Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[carolinablue232]

yea, I'm with you.
A lot of wums start with a belief in what their saying, but when faced with an impossible argument, resort to winding people up, kinda like what finnfan used to do.
Emir is trying to argue his views but unfortunately there's no changing the decades of thinking that lead you to be pro assault weapon, anti public health care and questioning evolution.
The effort to reconcile the two mindsets will be the undoing of America.

Agree with you here, but I will say the socialized healthcare debate is exceptionally complicated. Gun regulation and acknowledgement of science really shouldn’t be.

 

[Ruairi77]

Agree with you here, but I will say the socialized healthcare debate is exceptionally complicated. Gun regulation and acknowledgement of science really shouldn’t be.

yea, it's complicated and probably for a different thread.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but the current system is beyond madness.
There are layers of insurance and bureaucracy that could be stripped out of the existing system.
There's a lot of money to be made off medical bloat.
End the system where employers provide insurance. It creates a two tier economy and actually stunts startup growth.
Make health insurance companies not for profit.
Allow states to run the non profit insurance companies rather than just the market places.
Allow states or non profit ins. companies to negotiate for medicine and equipment.
If a hospital accepts the state run insurance they must be non profit too.

There's too many people getting rich off the back of other peoples misfortune.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

It's perfectly reasonable for American citizens to fear police. Now with the right to openly carry weapons for self-defense and stand your ground laws on the books will the conservative SCOTUS support the right of a citizen to shoot and kill police officers? As a Texan, I have no legal duty to retreat in the face of danger to myself. I also have the right to shoot someone if I believe it necessary to prevent a violent crime to my person.

I have done no wrong. I am being confronted by police and I fear they will harm or kill me. How then, do I not have the right to shoot and kill police officers to protect myself?

Thomas Hobbes had this one covered: The state must have the monopoly on legitimate violence.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You know the answer already though. Even if police may threaten to kill you, and you fear for your life, and it's your right to defend yourself, you know you're going away forever if you kill a policeman or woman.

It would seem that this Court will find for the police in this situation, irrespective of what the Tenth Amendment might have to say on the subject.

Thomas Hobbes had this one covered: The state must have the monopoly on legitimate violence.

This is another way of arriving at the same result.

 

[BlueTX]

Thomas Hobbes had this one covered: The state must have the monopoly on legitimate violence.

Given the US is clearly reverting more and more to a state of nature, I'm afraid Mr. Hobbes will be roundly ignored.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Given the US is clearly reverting more and more to a state of nature, I'm afraid Mr. Hobbes will be roundly ignored.

He had a famous quote on what life would be like then too... "nasty, brutish and short"

 

[Martin Alvito]

this a funny one for me. I mean, they're all shocking decisions these days.
but I kinda expected at least one conservative to decent on this, given their legal backgrounds and supposed adherence to the constitution.
It's very worrying that they are just voting lock step to give the police as much power as possible at the expense of the citizen.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both weirdly inconsistent on criminal procedure. It's very hard to predict where either will land. Even Roberts and Coney Barrett occasionally cross. Alito and Thomas would see everyone accused of a crime fry.

Suing the officer personally seemed a bit burdensome to me. Holding the department and the government entity that employed the prosecutors and judge in the case liable for legal fees incurred by the plaintiff seemed pretty reasonable. 42 USC 1983 seems to explicitly bar the possibility of holding the judge liable. I suppose there are good reasons for this - in that rule's absence, a court could later hold that a judge was liable for a decision which was non-controversial and would have been upheld at the time, but that later courts with different policy preferences held was incorrect.

I read through the opinion and dissent, and Kagan's reasoning certainly seems cleaner. Alito's isn't totally insane, however. Other than Dickerson, they're citing different precedents (normal) and they're simply interpreting Dickerson differently. Alito's reasoning is a little tortured, but it's not unsustainable. I've seen worse in Court decisions.

 

[Ruairi77]

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both weirdly inconsistent on criminal procedure. It's very hard to predict where either will land. Even Roberts and Coney Barrett occasionally cross. Alito and Thomas would see everyone accused of a crime fry.

Suing the officer personally seemed a bit burdensome to me. Holding the department and the government entity that employed the prosecutors and judge in the case liable for legal fees incurred by the plaintiff seemed pretty reasonable. 42 USC 1983 seems to explicitly bar the possibility of holding the judge liable. I suppose there are good reasons for this - in that rule's absence, a court could later hold that a judge was liable for a decision which was non-controversial and would have been upheld at the time, but that later courts with different policy preferences held was incorrect.

I read through the opinion and dissent, and Kagan's reasoning certainly seems cleaner. Alito's isn't totally insane, however. Other than Dickerson, they're citing different precedents (normal) and they're simply interpreting Dickerson differently. Alito's reasoning is a little tortured, but it's not unsustainable. I've seen worse in Court decisions.

yea, suing the officer personally seems a bit burdensome but then again suing me personally if I screw up in my job is allowed.
It's just another layer of protection designed to remove any accountability.

 

[gonetomorrow]

Wow scary times in US that you can now carry your gun anywhere. Might not go back in the future. What a shame.

Seems a lot of Americans are like big kids. They get a thrill handling dangerous toys and talking tough.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[verreauxi]

I'm loving the "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" argumentation by our resident Christian 10th grader.

 

[verreauxi]

 

[dublinbluenose]