Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
oh, and this

Quote:
To claim that their is a right of exit in America is also absurd. It is exceptionally difficult to leave America for another nation. Including Canada.


Maybe you just need to budget your money better. You know, like poor people with their doctors.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
oh, and this

Quote:
To claim that their is a right of exit in America is also absurd. It is exceptionally difficult to leave America for another nation. Including Canada.


Maybe you just need to budget your money better. You know, like poor people with their doctors.


I'd be able to budget my money better if I didn't have to support so many poor people and their doctors. Your artificial support schemes disarm me of my pursuit of happiness. And by federalizing everything and telling me I must leave the country if I don't like it, you also impose a huge additional cost for me to live. Imposing a double-whammy on me.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
Just think though, had tomorrow never happened today we would all be canada.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
Wouldn't you be voluntarily donating all that money to poor people via charity instead of being forced to do so via a coercive government?

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
stip wrote:
Wouldn't you be voluntarily donating all that money to poor people via charity instead of being forced to do so via a coercive government?
voluntarily puts the Free in Freedom.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
our amendment process is profoundly ill suited for actual governing. - Stip


Yeah, there's a reason for that.

I always find it interesting that in all the debate about what the founders really meant when they said or wrote X, this simple point is often lost. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. It really begs an interesting question: why would they have created such an unwieldy process to change the document if, as some claim, they in fact wanted it to be changed to reflect contemporaneous political necessities?

As stip's been saying, "founders" is a broad, heterogeneous group. If you include Jefferson, he thought Constitutions and laws should expire every 19 years and opposed debts extending past 19: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h2s23.html

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
Wouldn't you be voluntarily donating all that money to poor people via charity instead of being forced to do so via a coercive government?


Actually, it could finance both. Why is that charity only involves money to progressives? Bizarre.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
dkfan9 wrote:
thodoks wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
our amendment process is profoundly ill suited for actual governing. - Stip


Yeah, there's a reason for that.

I always find it interesting that in all the debate about what the founders really meant when they said or wrote X, this simple point is often lost. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. It really begs an interesting question: why would they have created such an unwieldy process to change the document if, as some claim, they in fact wanted it to be changed to reflect contemporaneous political necessities?

As stip's been saying, "founders" is a broad, heterogeneous group. If you include Jefferson, he thought Constitutions and laws should expire every 19 years and opposed debts extending past 19: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... h2s23.html


true.

I'd also say that the founders failed to account for the existence of political parties, which basically blow up the whole system of checks and balances that they set up in the first place, didn't solve the problem of slavery, created a political system that overly privileges smaller, rural states, and that a number of them were a little too suspicious of the idea of democracy and were primarily concerned about preserving their own privileged status as a new national elite replacing the old colonial elite. So I'd conclude by saying that while what they thought is certainly of historical interest, and helpful for figuring out why our institutions function the way they do, their opinions should not end a conversation either way.The overall value of the system they set up is perhaps a bit overrated when narrowly and or literally interpreted. it's value and its endurance are derived precisely from the way in which it is ill defined in crucial places, and the fact that it is governing a fantastically wealthy country that can afford to ignore many of the problems within its government.

This was a politically impressive and philosophically sophisticated generation of men we had involved in politics (many of them, anyway). A lot of their work was excellent. They weren't gods, however, or even saints, and we revere them primarily because we need someone to worship in order to tie together a nation of several distinct regional cultures that probably wouldn't otherwise hang together.

Happy 4th of July :)

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:07 pm
Posts: 12393
stip wrote:
This was a politically impressive and philosophically sophisticated generation of men we had involved in politics (many of them, anyway). A lot of their work was excellent. They weren't gods, however, or even saints, and we revere them primarily because we need someone to worship in order to tie together a nation of several distinct regional cultures that probably wouldn't otherwise hang together.


John Hanson agrees with this post, but...

Quote:
I'd be able to budget my money better if I didn't have to support so many poor people and their doctors. Your artificial support schemes disarm me of my pursuit of happiness. And by federalizing everything and telling me I must leave the country if I don't like it, you also impose a huge additional cost for me to live. Imposing a double-whammy on me.


...the Rolling Stones like this one better.


Now, really...who would you rather be?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:52 pm
Posts: 2647
Location: Where gila monsters meet you at the airport
LittleWing wrote:
Quote:
It isn’t tyranny. This is not taxation without representation. it is majority rule. it is actually supermajority rule. - Stip


The Louisiana Purchase, the buying of Ben Nelson, the Slaughter Solution. These things aren't super majority rule. This is corrupt politics that benefits some at the expense of others - whether they like it or not. Being forced to purchase something is tyranny.


This is a point you return to a lot w/r/t the healthcare debate and I get where you're coming from on it, but what it always makes me wonder is what you think the solution is in the real world.

The alternative to a healthcare mandate is that people without health insurance will still get hurt and require care and the way that works is that we all end up paying for those "free loaders" in the form of higher health care costs across the board. How do you fix that problem?

Is it simply that it's more acceptable to you to have corporations charging you to account for others as opposed to the government?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
wait, i just noticed this, are you (LW) on the one side saying "the founders" wrote a literal and precise document that was not fluid and cite Jefferson as an example of the document's intentions/protections/limits. And then follow that up by saying the Louisiana Purchase was an act of tyranny forced on the people by an illegitimate interpretation of the original document and this illegitimate interpretation was acted out by non-other than Jefferson himself?

talk about saying one thing and doing another, Jefferson, like most others, changed his tune when given the chance.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
stip wrote:
thodoks wrote:
stip wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
"Obviously constitutional?" Iiinteresting.


you were hard pressed to find a serious constitutional scholar, on the left or right, who were seriously making the case that this was unconstitutional. I'm not talking about pundits, mind you.

