- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
@AverageJoe1 saidneed to lighten up on these libs…they have taken a lot of losses 😂
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna155902
SCOTUS throws out an obstruction charge against a police officer for joining the Jan6 Riot!!!
Will Shouse please weigh in on this. Either he is wrong, or SCOTUS is wrong. I am getting dizzy.
now kamala pissed off too
167d
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat a day of ridiculous decisions by this lawless court. In quick succession they:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna155902
SCOTUS throws out an obstruction charge against a police officer for joining the Jan6 Riot!!!
Will Shouse please weigh in on this. Either he is wrong, or SCOTUS is wrong. I am getting dizzy.
A) Allowed States and localities to make it a crime for homeless people to sleep even if there is not a single shelter bed available in the area;
B) Overruled a 40 year precedent by a unanimous Court regarding the proper amount of deference owned by the federal courts to decisions made by executive agencies empowered by broad grants of power given them by Congress: AND
C) Erased the word "or" from this statute by absurdly rewriting it to require section 2 to require the obstruction to be intended to refer to a specific document (that's not what Congress said):
"(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
167d
@no1marauder saidThis is the crazy part:
What a day of ridiculous decisions by this lawless court. In quick succession they:
A) Allowed States and localities to make it a crime for homeless people to sleep even if there is not a single shelter bed available in the area;
B) Overruled a 40 year precedent by a unanimous Court regarding the proper amount of deference owned by the federal courts to decisions ma ...[text shortened]... or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
"otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,"
Too subjective, too open to abuse by goobermint, leaves the door open for censorship and stomping on rightful protest.
@Wajoma saidFunny the so-called "libertarian" is more concerned about that statute that the decision making it a crime for homeless people to sleep.
This is the crazy part:
"otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,"
Too subjective, too open to abuse by goobermint, leaves the door open for censorship and stomping on rightful protest.
The word "corruptly" modifies both sections and the law takes that to mean by unlawful means, so rightful protest and/or First Amendment protected activity wouldn't be covered.
167d
@no1marauder saidGoes with out saying, but to satisfy the cry baby, yes it is also ridiculous.
Funny the so-called "libertarian" is more concerned about that statute that the decision making it a crime for homeless people to sleep.
But it leads to a more pressing and larger debate as to why it is happening, what is the cause, and I don't have the time nor inclination for the inevitable head butting, about more public housing**, more welfare, more state education, more state healthcare, higher minimum wages, UBI, more, more, more state.
That is why I didn't comment it Thread Commander in Chief.
** I recall the story of a man trying to make tiny homes available to the homeless in Cali, once bureaurats, regulators and pollies got involved the cost ballooned beyond viability. So the state does it now at even greater cost.
167d
@Wajoma saidHomelessness is an inevitable result of the institution of private property coupled with capitalism.
Goes with out saying, but to satisfy the cry baby, yes it is also ridiculous.
But it leads to a more pressing and larger debate as to why it is happening, what is the cause, and I don't have the time nor inclination for the inevitable head butting, about more public housing**, more welfare, more state education, more state healthcare, higher minimum wages, UBI, more, more ...[text shortened]... es got involved the cost ballooned beyond viability. So the state does it now at even greater cost.
167d
@no1marauder saidEvery year the state chisels away at property rights essentially taking control and ownership out of private hands with; regulations, permits, licenses, fines( = taxes), taxes ( = fines) which coincides, coincidentally, with the growing homeless problem.
Homelessness is an inevitable result of the institution of private property coupled with capitalism.
Regulation, taxation and (the other tax) inflation, are driving houses beyond the reach of more and more people. Then there's the US state, that holds millions of acres helping to restrict and drive up prices on available land for private ownership.
Not enough private property.
167d
@Wajoma saidI know you meant not enough public property.
Every year the state chisels away at property rights essentially taking control and ownership out of private hands with; regulations, permits, licenses, fines( = taxes), taxes ( = fines) which coincides, coincidentally, with the growing homeless problem.
Regulation, taxation and (the other tax) inflation, are driving houses beyond the reach of more and more people. Then th ...[text shortened]... estrict and drive up prices on available land for private ownership.
Not enough private property.
@Wajoma saidThe State created those "property rights" out of thin air to begin with. In the Natural State, Man was free to roam and settle where he pleased as long as he did not encroach on areas other Men were actually making productive use of. Private property deprived Man of that liberty and made them dependent on those who had seized the property by force. Capitalism expanded that dependence by concentrating the means of production in a relative few's hands forcing the great majority to toil for them or die.
Every year the state chisels away at property rights essentially taking control and ownership out of private hands with; regulations, permits, licenses, fines( = taxes), taxes ( = fines) which coincides, coincidentally, with the growing homeless problem.
Regulation, taxation and (the other tax) inflation, are driving houses beyond the reach of more and more people. Then th ...[text shortened]... estrict and drive up prices on available land for private ownership.
Not enough private property.
167d
@no1marauder saidWith all due respects, all one need do is apply a modicum of common sense to A) and C) above, and consider that this is a society which must have rules. Witness a liberal-trained poster, Sue, who mentions Natural Rights and Public Property above, implying everything belongs to everybody, for lack of a better way to put it.
What a day of ridiculous decisions by this lawless court. In quick succession they:
A) Allowed States and localities to make it a crime for homeless people to sleep even if there is not a single shelter bed available in the area;
B) Overruled a 40 year precedent by a unanimous Court regarding the proper amount of deference owned by the federal courts to decisions ma ...[text shortened]... or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
But there must be rules about vagrancy, sleeping anywhere they please. Picture me walking Mary Jane home from an evening soccer match? Many of your positions lead a common sense guy to think, what will be the next wide-open freely accessed area of our society? Our porch or living room? You are aware that the NY Governor asks us to bring strangers into our home as we speak.?
As to C) above, would it be better to ALLOW whomever to alter and obstruct as set out in the ruling? I don't get you there....unless, you are saying that our society should allow anyone to do anything that they want to do with anything.
This must be a product of your Natural Rights positions. Do we have a natural right to 'do it' in the street? What about my Mary Jane? What about order? If you had to say, which of the two parties is the most orderly? Right.