maybe listen to them rather than hand waving it. HA is absolutely arguing from misinterpretations of precedent, so his constant "but my arguments are constitutionally valid" even in the face of explanation why those precedents don't work that way is why I say things like "shut the gently caress up about the law if you aren't a lawyer."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:07
|
|