SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›18 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Crows Turn Off posted:

It was Bannon's goal, and therefore Trump's goal, and therefore the goal of any SCOTUS justice he nominated. That's 3 of them right there. You're trying to tell me 2 of either Alito, Thomas, or Roberts wouldn't go along with it?

The transitive property doesn't work that way; of the three, only Gorsuch has expressed strong opposition to Chevron. Roberts and Alito have expressed openness to narrowing it, not ending it. I believe Thomas has expressed support for it because it doesn't touch any of his particular crazy spots.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 23:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 07:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

External Organs posted:

Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy?

DoE yes, military I'm not sure.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 23:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Failboattootoot posted:

Naw, it was 2008. Obama held the presidency, the court was 4-5 or 5-4, they held the house and the senate. They needed to kill the filibuster and then pass comprehensive voting rights (and medicare for all, and codify abortion, and any number of other good things that could get done with that supermajority). But they didn't, Ed Kennedy died and was replaced with a republican and now they couldn't break the filibuster anymore and oops all losses ever since. Even when they win they lose because they have no means of breaking the minority stranglehold and their last (for the forseeable future) chance to do that was 2008.

The Democrats are not a monolithic bloc. They did not have the Senate votes to do any of those things.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 23:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Failboattootoot posted:

They had 60 (59 after about 6 months), they definitely would have if they had killed the filibuster. I remember the ACA whipping they had to do, there was only like 3 idiots holding out for garbage legislation that could have been ignored entirely without the filibuster and the same would probably have held true for other things. They may not be a block but they could probably whip 51 nerds consistently to pass stuff, even decorum poisoned compromises would have been better than the 7 and a half years of stonewalling.

Regardless, voting rights is the only thing that could have prevented this and the only time it could have been passed, at least in my memory, was 2008 with a dead filibuster.

The ACA was not equivalent to everything else you are asking for and required the comprehensive negotiations of everyone involved for a very extended period of time.

"voting rights" was never the only thing that could have prevented this. Voting could have prevented this.

Stereotype posted:

It�s weird that the democrats are perpetually hamstrung by arbitrary procedural rules but republicans just barrel through them.

The Republicans accomplished very little when they were in power. It is, however, much easer to undermine and destroy civic infrastructure than to develop it. The Republicans have, in addition to structural advantages in the Constitution that they have exploited toward minority rule, a significant number of constituencies who will vote for them reliably and without the same constituency splitting that they are able to exploit with wedge issues.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 27, 2022

# ¿ Jun 27, 2022 00:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Roberts correctly sees this decision as potentially undermining a much longer period of more impactful conservative jurisprudence on the court that could have potentially included the same overturning of Roe.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2022 03:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CMYK BLYAT! posted:

Out of curiosity, could an executive order direct the VA to provide abortions to non-veterans, and would states be unable to sue the federal government for operating an illegal abortion clinic on their territory? I assume it's largely pointless navel gazing since states can still charge individuals with murder and there's presumably a challenge to the effect of "the law that establishes the VA doesn't include provisions for civilian services so the order is invalid", but eh.

I don't think the VHA is even allowed to provide abortions to eligible vets; it looks like they were precluded from it by a provision of the VHA law of 1992: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg4943.pdf (section 106 on page 5).

# ¿ Jun 27, 2022 19:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:

If it's delegated to the DEA or whatever (not sure), then why not challenge the constitutionality of the delegation with this recent decision as precedent? Not that internal consistency seems to be important, but probably worth a shot, right? Or is there an actual law explicitly specifying marijuana as scheduled?

The CSA's delegation of authority is very explicit. You'd have to sue over the specifics of how the delegation has been executed, and that's been tried many times.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 19:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rigel posted:

If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could.

The article doesn't say that, and of the two linked sources for the sentence that says something like that, one says it's now out of date because access to abortion through PCPs has expanded, and the other is explicitly nonexhaustive.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 15:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rigel posted:

Yes it does, they have a pretty thorough table in the article. Hell the very sentence that was quoted was even cut off.

And, as I already said, the linked source tells you that's not accurate; the quotation isn't what's reflected in the text of the article, and the "pretty thorough table" in the article bases all of its numbers on the same two sources.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 17:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rigel posted:

Well first, when you say that the linked source is out of date, they are not saying the limit is out of date, but instead that there are more providers now, which was mostly what that source was about.

But anyway, this is pretty easy to look up.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2022/abortion-access-canada/

dated August 18th

And solely citing a source archived in 2013 for the claim about 24 weeks.

Rigel posted:

https://www.businessinsider.com/abortions-are-legal-in-canada-but-access-is-a-problem-2022-6

Dated July

And citing no source at all. It's clear at this point you're googling "24 weeks".

Rigel posted:

https://time.com/6191400/abortions-canada-roe/

Dated June

I'm having to view the source code for this one since by login isn't working, but the relevant language in this article is "Some Canadians travel to the US to obtain late-stage abortions; those after 24 weeks."

Take the L already.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 18:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rigel posted:

I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided?

My forum honor won't be offended if you can, I'll just shrug and say "OK then, I guess you are right".

I've demonstrated that the sources you've googled don't say what you're saying. Repeatedly.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 19:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalman posted:

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/08/list-abortion-clinics-canada.pdf

Updated October 4, 2022. Exhaustive list of clinics, shows gestational limits. Nothing above 24 weeks.

Take the L, DV. You're wrong here.

The second sentence of the notes section tells you it's not covering all the places most likely to go beyond 24 weeks.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 13, 2022

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 00:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

I don't see anything that says that. Do you mean this?

It's not really clear to me how that translates to "it's not covering all the places most likely to go beyond 24 weeks". Am I looking at the wrong notes section, or am I just misunderstanding something due to my lack of detailed knowledge about abortion facilities? Could you please explain a little more about what you're talking about? Preferably with more than just a dismissive one-liner?

As your quoted sentence says, the list isn't exhaustive, which one of the things claimed about it. Hospitals, the places not covered comprehensively in this list (or many other lists) are the places most likely to cover later term abortions involving surgical methods because, briefly, they're best equipped to handle the risks that may accompany the circumstances of such procedures. As Mr. Mercury has also attested, there are places to get abortions past 24 weeks. I'm "dismissive" when it's the fourth time someone casting around for a source that will support their prior belief demonstrates they haven't read their source. That's before we even get into the problem of category that vitalsigns originally noted- that it was responding to a legality distinction.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 01:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalman posted:

It�s an �exhaustive list of clinics�, which was what I claimed. Maybe you should be reading more carefully, or actually responding in depth instead of just �no that�s not it.�

If you're changing the underlying claim about access to only cover clinics, then sure. But that's not what the claim was- it was about access overall. It's shifted after the first five sources didn't support the original claim.

vvv this is true as well- it's very frustrating having to address a constant category shift that doesn't acknowledge it's doing it.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Oct 13, 2022

# ¿ Oct 13, 2022 02:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Malicious compliance is a distinct concept; Piell's got a pretty good sense of the distinction, and it can scale up to full organizational sabotage. It's not necessarily in an employment or employee-management context, and it can have positive or negative forms, depending on the organization.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2022 18:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Charlz Guybon posted:

I agree with this, but what could Robert's really have done. Just said "Alito did it, shame on him"?

https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1594017885092995072

Roberts could endorse Alito being impeached. He could also block Alito from ever writing a majority opinion in which Roberts shares (which Roberts can use to ensure Alito never gets to write another opinion). He also has a bunch of other administrative power over the operation of SCOTUS; I'd need to do more research, but he can probably use this authority, directly or indirectly through other staff he selects, to make Alito practically unable to function on the court.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Nov 20, 2022

