/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Can't say if he dindu nuffin, but innocent until proven guilty so that's not really the point. They'll need to prove he did do sumfin

But it sure as fuck is an obvious stalling tactic

I don't really care about Cosby but I've heard from (((sources))) that the case against him was pretty damn flimsy.

>"BILL COSBY IS A RAPIST"
>all his accusers are wh*toid women

Everyone knows black men only go after true Nubian kweens

I disagree immensely with this new trend about throwing accusations at someone 30-40 years after it happened

All the evidence is long gone, any witness testimony is useless, and in most states the statute of limitations has passed


Oh and those ladies that basically harassed Flake should have been thrown out and had harassment charges filed on them, maybe even an unlawful imprisonment if they prevented him from leaving the elevator

No, there's just no credible evidence after 36 years

You've got a victim and a perpetrators word, and at best unreliable witness testimony

Also statute of limitations in most states, though I believe there isn't one on sexual misconduct in the state Kavanaugh is sad to have done it in

That's basically what I've heard of it, yeah

If there was evidence, it's pretty much 100% lost to time at this point. Which makes it impossible to prove in any way
So they've got nothing on him

It's like they're trying to make up for OJ

dude wtf guys don't you know kavanaugh forced her to consume drugs and then gang raped by 21 other people and 2 german shepherds

I wonder if child murder will be made illegsl

I wonder if there's even a point to it all. Is it just me or are people in power more conflict avoidant? They seem to just go along with whatever the loudest voices say

It's democracy
They'll go along with what they think is the majority, that's why it's loud voices that get their attention

Whenever they're not busy listening to money that is, money gets priority practically always

It look to me the republican party is taking lesson from Don L. Trump in that blue checkmarks and "journalists" can call you a racist sexist rapist insane retarded homophobic babyeating ghoul until theyre blue in the face and it won't actually hurt you. All the hyperbole the demoncrats have embraced has only served to make a large portion of society apathetic and annoyed with them and people are realizing they can call themselves the party fighting for the little guy all they want but it won't change that they're just flooding the cities with diseased transients and making you pay for them to have more clean needles for them to leave all over the playgrounds while making billionaires wealthier.

so uh
what's the difference between the two parties again

One's fucking you over with a smile, and the other's fucking you over while screaming at you for being white.

DemonFiren wrote:so uh
what's the difference between the two parties again

one is sucking corporate dick while waving around the bible, the other is sucking corporate dick but the dick is colored rainbow

makes democrats sound more honest tbh

Not so.

consider what the bible has to say about sucking dicks and what rainbows have to say about sucking dicks

The bible isn't even that strongly opposed to gayness if you actually read the thing
That's like a few passages saying "Yeah, try not to do that", most of them in the old testament. Nothing wrong with being gay if they're a good person and not full of sin(Often lust is cited, but this isn't true just because they're gay)

But then you can't really expect most people these days to understand their own religions either, shit's been through several millennia of people using religion for control and subtly changing things through translations

whatever happened to leviticus 20:13
>If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
that isn't exactly "try not to do that"

Wasn't that the old testament?
And thus included for reference and not for guidance post-Jesus?

Same shit with mixed fabrics, it's not for christians, it's for jews

Edit: Went and double checked. It indeed is. The entire point of Jesus is "Yeah, this old shit? It's stories. Don't worry about the rules in there because shit's fucked anyway. Here's a new set of rules"
In that way, Jesus is basically windows update for religion

Kavanaugh win

XSI wrote:Wasn't that the old testament?
And thus included for reference and not for guidance post-Jesus?

Same shit with mixed fabrics, it's not for christians, it's for jews

Edit: Went and double checked. It indeed is. The entire point of Jesus is "Yeah, this old shit? It's stories. Don't worry about the rules in there because shit's fucked anyway. Here's a new set of rules"
In that way, Jesus is basically windows update for religion

and just like windows update he fixed nothing
see: mohammed, the update for jesus
right now my hope's on baha'u'llah, the update for mohammed

Jesus: Canon
Old testament: Legends

Just like star wars lore

Grazyn wrote:Jesus: Canon
Old testament: Legends

Just like star wars lore

does that make protestantism disney canon, then?

DemonFiren wrote:

XSI wrote:Wasn't that the old testament?
And thus included for reference and not for guidance post-Jesus?

