|
Question. This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. |
|
76 | 50.67% |
| No. |
|
74 | 49.33% |
| Total: | 127 votes | ||
|
silvergoose posted:This video, by the way, is up for a Hugo award this year. I thought you were kidding  
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:I thought you were kidding That video is great, dunno why you should think they're kidding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
I just read "bronycon" and immediately rolled my eyes. Gimme a minute, I'll watch it
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:08
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:I just read "bronycon" and immediately rolled my eyes. You're gonna need a bunch of minutes. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:11
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:That video is great, dunno why you should think they're kidding. I was certainly confused since I knew the Hugo Award as an award for fiction and didn't know about the related material category or that YouTube was something they covered. That's awesome though, Jenny Nicholson does good work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
I just watched Askren vs. Paul on a whim, I'm not sure I can take this
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:14
|
|
|
At first I was like "Oh christ, now this rear end in a top hat's never gonna shut up" but then I realised I can just choose to never see or hear about him ever and I felt better 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:At first I was like "Oh christ, now this rear end in a top hat's never gonna shut up" but then I realised I can just choose to never see or hear about him ever and I felt better Wow, bit rude 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
Defenestrategy posted:I mean, you could also make the claim that impeaching judges who've done nothing more than interpret the law in a lovely regressive manner and where appointed in a legal, albeit lovely, fashion is just as "political" as increasing the amount of seats on the bench. I don't disagree with you. I just like that you inherently have to make a case to impeach. I know most republican voters won't care that their case is bullshit if they were to impeach a liberal justice. But at least they'll look like morons trying to make it. And maybe it would fire up democrats to vote them out. Expanding the courts feels like it would immediately devolve into a recursive cycle of each side expanding the courts whenever they get the chance. I dunno, I'm tired, my brain is getting smoother the longer I stay awake and maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well, heh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Wow, bit rude hahaha just to clarify I was talking about Jake Paul 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 07:02
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:I thought you were kidding That translation of Beowulf loving owns, by the way. ZombieApostate posted:I don't disagree with you. I just like that you inherently have to make a case to impeach. I know most republican voters won't care that their case is bullshit if they were to impeach a liberal justice. But at least they'll look like morons trying to make it. And maybe it would fire up democrats to vote them out. Nah, I completely agree with you. It's one more step down a really lovely path with no actually good options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 07:08
|
|
|
Lincoln packed the Supreme Court, didn't he? Didn't cause an unending downward spiral then, why would it now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:hahaha just to clarify I was talking about Jake Paul I know 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:You're gonna need a bunch of minutes. It's 20 hours long
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
Radical 90s Wizard posted:hahaha just to clarify I was talking about Jake Paul Wow he beat up a fat retired wrestler he’s two weight classes larger than in boxing. If he fought an actual middleweight or lhw that knows now to strike he’d get loving wrecked. I didn’t realize they weighed in at 191 until the tale of the tape and holy poo poo askren looked fat enough to make BJ Penn jealous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 11:54
|
|
|
GoGoGadget posted:Lincoln packed the Supreme Court, didn't he? Didn't cause an unending downward spiral then, why would it now? The court had 9 members when he assumed office, with one vacancy. One justice died and another resigned to join the traitors. Congress expanded the court to 10 justices in 1863, which Lincoln nominated someone for. Finally in 1864 Chief Justice Taney died, and was replaced. So in Lincoln’s time in office the SCOTUS was net 1 Justice and Lincoln appointed 5. Not quite the same as what is being proposed at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
Just at all of this https://twitter.com/sallutephilipe/status/1383545371230576645?s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
but did he get the special support are truoops interest rate? It's not a proper joe tribute at anything under 30%
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
lmao C celebrity trash
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:but did he get the special support are truoops interest rate? He also has to abandon it in the barracks parking lot on base to complete the trifecta
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse got grifted by Lin Wood, who ran off with a bunch of the money that hard working racist assholes donated.. According to Kyle's mom, Lin also didn't post his bail because "the apocalypse is coming and he will be safer in jail." https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1379033078912409602 gently caress the lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Ahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse got grifted by Lin Wood, who ran off with a bunch of the money that hard working racist assholes donated.. According to Kyle's mom, Lin also didn't post his bail because "the apocalypse is coming and he will be safer in jail." bail money is bullshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
US Berder Patrol posted:bail money is bullshit In this case, I'm willing to let the lawyer get away and leave their client rotting. But there should never have been bail for him, he should be hanging out in solitary. Or from a streetlight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
US Berder Patrol posted:bail money is bullshit It is*, someone who is a clear public threat like Rittenhouse shouldn't be offered bail for any price. Just because a bunch if internet racists have his back doesn't make him less of a danger. *maybe it can work if bail is set at a percentage of wealth, but it's such an abusive practice that getting rid of cash bail is probably the better option
