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?

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Just wanted to say about the birth control thing, it's obvious the people against the birth control don't actually care if forms of contraception prevent implantation or not, but IUDs, hormonal pills, hormonal shots, all have the possibility to prevent implantation. The exact mechanisms of action for each one is complex and for them the substantial form of action is the prevention of ovulation or fertilization. And by substantial form, this is in the 99% range of how it works. No matter how you slice it, birth control prevents more abortions than you could possibly say it causes via the 'it prevents implantation!' argument and clearly the objection to it is about not wanting people to have sex. As it relates to what the SCOTUS will rule, I really hope it upholds the mandate, if for no other reason than medical privacy. Really this just speaks to the United States needing UHC, though to be honest, the idea of Republicans controlling my health care even more directly than they do is terrifying.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 11:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 07:39

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Rygar201 posted:

I hate that people forgot what lame duck meant. Obama isn't a lame duck until the second Wednesday of this coming November. I've seen people calling him a lame deck since the 2010 elections.

Lame Duck can also mean that the person cannot serve another term, thus any American president who wins a 2nd term (after ratification of the 22nd of course) can be called a lame duck. Nevertheless it is absurd to suggest that the president loses any constitutional power because of any lame duck status no matter how one defines it.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2016 00:09

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Stultus Maximus posted:

and

I like this one because doesn't this kind of turn the idea of a unanimous jury verdict finding someone guilty which will carry with it the possibility of the death penalty? Or any jury verdict for that matter really...

# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 16:13

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Dead Reckoning posted:

Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not.

As we know, the case isn't about whether to throw out that sentence or not; it his for his ability to get his appeal heard on the matter. Putting that aside for the moment though; why would you agree that it was an error to have him on the jury in the first place, but not feel that itself would merit the retrial? If one of the people in the group of people in charge of unanimously deciding a person's fate shouldn't have actually been part of that group; then that is a serious miscarriage of justice. The fact that you agree that it was wrong for the person to be on the jury, but also argue that it doesn't merit a retrial is weird. How do you reconcile this?

The fact that you feel he is guilty has no bearing here; plenty of guilty people go free because of procedural gently caress ups. And they should. Justice necessitates a just system; and there's absolutely nothing just about having someone judged by another who feels they aren't even a person. A jury is supposed to come to a conclusion of guilty based on the facts and jurors who are incapable of doing so are not supposed to be on the jury. The fact that such a person made it onto his jury indicates there is a miscarriage here. Certainly there is enough of an indication to warrant his appeal actually being heard on its merits rather than assuming it is meritless (which again, is absurd for you to argue since you've already admitted the person being on the jury was an error).

# ¿ Jan 10, 2018 02:02

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Space Gopher posted:

This is a meaningless statement, because the whole point of the API is that it's the definitions necessary for interoperability, and no more.

Unfortunately, writing simple Java programs doesn't make you understand how a large software system comes together, any more than reading a bunch of laws makes you a lawyer.

I get the feeling the judge might have actually played with writing and packaging interfaces, and realized in the process that "hey, this is difficult creative work." Unfortunately, that doesn't make it copyrightable, any more than an airplane cockpit or factory control room layout, which are near-exact physical analogies to an API.

e: looks like I was wrong on the exact process, but the argument remains the same. The court recognized that APIs are difficult creative work and jumped from there to "this is copyrightable, someone has gotta own that IP" which is a big loving mistake

Isn't the main issue that Google implemented the API in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other implementations? That would definitely be a big mark against it being fair use.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2018 19:26

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Javid posted:

However many thousands sitting in jail without bond awaiting trial, and this is what the court system has time to sperg over.

To be fair a lack of time and resources isn't why that won't be addressed. The dickering over such cases is a perfect example of how our "justice" system is set up to benefit and protect capitalist interests.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2018 06:48

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Dead Reckoning posted:

How much more detail do I need to add to my hypothetical before you can decide whether or not people should be forced to write messages they find morally objectionable?