Same shit with mixed fabrics, it's not for christians, it's for jews

Edit: Went and double checked. It indeed is. The entire point of Jesus is "Yeah, this old shit? It's stories. Don't worry about the rules in there because shit's fucked anyway. Here's a new set of rules"
In that way, Jesus is basically windows update for religion

and just like windows update he fixed nothing
see: mohammed, the update for jesus
right now my hope's on baha'u'llah, the update for mohammed

That's because Mo was Vista.

I'm pretty sure at some point everything just got derailed into popular fanon

Sounds like it

The guy got confirmed though, so good on him
Can't imagine they'll stop the harassment efforts though, and they're already talking about how if they get back in power, they will just decide the court is now bigger and also they get to pick all the extra judges. Or make new rules on firing judges.
But the only thing this talk does is make people want to *not* give them that power because it's the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and saying you'll do your best to fuck up everything

They really need to take a step back and consider why they lost. Doubling down on what you did that made you lose is only going to make you lose harder

XSI wrote:Sounds like it

The guy got confirmed though, so good on him
Can't imagine they'll stop the harassment efforts though, and they're already talking about how if they get back in power, they will just decide the court is now bigger and also they get to pick all the extra judges. Or make new rules on firing judges.
But the only thing this talk does is make people want to *not* give them that power because it's the equivalent of throwing a tantrum and saying you'll do your best to fuck up everything

They really need to take a step back and consider why they lost. Doubling down on what you did that made you lose is only going to make you lose harder

Oh, this has been tried as early as the 40s. It got slapped down hard. Fortunately, the US constitution has very specific rules regarding how the supreme court works, supersedes all other law, and is excruciatingly difficult to amend.

Edit: Some more details: The number of Supreme Court justices has been fixed at 9 since 1869. Technically not a constitutional limit, but changing something that entrenched in the US is political suicide. Fucking with the SC is also a dangerous game given both their power and their total lack of accountability literally anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... ll_of_1937 Our buddy FDR tried it, and failed miserably

Malkevin wrote:

DemonFiren wrote:

XSI wrote:Wasn't that the old testament?
And thus included for reference and not for guidance post-Jesus?

Same shit with mixed fabrics, it's not for christians, it's for jews

Edit: Went and double checked. It indeed is. The entire point of Jesus is "Yeah, this old shit? It's stories. Don't worry about the rules in there because shit's fucked anyway. Here's a new set of rules"
In that way, Jesus is basically windows update for religion

and just like windows update he fixed nothing
see: mohammed, the update for jesus
right now my hope's on baha'u'llah, the update for mohammed

That's because Mo was Vista.

if that means baha'i faith is 7 then I wonder who will be 8 in about 800 years

A majority of staunch originalists is the most hilarious thing to have in the SCOTUS, let's hold the constitution like the holy Bible and view all contemporary issues through the lens of 18th century worldview, that's sure gonna work well

every time I read SCOTUS I read it as SCROTUS and it just keeps getting more appropriate

Grazyn wrote:A majority of staunch originalists is the most hilarious thing to have in the SCOTUS, let's hold the constitution like the holy Bible and view all contemporary issues through the lens of 18th century worldview, that's sure gonna work well

It'd be stupid if the constitution wasn't pretty damn timeless and even 200 years later still going strong, not to mention how "interpreting" the constitution has become synonymous with "re-writing".

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Grazyn wrote:A majority of staunch originalists is the most hilarious thing to have in the SCOTUS, let's hold the constitution like the holy Bible and view all contemporary issues through the lens of 18th century worldview, that's sure gonna work well

It'd be stupid if the constitution wasn't pretty damn timeless and even 200 years later still going strong, not to mention how "interpreting" the constitution has become synonymous with "re-writing".

So basically every time they find something that isn't covered by the constitution because it didn't exist/wasn't an issue back in the 1700s, they slap the label "states rights" on it and move on

timeless

I see literally no issue with that.

Grazyn wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Grazyn wrote:A majority of staunch originalists is the most hilarious thing to have in the SCOTUS, let's hold the constitution like the holy Bible and view all contemporary issues through the lens of 18th century worldview, that's sure gonna work well

It'd be stupid if the constitution wasn't pretty damn timeless and even 200 years later still going strong, not to mention how "interpreting" the constitution has become synonymous with "re-writing".