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It is*, someone who is a clear public threat like Rittenhouse shouldn't be offered bail for any price. Just because a bunch if internet racists have his back doesn't make him less of a danger. Bail is supposed to be based on likelihood of flight, and as such is supposed to be 'how much money will it take to make sure this person doesn't bail' So it being on a sliding scale of wealth is built in to the core concept, its just not applied properly. This is not a defense of bail, but a condemnation of how we are loving up an already questionable practice
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
i feel really bad that i'm still chuckling at this https://twitter.com/broderick/status/1383575440745394180?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Bail money is bullshit but kyle rittenhouse should have never had bail set for him, just loving leave him in there until his trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
GoGoGadget posted:Lincoln packed the Supreme Court, didn't he? Didn't cause an unending downward spiral then, why would it now? Yeah let's suspend habeas corpus too! Edit: bail for my deserving friends, cham-bail for the rest! Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Apr 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Yeah let's suspend habeas corpus too! A reminder that the constitution didn't set anything about supreme court membership, beyond that it should be more than one. It literally could have been two dudes or 200000000 dudes. The Judiciary Act under Washington established Six Justices. Jefferson in 1807 bumped that number up to seven, Nine in 1837, 1863 bumped to 10. 1866 dropped to seven, 1869 bumped to nine. So acting as if "Nine is the sacred number and thus it shall ever be and anything else is political that can only lead to bad outcomes" is kind of weird IMO and I don't understand why people get bent out of shape when expansion of the courts is brought up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Also because there are only 9 justices, some are overworked. Each justice is assigned one of the federal appellate circuits. Because there are 13 circuits, some of the justices have to handle requests from multiple circuits. If we're expanding the judiciary for capacity, one of the first things should be expanding the SCOTUS to even the workload and increase the number of cases that the high court can review.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Bail money is bullshit but kyle rittenhouse should have never had bail set for him, just loving leave him in there until his trial. Yeah either somebody is a clear and present threat to society or they’re not. Having the money to make bail doesn’t mean somebody is less of a threat, it has the exact opposite effect of being a demonstration of the resources they can use to cause additional harm to society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
GoGoGadget posted:Lincoln packed the Supreme Court, didn't he? Didn't cause an unending downward spiral then, why would it now? Lincoln packed the court in that he filled several vacancies. He didn't increase its size by 50% to dilute the opposition's power. Back then SC justices also held court in their "home" circuits (which they were gradually weaned away from over the next half century until the District Court system was established in the early 20th century). FDR wanted to add seats, but it didn't work out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
 e: open in new tab for huge
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It is*, someone who is a clear public threat like Rittenhouse shouldn't be offered bail for any price. Just because a bunch if internet racists have his back doesn't make him less of a danger. Bail reform is definitely needed, but getting rid of cash bail altogether without mandating that violent offenses aren't eligible for bail is a recipe for disaster. Look at how many people who have warrants out for violent offenses, and go on to commit further violent crimes. That poo poo just discredits (in the public's eyes) the entire "end cash bail" movement, which in reality is meant to make sure poor people arrested for Nonviolent or petty offenses aren't sitting in jail for months or years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse got grifted by Lin Wood, who ran off with a bunch of the money that hard working racist assholes donated.. According to Kyle's mom, Lin also didn't post his bail because "the apocalypse is coming and he will be safer in jail." Bail is bullshit, but both Lin Wood and Kyle Rittenhouse belong in jail. But I'm also not shocked, its amazing how dedicated to the grift ANYONE touching the MAGA/Proud Boys community is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Bail reform is definitely needed, but getting rid of cash bail altogether without mandating that violent offenses aren't eligible for bail is a recipe for disaster. Look at how many people who have warrants out for violent offenses, and go on to commit further violent crimes. That poo poo just discredits (in the public's eyes) the entire "end cash bail" movement, which in reality is meant to make sure poor people arrested for Nonviolent or petty offenses aren't sitting in jail for months or years. Getting rid of bail doesn't mean everyone goes free pending trial
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Bail reform is definitely needed, but getting rid of cash bail altogether without mandating that violent offenses aren't eligible for bail is a recipe for disaster. Look at how many people who have warrants out for violent offenses, and go on to commit further violent crimes. That poo poo just discredits (in the public's eyes) the entire "end cash bail" movement, which in reality is meant to make sure poor people arrested for Nonviolent or petty offenses aren't sitting in jail for months or years. I don't believe your liberty should hinge on your wealth is all I meant. The idea that someone should be allowed to go free if they pony up some arbitrary dollar amount seems wrong to me. If they're violent and need to be corralled somewhere for everyone's safety, fine. They ought not be able to patch that up with a bond.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Getting rid of bail doesn't mean everyone goes free pending trial Also, if you get rid of cash incentives like bail money, its amazing how many fewer bullshit non-crimes would end up in court, meaning the months long waits would shorten considerably
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
lightpole posted:Getting rid of bail doesn't mean everyone goes free pending trial In NY they ended bail for a gently caress ton of offenses, including some relativelt minor violent offenses and even some offenses when you killed someone. The pushback from the public was huge. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fair-or-dangerous-days-after-ending-cash-bail-new-york-n1111346 https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/1/17/21068807/new-york-bail-reform-law-explained The issue is that when you end cash bail, you also have to mandate incarceration for violent offenses, and especially repeat violent offenders. Bored As Fuck fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2021 18:22
|
|