US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Does the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" resonate? The same principle can be applied to your rights, do they even teach American civics in school anymore?

Does ambitious lying detectives grilling a suspect ring any bells?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Thanks! Are we done with this side quest now?

What side quest the one where you were claiming death, lives ruined and destroyed end of the world stuff?

Or the one where you were claiming the Louisiana law protecting rape and incest victims was removed?

The link I posted from Louisiana State Legislature shows quite clearly no existing abortion laws have changed. If you look at the Effective Date of the bill that was recently signed anyone who took the time read it will note there is no effective date.

Normally in the State of Louisiana the effective date occurs no earlier than the 1st of August of the year the bill was signed.

I could be wrong but my crystal ball tells me the act will be fought in court and quickly amended or round filed before it actually becomes law.

Thanks for stopping by.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Does ambitious lying detectives grilling a suspect ring any bells?

Frazier V. Cupp (1969)
I'll ask just one more time is American civics taught in school anymore?

[Dowly]

@Rockstar The Louisiana law took effect immediately.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by MaDef

so when exactly does the baby's rights kick in?

This all or nothing attitude from the "pro-choice" crowd is becoming tiresome. Tell you what, how about a compromise, I'll agree to unfettered access to abortions provided you agree to unfettered access to keep and bear arms.

I am laughing a little, because are making a lot of assumptions because of my stance on a issue, that you really should not. Heads up, I am pro-second amendment and quite tired of the non-sense trying to take away firearms , lets not get sidetracked, no debate there.

This is not a partisan issue really, it is about the principle and right to body autonomy. Rights of the "baby" , "kick in" at viability outside the womb, which was 24 weeks, third trimester under Roer. That is reasonable, but its not enough for the religious zealots, intent on imposing their "moral" view on people.

Yes, it is a all or nothing when it comes to a individuals right to body autonomy, the right to govern their own reproduction. Quite hypocritical to claim to be for liberty and freedom, then to restrict half the population, or let the states decide if they want to restrict half the population's rights. Same principle we had to fight on the injection mandate last year, body autonomy, its one of the few black and white issues out there. So called pro-lifers almost fetishize the unborn and value a non viable fetus more than a living breathing human being already alive.

[Rockstar]

Then in the top line of the bill it would have clearly stated IMMEDIATELY or shown a DATE. But it didn’t it was left BLANK and under those circumstances a bill in Louisiana will NORMALLY go into effect no earlier than 1 August the same year it was signed (if it lasts that long).

Until such time it actually becomes LAW. This link which I posted earlier https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=965011 found on Lousianna’s State Legistlation official government website is still the current law of the State.

Looking at the news the courts already blocked the new bill from taking effect in later months.

IMO the State of Lousianna is heavily populated with pro life and loyal Catholics. I’m thinking the drafters of the bill (Republican and Democrat politicians alike) knew damn well it would never happen. But they still get to look good in front of voters as tuff on abortion while the courts tear the bill to shreds. It's just more political kabuki theatre and some people fell for it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Frazier V. Cupp (1969)
I'll ask just one more time is American civics taught in school anymore?

Ha, yes, it is taught law school and undergrad, along with subsequent case law, where I assure one gets it get a much more thorough and correct discussion than a high school civics class. Terrible decision btw, it has left a lot of innocent people in jail and prison, because they naively trusted/beieved law enforcement. Poor, uneducated, juveniles, and immigrants are at risk the most.



Recent case of Vega v. Tekoh was not about "reasonable" police deception with a suspect, it was about miranda rights, illegal interrogation, and ability to sue under Section 1983 when police conduct themselves in such a terrible manner.

With their holding, we now have a country where a individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial, cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights. Denying those whos rights are violated the ability to seek justice under a key civil rights statute, the court has widened the gap between people’s ability to hold law enforcement accountable for violating their constitutional rights. Also, it it removes another deterrent to police misconduct, much like qualified immunity. A major root cause of the problems with law enforcement in the US is majority of cases law enforcement are rarely held accountable for misconduct, even murders. The government protects its soldiers in most cases. and they certainly get far too much leeway and benefit of the doubt.



From Justice Kagan's excellent dissent:

“Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy.”

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Does the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" resonate? The same principle can be applied to your rights, do they even teach American civics in school anymore?

Ignorantia juris non excusat, is nonsense and not in line with reality in a country such as the USA. This is a country with a large population of uneducated, poor, immigrants, etc . Not everyone plays on the same level so to speak, which is a point of miranda, to advise people of their rights.

Protections that cops and government officials enjoy, such as qualified immunity and in the recent case, which as mentioned in previous post, prevents individuals from suing law enforcement for violating their miranda rights, are a problem for our society. I assure you if police would face real civi penalties for violating miranda etc, law enforcement culture and actions in this country would change fast.


