|
Kalman posted:"Applied mathematics is a branch of mathematics that deals with mathematical methods that find use in science, engineering, business, computer science, and industry." all of those industries use sorting algorithms.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
UberJew posted:They aren't actually a rounding error,, there's a significant dispute about the actual numbers but even the lowest legitimate estimates are full percentage points of the electorate source please
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
actually lolling irl
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
I wasn't being facetious, I just understood where the problem was with a German-style implementation of campaign financing under the current US law and wanted to put it down in writing in case I was wrong on some aspect or had overlooked something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Citing to dissents as your only evidence kind of suggests that you're wrong. Why?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Because when your best evidence is a dissent, you're admitting that the law says you're wrong and hoping that it gets changed. When that hope flies in the face of 40 years of decisions (Bellotti also suggested corporate expenditures caps weren't constitutional and that's almost forty years old, it's just that no one bothered to challenge them in the interim) it's typically a forlorn one. People point to the dissent because it shows that the outcome would have been different if the court had had one less Alito and one more Sotomayor. This could easily happen, for instance once the Scalia vacancy gets filled. In that case CU would have been defeated 5-4. If the difference between a ruling for and a ruling against simply comes down to what party nominates a judge that time, the outcome under the constitution is a lot less clear than you make it out to be. This also means that it is not at all impossible to change -- simply nominate a judge who expressly holds that CU was a bad decision, get that person confirmed, and find a way to reopen the debate. "The law" is not an objective reality that SCOTUS decisions unearth, it's the result of a debate between lawyers, constitutional scholars, politicians, the public, and special interest groups.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, the constant false assertion of corruption is doing all the lifting here. There's no cause for the restriction you want to instantiate. From Stevens' dissent: quote:Undergirding the majority’s approach to the merits is the claim that the only “sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption” is one that is “limited to quid pro quo corruption.” Ante , at 43. This is the same “crabbed view of corruption” that was espoused by Justice Kennedy in McConnell and squarely rejected by the Court in that case. 540 U. S., at 152. While it is true that we have not always spoken about corruption in a clear or consistent voice, the approach taken by the majority cannot be right, in my judgment. It disregards our constitutional history and the fundamental demands of a democratic society.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not when they can't find or demonstrate the harm they assert, no. Stevens cites a variety of supporting claims for his stance that massive spending is either a form or corruption or creates the appearance of corruption, both from independent sources as well as from former SCOTUS decisions.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
I thought Puerto Ricans weren't technically American citizens because it's a colony or foreign holding or some other category. What actually is the status of Puerto Rico?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
 You're demanding a standard of proof that is quite frankly unrealistic in politics. Sources are easily available to show that more money translates almost directly into a higher chance of winning, and the points about higher corporate spending meaning higher corporate influence are all very direct inferences to the best explanation. Add to that the fact that SCOTUS expressly held in previous decisions that actual bias due to monetary influence is hard to prove and rules are necessary that deal with the appearance of bias, and the argument is pretty clear.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS. Oh God yes please
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:I assume it to be the case because Obama has spent the last two years antagonizing and generally having a dont-give-a-gently caress attitude towards the GOP's obstruction so nominating a younger more leftist person would make more sense - however, nominating a moderate and still having the GOP stonewall makes for a much better election-year story. Obama is not a leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:On the other hand I refer you to him nominating Sonia Sotomayor. (And Kagan's fine if only slightly more interesting than Breyer.) RBG was appointed by Bill Clinton, I assume you don't think this makes him a leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Your "Obama is not a leftist" was presumably meant as a rebuttal to "Obama may consider appointing a younger and farther left judge than Merrick Garland in certain circumstances". I would say that this sounds plausible, given that Sotomayor exists and is awesome. What I meant to say is that there is no reason to think that Obama didn't simply pick Garland because he genuinely believes that Garland is the best person for the job.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Turdis McWordis posted:I'm not sure AA recipients want to be making fun of people with better grades and telling them to study harder. Teacher, educate thyself. uh what
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Did you read any part of the IRS links you posted? None of those cases where an organization was stripped of it's 501c (3) status were because of the content of their beliefs. https://www.rt.com/usa/339519-judge-flying-spaghetti-god/ quote:The US District Court of Nebraska has denied a prisoner’s right to practice Pastafarianism by ruling the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSMism, is not a religion but a “parody.”
