The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Had it up to HERE with this [SCOTUS], Thread
Posts
This is me being completely wrong on this one and missing the origins of the law. My bad there. If anyone wants an omelette I have some egg on my face I'd be happy to scrape off.
That said, I'm weary of adding any protections like this that curtails the ability of the populace to protest. Or that makes who is in the judiciary and their connections less transparent. It's important to make sure government officials and their loved ones are as safe as anyone else while still being able to see if anything questionable is happening.
Like it or not, but a government only stays one for the people if those in it are held accountable to the people. And that can't happen without transparency and the ability for people to cause disruption. Not harm, but disruption.
Information that could just as easily be gotten by following them home from work one day, correct?
Why is easily obtainable public info not a problem when it's used to stalk, doxx, and murder people other than federal judges? And I say it's not a problem because nobody else has a bill in congress attached to the NDAA. I'm extremely concerned at the multi-tiered approach to law this country continues to take, i.e. shit is bad but we'll only try to do anything when it's one of our guys who's on the receiving end of it.
And the judge wasn't murdered. Their son was. Not that it makes it better but if we're being pedantic then might as well be pedantic, Daniel Anderl was not a judge. When it comes to being a judge in the United States, your chances of being murdered for it are remarkably low.
And that list is not complete. Like… not even fucking close.
And you still have not provided the case of the corrupt judge that was solved because the public could look up their home address or where their spouse worked.
But I have shown you the case of murdered judge which occurred as a result of that information being easily accessible
Knowing when a conflict of interest exists in a case a federal judge doesn't recuse themselves from isn't justified unless... what? What renders that "solved?"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's the thing, by the very nature that we know that information right now, impropriety is less likely via any avenue where that information would be relevant. It's a deterrent. It makes corruption harder and less likely to occur.
This law, while making Judges safer from harm, also makes any corruption via those avenues viable.
When a conflict of interest arises and a judge does not refuse themselves they’re subject to sanctions. And if they’re not then you’re going to do what with the information about where their spouse works? Protest outside their workplace instead of the courthouse? No. We know the only thing you can do with that information you just don’t want to admit it.
Judges largely do refuse themselves in conflict of interests. The exception being conservative SCOTUS judges. But no one disagrees that this law is bad with regards to that. Only that it’s fine for regular ass judges.
"The Wall Street Journal analyzed nearly a decade’s worth of legal and financial records and discovered 131 federal judges who unlawfully heard cases where they had a financial interest."
(And yes, a number of these conflicts of interest involve their spouses' financial interests.)
None of this investigation could have occurred if this law was in effect.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The law is not code which is executed thoughtlessly. But through the intent and understanding of prior law. You could just read the law
So collecting financial disclosure forms, which are still public, is not illegal if youre informing the public on matters of public interest or concern. Which the people publishing were. And which the Washington Post was when it did it’s analysis.
And here is the covered information: which you might note does not mention judicial financial disclosures or any of the information contained within.
But for the rest of us, it is quite reasonable to consider where a judge's spouse works to be of financial interest to the judge.
As for your claim that there is clear exception for matters of public interest in the law, therefore no worries:
There is a clear exception for Fair Use in YouTube's rules about filing Copyright Claims and monetizing videos
Websites and ISPs aren't going to give a shit about reviewing the validity of claims. They are going to throw up an automated form people can fill out and the burden of proof will be shifted onto the publishers of the information, if there is even a process granted to them by which they can appeal the removal of the information.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sounds like those disclosure forms contain information that would get them removed if shared publicly, then!
(And obviously, this also operates on the assumption that these financial disclosure forms are fully and truthfully completed. It will be a lot more difficult for watchdog orgs and journalists to verify with these new laws.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If the disclosure forms were not fully and truthfully completed then there would have been no conflicts of interests found in the Washington Post analysis. Since it utilized solely financial disclosure forms.
Gee, that makes it sound like it might have been a certain subset of judges who wanted to maximize the pressure on their peers to not defect. And we can't have those judges, who have already been in politically hot water over how partisan the court looks, look even more partisan and bad at their jobs. Now can we?
Says Ginni
It was one of them
They didn't.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Avoiding a scandal by avoiding the people who were involved! Brilliant!
This isn't the direction I expected a Clue remake to take, but... I'm willing to hear it out.
Of course it was Alito. Alito hardly said a word when his opinion circulated. If it had been leaked he would have been publicly shouting from the roof tops about what a violation had been done to him. Does the investigation report get into the obvious leaks against Roberts that came after? Where it seemed really evident Alito and Thomas were airing dirty laundry to pressure Roberts?
Interesting case. SCOTUS likely to rule that unions/workers can be held responsible for economic losses incurred by a Strike.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Seems like an argument that all worker are therefore responsible fore economic gains. Every business instantly becomes a equal profit sharing venture.
I think the Washington court had it right, the concrete loss was incidental to the federally protected strike. But there's no way Roberts et al isn't going to jump at an opportunity to death by a thousand cuts federal strike rights. They will happily push forward this idea of property destruction.
Because it got worse. This is part of a thread that you should check out if you're interested.
Chris is a longtime SCotUS reporter, formerly of msnbc but currently running his own thing.
That pretty much says it all. Someone decided (whoever the marshal's boss is (oh wait, I know, it's the Chief Justice)) that the justices were exempt from having to be under oath for their part of the investigation. Tell me a justice or their spouse was responsible for the leak without telling me.
Still doesn't explain why none of that was in the official report. It makes it look, even to a non-cynical person, that they're trying to bury the whole idea of a justice being the one.
Yeah. You could make a case for a narrow ruling regarding the specifics of concrete trucks in particular (that is, once they're loaded there's a clock to get them unloaded before it's a disaster). But you could counter that the trucks shouldn't have been loaded with a strike looming anyways - the loss is negligence on the part of the company to not prepare for the obvious. Losing money from not being able to make the contract? Not really any different from a store not being able to open if all the workers walk out, is it?
But yeah, it's obvious that this is just an excuse to try and destroy unions entirely.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
And it is important to note that the striking workers left the truck drums rotating, at least from the info I've read. It was the choice of the concrete company to dump them out there, let the concrete harden, and then break it up. In theory, the company could've paid money to get one-time drivers and workers out there to work the concrete before it's lost.
My understanding is that even rotating there's a clock ticking there. But ultimately, the alternative would allow compelling work instead of striking, which is obviously absurd.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Oh yeah, for sure. Thanks for the addition. A rotating concrete drum does still have a time clock before it's hardened and unusable. Rotation does not make it "shelf-stable," to be perfectly clear.
Looking into it with a basic google, I'm seeing:
So if the trucks were spinning, the company had 90 minutes to do something to sort out the issue.
The scarier thing though is that with this court? I wouldn't be surprised if they pull another RvW move and use the case to declare unions illegal. Because they're not based in the historical tradition of the US.
https://www.theonion.com/alito-thomas-share-laugh-after-discovering-they-both-l-1850012714
To be clear, this is satire (The Onion), but it is on topic and gave me a good laugh
Nope, socialize the losses, privatize the gains.