I thought this was a pretty well known and accepted fact.
No, that is not a fact, it is an article of ideological faith. Many - I would venture, most - people do not subscribe to such a nutty, black & white view of complicated relationship dynamics. It does seem clear, however, that the act you here call "rape" has only the most tenuous connection to the kind of rape where a stranger jumps out of an alley and holds a gun to the woman's head.
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The key phase can be interpreted as
any Thing in the Constitution or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding
or
any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
If the first meaning were intended, the sentence would have been constructed with "this Constitution" rather than "the...". Therefore I think the latter interpretation is correct. Treaties are superior to state law & constitutions, but not to the federal Constitution.
The most likely reason they settled is because the law was clear and both parties knew what would happen if they went to trial.
Probably true. That they settled, is not the issue. The secrecy of the settlement is.
The most likely reason they did not release the details is that releasing the details hinders the parties ability to bilk 3rd parties.
FTFY.
The most likely reason everyone else gets upset about this is because they are the 3rd party and want whatever advantage the 2 settling parties are holding by keeping it secret.
People are upset, because whatever benefit the parties may hold, comes at the cost of making the law more opaque and uneven in its application. The legal system is a public disgrace, and a millstone around the neck of the economy, when it conducts its business in secret in order to secure the private benefit of a lucky few.
Its possible only one party benefits directly from the secret, but in that case they certainly paid the other party in the settlement agreement or it would not be secret.
What difference does it make if the agreement is made before or after they file the lawsuit?
Before a lawsuit is filed, we have two parties talking nicely trying to work out their differences. By filing suit, one of the parties is bringing the State into the dispute. They are asking that the State use force, or threat thereof, to resolve the dispute according to their wishes.
This is a necessary and useful service, since not all disputes can be resolved amicably. However, the dispute is no longer a private matter between two parties - it has become a public matter. Citizens have a compelling interest in seeing that all operations of the State are conducted as transparently as possible. Allowing a public matter to be settled in secret is the very opposite of transparency.
The only legitimate reason an agreement must be kept secret is to cover illegal activity
No it isn't. It allows parties to negotiate a deal which is more favorable to one of them than the other usually gives to most people, without causing everyone who the second party negotiates with in the future to demand the same deal.
If we were talking about a business deal, this would be fine. Citizens have no right to a fair price. However, when we're talking about a "deal" to settle a lawsuit, it's a whole different game. Secret legal settlements are anathema to the basic principal of equal treatment before the law -- since the main purpose of secret settlements seems to be covering up gross inequalities in application of the law.
But, you're right. I'm neither cop nor crook - just citizen & taxpayer
In other words, you have been talking out your ass about shit you know nothing about.
So you think only criminals and those with a vested interest in the current scheme of things, should take interest in the workings of the legal system? I disagree. It is a duty of citizenship to advance the cause of justice in the laws of one's nation.
Which are you, cop or crook?
You have been parroting out ignorant, soft-on-crime whining probably garnered from the "poor little criminals have poor self-esteem" groups that have been around for 30+ years.
So wanting the law to be rational, just, and effective means I'm soft on crime? That makes no sense at all.
Some of them are. The crackheads who infest my neighborhood are extremely annoying. But that doesn't make prohibition any less stupid, costly, and ineffective.
In your case, your multitude of ignorant statements make it obvious you are an ignorant, lying dumbass who has apparently never been involved with the justice system on either end.
You are very angry. But you're right, I'm neither cop nor crook - just citizen & taxpayer.
No one is being give the choice of "Do X or suffer physical harm".
If you do not consider imprisonment a form of physical harm, then your understanding of American prisons is as imaginative as your understanding of voluntariness.
That is a false statement, which makes you a liar.
[... bleat, bleat, bleat...]
Are you done being a dumbass yet?
It does not automatically follow that one who makes an incorrect statement is a liar. He may simply be mistaken, or may interpret the question differently than you do. He may also be correct, and you may have overlooked a flaw in your reasoning. One is a liar only when one, in order to deceive another, asserts something he holds to be untrue.
