|
Mikl posted:Because the legislature is gerrymandered to hell, which allows a party which hasn't had even a plurality (let alone a majority) of voters on its side for literally years enact minority rule when they "win" the elections, and block any and all effort from the ruling party when they lose. My impression of living in the US tells me that an eviction moratorium may not even be broadly popular; a majority of the electorate won’t like it, either because they ‘own’ or they rent and are up to date with their payments - so gently caress other people getting something for free. Or because if they are not up to date themselves, they’d rather get evicted than somebody they perceive as ‘undeserving’ receiving relief as well.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Americans are also extremely stupid and don't understand that a million or two new homeless will have knock-on effects like unemployment, reduced consumption/economic growth, and oh yeah, fewer people with a place to isolate and thus greater spread of any kind of airborne virus that might be going around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
One of the constants of America is everyone freaking the gently caress out about having to see homeless people and demanding it be made illegal, while also doing everything they possibly can to make as many people homeless as possible
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning's position is hilarious when Roberts gutted the VRA after it was overwhelmingly passed by Congress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Dead Reckoning's position is hilarious You can generally stop there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
It's almost as if they're intentionally posting in a certain way and ignoring things that don't fit their position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/jake_zuckerman/status/1432298581793378304
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Uh, lawyers? You aren't doctors, guys. Not your place to make medical decisions
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste They absolutely should be able to reject unverified bullshit treatments (and in fact they can do this in Ohio as an ethical objection, but didn't make that arguement for some reason), especially when you can find a garbage quack doctor to sign off on literally anything. The doctor who signed off on the prescription should have their medical license revoked but it's Ohio so they'll probably get a medal instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste If anything the headline undersells it, in my opinion. The doctor doesn't have admitting privileges at the hospital, and doesn't even practice in Cincinnati. A hospital has no requirement to fulfill a prescription from a third-party doctor that they disagree with on medical grounds, much less administer it. This is no different from when pharmacists have to put their foot down when people show up with some random doctor's prescription for pain-meds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If anything the headline undersells it, in my opinion. The doctor doesn't have admitting privileges at the hospital, and doesn't even practice in Cincinnati. A hospital has no requirement to fulfill a prescription from a third-party doctor that they disagree with on medical grounds, much less administer it. This is no different from when pharmacists have to put their foot down when people show up with random doctors prescriptions for pain-meds. The doctor is also a founding member of a medical group that exists largely to push Ivermectin as a COVID treatment and cite a bunch of questionable-at-best studies to back it. They're absolutely a snakeoil salesman and their actions rightfully set off alarm bells.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They absolutely should be able to reject unverified bullshit treatments (and in fact they can do this in Ohio as an ethical objection, but didn't make that arguement for some reason), especially when you can find a garbage quack doctor to sign off on literally anything. The doctor who signed off on the prescription should have their medical license revoked but it's Ohio so they'll probably get a medal instead. I would assume they didn't want to support the ethical objections law, and didn't want to dilute their legal argument which is that their objection is medical rather than philosophical. A hospital does not have to poison a patient three times a day just because the patient's spouse found a doctor 60 miles away that is willing to write a prescription.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
Honest question. Patient gets prescribed X treatment. Hospital goes, no we're not giving them this treatment because it's against medical ethics. Judge rules they have to do it. Hospital says okay, and gives the patient the treatment. Patient dies as a result of the treatment. Patient's family sues. The hospital is in the clear here, right? They did their due diligence and refused to give the treatment, and had to be ordered to by a judge. If anything it's the original prescribing doctor who's in hot water for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste Hospitals can’t but pharmacists are professionals that absolutely can use professional judgement to deny fulfilling a prescription.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Reading the article, it’s not quite as bad as the headline sounds- the judge ordered them to fulfill a prescription that a doctor had written. Whether hospitals should be able to veto prescriptions is a separate argument from whether the prescription is for quack bullshit horse paste It is of course still quack bullshit to use ivermectin for humans on covid-19
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Honest question. No, the hospital could be held liable for negligence in any number of ways. I'd assume they'll require the patient's spouse (who I believe is making all the medical decisions at this point) to sign all sorts of waivers, and they'll be careful to document everything. But any time there's a death there's going to be the chance of getting sued. The surviving family would likely argue that the hospital made some sort of mistake in the treatment that would penetrate the medical waivers. Or perhaps there'd be objections to the delay in treatment, or the validity of the guardianship, or the failure to sufficiently contest in court. I'm sure lawyers will be all over this regardless of the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Hospitals can’t but pharmacists are professionals that absolutely can use professional judgement to deny fulfilling a prescription. This sadly is occasionally twisted to justify not filling out certain medications for women on religious grounds, though I don't recall off-hand as to if the courts smacked down that stuff or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:This sadly is occasionally twisted to justify not filling out certain medications for women on religious grounds, though I don't recall off-hand as to if the courts smacked down that stuff or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
real talk, what do you do when a judge lawfully orders you to at best complicate treatment and at worst poison people with unconventional drug mixing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Somewhat of a tangent but what happens when a judge orders people to do unethical things? How are insane or otherwise irrational judges dealt with? For example if a pregnant woman needs an abortion for medical reasons and the doctors agree but a judge orders a C-section to be performed instead and furthermore the doctors insist that a C-section will kill the patient. If the doctor refuses to perform a C-section are they found in contempt of court? If a doctor complies with a court ordered medical procedure against their best judgement can they be sued by the family of the patient? Can the judge be sued or criminally charged for essentially knowingly ordering someone's death?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
