/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

As he should. I don't even agree with all of Kavanaugh's interpretations of the constitution, and I can see that you would have to be actually retarded to believe the accusations levied at him. The democratic party made a colossal mistake by blowing this much political capital on a conservative justice replacing an outgoing conservative justice. Ginsberg is not going to be around for long.

Ginsberg looks like my great nana before she shat too hard and died

Luke Cox wrote:As he should. I don't even agree with all of Kavanaugh's interpretations of the constitution, and I can see that you would have to be actually retarded to believe the accusations levied at him. The democratic party made a colossal mistake by blowing this much political capital on a conservative justice replacing an outgoing conservative justice. Ginsberg is not going to be around for long.

Yeah the really ironic thing is for all the Dem's huffing and puffing about how Kavanaugh was some ultra far right lunatic, the truth is that he's actually pretty lukewarm as a conservative. They pushed like hell and played downright dirty against someone they actually didn't disagree with that much.

Luke Cox wrote:The thirteenth amendment prohibits involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime, no exceptions ([cough]military draft[cough]).

My parents were legally bound to send me to school.
My teachers made me do homework
One of the high school graduation requirements I had was to perform x hours of community service.
My parents made me do chores and eat my vegetables.
I had a summons to appear in court for serving on a jury.
I (don't) live in a place where I'm legally bound to shovel snow off the sidewalk outside of my property.

Were my rights under the 13th Amendment infringed?

lntigracy wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:The thirteenth amendment prohibits involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime, no exceptions ([cough]military draft[cough]).

My parents were legally bound to send me to school.
My teachers made me do homework
One of the high school graduation requirements I had was to perform x hours of community service.
My parents made me do chores and eat my vegetables.
I had a summons to appear in court for serving on a jury.
I (don't) live in a place where I'm legally bound to shovel snow off the sidewalk outside of my property.

Were my rights under the 13th Amendment infringed?

Minors don't have constitutional rights. You don't have to shovel the snow yourself, it just can't be there. Many have argued that jury duty violates the 13th amendment, actually

Tough shit. Sometimes you gotta give a little.

Absolutely, yes. It's already incredibly easy to get out of being on a jury if you really don't want to be on one (just say something that indicates an extreme opinion in the interview). Let's just cut out some of the gymnastics and make jury duty voluntary as to not waste people's time. Throw in some financial compensation if you need more takers.

just say you are aware of jury nullification and they'll drop you at lightspeed

CosmicScientist wrote:Let me reword my question,

Why would you want jurors who volunteered to be jurors?

I'd much rather have someone who's there willingly because they're more likely to be attentive and interested in the details of the case. Somebody there against their will may let the resulting irritation affect their perception of the testimony.

You will also get a lot of political activists volunteering so they can 'steer justice into the right direction'
And because of that they may ignore the entire case and pay no attention, as they already decided what is right- That's how political activists work

Better would be an opt-out system, so those who have no interest whatsoever can opt out instead of having to pretend they're insane or know about jury nullification

XSI wrote:You will also get a lot of political activists volunteering so they can 'steer justice into the right direction'
And because of that they may ignore the entire case and pay no attention, as they already decided what is right- That's how political activists work

Better would be an opt-out system, so those who have no interest whatsoever can opt out instead of having to pretend they're insane or know about jury nullification

Basically this. Figure out what percentage of people drop out, then send out additional jury duty notifications to make up for it. Where I live, they don't even bother pursuing no-shows because it isn't worth their time.

Luke Cox wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:Let me reword my question,

Why would you want jurors who volunteered to be jurors?

I'd much rather have someone who's there willingly because they're more likely to be attentive and interested in the details of the case. Somebody there against their will may let the resulting irritation affect their perception of the testimony.

Someone here said that people who ask to be admins should not be made admins because them asking is a big red flag.

Same thing should be valid for jury duty.