A message being asked to be written would probably be a good start??? Which didn't happen here

# ¿ Jun 4, 2018 19:36

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

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.
This is textbook compelled speech though. If Joe Bob sells some business a sign saying "Joe Bob Approved!" with his smiling face on it, he doesn't have to sell the same sign to the Westboro Baptist Church on demand.

That's the thing though, he's not refusing to sell to them because they're gay, the bake shop was willing to provide brownies, cookies, etc. to the couple. He wasn't willing to do custom work for an event whose message he disagreed with. Also, my understanding is that the Supreme Court has held that people who sell their speech can in fact refuse to perform on the basis of conscience. Just because a Christian music group makes themselves available for event bookings does not mean they are required to play the Church of Satan Black Mass.

My question would be, how is a Masterpiece Cake Shop custom cake different from the Boston War Vets parade then? Why is one speech, and the other not?

Hmmmm, yes, how is allowing a group to determine membership into its group different than producing a generic wedding cake. I dunno this one sure will require some :thunk:

# ¿ Jun 8, 2018 21:11

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Dead Reckoning posted:

This is the part where you are wrong. It is uncontroversial that the baker was in fact willing to sell food to gay people.

That's the thing though, he wasn't refusing the service on the basis of their membership in a protected class, he was refusing to do custom work on the basis of message. If a heterosexual customer had come in and said, "I want you to design and create a cake to celebrate my son's same-sex wedding," he also would have refused that. If he would refuse the same service for a straight customer, and is willing to serve non-custom baked goods to gay customers, how is he refusing to serve people on the basis of class membership? It's no different from someone being unwilling to create art to celebrate a religious message they oppose.
I already addressed the "identical cake" question. Even if two pieces of art are otherwise physically identical, they are still both speech. If Joe Bob sells some business a sign saying "Joe Bob Approved!" with his smiling face on it, should he have to sell the same sign to the Westboro Baptist Church on demand?
It wasn't about membership, it was about allowing groups to march with them. Is a parade an act of speech, but artistic creation not?

Also: here's a Stanford professor and former Circuit Judge making an argument that is basically what I am trying to say. People are tying themselves in knots because were this any other compelled speech question, the answer would be obvious.

But it was. Fundamentally it was about if groups can exclude people who will go against the message they wish to convey. This is obviously a completely different scenario to that of baking a generic wedding cake. We can argue the merits of the decision specifically for Hurley but that would be pretty pointless as an analogue to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

And if Masterpiece acted more like a club and not as a bakery, then they could have similar rights to exclude people. But in this case they made clear that their problem was selling a cake to a homosexual couple; regardless of the actual characteristics or artistic merit of the cake. You seem to buy into this argument because you appear to believe there is an actual different between a "gay wedding cake" and a "wedding cake".

I find it a tad amusing because you seem to almost get it

quote:

It's the difference between, "I want a #3 on wheat and a bag of chips" and "I want you to design and make a rainbow sub celebrating gay pride" or "write 'Christ is Lord above all others' in the mustard."

You are just unwilling to admit that even the baker in question has said they would refuse the equivalent of "I want a #3 on wheat and a bag of chips". Why is that?

# ¿ Jun 8, 2018 23:04

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

I'm sure Ohio will be quick to pass a same day voter registration law to help people wrongfully caught up in their purges. Any day now I am sure

# ¿ Jun 12, 2018 01:32

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Foxfire_ posted:

It's a bad policy result, but I'm not sure it's a bad ruling.

Looking at � 20507, it does kind of seem like it says you can have a program like Ohio's, and noone seems to have argued that that part of the NVRA is unconstitutional

code:

(b) Confirmation of voter registration 
    Any State program or activity to protect the integrity of the electoral process 
    by ensuring the maintenance of an accurate and current voter registration roll for 
    elections for Federal office

    (1) shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance with the Voting Rights 
        Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) [now 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.]; and
        
    (2) shall not result in the removal of the name of any person from the official list of 
        voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person�s failure 
        to vote, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State from using the 
        procedures described in subsections (c) and (d) to remove an individual from the official list of 
        eligible voters if the individual
        
        (A) has not either notified the applicable registrar (in person or in writing) or responded during 
            the period described in subparagraph (B) to the notice sent by the applicable registrar; and then
        (B) has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 or more consecutive general elections for Federal office.


