or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 140

post #2086 of 5120
The progessives are concerned that the gay marriage ruling may set the precedent for rolling back other greater good legislation via libertarian arguments.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/
post #2087 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The progessives are concerned that the gay marriage ruling may set the precedent for rolling back other greater good legislation via libertarian arguments.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/


Lol, I was reading that earlier. It's like they're caught in a binary loop of stupidity.
post #2088 of 5120
Quote:
Sex on the beach: It’s a delicious beverage, and also a crime. A Florida man convicted of having it (sex, not the drink), is expected to get 15 years in prison, while his girlfriend will serve jail time. Both must register as sex offenders.

The man, Jose Caballero, faces a harsher sentence because he is a repeat offender subject to mandatory minimum sentencing: he was previously convicted of trafficking cocaine and spent eight years in prison. His next stay in prison will likely be twice as long, however, for the comparatively less serious crime of getting intimate with his girlfriend on a public beach in Bradenton, Florida.

According to The Miami Herald, the couple were noticed by a 3-year-old girl. Exactly what the girl saw is unclear; it’s not even obvious that the two were actually having sex, according to video footage of the encounter:

Family members who witnessed the act and a Bradenton Beach police officer, as well as Caballero, testified in the case. The defense argued that the two weren't actually having sex, but that Alvarez had been dancing on Caballero or "nudging" him to wake him up.

"She wasn't dancing," [Assistant State Attorney Anthony] Dafonseca said during closing arguments. "It's insulting your intelligence to say that she was dancing."

[Defense attorney Ronald] Kurpiers said since the witnesses had not seen genitals or penetration, and neither was visible in the video, either, that saying the two had sex was speculation.

"You folks cannot speculate," Kurpiers told the jury. "And in order to say they had intercourse, you would have to speculate."

Brodsky said they weren't calling it the crime of the century, but it was still a violation of Florida law.

"Did they try to cuddle, or do it discreetly? Did they go in the water, where people couldn't see?" Brodsky asked the jury. "Did Ms. Alvarez try to drape a towel over herself, or anything? They didn't care."

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/05/man-convicted-of-sex-on-the-beach-likely

TLDR: Sex on the beach is not as fun as depicted in From Here to Eternity.

EDIT -

Meet 20 year old soon-to-be registered sex offender Elissa Alvarez.


post #2089 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Run, Carly, Run.

LOLZ.

http://carlyfiorina.org/
post #2090 of 5120
Around here at least, judges and prosecutors often ignore mandatory minimums in cases where they don't think they should apply by way of a sham proportionality analysis. The prosecutor in this case seems to be saying he'll recommend the same thing.

I don't know about you, but in all seriousness, I don't want people screwing on crowded beaches in broad daylight in front of kids. There ought to be real consequences so I don't feel bad about this guy going back to prison.
post #2091 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Around here at least, judges and prosecutors often ignore mandatory minimums in cases where they don't think they should apply by way of a sham proportionality analysis. The prosecutor in this case seems to be saying he'll recommend the same thing.

I don't know about you, but in all seriousness, I don't want people screwing on crowded beaches in broad daylight in front of kids. There ought to be real consequences so I don't feel bad about this guy going back to prison.


You're just ashamed of the human body. I really don't care if people have sex in broad daylight on the beach in front of people. Get over it. At worst it should be some kind of disorderly conduct and a fine. Prison is completely unwarranted. Registration as a sexual offender is absolutely ridiculous. The prosecutor should be disbarred.

EDIT - If a kid walked in on his/her parents having sex would it be appropriate to send the parents to jail?
post #2092 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Lol, I was reading that earlier. It's like they're caught in a binary loop of stupidity.

I don't like Scalia, but at least he's intellectually honest. He warned this kind of thing would happen, and he has consistently said we should yield to the democratically elected branches. I absolutely disagree, but again, at least he's not like a Kagan who just decides the outcome she wants then tortures the law and precedent to fit it.
post #2093 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't like Scalia, but at least he's intellectually honest. He warned this kind of thing would happen, and he has consistently said we should yield to the democratically elected branches. I absolutely disagree, but again, at least he's not like a Kagan who just decides the outcome she wants then tortures the law and precedent to fit it.
Scalia is a whole lot less intellectually honest than you give him credit for.* I base that in part on some personal knowledge, which of course you are totally free to disregard.
Scallia has consistently said that the judiciary should yield to the democratically elected branches on the sorts of issues where his substantive preferences are likely to be better served by such an approach. When the democratically elected branches are less in synch with his views - not so much.



*Understandably so, since he's worked really, really hard, in self-serving dissents and concurring opinions, and on the rubber chicken circuit, to cultivate that image of himself.
post #2094 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Scalia is a whole lot less intellectually honest than you give him credit for.* I base that in part on some personal knowledge, which of course you are totally free to disregard.
Scallia has consistently said that the judiciary should yield to the democratically elected branches on the sorts of issues where his substantive preferences are likely to be better served by such an approach. When the democratically elected branches are less in synch with his views - not so much.



*Understandably so, since he's worked really, really hard, in self-serving dissents and concurring opinions, and on the rubber chicken circuit, to cultivate that image of himself.

That's fair. You seem like a trustworthy guy (for a lawyer anyway). I guess he does that for "moral" cases, but I guess most of the time it is a legislature that has banned some "immoral" act. He certainly hasn't deferred to the legislature on things like Citizens United.
post #2095 of 5120
Scalia has never held himself out as a populist. He just says legislatures should decide questions that aren't answered by the Constitution, not courts.
post #2096 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Scalia has never held himself out as a populist. He just says legislatures should decide questions that aren't answered by the Constitution.

Yes, both of those statements are true. And yet he is perfectly willing -- when it suits his broader purposes -- to conclude that the Constitution does answer certain questions, even though those "answers" are not found in the text and sometimes are in tension with the plain meaning of the text -- the very sort of "analysis" likes to wax censorious about when his side is outvoted.
post #2097 of 5120
He's been on the court for thirty years. I'd be shocked if you couldn't find some example to support just about any argument you want to make about his jurisprudence. Scalia's probably provided more fodder for law professors than anyone in history.

And I'm sure what you're saying is true to some extent. Constitutional law is so full of extraconstitutional absurdities that it'd be nearly impossible to be completely consistent, especially when the court is closely divided and the liberal half loves to make up new rules but hates to apply them fairly when they disagree with the result.
post #2098 of 5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Yes, both of those statements are true. And yet he is perfectly willing -- when it suits his broader purposes -- to conclude that the Constitution does answer certain questions, even though those "answers" are not found in the text and sometimes are in tension with the plain meaning of the text -- the very sort of "analysis" likes to wax censorious about when his side is outvoted.

I assume you're referring to both Smith peyote case and the Heller and McDonald guns cases with this bit?
post #2099 of 5120
Bush v. Gore, it's always Bush v. Gore.
post #2100 of 5120
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

"‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’ "

Meister, this is why your country is dogshit.

"‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob