|
Professor Beetus posted:Why should they get 90 days? Why is this "crying out for reform?" Last I checked, ignorance of the law was not a valid defense for breaking it. Because actually fixing things and making them available to disabled people is much more important than a rando getting a payday. The law wants to incentivize that, rather than people bounty-hunting ADA violations. But my understanding is that the system is already aimed at this and most of the lawsuits actually end with the business fixing whatever was wrong and paying attorney fees if anything. The idea that someone failed to have counters at the appropriate height and their business died because of the mean ol’ ADA is almost entirely fictional and the official you’re responding to is buying into a very right-wing framing of the issue. Most of these people “making a living” off of enforcing the ADA are doing it as a cheaper, more right-wing friendly alternative to having a proper regulatory body.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Because actually fixing things and making them available to disabled people is much more important than a rando getting a payday. The law wants to incentivize that, rather than people bounty-hunting ADA violations. Well then it certainly seems like this is a non-issue or something that could be fixed by having a proper regulatory body, and I think the previous poster's assessment of what the Dem rep said was essentially accurate, unless you are incapable of inference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Sure, they should have a reasonable amount of time to make things ADA compliant. Fortunately they've had 33 years since the ADA was passed in 1990. Fix your poo poo or get hosed by a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Well then it certainly seems like this is a non-issue or something that could be fixed by having a proper regulatory body, and I think the previous poster's assessment of what the Dem rep said was essentially accurate, unless you are incapable of inference. The person performing the lawsuits in the first place also agreed a 90 day grace period would be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
What is the current grace period? Is it just zero? Someone spots a deficiency you didn't proactively fix and you are immediately penalized? A grace period seems like a good idea given that even if you want to correct a deficiency it's realistically going to take some time to find and hire a contractor etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
The problem with a 90 day grace period is it incentivizes companies to not do anything until they get notified that they have to, and that only happens if they get reported. It puts the onus on disabled people to force companies to fix their poo poo instead of on the companies to have access in the first place. What they really need is for ADA compliance to be part of regular health and safety inspections. But nobody wants to pay for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What is the current grace period? Is it just zero? Someone spots a deficiency you didn't proactively fix and you are immediately penalized? A grace period seems like a good idea given that even if you want to correct a deficiency it's realistically going to take some time to find and hire a contractor etc Most of these stories are about people suing under state level laws which supplement the ADA, not the actual federal ADA, so all the details vary by local state law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The problem with a 90 day grace period is it incentivizes companies to not do anything until they get notified that they have to, and that only happens if they get reported. It puts the onus on disabled people to force companies to fix their poo poo instead of on the companies to have access in the first place. What they really need is for ADA compliance to be part of regular health and safety inspections. But nobody wants to pay for that. 90 days isn't a lot of time if the fix is something significant or requires a contractor/permits, so it's in the interest of the owner to have it dealt with in advance, rather than having to pay for costlier fast repairs. There's also the issue of an owner possibly not knowing there's a problem, knowing there's a problem and being in the process of fixing it, laws changing, etc. Immediacy is generally reserved for things like serious risks to public health and safety. If you go the route of ADA being part of some sort of routine inspection and enforcement process (which would probably be good) then those timeframes still apply, if not more so - inspections would happen on some routine frequency and likely carry timelines for repair if deficiencies are found; citizen reporting could happen but action would then fall to the regulating agency to investigate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
As written ADA requires a lot of factfinding for individual case liability, particularly on the capacity of the business to provide the accommodation. Setting up a separate regulatory entity could be theoretically done, but in practice this would mean federalizing building codes. This is likely why the law is not written in that direction - the idea was that liability would produce a long-term standardization where actual harms occur.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The person performing the lawsuits in the first place also agreed a 90 day grace period would be a good idea. That's fine but it's not the law and this bird food bathtub posted:Sure, they should have a reasonable amount of time to make things ADA compliant. And this KillHour posted:The problem with a 90 day grace period is it incentivizes companies to not do anything until they get notified that they have to, and that only happens if they get reported. It puts the onus on disabled people to force companies to fix their poo poo instead of on the companies to have access in the first place. What they really need is for ADA compliance to be part of regular health and safety inspections. But nobody wants to pay for that. Are correct e: so if ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse for not following the law, then no, a 90 day period is not necessary and I have no sympathy for business owners who can't be bothered with making sure their business complies with ADA requirements day one. It's not a new law and if you're going into business you should know that. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
