|
Knowing some people who have been hosed over because big business was able to ignore their patents and drop more cash than they could ever afford in court, I agree that the patent system is broken. But in the face of financial coercion, I don't think the right answer is to let the free market work it out. Instead we need a way to effectively enforce patent law in such a way that it doesn't favor the insanely powerful and wealthy against everyone else. It's basically "The problems with Capitalism" and the answer isn't "Let's get rid of regulation to make things better!"
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:There are totally unique aspects to being a white man in America. There aren't any unique problems that I can think of, but surely that in and of itself counts as a unique aspect? Dude, we are the most oppressed demographic in existence. No White History month, Mother's day is a big deal but who cares about fathers day, prison rape, most prisoners are men, we don't get any tax breaks or special scholarships. It's hard out there man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Hey yeah, you're right! Security never follows us when we go into stores either! It's like they don't even care! I'm gonna steal that and make it my go-to complaint. That is fantastic!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
The whole, "They say you don't need a Union is your collar isn't blue/Well that is just another lie your boss is telling you!" thing never really took off in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Culturally unions are still strong though, again because of the benefits. Perhaps we need a thread for this, because I'd love to explore union history in the US and what could be done to strengthen them again in certain sectors. Americans could really use a strong teachers union, perhaps a wealthy philantropist could be convinced to fund the establishment of one? They made a movie about that: Lex Luther's "Waiting for Superman"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
All you need to do is look at the majority opinion to see that it is bullshit. It clearly fails the Lemon Test but in the opinion they said they weren't going to apply that because ~*~history and tradition~*~. That's fine but isn't that a big reason to have courts? For when "how things have always been done" goes against the law of the land so things can get corrected?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
The 2ND amendment was included at the insistence of slaveholders. Provided it s for the right kind of person, I think both concealed and open carry are assumed under the original intent. Thankfully, we aren't hidebound to interpret the constitution like 18th century slave holders.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Reminder: Clarence Thomas thought it was okay to have school administrators, not even cops, search a 13-year old girl's vagina with no warrent or any requirements if they believed she might be hiding contraband up there while on school property. The lawyers for OPD should cite that case. "These officers were clearly conducting a lawful search using a sensitive tool calibrated for the job!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Is Roberts really that weak willed/narcissistic? With Scalia dead and the majority readjusted he seems to have changed his mind on abortion so he can still be the deciding swing vote. I mean, it's a great thing for the court and for America, but still. . .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Conservatism is the pathological fear that someone, somewhere is happy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Summit posted:I struggle to see the difference in Democrats not filibustering because their ability to do so might get taken away and the filibuster not existing at all. What's the point of having the filibuster if it can never be used? If those are the options I'd rather they go down fighting and we can drop the pretense that the Republicans aren't in absolute control right now. Optics, which is surprisingly important. Especially when it comes to mobilizing voters. Then again, it's not like we need their votes anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Considering we're going to get some Jim Crow 2.0 poo poo on a federal level over the next couple years... Don't worry. For every black vote we lose, we'll pick up two white suburban housewives! :I'mwithher:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ziiiiing, but the Constitution guarantees criminals a right to counsel. It does not guarantee the president a right to have unconstitutional actions defended. It should be and I think it'd be pretty easy to expand the right to include that. Plus, I'd much rather phoning-it-in-dude than a fire-breathing believer. He seems to be doing his legal due diligence (as any lawyer should) but he doesn't seem to be looking for creative ways to win the case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:edit: i need to take my calming medicine A lot of our institutions are built on the idea of good faith actors. That's part of the problem we are encountering right now. But, in short, yes. Assuming the Executive is acting in good faith, our system is designed such that his actions ought be viewed as legal until challenged. Prosecutors have to try and nail everyone, even people they personally suspect of being innocent, because that is their role in society. Can you imagine the reverse, where "guilty" people were refused defense? I agree they have an independent duty to act according to the Constitution. But part and parcel with that is respective checks and balances. Granted, a lot of these institutions are based on a gentleman's agreement with a heaping amount of white power, so when it gets abused, what can you expect?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Basically that. There aren't good counters to bad faith actors at multiple levels in the Constitutional system. Now that we've figured out ONE WEIRD TRICK it's pretty much a long slide into nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Historically speaking, mass resignation by public servants doesn't work. It just enables the awful people they are resigning from to run hog wild. The Long March through the Institution doesn't work either, you become institutionalized. But institutionalized bureaucrats are neither nor. They have inputs and they have outputs. The society creating and surrounding those inputs/outputs may be deranged and insane. It may be evil. But if the society is evil, and I believe the Trump administration is evil, I believe a rusty cog that slows the workings of the machine is far more damaging than a purposefully broken cog that can be immediately replaced. There are arguments to be made for people of absolute necessity. I'm not big on the whole "Great Man" take on history but some people do mean more than others so when they say "gently caress no" it means something. But, even charitably, those "Great Men" insofar as they exist, aren't DoJ lackeys. So, we have to rely on rusty cogs, poorly calibrated, slipping cogs. That's where their power lies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The other thing worth noting is that people who resign get replaced. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:except for Alito, who is absolutely a Republican hack Alito is a hack but he's less of a hack than Scalia was. Thomas isn't a hack but he may as well be since everything that falls outside of his bizarro-world jurisprudence lines up neatly with the Republican agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Alito is way more of a hack than Scalia. You could count on both of them to be reliable conservatives, but Scalia's focus on textual interpretations had a noticeable impact on judicial jurisprudence and at least gave Scalia some semblance of consistency, even if he would abandon it if it suited his purpose Scalia went with Republicans 99% of the time and the 1% where he deviated were cases where Republicans didn't give a poo poo so he could maintain street cred. Alito gave Obamacare a pass. He did it because his philosophy relies heavily on the Apples and oranges.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...no he didn't. Are you thinking of Roberts? Yes. Yes I was. Though the citations by EwokEntourage are awesome. So at least something good came from my mistake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
I like how this thread is sincerely talking about ADMIRALTY LAW!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
People complaining about a process that has been the norm since Action Jackson miiight be a little late to the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
I don't think it would ever happen but throwing Trump under the bus and blaming failures of Republicanism on "Trump the man" is good strategery.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 01:13
|
|