|
Radish posted:Right now it's a coin flip. It was a coin flip before this decision. The flood of money into Senate races will push the odds strongly in the Republicans favor.
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Second best, but yeah. Username post combo. Didn't she also take a break for some serious medical condition? If I were strategerizing, I'd want her to step down immediately while the Ds control the Senate and the white house.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
UberJew posted:No defense attorney could ever be confirmed, not in a million billion years. What senator, R or D, is going to vote for the guy who got X murderer or Y rapist off? Redux Taft. Put Bill Clinton on the court.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I know this is for current events on the court, but I saw this on reddit and felt the bile gurgle up:U.S. Supreme Court posted:Here, there is no doubt that the Black Hills were “taken” from the Sioux in a way that wholly deprived them of their property rights to that land. The question presented is whether Congress was acting under circumstances in which that “taking” implied an obligation to pay just compensation, or whether it was acting pursuant to its unique powers to manage and control tribal property as the guardian of Indian welfare, in which event the Just Compensation Clause would not apply.” U.S. Supreme Court, I was wondering if those of you who follow the court more closely have a lowlight list of opinions, or snippets from opinions, that similarly enrage you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Prism posted:Is that intended to read 'Yeah, we took it. We haven't decided if we took it in a way that means we need to pay you for it or if we just control everything you own, but it's gone now and you can't have it back.'? Because that's pretty much how it reads to me. That's how it read to me too. The court decided in a way I agree with, but the Sioux have refused the settlement money as just compensation because they want the land back instead. According to wikipedia, the money is still in the BIA hands, accruing with interest, currently over $1B.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:There are apparently regulations requiring that fish of a certain species caught be over 20 inches long, and government officials found some fisher with some undersized fish and cited him. In doing so they requested that he keep the fish for an investigation, and he threw some of the fish out and replaced other ones with appropriately sized fish. He was charged with obstructing a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which comes from Sarbanes-Oxley § 808. The whole thing is pretty dumb. Why should the defendant have the burden of maintaining the states evidence against him?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Because they generally have the burden of not destroying evidence in their possession. But why was it in his possesion? If the state depends on the actual artifact to prove its case, the state should seize it and maintain it. If it were some other form of contraband you can be sure they would have. Hell look at asset forfeiture. They seize the poo poo out of that. But here, they cite him and expect him to maintain the evidence? That's some bullshit right there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The defendant has always had the burden of not destroying evidence. He is not being accused of "failing to maintain" the evidence, he is being accused of deliberately destroying it. It's bullshit to suggest the problem is he wasn't taking the evidence to a mechanic or something. Did he sneak into an evidence locker or something? If the state wants to charge him, the state needs to do the work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Lord of Boners posted:It's not asking him to maintain the evidence. If they had waited a month and the fish rotted, he wouldn't be charged for failing to put them in a chamber where time doesn't mover forward. He destroyed evidence. It seems semantic, but is actually a huge difference. Sorry to drag this into the ground, but I feel strongly about burden of proof. quote:Â case began in August 2007 when federal and state officials measured fish on Yates's boat that they suspected were undersized. At that time, 72 were found to be under 20 inches, with some as short as 18 to 19 inches. After the boat returned to port, agents re-measured the fish. Only 69 were undersized, and they were all closer to the 20-inch mark. So the officials were on his boat, measured, and found him and cited him. What more do they need to make this stick? They have a measurement, a record of said measurement, testimony of the officers... do they really need the fish to make the citation stick? And if they do, they should really take the fish at that point. Maybe they didn't measure? Just suspect as it says? They're on the boat. Take the drat fish. Forcing the guy to maintain evidence against him after all this other stuff happened is dumb. Citizens shouldn't have to do the states work, especially when it's self - incriminating.