Quin: was that supposed to be some horrible pun that went over my head? Teek: Don't even get me started about legal conclusions that are at odds with science. For one, there's the still ridiculously high sentencing disparity between possession for crack cocaine and powder cocaine (crack cocaine being punished at the federal level about 8 times higher, IIRC), despite them being the same goddamn drug; the only difference is that crack is a street drug used predominately used and distributed by poor urban blacks. Additionally, people have had their cash seized based on "evidence" of drug trafficking, where the only such evidence is drug residue found on the bills. That might sound ok at first, but studies have shown that drug residue is found on the vast majority of US currency. Cim: Yeah, the field sobriety tests have been completely made up. I consider that a much lesser evil, though, because usually those aren't considered without some other testing backing the evidence up (even if it's just a breathalyzer). The cases where DREs were challenged were where there was no other scientific proof of drug-induced impairment.
Originally Posted by Raistlin asks if she’s been driving. She denies it Just had to point out this bit because it made me laugh. Speaking on experience having worked in both the defense and prosecuting side of the military law system (as well as spending some time under a judge) and working as a military police officer I have to agree with your assessment that the stuff that is considered admissible in court is pretty crazy. While the Marine Corps has done away with with the ABC/ZYX test, we still use the balance on one foot, the walk on a line, and follow the finger tests as our field sobriety tests. A lot of what we rely on is not only the loss of balance, but the ability to follow directions. I think it's dumb, because even I have horrible balance depending on how I'm feeling that day and some people can be so irritated about being pulled over that they'll try and get it over with as quickly as possible. We get a few hours of classes and 'pratical application' that totals all of 4-5 hours max before we're moving on to the next area of study.
Reading this bothered me in a way I wasn't expecting. How many more instances can you think of where legal frivolities get in the way of actual science? I feel remarkably unsafe, now. And I don't even do drugs.
I have a friend who works as a magic police shaman. He wanted to become a proper doctor, so he did a bit of studying and decided to apply for medical college. Unfortunately, he completely bombed, so he's.... Still DRE.
I think you're a born lawyer.
Man, you're needy. *texts*
I had no idea that was even a thing. But don't advertise in my VMs when you don't ever text me no mo.
How appropriate.
This is brilliant. More brilliant: I posted it on FB and it used Tig's avatar as a thumbnail to the heading "A federal case about cock suckers"
Of course it could have -- if you didn't interpret "immoral" or "scandalous" to mean everything that has a sexual double-meaning. It's a joke, using the Gamecocks common nickname (USC fans really do call them just "cocks"). According to the US government, sex is just about the worst, most dangerous thing in the world. And obviously she named them "cock suckers" to give a joking double-meaning (as I said, the Gamecocks are commonly called "cocks," so the jokes are already prevalent). No one is arguing otherwise. The only point is that it shouldn't matter.
Let's face it, she named it cock sucker to get sales based on it's cruder meaning. It's not rocket science to see that. She coulda named it Rooster Suckers but she didn't. EDIT: Having said that, I'm not bothered about the name, but if the law stands, the judges have to go by it. Her arguing that it was all about the roosters and lollipops is clearly where it all fell over, acting as if she never intended for it to have the alternative meaning. You can fight the law itself, but while the law is still in place there was never any way that case would have been won.
That is horrible. I love how she continually asserts a cock is a rooster and a sucker is a lollipop, and the smurfing thing is a smurfing rooster lollipop, and thus it is more smurfing accurate than the examiner's argument that hey, cocks are penises and this woman is talking about the people who suck penises. The amount of stupidity is appalling. So, actually, I want to love it because she is so brilliantly right, but I am pissed off at how stupid the examiner and board are in defining the name of a rooster-shaped lollipop.
@ yar i do understand why they find it offensive... ppl also use the word Cocksucker to offend
Cocktastic
What part of "cocksucker" makes it offensive? Is it "cock"? Or "sucker"? I'm assuming it is the former. And if that's the case, why aren't all trademarks that are filled with cock scandalous? I want to knowww
How is any of that at all relevant to the First Amendment? The NYT, the ACLU, and the RNC are not individual people either, and the money they spend involves money from the entity's own funds. They still indisputably have the First Amendment right to spend their money to promote their political viewpoints, as decided by its appointed representatives. Sure, you can "distinguish" corporate spending from an individual's spending, but you also have to clearly establish how those distinctions would result in a different free speech analysis. And unless you can come up with a First Amendment-friendly distinction between non-profits and media corporations on one hand (with full First Amendment protection) and all other for-profit corporations on the other (which some liberals think should have less First Amendment rights), I don't see how that's possible. And the Citizen's United majority correctly noted that you just can't do that.
Well, corporations are different from other collectives because they're entities unto themselves. A corporation is not its shareholders; they're just people who happened to invest a little money in it in exchange for enumerated ownership powers. It's also not its officers; they just act on behalf in furtherance of its goals. So any speech it makes is not the culmination of the personal will of many people. It's the opposite: a communication from a person on behalf of the entity. We're also talking about expenditures. A corporate campaign expenditure would come from its own funds, not from any one person's. So I think corporate speech, at least spending money as speech, is easily distinguishable from individuals.
Oops, I apologize. I am used to speaking to a lay audience here, and so tailored my comment accordingly. I forgot you had gone to law school. As to your concern, I don't see how corporations can be distinguished from individuals with regards to the First Amendment. Corporations, whether media or not, whether for-profit business or non-profit public interest groups, are collections of people that are obviously capable of collective speech. Unless the entire corporate structure was changed in ways I can't think of, speech is speech. There are other rights which do not apply so easily to the corporate form, and only to individuals. I believe the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply to collectives. And the Second Amendment probably wouldn't apply either.
Hahaha, no need to lecture, Raist, I passed the same MBE you did. My suggestion was that this could come up into the distribution of what rights corporations do and do not enjoy as "people."
i think the first problem you made was clicking a link after reading a url that included foxnews, opinion, and war on men as words in the url
Blog Categories
Recent Visitors
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
