|
GlyphGryph posted:Laughing at the people in this thread pretending as if the law that protects the Nazis also protects genuinely unpopular speech anymore (or ever truly did), or that we have to preserve it because otherwise we won't benefit from it (as if we actually do). There's nothing in the constitution preventing right wingers from shutting down left wing speech, only stuff preventing left wingers from shutting down right wing speech, and the Republicans are *always* hard at work shutting down left wing speech - after all, being right wing, they can simply shut down (directly or through defunding) the public institutions and platforms and their right-wing institutions will continue to persist regardless, insuring that only the right wing gets a platform at all.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Some good news on the gun front- https://twitter.com/ahoweblogger/status/935158215293198336
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Some good news on the gun front- Supreme Court denied cert, I assume?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Some good news on the gun front- That's really surprising. Could SCOTUS now have decided they don't like Heller vs DC and want a re-do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
My guess is that Roberts is concerned about his legacy and doesn't want to attach his name to a decision repealing assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions nationwide, Kennedy doesn't want to spend any more of his limited time on the issue, and the liberals agree with the decision. It's disappointing though, because the en banc judgement in Kolbe is illogical and tortured. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
SCOTUS: semiautomatic pistols are required by the constitution but not semiautomatic rifles? Shouldn’t that be vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's really surprising. Could SCOTUS now have decided they don't like Heller vs DC and want a re-do? Heller is a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more limited decision than it's generally billed as.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah, all Heller says is that you can't completely ban people from owning handguns in their home for the purpose of self defense. Restrictions on time/place/manner of carry are all explicitly fair game, as is apparently banning certain classes of pistol and rifle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
It's not directly SC related here but there's no general court thread I don't think - could we talk about the possible impacts of the Republican court-packing plan, if it were to go through?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2018: Roberts is concerned about his legacy
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's not directly SC related here but there's no general court thread I don't think - could we talk about the possible impacts of the Republican court-packing plan, if it were to go through? It won't. There is no possible way it qualifies for reconciliation, since it doesn't have any non-incidental effects on the budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Supreme Court denied cert, I assume?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If ISPs are granted near-limitless power to restrict access/availability based on content, would they incur safe-harbor responsibilities too? Like would they need to prove they have a basic content review and policing process that dutifully investigates reports from the public? I don't think safe-harbor provision are applicable here because of the willful management of content. For example, Youtube enjoys safe-harbor protections, because anyone can upload anything without a screening process. Safe-harbor kicks in to give Youtube protections against infringement claims because of this open status, provided that Youtube allows owners an easy way of striking down infringing material. If a service is actively monitoring and exterting control, I would assume that that would negate any provisions/protections. Also, safe-harbor is more about giving protections to service providers than assigning certain responsibilities. So, there's that, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:I don't think safe-harbor provision are applicable here because of the willful management of content. For example, Youtube enjoys safe-harbor protections, because anyone can upload anything without a screening process. Safe-harbor kicks in to give Youtube protections against infringement claims because of this open status, provided that Youtube allows owners an easy way of striking down infringing material. If a service is actively monitoring and exterting control, I would assume that that would negate any provisions/protections. Safe-Harbor provisions kind of only hold up if you can validly claim that you are acting in good faith once you're made aware of violating content, though, which is what I was trying to get at. Like if YouTube doesn't actually have something to show for the copyright strike process then there's an argument that they're no better than, say, Popcorn Time. If an ISP is granted a similar power - whether or not they actually exercise that - then wouldn't someone be able to go after them in court if, hypothetically, the public had reported violating material to them and the ISP didn't take measures to block access from the user side? YouTube isn't a perfect example but ebay is slightly closer since they are facilitating rather than serving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, all Heller says is that you can't completely ban people from owning handguns in their home for the purpose of self defense. Restrictions on time/place/manner of carry are all explicitly fair game, as is apparently banning certain classes of pistol and rifle. Breech loading.  “Originalist” my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's really surprising. Could SCOTUS now have decided they don't like Heller vs DC and want a re-do? lol, no. Heller only says you have to let people own handguns in their home for the purpose of self-defense. The court is currently not comfortable ruling either way for carrying outside the home or the various "assault weapons/large magazines" laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It won't. There is no possible way it qualifies for reconciliation, since it doesn't have any non-incidental effects on the budget. Isn't "qualifying for reconciliation" pretty much solely dependent on "whether the vice president wants it to qualify for reconciliation"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Isn't "qualifying for reconciliation" pretty much solely dependent on "whether the vice president wants it to qualify for reconciliation"? No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Isn't "qualifying for reconciliation" pretty much solely dependent on "whether the vice president wants it to qualify for reconciliation"? Reconciliation has specific rules and that's why it is filibuster-proof. Since they slashed 1.5T from the budget over the next 10 years, that's the most they can cut otherwise the bill has to follow the standard rules. These aren't senate rules, either, but rather actual codified law. The parliamentarian already ruled in this case that the current tax bill does not meet the legal requirements for reconciliation. His decision can only be overturned by 60 votes, so not going to happen. Instead they have to try to fit it within the rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The parliamentarian already ruled in this case that the current tax bill does not meet the legal requirements for reconciliation. His decision can only be overturned by 60 votes, so not going to happen. Instead they have to try to fit it within the rules. I was under the impression that the "parliamentarian" was a simple advisory position and had no actual power. Hence the whole "scandal" we had with Ford's VP ignoring the parliamentarian and doing whatever he wanted on fillibuster/cloture issues and recognizing speakers and whatnot. But that nothing was actually changed after that and the parliamentarian is still a purely advisory position with the Vice President completely within his power to ignore them and decide however he wants. I suppose if the ruling was already made and the VP stood by and let it happen then it doesn't matter at this point though. If Pence had overridden the parliamentarian in this case, I assume it being actual codified law rather than merely Senate rules (which I thought it was) would open up legal repercussions for the government? but yeah I thought it was just a rules thing, not a law thing, so I guess that makes more sense now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I was under the impression that the "parliamentarian" was a simple advisory position and had no actual power. Hence the whole "scandal" we had with Ford's VP ignoring the parliamentarian and doing whatever he wanted on fillibuster/cloture issues and recognizing speakers and whatnot. But that nothing was actually changed after that and the parliamentarian is still a purely advisory position with the Vice President completely within his power to ignore them and decide however he wants. If the Parliamentarian didn't matter that much, then the last time someone overruled them would be later than 1975.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Isn't "qualifying for reconciliation" pretty much solely dependent on "whether the vice president wants it to qualify for reconciliation"? Legally, yes. In practice, overruling the parliamentarian is a de facto abolition of the filibuster which is not something Republicans are willing to do at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Reconciliation has specific rules and that's why it is filibuster-proof. Since they slashed 1.5T from the budget over the next 10 years, that's the most they can cut otherwise the bill has to follow the standard rules. These aren't senate rules, either, but rather actual codified law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Saraiguma posted:the parliamentarian is a woman I was meaning in a general sense that the parliamentarian's decision can only be overturned by 60 votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I was meaning in a general sense that the parliamentarian's decision can only be overturned by 60 votes. A motion is made, the president of the senate says you can’t do that because of (reasons the parliamentarian gave) and then someone asks to vote to override the decision of the president. That succeeds on a simple majority. This is the procedure the Democrats used to remove the filibuster on judicial nominees. Why wouldn’t that work here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:A motion is made, the president of the senate says you can’t do that because of (reasons the parliamentarian gave) and then someone asks to vote to override the decision of the president. That succeeds on a simple majority. This is the procedure the Democrats used to remove the filibuster on judicial nominees. Why wouldn’t that work here? It would work. That's also how the republicans got Gorsuch through. However, practically, the senate GOP seems reluctant to abolish the filibuster for legislation. That may be a good idea, because the existence of a legislative filibuster probably helps the GOP long term more than it hurts them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I was meaning in a general sense that the parliamentarian's decision can only be overturned by 60 votes. Then why use "his"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Because I didn't know who was the current parliamentarian and was too lazy to look it up to see. I thought about checking first to avoid this discussion entirely, but I thought to myself "if I'm wrong I doubt anyone will raise a fuss over it." Looks like I was wrong twice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I was meaning in a general sense that the parliamentarian's decision can only be overturned by 60 votes. That is not correct. The chair makes all the rulings, it's just that by very longstanding precedent the chair defers to the parliamentarian on compliance with reconciliation. If the chair ignores her, it takes 51 votes to overrule the chair. That's the loophole that was used to abolish judicial nomination filibusters: the chair just rules that they're not allowed, the other side says thats not right, and 50 votes support the chair. No senator would see any meaningful difference between the chair ignoring the parliamentarian's rulings on reconciliation and ruling that the filibuster was gone so it would be a de facto abolition of the filibuster to ignore that precedent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
That's what i meant by requiring 60 votes to overrule because anything else means the end of the legislative filibuster. At that point there's no reason to even play the song and dance of budget reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Because I didn't know who was the current parliamentarian and was too lazy to look it up to see. I thought about checking first to avoid this discussion entirely, but I thought to myself "if I'm wrong I doubt anyone will raise a fuss over it." Then why not say she or the gender neutral they if you're not sure. Why default to male pronouns?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Saraiguma posted:Then why not say she or the gender neutral they if you're not sure. Why default to male pronouns? Because Mr. Nice was using an older version of the APA style manual for his posts. (Note: I am using the male pronoun because the poster has chosen to style himself "Mr." Nice, but will respect his choice if he identifies another pronoun he would prefer.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
I decided to read through the argument transcripts from Carpenter and... Gorsuch really is Thomas 2.0 isn't he? Everyone else in a group trying to figure out where lines are drawn with regard to reasonable expectations of privacy, potential future technology developments, sensitivity of the records, and how the facts fit into previous cases and here's Gorsuch off in his own little world trying to figure out if cell phone location history records are property of the customer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Thomas isn't dumb, he's crazy. Gorsuch is dumb. And possibly crazy as well. Or at least Gorsuch ain't SCOTUS smart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 22:15
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I decided to read through the argument transcripts from Carpenter and... Gorsuch really is Thomas 2.0 isn't he? Please don't insult Thomas by putting him in the same space as Gorsuch. Gorsuch should be a Fox News pundit, not a judge.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
I've come around to the perspective that Scalia remains much worse than Gorsuch, simply because Gorsuch is so openly incompetent and unlikeable that his effect will be more limited. vvv yeah, tell me about it... Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've come around to the perspective that Scalia remains much worse than Gorsuch, simply because Gorsuch is so openly incompetent and unlikeable that his effect will be more limited. Kind of a recurring theme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:07
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've come around to the perspective that Scalia remains much worse than Gorsuch, simply because Gorsuch is so openly incompetent and unlikeable that his effect will be more limited. I agree, as far as their effect on things Scalia will probably end up being worse overall since he could actually make an argument that takes more than thirty seconds to dismantle. I'm just saying that Gorsuch has no admirable qualities whatsoever, he's scum. Also in light of all the scum they are trying to inject into the court system he might end up worse than Scalia purely due to future court composition. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've come around to the perspective that Scalia remains much worse than Gorsuch, simply because Gorsuch is so openly incompetent and unlikeable that his effect will be more limited. I'm assuming he's gonna vote alongside Alito almost 100% of the time, though iirc Scalia had a weird streak to him about police searches that made for some unusually good decisions, but gave the appearance of hilarious inconsistency when it came to stuff like sodomy laws or weed as an interstate commerce issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:57
|
|