"The food is so beyond sub-par that our prisoners prefer to eat ramen which is valued at approximately ten cents per meal. Needless to say, this cuts our costs to zero so we don't need to provide basic nourishment anymore, no matter what the ACLU says.
Five more years of this and we will have them paying *us* for toilet paper."
"The food is so beyond sub-par that our prisoners prefer to eat ramen which is valued at approximately ten cents per meal. Needless to say, this cuts our costs to zero so we don't need to provide basic nourishment anymore, no matter what the ACLU says.
Five more years of this and we will have them paying *us* for toilet paper."
"Basically, we're turning the prison system into legalized slavery where we not only turn a profit on the work the prisoners engage in, but the prisoners themselves pay *us* out of whatever wages we feel like letting them keep for luxury items like soap, toothpaste, toilet paper and so on. If I had my way, they'd be paying us for oxygen."
@MrMonroe@fightinfilipino I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Need to call the rest of Lawyer Voltron to analyze. I really should write all our names down somewhere...
Admin law was never a strong suit of mine, but my guess would be that just as the district judge basically made up grounds to review the decision, the appeals court will find a way to kick it back to the Department.
I think we're pretty far off the rails with this one. Ideally Lawrence plus Hodges equals strict scrutiny for "bathroom bills", but that's not the case in front of the court, the case in front of the court is "do the Feds have the authority to make that interpretive leap and enforce the interpretation on the states?" That's weird territory. There there be shibboleths of American identity, and as much as I think they're dumb and we should just grow up and have a State, you'd have to wipe the slate clean with a fundamental rewrite of the constitution to get rid the politicking masquerading as concern for constitutional principles. Until then you probably get cases like this decided based on the political views of the judges couched in deliberately vague arguments about admin law that can be cited in favor of any proposition.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It would help to actually see the case and the language involved, but it seems that he is making his decision because of 'failure to notify' not because of an objection on an application of 'strict scrutiny' which is what makes this case really fucking weird. When you are applying constitutional rights I don't know how you can possible have grounds for 'failure to notify'.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
"The food is so beyond sub-par that our prisoners prefer to eat ramen which is valued at approximately ten cents per meal. Needless to say, this cuts our costs to zero so we don't need to provide basic nourishment anymore, no matter what the ACLU says.
Five more years of this and we will have them paying *us* for toilet paper."
"Basically, we're turning the prison system into legalized slavery where we not only turn a profit on the work the prisoners engage in, but the prisoners themselves pay *us* out of whatever wages we feel like letting them keep for luxury items like soap, toothpaste, toilet paper and so on. If I had my way, they'd be paying us for oxygen."
Why deny the rest of society a working solution? The government failing the people, again.
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
No isn't that the star of the new macguyver series
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
That's the part that gets me the most. It's like the photographer was like, "fuck it, this shit is bananas, I'm just gunna make it look like the onion, because what the fuck is even happening here"
The actual order by the Texas judge. I am most definitely not a lawyer, but, uh, can he even do that? Specifically, the part about enjoining the defendants (the Justice Department/Obama administration) from investigation and further litigation seem really fucking broad, or is that standard language in preliminary injunctions?
So my girlfriend is getting her Paralegal and for their first discussion board this week they were asked to discuss current issues, and someone posted this:
"today too many young people want to complain about the law, they need to step up. boundaries need to be reset like they were 50 years ago, before discrimination, racism, sexism and all the other problems that people like to complain about in today's world"
She read that to me and my response was "So I guess she never heard of...history?" Thankfully my girlfriend eveiserated her in a response citing well over the 5 required cases proving racism, sexism, and inequality have actually existed before 50 years ago.
Oh also: Police shot and killed an unarmed deaf man who was trying to speak to police in sign language. He was speeding and he drove a ways before he pulled over in front of his house. According to police there was a "confrontation" but neighbors just saw him using sign language.