It is proper in civil discourse to assume good will on the part of those with whom one disagrees. You, however, finding your arguments unpersuasive, have resorted to personal insults. I'll let that speak for itself.
Most folks don't consider a 'choice' of 'do X or suffer physical harm' to be a real choice. Remember, the mugger also offers you a 'choice': hand over your wallet, or get hit over the head. In terms of the voluntariness, I really don't see much difference.
Imho, it's really important to remember that the actions of the court system almost never involve free choice, and almost always involve armed coercion or the threat thereof. Doesn't mean I'm always against it -- I'm am 100% in favor of using violence to coerce murders, rapists, burglars, etc to stop preying on others. But let's not fool ourselves: the "justice" system is violent & ugly, and must be kept under close watch by civil society.
And what exactly is "my kind"? If you think my politics are those of the Dumbocratic party, or any major pressure group, you are mistaken.
By minimizing the loss, you simply afford more mercy to those that are criminals and less to all the victims.
But you're to stupid to realize that crime affects more than just its immediate victims.
Crime affects all of society, the social order. So do the workings of the legal system. Crime is supposed to be an aberration -- it's bad, but we're trying to stop it. When the law is bad, that's much worse, because the law is supposed to be made in our image of a just society.
Three of my friends didn't get a chance to grow up, that is my loss. Five members of society don't exist now because of crimes, and that is the loss to society.
Again, sucks to be you. Sorry to hear about your loss. Still doesn't justify making turning our legal system into a draconian mockery of justice.
How I feel about Bradford Bishop is exactly how I feel about John Couey (convicted sex offender, murderer). I know one, never met the other. My personal loss is not at issue here.
One might have a tinge of vengeance, the other has none.
Umm, who cares?
Justice is making sure that criminals stop being criminals one way or another.
Nope, that's not justice. That's helping criminals reform themselves, to reduce recidivism. Great idea, something I strongly support; but it's not justice per se. Justice is about balance and fairness.
Jail is not Justice, it barely is punishment.
I bet you're one of those people who think making people live in tents, wear pink underwear and eat bologna sandwiches are cruel and inhumane punishment.
Damn straight, gee-dawg.
Dehumanizing prisoners -- many of whom, in the Maricopa County Jail which you reference, are being held pending trial, and thus are not convicted of anything -- is barbaric. It speaks very very poorly to the morals of those who engage in and support dehumanizing policies. It is also extremely unlikely that treating prisoners inhumanely will result in their reformation into upstanding citizens.
But you know what? Based on your arguments so far, I suspect you don't actually give a flying fuck about reforming criminals, reducing recidivism, and improving public safety. You just have a personal grievance, you want vengeance, but you're too cowardly to go exact that vengeance with your own two fists -- so you want the armed agents of the state to lash out on your behalf.
Actually, I know what is like to have someone close to me murdered, so shut the FUCK UP.
Sucks to be you. However, your personal loss does not justify courts issuing capricious punishments that are unrelated to the crime they supposedly avenge. Wrath is not justice.
You do not understand the order. The order is part of his probation agreement, which he is free to reject and take the actual punishment, which would be a fine and/or jail time. Basically, the judge is saying "You don't have to spend time in jail if you agree to abide by these rules."
You don't understand mugging. The order to "give me your fucking money" is actually an agreement, which you are free to reject. The mugger is saying "you don't have to get clubbed over the head if you agree to give me your wallet."
Either the judge is a technological neophyte or this is entrapment.
Most judges seem pretty ignorant in general, and completely clueless about technology. They're mostly half-senile old conservative men (and man-women) who have lived inside the anti-rational legal fantasy land so long it has incurably addled their mind.
Oh crap, I've said pretty much that same thing. Maybe I should check my car... oh wait, I'm not brown, the FBI won't care.
