|
It's two separate arguments. Knowing that your insurance plan offers a certain medication or procedure doesn't mean you'll know which employee has actually used it.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There isn't a direct way for Democrats or other groups to directly "fight back" against SC decisions, especially in this sort of area. This really isn't an impeachment sort of scenario. Theoretically they could pass an amendment that contradicted the SC but you're right that in practice that's not feasible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The problem with any sort of national ID is that it's turtles all the way down. To get a national ID you have somehow to prove that you're a legal citizen. The Federal government has no idea how to locate the person corresponding to Social Security Number X, because people move around. That means that any Federally-issued ID is going to either (A) rely on tax returns and Social Security payments -- which excludes a lot of poor people -- or (B) require citizens to prove U.S. citizenship, which relies on having at some point had adequate state-issued ID. You need a birth certificate, which, as repeatedly pointed out upthread, is difficult or impossible to attain for the poor and the transient, or naturalization papers, or military documents. My mom got to experience just how "turtles" it can get. When she got married she forgot to send in the form to legally change her name. The DMV and all other agencies didn't check and gave her IDs with her married name on them. A decade or so later our house burned down so we lost all of the older documents, and by then she'd thrown away any IDs with her maiden (but still legal) name on them anyway. I'm not sure why they caught it but eventually the IRS figured out that she was turning in her taxes under a 'false' name (but one that was on all of her ID.) She went to try and legally change her name but had no ID with her maiden name, and a copy of her birth certificate wasn't enough. Any old school records, tax forms, expired IDs or anything like that had either been thrown away or burnt. Amazingly the thing they ended up accepting was her bringing in her father's family bible that had her name and date of birth and marriage in it. If she hadn't had that I'm not sure how she could have gotten it fixed. And we're a middle class white family. I can only imagine the headache it could have caused had we been Hispanic near the border.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:I'm seeing people try and claim that somehow marriage equality violates the tenth amendment. Who's telling them this, Breitbart? My favorite claim right now is that this decision means that every concealed carry permit is good in any state now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
I think the play is going to be to hold it up procedurally so that the moderates would never even have a chance to confirm anybody.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Dameius posted:At least Clarence "Every Decision Since 1930 is null and void" Thomas is consistent in his judicial philosophy and will stick with the outcome it gives him rather than determining the outcome first, and working backwards from it using whatever method that gets the job done. Except he totally does that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Raise your hand if due to byes you didn't draft a legal roster
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Well, this sucks incredibly badly. Forgiveness was going to make a pretty massive difference for us.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:MOHELA is paid by the federal government to service those loans, with enough of a profit that Missouri can apparently take the excess money and spend it on other things. If the number of loans decreases significantly, then those payments decrease, and that loss of revenue is what established standing for MOHELA. Trying to determine the logic behind them determining standing is a bit like augury at this point. The law says what they want it to say for their current purpose. It might not tomorrow. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2023 07:49
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:So what happens when the state AG just says "nah" to a SCOTUS ruling? The judiciary lacks an enforcement arm (by design) so if no one will enforce a ruling it sparks a crises. In theory if a bakery refused to make a cake tomorrow and the government came in and said they had to, say, pay a fine, they could challenge the fine and win based on the SCOTUS case. If they, say, attempted to take away their business license and/or physically bar them from working then it would be a real big crises since the government would at that point be operating outside the rule of law. Again, the owner could challenge this and the courts would say they win but if the other branches won’t actually stop what they’re doing we’re deep in crises territory. Edit: if it were something the legislative and executive branch wanted to enforce they could do things like pass laws taking highway funding away from states that aren’t following X decision, but I don’t see that happening in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Telling everyone to into the trades instead of getting a degree doesn't solve the problem. It will just recreate all the problems we got telling everyone to get a degree if they wanted to make a decent wage. Yes, exactly. It can be good advice on an individual level, as in if you've got a kid it's not bad to tell them to take a look at going that route. It's not at all a systemic answer though. edit: I should add, a lot of conservative ideas work out this same way. Not necessarily bad advice on an individual level but not dealing with the problems that still exist. Fork of Unknown Origins fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jul 4, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am not sure about automation, but at least you can't offshore stuff like plumbing. This is why I tell people to look into PLC, electrical and mechanical work. The more that gets automated the more we need people to fix the automation. I work in manufacturing and it’s extremely hard to find anyone who already knows that stuff. And the minute we train someone they were leaving, so we have upped their pay significantly. It’s one of the safest careers I can think of. Again, this is advice for individuals. If everyone did it it wouldn’t work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted: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. Right? I live in CA and every year I’m inundated with ads for propositions. Mailers, commercials, everything. I feel like I see them about as much as I see candidate ads, though most races in my area aren’t competitive so that could be why.