@bobknight33 you and my dad must be drinkin the same kool aid.

The stuff from OAN is straight Russian propaganda & Idk how much more proof one needs than this, striaght from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"

What part of that is confusing?

?

The IG report is perhaps damning of the FBI to an extent, but it seems like it's a story of a failure to follow protocol. They may have been apprehensive about it given the agency's usual staying-out of politics amid an election, or considering they didn't find anything on the first go-round, they suspected there wasn't anything else to find in subsequent emails (which their wasn't).

It IS worth pointing out in the IG report that Comey and other FBI used a private email server to conduct gov business. But it seems there are people doing that on both the left and the right anyway: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/pence-used-personal-email-state-business----and-hacked/98604904/

The emails story seems like a lot of hot air, the undermining of our Democracy through hyper partisan Russian propaganda networks is, on the other hand, very real.

The type of thing that may work once, maybe twice, but if this is regular practice, I can guarantee a fail is eminent.

Ha!!! Because, CLEARLY, if Native Americans respect property rights...nothing bad will happen to them.

You know who else would like some respect for land rights? The 15 farmers whose land was stolen by Dakota Access, via eminent domain, to build that pipeline.

What if the farmers gave the Native Americans permission to protest on their land? Do you feel that would give them the same right to be there as the private security guards hired by the multi-billion dollar corporation?

Corporate theft of millions of dollars worth of private property for dubious use or trespassing? Which is worse in your world bobknight?

The most reasonable counterargument to this I've heard (and I'm not saying they're right, just eminently reasonable) was made yesterday by my favorite Canadian Let's Players:

1. Youtube has always had this content policy. Everyone who signs into the monetization program has always accepted this code of content before joining the monetization program.

2. Youtube has had this content practice for a long time. These videos were demonetized long before this recent 'scandal'. The only thing that has changed is that YT is now letting content creators know which videos were never being monetized in the first place.

3. It's not so much a question of content as it is of tags. The vast majority of content processing is based on the original tags by the uploaders, and you can avoid demonetization easily by having fewer, less controversial tags (that will also limit your viewership).

Obviously Youtube has been opaque and shitty in communicating how and why they make changes. But censorship? I would have a hard time going back in time to Bolshevik dissidents and telling them that censorship in the future means that a corporation that broadcasts your opinion for free won't always force other corporations to also pay you for those opinions.

*Edit: Also, eric3579's already got this shit covered, I just hadn't followed his links yet.

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the legislature....so their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then.

Um...yeah...you just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.
-Newt

The supreme court is in a position to take liberties because there is no court above it to which one can appeal.

Courts have a mandate to judge compliance with the law - not to redefine the law (that's the legislature's role).

If due process was followed, courts would find cases like 'yelling fire' as protected, and refer the law to the legislature to exempt-from-1st-amentment-protection any inappropriate behaviors via new written constitutional law.

As it stands, there are many judicial opinions that are enforcible via the legal system, that are never written down as law by the legislature.

Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce. The courts are just people. The law is only as important to them as they will it to be. If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm.

(aside : Yelling fire is a stupid example. If you did it, everyone would look around, and then look at you, and would be like "wtf are you talking about?")



Words are written to convey meanings. They don't exist for their own sake. The 1791 meaning of "well regulated" is similar to today's meaning "well adjusted". It would be best summarized as "orderly" or "properly functioning". It has nothing to do with government regulation.

Similarly, "eminent domain" means "obvious domain" (obvious because republic, and every citizen (i.e. statesman) owns the country collectively, and you never actually owned your land, you only had a title to be the sole user).
Sounds weird by todays' standards, but back then the norm was that regular people had nothing and the crown (and its friends) owned everything. Republic sounded quite progressive at the time. Remember, the U.S. revolution was just prior to the French revolution. Kingdoms were the norm.

Sounds a bit different when translated from 1700's english to 2000's english.

-scheherazade

Technically, the constitution allows the "United States" to own land. It does not name the government as an owner.

The government of the United States is not the United States. Being a republic, the United States is its citizens.

The government is a manager/caretaker of state's (people's) property, not an owner of property in and of itself.

Technically, the government doesn't even have any authority of its own. It's strictly a body that executes the state's (people's) will, and it does so by the state's (people's) authority - not its own authority (hence the Democracy part). (Officially, the government does nothing of its own accord - hence why in court it's 'the state vs whoever', not 'the government vs whoever').

So, technically, there is no 'government property' - there is only state (people's) property.

