1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We're currently having an issue where e-mails sent to gmail accounts are not going through and are bouncing back. We're currently working to resolve this matter and apologise for any inconvenience
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  4. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Polls' started by BigLutz, Apr 15, 2014.

  1. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Kavanaugh is the one judge who saw Blackfish and decided to side for Sea World.
     
  2. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Would Kavanaugh actually mean that much for the ACA though. The last two times a case that could have potentially killed the ACA was on the Supreme Court's docket, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court and upheld the law:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_v._Burwell
     
  3. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara The Bard of Rage

    Hates disabilities, eh?

    I bet his ancestors lost money on sanatorium(a nightmare of disabiled peoples' history) closures, and he wants to dump all neurodivergent people into those to make what affects to private prison $$$, as well as keep physically disabled people at home to save employers $$$ for their bloated paychecks.

    The excuse is most likely...

    [​IMG]


    We're next, along with the poor, women, immigrants, non-white and LGBTQA+ people...all are going to be reduced to literal subhumans in favor of anarcho-libertarian lassiez-faire white cis het (supposedly)neurotypical rich men.

    I am genuinely surprised no one has tried any(competent)assassination attempts if they feel so much vitriol towards Trump, his administration, his cronies/sympathizers/users/manipulators, Fox News, Putin or The Federalist Society, though...

    You'd think it would inspire a semi-competent crazy by now to try it...
     
  4. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Interestingly that may have already happened:



    I don't see what an attempted or successful assassination would actually gain though. All of the presidential line of succession at this point in time are republicans. And in such a divided and tense political climate it could end up setting off a power keg; protests, rioting, revenge assassinations, unrest ect.

    I suppose it would also betray a fundamental aspect of the democracy - Political disputes are supposed to be resolved through the ballot box.

    It's an interesting case. Basically Kananaguh and the rest of the majority of the court preferred beneficence over autonomy or Self-determination, at least in relation to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence:

    Facts
    DC had a policy for authorising surgery for person with an intellectual disability who were in the District’s care and had never had capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. The polcy provided that

    It was made pursuant to DC’s Health Care Decisions Act.

    The Act created a hierarchy of persons whom could make decisions for persons without capacity;

    It also created two different decision making frameworks that were based on the patients history in relation to capacity:

    So DC's policy was narrow in scope - If a person lacked capacity whom had never had capacity, then the persons listed in the order of priority could make decision if they were in the "bests interest" of the person.

    In fairness to Kavanaugh, the decision is narrower than that. DC's law and policy only applied in relation to person who did not have mental capacity to give informed consent to medical procedures not to person with "intellectual disabilities" or "developmental/cognitive disability" generally.

    A person can have an intellectual or a cognitive disability and still have full capacity to give informed consent at law.

    With all due respect, this Kavanaugh ruling did not not involve abortion.

    The relevant DC statute provided that consent to an abortion for a person who lacked capacity had to be by court order.

    The issue before the court was whether the fifth amendment's due process clause required DC to consider the wishes of people lacked capacity.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-disabilities-elective-surgeries/

    Law

    The Plaintiff’s argued that the DC policy violated their right to due process under the 5thAmendment because it does not require the MRDDA Administrator to consider an intellectually disabled patient’s wishes in declining whether to authorise surgery.

    They ruled that accepting the wishes of patients who lack (and have always lacked) the mental capacity to make medical decisions does not make logical sense and would cause erroneous medical decisions — with harmful or even deadly consequences to intellectually disabled persons.

    Hence, consideration of the wishes of patients who are not and have never been competent is therefore not required by the Supreme Court's procedural due process cases.

    The Plaintiff’s also made a substantive due process argument as well, relying on on Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990), which held that the Due Process Clause permits a state to require clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes — articulated when she was competent — as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

    The court again disagreed, holding that

    Comparison
    DC's framework isn't is dissimilar to those in other common law countries. Check out Queensland's Guardianship Legislation: It also creates a hierarchy of persons whom can make decisions for adults whom lack capacity. Then there are a series of healthcare principals that have to applied in making the decision:

    http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/gaaa2000304/sch1.html

    Like DC, this also requires the consideration of whether any proposed treatment is "necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote the adult’s health or wellbeing" or is in their "best interests." However, from my reading of the act the principals do seem to put more emphasis on the patient's wishes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  5. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    I don't find Doe vs DC a very interesting case. http://autisticadvocacy.org/2018/09...n-doe-ex-rel-tarlow-v-district-of-columbia-2/

    Key qoute: "Although all three plaintiffs had been deemed unable to independently provide informed consent to medical treatment, they could – and did – express clear desires regarding their care."

    The premise underlining Kavanaugh's opinion in Doe v DC is that people with intellectual disabilities can't make their own medical decisions, which is flat out wrong. I don't see why it needs to be made more complicated.



    -------------------------------

    Edit: if Schumer can't get Manchin on line, I'm not sure if he should be the senate party leader.