Luke Cox wrote: Minors don't have constitutional rights. You don't have to shovel the snow yourself, it just can't be there. Many have argued that jury duty violates the 13th amendment, actually

Actually, you'd be mistaken with that

Minors do enjoy the protections offered by the Bill of Rights and the following amendments, with some exceptions, namely the 5th Amendment that touches on being held somewhere against your will because school is a thing

It is technically less protection, but for instance, in '69 a case hit the Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines, in which several students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.
They concluded that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.", but any freedom of expression cannot disrupt classwork
So technically, these school walkouts that have been happening more and more regularly are not protected speech as they violate this ruling

There have been other cases as well, most notable is one that applied to the Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure
Students still enjoy 4th Amendment protection, but school officials do not need to obtain a warrant and have a lower threshold to initiate a search

Luke Cox wrote:The point of the constitution is that you can't just use it to ram ideological agendas down people's throats. You have to have a significant portion of the population, both liberal and conservative on board. I have mixed opinions on Gorsuch, but he was absolutely correct when he said that people have become addicted to using the courts as fronts for activism.

I'm mostly a textualist when it comes to the constitution. Some amendments do invite interpretation through deliberately ambiguous language ("cruel and unusual", "speedy trial", etc) but concrete and specific language should be treated as absolute. If lawmakers want something to be open to interpretation, they will use loose language. Constitutional law shouldn't involve world class mental gymnastics

Did they explicitly say they left it vague to invite timeless interpretation or is it just your own "interpretation"? If I'm not wrong, originalism also means trying to derive the meaning of the words from historical and cultural context at the time they were written, to better understand what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote the constitution. "Speedy trial"? Just check what the average length was at the end of the 18th century. "Cruel and unusual"? Torture was a common punishment at the time, and they would've considered waterboarding a childish, but maybe "unusual" game. Death penalty? Definitely not cruel or unusual, it was the norm back then.

"Well-regulated militia"? It obviously means that no sort of regulation, checks or laws should ever be put in place to control gun sales, and that every american citizen, from prepubescent children to village idiots should be allowed to own and operate military-grade fully automatic weapons capable of annihilating an entire movie theatre in mere seconds.

They'd probably consider waterboarding as a form of torture
"Get someone to feel as if they are drowning" is pretty high up there on nasty shit to do to a prisoner

It's not 4000BC's "Tie them up and put them in a barrel of dung, smear their face with honey and let them die from exposure/lack of food/infection/insects eating their face and body", but it's still torture

Grazyn wrote:

Luke Cox wrote:The point of the constitution is that you can't just use it to ram ideological agendas down people's throats. You have to have a significant portion of the population, both liberal and conservative on board. I have mixed opinions on Gorsuch, but he was absolutely correct when he said that people have become addicted to using the courts as fronts for activism.

I'm mostly a textualist when it comes to the constitution. Some amendments do invite interpretation through deliberately ambiguous language ("cruel and unusual", "speedy trial", etc) but concrete and specific language should be treated as absolute. If lawmakers want something to be open to interpretation, they will use loose language. Constitutional law shouldn't involve world class mental gymnastics

Did they explicitly say they left it vague to invite timeless interpretation or is it just your own "interpretation"? If I'm not wrong, originalism also means trying to derive the meaning of the words from historical and cultural context at the time they were written, to better understand what the founding fathers really meant when they wrote the constitution. "Speedy trial"? Just check what the average length was at the end of the 18th century. "Cruel and unusual"? Torture was a common punishment at the time, and they would've considered waterboarding a childish, but maybe "unusual" game. Death penalty? Definitely not cruel or unusual, it was the norm back then.

"Well-regulated militia"? It obviously means that no sort of regulation, checks or laws should ever be put in place to control gun sales, and that every american citizen, from prepubescent children to village idiots should be allowed to own and operate military-grade fully automatic weapons capable of annihilating an entire movie theatre in mere seconds.

If something is vague in law, that allows for a looser interpretation. If it's strictly worded, there is a narrower interpretation. None of this is challenging if you're not illiterate. """Originalists""" usually amount to little more than conservative judicial activists that follow their favorite amendments to a fine point while allowing for broad interpretations of others that don't line up with their worldview. Are slower trials caused by extenuating circumstances a violation of the speedy trial clause? You just explained my point for me: this amendment includes loose language on purpose in order to scale with bureaucratic progress. It is acceptable to apply looser interpretation in this case because "speedy" has no empirical meaning. Again, why would you leave something up to interpretation if you could easily add additional language to ensure that your favored interpretation was followed down the line? The words "cruel" and "unusual" have absolutely no objective meaning, leaving them entirely up to interpretation. Why would you not just write a ban on torture into the amendment if that is what was meant? The idea was to ban cruel treatment of criminals in general. Even back then, torture was considered cruel (that was the point). Torture is already implicit in that, the idea is that it can be extrapolated to cover other things. You don't just write laws while you're riding to the courthouse, these things are very deliberately written. Laws are vague or narrow in purpose.

All of the holes you point out regarding strict and wide-reaching amendments like the 2nd amendment are exactly why you should amend the goddamn constitution. You can't change how the law works on a whim because people are too fucking lazy and retarded to get together and pass something. If a bunch of proto-SJWs can band together to ban the single most popular beverage in the world that isn't water, I think you can adapt the constitution to fit the modern world. These kinds of debates have a way of reaching unimaginable levels autism, but my point in all of this is that the debate between the living constitution and originalism amounts to little more than liberal and conservative judicial activists performing mental gymnastics to selectively apply the law in their own favor, and it's fucking asinine because the entire debate is moot if you actually read the text. Words mean things.

Hot take but a militia would need to be able to withstand an invading force, would it not?

You're not gonna withstand a modern invading force with muskets from the 1700s

Takeguru wrote:Hot take but a militia would need to be able to withstand an invading force, would it not?

You're not gonna withstand a modern invading force with muskets from the 1700s

Probably not, although you could argue that a bunch of dudes with guns zerg rushing you would make things pretty difficult. That's a good point though, because the individual right to bear arms interpretations vs the group right to bear arms was a contentious issue for a long time because of that statement. Recently even some of the more left-wing justices have relented and acknowledged that the 2nd amendment lays out an individual right to bear arms. It's a very strange amendment because as far as I can think of it's the only one that includes a justification for its existence within the text. After reading Wikipedia while typing this up, apparently it's because it went through a wood chipper while they were writing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... _of_Rights

Luke Cox wrote: If something is vague in law, that allows for a looser interpretation. If it's strictly worded, there is a narrower interpretation. None of this is challenging if you're not illiterate. """Originalists""" usually amount to little more than conservative judicial activists that follow their favorite amendments to a fine point while allowing for broad interpretations of others that don't line up with their worldview. Are slower trials caused by extenuating circumstances a violation of the speedy trial clause? You just explained my point for me: this amendment includes loose language on purpose in order to scale with bureaucratic progress. It is acceptable to apply looser interpretation in this case because "speedy" has no empirical meaning. Again, why would you leave something up to interpretation if you could easily add additional language to ensure that your favored interpretation was followed down the line? The words "cruel" and "unusual" have absolutely no objective meaning, leaving them entirely up to interpretation. Why would you not just write a ban on torture into the amendment if that is what was meant? The idea was to ban cruel treatment of criminals in general. Even back then, torture was considered cruel (that was the point). Torture is already implicit in that, the idea is that it can be extrapolated to cover other things. You don't just write laws while you're riding to the courthouse, these things are very deliberately written. Laws are vague or narrow in purpose.

