Dumb Political Correctness

Sounds discriminatory to me. If it isn't illegal then we don't live in a rule of law place anymore. Rome has fallen.
 
Joe Fan said:
Legislating that criminal laws do not apply to people making less than $14k per year (or whatever amount) violates the Equal Protection Clause
Click to expand...

Monahorns said:
Sounds discriminatory to me. If it isn't illegal then we don't live in a rule of law place anymore. Rome has fallen.
Click to expand...

Of course it discriminates. Laws discriminate all the time. For example, you can drive a car, vote, and buy booze and cigarettes, but a ten year old can't. That's discrimination.

The big issue is the basis of the discrimination. Income and wealth are not "suspect classifications" (like race, national origin, or religion). Accordingly, the court won't apply strict scrutiny to the law. It's not even a quasi-suspect classification (like sex), which would warrant intermediate scrutiny. Instead, it'll get the so-called "rational basis" test, which almost never results in the law being struck down. That's why a progressive state income tax doesn't get struck down.
 
Joe Fan said:
Click to expand...

The other element here is...wait until they find out just how much it actually costs to diagnose mental illness. Defendant STILL has a burden of proving up most affirmative defenses. Same holds true with addiction...consistent use, to include the commission of crimes to obtain narcotics is not, in and of itself, evidence of 'addiction.'

Not to mention that in order to CLAIM the affirmative defenses, this crap would require the Defendant to forfeit their right against self-incrimination as the case must necessarily go to trial in order to advance the defense.
 
Mr. Deez said:
... you can drive a car, vote, and buy booze and cigarettes, but a ten year old can't. ,,,.
Click to expand...

Why are you guys doing this?

Eofik6KXEAANtOq
 
As they were mocking the 10s of millions who lost jobs, SNL was operating under special circumstances from the Govt that let their "comedians" keep their high paying jobs

EolO0AdWMAMvdno




EolO0AcWMAAknjR
 
The big issue is the basis of the discrimination. Income and wealth are not "suspect classifications" (like race, national origin, or religion). Accordingly, the court won't apply strict scrutiny to the law. It's not even a quasi-suspect classification (like sex), which would warrant intermediate scrutiny. Instead, it'll get the so-called "rational basis" test, which almost never results in the law being struck down. That's why a progressive state income tax doesn't get struck down.
Click to expand...

It's called partiality and it is opposite of equal application of law. I get that there is a legal history and theory that arrives at what you are saying. But it defies logic to say that a law should apply only to a poor, middle class, or rich person. That is the definition of injustice. It may be legal. That just means our laws are injust.
 
Monahorns said:
It's called partiality and it is opposite of equal application of law. I get that there is a legal history and theory that arrives at what you are saying. But it defies logic to say that a law should apply only to a poor, middle class, or rich person. That is the definition of injustice. It may be legal. That just means our laws are injust.
Click to expand...

I get that and don't necessarily disagree. However, the equal protection clause is something that we apply much more broadly than it was intended to be applied. It was primarily intended to preempt racially discriminatory laws (specifically the Black Codes that many former Confederate state legislatures had passed after the Civil War). It has become a much bigger beast than that.

Ultimately, it's a terribly-written law, because if taken literally, there virtually isn't a law that can't be struck down depending on how you frame the issue. I don't like to play the lawyer card because I know how obnoxious it sounds, but non-lawyers (especially conservative non-lawyers) really don't understand how big of a difference issue framing makes. For example, bad issue framing through an equal protection lense is how we lost on gay marriage and how we are starting to lose on the tranny issue.
 
Monahorns said:
SNL is just propaganda. Haven't watched them since they called Ben Carson unintelligent.
Click to expand...

The Haves pointing fingers and admonishing the Have-Nots for not wanting to starve to death has some parallels to the French Revolution
Pate Davidson is the modern Marie Antionette
 
Monahorns said:
It's called partiality and it is opposite of equal application of law. I get that there is a legal history and theory that arrives at what you are saying. But it defies logic to say that a law should apply only to a poor, middle class, or rich person. That is the definition of injustice. It may be legal. That just means our laws are injust.
Click to expand...

Just reverse it. Legislation creating a "special class" of citizens who are exempt from criminal laws if their AGI is above $400k per year would be unconstitutional on EP grounds.
 
I don't like to play the lawyer card because I know how obnoxious it sounds, but non-lawyers (especially conservative non-lawyers) really don't understand how big of a difference issue framing makes. For example, bad issue framing through an equal protection lense is how we lost on gay marriage and how we are starting to lose on the tranny issue.
Click to expand...

I am self-aware enough to know this exists but not knowledgeable enough to know how it applies. I don't disagree with your description of how the law applies. My problem is with how it is applied doesn't sound just.
 
The Haves pointing fingers and admonishing the Have-Nots for not wanting to starve to death has some parallels to the French Revolution
Pate Davidson is the modern Marie Antionette
Click to expand...

Pete's a dumbass with no real purpose in life who has found some kind celebrity. He will do whatever it takes to remain liked by his other celebrity friends. It is the only kind of purpose he has.
 
Monahorns said:
I am self-aware enough to know this exists but not knowledgeable enough to know how it applies. I don't disagree with your description of how the law applies. My problem is with how it is applied doesn't sound just.
Click to expand...

I get that, and that brings up the long battle over the judiciary. Is a judge's job to apply the law as it's written or to "do justice?"
 
Oh no, someone disagreed with something, we must take down the FB page we use to communicate with our citizens

EoqnokjXEAIv8ot
 
I get that, and that brings up the long battle over the judiciary. Is a judge's job to apply the law as it's written or to "do justice?"
Click to expand...

They need to interpret and apply law. If something needs to be fixed, then fix the law to conform better to justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top