the obvious elephant in the room is "you're killing Americans!!!1" is exactly how conservatives frame things that are widely accepted as medically sound so long as some wealthy chuddy plaintiff with a bizarre crusade can find a kook with credentials, this is just going to be reality in America God loving drat it, Rupert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Somewhat of a tangent but what happens when a judge orders people to do unethical things? How are insane or otherwise irrational judges dealt with? For example if a pregnant woman needs an abortion for medical reasons and the doctors agree but a judge orders a C-section to be performed instead and furthermore the doctors insist that a C-section will kill the patient. If the doctor refuses to perform a C-section are they found in contempt of court? If a doctor complies with a court ordered medical procedure against their best judgement can they be sued by the family of the patient? Can the judge be sued or criminally charged for essentially knowingly ordering someone's death? I'm not a lawyer but one of my friends in middle school eventually become one; but the answers are: Doctors yes found in contempt (though they have their right to appeal it), yes they can be sued by the family if they perform it, and the judge can as well (since you can sue just about anyone)...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
lol so, what, do the APA and AMA need to create a militia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I'm not a lawyer but one of my friends in middle school eventually become one; but the answers are: Doctors yes found in contempt (though they have their right to appeal it), yes they can be sued by the family if they perform it, and the judge can as well (since you can sue just about anyone)... Curiously the hospital was ordered to do this. A hospital as an entity doesn't practice medicine, if every pharmacist at the hospital declines to do it what happens... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21051019-j-smith-judgement-order
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:real talk, what do you do when a judge lawfully orders you to at best complicate treatment and at worst poison people with unconventional drug mixing? Appeal their ruling and ignore them as you drag out the appeal process as long as it takes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Appeal their ruling and ignore them as you drag out the appeal process as long as it takes. In this case it probably won't be long before the order is moot...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s bonkers that when the executive (R) repeatedly promises “I’m going to ban Muslims” and then much later justifies it (after several false starts) with “there’s secret national security reasons”, the court’s like “Yup. Seems legit to us.” Here, they clarified their decision for you: https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1432410912590340105?s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
The dictionary definition of "don't threaten us with a good time". What kind of hellworld would we live in where the CDC had the power to coordinate an effective pandemic response?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
Its easy to have decisions that make no ideological sense when your ideology is to start with the result you want and work backwards to create an ideological justification and just PRETEND that there's a consistent throughline to it all
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
I'm more mad about "the right to exclude"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Is that Gorsuch? He loves stupid rhetorical questions. https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1432398654388649987?s=20
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Gorsuch also loves nothing more than stripping power from executive agencies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Dead Reckoning's position is hilarious when Roberts gutted the VRA after it was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Mmm remembering Scalia arguing that the 99-0 vote in the senate meant that congress' intent was NOT to pass the law because they all must have been intimidated into voting for it by people playing the race card. Love that conservative judicial respect for the process and the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Here, they clarified their decision for you: I know the SCOTUS is largely an illegitimate body at this point but loving lol at "well if he can do that does that mean he can order these other unquestionably good-for-the-people things? Madness!" The answer, of course, is yes the CDC should have the power to organize a response to a loving pandemic it's literally a major reason for their existence. VitalSigns posted:Mmm remembering Scalia arguing that the 99-0 vote in the senate meant that congress' intent was NOT to pass the law because they all must have been intimidated into voting for it by people playing the race card. That ruling was probably the single best time for a POTUS to turn to the SCOTUS and say "no gently caress you and your blatantly political and legally unsound power grab" and of course Obama did nothing because he was mediocre status-quo president who looks a lot better than he was due to having a truly awful predecessor and successor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Obama did nothing because there was nothing Obama could do because its three co-equal branches of government and most importantly most Americans would have swung even harder against Obama for "politicalizing the court", do you think the media would have taken his side? Its revisionist history to act like Obama did nothing because he wanted it or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Well thank god they still haven't reauthorized the VRA with their trifecta hold on the government, wouldn't want to take risks like doing literally anything at all even the thing the court said to do ("just pass the law again with different criteria")
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well thank god they still haven't reauthorized the VRA with their trifecta hold on the government, wouldn't want to take risks like doing literally anything at all even the thing the court said to do ("just pass the law again with different criteria") Does reauthorizing require 60 votes or 50? If its 60 votes, how can they? And no, "by abolishing the filibuster!" isn't a credible option. It isn't about taking a risk, its political suicide that would result in Republicans swinging into power with *more* power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:Here, they clarified their decision for you: Look, justices, if you’re going to make arguments via absurdity, I suggest actually making them absurd. The president could compel the production of computers under the Defence Production Act. Just last week, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet was activated to aid in the evacuation of Afghanistan. Now that’s a program that has more detailed codification than the Surgeon General’s powers, but that just goes to show that the court doesn’t need to fix Congress’s grant to the Surgeon General. They gave the office discretion. If they had wanted to micromanage pandemic response, they could have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does reauthorizing require 60 votes or 50? 51, same procedure Republicans used to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Evil Fluffy posted:
Yeah I know Bush was a motherfucker, arguably worse than Trump, and a huge racist anyway, but like just the consensus that you had to at least pretend to not be racist to win elections in America is gone now. Shortly after Republicans would decide racism was back baby and they'd do better if they just went openly klan hood to mine those sweet sweet votes and gently caress if they didn't turn out to be 100% correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 17:26
|
|