In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Kind of related to legislation by judicial ruling debate with a right to die tangent thrown in. Canada last week gave legislators one year to change doctor assisted suicide laws.
Is a similar constitutional decree possible in the US?
OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada shifted the goalposts Friday on one of the most fundamental of human laws. In a charter precedent that will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada, the court unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients. ... "The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the nine justices flatly asserted ... It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness. And to put an exclamation mark on the ruling, the court awarded special costs against the government of Canada for the entire five-year course of the litigation, less 10 per cent to be paid by the government of British Columbia. The court suspended its judgment for 12 months, during which the current law continues to apply, placing enormous pressure on Parliament to act in what is an election year. ... The decision reverses the top court's 1993 ruling in the case of Sue Rodriguez, a fact the decision attributes to changing jurisprudence and an altered social landscape. Two decades ago, the court was concerned that vulnerable persons could not be properly protected under physician-assisted suicide, even though courts recognized the existing law infringed a person's rights.
On February 18 2015 01:59 Wolfstan wrote: Kind of related to legislation by judicial ruling debate with a right to die tangent thrown in. Canada last week gave legislators one year to change doctor assisted suicide laws.
Is a similar constitutional decree possible in the US?
OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada shifted the goalposts Friday on one of the most fundamental of human laws. In a charter precedent that will go down in the history books as Carter vs. Canada, the court unanimously struck down the ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients. ... "The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," the nine justices flatly asserted ... It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness. And to put an exclamation mark on the ruling, the court awarded special costs against the government of Canada for the entire five-year course of the litigation, less 10 per cent to be paid by the government of British Columbia. The court suspended its judgment for 12 months, during which the current law continues to apply, placing enormous pressure on Parliament to act in what is an election year. ... The decision reverses the top court's 1993 ruling in the case of Sue Rodriguez, a fact the decision attributes to changing jurisprudence and an altered social landscape. Two decades ago, the court was concerned that vulnerable persons could not be properly protected under physician-assisted suicide, even though courts recognized the existing law infringed a person's rights.
I doubt it, conservatives will insist that all life is sacred, even when the person possessing it doesn't want it anymore. It is legal in some states, however, so we may see it gain more traction in the coming years. But as far as a nationwide ruling from the Supreme Court, probably not for a while.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
No, that's not a policy evaluation. It's a factual evaluation. Policy evaluations are made when it is appropriate to consider aspects extraneous to the letter of the law when arriving at a legal decision. For the States to even bring this suit, they have to prove factually that they are going to suffer "harm" as a component of demonstrating legal standing. Don't look at "harm" as being a judgmental term. It's merely a term of art referring to an adverse consequence of an action. States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
evaluating the consequence of a particular policy is a factual matter but it still involves policy expertise and arguments.
i read more of the case and it seems that administrative cost is sufficient 'harm' but that would be way too wide of a net.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
No, that's not a policy evaluation. It's a factual evaluation. Policy evaluations are made when it is appropriate to consider aspects extraneous to the letter of the law when arriving at a legal decision. For the States to even bring this suit, they have to prove factually that they are going to suffer "harm" as a component of demonstrating legal standing. Don't look at "harm" as being a judgmental term. It's merely a term of art referring to an adverse consequence of an action. States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
evaluating the consequence of a particular policy is a factual matter but it still involves policy expertise and arguments.
i read more of the case and it seems that administrative cost is sufficient 'harm' but that would be way too wide of a net.
Are you actually disputing that DAPA would require states to provide benefits to illegal immigrants? I certainly hope not. Once you get over that hurdle, there is no denying that providing such benefits is a harm.
it's a cost but not necessarily a harm. immigration is a federal issue, and if the states have the duty to recognize the status of immigrants then that's that.
but sure based on the idea that administrative cost = harm there is standing.
On February 17 2015 23:30 xDaunt wrote: I'm cruising through the federal court opinion that guts Obama's executive amnesty program. What a shellacking.
Wow, what a discussion of standing and irreparable harm. Certainly you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube after a ruling on merits, with illegal aliens armed with SSNs and work permits seeking state benefits. Good injunction.
On February 17 2015 23:30 xDaunt wrote: I'm cruising through the federal court opinion that guts Obama's executive amnesty program. What a shellacking.
Wow, what a discussion of standing and irreparable harm. Certainly you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube after a ruling on merits, with illegal aliens armed with SSNs and work permits seeking state benefits. Good injunction.
Given the novelty of the issue, this is something that is very likely going to make its way to the US Supreme Court.
On February 18 2015 04:59 farvacola wrote: They better not fucking hide behind standing requirements in regards to deciding something as obviously federal as immigration policy.
It doesn't really work that way. We aren't dealing preemption, and standing is just a threshold issue anyway.
Whether or not you think it should work one way or another is a political question; conservatives will simply insist that they are remaining faithful to precedent and procedure when they imitate decisions like Vieth in declining to rule based on threshold issues, whereas liberals will point to the same cases and see nothing but a kicking of the can down the road. How the mechanism of standing itself works is up for debate, at least insofar as justifications are concerned.
On February 17 2015 23:30 xDaunt wrote: I'm cruising through the federal court opinion that guts Obama's executive amnesty program. What a shellacking.
Wow, what a discussion of standing and irreparable harm. Certainly you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube after a ruling on merits, with illegal aliens armed with SSNs and work permits seeking state benefits. Good injunction.