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I’m not joking, I’m wondering if they could have joined forces with 10 or so republicans and gotten her confirmed and avoided Alito. I mean the senate was controlled by Democrats so they didn’t need to filibuster, they had full control over if it got to the floor, it just wasn’t a thing at the time to refuse to give a SCOTUS nominee a vote. And 11 Democrats voted for him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Corambis posted:I read that the SC will be considering petitions from several death penalty appeals for this coming term. As someone not familiar with U.S. law, are these largely restricted to procedural failings like withholding of evidence, or are there remaining/promising avenues to contest execution through (e.g.) the eighth amendment? Obviously unlikely to happen with the current court, but is there any pathway at all without bypassing stare decisis? Considering the death penalty is explicitly written into the constitution it doesn’t seem fruitful to argue the 8th amendment was intended to prevent it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:My prediction is the court really doesn’t want to get into this and there will be an extremely narrow 9-0 ruling that because insurrection is undefined and no criminal court has held him liable for insurrection he is qualified for the ballot I cannot see them inventing a requirement for a criminal conviction for insurrection.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. Right, and I could see them making a FoF that this doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection. I just can’t see them saying “we won’t decide if this was an insurrection but he has to be found criminally liable for the amendment to come into effect.”
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It was blatantly partisan, in a way that hadn't been done before... The threat of it got FDR much more favorable rulings, so I’m not sure his attempt really failed even if the court headcount didn’t go up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
archduke.iago posted:Lol Roberts isn't buying it, it's joever At work and can’t listen. He’s not buying what?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Cimber posted:FWIW, i remember everyone being all doomy when the lawyers were loving up oral arguments. It was more just super clear from the questions being asked that we were headed for at absolute best 7-2, most likely 9-0. I still don’t know from the decision when or how they think Congress is supposed to decide someone can’t be President.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could Congress not still pass a bill saying "all participants in x event on y date are declared insurrectionists under the 14th and barred from z class of offices"? In a 6-3 decision this is found to be an ex post facto law and it is determined that Congress must pass laws making people ineligible for specific insurrections before they happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So, lets say this happens:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
Cimber posted:But its not! The SC clearly stated the only way to evoke 14.3 is to have congress do it. Congress would have to pass a law that states how, when and why the 14th gets evoked then someone would have to do something after that law was passed that triggers it. It shouldn’t have to do that but that’s what SCOTUS is saying by my reading.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Executing the Confederate leadership wouldn't have changed much; the problem was that the Confederate population still mostly sympathized with the Confederacy's ideals. The moment Southern voters regained the ability to vote in federal elections, Reconstruction's days were numbered. Well there’s the answer then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
I was being flippant for sure and I agree there was no will to do anything to really protect black people in the south after reconstruction, not least of which because most of the north was racist too. The government is rarely going to be more progressive than the vast majority of the population. The one thing I’d have like to have seen (and this may have come from Sumner I can’t remember) would’ve been to basically force merge states that seceded 2:1. I think there might’ve been the will to do that in the immediate aftermath of the war. Or maybe not at all, but it would’ve crippled southern political power pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There isn't really a thread for state Supreme Courts or judicial cases generally so I'll ask this here I guess: If a law on the books says it’s illegal to, say, possess more than 6oz of weed, and they pass a law making it illegal to possess more than a pound of weed, that doesn’t mean it’s now legal to possess 6oz. In other words, the new law wasn’t saying you had a right to abortion till 15 weeks, it was just banning them after. Logically it makes sense that that’s the exception that proves the rule, but legally I guess not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 14:22
|
|