US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1531
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands20756 Posts
On December 19 2014 02:53 Skilledblob wrote: that's one thing I never understood about the US. at the core of a democracy should be the freedom of courts but at the same time you have the US government appointing judges and attorneys Same thing (more or less) happens is most countries. It happens in the Netherlands and it happens in Germany (unless wikipedia is wrong). Your Bundesrad and Bundestag chose the judges who oversee the constitution (Bundesverfassungsgericht) | ||
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On December 19 2014 03:01 Gorsameth wrote: Same thing (more or less) happens is most countries. It happens in the Netherlands and it happens in Germany (unless wikipedia is wrong). Your Bundesrad and Bundestag chose the judges who oversee the constitution (Bundesverfassungsgericht) well then that's just as bad, doesnt change the problem though | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 19 2014 03:18 Skilledblob wrote: well then that's just as bad, doesnt change the problem though It's the idea of checks and balances. Judges are generally appointed for life, so they get a lot of freedom after being appointed. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41082 Posts
Colorado health officials this week awarded $8 million in research grants to study the use of medical marijuana to treat symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease, childhood epilepsy and post-traumatic stress disorder. The funding comes from taxes imposed on the state-regulated sale of medical marijuana. Colorado was one of the first two U.S. states to legalize recreational pot use, and it is among 23 states and the District of Columbia that permit use of the drug for medicinal purposes. But weed use for any reason remains illegal under federal law, a situation that has long meant a dearth of funding for medical marijuana research. Results have been limited and largely anecdotal. In awarding eight grants for landmark peer-reviewed studies into various maladies, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said on Wednesday that it hopes to provide objective scientific research on the efficacy of medical marijuana. "The grant program ... should not be construed as encouraging tor sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana," the department said in a statement. Colorado lawmakers set up a Medical Marijuana Scientific Advisory Council last year and allocated $10 million to administer a program to conduct the studies. The council received about three dozen applications, from which it chose the eight approved on Wednesday by the department. Six of the grants will go to the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, said university spokesman Mark Couch. Source | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 19 2014 02:53 Skilledblob wrote: that's one thing I never understood about the US. at the core of a democracy should be the freedom of courts but at the same time you have the US government appointing judges and attorneys Federal judges decisions in general tend to be much more impartial than elected state judges precisely because judges have life tenure. Its true, its a very fascinating reality that the guardians of American democracy are essentially Platonic Philosopher King's whose career path is actually pretty narrow: to be a judge you first have to have graduated from a small elite circle of schools and then pursued a very specific trajectory. But the system works decently well, sometimes the court system drives the reforms -- Black freedom in the 1950s and 60s -- and sometimes it drives terribleness -- black legal re-enslavement under Jim Crow --. In general though the courts seem to reflect the zeitgeist of the America nation. So just as homosexuality became culturally accepted so the courts responded by striking down anti-gay laws. | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 19 2014 01:25 oneofthem wrote: sony etc are also making a statement of 'halp' to the government. all corporations have dirty secrets, and media companies especially so because they deal with public celebrities and are very brutal with their IP territorial game. As the verge editorialized, the only choice is to release the movie for free online. Otherwise terrorists win. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41082 Posts
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department will now interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting transgender government employees from discrimination, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday. In a memo, Holder wrote that the "best reading of Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination is that it encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status." Holder said that while Congress "may not have had such claims in mind when it enacted Title VII, the Supreme Court has made clear that Title VII must be interpreted according to its plain text." In a statement, Holder called the move an “important shift" that "will ensure that the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extended to those who suffer discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status." The Employment Litigation Section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against state and local governments. DOJ does not file suit against private employers for discrimination claims. Source | ||
Mohdoo
United States15081 Posts
Wow, excellent news! | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41082 Posts
Workers at Walmart and Sam's Club stores in Pennsylvania who worked off the clock and when they were supposed to be on break, or who were forced to skip their breaks, will receive $151 million in unpaid wages and damages, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding lower- and appellate-court decisions. The case affects nearly 187,000 people employed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. from March 1998 through April 2006. "This demonstrates that [this] type of shortchanging of workers at a mammoth employer should not be tolerated and that the justice system should provide some form of relief for low-wage workers, particularly through class actions," said Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Axler L.L.C., in Philadelphia, the workers' lawyer. "We disagree with the decision, and continue to believe that these claims should not be bundled together into a class-action lawsuit," Wal-Mart said in a statement Monday. "In our view, this was not a case of 'trial by formula' or of a class action 'run amok,' " Justices Ronald D. Castille, J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, and Debra McCloskey Todd said in the opinion, with Thomas G. Saylor dissenting. Wal-Mart said it was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Source | ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