All of the holes you point out regarding strict and wide-reaching amendments like the 2nd amendment are exactly why you should amend the goddamn constitution. You can't change how the law works on a whim because people are too fucking lazy and retarded to get together and pass something. If a bunch of proto-SJWs can band together to ban the single most popular beverage in the world that isn't water, I think you can adapt the constitution to fit the modern world. These kinds of debates have a way of reaching unimaginable levels autism, but my point in all of this is that the debate between the living constitution and originalism amounts to little more than liberal and conservative judicial activists performing mental gymnastics to selectively apply the law in their own favor, and it's fucking asinine because the entire debate is moot if you actually read the text. Words mean things.

Yeah I agree, my original point was that staunch originalists are funny because they take stuff literally when it suits them and apply interpretation when it doesn't (well regulated militia my ass), so having that in the SCOTUS isn't probably a great idea.

Takeguru wrote:Hot take but a militia would need to be able to withstand an invading force, would it not?

You're not gonna withstand a modern invading force with muskets from the 1700s

See, that's the kind of baloney interpretation I mean. "Let's just ignore words and jump at what we think they were trying do when they wrote it"
It doesn't even say anything about invasions, just that the militia is "necessary for security". Security against what? Against foreigner powers, against dictators, outlaws, it doesn't say. It's quite a big jump to say "well it obviously means it must withstand a foreign army on its own so citizens must be allowed any kind of military weapon, increasing in power as technology advances". Stretch it a little bit more and even recreational nukes are gonna be constitutionally protected.

Guns bore me but I could totally get behind a right to bear main battle tanks.

I guess I'm a little out of place in the debate with respect to the established camps because I'm a staunch textualist, but a) I feel that the constitution is extremely libertarian if followed to the letter and b) I believe that some amendments implicitly allow looser interpretation via their very wording. All the liberal interpreters pull their justifications out of their ass instead of the constitution, the originalists make shit up about how the founding fathers didn't actually mean that, and here I'm left REEEEing on wannabe /pol/. I've come to accept that agreeing with liberal philosophy but thinking that the road most liberals take to get there is retarded and ending up hating most of them in the process is just an intrinsic part of how I approach politics.

Luke Cox wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:Let me reword my question,

Why would you want jurors who volunteered to be jurors?

I'd much rather have someone who's there willingly because they're more likely to be attentive and interested in the details of the case. Somebody there against their will may let the resulting irritation affect their perception of the testimony.

XSI wrote:You will also get a lot of political activists volunteering so they can 'steer justice into the right direction'
And because of that they may ignore the entire case and pay no attention, as they already decided what is right- That's how political activists work

Better would be an opt-out system, so those who have no interest whatsoever can opt out instead of having to pretend they're insane or know about jury nullification

We already have those, they're called lawyers.
And they get paid a crapton for the privilege.

Speaking of which, a lot more people would be willing to do jury service if the state paid their full normal wage for the term of their service

Problem is you are constitutionally entitled to a jury of your peers. A select group of legal experts certified as such by the state would violate that criteria. As others have pointed out too, you'd need an opt-out system to prevent activists from tainting juries. Money is a huge reason why people hate doing jury duty as well. Pay them their yearly salary as reported on their tax returns divided by 260 per day of service.

My city pays $15 a day plus mileage one way.

People intentionally get out of doing jury duty for a reason.

About 25% of people summoned where I live don't even bother showing up. The city doesn't pursue them. I'm not sure whether it's because it's a non issue or because they physically couldn't prosecute everyone

They probably send out like 50 times the summons they actually need just to get enough people to show
Between complete no-shows and people claiming to be extremists or jury nullification and whatnot
At that point why bother as long as it works

a qwestion for the ages: why do the liberal elite fear gamers so much?

IkeTG wrote:a qwestion for the ages: why do the liberal elite fear gamers so much?

Liberals used to silencing dissent by yelling "you're racist/sexist/homophobic/a bigot" cauaing theie opponent to either shut up or get discarded by his powerbase to save their face. Then gamergate happened and gamers responded with memes and they couldnt counter. Then the republican party learned from gamers and now we got guys like trump and kavanaugh no-selling the democrats offense and making them look like jobbers.

damn, crag with the true redpill

Super Aggro Crag wrote:

IkeTG wrote:a qwestion for the ages: why do the liberal elite fear gamers so much?