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Since this is about a contraband, let's say I get busted by a cop with a bag of weed. The cop writes me a ticket and tells me to show up tomorrow at court with my bag of weed. I show up to court minus the bag of weed. Is that also destruction of evidence? I'm convinced by the other posters that it's clear the guy did destroy evidence based on the testimony of the other guys on the boat. What kills me here is that it was completely avoidable if the official who boarded the boat had simply taken the fish. Hell taken a picture of the fish. He's now facing an additional charge because the official didn't do the simplest thing in my mind, which is to seize the contraband. If the other crew had kept their mouth shut, what then? You get to shore and there are no offending fish. Does the guy get off on the original charge? So maybe that's what bugs me. If the state is going to charge someone, they should do the work including taking control of the evidence.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:It's more comparable to getting popped with a bag of weed, and the cop tells you come over to his to his car where he can get an evidence testing kit for the weed. On the way to his car you eat the contents of the bag and replace it with parsley. The patrol boat is a tiny thing and this was a larger vessel. The agent simply didn't have enough room on his boat for all the contraband fish. The guy is facing an additional charge because he destroyed evidence. When you have broken the law the solution is not to break more laws to try and cover up the one you already broke. Isn't the simplest solution for the cop in your example to take possession of the suspected weed and take it himself over to his car? With the fish too, it wasn't a ton of tuna, it was..70? 20" fish?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:That much is obvious. My point is that CHRISTIANITY doesn't care. People will be upset, but so long as their favorite gets to go up, they can pooh-pooh the Satanists and still win by having a majority Christian population in congress invoke Jesus and not Beezlebub. Its still a losing situation. You can always just say your own prayer over the pagan they've invited. http://youtu.be/4XiizB9Lkqk
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Everyone look at this fool who hasn't read the Constitution Holy poo poo. This loving guy. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:The image this evokes is fantastic. Changing the rules close to an election?  That's the image that evoked for me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
So I was listening to Against the Grain on KPFA and I heard and interview with Rob Hunter who wrote the Jacobin Piece, "Waiting for SCOTUS" and I heard his bio blurb included "politics, free software, history, and science fiction. I recently completed a Ph.D. in political science" so what I'm wondering is what is his SA Username?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm not a lawyer either, I've just been around too many! Guess Zell Miller isn't moving to Kentucky anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Drogue Chronicle posted:See also: the budget wars. If their constituents really don't like it, they can vote them out. Provided they can get to the polls on a weekday since Sunday voting is shut down, and with the proper documentation because voting fraud is everywhere, and then wait in a four hour line because your Precinct has poo poo machines and too few of them to boot. But yeah. Democracy and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Playing the devils advocate, advice and consent should mean that the choice of justice is one that is acceptable to both parties. Nomination and confirmation frames it in a particular way, but really it should just be joint consent. Obama should respect the results of the midterm and the republican controlled senate and find someone acceptable to the republican senate. Both parties are holding out assuming they'll win both the senate and he White House or at very least taking the easy way out and kicking the crisis can down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Interesting Twitter Stuff about today's abortion arguments: Jesus alito is a gigantic piece of poo poo. What an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“I didn’t pay for it, but he also didn’t pay for it. Nor did a third party pay for him. It's a quibble about the transportation I think. And that all the guests there were there as gratis folks. But really, who was his guest on Valentine's weekend?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I am constantly astounded by how partisan and utterly ridiculous US politics currently is, how incredibly dull and uninteresting all the debate and discussion is. Everyone sounds bored. The only attempts to inject interest I've seen have been childish props. You need a dose of roll call http://youtu.be/lIVDWZpj8i0
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh yeah. No doubt a functional gov would be better. We don't need any of that regulatin' bureaucrat stuff. Class actions are free market, entrepeneurial regulation. Except for the class part. Let's get rid of that and have every single consumer file their own individual lawsuit for $150 in damages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:As opposed to objectivist oriented. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Balls and strikes, folks
