Rivalarrival
@Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
- Comment on Anon predicts the future of driving 13 hours ago:
Shut up, wesley
- Comment on Anon predicts the future of driving 1 day ago:
- Comment on Horror 4 days ago:
You can’t get a balloon pilot’s license without a formal diagnosis. :)
- Comment on Horror 4 days ago:
Hot air balloon pilot here: We do, indeed.
- Comment on Should I withdraw/stop putting into my 401k? 4 days ago:
The reverse, probably: You should probably increase your contribution.
Consider the state of the market “now”. Consider the state of the market “later”, meaning some hypothetical time between now and your eventual retirement.
If the market is low “now”, and you think it will be high “later”, you should be buying now.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 4 days ago:
That’s the whole debate though. What is your responsibility as a citizen?
The only responsibilities on the individual that are prescribed by the constitution arise under the Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16: the Militia clauses.
You have no other constitutional responsibilities as a citizen.
A legislated law obligating you to apply legislated law in judging the accused would violate the accused’s 6th amendment right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Such a law would make you an agent of the government, not a layperson juror. The legislature can compel you to report for jury service; the legislature cannot impose any sort of responsibility to render a particular verdict.
You have no (relevant) legislative-law responsibilities as a citizen.
I’m so weary of talking about it ad-nauseam.
You have yet to talk about the most important part of the constitution. The first three words. You’ve completely ignored them all this time. Either you don’t understand them, or you think they are irrelevant. They are the sine qua non of this issue. Ultimately, those three words rebut every single point against nullification you have made, every ad-nauseating time you have made them.
Ultimately these questions about jury nullification are irrelevant because you’ll never have 12 jurors who think subverting the court process can achieve justice.
Injustice requires a unanimous verdict. The accused doesn’t need 12 for the trial to reach a just end. He only needs one. A hung jury is always a just jury.
- Comment on I can't block a community I was banned from. The button is gone. 6 days ago:
- Comment on He's just eccentric 1 week ago:
DO NOT EAT
You’re not my supervisor!
- Comment on Hey, do americans just want to take a break from normal politics for a bit and focus all our efforts solely on the wild boar problem? 1 week ago:
Are you sure you’re not Joe Biden?
- Comment on Road crews carry the world on their shoulders. They just aren't given enough to do what needs doing. 1 week ago:
They just aren’t given enough to do what needs doing.
Guillotines are on back order, with earliest ship dates after December 4th.
- Comment on Pineapple was never the problem 2 weeks ago:
Ooh, I like… I think you might want to add some sharp cheddar.
- Comment on Pineapple was never the problem 2 weeks ago:
Spaghetti belongs in a taco, not a pizza.
- Comment on Why are autistic people so odd?? 2 weeks ago:
I would say that neurotypicality is a mental disability characterized, in part, by a limited ability to comprehend and tolerate neurodiversity.
- Comment on Vintage memes? 2 weeks ago:
Het guy here: It is, indeed, “time”.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
We have a system for considering the justice of law. Citizens elect representatives who debate, create, and revise laws on their behalf.
That same system also explicitly enables the executive to pardon the accused outright, specifically exempting them from the laws created on behalf of the citizenry. The system itself tells us that legislated laws should not be considered sacrosanct.
The juror’s role is external to that system. Jurors are not representatives of the government, and owe no duties to that government, nor any part of that government.
Juries typically accept legislated law because they choose to. Generally speaking, a jury should abide by the will of the legislature. But, they are not beholden. They are constitutionally empowered to determine that a particular law did not adequately consider the specific circumstances of the accused, and would be unjust to apply.
Demanding that a jury obey the legislature without consideration of their greater constitutional obligation to the accused makes them a representative of the government, rather than a layperson jury.
- Comment on Trust your training 2 weeks ago:
I took biology in 1996; it wasn’t a thing yet. Someone else claimed it was already widespread by 2001. I don’t think I encountered it in the wild before 2005.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
It is absolutely a mixed bag. Ideally, jury nullification would never be used, because none of our laws would be unjust or improper to apply.
But, we have had “Fugitive Slave Acts” on our books for the majority of our history: acts that criminalize providing aid and assistance to escaped slaves, or failing to deliver them to their “owners”.
We cannot pretend our legislature has never been corrupt, or will never be corrupt in the future. Jury Nullification is an important check on an out-of-control legislature.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just made up poppycock that sounds nice.
What does the phrase “We The People” mean, as used in the preamble of the constitution?
This is basic, foundational stuff we are talking about here. The fundamental concepts of democracy. Those aren’t just fun, patriotic words; they have actual meanings. Our government does not arise from “divine right” or “ancestral claims”. It exists because We The People willed it into existence. We willed into existence the right of the accused to be judged not by agents of the government, but by the peers of the accused. The same “We The People” who conveyed a tiny portion of their powers to allow the United States government to come into existence are charged also with wielding their power in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
You suggestion that the jury is beholden to the legislature is offensive. Your suggestion that “We The People” are legally and constitutionally obligated to enforce unjust laws promulgated by a corrupt legislature is absolutely galling. Made up poppycock that sounds nice? This is a core tenet of democracy we are talking about here.
