Chatham County Online BBS
November 17, 2017, 12:29:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: View news videos 24/7 on the Chatham Journal News Network
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: SCOTUS Ruling Predictions  (Read 1484 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« on: June 25, 2015, 12:33:09 PM »

I predicted that SCOTUS would uphold Obamacare and I was right.  But I didn't document the prediction.  This time I will.

Here they are:

Same-Sex Marriage
In Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases, the court will decide whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
Prediction: Court will find in favor of the plaintiffs.  Same-sex marriage will be legalized at the federal level.

Lethal Injection
The court will decide in Glossip v. Gross whether states may use a drug linked to apparently botched executions to carry out death sentences.
Prediction: Court will find in favor of the plaintiffs.  Their reasoning will be that the process violates prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Partisanship and Redistricting

In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court will decide whether voters had the power to strip elected lawmakers of their authority to draw district lines.
Prediction: Court decision will go against independent districting commissions.  This will give the power to the legislatures when it comes to redistricting.

Pollution Limits
In three environmental regulation cases, the court will decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to undertake a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to set limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.
Prediction: The Court will find in favor of the EPA.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2015, 10:46:27 PM »

Many have predicted the dramatic left turn you see coming. I fear you are right. Makes a little academic conversation about security seem unimportant. We rot from the inside out.
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:46:43 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2015, 11:29:46 PM »

No, the conversation about security is neither academic nor unimportant.  Pi is trying to tell you it's one of THE primary and important issues of the day.  The persons whose security is at risk is us, and not from the friggin terrorists; it's from those who are claiming to work day and night to protect us.  And one guy at a keyboard, in one department, is a left hand that has no clue what the right hand is doing.  If he claims he does, he's either a liar or a dupe.

Mark me.

With the courts trending totalitarian, assisting the ratcheting down of the other totalitarians on our population, we will be spied upon for signs of vigorous dissent and rebelliousness.  Not the terrorists THEY IMPORTED HERE, us, we the people, 'domestic terrorists'.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 12:22:48 AM by 1911A » Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2015, 01:27:55 AM »

Certainly that is true. I guess you missed me saying that. The issue is not whether it will happen or not. The IRS scandal should have proven to ANYONE that a totalitarian president will use any power, or technology, lawful or not, to suppress his enemies, which is how he clearly views American citizens. Cutting off the ability of those working for our defense to monitor overseas phone calls, not for content, but for merely from what number to what number, does not prevent a corrupt administration from doing what a corrupt administration has already proven it will do.

But, it does give an advantage to terrorists who wish to harm us personally.

As to whether it is an academic question I would refer you to the following definitions from a dictionary:
academic (ˌækəˈdɛmɪk)
adj
1. (Education) belonging or relating to a place of learning, esp a college, university, or academy(Clearly not.)
2. of purely theoretical or speculative interest: an academic argument. (This works because this is all theory. Nothing has actually happened to support any of the arguments. It is merely speculated as a possibility.)
3. excessively concerned with intellectual matters and lacking experience of practical affairs (Clearly, at least one side of the discussion is uninterested in the practical, preferring instead the theoretical.)
4. (esp of a schoolchild) having an aptitude for study (Clearly not.)
5. conforming to set rules and traditions; conventional: an academic painter.(Clearly not.)
6. (Education) relating to studies such as languages, philosophy, and pure science, rather than applied, technical, or professional studies
n
7. (Education) a member of a college or university(Clearly not.)

Even as wicked as we know the Obama administration to be, I do not think they have killed as many Americans as the Islamic Extremist Terrorists have. I believe it is possible to fashion a law to protect American citizens, reasonably, while still allowing the harvesting of the information of who the terrorists are calling or receiving calls from, overseas.  That strikes me as a practical solution, rather than an academic discussion of what might happen whether the law allows it or not. What difference does it make? Obama has already PROVEN that the law means absolutely nothing to him. Six members of the Supreme Court have proven that the written words mean absolutely NOTHING to them. Those are facts that we can see by experience, not academic speculation.  The fact that we could look at overseas phone calls and find out what number they were calling and what numbers were calling them, and then have enough information to get a warrant and find out who, and initiate an investigation as to who has been communicating directly with terrorists is a loss. Making that against the law, does NOT protect the American people any more than passing a law making looking out your window illegal would make gossip impossible.   A crooked government official is still going to be a crooked government official. We can't stop that.

All we can do is what we are doing, preventing people from looking at public data and then starting serious investigations (which may well have to include warrants) which may result in preventing terrorism does not make us one tiny little bit safer from crooked government officials.

it only makes innocent people more vulnerable to foreign terrorists and their allies here.

