Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«898 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Bad Munki
Nov 4, 2008

We're all mad here.



Leperflesh posted:

So how much better than the law degree judges is she? I'm gonna guess she's at least twice as good a judge.

Cosmetologist judge’s account spotted, proceed with caution

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Leperflesh posted:

So how much better than the law degree judges is she? I'm gonna guess she's at least twice as good a judge.

She believes that law should build on a solid foundation

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

It's important to avoid concealing the facts, but accentuate and highlight the truth

BigHead
Jul 25, 2003
Huh?

Nap Ghost

euphronius posted:

There isn’t any different between elected and appointed judges

If you have any amount of giveashitattude about the subject, Alaska has the best judicial selection process. We have a panel of 7 respected people (3 attorneys, 3 civs that are upstanding, and the CJ) that solicits applications for judicial openings. The panel then coordinates with the bar association to send out a survey to all members of the bar. All other attorneys in the state have an opportunity to rate the applicants in several categories like temperament, experience, etc. The survey responders can also, if they wish, leave either an anonymous or signed comment.

The council then solicits more in depth comments from several opposing counsels and judges in the applicant's recent cases. Attorneys vying for judgships, therefore, need to play nice and impress the other parties to litigation. Then there is a brutal interview.

The council then nominates two to four-ish people for the judgeship. The governor is constitutionally required to appoint from the nominated pool.

As far as I'm aware it's among the great systems for judicial appointment. There are downsides though, like try being a criminal attorney who specializes in tough cases. 50 count SAM or juvie waiver murder attorneys (prosecution or defense) need to fight and fight hard, so they always lose the popularity contest despite being the most compote t and dedicated attorneys in the state. But of all the imperfect options it's the lease imperfect.

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



Utah’s got a similar system with a nominating commission that recommends candidates to the governor, and the final nominee is subject to a consent vote by our senate. And retention elections every six years or so. It’s worked pretty well for us, to be honest. Only one candidate has ever been voted out in the retention election, but we haven’t had too many really politically charged decisions. It also helps that our current and last few governors have been pretty committed to quality in the judiciary and have tried to avoid politicizing the system. (Likely in part because we are not a swing state.)

Phil Moscowitz
Feb 19, 2007

Chief Justice of the United States of Anime



Carillon posted:

Two letters surely.

Lol

Organza Quiz
Nov 7, 2009



The tasteless tattoo thread is currently discussing a very tasteless simpsons porn tattoo as it relates to this Australian case: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12...ge-rules/233562

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if someone with a cartoon child porn tattoo was convicted under the same law. Usually the offending material would be seized and destroyed, but... it's a tattoo. I think judges only have relatively limited options for what they can order people to do, and I'm not sure whether "undergo painful procedure probably involving lasers followed by getting a blastover tattoo" is one of them. Any thoughts? What would happen in everyone else's jurisdiction?

Dik Hz
Feb 22, 2004

Fun with Science

Nice piece of fish posted:

It's important to avoid concealing the facts, but accentuate and highlight the truth
As long as she doesn't make up the law as she goes along, it should be fine.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004




So, what's the recourse if you are a reporter who got their eye shot out by a cop?

mercenarynuker
Sep 10, 2008

i am the bruce of the willis


Two very disparate questions regarding different legal specialties (probably):

If there was a new state that somehow joined the US, but it's state constitution had something more akin to a king rather than a governor, is there anything that technically prevents that? I assume they'd have to abide by some democratic elections of at least congressional representatives and senators, but would they be able to rule at least semi-absolutely otherwise?

On a completely different tack, if I were a property owner or church minister that had police officers use my drive during non-busy hours as a place to "hide" while they did speeding enforcement, would the 3rd amendment apply if I objected? I see cops all the time on private property driveways doing this (like church parking lots, restaurant driveways, etc). I realize I couldn't get them off someone ELSE'S property, but presumably one could stop their own property from being used by the police if they so desired?

sullat
Jan 8, 2012


Munin posted:

So, what's the recourse if you are a reporter who got their eye shot out by a cop?

Probably worker's comp

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

Nothing scarier than an artillery barrage -- Am I right?


mercenarynuker posted:

Two very disparate questions regarding different legal specialties (probably):

If there was a new state that somehow joined the US, but it's state constitution had something more akin to a king rather than a governor, is there anything that technically prevents that? I assume they'd have to abide by some democratic elections of at least congressional representatives and senators, but would they be able to rule at least semi-absolutely otherwise?

Article 4 of the constitution guarantees each state "a republican form of government", but what precisely this entails is, to the best of my knowledge, almost entirely untested.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


mercenarynuker posted:

On a completely different tack, if I were a property owner or church minister that had police officers use my drive during non-busy hours as a place to "hide" while they did speeding enforcement, would the 3rd amendment apply if I objected? I see cops all the time on private property driveways doing this (like church parking lots, restaurant driveways, etc). I realize I couldn't get them off someone ELSE'S property, but presumably one could stop their own property from being used by the police if they so desired?

the church in my town did this, and "coincidentally" "vandals" smashed up their little outdoor mary shrine thing a couple weeks later

sullat posted:

Probably worker's comp

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



Discendo Vox posted:

Article 4 of the constitution guarantees each state "a republican form of government", but what precisely this entails is, to the best of my knowledge, almost entirely untested.

