Ex-felons should have the entirety of their rights resorted, imo, with the exception of violent (and possibly some other) crimes.

You make the choice to commit a crime. You have to live with the consequences of that choice, an it only gets worse the more crimes you commit.

 

I know liberals hate personal responsibility and that anything bad that happens to anyone cannot possibly be that person's fault, but can we please at least keep some amount of accountability for people who make a conscious decision to harm others?

Hey, you might not realize this, but "the consequences" are not some fixed, immutable law of nature! They are public policy and can be debated and changed!

 

I'm surprised you're not 100% in favor of removing another infringement of the 2A. Why should Martha Stewart, convicted of some securities fraud, be barred from owning a gun in order to protect herself from violent criminals and the tyranny of the state you like to tell us about so much?

You willfully cede your 2A right when you go out committing f***ing felonies.

A whole lot of things count as felonies that have nothing to do with with guns or violence in even loosely connected ways.

And of course the way we do it doesn't the serve the ends it is supposed to. It doesn't make us safer, it doesn't deter criminal acts, it doesn't reduce the amount of criminals.

NASA cancels all education and public outreach activities as a consequence of sequestration.

And of course the way we do it doesn't the serve the ends it is supposed to. It doesn't make us safer, it doesn't deter criminal acts, it doesn't reduce the amount of criminals.

Of course the criminal justice system should never aim to do any of those things. They need to prosecute and sentence without regard for deterrence, public safety or minimizing the number of criminals.

Rich give less to charity than the poor

 

and a lot of the wealthy giving is to social institutions like orchestras or the Met.

 

But why? Lower-income Americans are presumably no more intrinsically generous (or “prosocial,” as the sociologists say) than anyone else. However, some experts have speculated that the wealthy may be less generous—that the personal drive to accumulate wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support. Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”

Edited March 26, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

From the oral arguments in the Prop 8 case today:

 

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/316560034295324672

SCOTUSblog

‏@SCOTUSblog

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

 

SCOTUSblog

‏@SCOTUSblog

Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

 

SCOTUSblog

‏@SCOTUSblog

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time

 

boo. probably will get tossed on standing, meaning that the 9th's ruling striking down Prop 8 stands but remains limited to California's unique set of facts.

Edited March 26, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

I'd be disappointed if they don't decide on case, though I'm not sure what that truly means.

I think tossing it out on standing could lead to other issues since a state executive could essentially nullify state laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court.

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

I think tossing it out on standing could lead to other issues since a state executive could essentially nullify state laws they don't like by refusing to defend them in court.

I'd be surprised if they ruled that way. I can't remember the parties on each side for the Prop 8 litigation, but even if they dismissed based on standing I would guess they'd find a way to fit into previous precedent.

So who is the 5th that wont go for it, thats the real question.

 

I was thinking Roberts was going to, because he wants to be justice that will be remembered.

The State of California is refusing to defend Prop. 8 in the courts, so a group of private citizens is defending it instead. Sort of like the House wasting a bunch of money hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA.

 

scotusblog has a summary of the oral arguments

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-prop...-oral-argument/

 

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

 

The Justices seem divided on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on ideological lines, four to four – i.e., all the members other than Justice Kennedy. For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.

 

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

So who is the 5th that wont go for it, thats the real question.

 

I was thinking Roberts was going to, because he wants to be justice that will be remembered.

Kennedy according to oral arguments/scotusblog, but he was supposed to be the swing in ACA case so....

The State of California is refusing to defend Prop. 8 in the courts, so a group of private citizens is defending it instead. Sort of like the House wasting a bunch of money hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA.

 

scotusblog has a summary of the oral arguments

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-prop...-oral-argument/

 

I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions.

Reading Volokh blog comments, it appears that it could be in reference to the pro-Prop 8 side's arguments that rely on social science e.g. "what's best for the children." edit: also that they took this case primarily to settle the standing issue anyway where a state government declines to defend a ballot initiative's legality.

 

There was a ruling released today that found that you can't bring a drug dog onto someone's porch and then search the home if the dog alerts. Scalia with a good opinion and Kagan with a (better) concurrence. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf

 

This implicit license typically permits the visitorto approach the home by the front path, knock promptly,wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters.

Edited March 26, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

Reading Volokh blog comments, it appears that it could be in reference to the pro-Prop 8 side's arguments that rely on social science e.g. "what's best for the children." edit: also that they took this case primarily to settle the standing issue anyway where a state government declines to defend a ballot initiative's legality.

 

There was a ruling released today that found that you can't bring a drug dog onto someone's porch and then search the home if the dog alerts. Scalia with a good opinion and Kagan with a (better) concurrence. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf

 

Blasphemy!

His writing style is still better suited to talk radio or editorials but I'm not going to say he's wrong when he's solidly correct here. I'd prefer Kagan's privacy grounds over Scalia's property grounds but it's still a good ruling and a good result.

I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions.

 

Yep, its either wrong or its right.

 

Im not sure what science has to do with it. Straight couples can be s***ty disgusting parents, I assume gay couples can be as well. But you dont punish everyone, simply because a few people are terrible humans.

I've never taken a law class so it's probable that I've misunderstood, but I think the prop 8 defenders are arguing that it passes a rational basis test, and that rational basis would necessarily rely on social science findings i.e. the harm that gay marriage would (supposedly) cause.

 

e.g. MR. COOPER: Your Honor, we -- we go further

in -- in the sense that it is reasonable to be very concerned that redefining marriage to -- as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to that institution and to the interests that society has always -- has -- has always used that institution to address. But, Your Honor, I

Edited March 26, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

Yep, its either wrong or its right.

Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said.

Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said.

 

Constitutionality of a particular law really shouldn't be a "maybe" situation. Either prop 8 is constitutional or it's not. Whether or not it's too soon to tell isn't really a good excuse to not decide.

 

If the only defense here is that studies might show kids grow up worse with gay parents, but the science is inconclusive or not fully developed, the law should be upheld. There's no reason not to at this particular time. If in 10 years the science changes and you want to use that defense, bring another lawsuit.