Given the novelty of the issue, this is something that is very likely going to make its way to the US Supreme Court.
Yes, they're appealing and I'm sure it'll be heard. It would've been nice for Congress to have acted first in preservation of its own authority, but it's more party politics than separation of powers these days. I dont think the government really has a case for the same reasons the ruling considered extraordinary for routine prosecutorial discretion.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
A large majority of Americans oppose House Speaker John Boehner's invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the international negotiations with Iran, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC poll found that 63 percent of Americans disagreed with Boehner's decision to extend the invitation without consulting the White House, while 33 percent said it was the right thing to do.
Even among Republicans, only a narrow majority supported Boehner's invitation -- 52 percent -- while 45 percent did not. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly opposed the invitation: Democrats, 81 percent to 14 percent; independents, 61 percent to 36 percent.
The poll, conducted Feb. 12 to 15, surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is 3 points.
On February 18 2015 05:16 farvacola wrote: Whether or not you think it should work one way or another is a political question; conservatives will simply insist that they are remaining faithful to precedent and procedure when they imitate decisions like Vieth in declining to rule based on threshold issues, whereas liberals will point to the same cases and see nothing but a kicking of the can down the road. How the mechanism of standing itself works is up for debate, at least insofar as justifications are concerned.
C'mon, man. You are a law student. If the case is decided on the basis of standing, it will be decided conclusively in favor of the Administration.
A large majority of Americans oppose House Speaker John Boehner's invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the international negotiations with Iran, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC poll found that 63 percent of Americans disagreed with Boehner's decision to extend the invitation without consulting the White House, while 33 percent said it was the right thing to do.
Even among Republicans, only a narrow majority supported Boehner's invitation -- 52 percent -- while 45 percent did not. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly opposed the invitation: Democrats, 81 percent to 14 percent; independents, 61 percent to 36 percent.
The poll, conducted Feb. 12 to 15, surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is 3 points.
On February 18 2015 05:16 farvacola wrote: Whether or not you think it should work one way or another is a political question; conservatives will simply insist that they are remaining faithful to precedent and procedure when they imitate decisions like Vieth in declining to rule based on threshold issues, whereas liberals will point to the same cases and see nothing but a kicking of the can down the road. How the mechanism of standing itself works is up for debate, at least insofar as justifications are concerned.
C'mon, man. You are a law student. If the case is decided on the basis of standing, it will be decided conclusively in favor of the Administration.
Yes, but I'm not talking about administration favorable outcomes here. Don't read partisanry into my words where it unusually does not appear lol. I think the Supreme Court needs to rule on this issue, irregardless of whom it harms.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
A large majority of Americans oppose House Speaker John Boehner's invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the international negotiations with Iran, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC poll found that 63 percent of Americans disagreed with Boehner's decision to extend the invitation without consulting the White House, while 33 percent said it was the right thing to do.
Even among Republicans, only a narrow majority supported Boehner's invitation -- 52 percent -- while 45 percent did not. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly opposed the invitation: Democrats, 81 percent to 14 percent; independents, 61 percent to 36 percent.
The poll, conducted Feb. 12 to 15, surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is 3 points.
On February 18 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote: looking at the standing section the states have to prove some sort of harm and this is a policy evaluation. not much substance besides the immigrants = crime argument presented in one anecdotal case, and the policy in question explicitly excludes immigrants with criminal records from benefits anyway.
States having to spend money is clearly such an adverse consequence.
no its not because the totality of spending isnt evaluated in this opinion -- other than the Fox throw away line about illegal immigrant terrorists. Illegals also bring in economic activity that boosts state revenues.
legalizing illegals bring in additional tax revenue as well.
also fed could just give states some money to cover the id cards.
btw there is no such enthusiasm to get people id's when it comes to voter registration
Are you high? Legalizing illegal aliens will not bring tax revenue. There is no way that more than 1% of these people will pay income taxes even in the foreseeable future. They will represent a net drain on society in every shape and meaning of the word.
Let's remember 'these people' are already here. Just like Utah figured out it's cheaper/more effective to give homeless people homes than it is to put them in jail, sometimes the guttural reaction isn't the smart one.
I'd love to hear the conservative alternative to deal with the millions of people already here, but years of squawking about immigration and they still pretty much got nothing. Unless "we'll deal with that after we 'close the border' (to some still undefined point)" counts as a plan?
A large majority of Americans oppose House Speaker John Boehner's invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the international negotiations with Iran, according to a new poll.
The CNN/ORC poll found that 63 percent of Americans disagreed with Boehner's decision to extend the invitation without consulting the White House, while 33 percent said it was the right thing to do.
Even among Republicans, only a narrow majority supported Boehner's invitation -- 52 percent -- while 45 percent did not. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly opposed the invitation: Democrats, 81 percent to 14 percent; independents, 61 percent to 36 percent.
The poll, conducted Feb. 12 to 15, surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults. Its margin of error is 3 points.
Yeah, when I noticed the whole "veni vidi vici" on a pack of Marbs I knew they were on some next level world-wide stuff.
The tobacco industry is pretty evil. Using 'the law' and 'choice' to profit from killing millions worldwide every year.
Alcohol companies do the same. Prohibition didn't work out so well though.
I don't think anyone is suggesting prohibition, at least not here? But it's pretty sick and twisted what happens with tobacco sales and how people manipulate systems to wash away guilt.
EPT
