|
Christians have the god-given right to spread dangerous diseases, goddamnit, how dare you oppress them
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
since this is meant to be a system rooted in precedent, i sort of wonder in this specific case how insane the people of the past would consider such a blase attitude towards epidemics
Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:since this is meant to be a system rooted in precedent, i sort of wonder in this specific case how insane the people of the past would consider such a blase attitude towards epidemics
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
Piell posted:Christians have the god-given right to spread dangerous diseases, goddamnit, how dare you oppress them It really is a death cult at this point
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
At this rate the "I sent you two boats and a helicopter" joke is going to become "I sent you two epidemiologists and a mask mandate."
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Slaan posted:It really is a death cult at this point Christianity has always been a death cult. Their messiah, named Joshua although mistranslated, thought the world was ending in his lifetime 2000 years ago or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
Super cool to live in a country where I could stone my neighbor's wife to death after finding out she'd committed adultery, and 4-5 of the most powerful justices here would probably argue I shouldn't be charged with murder because I was just exercising my religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Super cool to live in a country where I could stone my neighbor's wife to death after finding out she'd committed adultery, and 4-5 of the most powerful justices here would probably argue I shouldn't be charged with murder because I was just exercising my religion. You didn't use a gun. Do you hate Jesus?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:People of the past wouldn't have even noticed this as a pandemic, aside from being a worse year than normal for flu deaths. That's leaving aside that the death rate is minor except for age groups that wouldn't have seen more than a handful of people living to reach in the first place. This is bullshit for a number of reasons but most notably because prior to modern medicine extending average lifespan we didn't have modern medicine for treatment or modern hygiene and we had a lot more co-infections (i.e. TB, etc) and comorbidities that would have worsened COVID outcomes. It wouldn't have been the 1918 pandemic, but it most likely would have been worse than the 1880-1890 pandemic, which was certainly noticed. That's not to say that people and the media wouldn't have still attempted to brush it off (hell, they did that with the 1918 pandemic) but COVID would have taken a similar or worse toll than it's taking today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:People of the past wouldn't have even noticed this as a pandemic, aside from being a worse year than normal for flu deaths. That's leaving aside that the death rate is minor except for age groups that wouldn't have seen more than a handful of people living to reach in the first place. And besides Stickman's note, the idea that almost no one pre-1900 lived past 40 or whatever is a myth. Historical expected lifespans at birth were low because child mortality was high, not adult. If you survived past at least age 5 or 10, and certainly age 15, you could easily expect to see your 60th or 70th birthday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Expand the courts, ignore the right wing apologists who cry about it while defending the last decade of GOP obstruction (and court rigging) and reestablish that no, the country wasn't founded to be a loving Theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:People of the past wouldn't have even noticed this as a pandemic, aside from being a worse year than normal for flu deaths. That's leaving aside that the death rate is minor except for age groups that wouldn't have seen more than a handful of people living to reach in the first place. Nah. This pandemic is roughly ten times severe flu season disease burden with social distancing, as imperfect as it has been. Every city would be hit worse than Manaus has in our time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:And besides Stickman's note, the idea that almost no one pre-1900 lived past 40 or whatever is a myth. Historical expected lifespans at birth were low because child mortality was high, not adult. If you survived past at least age 5 or 10, and certainly age 15, you could easily expect to see your 60th or 70th birthday. The risk certainly increases with age, but doesn't get terrible until the 65-74 age bracket, and exponential above that. So... Platystemon posted:Nah. Sydin posted:Super cool to live in a country where I could stone my neighbor's wife to death after finding out she'd committed adultery, and 4-5 of the most powerful justices here would probably argue I shouldn't be charged with murder because I was just exercising my religion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Nobody mainstream on the right is making that argument, and 4-5 of the justices wouldn't buy it either. HA. Cute. Optimism about the American Conservative having limits. Do you think this court would defend a doctor's right not to treat a trans person because of religious reasons? Because you sure as gently caress should. You really think that's fundamentally different than them being OK with someone stoning a woman to death for adultery? Because its sure loving not. This court, or a court soon after it if steps aren't taken or Republicans don't win a Presidency for 20 years, WILL make it legal for people to murder on religious grounds and/or allow Religiously Motivated Jim Crow to be fully legalized, and you're a fool if you think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:HA. Cute. Optimism about the American Conservative having limits. Seconded. American conservatives already believe murder is justifiable - Kyle Rittenhouse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 04:56
