|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Honestly if Trump enters a "the economy needs a giant bailout" situation I have no idea what he and his team will go for at this point. He'd mint the coin with his face then try to run off with it.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Supposedly oral arguments in the double jeopardy case lasted for 80 minutes today but according to observers, went well for the government
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
 Opinion! UNITED STATES v. STITT Holding / Majority Opinion: The Armed Career Criminal Act requires a federal sentencing judge to impose upon certain persons convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm a 15-year minimum prison term. The judge is to impose that special sentence if the offender also has three prior convictions for certain violent or drug-related crimes. 18 U. S. C. §924(e). Those prior convictions include convictions for “burglary.” §924(e)(2)(B)(ii). And the question here is whether the statutory term “burglary” includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation. We hold that it does. … The relevant prior convictions of one of the unlawful firearms offenders, Victor J. Stitt, were for violations of a Tennessee statute that defines “[a]ggravated burglary” as “burglary of a habitation.” Tenn. Code Ann. §39–14– 403(a) (1997). It further defines “[h]abitation” to include: (1) “any structure, including . . . mobile homes, trailers, and tents, which is designed or adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons,” and (2) any “self-propelled vehicle that is designed or adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons and is actually occupied at the time of initial entry by the defendant.” §§39–14– 401(1)(A), (B) (emphasis added). … The relevant prior convictions of the other unlawful firearms offender, Jason Daniel Sims, were for violations of an Arkansas statute that prohibits burglary of a “residential occupiable structure.” Ark. Code Ann. §5–39– 201(a)(1) (Michie 1997). The statute defines “[r]esidential occupiable structure” to include: “a vehicle, building, or other structure: “(A) [w]here any person lives; or “(B) [w]hich is customarily used for overnight accommodation of persons whether or not a person is actually present.” §5–39–101(1) (emphasis added). … The Government asked us to grant certiorari to consider the question “[w]hether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as ‘burglary’ under the Armed Career Criminal Act.” Pet. for Cert. in No. 17–765, p. i; Pet. for Cert. in No. 17–766, p. i. And, in light of uncertainty about the scope of the term “burglary” in the lower courts, we granted the Government’s request. … In Taylor, we did more than hold that the word “burglary” refers to a kind of generic crime rather than to the defendant’s behavior on a particular occasion. We also explained, after examining the Act’s history and purpose, that Congress intended a “uniform definition of burglary [to] be applied to all cases in which the Government seeks” an enhanced sentence under the Act. Id., at 580–592. We held that this uniform definition includes “at least the ‘classic’ common-law definition,” namely, breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent to commit a felony. Id., at 593. But we added that it must include more. The classic definition, by excluding all places other than dwellings, we said, has “little relevance to modern law enforcement concerns.” Ibid. Perhaps for that reason, by the time the Act was passed in 1986, most States had expanded the meaning of burglary to include “structures other than dwellings.” Ibid. (citing W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §§8.13(a)–(f) (1986)). … We concluded that the Act’s term “burglary” must include “ordinary,” “run-of-the-mill” burglaries as well as aggravated ones. Taylor, 495 U. S., at 597. And we defined the elements of generic “burglary” as “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Id., at 598. The relevant language of the Tennessee and Arkansas statutes falls within the scope of generic burglary’s definition as set forth in Taylor. For one thing, we made clear in Taylor that Congress intended the definition of “burglary” to reflect “the generic sense in which the term [was] used in the criminal codes of most States” at the time the Act was passed. Ibid. In 1986, a majority of state burglary statutes covered vehicles adapted or customarily used for lodging—either explicitly or by defining “building” or “structure” to include those vehicles. … For another thing, Congress, as we said in Taylor, viewed burglary as an inherently dangerous crime because burglary “creates the possibility of a violent confrontation between the offender and an occupant, caretaker, or some other person who comes to investigate.” 495 U. S., at 588; see also James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192, 203 (2007). An offender who breaks into a mobile home, an RV, a camping tent, a vehicle, or another structure that is adapted for or customarily used for lodging runs a similar or greater risk of violent confrontation. … We reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. We vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion [because there’s a remaining state law issue]. Lineup: Breyer, unanimous. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-765_2co3.pdf [internal citations inconsistently omitted throughout] Bonus Popehat explainer: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1072152569051406336
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
My master plan is that all fines levied against banks are done in lone forgiveness, in reverse order of value, so that as many people as possible see exactly what happens when we would hold a bank accountable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:My master plan is that all fines levied against banks are done in lone forgiveness, in reverse order of value, so that as many people as possible see exactly what happens when we would hold a bank accountable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Supreme Court turns away Planned Parenthood defunding casesquote:Chief Justice John Roberts and the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, joined the court's four liberal jurists in turning away a pair of petitions from Kansas and Louisiana seeking the ban on abortion providers. Still would rather not have him on the court, but better than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:My master plan is that all fines levied against banks are done in lone forgiveness, in reverse order of value, so that as many people as possible see exactly what happens when we would hold a bank accountable. Stipulate that it be specifically consumer loan forgiveness too. I don't want a penny going to even the tiniest piece of business debt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
can we just be reasonable and agree to zimbabwe inflation so I can pay my law school loans off with a loaf of bread??
