|
hobbesmaster posted:https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-459.html The "or any felony" bit seems weird. By that definition, entering a house while possessing a small amount of heroin would be "burglary". And there's nothing about ownership of the house, so any felony committed in your own home with locked doors (or even intend to commit) would also burglary?
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The common law crime of burglary is breaking and entering of a dwelling of another person at night to commit a felony. This was to limit the scope of the criminal offense and also to allow for the defense of necessity and other such mitigating reasons. Each state has codified their own burglary statute, but most start at the common law and branch out from there. California appears to do what most places do and that's remove the requirement that the action occur at night and greatly expands the location to cover more than just a dwelling, but the core tenant is the same. Basically breaking into someone else's building with the intent to steal or commit a serious crime. Burglary does not require force in most (if not all) jurisdictions as most places do not require that the place being burgled be occupied. Thanks, that's good to know. It's too bad that common usage has drifted away from its legal meaning enough to cause confusion! It's still weird to me that there's no ownership clause in Cali's law - just entering when the doors are locked.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:In the case of rental properties I imagine there will be some legal document describing when and how entry is allowed. In most (all?) states, you don't even need an agreement for protection - simply occupying a reasonably discrete unit for a certain amount of time confers residency rights that generally prohibit the owner from entering your space without permission, except in very narrow circumstances or with a court order. Rental agreements are more for the owner's protection than the renter's in that regard (though owner's do illegal stuff all the time, so it's good to know they understand). That's why squatters and tenants who skip rent are (rightfully) difficult to remove.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:Yeah. Also, the court has (rightly imo) become a lot more skeptical of that sort of pro forma “and the economy is interconnected maaaaannnnn” commerce-clause argument. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "rightly", considering how much of a predictable disaster state regulation competition is. Not to mention the fact that many parts are the economy (especially retail) are far more interconnected than even 20 years ago. Housing, on the other hand, is still necessarily local! The federal government hasn't been afraid to shut down at least some *sharing services when they hinder federal regulatory efforts. The FAA shut down a flight-sharing service that brought together non-commercially licensed small plane pilots and people who wanted to hitch a ride in exchange for gas/maintenance money. The concern was (and still is) that it bringing a large number of effectively commercial passengers onto less-regulated and inherently less safe flights with non-commercial pilots would lead to injuries and fatalities with murky liability. E: And a bill to legalize formal flightsharing is coming to congress. Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:52 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not good with legal writing but could a functioning congress pass a law to fix it? Yes, but without the constitutional right to judicial remedy that employees should have in any sane system, it can just be broken again by the next group of assholes. Mr. Nice! posted:Easily. The only way this changes, though, is with a congress that supports labor over their donors and Does this mean that there's still room for a sane SCOTUS (lol) to make a due process determination without having to deal with precedent from this decision? Stickman fucked around with this message at 16:57 on May 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 16:55
|
|
at that.
|
Taerkar posted:Or say being a county clerk and refuse to sign off on marriage licenses for TEH GAYZ. They'll give lip service to other religion's ideas, but only the ones that are conveniently tangential to Christianity. hobbesmaster posted:I mean it is kinda important that the government at least appear to be impartial, thats probably why this was a 7-2. I get what you're saying and it's probably the technically correct approach, but it's pretty laughable from a practical perspective given that there are a huge number of anti-gay laws calling gay sex a "crime against nature" in state books right now. They might be currently unenforceable, but there they are. Evil Fluffy posted:The SCOTUS is in dire need of a majority of liberals/non-theocrats because we're one liberal retirement/death away from a loving ruling that outright declares the US a Christian Theocracy. Pretty much this - SCOTUS's Overton window is currently to the right of Americans in general, and is in danger of moving precipitously to the right. Stickman fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 17:02
|
|
is dead but give it time.
|
FAUXTON posted:Kansas' medical licensure board is something along the lines of "Kansas Board of Healing Arts" which may pave the way for some hilarious attempts to claim medical care/services are artistic expression. You might already be aware of this, but doctors often refuse to see transgender patients for routine care and there's a new HHS "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" which will likely make the problem worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I believe that if a law bans discrimination on the basis of the customer's religion, then it bans discrimination on the basis of the customers religion and that's the law and there is no "but i don't wanna" constitutional exception. If you don't like it, you can support a change in the law. I know you're trying to be consistent here, but refusing to support political (hate) speech based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination based on religion". Anti-gay rallies are not a fundamental aspect of anyone's religion (and if they were, well that's one of those points were the conflict of rights should come down against them). Also, how do customer's religious freedom's weigh against the baker's religious freedoms here? Would a fundamentalist baker be allowed to refuse to write script from the Koran on a cake? What about refusing to write my sincerely held belief that "There is no god" for an atheist function? Can I refuse to write Christian messages on a cake? Mr. Nice! posted:Neither are gay people. Reminder that gay rights cases have came down in support of gay rights not by extending a protected class status but by equal rights/due process methods. Both the 7th and 2nd circuits (maybe more now) have ruled that the "sex discrimination" clause protects lbgt individuals as well, but it hasn't made it to the supreme court. I'd word it as "lgbt individuals are a protected class, but rear end in a top hat conservative judges are trying very hard to fight the fact". Stickman fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Does a state's categorization of a protected minority trump the federal constitution though. State laws can absolutely abridge constitutional freedom of religion/expression rights when there's a compelling interest. How did religion-based underage marriage turn out?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The refusal isn't on the basis that gay people might eat the cake, it's on the basis of refusing to endorse a gay wedding. The first amendment doesn't allow you to deny services to an individual counter to anti-discrimination law on the basis of your religion, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:Yes, prosecutions for voter fraud are a very reliable proxy for its frequency. You're right, paranoid delusions and propaganda are a much better proxy!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Javid posted:Then they have to reregister like literally anyone else who ignores mail from the government that something is going to expire? Just like getting a valid photo ID*? *from a DMV an hour way that's only open once a month.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I appreciate your attempt to convince me that this opinion should raise some concern. What the gently caress? Are you seriously trolling the SCOTUS thread? Non-voters are non-voters until they aren't, and do you expect them to continue to be engaged in the process when they make the effort to be engaged in the process for the first time and are told "lol, sorry, did you miss our tiny junk mail slip? Too late!" You live in a country that a) systematically makes voting as difficult as loving possible for poor people, minorities, and especially poor minorities (of which there are a lot, because 'Merica), and b) has an electoral and political system that would be difficult to be worse for inspiring voter engagement. JFC. E: You know what else people who haven't voted in the last X elections are? A voting fraud risk. Stickman fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Javid posted:I look forward to the constitutional rights absolutist squad being all up in this thread the next time the SC rules on some lovely state's lovely restrictions on 2a, then! If we apply this logic to all rights I'm entirely on board, but right now we don't. Restrictions on 2a "rights": remarkably difficult to justify.  Mr. Nice! posted:the only moral vote is my vote So your arguing that moral relativism makes the right to own guns and the right to vote equally fundamental and unassailable? Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Yeah the obvious solution here.is to let states purge/binge in their special ways so long as they make same day registration available online, at the polling station, and through the mail-in ballot. I'd support this if they allowed provision of supporting documentation within, say, a week after the vote (and set up multiple drop-off locations + website to support processing). If you have same-day registration but require a bunch of documentation that people didn't bring because they thought they were registered, that's not much better than just turning people away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:I'm not sure how the gently caress you would even redraw HD90 without impacting other districts. It's a really odd decision to go 'well only this one is bad sayonara suckers' It also makes no sense because "gerrymandering" is by goddam definition a property of the geographic and demographic relationships between several districts. Saying "District A is gerrymandered" makes colloquial sense in that the relationship with other districts is implied, but any sensible legal definition would have to consider more than one district simultaneously. We have the worst (5/9ths) of a SC.