    If Manchin gets in line and Collins votes no, that'd be 51 votes. Murkowski seems no, and although her reasoning is strange (Kavanaugh is a 'good man' but his nomination will ruin the court's image), I'm not going to make a deal about it.


    -------------------------------

    Collins says she's voting yes. Kavanaugh is essentially confirmed at this point, although giving Collins and Manchin hell (especially Collins; Manchin will probably vote however Collins votes) for the next few days is all I can consider worthwhile.

    And while we're here, let's acknowledge Collins for what she is. She's a smart shrewd woman. She knows *exactly* what's she's doing. She knows Kavanugh is guilty af. She knows he'll overturn Roe v Wade. She knows McConnell was never going to give her the ACA stability she 'dealed' for in passing the tax bill (that repealed the individual mandate) She's just a lying Republican snake who wishes she didn't have to appease a more moderate base.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  6. Bananarama

    Bananarama The light is coming

    Kavanaugh has the votes to be confirmed. This is such a sad day in American history.

    We can say goodbye to abortion rights and access to contraception. We can say goodbye to affirmative action. We can say goodbye to LGBT rights. We can say goodbye to dignity for people of color and working people. I don't think it would be inaccurate to say that we're entering the American dark ages now.

    All because people were led to believe that Trump and Hillary would be equally bad.
     
  7. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara The Bard of Rage

    Adding some more:

    Because...

    Little boys in big boy bodies are mad women won't touch their peepee willingly.
    Half of white women are gaslighted, brainwashed, abused, dominated and suppressed by their significant other.
    Rich little boys and rich little girls in adult bodies and their sycophants don't wanna share ANYTHING with ANYONE.
    Getting lulz is a worse addiction than all opioids COMBINED.
    Algorithims are dumb and cheap, and can't tell humans with hate from other programs.
    Unfettered Russian oil money will get Putin military cash to conquer the Baltics.
    No one can get along since the Internet was invented.
    Anarcho-libertarians control pop culture, memes, physical goods, copyright and interpretations of media through moderation, administration and ownership of fan sites, IPs, social media, news, means of production, schools and both major political parties, both left and right-wing.
    People didn't or couldn't vote.
    Religious bodies aren't having their tax-free statuses voided by becoming polictical.
    Benjamin Netenyahu has played the left into looking antisemitic for daring to oppose him and his administration at any point.
    The SCOTUS allowed Citizens United, voting on party lines(a precursor for the current sh*tstorm).
    A black person had authority over white men.
    Some people are different from the majority.
    People want legalized a***holery in the name of the Bill of Rights
    Too many Lizard-Brained people(NOT Lizard People, people who let the most primitive part of the brain dominate their mind) in charge
    Corporations count as both people and singular entities rather than a business with multiple employees, legally speaking
    "Owning libs" should be considered a dangerous sexual addiction, as owning surely refers to a suppressed BDSM Kink being expressed inappropriately
    Some people refuse to acknowledge hearing "no" in ANY way, w/o thinking critically about why they were told "no"
    FacelessShareholders control businesses rather than people
    Little children don't want to pay taxes like big people
    It's cheaper and more profitable to murder by proxy than to heal and cure the sick
    People blaming other things than trying to better themselves in any way they can
    Food and drink are unsafe unless grown yourself
    A woman tried to be dominant over men
    Poor people are to be disposed of to turn the middle class into the new poor, and thus opening the gateway to the restoration of feudalism, the rich's ultimate end goal and victory
    Social Darwinism is a hell of a drug

    And many more...
     
  8. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    It should be noted that every anti-slavery case lost in the Supreme Court, and it's a shame that John Brown isn't seen as a good guy in history.

    This shouldn't be defeating, this should make people mad and motivated enough to want to change things to where the SC doesn't matter or can change, because today showed that Brett could have raped and murdered a woman on camera and it would have had the same result.
     
    WizardTrubbish likes this.
  9. ...

    Yes, Pikachu52, in cases where justice Kennedy was the deciding vote, the appointment of Kavanaugh poses a significant chance of overturning them, assuming he has a position further to the right of him. Which, he very likely holds a position to the right of Kennedy on most things, given his statements. If someone believes that net neutrality violated the "first amendment rights of corporations" or that the consumer financial protection bureau is unconstitutional, they are not a judge. They're an oligarchic partisan in judges robes.
     
  10. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    I don’t disagree with you on any of that, but I was talking the Affordable Care Act specifically.

    In the main challenge to the ACA in 2012, National Federation Of Independent Business v Sebelius, the swing vote wasn’t Kennedy, it was Roberts. Kennedy sided with the conservatives in that case.

    Roberts also joined the liberals and Kennedy in King v Burwell as well.
     
  11. My B, my brain misread the judge you mentioned as Kennedy because I had another article up.
     
  12. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    On the ACA cases, Roberts, not Kennedy, was the deciding vote. That is, in the 2012 case, Roberts, Breyer, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg upheld ACA and Kennedy, Scala, Alito, and Thomas voted against it. In the 2015 case, Kennedy joined the majority in a 6-3 vote.