On December 19 2014 04:02 Sub40APM wrote: Federal judges decisions in general tend to be much more impartial than elected state judges precisely because judges have life tenure. Its true, its a very fascinating reality that the guardians of American democracy are essentially Platonic Philosopher King's whose career path is actually pretty narrow: to be a judge you first have to have graduated from a small elite circle of schools and then pursued a very specific trajectory. But the system works decently well, sometimes the court system drives the reforms -- Black freedom in the 1950s and 60s -- and sometimes it drives terribleness -- black legal re-enslavement under Jim Crow --. In general though the courts seem to reflect the zeitgeist of the America nation. So just as homosexuality became culturally accepted so the courts responded by striking down anti-gay laws. Just remember that Thurgood Marshall came from Howard and Earl Warren from Berkeley | ||
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 19 2014 02:53 Skilledblob wrote: that's one thing I never understood about the US. at the core of a democracy should be the freedom of courts but at the same time you have the US government appointing judges and attorneys How would you prefer they be selected? Some states elect theirs, which seems silly to me, but might be what you're after? On December 18 2014 12:04 oneofthem wrote: can francis run for president? I'm pretty sure if you'd asked the framers what individuals they had in mind coming up with the "natural-born citizen" rule, "The Pope" would have been in the top five of the list, along with some European hereditary monarchs. On December 18 2014 03:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That I believe women in Cuba has allowed women to drive for well, since the invention of the car. Sure, but buying and selling of cars was practically illegal until a few years ago. | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 19 2014 06:11 farvacola wrote: Just remember that Thurgood Marshall came from Howard and Earl Warren from Berkeley Yes and Clarance Thomas sometimes gets University of Georgia Law School clerks. Its a Harvard-Yale duopoly at the SC. | ||
BlackJack
United States9268 Posts
On December 18 2014 22:30 paralleluniverse wrote: Sony pulling The Interview is a cowardly move. They are caving into terrorist demands. As for the comparison with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, that was worse. It led to deadly Muslim riots all around the world and hundreds of deaths. Both show the lack of tolerance for free speech. But the latter also had progressives betraying the principle of free speech by demanding that the cartoons be censored. I don't see these people asking for The Interview to be censored now. It's time to take a stand for free speech, and not cave in like the spineless cowards that Sony are. That means no idea, whether it's the fictional assassination of Kim Jong Un or cartoons of Muhammad or anything else, is beyond being depicted or mocked. Progressives value free speech but not as much as they value bending over backwards to appease offended Muslims so they can pat themselves on the back for how tolerant they are. Suddenly they all want to criticize Sony/AMC for being cowardly when over the last 5 years they have gone out of their way to condemn any form of expression that might agitate Muslim extremists. | ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
On December 19 2014 06:20 Sub40APM wrote: Yes and Clarance Thomas sometimes gets University of Georgia Law School clerks. Its a Harvard-Yale duopoly at the SC. Yeah well Clarence Thomas also sometimes leaves his pubic hair on the tops of Coke cans, so I'll put him in his own box. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 19 2014 04:04 Sub40APM wrote: As the verge editorialized, the only choice is to release the movie for free online. Otherwise terrorists win. they'll release it in some way but not free. they've got a ton of free hype about this probable shit movie | ||
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41082 Posts
On December 19 2014 06:16 Yoav wrote: How would you prefer they be selected? Some states elect theirs, which seems silly to me, but might be what you're after? I'm pretty sure if you'd asked the framers what individuals they had in mind coming up with the "natural-born citizen" rule, "The Pope" would have been in the top five of the list, along with some European hereditary monarchs. Sure, but buying and selling of cars was practically illegal until a few years ago. Oddly enough the Cubans are about to make serious bank as the Cars they drive now are classics in the US. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41082 Posts
The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, claiming that Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional under federal law. "Federal law undisputedly prohibits the production and sale of marijuana," Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said Thursday in a statement. "Colorado has undermined the United States Constitution, and I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold our constitutional principles." But Colorado Attorney General John Suthers isn't backing down. In a statement, he said he intends to defend the state's marijuana laws. “Because neighboring states have expressed concern about Colorado-grown marijuana coming into their states, we are not entirely surprised by this action," Suthers said. "However, it appears the plaintiffs’ primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana, as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado. We believe this suit is without merit and we will vigorously defend against it in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Bruning, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, argue that under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The clause states that in general, federal law takes precedence over state law. "The illegal products being distributed in Colorado are being trafficked across state lines thereby injuring neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska," Pruitt said in a statement. The regulation of recreational marijuana -- as seen in programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon and Alaska -- remains illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for possession have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations. Source | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21787 Posts
Hilarious how it was the worst thing ever and was going to destroy the republic.... Now that it's going to favor republicans it can't possibly go back to the rules that preserved the republic. Entirely not surprising to see McCain be one of few with the integrity to say it's ridiculous for them to have done all that complaining and then do nothing about it when they have the power to 'fix' it. How can we take these people seriously? | ||
| ||