I've also said pretty much the same thing. Because it's flippin obvious. The really scary thing about actual terrorism -- the kind that's directed at random civilians, not high-profile hardened political/economic/military targets -- it doesn't require a lot of special equipment/training, so it's damn near impossible to prevent. Think IRA bombings or the Mumbai attack. Thank the gods we haven't experienced that kind of terrorism in America; probably because, for the most part, our enemies hate the American government a lot more than they hate the American people.
Do people at the FBI really think saying stuff like this is dangerous or anti-American? That's akin to telling your neighbor, "oh hey, you know anyone could bust in that first floor window and rob you", and him in reply accusing you of being a burglar. I know local cops are not the brightest lot, but I have to hope the FBI can attract better quality help.
No car here, so no worries about that. Doubt anyone would bother to bug my bicycle, since I always carry a tracking & surveillance device (smartphone) with me anyways.
try growing one marijuana plant in your back yard, using a vaporiser to ingest it on the first day of a holiday where you will be home, not driving anywhere for a week and tell me how that is wrong?
Damn, that's some strong herb you're planning to grow...
Ah, well maybe goat porn is not your thing -- perhaps hot horse-on-horse action is your more your speed? But this point evades my question: Do you consider porno germane to high public affairs? Or do you whack off to embassy cables detailing the death of American soldiers?
Or maybe, just maybe, you really can see that there is a pretty significant difference between the Wikileaks publication and smarmy internet porn...
You can publish your income, what route you take to work. Anything embarrassing in your past? Oh' post that too. While we are at it how about your address, SSN if you have one, and bank account with routing information.
What if I went through your trash and published whatever I find. Next I pay people you trust for dirt and publish that too. Anything I can get my hands on to use your phrase. Those are all illegal acts but I shouldn't be prosecuted. Hey! I'm just doing what I think is right, so I can ignore any laws.
So you equate publishing a private individual's personal info with publishing official documents regarding the strategy and prosecution of a long, bloody, invasionary war?
Wikileaks is leaking stolen documents, its no more journalistic than someone posting p0rn to/b
No difference at all? So you consider goat porn to be germane to perhaps the most pressing political issue facing Americans today? Or maybe you spend your time whacking off to descriptions of friendly-fire casualties in Afghanistan?
You also get the problem that the list is contaminated - bad addresses, drunk pissers, slightly too-young girlfriends, non-pedophiles, etc...
Given the prevalence of these mundane and harmless offenses compared with that of actual child molestation, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of names on these witch lists are probably there for bogus reasons. Unfortunately I do not have hard numbers on this.
Specific teaching technologies should definitely not be mandated by the university administration. This is not so much because I doubt the utility of all new teaching technologies -- some are no doubt quite useful, others complete garbage -- so much as because I severely doubt the ability of educrats to mandate the actually-useful tools.
Okay, so that's about a mile away from the storage tanks. Any idea what the blast radius on one of those things is, should it get ignited?
My basic point is: c'mon, put this stuff somewhere isolated & easy to protect. At least the Culpeper site looks to be in the middle of BFE, which has to be kinda useful from a security perspective.
Welcome to the real world, where economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because somebody has more doesn't mean somebody else has less. Peddle your Marxism elsewhere.
Get real, dude. For one party to have more, definitionally another party must have less. That's just what the words mean.
What you are probably arguing is "extravagant pay for certain individuals is justified because it hugely increases the prosperity of society as a whole, including those who receive relatively less." Sure, that's most likely true. But then you're left with the much harder task of justifying the exorbitant pay of this particular class, the finance rentiers. The usual argument trotted out in their favor is that they are oh-so-very good at allocating capital, which any sensible person will agree is a critical job. Alas for your argument, the recent financial crisis and the ongoing structural collapse of the American and European economies draw attention to the really quite horrible misallocation (or mal-allocation, perhaps?) of capital under the direction of the investment banking regime.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was a pretty well known and accepted fact.
No, that is not a fact, it is an article of ideological faith. Many - I would venture, most - people do not subscribe to such a nutty, black & white view of complicated relationship dynamics. It does seem clear, however, that the act you here call "rape" has only the most tenuous connection to the kind of rape where a stranger jumps out of an alley and holds a gun to the woman's head.
