American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Textually accurate, but misleading and not correct in practice.

See Griswold v Connecticut, for a more complete response.

Thank you counselor. Can you provide more detail as that doesn't read very clearly. This is very timely because I literally just had this discussion earlier in the day with our legal counsel and the explanation was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, that the constitution provides protections under certain circumstances that provide a shroud, giving the conditions of privacy, but not a clear right to privacy. It was the circumstances that mattered. Now this discussion was centered around personal property in public spaces, so does that change the interpretation in any way? Please provide more details, because if its wrong I would like to further this discussion with my CPO for obvious reasons.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

Thank you counselor. Can you provide more detail as that doesn't read very clearly. This is very timely because I literally just had this discussion earlier in the day with our legal counsel and the explanation was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, that the constitution provides protections under certain circumstances that provide a shroud, giving the conditions of privacy, but not a clear right to privacy. It was the circumstances that mattered. Now this discussion was centered around personal property in public spaces, so does that change the interpretation in any way? Please provide more details, because if its wrong I would like to further this discussion with my CPO for obvious reasons.

Griswold established that there is a right to privacy, so to say that there is no such right is just wrong. The case is easy to find and read. Every first year law student in the US reads it.

The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such.

You really should ask your legal counsel for more details. It sounds like you have a specific inquiry regarding a specific situation that might warrant specific and narrowly tailored legal advice.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Narrowly, privacy rights in relation to video surveillance and the claim to privacy in public settings.


Suggesting the Griswold is easy to read is a bit of an overstatement. The argument is marital privacy, not even individual privacy, and the judgement seems to rely heavily on property rights and the protections of the 14th amendment as the basis, which makes it clear as mud. Now I do find this very interesting, and I hope you'll educate me here so I can have the appropriate conversation.


This is all very grey. Even your own statement, "The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such," admits there is no clear statement of such a right and that it is an interpretation applied broadly. An interpretation of the interplay between married partners and not a clear statement of privacy for the individual I might add. It seems this judgment is focused on what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, even though the same judgement states "in no way interferes with a State's proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct." So you have the right to "privacy" in your own own "home" so long as the state can still regulate your behavior? Doesn't seem like a clear statement of "privacy" or an explicit statement that the constitution promotes or protects that right. Seems it is an interpretation of law based more on previous judgements than it does on a clear interpretation of the protections afforded by the constitution, as the judgement clearly states.


"The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities."


So the claim of "privacy" seems to be heavily conditional, meaning there is no simple claim or protection of privacy to an individual. The conditions seem to be extremely important and dependent on the protections of unnecessary search and seizure. Yes?


So if an individual is driving their car through an intersection and has their image captured by a traffic camera, what right to privacy do they have? If they are in a park with clear direction of no weapons, and observed to have a gun in their pack, what right to privacy to they have? If they send a dick pick to someone on their phone and it is viewed in a public space, what right to privacy do they have?


Thanks for the discussion on this issue. Very informative and shows just how complex the law is.

[PsYcNeT]

Uggggggggggggggghhhhhh

https://twitter.com/user/status/1281568237780709377

[Senator Clay Davis]

Bands should start using "weather concerns" as excuses to cancel concerts with ####ty ticket sales.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1281623481671704576

[troutman]

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us...ire/portsmouth


https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/weath...ast/index.html

[MoneyGuy]

This is due to legit whether concerns.

Trump is nervous whether people will show up.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Uggggggggggggggghhhhhh

https://twitter.com/user/status/1281568237780709377

Geez that is fundamentally awful.

Is this incompetence or apathy?

[PsYcNeT]

Oh god this is the Trumpiest policy that ever Trumped a Trump.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1281616586273468416

https://twitter.com/user/status/1281616590060965888

America has fallen.

[Izzle]

If I may ask, what's happening all over again?

Facts:
- Biden has a lead in polling so far. Much more than what Clinton enjoyed.

- trump isn't running as an outsider. He's the incumbent and now has a record to defend.

- Bernie and Biden collaborated on this economic platform. Bernie and Warren supporters majorly back Biden. It wasn't the case with Bernie supporters and Clinton last time around.

- Dave Wasserman recently tweeted that polling suggest swing voters care about Covid response, policing and race relations, and jobs/economy. All the things are where Biden is looked upon favorably.

So, what exactly is happening again?



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[getbak]

That's a good idea to revoke tax-exempt status for institutions of indoctrination. I'd start with the "prosperity gospel" mega-churches.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's a good idea to revoke tax-exempt status for institutions of indoctrination. I'd start with the "prosperity gospel" mega-churches.

How do you expect the pastors to pay for all that plastic surgery afterwards?!

Spoiler!

Good luck trying to sleep tonight.

[photon]

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence.

Not sure why he does it now, best to wait until after the election.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence.

Not sure why he does it now, best to wait until after the election.

At this point, I'm sure he realizes he can basically do anything he wants. I'm sure he also realizes that he may not get a second term, so he has to get all his shenanigans done before the election.

[photon]

He could have waited until after the election to remove any negative impact of this (though really it's probably all baked in).. though maybe Stone had something and was going to share it if he had to go to jail.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence.

Not sure why he does it now, best to wait until after the election.

Well you can’t hire Stone to be part of your campaign team when he’s in jail...which is what I assume happens sometime soon.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence.

Not sure why he does it now, best to wait until after the election.

You'd think that would be the logical strategy here, but I guess not. This is yet another incredibly dumb move that makes it seem more and more obvious that he's trying to lose the election on purpose. Christ, even corrupt-as-hell Bill Barr was opposed to pardoning Stone.

On top of this, Trump has:

-Doubled down on the racism.

-Tear gassed a crowd of peaceful protesters for an insane photo-op.

-Continued to ignore COVID-19 and endanger the lives of Americans, most notably his own supporters, by holding his stupid Klan rallies in the midst of a global pandemic.

-Asked the Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare.

-Threatened to defund schools and pull their tax exemption.



And that's just in the last month.

[afc wimbledon]

Stone wasn't going to do 4 or 5 months in Federal Pen,

'Why is Prisoner Stone screaming in pain on the floor?'

'He fell officer'

'Why are his trousers around his ankles and he's bleeding round the back there?'

'Well he fell on my **** officer'

[getbak]

Nice framing on the photo...

[Ped]

Originally Posted by getbak

Nice framing on the photo...

Even when he's trying to look Presidential he just looks like the racist POS he is.