|
burnishedfume posted:In fairness, they said a new replacement, and I don't think that word is any newer than Uncle Tom is. biznatchio posted:"Republican" "House Republican" ?
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
jeeves posted:We need a new "Uncle Tom" style term for a minority that chugs rich establishment dick for their own gain and then devotes their life to pulling up the ladder behind them. "Uncle Thomas"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:There already is one, unfortunately. Two words, starts with "house". I feel really stupid for not understanding what this is referring to. Is it really so bad that we need to play coy about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:13
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I feel really stupid for not understanding what this is referring to. Is it really so bad that we need to play coy about it? it was a term for a slave that had gained enough favor to live and work inside master's house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:it was a term for a slave that had gained enough favor to live and work inside master's house. Right okay as you were. I'm gonna be over here not touching or saying anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:22
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I feel really stupid for not understanding what this is referring to. Is it really so bad that we need to play coy about it? It's presumably a reference to the fact that Southern slavers tended to divide their slave work into household slaves (responsible for domestic chores) and field slaves (responsible for agricultural work and other hard manual labor). The two groups faced drastically different treatment, and were often kept fairly isolated from each other, so there wasn't always a ton of solidarity between them. Household slaves generally had better basic living conditions (better food, clothes, housing), and spent their days with the slaveowner's family, so house slaves were more trusted and were more likely to develop some kind of personal relationship with the slaveowner (though that wasn't always a good thing for them). As a result, they were sometimes resented by the field slaves. If you see a layman using the phrase "house slave" (or one of several racist and offensive versions on that phrase) outside of a pure historical discussion, it's usually in reference to the somewhat unsavory reputation that developed as a result of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:48
|
|
|
And probably a reference to a very famous Malcolm X speech (TW: he says the n-word) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kf7fujM4ag
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 12:06
|
|
|
Supremes told Alabama to gently caress off https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FixTheCourt/status/1706682703276278058
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Oh we debating which racially loaded term to call a black man in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Supremes told Alabama to gently caress off I'm shocked Thomas and Alito didn't dissent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I'm shocked Thomas and Alito didn't dissent. I can understand it from the perspective of not wanting to dilute the court's authority. If you allow one state to flagrantly ignore the Supreme Court, then those dirty liberals might ignore the 2026 kill all immigrants decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Corambis posted:I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis? They already did it once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
This includes that guy in Alabama that Alabama failed to kill the first time and now they want to try and kill again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
jeeves posted:We need a new "Uncle Tom" style term for a minority that chugs rich establishment dick for their own gain and then devotes their life to pulling up the ladder behind them. Every minority community already has their own words for this, and if you don't know one to sue then it's a sign you shouldn't be using it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Corambis posted:I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis? Considering the death penalty is explicitly written into the constitution it doesn’t seem fruitful to argue the 8th amendment was intended to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Corambis posted:I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis? My state doesn't have the death penalty and I've never worked on a death penalty case, so take my views with a fistful of salt. There's a few routes here. A law that has the death penalty as a punishment might violate the 8th Amendment. The current rule is that the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime. "Proportionate to the crime" is decided based on the seriousness of the crime, looking at how other crimes are punished in that state and see if the death penalty here is wildly out of line, and looking at how other states punish similar crimes and see if this state is within some sort of reasonable bound of that. I would guess the statutes in question have already been litigated and upheld, though. For an individual person to get the death penalty, the jury has to find there was some aggravating factor. Different states have different lists of these, but they're usually stuff like there was substantial planning, or the victim was particularly vulnerable. There can also be mitigating factors in a case and the jury has to weigh those so a given death penalty punishment might violate based on that. The perpetrator might also have some characteristic that makes that makes them ineligible for the death penalty. Mental disability is one and I would assume the main one that could be argued about. Method of execution has to not cause unnecessary pain. But afaik hanging is even still cool, so barring something really weird here we probably won't see that. As for how promising any of these avenues are, I don't know the cases in question. My gut instinct is that the most fertile ground would be the aggravating factors question for death penalty cases, but I don't know that by any means. Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Considering the death penalty is explicitly written into the constitution it doesn’t seem fruitful to argue the 8th amendment was intended to prevent it. Where do you find it explicitly written? If you're meaning the no "deprivation of life...without due process of law" implies general support for the death penalty with due process, I'm not sure I would read the 5th Amendment so broadly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Where do you find it explicitly written? “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” makes it pretty clear that the death penalty is contemplated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Doesn't the text also explicitly mention death by hanging as a suitable punishment for a treason or some similar severe crime?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” makes it pretty clear that the death penalty is contemplated. Well fair enough, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of certain crimes requiring a death penalty. I'll retract. eta: Treason only has some limits on punishments, it doesn't say anything is a good punishment for treason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Even if one is an originalist or whatever [even though no jurist actually is and all who claim to be are cynical liars but w/e] the cruel and unusual standard is explicitly an evolving standard. It’s a pretty easy argument to make based on its near universal abolition by liberal democracies that capital punishment already is unusual. Of course the Court wouldn’t take that argument seriously, but if there were enough popular domestic sentiment against it, they could easily ban it. Then again there isn’t even a majority of popular opposition to the death penalty even in many places where it’s banned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Corambis posted:I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis? Basically, Roberson turned up in the ER with his comatose kid, who died. At that time there was a lot of hysteria about people shaking their baby, this leading to brain injuries and death. Roberson was immediately suspected for doing that, no proof was found, but he was convicted and sentenced to death anyway. By now, „shaken baby syndrome“ has been largely disproven and is viewed as junk science. An appeals court in New Jersey has actually ruled that that is the case. In Ohio, another guy who was previously convicted based on SBS was released after a new trial, because SBS is junk science. A good number of other people have also been exonerated of a previous conviction due to SBS. Unfortunately, Roberson is in Texas. And even though Texas has a law that is specifically aimed at overturning previous convictions based on junk science, exactly zero convictions have been overturned. Just last year, Texas executed Kosoul Chanthakoummane, who was convicted based on „hypnosis of a witness to obtain identification, bitemark analysis and a discredited form of DNA testimony.