|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On July 28 2017 01:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:31 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:On July 28 2017 01:21 farvacola wrote:
As someone who took a class on legislation taught by a legal scholar in the field, you're talking out of your ass zlefin. Passage process notwithstanding, writing good legislation is incredibly difficult and this truth is borne out by the multitude of Supreme Court cases that touch on the difficulty inherent to giving effect to statutory commands in a straightforward manner. Nothing about the legislative process is "easy," and laws can oftentimes turn into policy that looks nothing like the original statute. true, I am; but I stand by my claim that getting good laws passed is much harder than the writing of good laws. otherwise the budget would be balanced, and a whole lot of other nice things. writing good legislation itself may be difficult, but it's hardly impossible and should be quite feasible if oyu devote the necessary time, resources, and continuing refinement work. easy is a relative term here. The outsider tells the insider that the job has a simply solution that most insiders simply do not see. I have no idea what you're trying to say here; since the most obvious intent would be irrelevant due to what I already said; and/or redundant due to being already said and I'm assuming you're not simply repeating yourself. i.e. I'm not sure why you're replying with that statement in response to mine.
Do you write laws or work in the legal field?
|
On July 28 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:21 farvacola wrote:
As someone who took a class on legislation taught by a legal scholar in the field, you're talking out of your ass zlefin. Passage process notwithstanding, writing good legislation is incredibly difficult and this truth is borne out by the multitude of Supreme Court cases that touch on the difficulty inherent to giving effect to statutory commands in a straightforward manner. Nothing about the legislative process is "easy," and laws can oftentimes turn into policy that looks nothing like the original statute. true, I am; but I stand by my claim that getting good laws passed is much harder than the writing of good laws. otherwise the budget would be balanced, and a whole lot of other nice things. writing good legislation itself may be difficult, but it's hardly impossible and should be quite feasible if oyu devote the necessary time, resources, and continuing refinement work. easy is a relative term here.
You're making a mistake similar to those who slavishly adhere to formal textualism in statutory interpretation; the process of writing laws and giving them effect necessarily relies on oftentimes arbitrary human implementation that operates in and around the words that make up a given law. Thus, there's almost always far more at play than mere plain meaning with regards to effectual statutory interpretation and writing good legislation with that in mind is accordingly more difficult than seems apparent.
That said, the passage process is of course difficult and somewhat broken, so I don't disagree there.
|
Law is like the original programming. Several dozen people trying to think up how to make an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that millions of people are collectively more creative. Followed by years of patching unintended holes.
|
Can we take a moment and talk about how stupid it is for Trump to go after Lisa Murkowski, threatening to pull federal funding? She top of the food chain on Appropriations, which controls the White House’s budget. They are bringing a knife to a gun fight.
On July 28 2017 01:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Law is like the original programming. Several dozen people trying to think up how to make an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that millions of people are collectively more creative. Followed by years of patching unintended holes.
There is some joke about bad net code in there someplace, but I can't seem to get my hands on it.
|
On July 28 2017 01:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Law is like the original programming. Several dozen people trying to think up how to make an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that millions of people are collectively more creative. Followed by years of patching unintended holes.
Nah. More like several dozen people trying to think up an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that a couple of others really dislike some of the coding and want it rewritten in a way that possibly allows cheating, otherwise they won't send it to QA.
So they rewrite half of it, implementing 17 bugs, and release.
|
Well glad that is settled before 2000 lawsuits hit. Looks like Trump will need to find another way to fast track his stupid wall.
|
On July 28 2017 02:01 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Law is like the original programming. Several dozen people trying to think up how to make an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that millions of people are collectively more creative. Followed by years of patching unintended holes. Nah. More like several dozen people trying to think up an unbreakable set of rules, only to find that a couple of others really dislike some of the coding and want it rewritten in a way that possibly allows cheating, otherwise they won't send it to QA. So they rewrite half of it, implementing 17 bugs, and release.
it's not a bug, it's a feature!
|
Are we still believing that the wall will come?
Has to hurry up, it won't be built in 2 months, and almost certainly get cancelled by the next president because the monies are actually needed elsewhere. Infrastructure, stuff like that, you know. Science. Unimportant stuff.
it's not a bug, it's a feature!
In this case, i actually think this would be accurate.
|
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing.
|
On July 28 2017 01:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:28 zlefin wrote:On July 28 2017 01:21 farvacola wrote:
As someone who took a class on legislation taught by a legal scholar in the field, you're talking out of your ass zlefin. Passage process notwithstanding, writing good legislation is incredibly difficult and this truth is borne out by the multitude of Supreme Court cases that touch on the difficulty inherent to giving effect to statutory commands in a straightforward manner. Nothing about the legislative process is "easy," and laws can oftentimes turn into policy that looks nothing like the original statute. true, I am; but I stand by my claim that getting good laws passed is much harder than the writing of good laws. otherwise the budget would be balanced, and a whole lot of other nice things. writing good legislation itself may be difficult, but it's hardly impossible and should be quite feasible if oyu devote the necessary time, resources, and continuing refinement work. easy is a relative term here. You're making a mistake similar to those who slavishly adhere to formal textualism in statutory interpretation; the process of writing laws and giving them effect necessarily relies on oftentimes arbitrary human implementation that operates in and around the words that make up a given law. Thus, there's almost always far more at play than mere plain meaning with regards to effectual statutory interpretation and writing good legislation with that in mind is accordingly more difficult than seems apparent. That said, the passage process is of course difficult and somewhat broken, so I don't disagree there.
mostly I'm just using a very different definition of "easy" than you. one focused more on whether its doable at all rather than the net effort to accomplish. also one focused on the relative difficulty rather than the absolute difficulty. I suppose I should've made it more clear.