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:Supreme Court turns away Planned Parenthood defunding cases But theres a circuit split?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Stipulate that it be specifically consumer loan forgiveness too. If you owe more to a bank than a business I am forced to ask a lot of questions. Edit: ilkhan posted:Lone forgiveness? Just me. Only I get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:If you owe more to a bank than a business I am forced to ask a lot of questions. People who got debanked via chexsystems over less than $1k in charge-offs caused by cascading overdrafts/other fees probably don't have much in the way of revolving tradelines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:If you owe more to a bank than a business I am forced to ask a lot of questions. Veterinary medicine is in a bit of a problem right now where average school debt of newly graduated veterinarians is ~$170k with salaries usually in the $70k-$80k range. That's just for dog/cat practice, equine practice and food animal either make bank (rare) but are attached to huge/expensive operations or they make $50k a year (the vast, vast majority). The number of veterinary students graduating with $200k+ in debt is over 20% at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
education is a gently caress $410,757,864,530 in student debt
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:education is a gently caress ilkhan fucked around with this message at 00:33 on May 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:People who got debanked via chexsystems over less than $1k in charge-offs caused by cascading overdrafts/other fees probably don't have much in the way of revolving tradelines. HelloSailorSign posted:Veterinary medicine is in a bit of a problem right now where average school debt of newly graduated veterinarians is ~$170k with salaries usually in the $70k-$80k range. That's just for dog/cat practice, equine practice and food animal either make bank (rare) but are attached to huge/expensive operations or they make $50k a year (the vast, vast majority).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:education is a gently caress And you can't discharge it via bankruptcy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And you can't discharge it via bankruptcy. There's a great essay in the LRB from last month about how student loans are a form of social control over younger generations, based on either reinstating family control (because your family is paying for your exorbitant education) or enforcing a neoliberal income-first agenda onto students (because they need some way to pay off the massive debt they accumulated), originating as a backlash against the student radicalism of the 60s and 70s but continuing because it fit neoliberal ideology so well. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n21/william-davies/against-responsibility
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's a great essay in the LRB from last month about how student loans are a form of social control over younger generations, based on either reinstating family control (because your family is paying for your exorbitant education) or enforcing a neoliberal income-first agenda onto students (because they need some way to pay off the massive debt they accumulated), originating as a backlash against the student radicalism of the 60s and 70s but continuing because it fit neoliberal ideology so well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:It's almost like we've been throwing nearly unlimited student loans at kids and a hooks have responded by charging more... And it's also been serving as a way to paper over cuts to education spending!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
So how is John Roberts going to punch another giant hole in the ACA this time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So how is John Roberts going to punch another giant hole in the ACA this time? probably by just affirming the chudge
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:probably by just affirming the chudge I mean that is very possible but I think he does something like last where he appears to be upholding the law while punching another giant hole in it making it less effective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I mean that is very possible but I think he does something like last where he appears to be upholding the law while punching another giant hole in it making it less effective. The tax bill already effectively removed the individual mandate, so the whole thing is stupid
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
