|
BonoMan posted:Oh I'm sure, but what other reason could their be to NOT protect Justice adjacent folks? He just wants to leave the door open to punish whomever the hell it was. It should be noted that the punishment being sought here by Mitch is murder by ideological goons through street violence.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Why would increased security make it harder to punish the leaker? The security would yield to an authorized search or arrest warrant
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I don't think anyone has solid data on that at all. Death threats directed to supreme court judges don't appear to be collated anywhere. Though they're already well protected, it's funny that Mitch thinks adding staff is political when the entire thing is political but he wanted to make it look like the judges were suddenly vulnerable due to the leak but he's clutching pearls when the Dems expand on his logic and push protection to staff as well who currently really are not as well protected. The right is the source of the overwhelming majority of threats to politicians and judges and other government officials. Increasing ways of insulating judges from feeling coerced into decisions is unambiguously a good thing, even with conservative judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The right is the source of the overwhelming majority of threats to politicians and judges and other government officials. Increasing ways of insulating judges from feeling coerced into decisions is unambiguously a good thing, even with conservative judges. It's only a good thing if we have a working justice system. We don't, so it's neutral at best except to the individual judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The right is the source of the overwhelming majority of threats to politicians and judges and other government officials. Increasing ways of insulating judges from feeling coerced into decisions is unambiguously a good thing, even with conservative judges. Oh, maybe with this feeling of safety then they'll back off of killing Roe v. Wade which must be influenced by all those death threats. What an own goal by Republicans. I also hadn't realized the judges were in such danger up until now. I had just assumed they already had security services to protect them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Why would increased security make it harder to punish the leaker? The security would yield to an authorized search or arrest warrant I don't think he is saying it would make it harder to punish the leaker. Mitch is, very rarely and refreshingly, admitting in this case that the reason is pure spite. Court staff should not need security, and if someone causes security problems for themselves by leaking, that is their problem and they should deal with the consequences of their own actions. In this case, the "consequence" is trying to not be murdered without any outside assistance. edit: to take it further, the obvious answer is that you could fire someone for cause if they leak, and they would then presumably no longer qualify for protection, so there's no need to deprive security to innocent staff who might be misidentified as the leaker. To that, if Mitch continued to be honest he would probably respond with an evil grin and say that the real point here is to make court staff scared for their own lives so that they make sure leaks never happen again. Rigel fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:There is one matter on which the modern Democratic party (or at least its leadership) would differ with FDR of course, which was his attempt to reform the SCOTUS to gain more sympathetic justices. It's worth noting that the Democratic party back then differed with FDR on that issue as well. Despite the Dems having a straight-up supermajority (68+ votes!), FDR was unable to push the bill through, and the attempt significantly damaged his political support not only in Congress but also among the larger electorate, largely putting an end to the expansion of the New Deal. As far as I can tell, the court-packing bill is generally considered today to have been a painful own-goal for FDR, disrupting the powerful Congressional support he'd enjoyed up to that point. More recent historiography has cast some doubt on the long-held perception that it caused a shift in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and saved the New Deal. And in the end, FDR got to take over the Supreme Court anyway just by staying in office long enough to fill a bunch of seats. Josef bugman posted:This does seem to be a sticking point "The liars and petty tyrants that rule us are inherently driven by moral concerns, why would they pretend otherwise?" seems to be, if you will pardon me, a touch daft. Everyone has moral concerns, which play a significant role in their decision-making process. The internal moral concerns driving them might not be the same as the moral concerns they state publicly, and their moral worldview might be internally inconsistent and prone to contradictions, but they still exist. Saturday morning cartoon villains aren't real. When people champion imperial conquest or engage in massacres, they're still following their own personal moral concerns! If you've ever read anything from the heyday of the British Empire, for instance, they were absolutely radiating their belief in the moral superiority of the Empire and its great civilizing mission and all that horsecrap. And while boosters of the empire certainly found opportunities to satisfy their own personal greed at others' expense, there was a general underlying framework of moral justifications dictating who it was okay to steal from and who it wasn't okay to steal from. "Those people don't deserve their stuff, we should take it from them by any means necessary and redistribute it to others" is a methodology that's hardly unique to imperialists, after all. Revolutionary socialists aren't the first ones to come up with moral framework that justifies or even demands that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Why would increased security make it harder to punish the leaker? The security would yield to an authorized search or arrest warrant Gerund posted:It should be noted that the punishment being sought here by Mitch is murder by ideological goons through street violence. What Gerund said. I wasn't talking about about legal punishment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Oh, maybe with this feeling of safety then they'll back off of killing Roe v. Wade which must be influenced by all those death threats. What an own goal by Republicans. I also hadn't realized the judges were in such danger up until now. I had just assumed they already had security services to protect them. The issue is that violent coercion does work and it essentially always works in favor of the reactionaries who are most able to act on it with the least personal liability or even tacit