Actually, the reason that 'eminent domain' is 'eminent' (i.e. obvious - aka 'obvious domain') - is because the land has always belonged to the state - because the state is the only authority. You never actually own your personal land, you're simply entitled to be the sole occupant. You can buy/sell that right, but the land always has, does, and always will, belong to the state. So under eminent domain, the land is not actually taken from you, because it never belonged to you, hence why the state's domain is eminent (obvious).

In any case, land has this weirdness to it, where all land is state land, and everyone is the state, and no land is private, and all that ever happens is people are bestowed an authority to exclusively manage/reside on a given plot that they never really own. In any case, that authority ends up being functionally equivalent to actual ownership. The phrase 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck' comes to mind, because when you have a body of case law that treats property as if private property actually exists, then in a sense, it does exist for all practical purposes - so there is a disconnect between the practical nature of 'land ownership' and the official/ideological nature of 'the state (the people) having authority over all at all times'.

Also, this is why you can't have an allodial land title in the U.S.. So long as it's still U.S. land, it can never truly be privately owned. It's simply incompatible.

Interestingly, way back when before the U.S. was founded, private ownership of land was associated with monarchy - where some royal(s) individual(ly) literally owned the country. The path of events that eroded royal authority and empowered lower levels of society, was the same path that eroded [true] private land ownership, because it introduced the concept of inherent ownership/rights of some other groups (e.g. the people).

-scheherazade

Rubbish. The song section at the end alone makes it eminently Sift-able. Bob is just butthurt at seeing his idols satirized. Fortunately his opinions alone do not determine what makes it through the Sift, thank fuck

I think what happened is eminently explainable. Guy does a shoplifting by force, walks down middle of street, cop sees him, gets him into his car where the suspect tries to take his gun...cop shoots at thug, misses, suspect escapes, cop takes chase, thug turns around and charges cop...cop decides he can't fight this behemoth so, in fear of his life, shoots. Six shots take about 2 seconds, rounds are still flying while the target starts to fall, causing rounds to strike his head.

Of course, I only have 30 yrs of law enforcement experience, and no years of criminal life experience from which to speak.

The person that pulls out is clearly portrayed as being at fault. He apologizes for his error, in the fictional scenario where they get to talk before the impact.
One of the human biases is the feeling of self-perfection at certain tasks. It directs it glare at the attitude 'I can travel at or just above the speed limit with impunity as I won't make mistakes.' This advert shows that even if we assume you are perfect, we can't assume all other drivers are perfect - it is a known fact that other people are regularly at fault for road incidents, even if you are not.
Nevertheless even if you drive well, an accident could find you as someone else might make an error you perfect driver you.

One should be cautious when approaching a junction with a vehicle at it, and driving at or above the speed limit shows, to me, a lack of due care and attention.

Because he was travelling a little over the speed limit rather than the more sensible just under it given the road conditions (vehicle approaching a side junction), this meant that once the man had pulled out - the man on the major road travelled maybe an extra 4 metres before even beginning to apply the brakes. In total his braking distance was probably 15-20 metres longer.

The consequence of these factors (slower initial speed and greater distance to stop in) is that speed of impact difference is greater than the 10mph variance in speed of travel. So the impact energies would be considerably less had the initial speed been a mere 10mph slower, even if an impact remains unavoidable.

Hopefully the advert will increase the number of people who will realize they can't trust other drivers completely, and may slow and have their feet ready to hit the brake in the event that somebody pulls out/stops suddenly/unexpectedly reverses/changes lane. And in their cases this may considerably reduce the amount of energy during impacts.

The advert shows both drivers as eminently human. It does not demonize the person at fault for the crash happening, nor does it demonize the person who was travelling over the limit. It just portrays two people showing regret for their part in the consequences.

"Democratic utopia" aside, you really think 237 years of US history is making things... better? I'd love to hear you elaborate, because it sounds more and more like we're going the way of fascism.

And no small "l" libertarian believes in corporatism. That's right, here's a fun fact for you: corporations are created by government. Given special limited liability the rest of us are not. Given special government subsidies and welfare and even, at times, given eminent domain privileges.

And I love your "go to" disgusting statist answers of "don't like it then get out of my country" and "you must be a birther." Next you'll call me a racist or tell me to move to Somalia. Waiting for that one.

But the truth is you never addressed my real question here, but I'm guessing that was your point. Distraction and obfuscation tends to be the only weapon in the statist's arsenal. Your move, genius.

That's a freaking huge house he's got there...
I'm surprised Gov't didn't push 'eminent domain' law on that guy..