I'm also not making the mistake oyu describe, it's just not apparent that I'm not from what I said. because the breadth of the thought in my head about the process wasn't described.
on other stuff:
one of the many constitutional amendments I'd like (obviously many details to work out) is something that woudl allow the legislature to send laws to the courts (including supreme court) for advisory opinions on constitutionality.
a good process is one designed to account for the fact that there will be imperfections and loopholes in the law, and part of the overall process is ensuring they are patched in a timely fashion. One of the structural problems I find with the current legislative setup is that insufficient attention is given to patching of laws, and sometimes issues are allowed to stick around forever (often again more due to political issues rather than it being truly impossible to write a patch for them, even an imperfect patch can do a lot if you can manage a hill-climbing algorithm).
|
On July 28 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing.
No, the real problem with laws is that they have to appeal to even people who are against any laws in that regard.
Do you actually think, and i'm being really curious now, that it'd be hard to improve the legal situation in regards to weapons in general? Do you think it's hard to draft something? Or do you understand that writing laws in regards to weapons for example actually is easy because there's hardly any regulation (regardless of what americans think, in the EU cucumbers have more legislation than weapons in the US, and yes that's a slight exaggeration), but it's impossible to get it by the NR.. Arrm, GOP?
edit: and by improve, i mean improve, even if only a little bit, not solve - i don't think that could ever be solved without drastic, and i mean proper drastic measures.
|
On July 28 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing.
No Q/A is not an uncommon problem with tech either.
Sadly.
|
On July 28 2017 02:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing. No Q/A is not an uncommon problem with tech either. Sadly.
No Mans Sky had an amazing QA though. Or that one guy that was responsible for GM ignition switches.
|
On July 28 2017 02:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing. No, the real problem with laws is that they have to appeal to even people who are against any laws in that regard. Do you actually think, and i'm being really curious now, that it'd be hard to improve the legal situation in regards to weapons in general? Do you think it's hard to draft something? Or do you understand that writing laws in regards to weapons for example actually is easy because there's hardly any regulation (regardless of what americans think, in the EU cucumbers have more legislation than weapons in the US, and yes that's a slight exaggeration), but it's impossible to get it by the NR.. Arrm, GOP? edit: and by improve, i mean improve, even if only a little bit, not solve - i don't think that could ever be solved without drastic, and i mean proper drastic measures.
You picked one of the hardest issues to write laws about, gun regulation. From my experience, the laws that function best are the ones that do not have an active, moneyed interest attempt to subvert them. Guns are the opposite of that.
With laws, you need to pick a goal first. You can’t “make them better”. Better is not a goal. If the law is to reduce gun violence, you need to understand why gun violence is happening. It is access to guns? To many existing guns? A new rise in illegal gun sales from a previously not known source? If the problem is gun related suicide, maybe there is another way to solve the problem. Requirements for shooting ranges to provide secure storage for fire arms? Resources for therapist to assure gun owners can put their fire arms in out of home storage if they are a suicide risk? Maybe the solution taking away guns or restricting sales?
Laws are not magic and court rulings have to be enforced. I have had so many clients ask us to file TROs to prevent someone from doing something. Last year we had a rash of weird people moving “tenants” into empty rental properties that are being marketed. I have no idea how they accomplish this, but they do. Our clients want us to file a case to stop them from doing it across the entire state. We did, got the order. It was violated. We ask for the judge to find the people in contempt. The judge did. Nothing changed. The person that was doing this vaporized and someone else is doing it. I think that bench warrant is still out there. I’m still dealing with trespassers all over the place, all of whom have been taken advantage of. There are no easy solutions to any of this. The court is often the worst place to solve a problem.
|
On July 28 2017 02:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:
You folks are missing the real coding problem when writing laws: There is no Q/A department. You can’t bug test. You can’t even ask for input from the live testers(Judges). You have to release the code with no real testing. No, the real problem with laws is that they have to appeal to even people who are against any laws in that regard. Do you actually think, and i'm being really curious now, that it'd be hard to improve the legal situation in regards to weapons in general? Do you think it's hard to draft something? Or do you understand that writing laws in regards to weapons for example actually is easy because there's hardly any regulation (regardless of what americans think, in the EU cucumbers have more legislation than weapons in the US, and yes that's a slight exaggeration), but it's impossible to get it by the NR.. Arrm, GOP? edit: and by improve, i mean improve, even if only a little bit, not solve - i don't think that could ever be solved without drastic, and i mean proper drastic measures.
No, the real problem is that people disagree on what constitutes an improvement and the demonization of those we disagree with.
|
Sessions continues his bigoted efforts to undermine and limit civil rights protections.
|
I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
|
On July 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
When the mind is closed, everything on the outside is a threat.
|
He isn’t advocating for it. His justice department is providing guidelines saying the current laws do not protect gay. He has no opinions on new laws or civil rights protects that congress might pass. Only that past laws do not apply. He isn’t being homophobic, it is just an opinion. /s
Bigotry is about not giving a shit if others are repressed for who they are. Sessions is all about clearing the path for discrimination to happen.
|
On July 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
I don't much understand it either; but if you're looking for an actual explanation I might be able to explain it, sorta, since I do'nt understand it that well myself. (I rather doubt your statement is actually looking for an explanation of why)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
