Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 67
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 55 67 template Next
  • #61
    Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    Yeah, but they still can't make you blow into a tube, pee into a cup, or provide a blood sample without something else.
    Right, stopping someone is not a search. They cant even pat you down at a roadblock unless they have a reason to. (I believe the standard is reasonable suspicion but I forget)

    Drug tests are not even close to the same things as a road block.
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

      Interesting article on the legacy of Reid's nuclear option.

      President Barack Obama can thank outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for triggering the "nuclear option" in November 2013 and securing him one of the most robust judicial legacies of any modern president.

      In six years, he has appointed a whopping 307 judges, who will shape the law for decades after he leaves office. The final 12 district judges were confirmed in the closing night of the Senate session on Tuesday, Reid's final move before Democrats surrender control of the chamber.

      "The Obama Administration and the United States Senate have given Americans the best possible holiday present: the gift of justice," said Nan Aron, the president of the progressive law and policy group Alliance For Justice.

      A total of 132 judges were confirmed in the 113th Congress — the most since the 1970s.

      Perhaps most significant is his appointment of 53 judges on federal circuit courts, which have the last word on most matters of law. When Obama took office, just one of 13 appeals courts had a majority of Democratic-appointed judges on the active bench. Today, nine of 13 appeals courts have a majority of Democratic appointees.
      Of course, a GOP president and a GOP majority in Congress would just reverse it. However, for now at least it looks like the Republican's stonewalling of nominees really backfired badly. Assuming they will now refuse to confirm anybody out of revenge, the worst that happens is the number of vacancies increases again, and due to the demographics of GOP vs Dem appointees, the majority of those vacancies will be retiring GOP-appointees.

      Plus, if 2016 shapes up like 2008 and 2012, a new Dem president and Dem Senate majority will just continue the trend. Not sure how Cruz et al. are going to convince the pragmatists in the party that this was a good long term strategy. Not that Cruz cares in the least -- it gave him his closeup, Mr. DeMille.
      Last edited by Kepler; 12-18-2014, 10:17 AM.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment

      • #63
        Originally posted by Handyman View Post
        Right, stopping someone is not a search. They cant even pat you down at a roadblock unless they have a reason to. (I believe the standard is reasonable suspicion but I forget)

        Drug tests are not even close to the same things as a road block.
        How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.

        Legal and rights issues aside... If someone is receiving food stamps, but still has money for drugs / cigarettes etc, are they abusing the system?

        Comment

        • #64
          Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
          How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.
          Sure. But are you willing to provide the funds for the extra manpower that will cost, never mind the inevitable court cases about whether there really was reasonable suspicion?

          This is always presented as a cost savings measure, never mind that it invariably costs more than it saves because contrary to the GOP groupthink, people on welfare generally don't have the money for drugs or alcohol. I think Florida's short lived testing program stopped all of two people before the courts killed it.

          I'm sure the thousands of negative tests were well with it to catch those two, though.

          Edit: it was 2 percent, not two people. Still well below the average rate of 8% for drug use. And it still cost far more to run the program than it saved in "undeserved" welfare checks.

          Tennessee's program caught one person out of the first 800 tested. Clearly we have a drug use among welfare queens epidemic on our hands
          Last edited by unofan; 12-18-2014, 12:02 PM.

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

            Originally posted by unofan View Post
            Tennessee's program caught one person out of the first 800 tested. Clearly we have a drug use among welfare queens epidemic on our hands
            They'd get a much higher rate if they drug-tested the CEOs of companies that get corporate welfare.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

              Originally posted by ericredaxe View Post
              How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.

              Legal and rights issues aside... If someone is receiving food stamps, but still has money for drugs / cigarettes etc, are they abusing the system?

              The key here is to crack down on fraud. Having people pick up food stamps in person/EBT cards in person (and show ID to do so) I'm 100% on board with. Not necessarily every time, but at least once a year. I think Guiliani did something like that in NYC. Only being able to use EBT cards for food and clothing as well. No liquor stores, casinos, etc. Hell, I'd restrict them to in state stores. Also, no cash withdrawal.

              This won't solve all the problems, but more than drug testing people, etc etc this is what I'd like to see happen more.
              Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

              Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

              "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                Lots of conversation on whether it would be a "good idea" or not, I'm of two minds on the subject itself, on one hand it seems an unreasonable intrusion of privacy, on the other hand, it seems reasonable that we help those people who will then use that help constructively.

                The original question is still out there about whether it would be legal or not. As others have pointed out, employers are allowed to screen employees for drug use. Cops are allowed to give breathalyzer tests (from time to time we have roadblocks in which every car is stopped and the cops look inside every car and question every driver, naturally they have to have "reasonable suspicion" first...does popping a breath mint into your mouth right before you roll down the window constitute "reasonable suspicion"??)

                just because something is legal, doesn't make it "right" and just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Two completely different sets of issues.
                Last edited by FreshFish; 12-18-2014, 01:31 PM.
                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                Comment

                • #68
                  Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                  Lots of conversation on whether it would be a "good idea" or not, I'm of two minds on the subject itself, on one hand it seems an unreasonable intrusion of privacy, on the other hand, it seems reasonable that we help those people who will then use that help constructively.

                  The original question is still out there about whether it would be legal or not. As others have pointed out, employers are allowed to screen employees for drug use. Cops are allowed to give breathalyzer tests (from time to time we have roadblocks in which every car is stopped and the cops look inside every car and question every driver, naturally they have to have "reasonable suspicion" first...does popping a breath mint into your mouth right before you roll down the window constitute "reasonable suspicion"??)

                  just because something is legal, doesn't make it "right" and just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Two completely different sets of issues.
                  Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                    Originally posted by unofan View Post
                    Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
                    No, you see if we give them welfare then they're our property. Their children, too.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
                      It's also a complete waste of money. Welfare fraud is draining the coffers a lot less than Social Security and Medicare fraud. We should spend less time on Welfare and more on SS/Medicare fraud enforcement. Unfortunately it sounds better to the mindless automatons that you're going after welfare recipients than it does that you're going after Social Security recipients.
                      **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                      Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                      Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                        This is a tangent from the usual discussion, but: Alice is a real pain in my ***.
                        Cornell University Men's Hockey
                        NCAA Champions: 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champions: 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2024
                        Ivy League Champions: 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2024

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                          Originally posted by jmh View Post
                          This is a tangent from the usual discussion, but: Alice is a real pain in my ***.
                          Alice?
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            It's also a complete waste of money. Welfare fraud is draining the coffers a lot less than Social Security and Medicare fraud. We should spend less time on Welfare and more on SS/Medicare fraud enforcement. Unfortunately it sounds better to the mindless automatons angry old people that you're going after welfare recipients than it does that you're going after Social Security recipients.
                            Fixed

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                              Alice?
                              No, unfortunately I mean this Alice.
                              Cornell University Men's Hockey
                              NCAA Champions: 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champions: 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2024
                              Ivy League Champions: 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2024

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

                                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                                Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
                                If a recipient of food stamps is spending other money on things like drugs or even cigarettes are they abusing the system?

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 55 67 template Next
                                Working...
                                X