As I recall they said it was constitutional because it was a tax. The tax part was removed, therefore the constitutionality of forcing people to buy a commercial product is.... TBD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:As I recall they said it was constitutional because it was a tax. The tax part was removed, therefore the constitutionality of forcing people to buy a commercial product is.... TBD. But if there’s no penalty for not buying it (because the tax was removed) then you aren’t actually forced to buy it, therefore it’s constitutional after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:But if there’s no penalty for not buying it (because the tax was removed) then you aren’t actually forced to buy it, therefore it’s constitutional after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:As I recall they said it was constitutional because it was a tax. The tax part was removed, therefore the constitutionality of forcing people to buy a commercial product is.... TBD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Law still says it's required. Under that logic, the law also still says you pay a tax if you don’t do it. That tax happens to be set to zero, but there’s still a tax. You can be a formalist, in which case you lose that way, or a realist, in which case you lose because there’s no compelled act anymore. (There’s also the issue that no one has standing to challenge a provision that, by design, cannot be violated or enforced in any way.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:probably by just affirming the chudge Should be noted that a Democratic Senate confirmed this piece of poo poo appointed by Bush with a voice vote. Democrats appeared to have learned nothing since then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Should be noted that a Democratic Senate confirmed this piece of poo poo appointed by Bush with a voice vote. Democrats appeared to have learned nothing since then. Time works strange your your dimension. Roberts was confirmed in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
karthun posted:Time works strange your your dimension. Roberts was confirmed in 2005. He means Judge Reed O'Connor, who was confirmed in 2007
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
Yeah we should politicize district judge appointments more. That wouldn't cripple the entire system or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah we should politicize district judge appointments more. That wouldn't cripple the entire system or anything like that. The GOP outright stole a SCOTUS seat (and kept the bench right wing instead of having a desperately needed shift to the left) in 2016. But yeah lets keep the  bullshit going so that the GOP can continue to poison the judiciary beyond the insane number of far right assholes filling the vacancies the GOP intentionally kept open because gently caress Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah we should politicize district judge appointments more. That wouldn't cripple the entire system or anything like that. Not sinking to the Republicans' level, with unprecedented obstruction in Democratic terms then seats being filled unprecedentedly rapidly under Republican ones, means that over the course of time they take over the entire judicial branch with people who have gone through Heritage Foundation and Federalist-sponsored training programs. That's much worse than a crippled judicial system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
I mean, if someone like that was appointed, wouldn't that mean the system was already politicised? In any event, the apolitical nature of judicial appointments is purely a pretence. Any position nominated and appointed directly and exclusively by elected representatives is by definition political.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The GOP outright stole a SCOTUS seat (and kept the bench right wing instead of having a desperately needed shift to the left) in 2016. But yeah lets keep the It's not decorum bullshit. The district courts historically haven't been and shouldn't be political. If we get to a point where district judges can't get approved the federal courts will stop functioning (and frankly they barely work as is).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's not decorum bullshit. The district courts historically haven't been and shouldn't be political. If we get to a point where district judges can't get approved the federal courts will stop functioning (and frankly they barely work as is). It's too late for your decorum bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's not decorum bullshit. The district courts historically haven't been and shouldn't be political. If we get to a point where district judges can't get approved the federal courts will stop functioning (and frankly they barely work as is). If someone nominates an openly political judge (O'Connor had a lot of ties to leading GOP members), then blocking the appointment is in fact preventing the court from becoming politicized. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah we should politicize district judge appointments more. That wouldn't cripple the entire system or anything like that. Pretty sure that ship sailed a long time ago my dude, the idea that the law and legal system aren’t political is laughable on its face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
But we shouldn't accept that. We should be trying to drag the country back to a place where judges were expected to be neutral referees of established law instead of political operators. If judges aren't judicial officers but instead simply a less accountable way to exercise political power in pursuit of the result that best aligns with a Democrat or Republican ideology, there is no reason for people to respect the courts but the threat of force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 20:41
|
|