So basically every time they find something that isn't covered by the constitution because it didn't exist/wasn't an issue back in the 1700s, they slap the label "states rights" on it and move on

timeless

It sure would be neat if you could amend the constitution to keep up with the times

Malkevin wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... nstitution

The SCOTUS doesn't amend the constitution, does it? If they are called to decide on stuff is because the law isn't clear about that thing, can they snap their fingers and tell Congress do make an amendment? Honest question, I was under the assumption you guys have separation of powers

Also LOL one of those amendments on your list took a whopping 2 hundred years to be ratified

CosmicScientist wrote:Wouldn't a constitution that was timeless need to be vague so it can be reinterpreted by changing circumstance?

And reinterpretation tends to always mean rewriting, religion's got that methodology down to a T.

No, a timeless constitution need only set up some founding principles (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) along with the structure needed to change over time (amendments) to achieve the goal of being pretty much timeless.

Grazyn wrote:

Malkevin wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... nstitution

The SCOTUS doesn't amend the constitution, does it? If they are called to decide on stuff is because the law isn't clear about that thing, can they snap their fingers and tell Congress do make an amendment? Honest question, I was under the assumption you guys have separation of powers

Also LOL one of those amendments on your list took a whopping 2 hundred years to be ratified

They're not SUPPOSED to, but they do it anyways via "interpreting" the constitution to fit their agenda (see: Roe V Wade), which is B A D.

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

Malkevin wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... nstitution

The SCOTUS doesn't amend the constitution, does it? If they are called to decide on stuff is because the law isn't clear about that thing, can they snap their fingers and tell Congress do make an amendment? Honest question, I was under the assumption you guys have separation of powers

Also LOL one of those amendments on your list took a whopping 2 hundred years to be ratified

They're not SUPPOSED to, but they do it anyways via "interpreting" the constitution to fit their agenda (see: Roe V Wade), which is B A D.

if not for abortion, your african americans would outnumber you whiteys by now, so go easy on that

I dunno, having an immutable Freedom of Speech law encoded into your legal system is pretty damn tempting

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

Sneaky yellow devils, trying to colonise africa whilst africa colonises europe.

[youtube]zQV_DKQkT8o[/youtube]

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

I think speedy trial is in effect, it's just that everyone waives their right to it so their lawyer has more than a half day to review the case.

Speedy trial basically exists so the state can't drag out their prosecution, say by 2 years for a scotsman teaching his gf's pug to nazi salute

That's basically "We dont have a case against this guy, but he said mean things. So lets just keep him in prison by calling him dangerous and then never actually let the case come to court"
Used to be a common thing up until the middle of the 19th century roughly. Even a fair few decades past that

Now you will only see that used in countries that aren't considered 'civilized'

leibniz 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

I think speedy trial is in effect, it's just that everyone waives their right to it so their lawyer has more than a half day to review the case.

Point is, what constitutes a "speedy trial"? If it was meant to be concrete, that amendment would have listed a specific timeframe. However, it's left deliberately vague so that judges can apply it in any case where they feel like a trial is being deliberately stalled. Same deal with "cruel and unusual punishment". Why not explicitly define things like torture? This is so it can be interpreted according to the societal expectations of the day. I fully expect the death penalty to be ruled cruel and unusual within my lifetime.

On the flipside, other amendments are concrete, absolute, and leave no room for "interpretation". "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." means that the government may not interfere with religion, the press, or free speech full stop. No ands, ifs, or buts. The thirteenth amendment prohibits involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime, no exceptions ([cough]military draft[cough]).

The mental gymnastics that """living constitution""" proponents will go through in order to justify things is absurd. If you tried to pull that shit with any other type of law, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. Read the fucking words, it is not that hard.

XSI wrote:That's basically "We dont have a case against this guy, but he said mean things. So lets just keep him in prison by calling him dangerous and then never actually let the case come to court"
Used to be a common thing up until the middle of the 19th century roughly. Even a fair few decades past that

Now you will only see that used in countries that aren't considered 'civilized'

It's not just being sent to prison.

In the example I used Count Dankula lost his job and couldn't get another one because no company is going to hire someone that might go to jail within a month of hiring.

So Kavanaugh was confirmed, Trump used it as an opportunity to basically rub it in people's faces, what's the next news

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.