Work this out carefully.  No crooked government official is more empowered because we allow the analysis of overseas data. And Pi is truly correct(I assume.) that the technology exists, which means they likely are using it already for their own ends, enemy lists as such, regardless.  So what reason is there to believe that us stopping all attempts at preventing and infiltrating terror organizations is going to stop internal government officials from doing what was already illegal?
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2015, 10:02:17 AM »

Well, another one of Pi's predictions was correct: gay marriage is now legal nationwide.  What I wonder is will this ruling have an impact upon things like the recent law here that says govt officials can refuse to perform their govt duties based upon their religious views? 
Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 12:46:43 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2015, 12:38:44 PM »

Academic:

3. Having little practical use or value, as by being overly detailed, unengaging, or theoretical: dismissed the article as a dry, academic exercise.
4. Having no important consequence or relevancy: The debate about who is to blame has become academic because the business has left town.

I believe that's how you meant it, the presentation of definitions omitting it notwithstanding.

The NSA is scooping everything, not just to/from overseas comms.  The 4th Amendment says what it says, work it out carefully.  The metadata doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the communications companies, and the actual content belongs to the two parties, so the push for security ::snort:: does not obviate the Amendment's requirement for a warrant " ... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2015, 01:03:07 PM »

But, it does give an advantage to terrorists who wish to harm us personally.

We're always going to go back to Franklin's essential liberty/temporary safety argument and as it applies to this topic, you and I would respond to that quote with different arguments.  It is true that the current administration has killed fewer Americans than Islamic Extremists.  But what you're asking for is to suspend constitutionally protected freedoms, i.e. the 4th Amendment, for the sake of "safety".  I put that in quotes because you haven't yet proved that this kind of surveillance is as vital as the government says it is.  I'm sorry but I am right about the effectiveness of human assets.  If you don't believe me, then recall the findings from the 9/11 report.  The panel would agree with me.  Even though I once wrote an article about this shortcoming before 9/11 and while Clinton was still the president.

Work this out carefully.  No crooked government official is more empowered because we allow the analysis of overseas data. And Pi is truly correct(I assume.) that the technology exists, which means they likely are using it already for their own ends, enemy lists as such, regardless.  So what reason is there to believe that us stopping all attempts at preventing and infiltrating terror organizations is going to stop internal government officials from doing what was already illegal?

Who here has said that we should abandon all attempts at preventing and infiltrating terror organizations?  I haven't said that.  Can't recall anyone else saying that either.  What I'm against is the wholesale collection of entire conversations without a warrant.  The government promised us they wouldn't do that during the Bush Admin, but the Obama Admin broke that promise.  Actually, I am of the opinion that Bush broke that promise too I just don't have the ability to prove it.

But let's go back to your earlier question about lives lost, and what poses the biggest threat to us.  A powerful and overprotective government is your friend when it keeps the Mongols or Visigoths from penetrating the city walls.  But history has shown us that outside of war, there is one other entity that racks up a body count like no other.  And that's a government regime that decides it is time to squash dissent.

Whether it was Pol Pot or Stalin, the deaths total in the millions.  The goat fornicators don't pose that kind of threat.  But consider how things might happen down the road.  I don't want to give government everything it needs to make Orwell's world a reality, and then just hope that we have internal policies and laws to stop it from coming to fruition.

There are other effective ways to fight radical Islam, but no matter what we do it means that people on both sides are going to die.  If that means I take a train somewhere and never come home again, so be it.  I'd rather risk death than give government control over me.  

CHF, you are I are both young enough that we're probably going to live long enough to see some truly horrifying and regrettable actions from our government.  In comparison to what's coming, same sex marriage is but a flea on the rump of a great beast that will spread its wings and blot out the sun.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2015, 02:15:22 PM »

What I am most concerned about is the loss of knowledge just of what numbers that are being called, or calling, overseas terrorists.  I think the limitations of that are foolish and unnecessary to American privacy rights.  No conversations could be listened to of an American, without a warrant.  But, the knowledge that someone was talking to the terrorists is valuable information and may lead to a warrant and may well end up preventing the next attack. It obviously has in the past, not as the entire case, but as a small link in the chain that comes apart without that one thing.

I absolutely agree that government is a HUGE danger. We need to keep government small and limited. What astounds me, is even after the recent court cases that say words do not mean things, that we could write words that will protect us from wicked men.  We cannot. All we can do is limit honest men. 

We need not look so far back in our history. We are IN an administration who has no respect for the rule of law, overseen by a court that rules by whim, rather than equal application of the law, and a cowardly congress unwilling to stand up to either one. 

If you are correct, Pi, and I assume you are, then regardless of what the law is, that technology WILL be used by corrupt officials against Americans that they consider their enemies, just like the administration used the IRS against its perceived enemies, and they will face exactly the same punishment as the current corrupt officials have, which is to say NONE.  The only thing you are limiting is our ability to defend ourselves. And of course I do not mean "you." 
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2015, 02:35:22 PM »

It obviously has in the past, not as the entire case, but as a small link in the chain that comes apart without that one thing.

How do you know the whole case would come apart?  That's not what I've seen with all the information I've found on the subject.


If you are correct, Pi, and I assume you are, then regardless of what the law is, that technology WILL be used by corrupt officials against Americans that they consider their enemies, just like the administration used the IRS against its perceived enemies, and they will face exactly the same punishment as the current corrupt officials have, which is to say NONE.  The only thing you are limiting is our ability to defend ourselves. And of course I do not mean "you." 