# ¿ Nov 20, 2022 05:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Proust Malone posted:

Is it customary for the the word �teaches� to be used regarding precedent such as �arizona teaches that the states have the authority��

It's not common, but it's been done.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2022 22:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm confused by this thread commentary; courts have been able to rule on agency administrative actions forever. While the particular suit is ludicrous, the basic grounds and idea of suing over a particular finding (including the approval of individual drugs) isn't new.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2023 03:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

eSports Chaebol posted:

Has a circuit court ever granted standing over a regulatory approval or denial to a party that neither produced nor consumed the good or service (or a rival good or service) in question? I really doubt it.

The standing issue's unusual, but that's not what folks were complaining about- it was the idea of overruling individual administrative actions, and yes, courts can do that. Because it's an area I know well, the only case that immediately comes to mind that fits your question is the (equally terribad) ANH v. Sebelius, but there are likely to be others in other sectors.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2023 04:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'll add that it's administrative rulemaking. The administration is not going to say they were working with groups from one side of an issue to craft the rule (and they really shouldn't have been), and they are going to discuss all the general forms of input they got in the development of the rule. After the comment period the next published version is going to have to address every single substantive, on-topic comment they receive.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2023 15:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Groovelord Neato posted:

It does suck that every day something new corrupt thing about Thomas comes out and not only will nothing happen to him but the Democrats won't even put up the appearance of doing something.

The Democrats are holding hearings on judicial ethics based on this. The whole reason it's come to light is because the Democrats pushed the creation of the disclosure and ethics codes in question. They're also telling the Judicial Conference to refer him to DOJ.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Apr 17, 2023

# ¿ Apr 17, 2023 17:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

You have to file if you get more than 4k in income.

Where did you get this number? Is this some sort of state law? That's not nearly how federal filing requirements and penalties normally work.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2023 00:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

For the record, the usual federal single taxpayer threshold is now like 12k-there's a really low nonzero one for people who are married filing separately but that's iirc because there are specific ways to hide income involved with married filing separately. The penalty for failing to pay taxes is normally...the taxes you owe plus a percentage. And IRS obviously doesn't spend incredibly scarce resources on people who don't owe taxes. The idea of a plea of any kind for time served is completely beyond the pale- unless you're doing poo poo like conducting active fraud, there's no way.

fake edit: yeah, $12,950. Here's the thresholds:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/who-needs-to-file-a-tax-return

Here's the penalty discussion:
https://www.irs.gov/payments/failure-to-file-penalty

# ¿ Apr 19, 2023 00:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Epic High Five posted:

I thought you only had to file, or at least only risked a stern talking to and a letter with some figures on it, if you were due a refund? I guess in that case you're still expected to file, but since the end result would be giving you money, they don't care if you don't?

edit - which of course begs the question as to why anybody with a standard return has to file at all, though there's no way Thomas is in this group

There are edge cases, but the answer is primarily the IRS being hosed ten different ways by the tax prep industry. Steps are being taken under this administration to reverse the trend, both with a massive funding boost (that Congressional Rs are attempting to pull) and the implementation of an IRS-run free filing service.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2023 02:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

cr0y posted:

US taxed in a nutshell

No. Again, not how it works. People don't have to guess how much they owe, and it would be remarkably difficult to go to jail over anything less than sustained fraud.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2023 04:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Again, the additional coverage and scandals arise in part due to the recent implementation of new disclosure requirements for SCOTUS justices, which were themselves put in place due to past questions about, e.g., Thomas's financial activities.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2023 14:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

pork never goes bad posted:

Is the attached ethics statement available?

Click the link in the tweet. Scroll down.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2023 03:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Now this, this I'm really curious about the sourcing on. The original line of scandal from Thomas wasn't a timed leak because it emerged from the new disclosure rules, but what's come subsequently appears likely to be so.

# ¿ May 5, 2023 01:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Or Biden could issue a pardon. He could do it today.