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:HA. Cute. Optimism about the American Conservative having limits. ilkhan would nod right along with those 4-5 conservatives while blowing smoke about how the sky really is purple and you need to deal with it. Potato Salad posted:Seconded. Only when the murder is by one of their guys to further their goals. If someone kills one of their guys in justified self-defense? Well then it's time to send the feds to execute him in broad daylight while making up a flimsy cover story about how he totally opened fire on them please ignore that all physical evidence shows otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? tldr: Trump's appointments were structured by age so as to produce long strings of consecutive chief justices in the future, who will then be in a position to effectively gerrymander panel selection and further bias the courts
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? Sounds about right. Conservatives have been playing the long game with the courts for decades. That Trump was just appointing pre-selected judges provided by groups like ALEC isn't a secret and the right has been pretty clear in their desire to use the judiciary as a weapon via their zealots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? At the end of the day, it's pretty clear that the American judiciary is in dire need of reform after four decades of Republican ideological takeover. The system simply wasn't built to resist politicization, and it has been fundamentally corrupted by the Republican Party. You can see this everywhere at this point, from legal journalists to politicos to the judges themselves, we don't really bother talking about points of law, particularly since precedent probably won't be honored either now or in the future, simply who has the votes. Republican judges need to be replaced with Democratic ones in the name of democracy and popular sovereignty, and the rest is merely the window-dressing of power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Sounds about right. Conservatives have been playing the long game with the courts for decades. That Trump was just appointing pre-selected judges provided by groups like ALEC isn't a secret and the right has been pretty clear in their desire to use the judiciary as a weapon via their zealots. Iirc he straight up told everyone he was drawing from a heritage foundation list, back when Gorsuch was in the works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:ilkhan would nod right along with those 4-5 conservatives while blowing smoke about how the sky really is purple and you need to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I already said I don't support that, and neither do most conservatives, and for danced sure the Scotus judges you mean won't support that either. Nor am I in any way religious. Those Republican judges have openly and repeatedly supported torture and prison beatings, defended Christian exceptionalism at every turn, and routinely rejected women's civil rights. There's no reason to believe they are suddenly going to pivot on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Sounds about right. Conservatives have been playing the long game with the courts for decades. That Trump was just appointing pre-selected judges provided by groups like ALEC isn't a secret and the right has been pretty clear in their desire to use the judiciary as a weapon via their zealots. Really you just need to look at Kennedy vs RBG to see which side is on an ideological mission to take over the court system and use its hilariously broad unaccountable powers to impose their will on the country, and which side isn't even capable of realizing it's possible to do that. Anthony Kennedy: retires at 83, twelve years after Republicans lost the power to unilaterally appoint justices in the 2006 midterms, at the last possible second after they got their power back and before a midterm election could take it from them again. Handpicks his own successor to ensure ideological continuity and conformity even after he's gone. His retirement turned out to have been unnecessary because Republicans expanded senate control in the midterms, but it was still not worth the risk. If they'd lost the senate in 2018, and the presidency in 2020, he'd have to hang on until at least 89 if not longer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Already 81 in 2014 with a history of cancer, refuses to even consider retiring even after the shellacking senate Democrats got in the 2010 midterms. Remarks on how foolish O'Connor was for giving up all the power and celebrity that comes with achieving the capstone of a legal career, just to ensure ideological continuity on the court. Republicans use O'Connor's former seat to issue a bunch of 5-4 decisions destroying voting rights and campaign finance restrictions. RBG dies 3 months before a Democratic trifecta is sworn in, but it's too late, her seat was taken by a Dominionist Handmaid put there to dismantle RBG's life's work and legacy. Democrats were powerless to prevent any of this, because their ideology of individualist meritocracy cannot even conceive of the idea of an ideological project any bigger than feeding their own personal ambitions and narcissism, or of the idea that law isn't objective and that interpreting it to impose an ideology on the country is something it's even possible to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? Sounds like yet another point in favour of a massive judicial reform bill that expands and restructures the judiciary at every level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I already said I don't support that, and neither do most conservatives, and for danced sure the Scotus judges you mean won't support that either. Nor am I in any way religious. You're either lying or you don't know anything about "most conservatives" because those screaming hordes that worship people like Trump (ie: most conservatives) fully believe in things like "marital rights" and women belonging to their husbands. They would absolutely make excuses to defend stoning women (but not men) for adultery if the option were on the table. VitalSigns posted:Really you just need to look at Kennedy vs RBG to see which side is on an ideological mission to take over the court system and use its hilariously broad unaccountable powers to impose their will on the country, and which side isn't even capable