Mr.Duck on 14/10/2009 at 07:17
So if this bill passes, RBJ would end up a fugitive of the law on account of all his "kill yourself" comments to Sypha :(
................and the rest of TTLG would eventually follow....shit.
:(
Enchantermon on 14/10/2009 at 07:57
Quote Posted by raph
Can't we just add it to the queue, I don't really have time to look into this right now, I gotta prepare my testimony for The Hague.
:thumb:
june gloom on 14/10/2009 at 07:58
Quote Posted by raph
Can't we just add it to the queue, I don't really have time to look into this right now, I gotta prepare my testimony for The Hague.
Maximum possible amount of lulz achieved. Thread over.
Aerothorn on 14/10/2009 at 09:52
It says "whoever translates in interstate or foreign commerce."
So, does this actually have to br commerce/economics related, or is this Congress once again using the "interstate commerce" clause to pass laws that they really have no constitutional right to?
Seriously, I can't believe nobody has stopped that shit. TTLG isn't serious business - TTLG isn't business at all.
Aerothorn on 14/10/2009 at 13:17
He's a lawyer in a conversation without a final judicial ruling. The case is never closed:P
Queue on 14/10/2009 at 15:23
Quote Posted by CCCToad
so basically we're punishing everybody just to get at one bitch?
We wouldn't want her to feel lonely.
june gloom on 14/10/2009 at 15:30
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Keep in mind that the bill has just been introduced, or at least thats my understanding. It still has to make it through subcommittee, then the actual house judiciary committee. Its doubtful that its even going to get that far, let alone actually pass a house vote and survive the reconciliation process. Even then, as soon as somebody were to sue for declaratory relief when they were punished under the bill, it is unlikely that it would survive the Supreme Court of for a number of reasons(first and foremost being that the law is fairly vague). I do have a lawyer I am going to ask for more specific reasons why it wouldn't pass Supreme Court scrutiny, though, and I'll post the information when I have it.
It says more about the authoritarian mindset of the representatives who co-sponsored this thing than it does about congress as a whole.
The bill was introduced in April. It's in subcommittee
now, which is why it's relevant again.
Rug Burn Junky on 14/10/2009 at 18:47
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Case closed.
So, you post a thread about the law, and follow up with some ham handed analysis of constitutionality that you barely understand, and I'm supposed to sit idly by and NOT openly mock you?
Like I said, it's almost as though you're begging for attention. So what, am I banned from your threads? Are you going to cry like a baby every time I deign to acknowledge your existence?
But the larger point is this: I can't avoid you. At the moment, you really are fagging up almost every interesting thread in CommChat, and adding your own half assed threads like this one to boot*. Time used to be that the people around here who knew what they were talking about could discuss things without the intellectual Lilliputians casting their nets. But lately, it seems like there's been an extra influx of wankers who decide to hold forth on shit that they know nothing about. It's unseemly. It should be unpleasant for the ignorant to feign competence and these waters have been too friendly to that sort of thing. The problem is, when the level of discourse reaches a critical mass of misinformation, those who know better decide not to bother, and that, unfortunately, is your legacy around here: relentless overconfidence in half-assed, baseless opinions that drive out the better informed.
*I wish I knew who came up with the ~"CCC=creeping tard" tag - it's so a propos.
So, if Starreh or demagogue or myself decide to walk through the constitutionality of a statute, it means something - we've studied it. Our professional lives depend on knowing this stuff. We can say that there are constitutional problems with it, but also point out that there are narrow exceptions and safe harbors that the law could easily be tailored into (without which, the analysis is fucking meaningless). Our opinions mean something, yours don't.
You might even have the right answer once in a while, but still miss important facets because when you do, you're just parroting shit from a blog, or your friend who's a lawyer, or worse, making shit up. It's meaningless. I have every right to call it that, because I do know better. I live in a world where expertise means something.
If you want to talk about the propriety of passing this law from a philosophical standpoint? By all means, I don't give a shit. But if you want to pretend you're a lawyer and pop off with the legal analysis, you can't whine when a real lawyer tells you you're better off leaving the subject alone.
So no, this isn't me following you around. If some jack-ass starts spouting off pretending he knows the law I'm going to say something
no matter who it is*, so you can rightly fuck off with your "hurr, case closed" because you most certainly earned this one. What kills me is that you don't get the point, and you're going to be right back at it without ever once realizing which way the wind is blowing.
*See Aerothorn's post above.
TTK12G3 on 14/10/2009 at 22:20
I'm going to go ahead and say that we're in for another helping of stupid. Also, for bonus points, bees will likely be involved.
