• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wilsongt

Member
APKmetsfan said:
CDIbvowXIAERlsB.png:large
Click to expand...

That last one on the list. Damn.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Teggy said:
From the quote, sounds like he's taking a personal anecdote and applying it generally to a case before the supreme court.
Click to expand...

I'll wait for APKmetsfan to clarify, but that's how I thought he might have read that excerpt. However, Thomas wasn't discussing his own experience, but the experience of the police officer, based on testimony:

J. Thomas said:
Today’s revision of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was also entirely unnecessary. Rodriguez suffered no Fourth Amendment violation here for an entirely independent reason: Officer Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue to hold him for investigative purposes. Our precedents make clear that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to conduct an investigative traffic stop when that officer has “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Prado Navarette, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reasonable suspicion is determined by looking at “the whole picture,” ibid., taking into account “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act,” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 695 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Officer Struble testified that he first became suspicious that Rodriguez was engaged in criminal activity for a number of reasons. When he approached the vehicle, he smelled an “overwhelming odor of air freshener coming from the vehicle,” which is, in his experience, “a common attempt to conceal an odor that [people] don’t want . . . to be smelled by the police.” App. 20–21. He also observed, upon approaching the front window on the passenger side of the vehicle, that Rodriguez’s passenger, Scott Pollman,appeared nervous. Pollman pulled his hat down low, puffed nervously on a cigarette, and refused to make eye contact with him. The officer thought he was “more nervous than your typical passenger” who “do[esn’t] have anything to worry about because [t]hey didn’t commit a [traffic] violation.” Id., at 34.
Click to expand...
 
C

Cat

Member
BertramCooper said:
I try not to be mean-spirited and wish ill upon another state, but it's hard not to find some amusement in Texas' economic turn for the worse.

Especially when its leaders have been such insufferable braggarts for the past decade.
Click to expand...

Well, I live here, in Texas. I quite resent our current leaders for a myriad of reasons, but economically...my husband was let go from no longer being needed for a temp job he had the past year. Those insufferable braggart leaders generally aren't the ones who pay for the damage they do to this state.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Cat said:
Well, I live here, in Texas. I quite resent our current leaders for a myriad of reasons, but economically...my husband was let go from no longer being needed for a temp job he had the past year. Those insufferable braggart leaders generally aren't the ones who pay for the damage they do to this state.
Click to expand...


They never are.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Cat said:
Well, I live here, in Texas. I quite resent our current leaders for a myriad of reasons, but economically...my husband was let go from no longer being needed for a temp job he had the past year. Those insufferable braggart leaders generally aren't the ones who pay for the damage they do to this state.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's morally confusing. You want poor leaders to pay for their poor decisions and there's some vindication when it happens, but of course it's people like you and your husband who pay the greatest price.

All the best to both of you.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
CygnusXS said:
My take away is that it's ridiculous to assume air freshener in a car is used the majority of the time to cover weed.
Click to expand...
The entire dissent is cops can do anything because intuition or something and god forbid judges put standards on police because policing is hard. This then leafs to things like smelling an air freshener and a nervous passengers justifying searching for drugs.

It basically gives cops the ability to do whatever

An air freshener and being nervous around a man with a gun is justification for a search? Why have a limit on searches then?
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
APKmetsfan said:
The entire dissent is cops can do anything because intuition or something and god forbid judges put standards on police because policing is hard. This then leafs to things like smelling an air freshener and a nervous passengers justifying searching for drugs.

It basically gives cops the ability to do whatever

An air freshener and being nervous around a man with a gun is justification for a search? Why have a limit on searches then?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole dissent, but I will note that the other justices don't necessarily disagree with Thomas about the air freshener and nervous passenger. They avoided answering whether those facts provided the cop with a reasonable suspicion by pointing out the court of appeals had not addressed it. From Ginsburg's majority opinion (I really like her parentheticals):

J. Ginsburg said:
The Magistrate Judge found that detention for the dog sniff in this case was not independently supported by individualized suspicion, see App. 100, and the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings, see id., at 112–113. The Court of Appeals, however, did not review that determination. But see post, at 1, 10–12 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (resolving the issue, nevermind that the Court of Appeals left it unaddressed); post, at 1–2 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (upbraiding the Court for addressing the sole issue decided by the Court of Appeals and characterizing the Court’s answer as “unnecessary” because the Court, instead, should have decided an issue the Court of Appeals did not decide). The question whether reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez beyond completion of the traffic infraction investigation, therefore, remains open for Eighth Circuit consideration on remand.
Click to expand...

*****

For the reading pleasure of Coriolanus and Wilsongt, I've seen a number of Twitter comments about the first sentence of Justice Kennedy's dissent in Rodriguez:

J. Kennedy said:
My join in JUSTICE THOMAS’ dissenting opinion does not extend to Part III.
Click to expand...

To be sure, I thought using "join" as a noun was a little bit odd when I read his dissent.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I haven't read the whole dissent, but I will note that the other justices don't necessarily disagree with Thomas about the air freshener and nervous passenger. They avoided answering whether those facts provided the cop with a reasonable suspicion by pointing out the court of appeals had not addressed it. From Ginsburg's majority opinion (I really like her parentheticals):
Click to expand...

And? I'd call them idiots too. I feel the court leaves far too much latitude to cops in search and seizure and to be honest general crime prevention. The court is too scared to draw limits on cops becaususe if something bad happens they'll get blamed, its the same thing with all security policy and it basically just allows authorities to get more and more power.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
I hear the same crap from a "libertarian" friend of mine who was considering putting in a geothermal system, but it's totally missing the point. Of course it's a waste of money, so is solar and geo, but we have no choice anymore. That 2 degree threshold has caught on with the political hivemind around the globe on this issue, and the only way to do it is to spend a ton of money upfront.
 
J

Jooney

Member
APKmetsfan said:
And? I'd call them idiots too. I feel the court leaves far too much latitude to cops in search and seizure and to be honest general crime prevention. The court is too scared to draw limits on cops becaususe if something bad happens they'll get blamed, its the same thing with all security policy and it basically just allows authorities to get more and more power.
Click to expand...

Michelle Alexander's analysis contained within The New Jim Crow regarding the increasing latitude given to cops by the courts to conduct vehicle searches is especially illuminating and downright troubling. Being able to conduct searches based on routine traffic spots (busted tailights and such) seems like a gross encroachment by government to me, which I thought conservaties hated
(presumably only when it happens to folks who look like them)
 
D

Diablos

Member
Why does Obama want the Trans-Pacific Partnership to go through so badly?
It's HORRIBLE. I'm so disappointed in him for championing it.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Diablos said:
Why does Obama want the Trans-Pacific Partnership to go through so badly?
It's HORRIBLE. I'm so disappointed in him for championing it.
Click to expand...

It also highlights how bad he is at selling anything. His general argument against Elizabeth Warren is that...she's wrong, the end. And she hasn't seen the details. Nevermind that all the details aren't readily available due to the White House, but those that are available aren't pretty.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
PhoenixDark said:
It also highlights how bad he is at selling anything. His general argument against Elizabeth Warren is that...she's wrong, the end. And she hasn't seen the details. Nevermind that all the details aren't readily available due to the White House, but those that are available aren't pretty.
Click to expand...
Well, they're keeping that shit secret, so of course he can't go into details.

Man, if nothing else, I want someone to take him to task as to why "the most transparent administration" is keeping this negotiation secret.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
I'm general protrade but I don't get this deal anymore. I don't know what it offers and tariffs are already non existent. There's is no need for those weird transnational binding courts that's not free trade and it doesn't make trade easier. It limits democracy
 
T

Trouble

Banned
How come Obama can come out and give a speech with the details of the Iran nuclear deal, but doesn't go into any detail at all on the trade agreement?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Exclusive — GOP Pollster: Scott Walker’s Bold New Pro-American Immigration Position ‘Winning Hand’ Against Hillary Clinton

The left will try to caricature him as union-busting, as anti-worker. This gives him the opportunity to say ‘if you’re for amnesty, you’re anti-worker. What I am is pro-worker. It is anti government corruption. Having public sector union members expect Wisconsin taxpayers pay 100 percent of their benefits, that wasn’t fair.’ It’s a matter of fairness. Allow him to explain all of that as pro-worker not anti-worker and if he can do that he’ll be fine. Also, this gives him a distinction among a Republican field that’s getting increasingly crowded. This allows him to be seen as a working-class, populist hero—a working class governor who’s a natural populist, it’s just a natural fit. I don’t know if Mitt Romney could have pulled this off. Then you fast forward and you think of this idea versus Hillary Clinton—if she even has anything to say on immigration—this is the winning hand. This is absolutely the winning hand.
Click to expand...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...osition-winning-hand-against-hillary-clinton/

For Benji.

btw in case you were wondering "hey, what is that pollster's record?" well...yup.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
APKmetsfan said:
And? I'd call them idiots too. I feel the court leaves far too much latitude to cops in search and seizure and to be honest general crime prevention. The court is too scared to draw limits on cops becaususe if something bad happens they'll get blamed, its the same thing with all security policy and it basically just allows authorities to get more and more power.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned before that wherever the conservatives end up on questions of criminal Constitutional law, I'm inclined to disagree with them. In this case, they're kind of split, so my usual metric isn't of much use. But I think you may be being too harsh. The Supreme Court really isn't in any position to be promulgating highly technical rules of police procedure, and if they attempted to make such rules, they'd only limit the flexibility needed by police operating in different places to adjust to local conditions. I also don't think the Court avoids promulgating strict limits on police for the same reason it avoids dealing with challenges to national security measures--at least in the former cases the courts can hear cases based on evidence.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Link for people that missed the TPP interview:

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/president-obama-defends-tpp-deal-431711811768

He does say it raises environmental and labor standards, but only lists logging and fishing standards as examples. He never gives any example about labor standards being lifted up. Not unless you count copyright and patent holders as labor.

And he never addressed the main problem: why does a transnational court get to decide things like whether the laws we pass count as "indirect expropriation".
 
T

Treechopper

Member
Cat said:
Well, I live here, in Texas. I quite resent our current leaders for a myriad of reasons, but economically...my husband was let go from no longer being needed for a temp job he had the past year. Those insufferable braggart leaders generally aren't the ones who pay for the damage they do to this state.
Click to expand...

Speaking of, what's y'alls view on Texas overturning Denton's fracking ban? Some of those that lost in November are arguing it's a property rights infringement while most of us are pretty upset our voice was shutout.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
PhoenixDark said:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...osition-winning-hand-against-hillary-clinton/

For Benji.

btw in case you were wondering "hey, what is that pollster's record?" well...yup.
Click to expand...

LOL

Good luck with that. The GOP is falling right back into the same old trap as 2012.

*During the last election* "Unskew the polls! We know what the public really wants!"

*Right after last election* "Wow...we botched that. We'll definitely have to change our methods and move a bit in some positions."

*2 1/2 years later* "Unskew the polls! We know what the public really wants!"
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Diablos said:
Why does Obama want the Trans-Pacific Partnership to go through so badly?
It's HORRIBLE. I'm so disappointed in him for championing it.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's pretty bad. Sherrod Brown is pushing hard against it.

Speaking of which, it's getting really annoying that Warren gets all of the headlines for pushing against stuff like this when Brown has been every bit as forceful in opposing this stuff since joining the Senate eight years ago.
 
J

Jooney

Member
Newt Gingrich says good things about government spending

Amid the policy fights that followed the Republican victories of 1994, President Bill Clinton and the new majorities in Congress reached one particularly good deal: doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health.

The decision was bipartisan, because health is both a moral and financial issue. Government spends more on health care than any other area. Taxpayers spend more than $1 trillion a year for Medicare and Medicaid alone, and even more when you add in programs like Veterans Affairs, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Indian Health Service.

Even as we’ve let financing for basic scientific and medical research stagnate, government spending on health care has grown significantly. That should trouble every fiscal conservative. As a conservative myself, I’m often skeptical of government “investments.” But when it comes to breakthroughs that could cure — not just treat — the most expensive diseases, government is unique. It alone can bring the necessary resources to bear. (The federal government funds roughly a third of all medical research in the United States.) And it is ultimately on the hook for the costs of illness. It’s irresponsible and shortsighted, not prudent, to let financing for basic research dwindle.
Click to expand...
 
B

bomma_man

Member
Thought this was interesting, and something that backs up my own unscientific comparisons between Australia and the US

Jill Lepore said:
It might be that people have been studying inequality in all the wrong places. A few years ago, two scholars of comparative politics, Alfred Stepan, at Columbia, and the late Juan J. Linz—numbers men—tried to figure out why the United States has for so long had much greater income inequality than any other developed democracy. Because this disparity has been more or less constant, the question doesn’t lend itself very well to historical analysis. Nor is it easily subject to the distortions of nostalgia. But it does lend itself very well to comparative analysis.

Stepan and Linz identified twenty-three long-standing democracies with advanced economies. Then they counted the number of veto players in each of those twenty-three governments. (A veto player is a person or body that can block a policy decision. Stepan and Linz explain, “For example, in the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives are veto players because without their consent, no bill can become a law.”) More than half of the twenty-three countries Stepan and Linz studied have only one veto player; most of these countries have unicameral parliaments. A few countries have two veto players; Switzerland and Australia have three. Only the United States has four. Then they made a chart, comparing Gini indices with veto-player numbers: the more veto players in a government, the greater the nation’s economic inequality. This is only a correlation, of course, and cross-country economic comparisons are fraught, but it’s interesting.

