|
Kalman posted:Congratulations, you've come up with lobbyist's wet dream - a bunch of people who don't know what the gently caress they're doing and have zero support staff so they'll happily listen to whatever a lobbyist proposes. But enough about the 2010 election.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Congratulations, you've come up with lobbyist's wet dream - a bunch of people who don't know what the gently caress they're doing and have zero support staff so they'll happily listen to whatever a lobbyist proposes. Now they have to convince 4000 of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Now they have to convince 4000 of them. But it's 100x easier, so they're coming out way ahead. Educated professional staff are one of the best ways to combat influence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In fairness, it's going to be a month before anything happens at the Court. Then the thread can sit idle for a month. Make a new thread for gerrymandering chat or w/e else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Congratulations, you've come up with lobbyist's wet dream - a bunch of people who don't know what the gently caress they're doing and have zero support staff so they'll happily listen to whatever a lobbyist proposes. This is the same issue I have with term limits. It moves the locus of power from the visible elected office to the invisible party or lobbyist office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Would it be possible to get a new thread title, or a new thread altogether? That one is...showing its age on a few levels, at this point.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
We can't change SCOTUS threads in the middle of an election year, the American people need a chance to weigh in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Well first we're going to have to redistrict the Circuits. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In fairness, it's going to be a month before anything happens at the Court. Yes, and there are a couple of hundred years of past Court decisions we could be talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Would it be possible to get a new thread title, or a new thread altogether? That one is...showing its age on a few levels, at this point. My dream is that someone who knows more than me will make a great OP at the beginning of the new SCOTUS term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:My dream is that someone who knows more than me will make a great OP at the beginning of the new SCOTUS term. What is needed is you to write a new OP, with the next post being a vitriolic dissent to it by Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
DARPA posted:435 is a very stupid number over a decade after American Idol managed tallying the choice of millions more voters. Any solution to gerrymandering that doesn't include expanded the house can only exacerbate the situation. Put in enough reps and gerrymandering becomes a nonissue. Too expensive? 10x the reps won't need the same staff. They can do the copying and drafting and other work themselves. Honestly I would say go the opposite way, divide by 5. States can't drop below 1 rep. Otherwise round down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Honestly I would say go the opposite way, divide by 5. States can't drop below 1 rep. Otherwise round down. We don't need two Senates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Coming back to the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Circuit today issued an opinion touching upon border searches. The concurrence summarized 4A jurisprudence regarding border searches, and exemplifies what I was saying about how border searches fall into their own category of analysis, completely inapplicable to searches of homes: Lol that's a well done three paragraph explanation as to why you were completely wrong. It's an explanation of why border searches are allowable without a warrant because they pass examination under the reasonableness clause instead of the warrant clause. Which is what I've said like a half dozen times now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yes, and there are a couple of hundred years of past Court decisions we could be talking about. This is actually a good idea. What do people think of the Buck v Bell decision by SCOTUS that "three generations of imbeciles are enough"? It would actually be interesting to go through all the worst Supreme Court decisions and discuss whether they had legitimate legal grounds, lasting implications, or any unexpected beneficial side effects... And I'm sure this thread would have a few Lochner defenders for when we get there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
A guy I dated (once) in college is now a professor of law arguing that Dred Scott was correctly decided. e: Holy cow. This has to do with the circumstances behind the case, not the Supreme Court decision, but Carrie Buck's lawyer was one of the three men who wrote the eugenics bill. Vicious. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Lombardo does have a stellar reputation in the field of bioethics(and that's with a lot of its major figures being pretty scummy), and eugenics is his focus- on the other hand, I haven't seen anyone follow up that line of assertions.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
