|
fascists are a paranoid fantasy of goons i say after living through starship troopers.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
EXKYOOOZE ME *demands everyone use a falsely narrow definition of fascist which presumably would have even excluded Salazar and Franco*
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:EXKYOOOZE ME Arn't you that guy that was advocating ethnically cleansing rural america via forcibly bussing up everyone and moving them to cities?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:Arn't you that guy that was advocating ethnically cleansing rural america via forcibly bussing up everyone and moving them to cities? What about this makes it ethnic cleansing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:EXKYOOOZE ME There are actual scholars of fascism who would in fact exclude Salazar, Franco, and Dollfuss, IIRC. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Right, back then fascists actually existed instead of being the paranoid fantasies of goons. How many of those fascists were able to openly steal a Supreme Court seat by denying a qualified nominee a confirmation process for nakedly partisan reasons? Oh, none? Ok cool so your bullshit commentary is unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
the guy who wrote a book about normal guys becoming genocidaires called mcconnell the gravedigger of american democracy so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:How many of those fascists were able to openly steal a Supreme Court seat by denying a qualified nominee a confirmation process for nakedly partisan reasons? Oh, none? Yes, no fascists at any time in history have ever stolen a Supreme Court openly or otherwise, so we're good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Right, back then fascists actually existed instead of being the paranoid fantasies of goons. Yeah it's not like we have a mentally unstable leader who's openly demonizing ethnic and religious groups, leading to an increase in violence against those groups by his batshit insane supporters, or putting highly vulnerable ethnic minorities in to concentration camps with substandard care or letting illness run rampant and unchecked there. I mean, sure, if we had those things happening that'd be differently. But thankfully in the alternate reality you've brought us to those things don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yeah it's not like we have a mentally unstable leader who's openly demonizing ethnic and religious groups, leading to an increase in violence against those groups by his batshit insane supporters, or putting highly vulnerable ethnic minorities in to concentration camps with substandard care or letting illness run rampant and unchecked there. So voting matters and elections have consequences after all. Why didn't anyone tell me this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
we don't have a functioning democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:we don't have a functioning documentary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Yes, no fascists at any time in history have ever stolen a Supreme Court openly or otherwise, so we're good. I'm not saying who is/isn't fascist. I'm saying the Court has changed since 1935. You can keep attempting to derail the thread by attempting to lure people into a disingenuous circle jerk where you repeatedly deny things/people are fascist, but no one is interested in that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:I'm not saying who is/isn't fascist. I'm saying the Court has changed since 1935. You can keep attempting to derail the thread by attempting to lure people into a disingenuous circle jerk where you repeatedly deny things/people are fascist, but no one is interested in that. I don't think you're gonna make a lot of headway with this guy Drone Jett posted:You must have some really sick moral inclinations if you thing acknowledging different genetic distributions of talents and behaviors among different populations calls for naziism. It probably just means saving a lot of wasted money on educational interventions. It’s not going to turn Appalachians into brahmins, Igbo into Yoruba, Irish into Englishmen, or Sephardim into Ashkenazi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I don't think you're gonna make a lot of headway with this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6mh45mA_JY
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I don't think you're gonna make a lot of headway with this guy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Actually said "what the gently caress" aloud reading that post. Easiest ignore list decision I've ever made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Well I guess that settles what was up with the weird swipe about nazi semantics
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Chuu posted:This was more than eighty years ago. Every single politician serving at that time is literally dead. If a political pushback against Supreme Court overreach doesn't end up going like it did in the late 1930s, then it'll eventually end up going like it did in the 1860s. Having wrecked its legitimacy with blatantly partisan overreaches that ultimately energized and emboldened the other side, the Court ended up too weak to contend with a powerful Congress which repeatedly overruled and changed the Court while overriding a number of then-major precedents. It took decades for Radical Republican power to weaken enough for the Court to start asserting itself and chipping away at the new legal landscape that had prevailed during Reconstruction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
I'd rather have an overly powerful Congress than an overly powerful Supreme Court. Only one of those is really subject to the consequences of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