You're getting way ahead of yourself, the trial isn't even scheduled to start until August 14.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2023 18:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BillsPhoenix posted:

Theory about the affirmative action case. Ianal.

Universities are known for being left leaning & liberal.

Court cases, and to a larger degree scotus cases, have two fiercely opposed parties.

Harvard is known for wealthy connected students, keeping families in power, its business school and law school.

This whole case was essentially pageantry, with one of the most racist & $ driven schools showing "we abused this law for our benefit" as their "defense", and now the law has been removed.

By using Harvard, schools that were not abusing it, schools that could argue in favor of its effectiveness never even get a say.

This was never a real debate, it was two angleds of the same side putting on a show to push for their continued protection of the wealthy, white, ruling class.

No, there was not an elaborate conspiracy by Harvard to set up a test case in control of both sides in favor of an abstracted class.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2023 19:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BillsPhoenix posted:

Fair, I portrayed that poorly. I don't think there's a conspiracy.

Harvard and the courts both work to implicitly protect America's ruling class.

SCOTUS accepted this case with Harvard, vs a myriad of other cases/schools because they explicitly wanted to review aa.

Harvard does not care about diversity. It cares about serving its powerful, wealthy benefactors, who care about self enrichment.

There is no conspiracy, no explicit plan, but the right leaning conservative court and Harvard's interests aligned, neither want to promote diversity.

The result is Harvard and the courts get rid of affirmative action nationwide, without the majority of schools even being allowed a voice.

No, Harvard did not "work to implicitly"- do you not know what an amicus is? what an intervening party is? You've constructed an elaborate, unfalsifiable framing of the case.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2023 21:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BillsPhoenix posted:

Arizona AG called the discrimination ruling unconstitutional and said Arizona will still enforce all protections against discrimination.

More than a bit disappointed a state AG is doing what Biden should have done the day of ruling.

Do you have a source for this? Do you know what state law she's actually referring to? Because I don't think Arizona's state law (14-1442) even has protections for sexual orientation or gender identity independent of sex.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2023 20:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

That's a pretty one-sided accounting of ballot initiatives, which tend to be especially vulnerable to information campaigning and thus benefit the side that can spend the most money.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2023 03:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

There are some excellent texts out there about the really difficult intersection between science, a necessarily epistemologically "open" structure of collaboration and exposure of weakness, and the legal system, an adversarial one based in providing social certainty in outcomes by "closing" conflicts. Even when the judges understand the issues really well (and that does happen!), it's still an innately fraught area.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2023 00:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Potato Salad posted:

Any chance you can recommend one or two off of memory, even if the title was close but not perfect?

Not from memory, and I'm unfortunately apparently missing most of my files on the topic, other than the one on legal semiotics, which is...challenging, and not very useful. I'll get back to you shortly.

A related semiotics paper focusing on the necessary positivism of law is Peter Ingram, Implicature in Legal Language, doi https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099333. The notion of the legal construction of meaning is a theme in legal semiotics that's useful in this regard (although I'd never recommend reading semiotics voluntarily).

Most scientific evidence textbooks discussing the core Frye and Daubert standards touch on this to some degree, usually in the intro. I think Jasanoff, Science at the Bar, discusses this in detail. I'm very frustrated because I know there's a source that handles this really elegantly, and I can't loving find it in my files.

Edit: yes, Chapter 1 of Science at the Bar summarizes the contrast- it's not the really good source I was thinking of, but it provides decent coverage. Also someone posted it to a center at U Colorado years and years ago, so you can read it here:
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/science_at_the_bar.pdf

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 5, 2023

# ¿ Oct 5, 2023 21:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Fuckin' yikes!

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1760378280119869837

Cuniff is an excellent source- if I were more focused on the courts she covers I'd be subscribed to her, and she's definitely worth the money for anyone in CA.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2024 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 07:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sometimes you just want to sleep in your own bed/yacht.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 05:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›18 »