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While hilarious, that Mitt Romney quote is constantly taken out of context. In context, as I recall, it would have been more accurately phrased as corporations are MADE UP OF people [and therefore not soulless evil artificial intelligences]. If you recognize made up of people, you come dangerously close to recognizing that those people have interests and that corporations aren't just a nexus of contracts extracting value for shareholders. If every employee of Exxon died tonight, Exxon would still exist tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's charitable to say that the idea of corporations being democratic representatives of the people working in them is a delusion, because this is not actually what Republicans think either. Sure they are, it's just that only shareholders are people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What about shares held by other companies, shares held by institutional investors, shares held by public organizations, shares held by governments, shared held by trusts and other legal entities? Sometimes there's a person on the other end if you dig through enough layers, sometimes there is not. I'm trying to think of the scenario where there is not. Public sector shares like in the auto bailout or sovereign wealth funds? Point is there is democracy in these corporate bodies, just not for the employees by and large. They are not people in this respect. They are a cost to be minimized. Yet when we would ask who are the people of Exxon, most people would I suspect, say the employees.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:SO PRINT THE CONTEXT YOU DUMB FUCKS Having not read the context myself, that sounds like a fig leaf for wanting to wait for purely political reasons like grassley does now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:That, and he thinks it is disrespectful to counsel to eat up their limited time. I tend to think that is a pretty fair opinion. Fair, but the solution is to remove the time limit not to shut up. The decisions of the court are earth shaking, why do we have a stage hook on the lawyers like it's an open mic night?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think they could certainly be more flexible and allocate more time for a momentous constitutional question than, say, a really niche question of statutory interpretation, or on the basis of how familiar the justices collectively are with the area of law or w/e (didn't they have longer than usual oral arguments for the ACA cases in 2012?). But at some point you have to put a limit on lawyers talking or they will just not stop, at least for anlol of them. If only there were some people who could adjuticate this whole mess. Judge it perhaps. Maybe bring some justice to the whole thing. But really, the justices should get as much time as they need. Give the lawyers an interrupted opening then give the justices as many questions as possible. Why it has to be tumbled into one time period is just silly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You have to show the changes in their votes for money for it to be bribery. Or just give em an iou and call them "speaking fees"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I did? The general tax on all advertising spending sidesteps this conundrum neatly. If I buy an SA advert, taxed at 2%; if I just post, no tax; if someone is paying me to post, they pay 2%. Unpaid editorial, no tax; paid editorial, 2% tax. Unpaid speech isn't taxed under this proposal, obviously. We need some way to know if these people have paid their advertising tax. We need to mark them laid somehow. Maybe a stamp of some kind.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:In the long run, they would be better off. Hawaii flourished when they got those all-important 2 senators. That's part of it, but the bigger change was commercial jet service to Hawaii that began at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:
What atoll is that? Midway?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Starve the If I remember the Grapes of Wrath, starving pigs is a very bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
So in the most recent decision getting press, the operative part seems to be that the person stopped has a warrant. If the person stopped and searched has contraband and no warrant, is that still an illegal search?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Seems like there would be time for everyone to see what the post election senate would look like. If the dems win both the White House and the senate, Obama withdraws garland with a nice speech deferring the pick to Hillary and the mandate of the voter etc etc. if republicans win they wait until Inauguration Day to find Scalia 2.0, the re-borkening. If the status quo perista though... Dem White House and republican senate, I would hope garland gets approved and we all move on. Who am i kidding though. The senate will find some reason to not vote and we'll have 8 or fewer justices for the next four years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Isn't that pretty much admitting the republicans were right for stonewalling Garland though? Not in a moral sense. It seems like the right thing to do from their practical perspective though. They get to forestall the net leftward move a change from Scalia to garland would be and they get abortion as an election issue for their base. I don't think their dragging their feet will be a net negative for their party at the poll. Long term it's probably a disaster. Playing scorched earth in what is supposed to be a collegial, deliberative body is bad for the republic. But that's been the tone since civil rights and then again since Gingrich.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 21:23
|
|