We can't really hate them for bowing to pressure from the most powerful country in the world.
China is involved now?
The controversy here seems to hinge on:
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The key phase can be interpreted as
or
If the first meaning were intended, the sentence would have been constructed with "this Constitution" rather than "the ...". Therefore I think the latter interpretation is correct. Treaties are superior to state law & constitutions, but not to the federal Constitution.
The most likely reason they settled is because the law was clear and both parties knew what would happen if they went to trial.
Probably true. That they settled, is not the issue. The secrecy of the settlement is.
The most likely reason they did not release the details is that releasing the details hinders the parties ability to bilk 3rd parties.
FTFY.
The most likely reason everyone else gets upset about this is because they are the 3rd party and want whatever advantage the 2 settling parties are holding by keeping it secret.
People are upset, because whatever benefit the parties may hold, comes at the cost of making the law more opaque and uneven in its application. The legal system is a public disgrace, and a millstone around the neck of the economy, when it conducts its business in secret in order to secure the private benefit of a lucky few.
Its possible only one party benefits directly from the secret, but in that case they certainly paid the other party in the settlement agreement or it would not be secret.
Yup, most likely someone somewhere got paid off.
What difference does it make if the agreement is made before or after they file the lawsuit?
Before a lawsuit is filed, we have two parties talking nicely trying to work out their differences. By filing suit, one of the parties is bringing the State into the dispute. They are asking that the State use force, or threat thereof, to resolve the dispute according to their wishes.
This is a necessary and useful service, since not all disputes can be resolved amicably. However, the dispute is no longer a private matter between two parties - it has become a public matter. Citizens have a compelling interest in seeing that all operations of the State are conducted as transparently as possible. Allowing a public matter to be settled in secret is the very opposite of transparency.
The only legitimate reason an agreement must be kept secret is to cover illegal activity
No it isn't. It allows parties to negotiate a deal which is more favorable to one of them than the other usually gives to most people, without causing everyone who the second party negotiates with in the future to demand the same deal.
If we were talking about a business deal, this would be fine. Citizens have no right to a fair price. However, when we're talking about a "deal" to settle a lawsuit, it's a whole different game. Secret legal settlements are anathema to the basic principal of equal treatment before the law -- since the main purpose of secret settlements seems to be covering up gross inequalities in application of the law.
In other words, you have been talking out your ass about shit you know nothing about.
So you think only criminals and those with a vested interest in the current scheme of things, should take interest in the workings of the legal system? I disagree. It is a duty of citizenship to advance the cause of justice in the laws of one's nation.
Which are you, cop or crook?
You have been parroting out ignorant, soft-on-crime whining probably garnered from the "poor little criminals have poor self-esteem" groups that have been around for 30+ years.
So wanting the law to be rational, just, and effective means I'm soft on crime? That makes no sense at all.
(drugs are bad kids)
Some of them are. The crackheads who infest my neighborhood are extremely annoying. But that doesn't make prohibition any less stupid, costly, and ineffective.
In your case, your multitude of ignorant statements make it obvious you are an ignorant, lying dumbass who has apparently never been involved with the justice system on either end.
You are very angry. But you're right, I'm neither cop nor crook - just citizen & taxpayer.
No one is being give the choice of "Do X or suffer physical harm".
If you do not consider imprisonment a form of physical harm, then your understanding of American prisons is as imaginative as your understanding of voluntariness.
That is a false statement, which makes you a liar.
[ ... bleat, bleat, bleat ...]
Are you done being a dumbass yet?
It does not automatically follow that one who makes an incorrect statement is a liar. He may simply be mistaken, or may interpret the question differently than you do. He may also be correct, and you may have overlooked a flaw in your reasoning. One is a liar only when one, in order to deceive another, asserts something he holds to be untrue.