I will now begin referring to nikki haley as the "presumptive 2024 republican nominee"; it brings me little joy to report
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I will now begin referring to nikki haley as the "presumptive 2024 republican nominee"; it brings me little joy to report I do get where she's coming from though, if workers realize democracy benefits them in their workplace they might get crazy ideas like thinking democracy is good in generally actually and then the next thing you know you've got people wanting to vote in a reasonable manner like most other countries or vote on direct referendums, that'd be the death knell of the whole party right there The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing? My question is, is there a higher than 0% chance that Trump is NOT in the ballot in the general election in 1 or more state? And if there is, what does the path to get there looks? Because this is for the primary, the general is a different thing, then you have the delegates or whatever, the supreme court, i'm not going to sort through all that, has someone done it already?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing? Most people are pretty certain that the Supreme Court is going to decide that Trump is eligible to be on the ballot in all 50 states. For legal thinking that allows for a modest, but real, possibility that they will in fact side against Trump, you can have a read of this https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/is-the-supreme-court-seriously-going-40f?r=3lifg Which is fairly long so the ultra-short version is "There are a number of arguments Trump can make for his side but none of them are tremendously convincing, and it's conceivable that they don't clear the needed bar." The question is basically which of the following do you believe to be most true, taking the SCOTUS as a whole; 1. The Supreme Court wants Trump to be President, and will find whatever ruling is needed in aid of that 2. The Supreme Court wants to guard their own institutional power and restore their reputation, and are willing to rule against Trump if they judge doing so aids those goals 3. The Supreme Court is taking marching orders from an anti-Trumpist sector of the Republican party, and will find whatever ruling is needed to kill his ability to run 4. The Supreme Court is a genuinely apolitical, sober guardian of the law and will do their level best to reach a conclusion based only on the evidence and legal arguments put before them Not many people would consider any of these except number 1 to be at all plausible, and I don't think anyone except a Supreme Court employee would seriously believe 4 is the case. I can personally see the case that some combination of 2 and 3 will prevail and they'll shiv Trump so I'm not as ready as some people to say with conviction they will say he's eligible, but I still think it's a pretty long shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I can see letting primaries slide, though. They're not an actual election for any office - it's just an internal party thing. The government has an interest in the names on the ballot for the general election, though. Primary elections aren't purely internal party matters. See for instance the 24th amendment and Smith v. Allwright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing? 20% according to this court watcher https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/is-the-supreme-court-seriously-going-40f?r=3lifg&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 10:31
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:
Charlz Guybon posted:20% according to this court watcher I think the substack guy is mostly right but I'd actually shade the chances of Trump getting disqualified slightly higher, up to around maybe 25%. For something like this I think it's a mistake to look at "the Court" as a whole; you have to get granular and look at the individual justices. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and (probably, I don't have as a good a read on her) Barrett are partisan locks, and will vote party Republican no matter what. Conversely, though. . . as the substack guy points out, the Colorado Supreme Court's argument is, for lack of a better term, correct; it's really well reasoned and thorough and so is the Maine Secretary of State's argument and all the people dissenting and disagreeing and the other courts that have gone the other way . . haven't actually reached the merits, they're kicking it on procedural or other technical grounds. So that means Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson have plenty of ammunition and every reason to vote to disqualify; that is actually the correct legal ruling. So the question comes down to "What will Roberts and Gorsuch do?". Roberts is a much more traditional business republican, not a maga-head, and he cares deeply about the institutional legacy of the Court. The Court is facing a LOT of criticism lately and a ruling against Trump would be a way to restore a great deal of legitimacy to the Court's reputation as an impartial body without really sacrificing much of anything that Roberts cares about. Similarly, Gorsuch is a weird libertarian who actually believes in the originalist, textualist stuff, it's not just kayfabe for him like it is for Kavanaugh, so he might be persuaded by the legal arguments for disqualification. Given all that, I think there's roughly a 25% or so chance that the Court decides to affirm the Colorado opinion in a meaningful way -- basically a 25% chance that Roberts and Gorsuch decide it's in everyone's best interest to just take Trump out back behind the woodshed and end the difficulty. The other 75% . . .I'd say probably around 25% chance they outright rule he's clear to be on the ballot, and around a 50% chance that they do some variety of ducking the question, either ruling he can stay on because the criminal trial isn't over yet, or that this is all primary ballots so premature, or they just issue a stay of the rulings excluding him from ballots then delay ruling at all till after the election, etc. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 13:32
|
|
|
Roberts will be siding with the left wing of the court, either in the majority with gorsuch or in the minority so he can write a worthless little dissent himself.