No one in my class defended dredd Scott but one guy defended the Japanese internment by saying that the Japanese were sneaky people and several people defended not letting women into vmi
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is actually a good idea. What do people think of the Buck v Bell decision by SCOTUS that "three generations of imbeciles are enough"? I love to throw Buck v Bell at people who say they don't believe in substantive due process and hold up Holmes dissent from Lochner as the best and most principled thing ever, unlike those unscrupulous liberals. It's funny because the reasoning in that dissent and the reasoning in his majority Buck v. Bell opinion are very similar. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Lol that's a well done three paragraph explanation as to why you were completely wrong. It's an explanation of why border searches are allowable without a warrant because they pass examination under the reasonableness clause instead of the warrant clause. You're literally not making any sense. Every 4th Amendment search or seizure must be reasonable. A warrant makes a search or seizure presumptively reasonable. The "warrants clause" specifies when a warrant is properly issued. If a warrant is not issued, then there are various categories of analysis for determining whether a (warrantless) search or seizure is still nonetheless reasonable. You invoking the warrants clause is coming out of left field and completely wrong. There was no warrant issued in the factual circumstances we were discussing. Thus, the warrants clause (reading "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") is irrelevant, because that evaluates the substance of a warrant--which, again, was not issued in the factual circumstances of the case we were discussing. Like, are you just not arguing in good faith, here? You specifically disavowed the relevance of a warrant: Jarmak posted:Why is it a fourth violation? Seems like a "reasonable" seizure to me given that it was temporary and contemporaneous with an emergency situation. Jarmak posted:Wait are we talking about the same thing? I thought we were talking about the guy who wouldn't let swat in his house during a hostage situation next door?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Brad DeLong ripping Dred Scott book to shreds (scroll down). Another review. It seems to me that it takes an extraordinary narrowness of vision to consider the case only in its effects on white people. Has anybody in this thread read the book? DeLong is an economist rather than a lawyer, but RhapsodyInBooks is a husband-and-wife team, one of whom has a law degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I love to throw Buck v Bell at people who say they don't believe in substantive due process and hold up Holmes dissent from Lochner as the best and most principled thing ever, unlike those unscrupulous liberals. It's funny because the reasoning in that dissent and the reasoning in his majority Buck v. Bell opinion are very similar. Yeah, Holmes had a creepy majoritarian-authoritarian attitude. As he put it in the Lochner dissent, "Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law." The same type of thinking is also evident in Schenck v. United States. He backed away from this somewhat in later freedom of speech cases, I guess? Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We don't need two Senates. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We don't need two Senates. One could say we don't even need one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
We need at least fifty senates. One for every state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You're literally not making any sense. Is English not your first language or something? What the hell is it do you think I'm saying?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
You're saying that the reasonableness of a warrantless entry into a home (a 4A search) can be justified by comparing to cases talking about warrantless searches at the boarder. And you're now invoking the 4A's "warrant clause" for no reason. I'm saying that you're wrong, and that those two sets of cases cannot be equated for discussing reasonableness of the search. And that the "warrants clause" is irrelevant to discussing a warrantless search. Pretty straightforward English, even if a bit legalese.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:You're saying that the reasonableness of a warrantless entry into a home (a 4A search) can be justified by comparing to cases talking about warrantless searches at the boarder. And you're now invoking the 4A's "warrant clause" for no reason. You should try arguing with someone who actually said that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You should try arguing with someone who actually said that. How about stop being a dick and re-explain your position then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Not all searches require a warrant, so the intruding officers' lack of a warrant in Mitchell v. City of Henderson is not prima facie evidence that their conduct was unlawful or violated Michell's 4th amendment rights, as Keeshhound originally asked/implied.