It is proper in civil discourse to assume good will on the part of those with whom one disagrees. You, however, finding your arguments unpersuasive, have resorted to personal insults. I'll let that speak for itself.
Most folks don't consider a 'choice' of 'do X or suffer physical harm' to be a real choice. Remember, the mugger also offers you a 'choice': hand over your wallet, or get hit over the head. In terms of the voluntariness, I really don't see much difference.
Imho, it's really important to remember that the actions of the court system almost never involve free choice, and almost always involve armed coercion or the threat thereof. Doesn't mean I'm always against it -- I'm am 100% in favor of using violence to coerce murders, rapists, burglars, etc to stop preying on others. But let's not fool ourselves: the "justice" system is violent & ugly, and must be kept under close watch by civil society.
It seems you have a rather imaginative idea of what "voluntary" means...
Sorry, the loss was not just mine.
You're the only one bitching about it here...
That fact continues to escape you and your kind.
And what exactly is "my kind"? If you think my politics are those of the Dumbocratic party, or any major pressure group, you are mistaken.
By minimizing the loss, you simply afford more mercy to those that are criminals and less to all the victims.
But you're to stupid to realize that crime affects more than just its immediate victims.
Crime affects all of society, the social order. So do the workings of the legal system. Crime is supposed to be an aberration -- it's bad, but we're trying to stop it. When the law is bad, that's much worse, because the law is supposed to be made in our image of a just society.
Three of my friends didn't get a chance to grow up, that is my loss. Five members of society don't exist now because of crimes, and that is the loss to society.
Again, sucks to be you. Sorry to hear about your loss. Still doesn't justify making turning our legal system into a draconian mockery of justice.
How I feel about Bradford Bishop is exactly how I feel about John Couey (convicted sex offender, murderer). I know one, never met the other. My personal loss is not at issue here.
One might have a tinge of vengeance, the other has none.
Umm, who cares?
Justice is making sure that criminals stop being criminals one way or another.
Nope, that's not justice. That's helping criminals reform themselves, to reduce recidivism. Great idea, something I strongly support; but it's not justice per se. Justice is about balance and fairness.
Jail is not Justice, it barely is punishment.
I bet you're one of those people who think making people live in tents, wear pink underwear and eat bologna sandwiches are cruel and inhumane punishment.
Damn straight, gee-dawg.
Dehumanizing prisoners -- many of whom, in the Maricopa County Jail which you reference, are being held pending trial, and thus are not convicted of anything -- is barbaric. It speaks very very poorly to the morals of those who engage in and support dehumanizing policies. It is also extremely unlikely that treating prisoners inhumanely will result in their reformation into upstanding citizens.
But you know what? Based on your arguments so far, I suspect you don't actually give a flying fuck about reforming criminals, reducing recidivism, and improving public safety. You just have a personal grievance, you want vengeance, but you're too cowardly to go exact that vengeance with your own two fists -- so you want the armed agents of the state to lash out on your behalf.
Actually, I know what is like to have someone close to me murdered, so shut the FUCK UP.
Sucks to be you. However, your personal loss does not justify courts issuing capricious punishments that are unrelated to the crime they supposedly avenge. Wrath is not justice.
You do not understand the order. The order is part of his probation agreement, which he is free to reject and take the actual punishment, which would be a fine and/or jail time. Basically, the judge is saying "You don't have to spend time in jail if you agree to abide by these rules."
You don't understand mugging. The order to "give me your fucking money" is actually an agreement, which you are free to reject. The mugger is saying "you don't have to get clubbed over the head if you agree to give me your wallet."
Either the judge is a technological neophyte or this is entrapment.
Most judges seem pretty ignorant in general, and completely clueless about technology. They're mostly half-senile old conservative men (and man-women) who have lived inside the anti-rational legal fantasy land so long it has incurably addled their mind.
Oh crap, I've said pretty much that same thing. Maybe I should check my car... oh wait, I'm not brown, the FBI won't care.
