|
Omelette du Fromage posted:My god, I can't imagine how much more overworked the 9th is compared to the 10th. Yeah since Alaska is in there I think the 9th might actually cover about half the land mass of the united states. Which while it isnt any more important than "look at all dat red area vote republican!!" it might indicate that particular circuit is overbroad and might need some help.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What does 'not reaching' mean in this instance? That they are not commenting on? Or are they denying that HL has a First Amendment claim? It means the fuckers were self aware enough that if they touched the 1st amendment part it would require them to open the right wings flank to rhetorical devastation over the next decade.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:When the Court decides cases, they look at the underlying law in layers. In this case, it was decided that the RFRA law covered the issues being raised, so the court didn't even consider the 1st Amendment claims. This is how its supposed to work but you just saw another example of how much this court cares about legal ramifications of stupid bullshit ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
I think my scotus fantasy is that Obama somehow serves on the same court as Scalia and Scalia spends every case thereafter bitching in the dissents that he strongly dissents that Obama has not recused himself from the court for having been the cause of all his widely sited dissents.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm kinda curious what kind of nightmare constitution the current congress and state governments would create. The Gospel according to Paul, Reagan and full ammo clips for the Unborn, amen. King James Version LLC.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
In my life time I have seen Soros and Bloomberg rise to become the "Democrats do it too" of oiligarchs and kleptocrats even though their level of involvement in politics pales in comparison to all the efforts of the Kochs, AEI, and the Heritage foundation think tanks. To try to draw equivilancy between the two pretty much outs yourself as a dumbshit know nothing Radio Republican that ranges on a spectrum somewhere between "It's still the 90's and I like fiscal responsibility!" and "I like Rubio and Trumps success and influence in my party has nothing to do with my tolerance of pride of ignorance"
RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:I think everyone's missing the point here. Ideological litmus tests haven't served Republicans well because they've had a number of appointments turn on them. I don't see how elections got into this. Let the people have a voice in the appointment - some dumb idiots somewhere
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
This could be as simple as "lets diversify the court" and now compromise Obama is letting them keep a white guy after the lich has passed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:You've been talking about how the Democrats are weak for letting the Republicans walk all over them and that it just encourages their intransigence. Wouldn't pulling the nominee and having Hillary pick a new one give a massive amount of credence to the Republican's calling for "let the people decide"? establishing a precedent for later administrations? It's something many people have to learn the hard way. Silence is not concession, allowing unforced errors is something you must do to your opponents in life. Obama et. all are playing this perfectly fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
SC justices aren't like a vending machine candy bar where you as President can take your vacancy token and go, "hmmm today I feel like a Kegan" If you have issues with this nominee look where he's landing on the analysis, consider all the heinous poo poo the Lich did in his tenure and imagine how the rulings would be different. Obama is dismantling the final hopes of the GOP for winning their bullshit culture war and they know it, hence their ridiculous behavior. They don't know how to govern without it as the carrot to get their regressive objectives accomplished. If one more conservative judge can be replaced beyond this it will be another generation before they can try again and I don't think evangelical Christians have that much cultural oxygen left for Roe. The most unthinkable thing for Movement Conservatives is that not only will they lose this fight but it never really mattered in the first place and the world is not going to end in hellfire and or rapture as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Personally I'm fine with Garland as the pick because he seems fairly reasonable, which when you think about it is really all you need to completely derail most of the GOP agenda for the next decade or so. Yes and as much as I hate to say it, its Congress' job to fix the bad issues with criminal justice. The fact that we're disconnected enough from the problem as to have for profit prisons in this country should be summary enough as to why judges giving out maximum sentences and other things in their purview are not the root of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Thank you for suggesting this possibility, we need that to happen every page to make sure the thread doesn't drop below 60 mph and explode. In related news, I'm wondering if the advent of spirit particle manipulation can result in eternal justices on the supreme Court, in which deceased justices vote on the bench if they died without retiring from it. In a 55 to 44 position with Eternal Lord Ginsberg Clone #7 writing for the majority...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:loving lost my poo poo when I noticed Thomas back there. Can you imagine if anyone outside of the wonk addicts saw that on TV all the time? Lordy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:private ownership of capital is incompatible with democracy I'm actually not so sure about this as so much as I'm becoming convinced it's incompatible with representative democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
I was thinking, and this is crazy I know, that the whole of human history of having specific people elected to leadership might be a baseline flaw in the societal configuration. I haven't thought too deeply on it other than it makes some sort of weird sense to me that we should vote for policy coalitions and then the people who formally organize those positions would send faceless staff to accomplish those goals, leaving the house a policy thunderdome. But that would all be unconstitutional so never mind!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Is this a scoping problem with the 1st? When it was written, the government could literally stop expressions of something by stopping all the couriers carrying a message. In the modern age without going full China and then some its pretty implausible for the government to actually stop speech. Consider the scenario where there is a minority but significant amount of the public which claims to have the inside story on what's going on inside/with the government. They actively spread misinformation but use no publicly owned venue but consistently spread misinformation about government activity or statements. They do so by the internet, Facebook, television ads and telephone campaigns. As a result of their actions a number of people are elected who then citing government malfeasance, defund infrastructure inspections. At what point does it become a public saftey issue? At what point is everyone's right to speech become a threat to civil society? No one seems to have any problem with the ban on flame throwers, despite the 2nd amendment. Why the double standard for the 1st?