How any citizen can agree with this, is staggering.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am laughing a little, because are making a lot of assumptions because of my stance on a issue, that you really should not. Heads up, I am pro-second amendment and quite tired of the non-sense trying to take away firearms , lets not get sidetracked, no debate there.

I made no assumptions, you missed the point. Ask yourself what the right to bear arms and the right to abortion have in common, when you figure it out you will understand the point I was making.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

This is not a partisan issue really, it is about the principle and right to body autonomy. Rights of the "baby" , "kick in" at viability outside the womb, which was 24 weeks, third trimester under Roer. That is reasonable, but its not enough for the religious zealots, intent on imposing their "moral" view on people.

If you want true body autonomy (love these dumb terms you kids come up with), I suggest you learn to become a hermit. If the Rights of the baby only kicks in at 24 weeks, how do you reconcile the fact that they can become victims of homicide at any age of gestation as codified under title 18 of the U.S. code (unborn victims of violence act)? How exactly do you square that with your moral code.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yes, it is a all or nothing when it comes to a individuals right to body autonomy, the right to govern their own reproduction. Quite hypocritical to claim to be for liberty and freedom, then to restrict half the population, or let the states decide if they want to restrict half the population's rights. Same principle we had to fight on the injection mandate last year, body autonomy, its one of the few black and white issues out there. So called pro-lifers almost fetishize the unborn and value a non viable fetus more than a living breathing human being already alive.

Talk about zealousness.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Ignorantia juris non excusat, is nonsense and not in line with reality in a country such as the USA. This is a country with a large population of uneducated, poor, immigrants, etc . Not everyone plays on the same level so to speak, which is a point of miranda, to advise people of their rights.

Protections that cops and government officials enjoy, such as qualified immunity and in the recent case, which as mentioned in previous post, prevents individuals from suing law enforcement for violating their miranda rights, are a problem for our society. I assure you if police would face real civi penalties for violating miranda etc, law enforcement culture and actions in this country would change fast.


How any citizen can agree with this, is staggering.

Well that answers the question of civics classes in school, they probably replaced it with equity inclusion workshops.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by MaDef

I made no assumptions, you missed the point. Ask yourself what the right to bear arms and the right to abortion have in common, when you figure it out you will understand the point I was making.

If you want true body autonomy (love these dumb terms you kids come up with), I suggest you learn to become a hermit. If the Rights of the baby only kicks in at 24 weeks, how do you reconcile the fact that they can become victims of homicide at any age of gestation as codified under title 18 of the U.S. code (unborn victims of violence act)? How exactly do you square that with your moral code.

Talk about zealousness.

Ha, "dumb terms you kids come up" lol ohhhh man, that says a lot.

Well for one, you are talking about a statute regarding violence against/death of a fetus by 50+ federal criminal acts vs a medical procedure covered under Roe, which which specified age of viability at 24 weeks.

However, the statute was crafted to be and deemed acceptable in legal challenges as language of statute even "protects" abortion rights.

[mapuc]

Reading between the lines-Gives me the picture of a spoiled child.

Washington: Former US president Donald Trump tried to take the steering wheel from his Secret Service limousine driver in an attempt to join the crowd marching on the US Capitol last year, a top aide in his administration testified Tuesday.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dona...ttacks-3109708

Markus

[August]

A statute is a written law passed by a legislative body. Roe v Wade is not a statute and that was it's fatal weakness.

The Congress needs to stop abrogating it's responsibility to write the laws in this country. Whether it is handing off war powers to the Executive branch or relying on flawed court interpretations they just are all to eager to avoid doing their job to our detriment.

Roe should have been codified into law years ago. There were several opportunities to do so which would I believe have been successful. Maybe now they will be forced to act.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Reading between the lines-Gives me the picture of a spoiled child.



https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dona...ttacks-3109708

Markus

… according to Cassidy Hutchinson, who said the story was relayed to her by another White House official.

So she wasn’t a witness to any of it but instead was relaying information she heard from a friend of a friend. I’m thinking the childish minds are the ones who believe stories like this.

Ever look at presidential limo? There is absolutely no way in hell anyone, even the president can make contact with the driver compartment let alone grab the wheel.

When does it end.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So she wasn’t a witness to any of it but instead was relaying information she heard from a friend of a friend. I’m thinking the childish minds are the ones who believe stories like this.

Ever look at presidential limo? There is absolutely no way in hell anyone, even the president can make contact with the driver compartment let alone grab the wheel.

When does it end.

I guess you right-I should have been thinking of these thing before posting..but then I do not know how the Presidents limo looks like inside.

Is it false hearsay ?

Markus