Oh also: Police shot and killed an unarmed deaf man who was trying to speak to police in sign language. He was speeding and he drove a ways before he pulled over in front of his house. According to police there was a "confrontation" but neighbors just saw him using sign language.
@MrMonroe@fightinfilipino I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Need to call the rest of Lawyer Voltron to analyze. I really should write all our names down somewhere...
Heh, it's been over a decade since I did anything with constitutional law, so my knowledge is strictly based off of media reports these days.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
It would help to actually see the case and the language involved, but it seems that he is making his decision because of 'failure to notify' not because of an objection on an application of 'strict scrutiny' which is what makes this case really fucking weird. When you are applying constitutional rights I don't know how you can possible have grounds for 'failure to notify'.
yeah, i'd want to read the decision as well, but it seems like they're trying to apply the "Notice and Comment" requirement from Skidmore v. Swift & Co.. that case basically says (and i'm heavily paraphrasing here) that a Federal agency must give notice of a rule change and allow persons to comment on that rule change before enacting the rule. there's an exception where the agency can skip the notice step if requiring the notice is "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest".
this is the new hotness among persons trying to fight Federal regulation making, to challenge on the lack of notice issue. it's part of the argument the anti-DACA crowd was making, as well as the anti-student visa work permit crowd.
i personally think the Federal government should win on this point. permitting discrimination to continue against transgender folks seems like something completely against the public interest. then again, conservative courts would argue that giving straights their "continued privacy" is in the public interest. bluh.
Oh also: Police shot and killed an unarmed deaf man who was trying to speak to police in sign language. He was speeding and he drove a ways before he pulled over in front of his house. According to police there was a "confrontation" but neighbors just saw him using sign language.
White nationalists have been the culprits of far more terrorism in the 20th and 21st centuries than any black militant groups. (Which neither BLM or, obviously, the NAACP are.)
Of course I consider most white nationalists veritable lost causes. So, like, reasons and facts are hard put to dissuade them of anything.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It would help to actually see the case and the language involved, but it seems that he is making his decision because of 'failure to notify' not because of an objection on an application of 'strict scrutiny' which is what makes this case really fucking weird. When you are applying constitutional rights I don't know how you can possible have grounds for 'failure to notify'.
yeah, i'd want to read the decision as well, but it seems like they're trying to apply the "Notice and Comment" requirement from Skidmore v. Swift & Co.. that case basically says (and i'm heavily paraphrasing here) that a Federal agency must give notice of a rule change and allow persons to comment on that rule change before enacting the rule. there's an exception where the agency can skip the notice step if requiring the notice is "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest".
this is the new hotness among persons trying to fight Federal regulation making, to challenge on the lack of notice issue. it's part of the argument the anti-DACA crowd was making, as well as the anti-student visa work permit crowd.
i personally think the Federal government should win on this point. permitting discrimination to continue against transgender folks seems like something completely against the public interest. then again, conservative courts would argue that giving straights their "continued privacy" is in the public interest. bluh.
In laymans terms, the Rock of Constitutional Rights should beat the Scissors of "Notice and Comment" because of course it does the public interest in the right to privacy overcomes a State's administrative rights.
The actual order by the Texas judge. I am most definitely not a lawyer, but, uh, can he even do that? Specifically, the part about enjoining the defendants (the Justice Department/Obama administration) from investigation and further litigation seem really fucking broad, or is that standard language in preliminary injunctions?
I am most definitely a lawyer. He can do that, he's a federal judge.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Posts
My apologies
Still awful no matter when it happened
"The food is so beyond sub-par that our prisoners prefer to eat ramen which is valued at approximately ten cents per meal. Needless to say, this cuts our costs to zero so we don't need to provide basic nourishment anymore, no matter what the ACLU says.
Five more years of this and we will have them paying *us* for toilet paper."