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I think I have another way to look at this. The argument is made that if you restrict speech at all, its a slippery slope and then you're a first amendment violating a tyrant, but there is a reasonable counter argument to be made that people have a right as members of a free society that accumulated affluence shouldn't be able to unreasonably affect their lives. How do I illustrate the concept? Assume for a moment that information technology and it's interactions with capital continue on their current trend. It could be possible, though I won't argue the merits of its likelihood, but possible for someone to buy their way into being able to broadcast loud audio and video into people's lives, be it by billboards, their smart phones or whatever, the methodology isn't really important. What is important is that when you insist on this no limits money is free speech you're making argument for societally disruptive behavior, if you find the idea of a capitalist being able to buy their way into communication channels at all because it's "free speech" you're probably not considering the consequences of such rigid and backwards policy. Its absurd and the question is not "should there be a line" its where the line is. Corruption is similar and trying to say but that's the law is just a cover for being unimaginative and not wanting to engage with HOW you would make satisfactory policy. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Start by justifying the argument that you have that right. Haha how about gently caress you I don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm sure you can point to some constitutional principle or other source of legal authority that you have that right. This is the only help you're getting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights quote:Unenumerated rights will be actual rights insofar as they necessitate the systematization of positively enumerated rights anywhere laws would become logically incoherent, or could not be adhered to or maintained in the exclusion of those unenumerated items as rights.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What do you mean by "damaging speech"? What do you mean by "your government"? He means that you and Kalman are more concerned with soulless pedantry than if your slavish devotion to contemporary judiciary interpretation/policy might have ill effects. If it's any comfort though, you're both completely right, you've yet to be wrong, at all. Of course this kind of zealotry has no possible consequences either. (citation needed) 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:So basically, there's nothing going on with the SCOTUS right now? https://whitehouse.github.io/scotus-confirmation-tracker/ Garland is now at the same amount of days as Roberts for the first phase so expect this to start becoming a news story again soon.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
There's some inherent irony in arguing that the rights of minorities will be subjugated if there isn't a strict adherence to decisions made on occasion by a 5 to 4 majority.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
On the topic of corruption the curious change I've seen since working in government had nothing to do with the interaction with the public but rather how internal data sets being created that actually showed emperical evidence of corruption seems to do far more to clean up bad behavior than any suspicion of foul play can possibly muster. Concurrent, if there is a desire in mid level management to not rock the boat because it's not TECHNICALLY illegal or against policy, it will be ignored at all costs. I think we tend to get a bit myopic at times and forget that not everything needs to be in the law, and is probably a general human inclination to try to impose order on general chaos. But that's about as anti-law talk as possible for the SCOTUS thread so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
I think a lot of people are probably getting hung up on the fact that it seems incredibly farcical that the method you come up with to do the exact same thing that someone else has already done is treated as some sort of unique innovation that they deserve to get paid for indefinitely. Software is ephemeral as it is and if it was outside a courtroom people would be rolling their eyes at this as ridiculous silicon Valley nonsense potentially. If this case were at this stage 15 years ago I think people would be a lot less worked up about it. I'm sure someone will disagree for any number of reasons but it comes across as Oracle rent seeking. Java has not exactly been cared for well since they took it over from Sun Microsystems.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I am definitely not trying to paint Oracle in a good light. It's just google is so wildly in the wrong in this case. I won't comment on the validity of the case itself, just that Oracle is probably felt to be wrong in benefitting its legal stance because Android itself feels to many tech inclined people like Jon Val Jon stole the bread of Java and then fed not only his family but an entire starving nation with it. At some point one is given pause to wonder if some laws are a real societal benefit despite their unflawed execution and adherence. That is probably the source of most contention amongst those whom are law trained and not in this thread these days.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Java was GPLed. Google could always have actually abided by the license terms and released their code under the GPL if they wanted to take advantage of it. They didn't, because they thought they could get away with it. Turns out they were wrong, but my sympathy isn't with the person who has a perfectly reasonable free option available to them and choose not to take advantage. Thanks, was phone posting couldn't be arsed to make my searches weirder by googling Les Miserables. To be clear I'm not trying to defend Google's behavior or anything in this case, just trying to rationalize why people feel so strongly about it, its more anti-Oracle than pro law breaking I'm pretty sure. Though I'm sure those same people would say the law should be reformed which I'm inclined to agree with.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Its all a big mess because this is being handled by the courts instead of innefective millionaire grandpa club whom can't decide the best way to enrich corporations because of it being too tech wonky for legislation. This would be easy if there was a clearly pro consumer side they could rally against (see anything the FCC is trying to do this year)
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:It might help them if they'd include a way to sort their comments by the voting system they already have. Capital, A Penguin Publishing Product
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
They just exempted the SCOTUS from the last deal because it was assumed there was still a modicum of respect and decorum for the Senate's purpose and process and the Republicans pretty much ended that when they shrugged their shoulders and said "nah wait 9 months because our politics are more important than functional governance"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Do you really want Imperial Texans with Teacups?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Was garland obama's ideal pick or did he pick Garland because it would set up this ridiculous situation of the republicans refusing to vote on a guy they had previously said would be acceptable? Yes. We're talking about a guy who tried in good faith to work with Republicans for 6 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
In a 4 to 3 ruling the majority finds that Cory Booker's Iron "Hope Powered" Man suit constitutes a small arm despite the dissent's opinions that "leveling a city block with a repulsar gauntlet" meets the definition of an assault weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
The bottom line is the Republic is in distress because Democrats have been too concerned about playing fair when the end results of politics are very real. Everything from police reform to representative government is now in danger because of decorum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh holy christ, that's ridiculous. I'm starting to wonder if it's reasonable to ask non Americans to even COME to the US
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 17:06
|
|