OT: And now we return to our regularly scheduled program

[brian_griffin]

One of the original tenets of the Electoral College was that the population as a whole was not educated enough to select a President, therefore having them vote for someone that they trusted that DID have enough education and experience to do so was a good compromise. Their idea was that people would choose Electors that they trusted, all the Electors would get together and deliberate amongst themselves , and choose the President that way.

Of course from the get go people figured out that having Electors vote in a block gave more power to that state, so they started doing that. Hamilton actually drafted an amendment trying to push the system back to the way they had envisioned it, but that never went anywhere after Burr busted a cap.

It's an interesting discussion, but, given the influence of money/party power, unlikely could be cleansed sufficiently to wash itself of influence.

Fun fact: My 8th grade honors social studies teacher (heavy American history concentration) was a Presidential Elector.

Sorry to interrupt the important conversations taking place:

If anyone would be interested in joining a Fantasy Baseball dynasty league on Fantrax please PM me. It’s a brand new 12 team league. Not playing for money but a $7 fee for Premium will be required. Thanks!

A poll tax? Violation of the 24th amendment!!!

 

[hizzoner]

Baseball this year might be a fantasy.

 

[Digable5]

Baseball this year might be a fantasy.

Looking more like it. Actually it might be best for the league so we can get things in order now for next year.

 

[brian_griffin]

End Qualified Immunity
End Civil Asset Forfeiture
Legalize all drug, end the drug war
Abolish 1033 Program
Ban Speed/Red Light Cameras
Ban No Knocks
Abolish 3 Strikes Laws
Abolish Private Prisons/Prison Labor(Unless Voluntary and Compensated)

All I can list off the top of my head

The "Defund the Police" is also a loud vocal minority when you look at polling on the issue, especially when people see the riots and property destruction on TV they are pushing people to want more policing because of that.

I'm with you for the review of and challenge/change of qualified immunity: see 1982 SCOTUS decision which expanded / clarified the 1967 provisions of US code Section 1983, and as one voice, the treatise by Joanna Schwartz in the Notre Dame Law Review 2018 (google is your friend).

I won't comment on the other topics, though we are likely more aligned (personally) than not. The original intent of the Constitution codified, IMO, much stronger personal property rights than are de facto considered, let alone enforced, today. It would perhaps be interesting to have "test communities" where liberal social laws were allowed / expanded, and personal property rights were more strictly enforced, consistent with what I believe the framers intended.

I'd be interested in @Husko 's view on qualified immunity and the subsequent challenges to it, given his profession and experience.

 

[Husko]

I'm with you for the review of and challenge/change of qualified immunity: see 1982 SCOTUS decision which expanded / clarified the 1967 provisions of US code Section 1983, and as one voice, the treatise by Joanna Schwartz in the Notre Dame Law Review 2018 (google is your friend).

I won't comment on the other topics, though we are likely more aligned (personally) than not. The original intent of the Constitution codified, IMO, much stronger personal property rights than are de facto considered, let alone enforced, today. It would perhaps be interesting to have "test communities" where liberal social laws were allowed / expanded, and personal property rights were more strictly enforced, consistent with what I believe the framers intended.

I'd be interested in @Husko 's view on qualified immunity and the subsequent challenges to it, given his profession and experience.

Qualified immunity is horrible. It's a huge problem. But I think those talking like it will just be done away with are way too optimistic. Aside from the political problems (getting Republicans to pass it), we have to remember that it was created by judicial legislating. There's not some qualified immunity statute, the supreme court just sort of made it up. Now, under most judicial review principles, something derived just out of common law, and not rooted in the constitution, could certainly be overturned by legislation. But given the current make up of SCOTUS, I wouldn't be so sure. They could just say "nah it's the law" and that's that.

 

[hizzoner]

I will give another point of view re qualified immunity--it prevents nuisance lawsuits from clogging the courts and costing municipalities millions of dollars. The concept is a good one. The problem is always in the execution. When plaintiffs can sue with no worries about having to pay costs and each case using up time and money there had to be a way for the courts to control the process. No problem with a thorough review of how and whether it works as informed public would want it to.

 

[Husko]

I will give another point of view re qualified immunity--it prevents nuisance lawsuits from clogging the courts and costing municipalities millions of dollars. The concept is a good one. The problem is always in the execution. When plaintiffs can sue with no worries about having to pay costs and each case using up time and money there had to be a way for the courts to control the process. No problem with a thorough review of how and whether it works as informed public would want it to.

That's not what qualified immunity does. Qualified immunity makes it so you can't sue a defendant in their individual capacity, you can only sue the government entity they work for. It costs taxpayers/municipalities dollars, doesn't save them. What you're talking about is whether losers have to pay attorney fees, which is a different issue.

 

[Gras]

I will give another point of view re qualified immunity--it prevents nuisance lawsuits from clogging the courts and costing municipalities millions of dollars. The concept is a good one. The problem is always in the execution. When plaintiffs can sue with no worries about having to pay costs and each case using up time and money there had to be a way for the courts to control the process. No problem with a thorough review of how and whether it works as informed public would want it to.

Getting rid of Qualified Immunity would make the police officers themselves financially liable.

 

[hizzoner]

Getting rid of Qualified Immunity would make the police officers themselves financially liable.

