|
Aurubin posted:Poverty, poverty, and poverty. Forever_Peace posted:I guess we'll never know 
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the appropriateness of pre trial detention and Bail/Bond is interesting. I can see the reasons for it, but it definitely also looks like one more way that the Justice system favors the wealthy. You know that they don't give bail as an option to accused who are considered flight risks or clear dangers, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but isn't the express purpose of bail to discourage flight from non flight risks? In theory. In practice they just don't give flight risks the chance to skip bail, so the system ends up just being a penalty on the poor and money for some of the scummiest businesses in America. Rygar201 posted:I was also asking about systems to discourage flight in a hypothetical environment without pre trial detention. Generally, that people want to be able to continue to live in the same country and maintain the same life, neither of which you can do if you skip bail and are on the run. If they don't care about those things, then keep them incarcerated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
The problem is, even with wholly taxpayer funded campaigns, capital will still strongly influence politics. The wealthy can buy independent ads, they can write editorials that papers are likely to publish, the can talk about politics during TV interviews; all things average people can't do. I can't imagine a constitutional way to seriously regulate any of that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Other countries mostly do it better by constraining political speech. Yeah, it's basically this. There's only very limited ways you can crack down on disproportionate influence constitutionally. Mostly you just have to prosecute blatant corruption and hope for the best. Stricter FEC regulations on campaign cash used for personal expenses might be possible (and considering the sheer number of scampaigns that went down this cycle, it might be advisable). Greater restrictions on politicians becoming lobbyists might also be reasonable, though with the rise of the 'news consultant' circuit, it's not really the problem it once was.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You keep saying this, but I don't think anyone actually cares. If the Constitution is getting in the way of good public policy, the Constitution should be changed, not the policy position. I'm not really comfortable with weakening freedom of speech protections in order to impose restrictions on political speech thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
botany posted:Out of curiosity, what would Kalman etc. think of the way campaign financing is handled in coutries like Germany, where most of the political parties' funds come from public subsidies and membership dues? That's not really the issue, campaign donations both constitutionally can be and are limited. Similarly, private individuals independently paying to advertise on behalf of a candidate or policy they support is both legal and constitutional so long as they are not colluding with a given politician. If a bunch of private individuals want to pool their money in order to better do this, that is also legal. The real issue is to what extent independent corporate money-as-speech may be constitutionally regulated, which is centered around the corporate personhood argument, which imo isn't really settled law. The degree of collusion between private individuals and campaigns can and should have greater scrutiny as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
botany posted:And of course if somebody proposed a law that said that only political parties / candidates can run political advertisements, that would violate the first amendment. Got it. Unironically correct, not only for first amendment reasons, but also because the distinction between commercial, personal, and political interest isn't always clear-cut.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
My understanding of McCain–Feingold was that it only prevented independent organizational money from being spent in explicit support of a candidate. That's probably about as far as it is potentially constitutional to limit independent political spending, and it really wasn't anywhere near as far-reaching as some posters here seem to think.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Since this thread has kinda metamorphosed into the general US legal thread, how it this likely to play out? Basically, FBI cell phone tracking that is either super-secret or non-legal being used by local police departments for 'leads' on crimes. Wouldn't any evidence found based on these leads fall under Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:But where do Druids and shamans fit in Sadly in our modern era Druids have been reduced to mostly national park work, or as hired entertainment at furry conventions.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, which should tell you something about their merit. Think of it this way: which should be used, and why? Non-district based proportional representation 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Currently banned under a federal law because of southern states making all their districts At-Large. Yeah, I know, but that wouldn't be a problem with proportional seating.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Define "proportional". There's more to representation than race. I meant proportional seating based on candidate lists, like Australian parliament. I didn't really bring it up as a viable-in-US-at-present solution, just a preferred pipe dream one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Whether it's a proportional ranked voting method, list voting, or even one of the semi-proportional methods like single non-transferable vote doesn't really matter much for purposes of this discussion. Why's that, exactly? computer parts posted:Like for example - Wyoming is ~540,000 people. Assuming half the population votes, you need 140,000 people to win a congressional seat. Now California has 40 million people. If half of them vote, that's 20 million. That means (on average) 380,000 people vote on a seat, or 190,000 to get a majority. Wyoming's votes are therefore still worth 30% more, even in a "pure" proportional system. It's this bit only applicable to Wyoming though? I'm not disagreeing with you, per say, but it's kinda an edge case. e: Oh it's actually a problem in seven states. Didn't realize. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if there's a better thread for this, but does anyone know if there is an established standard for what constitutes criminal insider trading, and if so, what cases it's based on?