Author Topic: Podcast for 10 June 2018  (Read 422 times)

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Podcast for 10 June 2018
« on: June 10, 2018, 06:00:00 PM »


Guest Host: Esoteric Entity https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh5fUEtDdwOAj59f6FvDGWw

News of the Bogus:
26:22 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: The European Commission https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180605/22253339978/eu-commission-violates-gdpr-claims-that-exempt-law-legal-reasons.shtml

32:10 - Idiot Extraordinaire: Jackie Kucinich http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/30/ama-castigated-for-rightly-opposing-a-na

This Week's Quote: “History is replete with examples of what happens when any group of authorities do not have to answer to empirical evidence but are free to define truth as they see fit. None of the examples has a happy ending.” —Robert Todd Carroll

Dɪsᴄᴏʀᴅ: https://discord.bogosity.tv/
Mᴀsᴛᴏᴅᴏɴ: @shanedk@mastadon.social @shanedk@mstdn.io
Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ: https://www.facebook.com/Bogosity.tv
BɪᴛCʜᴜᴛᴇ: https://www.bitchute.com/shanedk/
Lɪᴠᴇsᴛʀᴇᴀᴍs: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg3bMbE6gbL1GaADuZaC8jw
Pᴀᴛʀᴇᴏɴ: https://www.patreon.com/shanedk
MᴀᴋᴇʀSᴜᴘᴘᴏʀᴛ https://www.makersupport.com/shanedk
PᴀʏPᴀʟ: https://www.paypal.me/shanedk
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ: 1PtGC39EktJNod3S574T4SsLzEpsUFRfuW
Bɪᴛᴄᴏɪɴ Cᴀsʜ: 1PyiWjnNK4TivWwzchprVYBwBxCbJrSK7M
DASH: XmebStk9yUTzDCnwnxGkTCRzvm3HjRUXwi
AʟᴛCᴏɪɴs: http://altcoins.bogosity.tv

evensgrey

  • Cluon generator
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Bogometer: -39
    • View Profile
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2018, 10:18:58 AM »
You appear to have misunderstood the usage of the word 'narrow' in other coverage.  The coverage I read (including the article you link to) specifically states that the subject matter ruled on was narrow, not that the decision was made narrowly.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 04:04:17 PM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?

Dallas Wildman

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Bogometer: -13
    • View Profile
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2018, 01:18:20 AM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?
Ruling that the mere existence of the Civil Rights Commission is unconstitutional, or that the government cannot forbid any business from refusing patronage from anyone for bigoted reasons.
Working every day to expose the terrible price we pay for government.

evensgrey

  • Cluon generator
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Bogometer: -39
    • View Profile
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 09:05:31 AM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?

As the articles state, it would have dealt with broader issues, such as the 1st Amendment freedom of speech (or silence) and freedom of worship (or non-worship) issues that claiming that someone is entitled to a (transient, in this case) work of art that carries a specific message from a specific artist who does not want to create a work of art with that message because he believes it to contradict the tenants of his religion.  As it is, this is about the fairly narrow 5th Amendment matter of were his views on the message he was being asked to convey treated in the same manner as the views of any other artist being asked to convey the message of a prospective client which the artist does not believe in personally (which they were not, which is the basis of the ruling as I understand it).

Appellate courts generally seem to like making narrow rulings on the basis of procedural protections to end cases like this, probably because it means they don't have to think about the bigger questions, like whether it is permissible for the state to require speech that the speaker is, in fact, personally opposed to.  (Living in Canada, I have to deal with the fact that I am under a legal system that explicitly refuses to accept that a thing is done freely only if one is also free to NOT do it, such as I only associate freely with a person if I am also free to NOT associate with that person.  Here, we're going through a spasm of insanity from our idiot Prime Minister who thinks he can put you in jail for not using random nonsense instead of correct words because he just doesn't like the correct words.)

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
  • Bogometer: -41
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 09:19:34 AM »
It's how appellate courts work. If you have something blatantly biased like this Commission using different criteria for the gay marriage cake as for the anti-gay cakes, you deal with that most serious issue first. Then you only deal with larger issues if dealing with the more serious issue didn't remedy the situation, which in this case it did.

This is also why so many rulings "kick back" the case to lower courts. After dealing with the serious issue, there's still a controversy that requires arguments that haven't been presented, so they're basically told to try again.

The Supreme Court does not (and should not) have the ability to just decide the big issues at their own whim.

evensgrey

  • Cluon generator
  • ****
  • Posts: 1433
  • Bogometer: -39
    • View Profile
Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2018, 06:45:22 PM »
It's how appellate courts work. If you have something blatantly biased like this Commission using different criteria for the gay marriage cake as for the anti-gay cakes, you deal with that most serious issue first. Then you only deal with larger issues if dealing with the more serious issue didn't remedy the situation, which in this case it did.

This is also why so many rulings "kick back" the case to lower courts. After dealing with the serious issue, there's still a controversy that requires arguments that haven't been presented, so they're basically told to try again.

The Supreme Court does not (and should not) have the ability to just decide the big issues at their own whim.

And that is why this ruling is narrow:  It deals with the procedural unfairness the appellate was subjected to, but not the higher issues about wether the entire process is permissible in the first place, because it didn't have to.

I really don't see how you misunderstood the usage of the word 'narrow' in the first place.