(c) Voter removal programs
    (1) A State may meet the requirement of subsection (a)(4) by establishing a program under which
    
        (A) change-of-address information supplied by the Postal Service through its licensees is used to
            identify registrants whose addresses may have changed; and
        
        (B) if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that
            
            (i) a registrant has moved to a different residence address in the same registrar's jurisdiction
                in which the registrant is currently registered, the registrar changes the registration 
                records to show the new address and sends the registrant a notice of the change by forwardable 
                mail and a postage prepaid pre-addressed return form by which the registrant may verify or 
                correct the address information; or
                
            (ii) the registrant has moved to a different residence address not in the same registrar's 
                 jurisdiction, the registrar uses the notice procedure described in subsection (d)(2) to 
                 confirm the change of address.
    
    (2)
        (A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election 
            for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of 
            ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.
        (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to preclude
            (i) the removal of names from official lists of voters on a basis described in paragraph (3)(A) 
                or (B) or (4)(A) of subsection (a); or
            (ii) correction of registration records pursuant to this chapter.

(d) Removal of names from voting rolls
    (1) A State shall not remove the name of a registrant from the official list of eligible voters in elections
        for Federal office on the ground that the registrant has changed residence unless the registrant
        
        (A) confirms in writing that the registrant has changed residence to a place outside the registrar&#12298; 
            jurisdiction in which the registrant is registered; or
            
        (B)
            (i) has failed to respond to a notice described in paragraph (2); and
            (ii) has not voted or appeared to vote (and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the 
                 registrant's address) in an election during the period beginning on the date of the notice 
                 and ending on the day after the date of the second general election for Federal office that 
                 occurs after the date of the notice.

I think it's a plausible reading that (c) establishes a sufficient program to meet the obligation in (a)(4) [(a)(4) is a bit before this that requires the states to have a program that makes a reasonable effort to remove dead and moved away voters], but that you're allowed to do something else as long as you don't violate (d)

There's a decent argument that the removal procedures are unconstitutional since they burden people's right to vote, but I can't find anywhere where the respondants made that argument.

The law clearly states that to remove based on change of address it has to come from the Post Office that the person moved outside of their current voting district. If they haven't the state is supposed to update the person's address and notify them. This is why Breyer goes into the discussion of how many people move etc; Ohio is basically saying over a million people moved outside of their voting district and the facts don't support that conclusion.

This feels like the VRA ruling where SCOTUS ignores the text of the law (in the VRA case a constitutional amendment, so especially egregious) in order to forward its dismantling of voter protections.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2018 19:16

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

exploded mummy posted:

It doesn't say that.

May means that it's entirely acceptable, not that is the only way to do it.

If you are making something an absolute requirement you are going to use "shall" or "must" to indicate something that specific.

The may there is about if states can start a purge on change of address. They are nor required to hence no shall but if they decide to do so (may) then they have to follow that process. Anything done outside if that process is forbidden.

Edit: by is forbidden i mean by the law as written. Obviously SCOTUS shat all over that just like the VRA

# ¿ Jun 12, 2018 20:40

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

nessin posted:

The best option would have been for Obama not to roll over when he had the one chance to do the recess appointment which would have forced Congress to effectively do a no confidence vote of the appointment a year later. Considering McConnell's entire strategy was to not have a vote on Garland because it wasn't a sure thing, that's kind of a big deal.

The justification for the ruling on Shelby vs Holder was reasonable. The fact that it also stopped all enforcement until Congress makes a move is lovely and gives justification impeachment for everyone in Congress that failed to immediately offer up a fix, but not the judges who ruled on it.

The main justification given was that Roberts felt the provisions Congress came up with were too out of date and that congress should reconsider. There are two problems with this justification. 1) The 15th amendment specifically says it is up to Congress to craft the legislation to enforce it 2) Congress had recently reauthorized the provisions and formula. There's no reason to suggest that a formula should itself go out of date and states can change to meet the requirements of it. So what is the logic to suggest the formula is "out of date" when Congress already went over it an reauthorized it? It is more hilarious because part of the logic Roberts used is basically "racism is over", which is loving laughable. Especially since we have seen voter rights erode heavily since the decision.

Yeah, ultimately we can blame Congressional inaction for further problems; but Shelby County v Holder is one of those few decisions where I can say they got it completely wrong. Not so surprising though given that Roberts waited his whole career for the opportunity to gut the VRA.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2018 20:37

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

How much longer until they declare taxes unconstitutional since it goes to fund politicians and is basically political speech? And avoiding free riders isn't a compelling interest to require either! lol

# ¿ Jun 27, 2018 15:30

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

evilweasel posted:

i've heard people say this and i don't think people actually have thought it through at all. the VRA has to be enforced through the courts because it's about blocking laws that state governments pass. you can tell the supreme court to go gently caress itself and enforce its own legal rulings when it's trying to stop you from doing something, but you can't enforce the VRA without the court system unless you're willing to re-impose the occupation of the confederate states.

obama absolutely should have campaigned harder against the supreme court's illegitimacy however

Hillary should have campaigned much harder on the supreme court vacancy too. It was barely a footnote.

UberJew posted:

Northerners didn't want their racism interfered with.

Keeshhound posted:

Really though, it should've just been applied to everyone.

They do apply to every state. It goes as distinct as the district level and can apply to whole states and the formula is based on which have previously used discriminatory practices to discourage voting. Like literacy tests. It just so happens that the south was hit hardest by it because they universally had such things in place... and are now looking to put them back in place.

Plenty of northern districts were affected by it. New York, California, South Dakota, Alaska, and Michigan all had districts that required preclearance. And not all southern states were completely affected either. Florida for example only had a few districts that required it.

You have to twist your head sideways and ignore centuries of racism and decades of direct disenfranchisement (after actually gaining suffrage ofc) to come to the conclusion that they were unfairly singled out.

I wouldn't be against make the formula even stricter, but it was up to Congress to decide the appropriate legislation and they had renewed it just years before it got struck down for being "too old".

# ¿ Jun 27, 2018 16:23

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Arkane posted:

The two parties are in a race to the bottom on judges, with no solution or end game in sight

Who is the Harriet Miers counterpart on the dem side?

# ¿ Jun 27, 2018 18:43

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Vietnom nom nom posted:

I'd argue the UK's system is showing signs of underlying strain, namely Scotland's independence movement + Brexit and its effects on Northern Ireland. I kind of feel like there's a push worldwide for continual Balkanization of societies as people feel the need to split themselves into smaller and smaller groupings for the purpose of ideological alignment.

For the US, this does seem like the inevitable outcome of the "great compromise" pushing the undemocratic parts of the Constitution to the breaking point.

When the Constitution was enacted, my back of the envelope calculations show that there was a 12:1 population split between the largest state and the smallest state (Virginia:Delaware), and that's counting slaves, who obviously had no political representation at the time other than the 3/5's compromise. That ratio is now approaching 70:1 (California:Wyoming) today. And yet California and Wyoming both get 2 Senators, and Wyoming gets outsized say in a presidential election, etc. The rural/urban ideological divide is at its worst right now because of that.

It's deeply ironic that the most undemocratic vote you can take in the Constitution is the one to amend it (the 3/4 of states needed to amend, each being counted as one). The urban areas of the country are being held hostage by the rural areas.

That being said I think simple demographics suggest it might get better from here. This might just be the baby boomer population pyramid bulge being worked out of the system. Cost of living issues are pushing people geographically inward. Whether those forces correct things in time before the country tears itself apart remains to be seen.

The next Civil War might be the populous states trying to extract themselves from a contract they find increasingly undemocratic and onerous. The defenders of civil rights as the rebels.

The biggest culprit here is Congress back in 1929 capping the number of representatives to 438. That is why we have the imbalance in the EC that we see today. The 2 free senators each is a much smaller factor here. That isn't to say there isn't an argument to be made against having the Senate at all of course (not that I would agree with that, just that the argument could be made).

# ¿ Jun 27, 2018 20:57

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

My favorite part of "abstinence only" is it usually comes from religious fundamentalists, particularly Christians, who believe that a virgin woman was impregnated by God.

It also ignores rape... though I guess someone who is raped should have just practiced abstinence harder?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2018 18:47

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Sodomy Hussein posted:

Oh wow a Trump administration pick with bizarre and mysteriously incomplete financial disclosures somehow feels like non-news. That he went into credit card debt to buy tickets for all his friends, and got it paid off the year he could go onto the Supreme Court, now that's some funny business.

I'm sure the Senate will ask the hard questions to ensure he is on the up-and-up

# ¿ Jul 12, 2018 03:55

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

ulmont posted:

State Supreme Courts always go to the US Supreme Court if they are decided on US constitutional grounds; the only way you go over to the federal system challenging something State level is generally speaking a habeas corpus action challenging a conviction as made in error.

If, on the other hand, a State Supreme Court renders a decision on state constitution grounds, it's not appealable to the US Supreme Court. This came up recently in the PA redistricting case.

That itself depends on if there still is a US Constitution issue at play. In the PA redistricting case there was not. Here it is based on the 4th amendment which applies to the states via the 14th amendment.

From what I have read on the case it seems to pretty obviously violate the 4th and even shitheads like Alito agree (implicitly).

# ¿ Oct 18, 2018 19:56

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

For people whose time horizon is long term the benefits would outweigh the short term risk. And for people whose time horizon is short enough to still be deep into equities but not long enough to weather a huge crash unscathed we could maybe, just maybe, bailout the average American and make them whole. Nahhhhhh that's preposterous better to just let criminals go free.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2018 02:34

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

hobbesmaster posted:

There was a lengthy trial so that makes it rather different from what states have been doing.

This can be done in any civil asset forfeiture case; the challenge is that it is a civil case and there is no presumption of innocence. So the former part means that you have to pay for your own legal costs and the latter means you have to prove that the assets /weren't/ used/acquired via criminal activity. The lengthy trial here is simply because the Alavi Foundation had the resources to fight it.

Which is why it is a huge bludgeon against the poor, because law enforcement doesn't need to prove a crime was committed, they don't need to charge anyone for it, and the person needs to use their own resources to fight for it back. So when they're seizing your car for instance and you lose your job, you have absolutely zero recourse because they can't afford to fight it--even though they technically are allowed to do so, and they might even have the evidence to prove it wasn't associated with criminal activity, they just will never be able to show it because they can't afford to go through the process.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2018 19:34

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:

I�d be willing to be we can find some money that isn�t spoken for. They have $187 billion in assets and $118 billion of deposits.

Seizing every piece of PP&E they have would only get you $185 million of book value. If people can talk about guillotines I think that the $70 billion in nondepositor assets is fair game.

The government could also seize those deposit accounts and transition them over to a different bank. This is what the FDIC tries to do first if a bank fails; find a different bank to take them over. I'm sure there would be plenty of other banks willing to take on $118B of deposits. So in effect you'd still be stripping HSBC of their assets while not hurting the depositor.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2018 01:42

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Drone Jett posted:

Do you understand what nondepository liabilities are, bro.

Sorry, grandma, you're not getting your CD paid back after all, Uncle Sam took everything.

Can transfer over CDs too; though that said CDs are a depository liability sooooo

# ¿ Nov 30, 2018 03:05

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Deteriorata posted:

Typically a credit union or similar. One that is basically a cooperative of the members who loan money to each other, rather than a commercial bank that mainly loans to businesses.

This is basically correct where a thrift is made up of the members and the amount of commercial banking they can do is limited (iirc max of 20%). Credit unions are also considered thrifts but not in the context of the FDIC which doesn't insure credit unions; that's the NCUA. Traditionally the only thrifts the FDIC covered were mutual savings institutions but in 2006 when the FDIC was reformed and it took over the FSLIC which insured savings & loan institutions (another form of a thrift). So today S&Ls and MSBs are the two types of thrifts insured by the FDIC. Both of which are quite rare breeds these days.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2018 04:57

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

algebra testes posted:

For the sake of example, how is Canada's highest court appointed? Is it political or is it mostly "best person for the job" style?