I have asked you, repeatedly, to provide the constitutional basis for your claims, as I have repeatedly provided for mine. The closest you have come to any sort of support for your position is this statement:
Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive.
That is not in any way a reasonable, rational argument.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.
This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.
“We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.
The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.
Where the juror is convinced that the legislated law does not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.
The jury is NEVER obligated to return an unjust verdict.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.
Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?
From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
The justice system intends for Jury’s to perform a very specific function
The justice system arises from Article III of the Constitution. The Justice system is one of the three branches of government, and is subject to the Separation of Powers.
Jurors are not members of the justice system. They aren’t members of the government. They are laypersons. Peers of the accused. They are the “We The People” mentioned in the preamble: The source whence all constitutional powers arise.
Jurors may take this third option without consequence but they are not upholding their responsibilities to the justice system.
Jurors have no responsibilities to the justice system. A juror’s responsibility is to the accused. 6th Amendment.
- Comment on Why is Jury Nullification a Thing, But You Can’t Talk About It in Court? 2 weeks ago:
Jury Nullification arises from the constitution’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial. This guarantee creates one of a few constitutional obligations on the individual: The obligation to judge your peer, as a layperson.
The judge has a slightly different duty, due to “Separation of Powers”. The judge is charged with enforcing legislated law. The judge is not permitted to evaluate whether that law should or should not exist; the judge must presume that the law is valid unless it conflicts with a superior law, such as the constitution. This is why the judge must treat nullification as a secret: They violate the separation of powers as soon as they tell the jury they are free to ignore legislated law.
You, the juror, are not subject to the separation of powers. As a member of “We The People”, the Constitution derives its powers from you, not the other way around. Your duty, as a juror, is to provide the accused with their right to be judged by a jury of their peers.
Your obligation arises from the Constitution, and to the accused. Where legislated law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution supersedes the legislated law. Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.
You will be asked if you hold any beliefs that would prevent you from rendering a judgement solely on the basis of the law, which would make you ineligible to serve on a jury. The constitution is law. My beliefs arise from the constitution, and I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from rendering a judgment on the basis of anything other than the law. I can honestly answer “No”.
If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
We don’t actually know how often juries nullify. It is impossible to distinguish between an acquittal on the basis of “Reasonable Doubt” and an acquittal on the basis of “This law did not envision this defendant’s specific circumstances”.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
That’s OK. Nobody expects you to actually be able to present a convincing rebuttal. You aren’t here for that. While our comments are directed at you, they are actually intended for the reasonable, rational people reading along. You aren’t the target audience; you’re a tool we use to reach that target audience.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
Color me surprised.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It’s not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
The question wasn’t about the labor. The question was about the employer. The question was about the mindset you demonstrated in your first comment, that you later clarified:
since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That’s fucking ludicrous.
The question is about how you decided that this idea is “fucking ludicrous”.
You lied to me when you said you didn’t hold this belief. It may have been an unintentional lie at the time, probably because you didn’t understand what I was asking. But, I was talking about what you describe as “fucking ludicrous”. Those two words are a vociferous acknowledgement of the beliefs I was talking about. I want to know how you came to believe this idea to be “fucking ludicrous”.
We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial
Why not? I think we most certainly can. I think we can absolutely demand that they fulfill an obligation greater than just their own financial interests. I think we can certainly demand that their business operations benefit their workers, and society in general. When their business is demonstrably exploitative “shit-work”, we are not obligated to allow them to continue to do business. We can prohibit them from continuing to engage in that harmful business.
Some business operate on unskilled labour
Unskilled human labor.
They require the labor of a human for their business to function, but they pay less than subsistence wages to that human. That is “shit-work”.
The net effect of their business practices is harmful. Those workers are also consumers, and those consumers have less to spend. These “shit-work” companies are strangling the economy and damaging society in general.
Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow “shit-work” companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
I don’t believe that,
I see. Maybe we have had a failure to communicate. What I was referring to was this:
And especially Starbucks, it’s shit-work
Whatever you meant by “shit-work” is what I asked you about.
Why do you believe companies offering “shit-work” should be allowed to remain in business?
- Comment on What happens to all the used guns? 2 weeks ago:
I assume guns wear out eventually,
They don’t.
I assume you can’t just chuck them in the garbage when they do.
You can slice them in pieces across the action, and dump them in the trash. You can surrender them to police; police will collect them in a barrel, and deliver it to a steel mill for recycling.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
Starbucks gives the new CEO a $96 million bonus, then a month later, lays off 1,000+
workersPotential Luigis.FTFY.
- Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible 2 weeks ago:
Let me translate that rhetorical question for you:
Why do you believe society should allow certain businesses to remain in existence, when those businesses utilize human labor, yet do not pay enough for human laborers to subsist?