FizFashizzle fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
Kavanaugh feels like the kind of guy who will bandwagon and jump to the winning side if Roberts and Goursch vote against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Am I wrong that a SCOTUS decision now would be restricted to whether states are individually allowed to bar Trump from their ballots because of their interpretations of the 14th amendment? So they could rule against Trump, a handful of states don't have him on the ballot, and he could win, anyway? And if that's right, would they be forced to eventually make a nationwide decision about his eligibility, or could they just ignore it entirely and leave it to each state to decide?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Am I wrong that a SCOTUS decision now would be restricted to whether states are individually allowed to bar Trump from their ballots because of their interpretations of the 14th amendment? I think this is how it goes, I think SCOTUS ultimately owe no loyalty to Trump beyond 1 or 2 of the worst of the hacks and just let states decide it and splitting down the middle is the easiest thing they can do; I think they balk at the idea that a President is immune to the 14th.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:
They *could* , but ultimately their decision would necessarily be *about* interpretation of a constitutional amendment, which is federal law that governs all states. So they would really have to thread a needle to rule in such a way that didn't end up binding the courts in every state. A lot of this discussion is fundamentally about how obviously the Court is going to be willing to break kayfabe to protect Trump. The problem is that the legal argument for disqualification is actually surprisingly strong, so the Court doesn't have much wiggle room to rule in his favor without just going "gently caress you, republicans always win, MAGA, deal with it" and generally most of the Court doesnt' want to do that. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Am I wrong that a SCOTUS decision now would be restricted to whether states are individually allowed to bar Trump from their ballots because of their interpretations of the 14th amendment? As it is now, if the court decides to rule on the ability of the states to use the 14th to limit ballot access they still have a wide range of options on how they do so.
Aside from rulings that either find Trump violated the 14th or carve out an Orange Exemption, I feel like the court is going to take the opportunity to limit the ruling only to primaries. It's a limitation that gives them the most latitude to do something without actually doing anything. Even if they rule states can kick Trump off the primary ballot, it's highly unlikely that enough states do so to actually deny him the nomination. Though the possible future of the 2024 RNC being a complete shitshow where Trump hasn't secured the nomination, but nobody else has enough delegates either is hilarious. Gyges fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As it is now, if the court decides to rule on the ability of the states to use the 14th to limit ballot access they still have a wide range of options on how they do so. Uh, minor correction, but only some of the legal question is about primaries, I believe Maine and CO straight up ruled Trump cannot be on the general election ballot; there's likely no question that private parties can let anyone run in a primary, they just can't be on the ballot for the general election managed by states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Uh, minor correction, but only some of the legal question is about primaries, I believe Maine and CO straight up ruled Trump cannot be on the general election ballot; there's likely no question that private parties can let anyone run in a primary, they just can't be on the ballot for the general election managed by states. Don't know how I selectively absorbed the information as being only about primaries. Being about both does make actual sense with about 2 seconds of further thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Also, given court timelines and primary timelines, it doesn't really make sense for the high court to rule on just the primary issue. Such a ruling would kick the can down the road just a few months, and then they'd have the same litigation over again about the general ballots, with more at stake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Everyone should read the substack link that's been posted several times, it is extremely detailed and understandable
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
If the court does rule that Trump is disqualified, what are the arguments that it should only be for the primary? Is it pretty likely that he'd be disqualified from the general as well? And would it apply to all states (probably bad news for Biden, then, since Trump isn't the nominee) or just the ones themselves disqualified him (good news for Biden, since Trump will run and be ineligible for electoral votes in several states).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
