It’s foolish, bordering on dangerous, but not having found anything compelling to write about today, I’m closing my eyes and hoping for the best. What’s on your minds? Please (and I mean this with utmost sincerity) don’t spew nonsensical conspiracy theories (looking at you, Vivek) or right-wing propaganda. Try to focus on real things, not the crap made up or believed by people whose tin foil hats are too tight.
I’m relying on sane and/or knowledgeable people to take the initiative here to debunk those whose views are considered too idiotic for reddit. There’s a reply button. Don’t be afraid to use it.
So what’s on your minds?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply. Please don’t make me regret this.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like it’s up to me to kick it off. Something that’s been bothering me is that, while the federal government is obviously supreme as regard immigration, what’s a state like Texas to do about the influx of non-citizens crossing the Rio Grande and becoming the state’s problem? If the feds will neither deal with unlawful border crossing or provide monies and support for those who cross the border, it becomes a Texas problem. Is there nothing the state can do about it? Why is the state resigned to suffer the burden when the feds abdicate responsibility to address the problem?
Start sending immigrants to D. C. The Capitol building is pretty roomy.There’s probably some space at the White House as well.
I don’t know the origin of the rule that gives that 100 miles inland, but it would seem to me, that’s the real problem in this spat.
If the Feds had control of the border and say, 1 mile in — and TX wanted to put up a giant fence inland, 1 mile from the Federal / TX border with Mexico, what’s the big issue?
Having 2/3 of the population within control of the border police is dumb on a policy level, but it gets outright deranged when it comes to this sort of Federalism.
I’m not naive enough to think anyone will change it — but I am curious if there’s a need to keep it as-is or downside to changing the limit?
Miles, what solution would you suggest?
Very well. We shall resume in an hour.
Was the same sound stage that was used to fake the moon landing used to fake the HAMAS attack on an Israeli concert/ rave? Discuss.
Sorry, Scott, I couldn’t resist. Hope you got a laugh out of this.
NO, because after the shooting the last “Moon” mission we destroyed the set so no one would be the wiser. Someone must have build a new set at Area 53.
Thanks for saving me the effort because how can “sane and/or knowledgeable people … take the initiative here to debunk those whose views are considered too idiotic for reddit” without having something to act on?
I asked Bard, Google’s AI, for a good question to ask on this blog. The answer was surprising long. Here is a sample:
More specific questions based on recent events:
Are the recent legislative changes concerning bail reform addressing the right issues, and if not, what adjustments should be made?
How can we ensure fair and impartial jury selection in an era of social media saturation and strong political opinions?
What are the legal and ethical implications of the increasing use of private security forces in communities?
How can we support and protect the rights of vulnerable populations, such as immigrants and refugees, within the current legal framework?
As you didn’t ask those questions directly, I’m assuming you’re looking for replies about the quality of the questions. They suck. Do better than going to a fancy chatbot and then regurgitating the shit here. Please.
“AI” is terrible, no good, and very bad. That’s been on my mind a lot.
The points of interest to me are 1) Are these questions represenative of what SHG usually writes about? 2) It’s clear that Bard (and all the other AIs) have been trained using using SHG’s work. Does he care? Are there copyright issues?
1. They are surface-level junk. 2. What’s “clear” to you isn’t so clear, but sure. 3. Ask him. 4. IP stuff is Greek to me. I don’t know.
Have it try to answer its own questions and see what kind of BS you get back. I bet they resemble comments here.
I always wondered what the blog equivalent of a lawyer asking a question he didn’t already know the answer to would look like.
I’ll just check that off my bucket list now.
And I am SO saving that cartoon – thanks, Mr. G!!!!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Dow Jones Chow Mein: 50,000. Wall Street climbs a wall of worry, and so should you, kid! The current political chaos will play itself out in due time, but not before supper. You herd it hear first?
Okay, now it’s my turn. Bottom line: AM sorry I tuned in today on the darkest and coldest day of winter. Obviously our host is experiencing a massive case of SAD,… aka Seasonal Affective Disorder, due principally the experts say, to insufficient daylight and/or sunshine. The entrepreneurial medical/pharmaceutical folks have devised remedies for this malady which you can research in your spare time.
Some of us also have cabin fever, since “winter sports ” are not what they used to be. We cannot remember the last time we went skiing or skating. Our skiis and skates are just hanging there begging to be used one more time.
Cut to the chase: We have a severe labor shortage in the U.S. from coast to coast which we have never seen before in our lifetimes. Over the decades, mostly what we recall was standing in the lenghty unemployment lines! So now the biggest concern of the Repbli-can’ts are the hoards of illegals invading our land of freeloaders, and home of the Brave New World. (Not to mention the “one percenters” who hoard stocks, bonds and “real” estate.)
When was the last time you visited the Staue of Liberty in New York harbor?!? Huh? Huh? Go figure.
Deep breathes, Bill. I cut you some slack here. Don’t make me regret it.
You have regrets already now. I can tell from your body language. Thanx a bunch. It’s not easy being sleazy. Tell that to CondoSleaza Rice, God bless her,she tried. We all try in our own manner.
What we really need are stronger backs and weaker minds. That applies to the judicial branch as well (since this is a law blawg).
Rather than waste this golden opportunity on discussing politics, I’d rather give credit where credit is due: The NYT finally came to its senses and acknowledged that the patty melt is far superior to a hamburger. (Granted, I’ll never pass up the chance for a Reuben, but the Left Coast is not exactly overflowing with Jewish delis.)
Now that is something I can relate to! I’ve always preferred a Patty Melt. Something about rye bread and a grilled beef patty that appeals the my palate over a bun or brioche.
Most of the law of the police is made without any public input. Indeed, most of it isn’t even being made by legislators. And most of it is “made” by the presumption that whatever is found constitutional is automatically legal.
In an exclusion or 1983 case, courts are constructively engaging in judicial review. Perhaps an actual law purported to authorize what the cop did (e.g. Hiibel). Perhaps there is none and he just did it (e.g. Terry). A court in the latter case is still asking about whether a hypothetical law could be passed to authorize that thing. They’re not judging what officers can do, they’re judging what law can let them do. And even if you’re an aggressive judge who’s not shy about casting aside laws, judicial review is still going to involve a lot of deference. Especially interpreting a famously vague provision that predates policing as we know it today.
Laws can be “unwise”, “imprudent” (Terry), “asinine” (Griswold), “uncommonly silly” (Lawrence), “stupid” (Lopez Torres), etc… and still be constitutional.
So this gets us to the question: Putting aside the purely legal problems with the being-constitutional-makes-it-legal paradigm and turning to the strictly normative, who is actually asking what ought to be law as it relates to policing? SCOTUS isn’t – they’ve said as much – and they shouldn’t, as constitutions leave a lot of room for passionate democratic disagreement about hard and sensitive questions. It isn’t their job to soul-search for us.
But it would appear that no one is. And that’s a problem. As is the fact that the US’ raison d’etre, common consent of the governed, is nowhere to be seen when police and judges decide to pretend that police may do things they were never authorized to. Because constitutional.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Did you eat spaghetti or scrambled eggs before you wrote this?
The Han Tak Lee case reminded me how slow and uncertain our appeals system is to correct even obvious errors. I have often wondered whether our system could be amended to address this without running into the law of unintended consequences.