support of current power structures. No, protecting judges is probably not saving Roe, but that's a separate problem (the makeup of the court itself). Meanwhile every time an abortion providing doctor or pro-choice activist is murdered or a clinic is blown up, it adds to the coercive pressure of the stream of threats directed at judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The issue is that violent coercion does work and it essentially always works in favor of the reactionaries who are most able to act on it with the least personal liability or even tacit support of current power structures. No, protecting judges is probably not saving Roe, but that's a separate problem (the makeup of the court itself). Meanwhile every time an abortion providing doctor or pro-choice activist is murdered or a clinic is blown up, it adds to the coercive pressure of the stream of threats directed at judges. Ok. I'm going to be honest I don't understand how your point relates to a bill to provide protection to judges who are not actually in any danger and don't seem to have a history of being coerced into their decisions by right wing violence. It's not like this bill protects abortion doctors and pro-choice activists. It's increased security for judges who already have security because they're about to make a right wing decision that doesn't seem to be coerced out of them through violence. Nothing you said is wrong, it just seems to be a total non-sequitur to what's actually happening in the world and what the actual bill is about. I hope the theoretical judges being coerced by clinic bombings are safe but no one was talking about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
The bill is about providing protection to their families (plus clerks and a few others), which it takes anyone motivated all of 5 seconds to look up. I'm not clear what you think the potential upside of blocking that is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The bill is about providing protection to their families (plus clerks and a few others), which it takes anyone motivated all of 5 seconds to look up. I'm not clear what you think the potential upside of blocking that is? They're not in danger. They're already protected. I'm not going to buy into right wing framing that this leak has put them in any danger when they're already protected and that danger hasn't manifested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
The right wing framing that they are in danger and need to be protected while the right are the ones blocking the bill? how does that work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The right wing framing that they are in danger and need to be protected while the right are the ones blocking the bill? how does that work? Explain your first "they". The right is blocking the House bill that adds security to additional people the right would prefer to be punished by murder of ideological goons through street violence. The right has their own bill that they approve of, and the difference between the two is stark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Court staff should not need security, and if someone causes security problems for themselves by leaking, that is their problem and they should deal with the consequences of their own actions. In this case, the "consequence" is trying to not be murdered without any outside assistance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The right wing framing that they are in danger and need to be protected while the right are the ones blocking the bill? how does that work? Because the entire point of the original bill was to imply the leak put the judges in danger. Democrats called that bluff by extending the bill to families and staff, extending the logic of the Republicans, so they're now trying to kill it because no one is actually in danger it was just about sending a message about the leak and the new version doesn't send that message. This is a case of right wing bluffs actually being called, they don't buy their own argument that the leak made things more dangerous for the judges or they would be passing this. It's all about sending messages and if that's the case all the bills should just die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The right wing framing that they are in danger and need to be protected while the right are the ones blocking the bill? how does that work? They probably think they can ble the democrats for not passing it and "not taking our justices secirty seriously".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
Political melodrama of it aside, I think it would be unambiguously good to have more protection for people around judges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Political melodrama of it aside, I think it would be unambiguously good to have more protection for people around judges. The thing you actually want is the "Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy act" but that seems to be stuck in process. It provides increased privacy and security for the families of federal judges. It was created due to an actual act of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
If I were forced to make a list of poo poo That I am Worried About Right Now, I'm pretty sure that What Happens in High School Sports would be rather low on it. Seriously, who gives a gently caress? With all the other poo poo happening right now? And all of a sudden, conservatives and Republicans care about women's sports of all things? In high school?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:If I were forced to make a list of poo poo That I am Worried About Right Now, I'm pretty sure that What Happens in High School Sports would be rather low on it. Seriously, who gives a gently caress? With all the other poo poo happening right now? It's just another pillar to support their culture war. It seems dumb and trivial (high school sports, not trans rights) - but they're using it to get people fired up and elected to school boards where they can start enacting local change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to the three actual bills being discussed or detailed summaries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:If I were forced to make a list of poo poo That I am Worried About Right Now, I'm pretty sure that What Happens in High School Sports would be rather low on it. Seriously, who gives a gently caress? With all the other poo poo happening right now? The "good" thing about only 30% of Americans supporting trans female athletes is that it is probably an inverse of the gun situation in politics. Somewhere between 55% and 80% of Americans support tighter gun laws (depending on specifics and how it is phrased), but only a small percentage really care about the issue and vote on it. 70% of Americans may be against trans athletes in girls' sports, but I doubt very many of them deeply care about the issue or vote exclusively on it. The small percentage who do probably get fired up about the issue and the vast majority of other people don't support it and don't really care what they do, so it doesn't hurt them much to pound that drum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:And all of a sudden, conservatives and Republicans care about women's sports of all things? In high school? Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:70% of Americans may be against trans athletes in girls' sports, but I doubt very many of them deeply care about the issue or vote exclusively on it.. This Is the Zodiac fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:If I were forced to make a list of poo poo That I am Worried About Right Now, I'm pretty sure that What Happens in High School Sports would be rather low on it. Seriously, who gives a gently caress? With all the other poo poo happening right now? There are many potential Republican votes to be gained by slamming schools, because of the strain and difficulty and results of Distance Learning has made these voters angry at the schools. Republican manifesto includes destroying schools -> people are mad at schools -> the RW agenda is about how bad schools are and how you need to vote for them to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:If I were forced to make a list of poo poo That I am Worried About Right Now, I'm pretty sure that What Happens in High School Sports would be rather low on it. Seriously, who gives a gently caress? With all the other poo poo happening right now? High school sports is a huge thing to people with kids in them. You look at small town newspapers that still exist, in exactly the rural communities where Republicans rely on more and more for votes, the high school teams have more ink devoted to them than any other topic. Do conservative elites care about any of this in practice? Mostly not, but they figured out it’s the new thing to rile up (and deepen) their base. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:02
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:They care about inventing a new bogey(wo)man that "regular people" can be afraid of, because "regular people" vote for them when they get afraid. That describes a large part of the Republican base. But, I don't think 70% of Americans fit into the category of the Republican base. There's a few other social or "cultural" issues where Republicans have big support from the general public (letting felons vote in prison, allowing voluntary prayer in school, making flag burning illegal, etc.), but very few people base their votes on those issues. Illegal immigration is the only major "cultural" issue I can think of where some people who normally don't vote Republican will support them for it. The rest of the stuff is for their base. Very few of the 70% of Americans who oppose letting trans athletes play in women's sports who weren't going to vote Republican are going to change their vote based on that issue. But, a small portion who were already going to vote Republican will get excited about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Coastal elites don't know or care that Friday Night Lights communities exist, and the right has been successfully leveraging that against them for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This does seem to be a sticking point "The liars and petty tyrants that rule us are inherently driven by moral concerns, why would they pretend otherwise?" seems to be, if you will pardon me, a touch daft. They very often are though. And that’s a much harder problem than if they were all cynical manipulators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Very few of the 70% of Americans who oppose letting trans athletes play in women's sports who weren't going to vote Republican are going to change their vote based on that issue. But, a small portion who were already going to vote Republican will get excited about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
wrong god drat thread
Star Man fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
quote ain't edit Star Man fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Diablo IV is going to look like a mix of hmthe executives overreacting to the criticism if Diablo III's launch and whatever poo poo they want ripped right iut if competing games. But how will this affect the midterms!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But how will this affect the midterms!? It has a 2023 release date, so probably not a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But how will this affect the midterms!? Diablo himself is campaigning. Why vote for the LESSER of two evils?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But how will this affect the midterms!? lol gently caress I am just out if it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The perfect encapsulation of this thread is someone saying they're a Muslim leftist who believes in moral absolutism and this motivated them to help the needy and it leading to an accusation of wanting a Sharia law dictatorship and the accusation moral absolutism is the cause and result of every recent modern war. Is that the perfect encapsulation of this thread, or is it just a bad post set of posts that you are trying to make into a claim of groupthink in order to justify your frustrations with differing opinions to justify a narrative of forum rivalry?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
if you support diablo 4 will be the most important vote you ever cast
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Is that the perfect encapsulation of this thread, or is it just a bad post set of posts that you are trying to make into a claim of groupthink in order to justify your frustrations with differing opinions to justify a narrative of forum rivalry? Nah they're just really funny posts inside of "US CE Spring 2022: The place you go to get mad about things you half remember and only partially understand" Like I really don't think you understand, I spent a good minute just belly laughing at seeing an accusation of sharia law in this thread. I never ever actually expected it in here but there it was. Very funny. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:Tell me you didn't pay attention to the Virginia state-level election without telling me you didn't pay attention to the Virginia state-level election. Republicans swept a state that Obama won twice and Clinton and Biden both won, by campaigning on exactly these kinds of issues. There is a solid base of people who would otherwise vote against Republicans/Trump but are absolutely terrified that the schools being bad means that their child won't get into Yale. Transness is the expansion because you can depend on Trans-people existing and arguing for their own humanity in a way you can't depend on an opposition candidate saying "gently caress you, you dont know how to teach your own kid".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:31
|
|