small butter posted:If the court does rule that Trump is disqualified, what are the arguments that it should only be for the primary? Is it pretty likely that he'd be disqualified from the general as well? And would it apply to all states (probably bad news for Biden, then, since Trump isn't the nominee) or just the ones themselves disqualified him (good news for Biden, since Trump will run and be ineligible for electoral votes in several states). The only reason to disqualify him from the primaries is that he is ineligible for the general election. There are no arguments that it should only be for the primary. The ruling would necessarily apply to all states since it's a federal constitutional issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
I'd think the "easiest" option for SCOTUS would be to punt by allowing Trump on those ballots with "this only applies to this specific situation" rulings (a la Bush v Gore), but that probably means the exact same case pops up in other states, including Florida inevitably deciding Biden committed treason or something. If they want the problem to go away longer, they could just decide that since Trump was never convicted of insurrection by a court, the 14th doesn't apply because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Uh, minor correction, but only some of the legal question is about primaries, I believe Maine and CO straight up ruled Trump cannot be on the general election ballot; there's likely no question that private parties can let anyone run in a primary, they just can't be on the ballot for the general election managed by states. Quick question on Maine and CO - does that prevent people from writing him in (or their votes being counted)? Or is he excluded from contention in those specific states entirely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I'd think the "easiest" option for SCOTUS would be to punt by allowing Trump on those ballots with "this only applies to this specific situation" rulings (a la Bush v Gore), but that probably means the exact same case pops up in other states, including Florida inevitably deciding Biden committed treason or something. I think wanting the problem to go away is going to be a major factor in what the court decides to do. They aren't going to want to issue a decision that results in 48 more Trump eligibility lawsuits popping up over the next few months Shooting Blanks posted:Quick question on Maine and CO - does that prevent people from writing him in (or their votes being counted)? Or is he excluded from contention in those specific states entirely? Voting for an ineligible candidate is not illegal, but the votes will not be counted and he cannot win the election even if there are more of those votes than for anyone else. If Trump is held to be disqualified under section 3 at the federal level there's no difference between voting for him and voting for Mickey Mouse
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
In CO you have to do special paperwork for write-ins to count, and lol if he manages to do that while not have the party infrastructure behind him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Appeals court rules Trump can't claim immunity from Capital Police lawsuits. Trump keeps claiming immunity on every single issue he has ever had since 2016. They haven't really borne fruit for him since he was no longer president, but I am curious what would happen to all of these immunity claims if SC were to find merit in him claiming immunity. Doubtless Trump would claim immunity even harder and then we would have the joys over quibbling over how immune he is in every civil, state or federal trial he gets involved in. Professor Beetus posted:e: so if ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse for not following the law, then no, a 90 day period is not necessary and I have no sympathy for business owners who can't be bothered with making sure their business complies with ADA requirements day one. It's not a new law and if you're going into business you should know that. My state and surrounding states had a number of people and organizations (E: Turns out it was one dude) that abused the ADA and State ADA laws and sued a number of small businesses for tens of thousands of dollars. Most of the lawsuits came from parking conditions no longer meeting the ADA requirements and the owners being unaware of this, but were easily fixable. -Handicap sign was no longer straight. -Handicap sign not high enough -Handicap sign no longer met size requirements from initial install -Handicap parking marked but missing sign -Signage meeting old regulations but no longer in compliance with new revisions. More along those lines. Anyway the big offender was a non-profit called AID that didn't disclose to the IRS that they would raise revenue through lawsuits. They would sue businesses for the maximum allowable amount based on handicap signs being wrong, then offer to settle prior to the court proceedings. They ended up filing 1700 suits in one year. Eventually their chief counsel was disbarred and a ton of the suits were thrown out. The resulting fines were used for a fund that would educate business owners on ADA requirements and the businesses materially harmed could collect attorney fees from AID. I agree with you that