 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:43:41 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>> Heh, I've thought so for years. Are you familiar with Randy Cassingham
>> and "This is TRUE"? He regularly does essays/stories on zero tolerance
>> gone awry, and combines a good bit of humour in tacking the subject.
>>
>>
> Nope, but I'll take a look. We *need* some humor in the US these days!
I've been a paid subscriber for years after a friend gifted a
subscription to me. There's a free edition as well.
One of the best things about it is the "honorary unsubscribe" - stories
about people who have generally made a very significant impact that
everyone mostly forgot about or never knew about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:01:02 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This, of course, would imply actually knowing what is in the
> constitution,
> which is kind of hard, when you get senators claiming things are in it
> that are not, other things are not, which are, and confusing it with
> other documents (declaration of independence, being one, though.. I
> think there was one moron suggesting that the Magna Carta was a founding
> document, if not actually part of the constitution a while back too.)
Yep.
Interpreting the constitution is easy, but applying it isn't easy in all
cases. I disagree with SCOTUS about the meaning of the second amendment,
for example - IMHO it starts with the reason why the right to bear arms
shall not be infringed (because a well armed militia is necessary), and
the current interpretations take the second part but throw out (again,
IMHO) the first.
On the flip side, the courts tend to agree about the establishment
clause, but many religious individuals (generally those who want prayer
in schools, public government meetings, etc) seem to feel very strongly
that it doesn't apply to Christianity. And they're wrong (and the courts
agree on that in general).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:02:47 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>>
>> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
>> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
>> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have
>> standing to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're
>> not harmed by Judge Walker's ruling.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
> more or less.
Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my
marriage" (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be
something tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim
for damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
Marriage licenses aren't a zero sum game, though. Because a gay couple
gets married doesn't mean that one less straight couple can. They don't
"consume" one of a finite number of licenses available.
So actually in the Prop 8 case, one of the first things SCOTUS has done
is asked the two opposing sides to explain why the prop 8 supporters do
or don't have standing. One theory I've heard is that they had standing
to sue over the process being followed - but the process was followed,
and Prop 8 resulted in a law that was put in place. The referendum
process worked. The law put in place to implement Prop 8, however, was
found to be unconstitutional, and only the state (not the Prop 8
proponents) has standing to appeal the law that was implemented - and
they chose not to. The case should have ended there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
> idiot can be one.
That's how democracy works, and how it should work, as long as those
politicians are *chosen by the people* (rather than appointed by other
politicians).
If people choose idiots to govern them, they can only blame themselves.
A completely different question is if those idiots got there by means
other than by having been voted by the people. That's *not* democracy
anymore.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/2012 7:03 AM, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> To our great chagrin, there is no 'intelligence test' for US politicians. ANY
>> idiot can be one.
>
> That's how democracy works, and how it should work, as long as those
> politicians are *chosen by the people* (rather than appointed by other
> politicians).
>
> If people choose idiots to govern them, they can only blame themselves.
>
> A completely different question is if those idiots got there by means
> other than by having been voted by the people. That's *not* democracy
> anymore.
>
Ah.. like redistricting/changing laws, to make it harder to vote, and/or
register to vote, breaking unions, which are the #1 contributor to the
only opposition of the right wing, who also spend lots, and lots, of
time undermining education (resulting in ignorance of the masses), and
funding things like Alec, and Fox News, where they feed total bullshit
to the public. Those sorts of anti-democratic things, perhaps?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:02:47 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2012 10:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:45:58 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because, being a citizen and/or resident of the state, for some damn
>>>> reason, doesn't qualify you as "having standing".
>>>
>>> Well, no, it depends on whether or not you can demonstrate that you are
>>> harmed by that law. That's one of the questions before SCOTUS with the
>>> Prop 8 case out of California - do those who appealed even have
>>> standing to appeal? General wisdom is no, they don't, because they're
>>> not harmed by Judge Walker's ruling.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Uh, yeah.. And, they get to define what ever the F "harm" is, and isn't,
>> more or less.
>
> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my
> marriage" (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be
> something tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim
> for damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>
You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
faith constitute harms."
> Marriage licenses aren't a zero sum game, though. Because a gay couple
> gets married doesn't mean that one less straight couple can. They don't
> "consume" one of a finite number of licenses available.
>
> So actually in the Prop 8 case, one of the first things SCOTUS has done
> is asked the two opposing sides to explain why the prop 8 supporters do
> or don't have standing. One theory I've heard is that they had standing
> to sue over the process being followed - but the process was followed,
> and Prop 8 resulted in a law that was put in place. The referendum
> process worked. The law put in place to implement Prop 8, however, was
> found to be unconstitutional, and only the state (not the Prop 8
> proponents) has standing to appeal the law that was implemented - and
> they chose not to. The case should have ended there.
>
> Jim
>
Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
able to marry, and now can't. So, its not the damn state that is the
only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these
"right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid
poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in
some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the
difference isn't "harming" anyone? So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of
claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists,
or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening,
and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no
standing to appose it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:14:38 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my marriage"
>> (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be something
>> tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim for
>> damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
>> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>>
> You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
> people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
> rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
> favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
> faith constitute harms."
I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm". Do you know of one?
> Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
> thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
> able to marry, and now can't.
Yes, exactly. But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
them.