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 17:26
|
|
If anyone in this thread can find even one case where a US court or government institution declared an organization or individual's religious beliefs were false (not that they'd violated the law in pursuing them, or that they were using them to commit fraud, not "your lifestyle doesn't reflect that, you clearly don't believe it," but that the actual beliefs were invalid,) and it was upheld on all appeals, I will donate $50 each to two charitable organizations of EwokEntourage's choice, for a total of $100.
|
Keeshhound posted:the key part of the ruling for me was that the judge noted that the plaintiff hadn't actually declared a personal belief not sure what you mean by that, but there's this in the ruling: quote:Cavanaugh alleges that he is a Pastafarian: that he has "openly declared his beliefs for many years" and "has several tattoos proclaiming his faith." He began requesting that prison officials afford his "faith" the same rights and privileges as religious groups, including "the ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion." His requests were rejected, because prison officials determined that FSMism was a parody religion. There's also a lot of hints at further court decisions that look to be topical here. quote:But that principle must have a limit, as courts have found when confronted with cultural beliefs; secular philosophies such as scientism, evolutionism, and objectivism; and institutions like the "Church of Cognizance" or "Church of Marijuana."" quote:"Because RLUIPA is a guarantor of sincerely held religious beliefs, it may not be invoked simply to protect any 'way of life, however virtuous and admirable, if it is based on purely secular considerations.'" Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 797 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)). quote:Courts have taken different approaches to such inquiries. However, the Court can start with these indicia: First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs. All of these sound exactly like courts deciding what is or is not a religion, despite your original claims.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The line I was thinking of is at the bottom of page 9, but I'm leaving the previous paragraph in for context: quote:Which raises the almost more worrying idea that not only can the government decide what is and is not a religion, but that it can govern whether or not you are practicing it appropriately. But that has been on the books forever? "Sincerely held belief" is a core concept in a lot of different scenarios, from tax exemption to draft dodging. Actual religious practice has always been used by the courts to check whether somebody has sincerely held beliefs or not.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Immigration, religious exemption for corporations (Hobby Lobby), Gerrymandering if the current cases somehow collapse, the death penalty, Citizens United, and maybe something to get LGBT ruled as a protected class? Would Garland help with capital punishment? Isn't he a tough-on-crime jurist?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:The big difference is that you have to follow precedent when you are a a judge for the circuit court. His personal opinions could be different and as a supreme court judge he can set the precedent rather than follow it. I agree, I'm asking whether there is any reason to believe Garland's personal opinions are in fact different.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:PredictIt traders currently see Garland as about 40% likely to be confirmed during Obama’s term, 60% confirmed next justice under any president. he's not going to withdraw.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:I like Ellison but Dean's strategy worked pretty loving well 10 years ago, so who gives a poo poo what lobbying he's done since then if he can win elections? "Who gives a poo poo about the optics of putting a white establishment politician at the helm", says person who wasn't around for the 2016 Presidential elections.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
So the Dakota Access Pipe Line was pushed back to allow for some more investigation into alternative routes. Trump will take office in a couple of weeks, and he is personally invested in one of the companies wanting to build the pipeline. Somebody explain to me how this works: is a POTUS required to divest themselves of their investments? Is it okay for them to own stock in a company? Is this customary or are there laws to this effect?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Scalia was an extremely principled jurist who just happened to change principles whenever it was convenient.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:Could he pardon the Guantanamo prisoners of all crimes? I don't think so, they haven't been charged with anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's not like we're holding innocent people You don't know that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It's more the second part of that sentence that you didn't quote that is the problem. no I'm gonna say the fact that the US has been imprisoning 30odd people without charging them with a crime or otherwise respecting their human rights is more of an issue