“ Roberson‘s execution was stayed in 2016, a new evidentiary hearing was done, numerous experts testified that SBS was junk science, but the trial judge ignored all that and maintained that SBS was still a „reasonable diagnosis.“ A Texas appeals court also affirmed that position. So basically Roberson is hosed because Texas still thinks that junk science is acceptable, while in other jurisdictions that same junk science can‘t be used. So based on where you did something, different types of „evidence“ can be used. Obviously Texas is lobbying hard for the Supreme Court not to take the case, because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Thanks, I found both of these really helpful. Every time I read into a constitutional debate I find myself overwhelmed with the sheer volume of precedent, though I suppose that’s true for any outsider looking into a common law country. I should clarify, that I’d not intended to imply that the 8th might render capital punishment per se as unconstitutional so much as the death penalty in certain contexts might be (means of execution, proportional to the crime, &c.), and possibly do so in such a way as to render it broadly unworkable. Furman, it seems, had this chilling effect. I recall that several years ago there was a challenge to certain modes of chemical execution via the 8th, accompanied by speculation that the case might spell the end for capital punishment. Evidently it did not succeed. e.: Glossip v Gross Corambis fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Sep 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Considering how much junk science is used and treated as gospel by so many (hello, lie detectors) it'd be wonderful to get a ruling that kneecaps its use but considering the court's makeup and how bloodthirsty multiple justices are when it comes to the death penalty I'm not too optimistic. Especially when you factor in how much the cops love junk science in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
There are some excellent texts out there about the really difficult intersection between science, a necessarily epistemologically "open" structure of collaboration and exposure of weakness, and the legal system, an adversarial one based in providing social certainty in outcomes by "closing" conflicts. Even when the judges understand the issues really well (and that does happen!), it's still an innately fraught area.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There are some excellent texts out there about the really difficult intersection between science, a necessarily epistemologically "open" structure of collaboration and exposure of weakness, and the legal system, an adversarial one based in providing social certainty in outcomes by "closing" conflicts. Even when the judges understand the issues really well (and that does happen!), it's still an innately fraught area. Any chance you can recommend one or two off of memory, even if the title was close but not perfect?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 21:38
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Any chance you can recommend one or two off of memory, even if the title was close but not perfect? Not from memory, and I'm unfortunately apparently missing most of my files on the topic, other than the one on legal semiotics, which is...challenging, and not very useful. I'll get back to you shortly. A related semiotics paper focusing on the necessary positivism of law is Peter Ingram, Implicature in Legal Language, doi https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099333. The notion of the legal construction of meaning is a theme in legal semiotics that's useful in this regard (although I'd never recommend reading semiotics voluntarily). Most scientific evidence textbooks discussing the core Frye and Daubert standards touch on this to some degree, usually in the intro. I think Jasanoff, Science at the Bar, discusses this in detail. I'm very frustrated because I know there's a source that handles this really elegantly, and I can't loving find it in my files. Edit: yes, Chapter 1 of Science at the Bar summarizes the contrast- it's not the really good source I was thinking of, but it provides decent coverage. Also someone posted it to a center at U Colorado years and years ago, so you can read it here: https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/science_at_the_bar.pdf Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 5, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
The Supreme Court: Now With Ethics! https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1724147794712125566 https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf I guess they hope that releasing this code of conduct will distract from Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito’s shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Since they can't enforce any of that, even against their fellow justices, it is entirely voluntary and thus meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Since they can't enforce any of that, even against their fellow justices, it is entirely voluntary and thus meaningless. It’s just to wipe their hands of this just say ‘we’re following the code now’
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Bingo The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
"The legislature's bill is unconstitutional overreach. We have our own code! with . . .um . . . Blackjack? And . . .?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:The Supreme Court: Now With Ethics! SCOTUS CoC Canon 3.B.(3) posted:(3) The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. Ah, well. Nevertheless...
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Ah, well. Nevertheless... sounds like a line you'd put in the mouth of robespierre in a cliched movie
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
It's not like it really matters, they aren't opening themselves up to any more oversight than before, they'll just appear more hypocritical when the next batch of unreported deep sea fishing trips and RV loans come to light and nothing is done about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
If by some miracle the Dems don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next year and end up with single party* rule they could pass a law with enforceable ethics for the SCOTUS and strip the court's jurisdiction on the matter. They won't, because Dems gonna Dem, but passing a law that requires them to follow set ethics guidelines and carries criminal charges if they don't is technically doable, including punishment that forcibly recuses them from cases while it's being served. IE: Thomas gets prosecuted for corruption and goes to prison (please just let me dream) and he's prohibited from taking part in any hearings while incarcerated. * yeah yeah, you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
After a lengthy investigation of the SCOTUS by the SCOTUS the SCOTUS has determined that the SCOTUS has done no wrong, but will clarify its rules to prevent further confusion from the plebian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Just saw elsewhere that a 6:3 ruling blocks Florida from enforcing their stupid anti drag show law anywhere in the state. Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
It’s a temporary stay. I see a lot of concern that SCOTUS may still ultimately rule in Florida’s favor when the case gets to them
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:11
|
|