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It's a supreme court decision, like it or not it is the law of the land. That's a pretty silly conceptualization of "constitutional", especially when the interpretations carry such massive internal inconsistencies. Supreme Court decisions are by nature arbitrary, so there is actual objective ground on which to call a decision "wrong". Insisting that "constitutional" refer only to mutable vagaries of court interpretation loses a lot it's impact. Most people understand that there are two competing meanings of "constitutional", but both have real meaning (and are useful rhetorical tools for reproaching SCOTUS when they are clearly out of line). Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. Oh hey, hot take from a fascist who believes that the correct law and constitution is whatever the Republicans say it is, regardless of consistent legal reasoning or application. Evil Fluffy posted:One of Trump's biggest supporters is a gay libertarian vampire who is absolutely ok with seeing LGBT rights burned to nothing if it furthers his own goals. Two gay libertarian vampires happy to kickstart the genocide.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:The idea of this somehow getting through the appeals process is stupid as hell, considering that the Religious Right's current strategy is just barely squeaking cases with legitimate religious freedom concerns up to the Supreme Court. The court system entertained "is a commercial product considered art if there's a religious motivation behind it" enough for the Supreme Court to punt it away with a narrow decision, but nobody's going to touch "arrest those gays, it is my religious right never to see them out of jail" with a ten foot pole. You're forgetting that Turtle McGee's obstruction means Trump has already appointed 12% of the Court of the Appeals (20 judges). If they can ram them through on time, he has 13 vacancies left to fill. By comparison, Obama appointed only 55 Appeals justices over 8 years, less than half Trump's rate. Saturate the system with enough lovely cases and something is going to squeeze through. Stickman fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Arkane posted:FYI if you want to follow the betting on nominees, here's the list: From Wikipedia: quote:When a unanimous panel found that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Judge Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. Sooo, young Scalia clone with Gorusch's "plain reading" bullshit? Anyone have experience with his work?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:He shouted too much, but I don’t think Matthews is too out there. Between all the enemies Trump has made, the number of people not running for re-election and the ladies who will be concerned about Roe, either Trump puts a softer conservative whose hearings go a lot like Roberts’s did (“stare decisis” ad nauseum) and it sails through, or he doesn’t and they get somebody to flip. If he picks another Alito and Flake/Snowe/Murkowski all vote yes, it’s a guaranteed leadership change to someone with a spine. Republicans clearly give no fucks about propping up Schumer and his cohort. If they did, they would throw them a bone every so often to feed their "compromise" narrative. Instead, they've simply locked every D out of everything for the past year and a half, making it much easier to brand any aisle-crossers as spineless cowards and paving the way for more a more liberal party. If the centrist leadership has no compromise wins, why should the Democratic base support them, especially since the base leans far more to the left than our current leadership?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Most of you seem to be assuming that Trump *wants* this to be straightforward, overlooking that he's just been handed a colossal poker chip. He doesn't give a flying gently caress about Roe v Wade or really any of the social issues that animate progressives in respect of SCOTUS nominees. He's going to nominate or at least indicate an intention to nominate the Democrats' worst nightmare, then trade down to a Roberts or another Kennedy in exchange for a whole bunch of other stuff, probably to do with immigration. This is how he gets the wall through Congress, and secures a second term. There's no way for him to do this trade. SC nominations can't be indivisibly tied to other agenda, and no Democrat is going to trust him to keep his word about swapping the nomination when the Republicans can ram through any nominee they want. Conversely, there's also no way that they cave on the nominee in exchange for trusting Democrat's future support on the wall, etc. Even Schumer knows that voting for that poo poo