|
Charlz Guybon posted:Germany seems to work really well, if I could wave a hand and have the US adopt their constitution wholesale, I would do it. Germany is also special insofar as they know they're still on probation and have very extreme guardrails built in to prevent their politics from getting too nutty.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Remember this lol https://twitter.com/SChuaRubenfeld/status/1017808434371219458?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:are there other large pop sovereign state federations that actually do work well? you got uh...:
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
In addition to Florida, apparently North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas have all said they're looking into passing laws like the Texas one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
California, New York, and other blue states really need to rush out a similar law that lets people sue gun owners for perceived offenses as well. Sure, those will be instantly struck down by the courts but it'll at least keep reinforcing how nakedly political the courts are, especially the SCOTUS, and that the SCOTUS itself is largely illegitimate at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Sure, those will be instantly struck down by the courts but it'll at least keep reinforcing how nakedly political the courts are, especially the SCOTUS, and that the SCOTUS itself is largely illegitimate at this point. What does the legitimacy of the Court matter? Who "acts" on them being illegitimate? What does it mean if the court is viewed as illegitimate, does it change the impact of their rulings? Would federal branches or state governments start ignoring their rulings on a massive scale? Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Sep 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
The actual makeup of SCOTUS is not set down in the constitution. The main that that prevents the legislature from changing the numbers on the court is legitimacy, that the US voting population thinks the current SCOTUS system is recognized and accepted as right and proper. Worries about illegitimacy are worries that a party could pack the courts (more than Trump already did) and get away with it electorally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
"more than Trump already did" = when democrats do it The electorate is made up of ~40% fascists who would be fine with Trump nominating 5 or 20 more theocrats, as long as the libs cry about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do most people actually view SCOTUS as illegitimate? I would bet a vast majority of people still think they're less political and more "fair" and "Constitutional" than the other branches, because most people don't pay attention to anything. The vast majority of people pay almost no attention to the SCOTUS, which is how you end up with poo poo like Roberts being more popular with Dems than Republicans because Dems hear about the one thing he sided with the liberals on and love him for it while the GOP gets mad that he didn't vote in their interests 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Do most people actually view SCOTUS as illegitimate? I would bet a vast majority of people still think they're less political and more "fair" and "Constitutional" than the other branches, because most people don't pay attention to anything. If the public at large doesn't see the court as legitimate (and frankly they would be right to) then they also would support Congress simply firing them for cause with a majority vote, which they absolutely could do. The court is highly dependent on being seen as legitimate and a valid arbiter of the Constitution and the law. You'll notice that while the liberal media and politicians might be complaining about the political bias of the justices, they are not rejecting their oversight or their role. But if you look around the world at other judicial systems, that is not guaranteed. Roberts has lit a torch to the root of his own power here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If the public at large doesn't see the court as legitimate (and frankly they would be right to) then they also would support Congress simply firing them for cause with a majority vote, which they absolutely could do. The court is highly dependent on being seen as legitimate and a valid arbiter of the Constitution and the law. You'll notice that while the liberal media and politicians might be complaining about the political bias of the justices, they are not rejecting their oversight or their role. But if you look around the world at other judicial systems, that is not guaranteed. Roberts has lit a torch to the root of his own power here. You speak in the present tense about actions by Roberts that were set in stone more than 8 years ago. The realization by people that the SCOTUS is a nakedly political institution is in that their majority opinions, as a body, are shallow and have been since Shelby. You could get back the legitimacy of the court if the justices had any talent or wit about them, but they are instead giving no new argumentative tests, no applications of logic, no novel visions of what the world is or should be. The movement conservative majority on the court back-solve to their electoral tea leaves and tummyfeels, and it shows. Their desire for a two-tier society, where the law constrains but not protects the other, yet protects but not constrains themselves, does not make for a good legal argument, since any opinion would have to constrain and protect on an equal basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You speak in the present tense about actions by Roberts that were set in stone more than 8 years ago. that's basically how textualism/originalism work and why they keep painting actual foresight in jurisprudence as "them danged unelected judges makin' NEW LAWS 'n LEGISLATIN FROM THE BENCH"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Gun control isn't a unifying issue for the democratic base, so that doesn't work as well as abortion does for the right; many leftists for example, are very pro-gun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Gun control isn't a unifying issue for the democratic base, so that doesn't work as well as abortion does for the right; many leftists for example, are very pro-gun. You make it only apply to 'improper' gun sales such as those that didn't follow the law properly or whatever. Actual gun safety is hugely popular among Dems and pretty strong as a bipartisan issue as well, iirc. The point is that the Dems could and should pick some right wing poo poo to pass an identical law about just to see how fast the courts move to strike that down unlike the Texas law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
