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.
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
That's a bit more responsible than the House. They're waiting for the CBO score at the least.
Also, these changes generally take a while to go into effect - there's time for them to be voted out in 2018 if it's truly atrocious (which is definitely what would happen if it's just a carbon copy of the house plan).
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Investigations like this are what destroyed Clinton. They should continue because they serve as a deterrent. The email server had nothing to do with Benghazi, but it is what ultimately killed her presidential run. The president should be the most, not the least accountable. People given power should always "pay" for it with accountability. The highest office should also mean the most scrutiny.
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
it would indeed be good if it led to some questioning the abuses of prosecutorial power that have happened for a long time now. rather sad that they couldn't have found a better occasion to realise that though.
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Investigations like this are what destroyed Clinton. They should continue because they serve as a deterrent. The email server had nothing to do with Benghazi, but it is what ultimately killed her presidential run. The president should be the most, not the least accountable. People given power should always "pay" for it with accountability. The highest office should also mean the most scrutiny.
Well said. The problem this appears to be causing lately is that when you put wholly unqualified people under the microscope be it through media inquiries or investigations, so much wrongdoing comes to the surface that it gives the appearance of being targeted partisanship.
I don't think they'll find many good applicants for a position like his. It's a bit of a career killer.
What about that crazy girl who called Obama a half breed? She'd be perfect.
Edit: Katrina Pierson.
True story - she didn't accept the deputy job because she thought she deserved the lead job. I think she burned some bridges in how she went about making that clear though.
I'm guessing it goes to Sarah Huckabee Sanders by default for now. No idea who takes the deputy job.
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad.
But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties.
The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists.
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
I'll just leave the final paragraph here. And I don't agree with everything (you shouldn't be lying to the feds in the first place), but I think he makes an interesting point.
Some Americans hope that the independent counsel’s investigation will end Trump’s presidency. But however much you hate the president, you should not love a process that often generates crimes rather than detecting and punishing them. If you support this president, then this experience should lead you to question — perhaps for the first time — such prosecutorial power.
Sure prosecutorial power can be an issue. And the example of people without access to a lawyer being pressured into a lie is bad.
But none of that has anything to do with Trump firing the man investigating him and then bragging about it to 3e parties.
The article makes no sense when this case has none of the signs of abuse of power in an attempt to make a crime where non exists.
Stories like that are one of the few straws that Donald Trump voters have to fall back on. Stories about the political process and dialogue in America. It was the only basis a thinking conservative ever had to vote for Trump, so they need something to grasp at while it becomes abundantly clear, in the most predictable way possible, that they elected a president whose presidency is an attention getting endeavor, and who doesn't have a clue.
I don't think they'll find many good applicants for a position like his. It's a bit of a career killer.
What about that crazy girl who called Obama a half breed? She'd be perfect.
Edit: Katrina Pierson.
True story - she didn't accept the deputy job because she thought she deserved the lead job. I think she burned some bridges in how she went about making that clear though.
I'm guessing it goes to Sarah Huckabee Sanders by default for now. No idea who takes the deputy job.
Actually, Sanders doesn't want the job according to politico.
Sanders, however, has told people that she doesn’t want the job of press secretary, according to a source close to her.
On June 20 2017 01:42 Falling wrote: Limited monopolies are granted to a particular execution of ideas (a book for instance- Treasure Island perhaps, but one cannot lock away the general idea of voyaging with pirates to find buried treasure) and inventions so the creator has time to profit from their product. And then it enters the public domain for all to use. Few have argued for the monopoly of natural resources since the days of mercantilism, that is pre-capitalism. I have more thoughts but I must go.
Mainly because the natural resources no longer belong to the people who make the rules, but new natural resources are to be found on the land of the have-nots. From a US point of view it is quite undesirable to grant Colombia a monopoly on whatever wonderful anti-cancer medicine can be made from the slime on the back of a slug that can only be found in a tiny corner of the amazon (completely fictitious example) or the ground up and boiled leaves of a palm tree that can be found in a remote area of Uganda. Because that would mean the US (or Europe, or China) has to pay money to Uganda, and why would they want to do that? Meanwhile they're happy to give a patent to the pharmaceutical company that takes that extract, finds a way of synthesizing it in a chemical process and patents that process.
You don't use the IP laws to govern that. All you need is the free market. If you have a bunch of acacia and do not want to sell it, you are free to not sell it. You can decide to process and market it yourself or you can sit on it and do nothing at all with it. You are free to do what you please with your acacia. But if your neighbour sells their acacia to the Japanese, it's not cultural appropriation for the Japanese to buy and market it. Nor would it be cultural appropriation if the Japanese managed to get their hands on some acacia trees and found that they could grow their own- that's again just the free market. The indigenous are free to enter the market themselves. Humans are clever but we are not so clever that we have invented life. We may own plants, but we did not invent or create plants (even when we take up grafting), so while it makes sense to defend property rights, it makes no sense to bring in laws that defend invention and creation. This is especially the case if one is just harvesting, processing and marketing a plant product. (Or if we're into homeopathy, dilute it with water) there's no intellectual work to defend.
Now if it is one ingredient among many, then we actually have a product that can be patented for a time. So then yes, an American (or European or Chinese) person would pay Ugandan harvesters money for the base material. But if a Ugandan didn't figure out how to turn it into a new product, why would we grant them a monopoly for not creating something? You need something created first for there to be any benefit (development of arts and sciences) to granting a person (not a country or region) a limited monopoly. Just granting monopoly for possessing a resource only insures that the person possessing the material continues to possess it. (But that would happen naturally if their proprety rights were protected.) It doesn't actually incentivize any development in the arts or the sciences. How could it? A monopoly was granted for doing nothing to it. Any invention that resulted would be despite the IP laws, not because of it.
In short, if nothing is being invented or created, let the free market handle it. If every indigenous person who possesses the desired natural resource stonewalls and refuses to sell, so be it. But we don't need monopoly laws interupting the sale of natural resources.
EPT