is toxic, doubly so if it's not inextricably attached to an obviously good deal. Stickman fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Istvun posted:the only way ginsburg retires while a republican is president is feet first Ginsberg refused to retire while Obama was president, because she (rightfully) believed that he would nominate some milquetoast moderate. She'd get her aids to weekend-at-Bernie's her for years before she'd consider retiring under Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Five hours ago you were taking someone to task for suggesting packing SCOTUS is a terrible idea, so I find it ironic that you're using "but that's not The Done Thing" to help cope here. He's going to secure the deal by negotiating it in public. It doesn't need to be indivisibly tied. I'm not saying it's not possible because it "not a thing that's done". I'm saying it's politically impossible, because Democrats absolutely do not and can not trust Trump (or the Republicans) to keep a deal that requires him to do something later in exchange for something now. And the Republicans aren't going to give something now in exchange for something later from the Democrats, because a) they don't have to, b) it would make them look weak, and c) they don't trust the Democrats either. There's a reason that eliminating earmarks hosed our political process.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh Democrats are dumb enough to do it, they just did it on the budget in return for a promise to fix DACA (which never came). A good point, but I'm skeptical that even Schumer would keep touching that rail, especially when he got hammered so badly last time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Unnecessary. Congress could easily pass a law banning abortions absent the Roe decision. Blah blah interstate commerce blah blah Raich blah blah Wickard. Wouldn't the court have to weigh in eventually, even if only to deny cert? If congress passed a law like that, it would challenged the second it made it out the door.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:I posted about this earlier but the US judicial system is an outgrowth that basically papered over the cracks in the Constitution and now that paper has been torn up and fed to frothing at the mouth Heritage Foundation staffers. Basically, even if you could, you can't just replace the judiciary with a better version and fix the problem. I disagree that this is optimal. How do you create a legislative system that automatically respects "rights" without some sort of independent oversight organization tasked with ensuring those rights are respected? You don't - you simply wait for the majority to get off their rear end and respect your rights. Legislative fixes to things like civil rights are suboptimal for exactly that reason, and doubly-so in a country divided in semi-sovereign states. Striking laws on the basis of animus and unequal protection is not some arbitrary system "creating rights" out of thin air - it is fundamentally the principled protection of vulnerable populations from unequal and targeted legislation. Such legislation should have to be defended on merit. I mean, this was the argument in the circuit split of Obgerfell - if you want gay marriage, convince your neighbor to drop their animus. But what the gently caress good is a legislative system if it only sides with the majority? We already have a legislature to do that? That's why I roll my eyes when I see people post things like: Wxhode posted:It’ll be nice to see the back of the least principled member of the court. Say what you will about the tenets of Alito’s and Sotomayor’s “my side always wins” jurisprudence, at least it’s an ethos. There's a big difference between Sotomayor's jurisprudence and Alito's, and it's certainly not "my side always wins". E: If anyone has more information about how other countries deal (or don't) with the issue of legislative animus and legislative protections, I'd be happy to revise my opinion - I'm definitely not knowledgeable about the varieties of legislative systems and their successes/failures. Stickman fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:....why not? You realize as recently as the 1950s, women who self-induced abortions were prosecuted, those who died labelled as "Suicides due to Illegal Abortion" Yeah, this didn't stop in the 1950s. Women still self-induce because of social and personal family stigma and lack of access to care, and states still prosecute them for it. It's not as common as it once was, but it still happens, mostly under the tenuous guise of "protecting women from dangerous procedures."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Javid posted:So a shrink from 9 to 7 (as an example) would just mean the next two to die or retire wouldn't be replaced? Most likely Ginsberg & Breyer. Soooo..... not the best plan if you want a sane court. At least not unless you wait until after Ginsberg and Breyer are replaced.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:Why don’t you endorse a man choosing to sacrifice financially for causes and organizations he believes in?  He's saying "I would gladly have everyone forgo their annual raise" (and pension). Some noble suicide-vest sacrifice there.