The governor general appoints them; an the parliament and provinces aren't supposed to be able to even give advice towards it. The governor general is appointed by the queen. The governor general gets nominations from the privy council which is made up of former chief justices and parliamentarians and chaired by the prime minister. To qualify for appointment one had to serve on a superior court or members of the bar for >10 years. And apparently at least 3 need to come from Quebec.

For the other superior court appointments the minister of justice forwards recommendations to the federal cabinet (a subset of the privy council) picked from justices who meet certain qualifications. If it is for a chief justice spot, the recommendation comes from the PM.

So it is a bit of both. Ideally people who are picked come through as "recommended" (which means they meet certain minimum qualifications like serving in a lower court, time with the bar, etc) but "non recommended" folks can still be appointed as long as the governor general approves it. Since the governor general is appointed by the queen (Elizabeth II here) that should be minimally political. The current governor general Julie Payette is a former astronaut and serves on the board of directors for the national bank of canada, so make of that what you will. Generally they serve for relatively short periods of time too; the term length if 5 years and it rarely goes beyond that. The PM recommends a successor as well even tho it is up to the queen to approve them.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2018 03:32

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Assuming the argument is being put forth in good faith (and I know it isn't)...how does the citizenship question help enforce the VRA? I can't think of a way it would be helpful at all, never mind the lynchpin to enforcement. Every article I have found puts forth that Ross made that argument but what is the actual articulation for how it would help?

# ¿ Apr 24, 2019 02:27

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Drone Jett posted:

Ah, yes, less fair and competent arbitrators chosen by sophisticated, professional corporations, compared to (checks notes)...elected state district court judges in random lovely counties in lovely states. Good points all around.

Judicial elections are lovely...no argument there... but most states don't select judges that way. Also the discussion seems to be about the federal courts, so this point makes even less sense overall.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2019 01:31

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

ulmont posted:

1. You are incorrect. 21 states have normal elections for judges and another 17 have retention elections (keep this judge or not).

2. The FAA takes cases away from state judges to arbitration as well as taking them away from federal judges.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/leadership/fact_sheet.authcheckdam.pdf

Yes, if you add in retention elections you can squeak by the majority there; but that is choosing to keep them or not; not their actual selection. Most states select who initially will be a judge via appointment processes. That many states then allow the populace to vote to keep them or not seems a bit different than "elected state district court judges in random lovely counties in lovely states". And even with that, I would definitely prefer elected judges over arbitrators selected by corporations who only have their best interests in mind (which is only slightly different than them bribing legislatures to pick the peeps they want).

It is true that the FAA allows for preemption of state law, but the discussion about expanding the # of judges was about the federal courts. And if there is a strong desire for the federal courts to hear cases where it is felt states will fall short could be put into a different law that kicked it to the courts instead. Why would it need to be arbitration to do that? Not that I am convinced that it even makes sense to kick an issue that could be handled in state courts to federal courts without letting state courts handle it first; and it seems that the states that try to fight against the FAA aren't the "lovely state" ones, though I suppose "lovely state" is very subjective.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2019 02:04

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

MrNemo posted:

Well that wasn't always the case. It's hilarious(ly sad) that a group of supposedly originalist judges have ushered in the Imperial presidency the founding fathers eventually compromised on definitely not creating.

Congress delegating all of their power to the executive certainly hasn't helped either

# ¿ Mar 4, 2020 15:22

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Vahakyla posted:

This is not something that is happening, at least not in the US.

I'm sure this is :thejoke:

but PMCs have seen a huge rise in the US military and they continued to get pushed.

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/10/25/soldiers-of-fortune-the-rise-of-private-military-companies-and-their-consequences-on-americas-wars/ posted:

America, the country with the strongest national military, is oddly the largest customer of PMCs. According to the Congressional Research Service, roughly 10% of America’s armed forces were privately contracted during WWII, but during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proportion has grown to a staggering 50%.

# ¿ May 4, 2021 14:51

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

VitalSigns posted:

What about it was "widely accepted interpretation" of the law?

It was a purely partisan decision that ignored the language of the constitution and invented a questionable state's right to equal treatment, there was no broad legal consensus for that ruling.

