321–330 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really a 'meme', it just uses a shorthand for 'statutory law' which is what most people think of when they they see 'law'.
> It's not really a 'meme' It is, in fact, a self-replicating unit of behavior. (It's also true in one sense, which is one of the bases of it's relative reproductive fitness as a meme.)
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
I am surprised that the Indiana Supreme Court ruling basically upheld that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states in the absence of specific SCOTUS rulings. Can you imagine if individual states felt they have the right to suppress free speech or the press? I read the official decision from the state court[0] but it's a bit dense for me to get through. It seems like a legal punt, of sorts, in the hopes that SCOTUS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes actually. The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. Also by limiting their ruling to the narrowest ruling they can, they keep decisions as local as possible. Courts handle exceptional circumstances, and it’s important they not rule too broadly, else there can be huge overarching unintended side effects of their ruling. The parallel in programming would be some god class that handles every e…
>The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature I hate this meme. This is explicitly not true in the American legal system, as well as similar systems evolved from the British one. Case law is just as much part of the law as statutes are. This is the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_sy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ("nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") means aliens are afforded the same protections as citizens.
This reads to me as a way for the authors of the amendment to narrow any potential loopholes in the protection of the newly freed slaves at the time. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. However, this says nothing about whether or not you are a citizen of the particular state you were born in. So potentially, a state could deny equal protection under the law (protections under stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really a 'meme', it just uses a shorthand for 'statutory law' which is what most people think of when they they see 'law'.
> It's not really a 'meme' It is, in fact, a self-replicating unit of behavior. (It's also true in one sense, which is one of the bases of it's relative reproductive fitness as a meme.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench. > No, it just takes the support of the President and a sufficient number of Senators. You're kinda both right. The legal mechanism says that "a lifetime of respect" isn't necessary, but the norms that have evolved around its use say otherwise. Recent history demonstrates (in the extreme) that norms aren't inviolable, but I think the ones aro…
The problem with SCOTUS is its reputation, which is dragged down by basically everything else in our politics. When politicians (on both sides of the aisle) openly talk about "liberal judges" and "conservative judges", and promise to appoint the kind that will rule the way they and their constituents want (as opposed to ruling according to what the law says) - and then those same people actually nominate or confirm a…
Liberal judge == living constitution
BTW, if you have civil forfeiture at all (which I think should't exist), why does the money go to the seizing agency? Shouldn't it all go straight to the general fund to avoid a conflict of interest? Ditto punitive damages in court cases (where the defendent pays, say, $3M in restitution but say $500M in punitive damages because they could easily afford the $3M and need to suffer enough to change their ways). Why doe…
What would the point of suing the entity for punitive damages if you didn't see any of the money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not really a 'meme' It is, in fact, a self-replicating unit of behavior. (It's also true in one sense, which is one of the bases of it's relative reproductive fitness as a meme.)
That’s like claiming any knowledge is a meme. Kinda destroys the meaning if it just means any time someone repeats a fact.
The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary. Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well. Timbs sued or appealed the…
I am surprised that the Indiana Supreme Court ruling basically upheld that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to states in the absence of specific SCOTUS rulings. Can you imagine if individual states felt they have the right to suppress free speech or the press? I read the official decision from the state court[0] but it's a bit dense for me to get through. It seems like a legal punt, of sorts, in the hopes that SCOTUS…
At this point most of the rights have been incorporated and only a few have specifically not been incorporated, most notably the right to a grand jury indictment. The excessive fines clause was one of the stragglers that hadn’t been decided either way. (The third amendment probably never will be decided.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s the same in the US The masses are bought in and ignore it Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process They just regurgitate the things they’ve been taught and studied There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others
They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madiso…
And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time.
Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related to the representatives having the ability to change laws.