I've also said pretty much the same thing. Because it's flippin obvious. The really scary thing about actual terrorism -- the kind that's directed at random civilians, not high-profile hardened political/economic/military targets -- it doesn't require a lot of special equipment/training, so it's damn near impossible to prevent. Think IRA bombings or the Mumbai attack. Thank the gods we haven't experienced that kind of terrorism in America; probably because, for the most part, our enemies hate the American government a lot more than they hate the American people.
Do people at the FBI really think saying stuff like this is dangerous or anti-American? That's akin to telling your neighbor, "oh hey, you know anyone could bust in that first floor window and rob you", and him in reply accusing you of being a burglar. I know local cops are not the brightest lot, but I have to hope the FBI can attract better quality help.
No car here, so no worries about that. Doubt anyone would bother to bug my bicycle, since I always carry a tracking & surveillance device (smartphone) with me anyways.
try growing one marijuana plant in your back yard, using a vaporiser to ingest it on the first day of a holiday where you will be home, not driving anywhere for a week and tell me how that is wrong?
Damn, that's some strong herb you're planning to grow...
Ah, well maybe goat porn is not your thing -- perhaps hot horse-on-horse action is your more your speed? But this point evades my question: Do you consider porno germane to high public affairs? Or do you whack off to embassy cables detailing the death of American soldiers?
Or maybe, just maybe, you really can see that there is a pretty significant difference between the Wikileaks publication and smarmy internet porn...
You can publish your income, what route you take to work. Anything embarrassing in your past? Oh' post that too. While we are at it how about your address, SSN if you have one, and bank account with routing information.
What if I went through your trash and published whatever I find. Next I pay people you trust for dirt and publish that too. Anything I can get my hands on to use your phrase. Those are all illegal acts but I shouldn't be prosecuted. Hey! I'm just doing what I think is right, so I can ignore any laws.
So you equate publishing a private individual's personal info with publishing official documents regarding the strategy and prosecution of a long, bloody, invasionary war?
Wikileaks is leaking stolen documents, its no more journalistic than someone posting p0rn to /b
No difference at all? So you consider goat porn to be germane to perhaps the most pressing political issue facing Americans today? Or maybe you spend your time whacking off to descriptions of friendly-fire casualties in Afghanistan?
We aren't responsible enough as a society at viewing all that information fairly to be trusted with it indiscriminately.
Hey, at least you come right out and admit you don't believe in democratic rule or freedom of information.
You also get the problem that the list is contaminated - bad addresses, drunk pissers, slightly too-young girlfriends, non-pedophiles, etc...
Given the prevalence of these mundane and harmless offenses compared with that of actual child molestation, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of names on these witch lists are probably there for bogus reasons. Unfortunately I do not have hard numbers on this.
Specific teaching technologies should definitely not be mandated by the university administration. This is not so much because I doubt the utility of all new teaching technologies -- some are no doubt quite useful, others complete garbage -- so much as because I severely doubt the ability of educrats to mandate the actually-useful tools.
Okay, so that's about a mile away from the storage tanks. Any idea what the blast radius on one of those things is, should it get ignited?
My basic point is: c'mon, put this stuff somewhere isolated & easy to protect. At least the Culpeper site looks to be in the middle of BFE, which has to be kinda useful from a security perspective.
Welcome to the real world, where economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because somebody has more doesn't mean somebody else has less. Peddle your Marxism elsewhere.
Get real, dude. For one party to have more, definitionally another party must have less. That's just what the words mean.
What you are probably arguing is "extravagant pay for certain individuals is justified because it hugely increases the prosperity of society as a whole, including those who receive relatively less." Sure, that's most likely true. But then you're left with the much harder task of justifying the exorbitant pay of this particular class, the finance rentiers. The usual argument trotted out in their favor is that they are oh-so-very good at allocating capital, which any sensible person will agree is a critical job. Alas for your argument, the recent financial crisis and the ongoing structural collapse of the American and European economies draw attention to the really quite horrible misallocation (or mal-allocation, perhaps?) of capital under the direction of the investment banking regime.