of realizing it's possible to do that. I continue to hope RBG's Achilles-grade hubris defines her legacy, since any long-standing change she fought for is dead as soon as the current SCOTUS gets a case they feel is the right time to act. Also we now have Breyer crying about how Biden and Dems shouldn't politicize the courts and so I can only assume that Furher King Hawley is going to appoint some random young insane conservative like Cawthorn to Breyer's seat when he continues to refuse to retire and dies with a Republican POTUS+Senate too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really you just need to look at Kennedy vs RBG to see which side is on an ideological mission to take over the court system and use its hilariously broad unaccountable powers to impose their will on the country, and which side isn't even capable of realizing it's possible to do that. Isn't the idea of a justice resigning for tactical, political reasons pretty unusual throughout the history of the court, though? I'm pretty sure most justices hang on until their dead or too incapacitated to continue (and sometimes, like in Douglas's case, not even then.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom? This says that the Chief Judge position on the Circuits being based on age this article is worried about being exploited by Trump's court theft was created in '48 by legislation. Just change it. Write a letter to your Senator or House Rep if they're on the judiciary committee everyone, we already know that they're looking at possible ways to unfuck the courts, this would be an incredibly easy one
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This says that the Chief Judge position on the Circuits being based on age this article is worried about being exploited by Trump's court theft was created in '48 by legislation. Just change it. Write a letter to your Senator or House Rep if they're on the judiciary committee everyone, we already know that they're looking at possible ways to unfuck the courts, this would be an incredibly easy one I get the feeling this is something that might not fit neatly into a budget reconciliation bill, which means it's not actually easy at all because there's no way in hell the Republican Senate bloc is going to be on board with just handing back the long-term power they got from their unholy pact with Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
hey can we have less generic ranting about conservatives, and more talk about the actual contents and direct impact of judicial rulings I'm seeing remarkably little discussion of the actual legal arguments in the ruling everyone's mad about
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I get the feeling this is something that might not fit neatly into a budget reconciliation bill, which means it's not actually easy at all because there's no way in hell the Republican Senate bloc is going to be on board with just handing back the long-term power they got from their unholy pact with Trump. Not everything that needs to be fixed needs to be fixed in the next 12 months. The point is to get the ball rolling and make sure the Legislature knows this is an issue which they can fix and that we care about them fixing at some point. Also there's only a couple of Senators still standing willing to preserve the Filibuster, so that'll change a lot of calculus if they fall or get frozen out by midterm pickups.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Isn't the idea of a justice resigning for tactical, political reasons pretty unusual throughout the history of the court, though? I'm pretty sure most justices hang on until their dead or too incapacitated to continue (and sometimes, like in Douglas's case, not even then.) Not since segregationists, bible-thumpers, and big business realized their influence was waning in the 70s, realized the courts were their last avenue to permanent power, and realized that a purposeful directed campaign to take and hold the courts could succeed. Sandra O'Connor's husband admitted it quote:"At an Election Night party at the Washington, D.C., home of Mary Ann Stoessel, widow of former Ambassador Walter Stoessel, the justice's husband, John O'Connor, mentioned to others her desire to step down, according to free witnesses. But Mr. O'Connor said his wife would be reluctant to retire if a Democrat were in the White House and would choose her replacement. Justice O'Connor declined to comment." Then of course we have her joining a blatantly partisan decision to give the 2000 presidential election to the loser because he was a Republican, with reasoning so absurd the majority had to include dicta saying this was a one-time thing and not precedent for anything, then her taking the unusual step of agreeing to stay on until her successor was actually confirmed (given the trouble Bush was having since he tried to appoint his friend and personal lawyer (lol) instead of a Federalist Society approved ideologue), so Republicans wouldn't lose their majority even for a second. It was pretty obvious by then to many people what was happening, thus the calls for Ginsburg to retire in 2010 and especially in 2014, and after Merrick Garland and Kennedy and Barrett you'd think it would be impossible to deny that one side is dunking baskets over and over while the other side doesn't even realize they're in the championship match, but here we are doing the same thing with Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:hey can we have less generic ranting about conservatives, and more talk about the actual contents and direct impact of judicial rulings is talking about the composition of the courts on-topic for the thread if it's not "generic ranting about conservatives", or is the thread strictly for getting into the details of individual decisions and nothing else genuinely asking, there's always been a lot of talk about court composition itt, so wondering if you're narrowing the scope with this warning or not