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's based on a lot of cases, many of which are summarized in the case SEC v. Cuban, 620 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2010), linked below. Thanks. Appreciate this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Ehhhhhh. I'm not exactly thrilled with NYT v Sullivan myself. The malice standards are valid for private citizens, but not for people presenting as journalists, who supposedly bear a higher degree of responsibility and trust. I absolutely don't trust a conservative supreme court to rewrite those standards though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:I just happen to agree with Thomas that the majority often just makes poo poo up This is only true if you, like Thomas, pretend that precedent doesn't inform future court decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Yeah Thomas genuinely just has an insane interpretation of how US jurisprudence works, that virtually no other judges agree with. He also happens to be a conservative piece of poo poo, but he don't pretend that his interpretations are somehow more valid; that's not how the law works in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Roberts says Korematsu was overruled in the court of public opinion, which is apparently superior to the Supreme Court. Moral or practical infeasibility is grounds for overturning res judicata. That blade cuts both ways though, and conservatives like to abuse it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is there any kind of impeachment process for a justice? Pretend for a minute the Dems have enough collective spines to pull that lever, I guess. Yes. It's identical to the one for the president, though the only stated standards are 'good behavior'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I see these rulings include a warm-up to overturning Roe and outlawing abortion (and later birth control) via judicial decree. Nope, it's just a standard 'strangle abortion rights by allowing states to put unnessisary burdens on it' decision.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Stare decisis is only bullshit in that the court respects 5-4 party line decisions. Anything decided on a margin of one vote shouldn't have any precidental value.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:If you don’t believe in 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, do you believe in 2-1 circuit decisions? "Shouldn't be precident setting" is not the same thing as "don't believe in", whatever that means.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Sure but that digs into a very Heinlein-ian world where the only authority is violence. Assuming we dont devolve into that and actually respect SCOTUS decisions though, how far does their power reach wrt striking down laws or appointments that impact their power? congress has the power to change the number of justices on the court. it's happened before repeatedly. the court saying otherwise is just bullshit and can and should be disregarded.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:it is possible for be both respectful of women *and* a conservative. incorrect
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I think Gorsuch is just a very weird brand of Libertarian It's this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hunh I wonder why he dissented Yup, that's Thomas all right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Thomas mostly just rejects the idea of laws being shaped over time by interpretation and precedent. Which is, you know, insane when you're a supreme court judge who explicitly does those things. Textualism except also ruling don't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
'Who will win the 2020 election?' chat doesn't need to be in here. If you want to discuss potential future SC nominee or SC rulings that could influence the election, have a ball.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Ah, so when exactly did Senator Feinstein become a member of that group of House Democrats? Don't just switch topics and pretend you weren't just dead wrong about something that takes 10 seconds to google.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
She could always be both
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
The newly implemented slow mode is now on in this thread. You may only make one post every 10 minutes; make good ones.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:we really should not be having this discussion in the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Slow mode has been switch off. Please feel free to offer feedback on the experiment here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:they're asinine in general, just do ranked choice Pretty much. This solves a huge number of electoral problems and afaict for federal congressional elections should be A) legislateable at a federal level and B) constitutionally valid without an amendment, quote:Article I
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
The fact is that the US' extremely high standards for criminal speech aren't sustainable when it comes to people in positions of trust and authority. The proscribed remedy for bad speech is good speech, and if we've learned anything over the last four years, it should be that this isn't effective. Good speech is much more effort intensive both on the part of the speaker and the listener, and absent government intervention or laws that encourage risk-adverse private entities to self-regulate, bad speech easily overruns good. This effect is badly exacerbated by the same low standards for permissible speech being applied platformed people in positions of trust, like journalists, politicians, or ostensible experts, as they are to any random person without a platform
fool of sound fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 04:24 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So who, to your mind, should get to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech? The exact same people as now, except with lower legal standards applied to people who present as trustworthy authority figures. Intentional malice shouldn't be a factor when a nationally televised pundit tells lies or repeats unsourced rumors about someone, because the expectation is that new organizations research and verify the material they've chosen to publish. Similarly, the standards for specific harms should be much lower when slander is amplified by a national platform. It's hard to prove any given harm is Hannity's fault, but when he calls out an official by name and baselessly claims that they've probably committed election fraud to an audience of millions, it's pretty loving certain that harm has been perpetrated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 21:37
|
|