It makes it a lot harder if private companies aren't being made to dump the data that contains entire conversations in government data centers.  What I'm saying is that there are some limitations in place that can significantly reduce the possibility that the technology can be abused.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2015, 12:12:10 PM »

Looks like some of my predictions were wrong.  Quite frankly I'm surprised about these:

1. Court finds against the EPA.
2. Court upheld lethal injection. 
3. Independent redistricting panels were upheld.

This particular SCOTUS is more unpredictable than I thought. 
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2015, 12:42:55 PM »

Mad God's Blessings indeed: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/The_Blessings_of_Sheogorath
Quote
Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.

Personally, I have to wonder if the old game that Roberts alluded to when upholding O'Care the first time is at foot, where he said that it was important that the court not appear to be partisan least it's reputation become irreversibly tarnished.  They sided with the left on some big issues, now it is time to side with the right.
Logged
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 11, 2016, 07:23:38 PM
Date Registerd:February 20, 2006, 11:25:33 PM
Posts: 10,008



« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2015, 04:41:15 PM »

It obviously has in the past, not as the entire case, but as a small link in the chain that comes apart without that one thing.

How do you know the whole case would come apart?  That's not what I've seen with all the information I've found on the subject.

A chain with a missing link is not a chain. At best it is two chains, disconnected.  If each step in the puzzle is dependent on the preceding step, removing one step ends the chain and the terrorist is not caught, not watched, not investigated, and the act of terror is not prevented.


Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2015, 05:13:51 PM »

It obviously has in the past, not as the entire case, but as a small link in the chain that comes apart without that one thing.


How do you know the whole case would come apart?  That's not what I've seen with all the information I've found on the subject.


A chain with a missing link is not a chain. At best it is two chains, disconnected.  If each step in the puzzle is dependent on the preceding step, removing one step ends the chain and the terrorist is not caught, not watched, not investigated, and the act of terror is not prevented.



That sounds great and all but is your analogy valid?  Let's look at what the Senate Oversight Committee discovered:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/nsa-chief-figures-foiled-terror-plots-misleading/?page=all

The Obama administration’s credibility on intelligence suffered another blow Wednesday as the chief of the National Security Agency admitted that officials put out numbers that vastly overstated the counterterrorism successes of the government’s warrantless bulk collection of all Americans’ phone records.

Pressed by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two — far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration.

Gen. Alexander and other intelligence chiefs have pleaded with lawmakers not to shut down the bulk collection of U.S. phone records despite growing unease about government overreach in the program, which was revealed in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

“There is no evidence that [bulk] phone records collection helped to thwart dozens or even several terrorist plots,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and committee chairman, told Gen. Alexander of the 54 cases that administration officials — including the general himself — have cited as the fruit of the NSA’s domestic snooping.

“These weren’t all plots and they weren’t all foiled,” he said.

Mr. Leahy and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and author of the USA Patriot Act, which the government says allows bulk data collection, are working on a bill to roll back that authority.

In a summary they floated to colleagues Wednesday, the men said they would end bulk collection and require the NSA to show that the data it is seeking are relevant to an authorized investigation and involve a foreign agent.

The two lawmakers also proposed a special advocacy office with appellate powers to be part of the proceedings in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and requiring the court to release secret opinions that lay out major interpretations of law.

Mr. Leahy, who has been a chief critic of the NSA, asked Gen. Alexander to admit that only 13 of the 54 cases had any connection at all to the U.S., “Would you agree with that, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Gen. Alexander replied in a departure from normal practice.

Administration officials giving testimony to Congress, even when asked to confine themselves to a simple yes or no, rarely do.

In response to a follow-up question, Gen. Alexander also acknowledged that only one or perhaps two of even those 13 cases had been foiled with help from the NSA’s vast phone records database. The database contains so-called metadata — the numbers dialing and dialed, time and duration of call — for every phone call made in or to the U.S.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper denied that the number of plots foiled should be the sole metric by which the success of the program is measured. “I think there’s another metric here that’s very important. … I would call it the ‘peace of mind’ metric.”


When James freakin' Clapper, who is by most accounts the biggest proponent of omnipotent governance can only defend the policy by calling it "peace of mind", that's a big red flag.







Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
noway2
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:April 22, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Date Registerd:June 20, 2014, 01:36:40 PM
Posts: 555


« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2015, 07:58:17 AM »

Quote
Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two

And this morning on ArsTechnica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/warrantless-phone-tapping-e-mail-spying-inching-to-supreme-court-review/

Quote
Agron Hasbajrami, 31, is one of five US citizens or residents identified by the Justice Department as having prosecutions built upon the warrantless surveillance of their electronic communications.

snip
Quote
The only other known terror defendant convicted under the warrantless surveillance program whose case is on appeal is Mohamed Osman Ohamud. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison last year and was convicted in a FBI sting operation of attempting to ignite what he thought was a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

There's your TWO cases.  Want to be whether these would have also been stopped by more conventional means sans that wireless and illegal dragnet surveillance?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!