Jump to content

softlynow

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by softlynow

  1. 12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    The first sentence is absolutely true, but the rest is not. The courts can still restrain a president from enacting decisions that are outside the executive function. The courts said Biden's student loan forgiveness program was outside of executive powers. That was not a criminal prosecution and immunity plays no role in that analysis whatsoever. How can anyone possibly believe that today's decision could benefit Biden in any way whatsoever? If trump wins and has Biden prosecuted for his border policy, SCOTUS will just say it wasn't an official act, because reasons. That's the problem, SCOTUS has abdicated it's role as a check on executive power and has become a rubberstamp for magastan.

    The Courts can restrain, you say? Them and what army?

    • Like 2
  2. 3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    WTF are you talking about? Of course I see it, this SCOTUS is rogue as fuck. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Surely, you agree that Biden can't just do whatever he wants and get away with it because of immunity from criminal prosecutions, right? This SCOTUS would strike it all down, because criminal immunity has nothing to do with judicial checks on executive powers and decision making. They'll reverse Biden at every turn, and rubber stamp Trump. Again, it has nothing to do with criminal immunity. If Biden is charged with a crime later, the decision won't protect him either, because this SCOTUS is nothing more than another political branch. They'll just say whatever he did wasn't "official", ergo, no immunity. 

    He's talking about SCOTUS deligitimizing the federal government to the point that only pure power matters. Biden can do what he wants, within the practical limits of his power. He is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. To the extent that he can direct people to act, he is unrestrained.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

    One side protected, but not bound by the law, the other side bound, but not protected.  
     

    at its core the prevention of that relies on the courts, and the courts have failed

    Yep.

    Our little experiment only carries on as long as the people buy in. One half of the electorate was already ready to be done with the republic. 6 justices are trying their best to persuade the other half.

    Long live King Biden I! He should act like it lest he be responsible for Dotard I.

    • Rage+1 2
  4. 2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Arrest is usually a revolving door unless they have committed a violent crime. So I don’t really consider that an involuntary commitment in the sense of addressing that individual’s homelessness 

    Some of my clients saw arrest as temporary and desirable a solution to that problem, though those "commitments" were essentially voluntary.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    This is beyond the scope of this thread, especially with what is going on with respect to presidential immunity, but if you have actually interacted with these people, you know a large percentage of them are beyond help for the most part in terms of getting them to a functioning level. The medications that help them stay in reality make them feel horrible so they don’t take them.  off medication, they hallucinate and often become violent, and are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Add substance abuse on top of this, and it’s a horrible situation for all involved. They are a danger to the family members and loved ones, which is often the main reason they are out of doors in the first place. They are a danger to the other residents in group homes, and even when they are not, they are often unable to abide by the rules that will allow them to stay there. Giving them money does not help, because in those cases, they are not competent to manage their own finances and not operative with people, but in charge of managing them for them. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit this population, and even if you can, it is extremely difficult to manage them, but they are in an involuntarily committed situation. It’s a huge problem

     

    also, I would be interested to know how many of these patients were referred to you from directly off the street, and of those what has been your longitudinal experience with these clients over 10 or more years. Their prognosis is grim in my experience.

    I'm given their name and access to the state's file on day 1. Those with moderated to severe illness are almost always still in jail when I am assigned. I have seen a few of them a couple or many years later.

    I mostly don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would add that the folks with less severe issues than you describe are also a problem we've decided to mostly ignore, outside of the criminal justice system.

    One point I take issue with: we DO involuntarily commit. A lot. We just call it "arrest." Then we don't treat them, for the most part. I've had many, many discussions with ADAs and judges about whether any of our very limited mental health resources are available for a client. I'd say less than 5% of the time, it's even a possibility. A tiny portion of that get to treatment.

    I would guess that 75% of our homeless population has a criminal record, even if we disregard tresspassing convictions, which is really just a Scarlet H.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 2
  6. @Dbeasy, now that I'm caught up on the deck chairs arranging that is this homelessness argument, I just gotta say you have been a terrible advocate for this ruling. I think it was correctly decided, but seeing your posts before the ruling, I was initially inclined the other way. JMO, but you could do with some nuance in your argumentation. And you should focus on the actual opinion, not our general policies w/r/t the homeless. The first couple pages of the opinion do a good job of walking one through what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual." That would've been a better place for you to ground your position.

    Just a little constructive criticism.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    How many schizoaffective disorder alcoholic meth addicts have you personally encountered?

    I've represented several dozen formally diagnose as schizoaffective. Several dozen more with other mental illnesses that contributed to anti-social behavior. I was appointed to represent them because they had no money or significant property.

     

    Just now, Sawbonz said:

    The vast majority of homeless in America do suffer from these things. 

    And?

    I think the question is whether they are homeless involuntarily. I'm not aware of people voluntarily becoming schizoaffective.

    Just want to know where you're going with this.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 29 minutes ago, Pancho said:

    So…how does law school work right now? Because if I was in law school or just recently graduated, I’d demand a refund.