    The real question is if Roberts will continue to defend ACA. Much of his argument was based on the fact the individual mandate prevented a death spiral, which holds water as long as there is an individual mandate.
     
  13. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Regrettably, the senate confirmed justice animal house.
     
  14. U.N. Owen

    U.N. Owen In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...

    I'm not upset the senate confirmed him (at least not at my angriest since I was in a car accident earlier today); I'm upset at the handling of the accusations. It was treated as a something dirty used in a job interview rather than a criminal case. Criminal accusations should be taken seriously, should be throughly investigated, and be treated with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause.

    Instead, we have this nonsense. A tremendous waste of time and energy. A farce.
     
  15. Auraninja

    Auraninja I'm ready to Smash

    In a new campain ad, Ted Cruz claimed that Beto O'Rourke said that the police are the new Jim Crow.

    Now, if you have 5 and a half minutes to spare, I implore you to listen to this soundcloud on the top of this provided link.

    Here

    What Cruz claimed has a kernel of truth. However, Beto was claiming was that systematic racism was collectively the new Jim Crow. Ted Cruz's claim was given a "Mostly False" rating.
     
  16. Trainer Yusuf

    Trainer Yusuf VolcaniNO

    Meanwhile in the rest of the world, here's some updates to stuff I posted earlier:

    *Romanian gay marriage ban referendum has failed due to low participation. Romanian constitution disallows amendments without referendums IIRC so parliament cannot ban gay marriage constitutionally. This is a good thing, but this will just encourage other former Eastern Block countries to succeed in Romania's stead.

    *Republic of China, ie. Taiwan, is going to hold a referendum on gay marriage, in November 24th. Taiwan is incredibly homophobic, however as a developed country a good portion of the population happens to support gay marriage, so this depends entirely on participation rate. Current constitution disallows ban on gay marriages, but this referendum can change that if civil unions are allowed. If the referendum fails due to participation rate, gay marriage will be automatically legalized in around May 2019.
     
  17. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/10/11/17961620/texas-evangelical-lgbtq-discrimination-lawsuit

    Not to anyone's surprise, with Kavanaugh's confirmation Evangelical groups will try to make it legal to fire if you're gay, local laws be damned.

    Part of me knows enough LGBT history to know under normal jurisprudence, they shouldn't have a shot. Romer v Evans was about a CO amendment that tried to strip municipalities from their right to enforce LGBTQ antidiscrimination law, and then SCOTUS ruled the CO amendment couldn't do that.

    But normal jurisprudence hardly matters with a solid five majority with Kavanaugh, and I feel if this goes to federal courts that it'll not only overturn Romer v Evans but make LGBTQ discrimination legal with nothing short of a constitutional amendment or a new court to fix it.

    Part of me is like ****, but like, I knew this was gonna happen when Trump is elected. And a special **** you to y'all who insisted a man who chooses Pence as his VP was friendly to queer folks.
     
  18. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    I don't think these idiots are going to get very far.

    For one thing, the petitioners bringing the lawsuit in Federal court - the one asking courts to issue an injunction banning the federal government from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of this sort against any employer that "objects to homosexual or transgender behaviour on religious grounds" - appear to lack to standing to sue.

    The complaint doesn't provide how they've suffered any injury beyond "The threat of enforcement inflicts “injury in fact." My understanding is that the Supreme Court's standard for "Injury fact" is"

    http://www.federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section1

    The two other cases are in Texas State Court - They're trying to use the State Religious Freedom Restoration Act to exempt themselves from Austin's non-discrimination ordinance.

    One of their complaints states that the Plaintiff "Texas Values," will "not hire or retain practicing homosexuals or transgendered people as employees." Like the Federal court the idiots don't seem to have plead any actual injury so as to have standing.

    Kavanaugh or no Kavanaugh these dumb****s should be laughed out of court
     
  19. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    Standing isn't an issue. Employers can generally fire who they please, and when they can't, they can often dispute. Often times the law is clear so the relevant executive agency (usually at state level), such as a Labor Commissioner's Office, will handle such claims. If, however, the situation or legal reasoning is considered novel enough equivaleny, the law is unclear), the dispute can go to courts. In other words, it's novelty, not standing, that matters.

    Under normal jurisprudence, a court care would not find a novel argument in being able to fire LGBTQ people when local law says otherwise. There's various cases I could list, but here's the thing: Norms are the only thing that would stop a federal judge from saying this case is novel enough; adjacent cases make the issue clear to anyone acting in good faith. But norms don't matter, we are so far from normal politics that power and ideology of those with it are what matters. A judge acting in bad faith can claim novelty is there where none exists, after all, there hadn't strictly been a case to see if CRA of '64 guarantees the right to fire LGBTQ folks. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but Trump had been able to nominate a lot of judges.

    Am I saying this case will definitely go to court? Well, no, since any judge applying jurisprudence faithfully would know it's BS. But the thing is, such judges are rarer now that we have to seriously consider that judge acting on bad faith.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018 at 6:59 PM
  20. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    So Jared Kushner probably got a journalist tortured and killed by Saudi Arabia.
     

Share This Page