> So, its not the damn state that is the
> only one with "standing". The same idiot BS is going on with these
> "right to work" laws. Are you going to honestly tell me that being paid
> poverty wages, not getting more than 30 hours (or maybe not even 20, in
> some of the worst cases), and having to take welfare to mark up the
> difference isn't "harming" anyone?
I never said that. But that's not the question, Patrick - it's about
people claiming something as "harm" that isn't quantifiable to them
personally claiming nevertheless to have standing. They don't, and even
SCOTUS would have a hard time making the case that they do. Scalia will /
try/, of course, but the court is split pretty evenly and a couple swing
back and forth. Just look at how ACA passed SCOTUS.
> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
> put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
> been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
> can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
> state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. The legislature /should/,
I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers. The courts are
supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
unconstitutional being passed. It generally works.
> Welcome to the real world, where you can ignore reality, in favor of
> claiming that no harm has happened, and therefor no "standing" exists,
> or worse, that some sort of undefinable, nebulous, "harm" is happening,
> and therefor it had to be passed, and, as such, you *still* have no
> standing to appose it.
Again, you're missing my point. We're on the same side of this, and
you're violently agreeing with me without (apparently) noticing it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/2012 2:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:14:38 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Well, no, they don't. "Harm" is not defined as "devaluing my marriage"
>>> (because that's not actually demonstrable). It has to be something
>>> tangible or monetary - the same sorts of things you can claim for
>>> damages (or claim damages for). For example, breaking someone's legs
>>> is harmful, and they can sue you for damages.
>>>
>> You are assuming that they only use those criteria. Nearly all of the
>> people on SCOTUS right now lean right, and more than a few of their
>> rulings, and even some of their public statements, show a clear bias in
>> favor of the idea that, "Things that make me uncomfortable due to my
>> faith constitute harms."
>
> I can't remember seeing any case that made it to SCOTUS where an
> unquantifiable "harm" was used to define "harm". Do you know of one?
>
Oh, no, not specifically, but then, that is the point, isn't it. If you
need a cause, you can find one. Its not impossible that there can be
"real harms" to some people, both if/and if not, a law stands. Its also
possible to pull things out of your ass, which you claim represent
dangers. Its the statements made latter that make it really clear what
they where actually thinking, and why they did it, and, while so far,
all of the cases have been fairly borderline, and it is hard to say if a
line was really crossed, again, looking at their opinions, their public
statements, and at least in one case, the ranting gibberish one put out
as his "apposing opinion to the decision", at the very least, suggest a
really horrible result, should the balance shift even more in favor of
certain sorts of people on the court (something Romney would have,
almost certainly, have either done, or been pressured by his so called
'base' into doing.)
>> Bull. The people with standing are the ones effected. By banning such a
>> thing, you *are* effecting the people that would otherwise have been
>> able to marry, and now can't.
>
> Yes, exactly. But they're not the ones bringing the case - people who
> are supporting Prop 8 (ie, in favor of denying rights) are the ones
> claiming standing, but they don't have standing because they cannot
> demonstrate a quantifiable harm that denying someone else rights causes
> them.
>
Uh.. Ok, sorry, guess I missed your point. All the stupidity that has
been going on the last, almost 12+ years, makes it hard to keep track of
which idiocies stood, and which ones might have been shot down. I guess
I lost track of what exactly went on with that one (especially given
that a mess of other states have, since, been promoting the same stupid
crap, on the basis that it was successful in California).
>> So, why the $#%$%#@ is it legal to
>> put such a law into place, such that this is the end result (and has
>> been, in every single state that passes them), in such a way that you
>> can't either vote it, via referendum, out of existence, and/or sue the
>> state over it, and how the fuck is it "constitutional"?
>
> Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. The legislature /should/,
> I agree, make sure they are, but the legislature also isn't made up
> exclusively of lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
Sadly, we are lucky, sometimes, if the legislature, it seems, isn't made
up of cast members from the movie Idiocracy, on some subjects. But,
yeah, while a religious test is just out (it would remove about 80% of
the idiots right there, if you could just test for which ones thing
environmental issues don't exist, because god wouldn't allow them, and
creationism was sound...), but... why the hell is it illegal to have a,
"Do you even know anything about US history, the constitution, or.. how
to write your own damn name, for that matter?"? I mean, would it be too
much to ask that they could pass a GED, at minimum, without falling
asleep, or paying someone else to take the test for them?
> The courts are
> supposed to provide the checks & balances for laws that are
> unconstitutional being passed. It generally works.
>
Sadly, and this is what annoys me with SCOTUS is.. its not entirely
clear how, or even if, you could fire one of them, if they did overstep
their own limits, and did something unconstitutional themselves, like
allowing something to stand that actually is unconstitutional. It is,
after all, an "appointed" position, and who gets appointed depends
entirely upon when one of them dies and/or retires, and who happens to
be in the White House. Imagine Romney, and his "tea party" wackos, or
someone actually crazy, not just unable to, apparently, think without
consulting the current party leadership (I thought we got past that BS
with Bush Jr...), had the opportunity to do that, especially given the
somewhat.. questionable views of some of the people already there (not
to mention their refusal to do what any other judge, in any other
position, would do, and recuse themselves, when their own wife is on the
comity/group pushing something under constitutional examination, as in
fact happened with, I think Scalia?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> and lots, of time undermining education
I have never understood what the goal is with that. What possible good can
it do to anybody to limit education?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
Btw, I love how it doesn't actually *define* what "Almighty God" means.
Which "God" would that be, exactly? Can I define it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