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:everyone that is still there is unambiguously a Real Bad Dude hope this is of some help! You don't know that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They took a case they had no legal right to even address, I am not a lawyer but to me that seems like a really strange reading of the situation. Would somebody with actual knowledge mind chiming in?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Civil War amendments, 13-15, were passed in an era where the Supreme Court was not trusted to enforce civil rights because it was the same Supreme Court that had issued the Dredd Scott decision. So all of those amendments give Congress the authority to enforce them by appropriate legislation. It's up to Congress what's appropriate under the circumstances, not the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing the current circumstances and deciding the VRA is no longer appropriate. Did that come up during the case? I remember reading Robert's opinion and Ginsberg's dissent but as far as I can recall even the dissent took it for granted that SCOTUS was correct in taking the case. (For the record, we're talking about Shelby, right?) I followed some of the reactions to that case and this is the first time I hear that the case was inappropriate to even hear, rather than just badly decided.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
To be more precise, here is the section from Ginsburg's dissent I had in mind:quote:This is not to suggest that congressional power in this area is limitless. It is this Court's responsibility to ensure that Congress has used appropriate means. The question meet for judicial review is whether the chosen means are ``adapted to carry the objects the amendments have in view.'' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). The Court's role, then, is not to substitute its judgment for that of Congress, but to determine whether the legislative record sufficed to show that ``Congress could rationally have determined that [its chosen] provisions were appropriate methods.'' City of Rome, 446 U. S., at 176-177. To me this seems pretty clear: Congress has a lot of leeway as long as they can show that the means they choose to implement are a rational way of advancing toward the stated goal. SCOTUS' responsibility is merely to check whether this rational-means test fails or not (in distinction to, say, checking whether Congress chose the wisest way to proceed). Are you disagreeing? Evil Fluffy said that SCOTUS "they had no legal right to even address" the issue, that seems wrong to me. But again, I'm just an interested foreigner, I could be totally wrong 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
ITT goons discover that the jury system is actually bad  see you next year when we collectively come to the stunning conclusion that electing judges is also bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
just wanna say thanks ulmont for the write-ups. i don't contribute much to this thread because it's really not my area of expertise, but i read it closely. it's one of the most informative threads thanks to all the people with actual knowledge 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But haven't churches been getting public funds for general purposes forever? Taken literally she's saying that the federal government should deny for example disaster relief money to churches because they're churches? yes, she is saying that because it's true. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/nyregion/house-approves-federal-aid-for-churches-damaged-by-hurricane-sandy.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I mean the article is about a law explicitly allowing it, was it struck down as unconstitutional? It's not as if churches weren't receiving any money from the government: i linked the article because it goes into the arguments as to why it could be considered unconstitutional and also because it shows that, if you're having a debate about whether or not some specific religious buildings can get disaster relief after a specific natural disaster, clearly "the federal government should deny for example disaster relief money to churches because they're churches" is the status quo, which you seemed to doubt. the bill in question was received in the senate and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. that's the last action taken on the bill. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/592/all-actions/) edit: as I understand it the problem with trinity isn't that it's somehow wrong for churches to receive money in special cases. it's that up until today state governments had some leeway in deciding in which cases this was appropriate. this decision for the first time mandates that state governments have to fund churches.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What does per curiam mean again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Freely translated from the Latin: "Nobody's willing to put their own name on this thing." actually https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/879423520631128064
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Government, it's funding, regulations and services are pretty much unavoidable in modern society. Avoiding giving funds to religious groups for religious purposes is a good and possible goal, trying to limit every grant or subsidy from having any positive benefit on a religiously affiliated organization is impossible. The court's conclusion already mentioned that denying police or fire services to religious buildings would be ludicrous. Why would society not want a playground to be renovated by a grant established to promote greater safety, regardless of whether said playground is operated by a religious group? Either way you're presumably sending fewer children to the local ER for concussions or tetanus infections, which most would regard as being in the collective interest of our society. If this were a grant program to assist local buildings remove asbestos from walls or replace lead pipes would we also want to exclude religious buildings? I still don't understand why the correct solution to this problem isn't "let states governments decide on a case-by-case basis if a specific grant application is appropriate or not". Nobody is arguing that churches should never, under any circumstances, receive federal or state funding or support. The question is whether it is a good thing for SCOTUS to mandate funding.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 09:11
|
|