if a business is so far out of ADA compliance they need to be punished for it. If the business thinks they're in compliance and it appears they are at a layperson level, then they should be given a chance to fix the issue. If they don't, again bring the hammer, but I think good faith efforts should be encouraged. ADA violations definitely shouldn't be used as a moneymaking vehicle for private persons/organizations, but I think with the rulings back in 2017 have helped close that gray area and provided stricter rules. Couple of articles I used to refresh my memory. Changing AzDA requirements over the years Settlement notice from the AG on the cases being thrown out. Article about AID before courts found them as frivolous litigants Article about AID's lead counsel continuing lawsuits pro se after he was disbarred for his actions
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nemo posted:Is there a foreigners/dummies explanation of the Trump thing? There's a part of the Constitution, added in the aftermath of the Civil War, that says that anyone who takes an oath to support the Constitution (required as part of holding certain offices and positions) and then engages in "insurrection or rebellion" will be disqualified from a wide array of government positions. Unfortunately, the text does not specifically define "insurrection" or "rebellion", nor does it specify whether any due process is attached to this, nor does it specify whether the presidency is among the affected offices. And naturally, any laws that codified these details were repealed long ago, so all the specifics are up to judges to decide. Since this clause was added to the Constitution in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, its implementation has always been deeply affected by contemporary political considerations. And one of those considerations was that the disenfranchisement of ex-Confederates was lifted after just a few years, so this clause of the Constitution has almost never been enforced. Strictly speaking, there isn't actually any Constitutional requirement that states only allow people to vote for someone who's eligible to be president. For historical reasons, voters in each state are really voting for electors, and it's those electors who cast the votes to actually elect a president. Each state can set its own rules and procedures for choosing or electing the presidential electors. This has mostly been abstracted away in modern presidential elections, but the system still technically exists and the Constitution goes by that. That means that while electors can't vote for someone who's not eligible to be president (technically they can, but those votes won't be counted), the voters are under no such constraint since their votes don't really matter - technically, they're just telling the state who they think the state's electors should vote for, and how much that matters is up to state law. So all this ballot access stuff is just different state governments with different political positions and different election laws all doing their own things. I wouldn't pay attention to that, though - it really just boils down to trying to force the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's candidacy, and that ruling will apply to all 50 states. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's a part of the Constitution, added in the aftermath of the Civil War, that says that anyone who takes an oath to support the Constitution (required as part of holding certain offices and positions) and then engages in "insurrection or rebellion" will be disqualified from a wide array of government positions. Comedy option: SCOTUS goes for a strict precedential interpretation, Trump has been/will be barred from the ballot box for the same number of days between the 14th Amendment and the Amnesty Act. This applies retroactively to January 6th, and thus he can/cannot be on the 2024 ballot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:If they want the problem to go away longer, they could just decide that since Trump was never convicted of insurrection by a court, the 14th doesn't apply because reasons. The problem the Court faces is that all the easy outs like this one are precluded by either the text or the historical context that they profess to value -- for example, the 14th amendment clearly barred all former confederate soldiers from holding office, that was the whole point, but none of them had actually been tried and convicted either, so clearly that can't be a requirement. I encourage people to read the Maine and Colorado opinions, they're well written and answer a lot of the questions people are asking. Maine here: https://www.maine.gov/sos/news/2023/Decision%20in%20Challenge%20to%20Trump%20Presidential%20Primary%20Petitions.pdf Colorado here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:The question is basically which of the following do you believe to be most true, taking the SCOTUS as a whole; You left out 5. The Supreme Court are human beings who are worried about their own skins and will avoid ruling against Trump in this matter so as not to fall victim to violence at the hands of his mob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 20:55
|
|