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You should try arguing with someone who actually said that. Bro, hate to tell you, but that's exactly what you said: Jarmak posted:Why is it a fourth violation? Seems like a "reasonable" seizure to me given that it was temporary and contemporaneous with an emergency situation. Jarmak posted:Because you don't need a warrant if a search or seizure is already reasonable without one? Jarmak posted:Searches at the border is the archetypal example of a search being reasonable without a warrant and I can't check right now but I believe is the originating precedent. It's like bringing up yelling fire in a crowded theater to illustrate that the first is not absolute and getting the response "you idiot this case isn't in a theater". But if you're conceding that that argument is wrong, good. We're done here, then, and nobody reading this thread will think they should spout off "WAIT that police home invasion might be reasonable because cops can search your car at the border!" in their everyday life like a chump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:How about stop being a dick and re-explain your position then? Because I've already done so like three times. See, DR was able to state it precisely as well as what specific point I was responding to with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Bro, hate to tell you, but that's exactly what you said: Those quotes are all correct, I'm not conceding anything other then the fact you either are trying to willfully misinterpret what I said, or you have the abstract reasoning capability of a fig tree. As I've already gone through this multiple times I'm not going to play the you try to tell me I really said game over a week plus old argument that you keep trying to derail the thread to restart so you can dunk on me for an argument I never made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Figs really get a workout in legal argument.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:But if you're conceding that that argument is wrong, good. We're done here, then, and nobody reading this thread will think they should spout off "WAIT that police home invasion might be reasonable because cops can search your car at the border!" in their everyday life like a chump. The original question was: Keeshhound posted:So why isn't that a 4th violation? They literally seized his house, albeit temporarily. Keeshhound posted:If it was reasonable, they should have called a judge and asked for a warrent. The intruding officers' search may or may not have been reasonable, but the fact that they didn't obtain a warrant prior to entering the house is not prima facie evidence that it was an unreasonable search.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Sorry, but you're wrong too. The fact that a search or seizure is without a warrant is prima facie evidence that the search was unreasonable (and thus unconstitutional), because a warrantless search is presumptively unconstitutional. In those circumstances, the government has the burden of showing that an exception to the warrant requirement exists. Jarmak was having a wonderful conversation with Keeshhound about the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Jarmak then invoked the border search exception to the warrant requirement, as if that could justify warrantless entry into a home. I agree with you: a border search exception to the warrant requirement is "rather tangential" to the discussion. In fact, I kindly pointed out that the border search exception is irrelevant to the exigent circumstances exception (and indeed to all home-search cases). If you're suggesting that invoking the fact that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in one instance (border searches) establishes that there can be exceptions in other circumstances (exigent circumstances), that proposition is so broad that it is meaningless. It's also worthless--the exigent circumstances exception in and of itself establishes that there can be exceptions to the warrant requirement. But what is a reasonable search pursuant to the exigent circumstances analysis will never ever ever ever ever in a million years be validated because of whether a warrantless border search was reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not all searches require a warrant, so the intruding officers' lack of a warrant in Mitchell v. City of Henderson is not prima facie evidence that their conduct was unlawful or violated Michell's 4th amendment rights, as Keeshhound originally asked/implied. You are putting the burden of proof in the wrong spot here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:If you're suggesting that invoking the fact that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in one instance (border searches) establishes that there can be exceptions in other circumstances (exigent circumstances), that proposition is so broad that it is meaningless. Not when the person I'm responding to is so loving dense they are refusing to acknowledge that a search can be reasonable without a warrant. That was literally exactly the point I was making holy poo poo. It was intentionally broad as gently caress because I hadn't even got him to acknowledge that a search could ever be legal without a warrant at that point. I was literally working on the foundational concept of "A warrant isn't the only means through which we determine a search to be reasonable".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not when the person I'm responding to is so loving dense they are refusing to acknowledge that a search can be reasonable without a warrant. That was literally exactly the point I was making holy poo poo. It was intentionally broad as gently caress because I hadn't even got him to acknowledge that a search could ever be legal without a warrant at that point. You have a point, but you were bad at expressing it. I didn't realize that was your point for most of the argument and I think a recap or restatement of your points may help you in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:55 |
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:You have a point, but you were bad at expressing it. I didn't realize that was your point for most of the argument and I think a recap or restatement of your points may help you in the future. It was clear in its initial context- green crayons misinterpreted it, then ran with his misinterpretation until third parties to the conflict believed the point of contention was something entirely different.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:14
|
|