I think there were a few cases where plaintiffs tried to get the courts to force states to implement specific voting or state legislative requirements, and the courts told them it was a political question and to go away?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



Arcturas posted:

I think there were a few cases where plaintiffs tried to get the courts to force states to implement specific voting or state legislative requirements, and the courts told them it was a political question and to go away?

i think that while the specifics of what qualifies as republican may be a political question, i suspect that the supreme court would find that declaring a monarchy violated it was sufficiently far removed from needing to weigh in on the latest voter suppression measures and invalidate it

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Organza Quiz posted:

The tasteless tattoo thread is currently discussing a very tasteless simpsons porn tattoo as it relates to this Australian case: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12...ge-rules/233562

I'm trying to imagine what would happen if someone with a cartoon child porn tattoo was convicted under the same law. Usually the offending material would be seized and destroyed, but... it's a tattoo. I think judges only have relatively limited options for what they can order people to do, and I'm not sure whether "undergo painful procedure probably involving lasers followed by getting a blastover tattoo" is one of them. Any thoughts? What would happen in everyone else's jurisdiction?

My guess would be that criminal law and human rights legislation means forced removal is out of the question. If you literally tattoo child porn on you, there are no means of enforcement that can be applied to your body other than forced testing, forced medication or incarceration.

For possession I would imagine some sort of double jeopardy would apply, you are by definition in possession of the same material that you were originally convicted of possessing and the material can't legally be removed, so you can't be convicted again for possession of the same material after the first time. This usually doesn't come up because duh, the police will confiscate it all and if you have a secret stash or aquire new copies, you were never charged with and convicted of possession of those specific copies.

When it comes to dissemination, if you allowed someone to view or take pictures of it, that incidence of exposure would itself be an individual criminal case, and subject for prosecution. Zolotukhin v. Russia would provide the limitations of "individual prosecutable criminal act" for purposes of double jeopardy.

That's as close as I can figure. You can get a tattoo of child porn, the courts can't force you to remove it, you'd be convicted once for possession and then get a new conviction for dissemination with a longer sentence every time anyone got to see the tattoo (maybe with added obscenity/exposure/etc).

Arban
Aug 28, 2017


Would the tattoo artist that made it be in trouble for producing / reproducing child porn?

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

Nothing scarier than an artillery barrage -- Am I right?


I agree with EW's take, Arcturas. That said, it's been tested little enough that it's very hard to know. Historical context does suggest the interpretation would probably be pretty narrow in scope, but the concept of "Republican government" has always contained multitudes.

pseudanonymous
Aug 30, 2008

When you make the second entry and the debits and credits balance, and you blow them to hell.

I mean, if it was a Republican king, wouldn't that be considered a Republican government?

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



Discendo Vox posted:

I agree with EW's take, Arcturas. That said, it's been tested little enough that it's very hard to know. Historical context does suggest the interpretation would probably be pretty narrow in scope, but the concept of "Republican government" has always contained multitudes.

Sure, you might both be right. On the other hand, maybe the establishment of the monarchy at the state’s inception and its existence being a part of the state’s admittance to the union would lead a court to say that, “clearly, the federal legislature and people of the state believe this is sufficiently republican, who are we to second guess? And you complaining plaintiffs should resolve your dispute in the political process.” Dunno, I don’t think we will ever find out. It’s an interesting thought experiment to be sure.

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008






Ultra Carp

Arban posted:

Would the tattoo artist that made it be in trouble for producing / reproducing child porn?

Sure.

Hopes Fall
Sep 10, 2006
HOLY BOOBS, BATMAN!

NJ Unemployment Law question.

Back in March, the retailer I worked for fired all the hourly employees (assistant managers and down) and furloughed all the salary employees (store managers and up).

A store manager that I am friendly with, who works at a different location warned me today that I shouldn't be in contact in with my (previous) store manager. They're slowly starting to reopen, and she thinks if the store manager asks me to come back and I say no, then I can't claim unemployment anymore since I've turned down work.

But, they fired me? And I would have to go through the reapplication process to go back. The wording of my termination was that I would be able to 'reapply for any open positions', which I have no intention of doing.

So, all the store manager would be doing is offering me an opportunity to reapply, not actually offering work. Can she technically extend a job offer if I haven't applied?

Eta: Store manager sent me a text as I was writing that. She wants to know if I plan on coming back, as the other assistant manager already told her she's not.

Currently ignoring that text.

Hopes Fall fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jun 2, 2020

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007







Smellrose

What does germany do about people with swastika tattoos? IIRC it's completely illegal to display nazi symbols there?

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Hopes Fall posted:

NJ Unemployment Law question.

Back in March, the retailer I worked for fired all the hourly employees (assistant managers and down) and furloughed all the salary employees (store managers and up).