Similarly, you were hard pressed to find a serious economic scholar, on the left or right, who was seriously making the case that the economic expansion between 2001 and 2007 was unsustainable, or who capably predicted the inevitability and magnitude of the post-2007 downturn.

Irrespective of the merits of this particular legal circumstance, deferring to the consensus of some topic's "scholars" or "experts" is not always evidence of the accuracy of their conclusions.


fair enough, although the constitutional scholar stuff is a little different though, since it is a more philosophic, rather than empirically oriented field.

But I'm also firmly in the 'the constitution means whatever the hell the justices say it means' camp.

It would be nice if there was a scorecard site somewhere, that kept track of when experts were right and wrong so we could figure out who is worth listening to. I think Krugman and Reich both predicted the downturn, for instance, but I'm not positive.

This paper is something like a scorecard on the crisis: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/ ... _15892.pdf

(Neither Krugman nor Reich mentioned)

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
You're really managed to scratch my confirmation bias' itch with that one, d*ckfan. Looks interesting, I'll have to read it later. Abstract:

Quote:
This paper presents evidence that accounting (or flow-of-fund) macroeconomic models helped anticipate the credit crisis and economic recession. Equilibrium models ubiquitous in mainstream policy and research did not. This study identifies core differences, traces their intellectual pedigrees, and includes case studies of both types of models. It so provides constructive recommendations on revising methods of financial stability assessment. Overall, the paper is a plea for research into the link between accounting concepts and practices and macro economic outcomes.

In other words, concrete factual analysis enabled more precise and accurate projections, while academic and intellectual wankery did not. Also, the majority of my scorn for the modern economics profession is directed at macroeconomics. Absolute rubbish.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
I see they list Dean Baker on their list of people who predicted it. He's another economist I like. Those other guys I hadn't really heard of. In fairness, I can't name many by name.

Basically the article says that economic theories that separate financial speculation out from the real economy were more accurate, which makes sense. It also seems to focus largely on people who predicted the housing bubble would burst. I'm shocked there were so few.

articles like this are really useful.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
So I have a feeling that probably no one will be interested in this, but one of my favorite law bloggers, Josh Blackman, has made his blog public again after a one year hiatus while he was clerking for a circuit judge. He's also the guy who founded FantasySCOTUS, which is pretty much what the name suggests. Amazingly, he privately published over 200 pages of posts during his clerkship, and made them public only a few days ago. I'll have some reading catchup to do. :oops:

It's amazing how many law blogs I read these days, and how more fulfilled I feel about current events by hearing about them through this lens. Someone once asked me (SS, maybe?) asked me what good resources there were on SCOTUS, and I never gave it a complete answer, so I might as well now:

Nonpartisan:
SCOTUSblog

Libertarian:
The Volokh Conspiracy
The aforementioned Josh Blackman

Left wing:
Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon, both on Slate
Scott Lemieux, who also blogs on Lawyers, Guns & Money

I have yet to find a good right-wing law blog to follow regularly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
I couldn't find a campaign finance reform thread on my first go and the search feature is waaaay too slow for me to try again, so here goes it: http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-judge-orders-arrest-google-president-164309455--finance.html

So anyhoo, if Citizen's United had been decided differently something similar could be happening here. Is this desireable? Any input from the local Brazilians?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-right-to-resell-your-own-stuff-is-in-peril-2012-10-04#

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril


CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother’s antique furniture to your iPhone 4.

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

A Supreme Court case could limit the resale of goods made overseas but sold in America.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -2.05% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter’s artwork.

There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. EBAY -1.76% and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.

“It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can’t be bought or sold here,” said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that anything that was manufactured overseas is not subject to the first-sale principle. Only American-made products or “copies manufactured domestically” were.

“That’s a non-free-market capitalistic idea for something that’s pretty fundamental to our modern economy,” Ammori commented.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case on Oct. 29.

Both Ammori and Band worry that a decision in favor of the lower court would lead to some strange, even absurd consequences. For example, it could become an incentive for manufacturers to have everything produced overseas because they would be able to control every resale.

It could also become a weighty issue for auto trade-ins and resales, considering about 40% of most U.S.-made cars carry technology and parts that were made overseas.

This is a particularly important decision for the likes of eBay and Craigslist, whose very business platform relies on the secondary marketplace. If sellers had to get permission to peddle their wares on the sites, they likely wouldn’t do it.

Moreover, a major manufacturer would likely go to eBay to get it to pull a for-sale item off the site than to the individual seller, Ammori added.

In its friend-of-the-court brief, eBay noted that the Second Circuit’s rule “affords copyright owners the ability to control the downstream sales of goods for which they have already been paid.” What’s more, it “allows for significant adverse consequences for trade, e-commerce, secondary markets, small businesses, consumers and jobs in the United States.”

Ammori, for one, wonders what the impact would be to individual Supreme Court justices who may buy and sell things of their own. He himself once bought an antique desk from a Supreme Court justice. “Sometimes it’s impossible to tell where things have been manufactured,” he said. “Who doesn’t buy and sell things? Millions of Americans would be affected by this.”

If the Supreme Court does rule with the appellate court, it’s likely that the matter would be brought to Congress to force a change in law. Until then, however, consumers would be stuck between a rock and a hard place when trying to resell their stuff.


*********************

I don't even know where to begin on this one....

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
I guess I better my yard sale together while I can.

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
:shake: goddamnit

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
So after some further reading on this, I am not sure the article I posted got it's facts right. The case seems to be revolving around 'gray market' goods, not foreign made goods that are legally imported and sold in the US (like the iPhone). Do we still have any lawyers on the board or have they all abandoned the PJ-verse?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 828 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:37 am