Stickman fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Wxhode posted:For a government employee, a reduction in salary is equivalent is the same as a industry specific tax raise. And while he may prefer that the government use that saved money on reducing its deficit, money is fungible and he has no power on where it actually goes, so the two statements are functionally equivalent in outcomes. Ah yes, cutting taxes & benefits is famously exactly the same as raising taxes and benefits. C+ low effort.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
I don't understand what you think the play is here. 1) Ask Trump to nominate Keith Ellison or Larry Krasner 2) Trump does not nominate Keith Ellison or Larry Krasner 3) ???? 4) Win? If you believe politics is "about seizing power to force your agenda on your enemies", I'm not seeing how this helps in any way at all. Keeping Garland's stolen seat in the minds of the Democratic electorate could help with the "seizing power part", for which you will need the Democratic base (unless you have some insane plan to go with your insane political theories). Trump was never going to nominate Garland, but it keeps his name in the news.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Javid posted:The "seat was stolen" crowd think because the seat was rightfully Obama's to fill it therefore rightly belongs to his pick, no matter how mediocre. The end goal is not "pull the court left", it's "seat Garland". They're fixated on him as the rightful next Justice, period, because that is A Win. Or, alternatively, the "seat was stolen" crowd are pissed off that the Turtle pulled off his con and want enough people to give a poo poo that we can pack the court without political blowback. And reminding people that the Republicans have used the political process to stack the court themselves is a step towards popular acceptance of that necessity. Telling Trump to nominate Garland in no way implies that anyone thinks a Democratic president should send Garland to a Democratic Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You'll need more qualifiers because there are a lot of hispanic white christians in ICE detention centers having "miscarriages" right now. Uh, every good conservative knows that all those Mexicans are brown.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Kavenaugh: Net neutrality is an unconstitutional violation of ISP's free speech.The Right Honorable Kavenaugh posted:Internet service providers may not necessarily generate much content of their own, but they may decide what content they will transmit, just as cable operators decide what content they will transmit. Deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN and deciding whether and how to transmit ESPN.com are not meaningfully different for First Amendment purposes. Also, a loving moron who didn't bother to learn how ISPs work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Devor posted:Same-sex marriage? You don't have to be married for homosexuality to be effective birth control  Discendo Vox posted:There are a number of other 100% effective methods of birth control...such as abortion. This is a good answer as well. E: Lest we forget, Kavanaugh is a loving monster on abortion rights (for "illegals") From his dissent that an undocumented minor has the right to seek abortion: quote:Kavanaugh wrote the Supreme Court has held that "the government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion." He wrote that the high court has "held that the government may further those interests so long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion." He said the majority opinion was "based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in US government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand." He added, however, that "all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow." So, "Row v. Wade" is correct precedent, but immigrants only have a "new right" to abortion. Specifically, women have a "right" to abortion, but the state has a vested, valid interest in ensuring they can't get one.
Stickman fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Evilweasel just means the "typical use" figures, i.e. claim abstinence all you want but at some point your lizard brain is going to take over and you're gonna end up fuckin' and hoo boy turns out since you were totally saving yourself one of you got preggers since neither of you were practicing any other form of protection. Yeah, one of the first studies (staring in the 90's) found that ~300 "virginity pledgers" reported pretty much exactly the same amount of pre-marital sex over then next 5 years as non-pledgers (about 55%). And 82% denied ever taking the pledge. Basically, as a birth control method it's use-case failure is probably going to be something close to 70-80% of no birth control at all, assuming no back-up birth control is used when you absolutely must get down and dirty. And if you are using back-up birth control then it makes sense to teach people about those methods in sex ed. Hence the abysmal failure of abstinence-only education. E: Ooh, missed the best part: "pledgers" used birth control and protection significantly less often! Stickman fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Lawdog69 posted:I don't even understand the thought process behind abstinence only education. Like, even people who are saving it for marriage should be educated about birth control because no one can afford ten kids today anyway. Assuming for the sake of argument that all premarital sex is unspeakably evil and wrong shouldn't we still be teaching people how to control their reproductive processes so they don't inadvertently make too many babies once they're married and having "good" sex? The "justification" is generally along the lines of "teaching kids about safe sex (and that sex can be safe) just makes them have more sex", which is bullshit, of course. There's also a heavy dose of "premarital sex is a sin and thus bad in it's own right". It goes hand-in-hand with the relatively long history of using statutory rape and child pornography laws to criminalize sex between minors (especially homosexual sex).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:When i worked in the legislature even things like the Youth Risk Behavior Survey were loudly opposed by the abstinence crowd. The reasoning was that if you ask kids about whether they are doing dangerous things, you will give them the idea to do dangerous things. They all know science has a "liberal bias". That's why they're trying so hard to gently caress our educational system in every imaginable way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
golden bubble posted:The research isn't completely one-sided. There was a 2001 study that found that abstinence-only education kinda works in specific contexts: Also because delaying sex isn't really worth the riskier sexual behavior once they get there: Pledge-breakers are at higher risk for non-marital pregnancy and HPV, likely because they are less consistent with condoms and birth control.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 05:45
|
|