"Basically, we're turning the prison system into legalized slavery where we not only turn a profit on the work the prisoners engage in, but the prisoners themselves pay *us* out of whatever wages we feel like letting them keep for luxury items like soap, toothpaste, toilet paper and so on. If I had my way, they'd be paying us for oxygen."
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/35824691/#Comment_35824691
That's Donald Trump!
Admin law was never a strong suit of mine, but my guess would be that just as the district judge basically made up grounds to review the decision, the appeals court will find a way to kick it back to the Department.
I think we're pretty far off the rails with this one. Ideally Lawrence plus Hodges equals strict scrutiny for "bathroom bills", but that's not the case in front of the court, the case in front of the court is "do the Feds have the authority to make that interpretive leap and enforce the interpretation on the states?" That's weird territory. There there be shibboleths of American identity, and as much as I think they're dumb and we should just grow up and have a State, you'd have to wipe the slate clean with a fundamental rewrite of the constitution to get rid the politicking masquerading as concern for constitutional principles. Until then you probably get cases like this decided based on the political views of the judges couched in deliberately vague arguments about admin law that can be cited in favor of any proposition.
Wackity schmackty dooooooooooooo
I feel this is the 385727478th time someone has to say "Onion writers drink themselves to death" during this election season
Nah.
Fuckin nah, bruh.
Local news agency prints hilarious satire story!
Please tell me this is how that story shakes out.
And let's get another case of MD20/20 to the onion
That's the part that gets me the most. It's like the photographer was like, "fuck it, this shit is bananas, I'm just gunna make it look like the onion, because what the fuck is even happening here"
The actual order by the Texas judge. I am most definitely not a lawyer, but, uh, can he even do that? Specifically, the part about enjoining the defendants (the Justice Department/Obama administration) from investigation and further litigation seem really fucking broad, or is that standard language in preliminary injunctions?
She read that to me and my response was "So I guess she never heard of...history?" Thankfully my girlfriend eveiserated her in a response citing well over the 5 required cases proving racism, sexism, and inequality have actually existed before 50 years ago.
Some fucking people man.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-n-police-kill-unarmed-deaf-mute-man-sign-language-article-1.2760714
Obviously the officer is a Naruto fan and thought he was using a forbidden jutsu
looks like he's white, this time
but has a disability, so to cops, still subhuman
I wouldn't say he was black
...it says something about the state of affairs in American law enforcement that racial equality is achieved by shooting white deaf-mutes. Like, wow
He's not black.
This coming after cops shot an unarmed black man when they were trying to shoot an unarmed disabled man.
Heh, it's been over a decade since I did anything with constitutional law, so my knowledge is strictly based off of media reports these days.
yeah, i'd want to read the decision as well, but it seems like they're trying to apply the "Notice and Comment" requirement from Skidmore v. Swift & Co.. that case basically says (and i'm heavily paraphrasing here) that a Federal agency must give notice of a rule change and allow persons to comment on that rule change before enacting the rule. there's an exception where the agency can skip the notice step if requiring the notice is "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest".
this is the new hotness among persons trying to fight Federal regulation making, to challenge on the lack of notice issue. it's part of the argument the anti-DACA crowd was making, as well as the anti-student visa work permit crowd.
i personally think the Federal government should win on this point. permitting discrimination to continue against transgender folks seems like something completely against the public interest. then again, conservative courts would argue that giving straights their "continued privacy" is in the public interest. bluh.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
A guy got shot dead dude.
Of course I consider most white nationalists veritable lost causes. So, like, reasons and facts are hard put to dissuade them of anything.
Fuck yeah secret police! Who watches the watchmen? Don't fucking worry about it you probable criminal!
I'm sorry, you made cops uncomfortable.
You are now dead.
In laymans terms, the Rock of Constitutional Rights should beat the Scissors of "Notice and Comment" because of course it does the public interest in the right to privacy overcomes a State's administrative rights.
I am most definitely a lawyer. He can do that, he's a federal judge.