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:hey can we have less generic ranting about conservatives, and more talk about the actual contents and direct impact of judicial rulings One of the problems is that the court doesn't have actual legal arguments. There is no way to reconcile Hawaii v Trump and Masterpiece Cakeshop, for instance, based on the stated rationales. The actual, undeniable reason for those is Christian good, Muslim bad. Its all just window dressing for whatever the preferred conservative policy position is. Plus, half the "judgements" out there right now are literally 5-4 or 6-3 shadow docket cases without any reasoning at all Slaan fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Slaan posted:One of the problems is that the court doesn't have actual legal arguments. There is no way to reconcile Hawaii v Trump and Masterpiece Cakeshop, for instance, based on the stated rationales. The actual, undeniable reason for those is Christian good, Muslim bad. Its all just window dressing for whatever the preferred conservative policy position is. I think the way to reconcile them based on the stated rationales is that immigration policy is basically exempt from the constitutional and even statutory restrictions that apply to other kinds of government policy. Which is a bad approach to law in its own right, of course. Edit: And you're probably not wrong about the unstated rationales. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Slaan posted:One of the problems is that the court doesn't have actual legal arguments. There is no way to reconcile Hawaii v Trump and Masterpiece Cakeshop, for instance, based on the stated rationales. The actual, undeniable reason for those is Christian good, Muslim bad. Its all just window dressing for whatever the preferred conservative policy position is. Absolutely agreed. It's difficult and somewhat pointless to talk about legal arguments when the judges don't really rely on them for rendering their orders, and those orders won't constitute meaningful precedent moving forward. Tandon v. Newsom would constitute a massive blow against the legal concepts of ripeness and mootness, except that the Republican majority doesn't actually care about the legal principles involved so it won't change anything. The opinion was four pages and wasn't even signed, it's not like it was a detailed take on the issues involved. We fundamentally have a Calvinball court where the only way to accurately predict the outcome of their opinions is by knowing which political party each judge is affiliated with. Major opinions are routinely issued with specious or even non-existent justification. Just as political science arguments are largely academic compared to the actual composition of the legislative government, the legal arguments involved are fairly tertiary compared to who holds the votes on the Supreme Court. Silver2195 posted:I think the way to reconcile them based on the stated rationales is that immigration policy is basically exempt from the constitutional and even statutory restrictions that apply to other kinds of government policy. Which is a bad approach to law in its own right, of course I don't think that argument is ever really articulated or defended, largely because then it would lead immediately to questions like, "If we are arbitrarily lifting constitutional and statutory authority over areas of law, what prevents me from doing that to other areas like property ownership?" and "If immigration policy is exempt from such restrictions, can I simply declare all the borders open forever?" While these sorts of "where does it end?" concerns are typical for legal debate, it's fairly clear that the answer is, "It ends wherever the Republican Party wants it to end," rather than being an enduring legal principle. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
It’s so nice to see you all coming around to the school of legal theory that held sway about 90-100 years ago. (Less sarcastically, the “power decides, not precedent” view holds a lot better in the controversial cases than it does in the day to day cases which make up much of the docket. Also, if a chief was playing games with panels, all that would need to happen is for one of the judges getting cut out to mention it to a reporter or a friendly Congressperson for there to be huge public uproar, and - as long as Dems hold the balance of power on that circuit, anyway - an en banc reversal.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Isn't the idea of a justice resigning for tactical, political reasons pretty unusual throughout the history of the court, though? I'm pretty sure most justices hang on until their dead or too incapacitated to continue (and sometimes, like in Douglas's case, not even then.) Them openly doing so is, yes. But every resignation the court has seen since the Clinton era has absolutely fit that pattern even if the people involved would never admit this was a motivating factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the thread's opinion of this prediction of doom?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It’s so nice to see you all coming around to the school of legal theory that held sway about 90-100 years ago. Oh, sure, but those generally aren't the cases that get discussed. 95% of practicing attorneys are still largely following the rules on the whole. But at the SCOTUS level? We;lp. The 'what legal theory is most applicable to the overall function of the American legal system" thing is interesting. Pure power realpolitik is clearly deciding a lot of pivotal supreme court cases right now, but overall these days I'm coming around to the position that most of the controlling factors in the system are not conscious biases but unconscious ones. For every Masterpiece Cakeshop there are a hundred or a thousand death penalty cases where someone is effectively murdered by the State for the crime of being poor and/or black and/or intellectually disabled, but those are all just the system working "as designed." Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm coming around to the position that most of the controlling factors in the system are not conscious biases but unconscious ones. For every Masterpiece Cakeshop there are a hundred or a thousand death penalty cases where someone is effectively murdered by the State for the crime of being poor and/or black and/or intellectually disabled, but those are all just the system working "as designed." Unconscious, you say...*stares at the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.*
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 21:25
|
|