A store manager that I am friendly with, who works at a different location warned me today that I shouldn't be in contact in with my (previous) store manager. They're slowly starting to reopen, and she thinks if the store manager asks me to come back and I say no, then I can't claim unemployment anymore since I've turned down work.

But, they fired me? And I would have to go through the reapplication process to go back. The wording of my termination was that I would be able to 'reapply for any open positions', which I have no intention of doing.

So, all the store manager would be doing is offering me an opportunity to reapply, not actually offering work. Can she technically extend a job offer if I haven't applied?

Eta: Store manager sent me a text as I was writing that. She wants to know if I plan on coming back, as the other assistant manager already told her she's not.

Currently ignoring that text.

I think this FAQ answers your questions:

https://myunemployment.nj.gov/labor...tructions.shtml

The short answer is that you're not allowed to refuse work and still collect UI - but Question 3 talks about not returning to work due to coronavirus related reasons

Hopes Fall
Sep 10, 2006
HOLY BOOBS, BATMAN!

Devor posted:

I think this FAQ answers your questions:

https://myunemployment.nj.gov/labor...tructions.shtml

The short answer is that you're not allowed to refuse work and still collect UI - but Question 3 talks about not returning to work due to coronavirus related reasons

Yeah, I've read that. I'm questioning whether it would count as me refusing work if I no longer work for them. It's not as though furloughed and still in payroll. I am not a current employee;I would need to reapply, and be rehired in the system. How can she offer me a job I haven't applied for?

To me it feels like if McDonald's randomly asked, "hey, do you want a job?" and that somehow would count as me refusing to work.

owlhawk911
Nov 8, 2019


Hopes Fall posted:

To me it feels like if McDonald's randomly asked, "hey, do you want a job?" and that somehow would count as me refusing to work.

pretty sure that *does* count as refusing work. to be on UI most places here when there's not a plague you have to prove you've been applying for stuff and getting turned down. i have no idea what the rules are during the Great Collapse though

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


Hopes Fall posted:

I'm questioning whether it would count as me refusing work if I no longer work for them.


Getting unemployment means you don't work for them or anyone else. So yes, if you're collecting unemployment and someone you don't currently work for offers you employment and you refuse it, that counts as refusing employment.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009





It doesn’t all the time

It’s very tricky and state dependent

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



Hopes Fall posted:

Yeah, I've read that. I'm questioning whether it would count as me refusing work if I no longer work for them. It's not as though furloughed and still in payroll. I am not a current employee;I would need to reapply, and be rehired in the system. How can she offer me a job I haven't applied for?

To me it feels like if McDonald's randomly asked, "hey, do you want a job?" and that somehow would count as me refusing to work.

easily? people make unsolicited job offers on occasion, there is not a legal requirement you must first apply for the job. if i walk up to you and say hopes fall, you are the exact worker i am looking for, here is a contract just sign on the dotted line and i'm paying you 100k a year to do important things for important people, you can sign and presto you have a job*

the question you're really asking is what does your state UI system think about that (and related question: how would they find out about it), not can someone offer you a job that you didn't apply for.


*in reality you probably got scammed, but let's pretend you are a close relative that i want to give a no-show job to as a favor to your parents

Hopes Fall
Sep 10, 2006
HOLY BOOBS, BATMAN!

evilweasel posted:

the question you're really asking is what does your state UI system think about that (and related question: how would they find out about it), not can someone offer you a job that you didn't apply for.

Fair. That is a much better way to phrase my question.

I spoke to the friendly store manager a little while ago, and she told me that they were authorized to reach out the previous staff and offer 1 full time assistant manager position, and 1 part time assistant manager position. And then email HR with a list of who they reached out to and they said.

So, it sounds like they are exactly maneuvering to get us to agree to reapply, or contest our unemployment.

Edit: still not answering that text. Probably should've blocked her drat number.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007







Smellrose

SuperKlaus posted:

Solano and Stanislaus Counties shutting down courts at noon (marches planned at them). I don't know anything, I'm just a lawyer, so what I hears about the courts I posts.

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

Santa Clara county did this yesterday. It's a clear violation of the constitution but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Is the temporary closure of a court a violation of the 6th amendment? What if, as The Wiggly Wizard suggested later, it's done for nefarious purposes, such as denying arrested protesters the opportunity to get processed and then released? Who would you even appeal such a thing to - the state court, or the 9th circuit? Under what basic legal premise do things like holidays, closures of courts because of a power outage or a tornado, or maybe just because the judges decided to have a barbecue that day, fall under or not fall under the right of defendants to a speedy trial?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

blarzgh
Apr 14, 2009

zzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzz
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZzz
zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZ


Grimey Drawer

Leperflesh posted:

What if, as The Wiggly Wizard suggested later, it's done for nefarious purposes, such as denying arrested protesters the opportunity to get processed and then released? Who would you even appeal such a thing to - the state court, or the 9th circuit?

Typically to get an order that says, "Lower Court, you must do XXX." you can ask the relevant Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«898 »