Liberals

when will amerifats stop abusing this term

try and stop me

I only have one problem with the American-liberals
They want all these nice things that sound good on paper, and then get evasive when asked how much it'll cost the taxpayers

It's kind of weird, it's like almost all the high-tax states lean left in their polling or something

But that can't be more than coincidence, right

Takeguru wrote:I only have one problem with the American-liberals
They want all these nice things that sound good on paper, and then get evasive when asked how much it'll cost the taxpayers

It's kind of weird, it's like almost all the high-tax states lean left in their polling or something

But that can't be more than coincidence, right

It's related to how the US medical system is the most expensive one in the world, in cost-to-effect ratio and every way. It's a massive insurance scam turned into an industry. Literally just cheaper to fly to a 2nd world country for dental care.

Takeguru wrote:I only have one problem with the American-liberals
They want all these nice things that sound good on paper, and then get evasive when asked how much it'll cost the taxpayers

It's kind of weird, it's like almost all the high-tax states lean left in their polling or something

But that can't be more than coincidence, right

it's just occurred to me americans use the term "liberal" because they don't have a proper "social" left

The US has socialists too. But their two-party system means that they call themselves liberals and they work with the liberal party

Just like their conservatives aren't actually interested in conserving anything

XSI wrote:The US has socialists too. But their two-party system means that they call themselves liberals and they work with the liberal party

Just like their conservatives aren't actually interested in conserving anything

Except themselves.

It's only a two party system in practice, we do have a lot of third parties, a lot of whom have made good showings and have taken a few locals

It's a start
But I worry that the idea of having to compromise will stall any fucking progress at all and federal improvement stagnates because no one dares to give any leeway
Not that I would in their shoes either, giving up any of your position may as well be you quitting

it's almost as if nothing truly works well and everything is either coming to a nasty head or just rearing to break down and blow up in our face like business as usual

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-14/t ... t/10370928

On the surface, things don't look too bad here. Individual Nazis rather than organised groups have been in the news for serious and violent crimes such as murder and drug and firearms offences.

The Nazi group attracting the most media attention, Antipodean Resistance ("The Hitlers you've been waiting for"), have been operating for over a year but so far have confined their activities to putting up stickers and posters on Australia's eastern seaboard or taking hikes in the bush.

So does Australia have a neo-Nazi problem?

In short, yes. Look not on the streets but online. Nazism is thriving in the meme-rich world of the internet.

The 21st century's "Nazi 2.0" looks very different from its predecessor.

Im not surpised, there's always going to be a spectrum and what kind of society thinks that with our current power structure in the space of a few 100 years or so we'll completely condemn fascism or least the building blocks of that ideology away. Free speech is full of ugly thoughts to confront ugly truths, while some people want everything to be pretty & bright.

Communism is a more radical short term threat, i hope they destroy all hard communist regimes within my lifetime. China's current state is abhorrent.

Communism is the greatest threat to life on the planet

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Communism is the greatest threat to life on the planet

socialism works, bitch

DemonFiren wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Communism is the greatest threat to life on the planet

socialism works, bitch

Yeah Venezuela sure is doing great

DemonFiren wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Communism is the greatest threat to life on the planet

socialism works, bitch

Conflating socialism with communism? What are you, an AMERICAN?

Those Venezuelans sure aren't working in their economy that's for sure

Super Aggro Crag wrote:

DemonFiren wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Communism is the greatest threat to life on the planet

socialism works, bitch

Conflating socialism with communism? What are you, an AMERICAN?

>not conflating
strangely proud tbh

My brain wrinkle

Demon fire lives off the state teat, news at 10

Malkevin wrote:Demon fire lives off the state teat, news at 10

being a government employee and unable to be fired without criminal charges is a good feel

Oh god it gets worse, next you'll be telling us you work in education