I rather thought that Trump’s bovine love involved killing cows, or is there more to it?
2 Likes
This is the place for equity considerations in the legal process as laws will always be inadequate to the fullness of evolving realities regardless of how well drafted.
8 Likes
They supply tooling for aerospace. I use their fiberglass sockets in areas where sparks are a concern. Maybe I should switch to brass now.
8 Likes
Right? The actual lived reality of our legal system indicates the exploiting technicalities disproportionately benefit the wealthy and connected. 
It also works in favor of murderers that have been empowered to kill people of color as a matter of course.
No, it doesn’t. The entire enlightenment was about improving society. Without the enlightenment (as imperfect, eurocentric, and problematic as it was), and people who weren’t white, rich men taking the idea of freedom, equality, and improvement of society seriously, we’d still be living in imperial monarchies with no real rights for the vast majority of humanity. Historical change did not happen just because, it happened because people had ideas that people attempted to put into practice.
16 Likes
Whoa, you just gave me a flashback to the technicality exposed by former NFL player turned GOP Congressman, Jon Runyan:
7 Likes
Agreed in a lot of instances. But when we’re talking about things like the state’s ability to punish people or forbid actions, it’s a dangerous road to go down.
I am certainly OK with the money going to those who are actually affected in a way that their business or livelihood is threatened. The top of the list of recipients in my location reads like a who’s who of the rich people in town. Their multi million dollar houses and classic car collections will remain intact on the backs of the taxpayers.
It’s a dangerous road to go down- it’s a dangerous road to not go down. The states ability to convict people of cross dressing as a crime was likely a very well drafted law.
10 Likes
It’s legal. Justice Barrett and her droogs will tell you so. That’s why they’re in there. Not to cancel abortion (a sop to the base) but to make sure stuff like this is legal.
1 Like
Wait…are you interpreting my statements to indicate that unjust laws shouldn’t be changed?
In my experience legal technicalities have the goal and result of making the law support whichever side can afford the most lawyers
10 Likes
And gosh, it sure is discrimination to not let white restaurant owners ban people of color… that civil rights act sure was a miscarriage of justice! Also, MAKE COMSTOCK GREAT AGAIN! /s
12 Likes
You do know they are a part of that system, right?
10 Likes
Are you suggesting that laws are only just or unjust outside of the circumstances of their applications?
10 Likes
The topic is an employer who is actively intimidating his employees into voting the way he wants them to. A commenter wrote that the word “could” in the threatening letter might get him out of trouble for it (if indeed, as a private employer, there is any trouble to be had).
A weasel word doesn’t neutralize the intimidation. Frankly, if it’s illegal to intimidate voters, then neither should the public or private nature of the business. Most judges aren’t going to buy that there’s a magic word that gets someone out of trouble for clearly violating the law, unless it’s written very specifically into the law, and even then it’s up for judicial challenge.
So, in regards to the original real world scenario of the voter intimidation, no, putting “could” in the letter doesn’t magically absolve the dirtbag boss from responsibility.
15 Likes
Basically, those two stories you just told completely fucking blow. I’m sorry. And today, Trump is trashing Anthony Fauci. A man who has dedicated his life to infectious disease, who has training and experience with pandemics at a medical and political level. Unparalleled credentials in this space. He is one of about two dozen elite infectious disease experts in the world who rank at the top top top of the field… and yet orange clown buffoon shitgibbon shitbird asshole fuckface excrephile with ZERO technical training is out there on the campaign trail saying if Fauci were in charge, 500,000 Americans would be dead from Covid. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK YOU GIGANTIC ASSHOLE IGNORAMUS KNOWER OF NOTHING SACK OF MOLDY DISCARDED WET WIPES. You have not the faintest clue. You are literally killing people. You are literally dragging the country into a black hole.
We cannot get rid of the orange menace soon enough. What awful, dumb luck to have to be subject to his outright evil stupidity every single day.
So, in short, I agree with you about telling your boss to go fuck himself. Sorry that it amounts to you being out of work. But, principles.
5 Likes
Absolutely not. I wasn’t intending to even touch on that.
To which another commenter responded that we should have a legal system based on the spirit of the law, which I believe is a dangerous road to go down for the reasons I’ve put out there.
I have direct, real-world experience with judges ignoring the “technicalities” of the law because it doesn’t allow them to reach the conclusion they want to reach that they believe to be better in line with the “spirit” of the law they think is more important. This isn’t theoretical to me. It’s dangerous, especially when it comes to the state’s power to punish people.
Again, I don’t know whether or not the weasel word here gets this douche off the hook or not. I don’t know enough about the law to argue about it.
1 Like
+ 1
1 Like
Over half a trillion dollars in loans were lent out. You can focus on a even a hundred bad loans or you can look at the fact that it kept our economy going for a few critical months, keeping millions of people working. The whole point to these loans is that they should be easy to get.
The whole exposing and shaming of people who got loans smells pretty welfare queeny to me. Whatever fraud happens is a drop in the bucket and the focus on it seems intended to discredit the whole system.
2 Likes