The fact that so few SCOTUS justices have been impeached has done a lot of damage to the institution. You could probably say the same for presidents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The fact that so few SCOTUS justices have been impeached has done a lot of damage to the institution. You could probably say the same for presidents.  I’m stealing this take, thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Well I guess that settles what was up with the weird swipe about nazi semantics Basically my take too "Huh, this guy is real sensitive about whether certain modern American political movements are fascist and/or Nazis, can't imagine why" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Since SCOTUS is out for the summer, can we talk about bad appeals court decisions? https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1170025501316001792?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Since SCOTUS is out for the summer, can we talk about bad appeals court decisions? Blame the Supreme Court because that seems like correct application of their qualified immunity jurisprudence to me. Qualified immunity is hosed up son.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Blame the Supreme Court because that seems like correct application of their qualified immunity jurisprudence to me. No I'm still going to blame the judge who ruled stealing is legal if you're a cop
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I'm still going to blame the judge who ruled stealing is legal if you're a cop Did they misapply the law?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Did they misapply the law? To me, that reads like the heart of the debate over qualified immunity. quote:Previously, courts had applied a two-part test to determine whether a government official was entitled to qualified immunity. Under this test, a court first analyzed whether or not a government official had violated a constitutional right. If there was a violation of a constitutional right, then the court determines whether or not that constitutional right was clearly established. So SCOTUS says courts can just ignore whether your Constitutional rights have been violated by the police if those rights haven't been "clearly established," but the courts would be clearly establishing those rights in rulings if they weren't ignoring whether people's Constitutional rights had been violated. You'd have to get a judge who really wants to crack down on cops to get the ruling that makes it possible to punish them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
I love the insanity of a court not stepping in even for a dollar amount four times greater than American modal pre-tax income. "Ugmhhhgh uhh there isn't a clear number on what precisely constitutes violation of your property/voting/civil rights, I rule in favor of the pigs / white supremacists / neo-Confederates who stole four years of your money / reduced your representation by more than half / say you can't get an abortion or gay marriage on this one"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I'm still going to blame the judge who ruled stealing is legal if you're a cop Except that isn’t what he ruled. He ruled that there wasn’t case law clearly establishing that stealing property during a search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which appears to be correct. Thus your beef is with the court that fashioned the contours of the qualified immunity doctrine, not the trial court bound to follow those contours. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Except that isn’t what he ruled. He ruled that there wasn’t case law clearly establishing that stealing property during a search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which appears to be correct. Thus your beef is with the court that fashioned the contours of the qualified immunity doctrine, not the trial court bound to follow those contours. That's because it's clearly established by the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The ruling is indefensible from every angle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
I'm sure they have some sort of twisted argument about seizure under color of law vs theft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
A country whose government (and no small number of citizens) endorses if not encourages law enforcement to abuse civil forfeiture also supports cops when they drop all pretense and just steal poo poo during a legal search? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
So when does SCROTUS come back to ruin our future, October?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's because it's clearly established by the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. I don’t disagree that the Fourth amendment does prohibit that conduct, but that isn’t how qualified immunity works. It isn’t enough that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, there basically needs to be a SCOTUS case or a large collection of CoA cases that are directly or almost directly on point making the constitutional violation clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
I fail to see how that's anything but a catch-22 that ends in "police(/government employees) do whatever the gently caress they want, and maybe we'll arbitrarily decide to do something about it".
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
I think QI or something like it is necessary but come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think QI or something like it is necessary but come the gently caress on. Yes pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
The standard presupposes that cops keep up with American case law but are ignorant of the constitution and of the criminal statutes that they theoretically enforce. This is idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t disagree that the Fourth amendment does prohibit that conduct, but that isn’t how qualified immunity works. It isn’t enough that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, there basically needs to be a SCOTUS case or a large collection of CoA cases that are directly or almost directly on point making the constitutional violation clear. That's current case law, yes, but current case law is obvious bullshit only justifiable by motivated reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 03:33
|
|