Imagine, if you will, a state law that allowed anybody to bring suit against unvaccinated people not wearing masks in public...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Gun control isn't a unifying issue for the democratic base, so that doesn't work as well as abortion does for the right; many leftists for example, are very pro-gun. Leftists are a fraction of the population. 2/3 are in favor of stricter gun control laws. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/548127-2-in-3-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-poll https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1433939225146179587
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If the public at large doesn't see the court as legitimate (and frankly they would be right to) then they also would support Congress simply firing them for cause with a majority vote, which they absolutely could do. The court is highly dependent on being seen as legitimate and a valid arbiter of the Constitution and the law. You'll notice that while the liberal media and politicians might be complaining about the political bias of the justices, they are not rejecting their oversight or their role. But if you look around the world at other judicial systems, that is not guaranteed. Roberts has lit a torch to the root of his own power here. Is this the kind of fiction that inspires "Vote" as a response to every large scale problem? Purging the whole SC is literally a revolutionary act. It would mean removing the head portion of a branch of the US government, or at least removing the members from an opposing party. Which party are you imagining doing this? The one that let a SC seat nomination sit for 10 months, or the one that blocked a SC nomination for 10 months, then filled every empty seat as quickly as possible? No amount of complaining to the manager is going to fix any legitimacy problem for the SC, because their legitimacy is wholly tied to the legitimacy of the political and law system of the country. No popular People keep saying the conservative justices are treating the law like calvinball. That's the point, law IS calvinball. All laws are made up, maybe there's justification, maybe there isn't. But making up new rules as you go is a fundamental part of our system. Sure, we also made up some rules about how the new rules work, but the SC gets to say which of those made up rules are good, and which ones are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
That didn't take long. All you needed was a real group threatening to sue someone like PP for the bounty, and now there's no procedural weirdness anymore for an injunction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
Rigel posted:That didn't take long. All you needed was a real group threatening to sue someone like PP for the bounty, and now there's no procedural weirdness anymore for an injunction. They didn’t enjoin the law. Like every other state court ruling so far, only a potential plaintiff org is enjoined from enforcing the law. There has been no enjoinment of the law itself nor a blanket prohibition on plaintiffs suing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 12:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They didn’t enjoin the law. Like every other state court ruling so far, only a potential plaintiff org is enjoined from enforcing the law. There has been no enjoinment of the law itself nor a blanket prohibition on plaintiffs suing. I know that, but that is obviously going to come very soon, and now there is no procedural barrier. The judge scheduled a hearing a hell of a lot sooner than a normal case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Lol at the Antifa Supersoldiers appearing to defend their precious security blankets like loving clockwork when someone suggests Gun Control as the thing to find-and-place into the dumb Abortion Batman law as a counter-troll.jetz0r posted:But making up new rules as you go is a fundamental part of our system. Sure, we also made up some rules about how the new rules work, but the SC gets to say which of those made up rules are good, and which ones are bad. Technically the SCOTUS only get to say which of those made up rules are good and which ones are bad because Congress lets them. Judicial Review isn't codified anywhere in the Constitution, not even via amendment. Congress could regulate it at will if they wanted to. Not that I imagine they ever would, expanding the court is much simpler and has easy historical precedent to back its legitimacy as an action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Technically the SCOTUS only get to say which of those made up rules are good and which ones are bad because Congress lets them. Judicial Review isn't codified anywhere in the Constitution, not even via amendment. Congress could regulate it at will if they wanted to. Not that I imagine they ever would, expanding the court is much simpler and has easy historical precedent to back its legitimacy as an action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Lol at the Antifa Supersoldiers appearing to defend their precious security blankets like loving clockwork when someone suggests Gun Control as the thing to find-and-place into the dumb Abortion Batman law as a counter-troll. I see the gun control:abortion happening reverse more. When discussing gun control and whether it can save lives, gun advocates always end up going down the “if you truly want to save lives, then why would you support abortion.” Hell, after telling a person that my wife is still alive and my daughters were born because she was able to have an abortion without anyone outside of us and the doctor getting involved, he told me that we were the same as a mass shooter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:
Had someone tell me that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder. When I shared that my wife had one and that she would have died and my later 3 kids would have never existed had that pregnancy not been terminated, he still insisted it was murder. These people are insane and they won't be satisfied until women are being forced to die in medically unviable pregnancies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:These people are insane and they won't be satisfied until women are being forced to die in medically unviable pregnancies. When other women are forced to have unplanned children or die in unviable pregnancies.  Conservatives have zero qualms with "the only moral abortion is my abortion" as a mindset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:When other women are forced to have unplanned children or die in unviable pregnancies. That's because abortion isn't really about saving the unborn for a lot of conservatives, it's about a convenient way to control other women generally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Had someone tell me that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder. When I shared that my wife had one and that she would have died and my later 3 kids would have never existed had that pregnancy not been terminated, he still insisted it was murder. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Had someone tell me that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder. When I shared that my wife had one and that she would have died and my later 3 kids would have never existed had that pregnancy not been terminated, he still insisted it was murder. The idea that a zygote is a human being is so stupid that you pretty much have to commit all the way if you're going to believe it. Like if you admit that maybe a woman shouldn't have to die and all her future children not exist because a dividing blastocyst got stuck in her fallopian tube, then there's not a good argument for stopping any abortions. So instead they just say "yeah it's exactly like if you shot up a kindergarten to get some medicine to save your life"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
Lolin at the Republicans all getting the covid treatments made via stem cells
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
what if someone shot up something other than a kindergarten to save their life
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
well that's their constitutional right
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The idea that a zygote is a human being is so stupid that you pretty much have to commit all the way if you're going to believe it. The argument is that they have a soul at conception, hence regardless of the state of development the soul makes them a human being, hence it is murder. This argument comes from the OT where David loses a child before it was born and he is told he will see them in heaven. The argument that the value associated with the unborn is greater or equal to that of the women is bad though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:The argument that the value associated with the unborn is greater or equal to that of the women is bad though. We’ve probably all seen this one before, but it’s worth repeating… 
Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Sep 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoshuaErlich/status/1434161550085042176
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
Repeatedly taps the "purge the judiciary and rebuild it from scratch" sign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:The argument is that they have a soul at conception, hence regardless of the state of development the soul makes them a human being, hence it is murder. This argument comes from the OT where David loses a child before it was born and he is told he will see them in heaven. In cases like this it's worth remembering the old fertility clinic thought experiment--you're in a burning fertility clinic with a five-year-old child, surrounded by fridges containing trays of fertilized embryos. You can choose to either grab the child and escape, or grab a tray of one hundred fertilized embryos and escape. Not even the staunchest anti-choice person chooses to grab the fertilized embryos, because they know that one actual human child is more important than one hundred fertilized embryos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:The argument is that they have a soul at conception, hence regardless of the state of development the soul makes them a human being, hence it is murder. This argument comes from the OT where David loses a child before it was born and he is told he will see them in heaven. The Old Testament was pretty ahead of it's time if it had a pregnant David dealing with a miscarriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:California, New York, and other blue states really need to rush out a similar law that lets people sue gun owners for perceived offenses as well. Yeah I am an incredibly dumb and stupid person, but it feels like you could pass a law saying almost anything that isn't explicitly protected by the constitution under this weird legal quirk. Could a state make it illegal to be a millionaire and allow citizens to sue for their fair share?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Can we just drop all pretense and say that cops have full legal immunity? Because that’s where we’re at
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
With this onslaught why is biden not packing the courts, ho right he doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 08:07
|
|