The senate reauthorized the VRA 99-0 under a republican president, there was broad legal consensus behind the law and overturning it was a reaction to Republican election losses and their fear of an approaching demographic irrelevancy of their party

Shelby is a great case because it shows even if you amend the constitution itself the SCOTUS will be so partisian and political as to ignore it anyway on the flimisest of grounds. Vote tho.

# ¿ May 8, 2022 19:27

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

GaussianCopula posted:

Trigger laws are lovely because they exploit the asymetrie in motivation between people who think the status quo is fine and those that want it changed and in a perfect world they would not be legally possible.

On the other hand, their existance can't influence the decisions of the court, as they could otherwise be used as a tool to influence/pressure judges.

Natural rights are one way to derive human rights but the key here is that it was the consensus of the founders that led to certain human rights being included in the constitution. From todays perspective the initial list obviously wasn't complete, which why the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th etc. amendment were necessary.

And humanity has learned over the ages that rights can be revoked by oppressive regimes, which is why where the idea that constitutional law has a more demanding process to change it.

Care to weigh in on the 9th?

# ¿ May 14, 2022 15:31

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Stickman posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ArizonaDumpster/status/1526228288762531842

The guy the dissented in Thomas and repeatedly said there is no right to privacy is the reason you have the right to privacy in your home

Caniglia is their go to example, the one with a unanimous ruling.....what would we ever do without him on the bench

# ¿ May 18, 2022 00:47

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

PT6A posted:

Or that airlines can fly airplanes that "need repair."

They can and do all of the time depending on the type of repair. They follow a "minimum equipment list" and as long as they have the minimum they can fly even if something needs repaired.

# ¿ May 21, 2022 04:17

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

PT6A posted:

Yes, of course. If something not required as minimum equipment is broken, then the plane does not "need repair" by definition because the MEL defines when the plane "needs repair." This is not something remotely new, or restricted to the US/FAA jurisdiction.

I mean the item still will need repaired right? Seems like pointless nitpicking to say it doesn't need it since it's still deemed airworthy.

And ofc we have to trust the manufacturer and aviation authority that they did their job. For instance in the 737 max example if a plane had 2 AoA sensors installed and 1 needed repair the MEL would have said it's safe when we now know it would not be.

# ¿ May 22, 2022 16:43

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

IT BURNS posted:

I think it's also possible to do a 30-year payback for balances after a certain point. She probably has at least a loan to the specific institution and a federal loan if she's talking about multiple balances. The whole system is incredibly rapacious and predatory.

Federal loans are typically issued each financial aid year and sometimes even every quarter/semester depending on how they do disbursements. Then you have different types of fed loans like subsidized and unsubsidized... grad plus etc that all show up as their own individual balances.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2023 02:18

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

That would be a weird discussion. They would claim first amendment protection but would say that they refuse to do the job which is why you are firing them, not their religion.

We all know that this court would be willing to side with the employee but I think it could go either way.

Easy. Are they a Christian? They would side with them. Anyone else? Lol, lmfao

# ¿ Jul 1, 2023 17:36

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

AvesPKS posted:

How is Missouri harmed by the forgiveness of federal student loans, in a way that is different from loans being paid off? If MOHELA is merely a servicer on these, as a nonprofit their costs decreasing shouldn't be considered an injury, but then obviously I'm misunderstanding something.

Servicers are paid a fixed amount per loan so paying off a bunch of loans early isn't different than someone paying it off themselves except that millions wouldn't have done so at once like what would have happened with forgiveness. So it is a financial hit to them that wouldn't have existed outside the order.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2023 06:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 07:39

Raldikuk: Apr 7, 2006; I'm bad with money and I want that meatball!

Main Paineframe posted:

There's no catch-22. It's entirely possible to write an enforcement law for the Insurrection Clause that isn't also a bill of attainder. The decision even cites a historical example (the Enforcement Act of 1870) and strongly implies that a law modeled after that would also be constitutional.

Everything I have found about the enforcement act of 1870 suggests its for the 15th amendment. Is this your understanding as well fron your reading of it?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 16:21

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