Qualified immunity does not give police carte blanche and it is not just police. A teacher intervenes in a school yard dispute, paramedics take action they think appropriate and are wrong, maybe a lawyer puts an accused on the stand who lies through his teeth but lawyer did not know--these are similar immunities granted for good policy reasons. I do not like individuals hiding behind corporate identities-the corporate financial corruption, the legislators and heads of state who lie with impunity demeaning and debasing those who do not support them. Let's take a good long hard look at all of this and look at the collateral damage if we remove these qualified immunities and privileges without something rational and fair to replace them

 

[SundherDome]

No idea where the fantasy thread went but I have 9 teams ready to fill that have been re-balanced as we purged our league of inactive guys. Pm me for info

 

[Gras]

Qualified immunity does not give police carte balance and it is not just police. A teacher intervenes in a school yard dispute, paramedics take action they think appropriate and are wrong, maybe a lawyer puts an accused on the stand who lies through his teeth but lawyer did not know--these are similar immunities granted for good policy reasons. I do not like individuals hiding behind corporate identities-the corporate financial corruption, the legislators and heads of state who lie with impunity demeaning and debasing those who do not support them. Let's take a good long hard look at all of this and look at the collateral damage if we remove these qualified immunities and privileges without something rational and fair to replace them

Amash has a Bill submitted already

https://amash.house.gov/sites/amash..._uploaded/Ending Qualified Immunity Act_0.pdf

 

[hizzoner]

I may have to backtrack. I had no idea that qualified immunity in U.S. led to such inane results until I watched the John Oliver show. I stand by the concept of qualified immunity as I posited earlier but not as it seems to be accepted in the cases Oliver described.

 

[brian_griffin]

Let him marinate they said...

I will give another point of view re qualified immunity--it prevents nuisance lawsuits from clogging the courts and costing municipalities millions of dollars. The concept is a good one. The problem is always in the execution. When plaintiffs can sue with no worries about having to pay costs and each case using up time and money there had to be a way for the courts to control the process. No problem with a thorough review of how and whether it works as informed public would want it to.

That's not what qualified immunity does. Qualified immunity makes it so you can't sue a defendant in their individual capacity, you can only sue the government entity they work for. It costs taxpayers/municipalities dollars, doesn't save them. What you're talking about is whether losers have to pay attorney fees, which is a different issue.

I may have to backtrack. I had no idea that qualified immunity in U.S. led to such inane results until I watched the John Oliver show. I stand by the concept of qualified immunity as I posited earlier but not as it seems to be accepted in the cases Oliver described.

The review by Schwartz suggests the argument of financial exposure of municipalities which would simply pass the burden to taxpayers is largely unfounded.

I’m not as concerned about ability to sue individual LEOs or other public employees for personal damages as I am the ability to remove, for cause, public employees with chronic substantiated incidents of malfeasance.

SCOTUS justice Sotamayor said “qualified immunity is limited impunity”.

 

[Gras]

Anyone paying attention to the CHAZ shitshow in Seattle

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Anyone paying attention to the CHAZ shitshow in Seattle

Really wondering what the mayor is going to do? The puppet masters are probably hoping they call in the National Guard and there's a Kent State incident

 

[Gras]

Really wondering what the mayor is going to do? The puppet masters are probably hoping they call in the National Guard and there's a Kent State incident

Lots of people are armed inside the zone, with soundcloud rapper Raz Simone becoming a defacto warlord, so it won't quite be like Kent.

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Lots of people are armed inside the zone, with soundcloud rapper Raz Simone becoming a defacto warlord, so it won't quite be like Kent.

So armed insurrectionists aka martyrs for the cause

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Saw a hilarious post on fb today of the duct taped Antifa unicorn

 

[sabremike]

What any sensible person could see was going to eventually happen at one of these berserk statue teardowns that the reckless media was cheering on happened tonight:

 

[Old Navy Goat]

What any sensible person could see was going to eventually happen at one of these berserk statue teardowns that the reckless media was cheering on happened tonight:

Definitely karma in action

 

[sabremike]

Definitely karma in action

Updated Civil War death count: 618,223.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Seattle will be interesting. Most groups like Antifa gain traction while attempting to gain power. Once they have it, it almost never ends well.

 

[Jim Bob]

Welcome to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, where Seattle protesters gather without police

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Jim Bob]

 

[hizzoner]

An unbiased thorough examination of police spending is long overdue-although it is not the only agency or department that needs this. (See $ supposedly spent for hammers or toilets in some defence budgets) Since the rich already have their body guards or" posses" they will not be the most affected by this. Spending money on prevention is a great idea if folks can agree on how to do it--throwing money at social issues while in principle a worthwhile consideration will depend on what issues, what remedies and who is in charge of the spending. Removing police from dealing with social ills of drug induced situations, the mentally disturbed, and tense domestic situations--a large part of their mandate it seems-will put more medically trained personnel and/or social workers into the often danger filled situations that police are routinely called to. I assume those responding will not require police aid in addition to their own professional presence. Whether this attempt at triaging possible felonious events will work will be a matter of discovery. Certainly there is no need for military grade weapons for every policing force but to call to disarm police because that is the case in UK or Japan for example fails to note that those countries do not for example allow civilians to walk around freely carrying loaded guns. None of the foregoing is to suggest that budget review and possible budget cutting need not be examined. But it is not as simplistic as some propose.