    Law school is, first and foremost, a means to an income. Every other consideration is secondary. Right now law students and recent grads are seeing that corruption can be quite lucrative and their opportunities in that field are increasing. Why would they want a refund?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
  9. 16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Eh, I don't know about that.  This was predictable even before the Court did its recent heel turn.  They have been cutting back on expansive readings of criminal statutes for a good long while, in a more or less bipartisan way.    Given Jackson's criminal law experience on the defense side, her joining in is unsurprising.

    I have expressed my dislike for the gross expansion of federal criminal law since the 60s or 70s, but I'm not quite sure the Supremes are where it should be reversed.

    That said, because of the electoral votes aspect of the obstruction, this may still fly with Trump.

    Where the hell is the immunity decision?  Is this the end of the term?

    I’m sorry. Were y’all really expecting the Court to not hand Trump an assist by delaying the immunity decision as long as necessary?

    On the 1/6 cases, how many of the defendants are solely charged with the obstruction statute SCOTUS dealt with? In this case, I believe it was only 1 of 7 charges. The others they did not discuss. Hardly a resounding win for that defendant. 

    • Like 1
  10. 11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Brief explainer: 

     

     

    8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    It’s not as disastrous as it looks on its face. But yeah, it’s overreach and a nonsensical read. If the defendants at issue were BLM rioters, it absolutely would have been a different result.
    There is a systematic approach to empowering and protecting white paramilitary/terrorist activity. This is a small piece of it. But it is indeed a piece.

    Shit is going to get more violent and bloody, enabled by our SCOTUS and our next president.

    Tap the brakes. Jackson concurred with the majority. I skimmed the majority and the concurrence, and, while I didn't see enough to analyze the opinion itself, that quick read does tell me this will have a very limited impact on 1/6 prosecutions. 

  11. 1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

    If a quick perusal of the librul media is any indication, the next couple of weeks are going to be a hoot. The consensus among the punditocracy seems to be that Joe Biden needs to drop out ASAP for the good of the country. 

    Buckle up.

    Kenan Thompson Eating GIF by Saturday Night Live

    Trump immunity ruling from SCOTUS stops that cycle.

    • Rage+1 1
  12. 1 minute ago, linux said:

    Its tough to say, some voters are independent like Bernie (or me) but are clearly on the left wing and would never vote for Trump

    Some are hardcore fascist neo nazi oh wait they already vote for Trump.

    What are left are the centrist independents the ones that think they are smart and fair, they already forgot this stupid June circus debate when they fall asleep.

    Let me clarify. Undecideds. Like you say, there are lots of indys that are already decided. They aren't likely changing their vote after tonight.

  13. 3 minutes ago, linux said:

    Only if they lose sight of the prize, "a vote for RFK jr or staying home" is a vote for Trump.

    I find it hillarious that the people panicking are the people that would never consider Trump, had he swayed independents then yeah be worried but indies are not jumping off windows.

     

    To that point, they're usually independent because they don't pay attention until the end. 

  14. 1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    I love Joe. He makes the very shortlist of best presidents in my lifetime.

    Anyone trying to wave this off as just a “lost debate” is whistling past the graveyard. His core vulnerability is his age, and his performance validated and accentuated any and all criticisms in this arena. This is not an issue he can improve on or get coached up: he’s just old as fuck.

    There is a zero percent chance that the man on that stage tonight will win the election. I hate typing that sentence, but I am as certain of it as I have been of anything in politics. The American people are stupid but simple, and “too old to lead” is about as simple as it gets and takes minimal effort to reach this conclusion.

    I understand the arguments against replacing him, I’ve made them myself on this very site. But not doing anything will guarantee MAGA 2.0.

    Let's see where things are in a few months, but the bolded seems like a gut shot reaction.

    I have a couple aggy friends who texted me after learning the Schloss news, and you'd have thought I personally shot their dog, cut off their testicles fed them to their mother and burned down their church. By this evening, they remembered that they barely cared about college baseball, and our conversations normalized.

    I didn't watch the debate, and haven't bothered with low or highlights yet. I can imagine that those of y'all who did are feeling like aggy upon learning that we played Lucy with the football to their Charlie Brown, yet again. That feeling will fade.

    If this had been an October debate, different story. It's fucking June. 

  15. 1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

    They know marketing. Dems are policy wonk dorks who don't know fuck all about it.

    Which leads me to ask again, why the fuck did we have a June debate? I saw somewhere this was at the Dems urging.

    If true, was it because they wanted a possible first run bomb to be buried 4.5 months before the election, with the nomination serving as a scripted bounce back?

  16. 1 minute ago, troph said:

    CNN repeating the Waffle House story but didn’t state the “hard to debate a liar” I sweatergod CNN wants Trump. The “it’s hard to debate a liar” IS the Waffle House story Jesus Christ.

    Nah. That's old news. Stories are new stuff. Hawk tuah, not Scottie Scheffler's arrest. Everyone who may actually watch CNN knows Trump is a liar. That's ancient history by their standards.

    New drives clicks, sells ads. Run old shit, and you just lost someone to the Stanley Cup or to their TikTok feed.

    If the Biden campaign is savvy, they'll break the news cycle with something new. Who knows, maybe they needed this to allow some ignored jr. staffer to run with some risky, but high upside stunt?

×
×
  • Create New...