Then they observed something more. Their twenty-three democracies included eight federal governments with both upper and lower legislative bodies. Using the number of seats and the size of the population to calculate malapportionment, they assigned a “Gini Index of Inequality of Representation” to those eight upper houses, and found that the United States had the highest score: it has the most malapportioned and the least representative upper house. These scores, too, correlated with the countries’ Gini scores for income inequality: the less representative the upper body of a national legislature, the greater the gap between the rich and the poor.
Click to expand...
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Cat said:
I think it's all-around crappy of the state government to do that, considering the dangers I've read about fracking, and being upset by it is a perfectly valid reaction.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who works for the USGS, and he said that fracking can be done completely safely provided proper well construction and equipment.

It's up to you to decide if any company is going to get into the business without skimping on that stuff, though.

Also apparently the libertarian wing of the Republicans is causing havoc with the new NSA bill. Key parts of the Patriot Act are about to (hopefully) expire.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gop-infighting-threatens-nsa-bill-117221.html?hp=rc4_4
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
thepotatoman said:
Link for people that missed the TPP interview:

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/president-obama-defends-tpp-deal-431711811768

He does say it raises environmental and labor standards, but only lists logging and fishing standards as examples. He never gives any example about labor standards being lifted up. Not unless you count copyright and patent holders as labor.

And he never addressed the main problem: why does a transnational court get to decide things like whether the laws we pass count as "indirect expropriation".
Click to expand...

The NPR interview yesterday was interesting. One of the experts, pro-TPP, honestly stated that while TPP is somewhat skewed against manufacturing workers, that our manufacturing has long left shores, it's not coming back, and this is a good way for us and our corporations to still take advantage of that manufacturing abroad on better terms. Yes it might only minimally raise labor standards, if at all, and definitely not to US acceptable standards, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme because most of the labor is not here anyway.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Yep, it's pretty bad. Sherrod Brown is pushing hard against it.

Speaking of which, it's getting really annoying that Warren gets all of the headlines for pushing against stuff like this when Brown has been every bit as forceful in opposing this stuff since joining the Senate eight years ago.
Click to expand...
It's a cult of personality thing. Brown isn't as photogenic or dynamic as Warren is.

It's funny whenever people say something like "Oh if only the other 99 senators were Elizabeth Warren clones" when there are several more senators who are just as liberal but don't get nearly as much attention. Franken, Brown, Sanders.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
I think the momentum will eventually turn towards Rubio. His gaffes have mostly been of the late night talk show red meat variety, which never really stick with the people who actually agree with him. If he can learn to speak for 5 minutes without getting dehydrated, then he's the GOP's only real shot of stopping Hillary's coronation. None of the old white guys have a chance.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Crisco said:
I think the momentum will eventually turn towards Rubio. His gaffes have mostly been of the late night talk show red meat variety, which never really stick with the people who actually agree with him. If he can learn to speak for 5 minutes without getting dehydrated, then he's the GOP's only real shot of stopping Hillary's coronation. None of the old white guys have a chance.
Click to expand...

"Young and inexperienced". Not as big a problem for dems given that most of their voters aren't withering husks. Inclined to guess that most treebeards would have a bit of a problem supporting a 43/44 year old candidate during primaries.

Huh, only Teddy and JFK would've been younger if Rubio won.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Crisco said:
I think the momentum will eventually turn towards Rubio. His gaffes have mostly been of the late night talk show red meat variety, which never really stick with the people who actually agree with him. If he can learn to speak for 5 minutes without getting dehydrated, then he's the GOP's only real shot of stopping Hillary's coronation. None of the old white guys have a chance.
Click to expand...

Coriolanus said:
"Young and inexperienced". Not as big a problem for dems given that most of their voters aren't withering husks. Inclined to guess that most treebeards would have a bit of a problem supporting a 43/44 year old candidate during primaries.
Click to expand...

Cruz is 44, Walker is 47, Rubio is 43

I think it's actually a surprisingly young field all around on the GOP side this election. Bush and Carson are really the old goats. Rand splits it at 52. Unless the Huckster jumps in it's going to be a young field vs. Bush from an ageist perspective.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
CrimzonSamurai said:
Cruz is 44, Walker is 47, Rubio is 43

I think it's actually a surprisingly young field all around on the GOP side this election. Bush and Carson are really the old goats. Rand splits it at 52. Unless the Huckster jumps in it's going to be a young field vs. Bush from an ageist perspective.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty much a given that the GOP candidate is going to be younger than Hildog.
Man, I can't wait until some strategist decide that this gives them an advantage with young people and that they should pounce on them younglings.
This shit should be Bohner going full Taylor Swift funny.

nvg5PZR.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom