Lurker > ThePieReborn

Alucard188 posted...

Fuck it. Did it. Not the biggest waste of $25 I've done.

I bought Brink on launch. You're fine. >_>
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Heavy Drinking Law Student Man, awaaaaay! *fwoosh*
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Alas and alack, that is not the law. In addition to my previously cited cases, see the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-land-use-and-institutionalized-persons-act

Edit: Directed at post 42.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Kazi1212 posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Why is this an issue?

Because the law does protect the rights of prisoners to practice their faiths to an extent.

To an extent being the key here. Does accommodating religious dietary needs fall into that category? I guess well see what the courts say

Numerous federal circuits have held as much, and this is just a half-assed glance at Westlaw. See:

Nelson v. Miller (2009)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1362058.html

Cotton v. Cate (2014)
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/06/16/12-15829.pdf

LaFevers v. Saffle (1991)
https://casetext.com/case/lafevers-v-saffle

Tl;dr, the state needs a compelling state end to justify deprivation of capacity to practice religious tenets. For example, beard length restrictions are okay because of the safety risk of shit being hidden.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

_Goggalor_ posted...

Why is this an issue?

Because the law does protect the rights of prisoners to practice their faiths to an extent.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

To my knowledge, it's all or nothing. If the state accommodates some religious dietary caveats in prison, then it's obligated to do so for all religions within reason. If it doesn't provide for any, it's not necessarily obliged to provide. I'll scope out Westlaw real quick.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Nah. It's basically "war were declared" on repeat. :p
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Some dude who does stuff and things.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

TheVipaGTS posted...

spudger posted...

eston posted...

This is one of the reasons bodycams are good for police as well as civilians. It seems silly to be against them

---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

s0nicfan posted...

It's fascinating how the courts, especially the SC, reason about and around laws to determine constitutionality, and it's amazing how utterly specific language has to be in these cases to maintain a delicate balance.

It's honestly this more than the terms of art that makes legalese obnoxious to wrestle with both in translating to regular folks and in wrestling with the definitions I've internalized over the 23 years before law school.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

s0nicfan posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

As an aside, the Supreme Court has not equated being human with personhood. Or rather, has simply opted to not go down the philosophizing route and just stated that personhood is not extended by virtue of being human because convenience and reasons.

I just want to thank you for making well worded, reasoned arguments. I know I haven't been addressing them, but you've made some valid points with regards to how we address the seeming contradiction in the legal system and it's been a pleasure to read them.

I'm just a heavy drinking law student. There's a surprising amount of cases that have been decided on the axis of "Well if we say this, it'll be inconvenient. So we'll say this instead and restrict it to these very particular situations." This is where the fetal personhood conundrum effectively wound up, with this (to normal people) arbitrary distinction between "human" and "personhood."

I also need to continue working on my law review entry submission, but public forum analysis of public access channels is driving me up a wall. ._.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

As an aside, the Supreme Court has not equated being human with personhood. Or rather, has simply opted to not go down the philosophizing route and just stated that personhood is not extended by virtue of being human because convenience and reasons.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

I would disagree, and acknowledge that abortion is a lawful fetal homicide as distinct from an unlawful fetal homicide (where the current situation falls into).

Because again, not all homicides are unlawful.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

This is generally in line with conditional spending as it relates to abortion jurisprudence as far as I'm aware.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Well, if we want to get technical, "homicide" is derived from " homicdium," meaning "manslaughter." Since we're all about implications, we can imply that "human slaughter" is a sufficient modern translation, thereby matching with the body of law currently not recognizing fetal personhood.

I don't understand why this implication is particularly important, since the law doesn't recognize the implication's implication and this whole issue is irrelevant.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

s0nicfan posted...

JE19426 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The literal definition of homicide is murder. (Irrelevant stuff I deleted) There's no other instance in the legal system where the word "homicide" is used to imply killing something that isn't a murder.

That's funny because the source you posted literally says the opposite, to you what you are claiming.

Go ahead and quote the part that's the literal opposite, because cutting out the part that says literally what I said and then claiming it says the opposite doesn't prove you right.

You said...

The literal definition of homicide is murder.

Your source

Homicide is simply the killing of one person by another. It may or may not be illegal.

---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

s0nicfan posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

"Fetal homicide" is not murder. "Homicide" =/= murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. A fetal homicide is the unlawful killing of a fetus. The lawfulness of the killing of a fetus is dependent upon the consent of the woman carrying the fetus.

The literal definition of homicide is murder. We don't call killing a dog "animal homicide". There's no other instance in the legal system where the word "homicide" is used to imply killing something that isn't a murder.

https://murphylawoffice.org/john-murphy-law-office-blog/77-what-s-the-difference-between-homicide-murder-and-manslaughter.html

Homicide is simply the killing of one person by another. It may or may not be illegal. Soldiers in battle commit homicide without committing a crime. Citizens kill intruders without committing a crime. So, what is it that separates a legal homicide from an illegal murder? And, what makes one killing a murder and another a manslaughter?

Murder is a homicide committed with malice aforethought. That doesnt mean it is a malicious killing. Malice aforethought is the common law way of saying that it is an unjustified killing. And, for a killing to be a murder, there typically has to be either an intent to kill, or, at minimum, conduct so reckless that it is punishable as murder.

...Did you not read the first bolded sentence and the sentence following it? Per your own source, all murders are homicides but not all homicides are murder.

And no shit we don't call killing dogs "animal homicide." Because homicide refers to the killing of a person.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

"Fetal homicide" is not murder. "Homicide" =/= murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. The criminal charge of fetal homicide is the unlawful killing of a fetus. The lawfulness of the killing of a fetus is dependent upon the consent of the woman carrying the fetus. There is no contradiction because the consent of the woman is the distinguishing feature.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Hayame Zero posted...

https://imgur.com/64qmcCm

Please no. Don't even joke about shit like this.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Given that I'm a stubborn asshole who refuses help until he's beaten into submission to accept it, how can I give help that I won't accept?
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

The cat's "get me the fuck out of here" face at the end was funny.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

And it's reasonable to immediately jump to the "Ermahgerd I'mma call ICE on you!!11!!" stage?
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Casebooks for school ._.

I did just finish President Grant's memoirs the other day, and I rather enjoyed the reading.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

I do, because I require other people to make the calls on my fashion.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Wow, this spiraled out of control.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

HitTheGroundWal posted...

I mean, 6 weeks isn't even necessarily enough time for someone to find out they're pregnant unless they're super cautious. That's only like one missed period, which just happens sometimes regardless. To some more than others.

Indeed. My friend's wife just found out she was pregnant at week 11-12ish, I think?

Methinks this law crosses into undue burden territory just on that basis, and none of the dissenters in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt were gungho on turning back the clock on the whole right to privacy/bodily integrity schtick.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

They can make a sandwich wherever they choose to.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Or make him look at this photograph.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Never made it as a wise man.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

I am tired as fuck after my Con Law II final and am currently drinking heavily after helping friend out with Fashion Souls III.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

I am a mighty meaty man.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

M_Live posted...

I'm not sure how states are able to pass these sort of laws when the US government literally decided that women have the right to get an abortion. Can someone actually explain that?

Restrictions can be passed, so long as they don't cause an undue burden (which is its own can of worms as far as definitions go).

I don't think there's much ground for the court to back away from the precedent of bodily integrity that's been built up over the years. Likewise with fetal personhood with regards to due process. So it's less of a gambit in my eyes and closer to desperation.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Methinks that crosses into undue burden territory.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Mister Sir Supreme
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Lionel Hutz would be ashamed.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Kitty on her throne.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

There's value in having people who understand the procedures of things, which comes by experience.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Dayum.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

It has been many moons.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Reasons.

Also some shit about public health, safety, and welfare.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

It's a work in progress, but I find it's one of the few things I can actually enjoy nowadays.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Nope. Gotta dance more and better for the peanuts.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

I'll give you an eyebrow raise for the attempt. Gonna need some actual effort to get peanuts, though.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Nomadic View posted...

The 14th already covers this. Sure, go for it I guess. Its kinda redundant though.

It covers it insofar as sex is granted weaker protection/examined with lesser scrutiny than racial/national origin discriminatory action.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?

A gigantic shitstorm with Selective Service, very quickly.

Mmm. It would provide fuel, but I'm not sure it would ignite. The Court has historically given extreme deference to Congress's powers with regards to national security/raising armies.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?

I believe this makes gay marriage a constitutional right since it would be discriminatory to consider the sex of the people being married, as well as power of attorney rights, adoption, etc.

I'm sure there's some benefit in it for trans as well.

Not groundbreaking, and as it was said several decades late but it puts in protections that are very hard to remove.

Yep, this would strengthen those arguments. Not necessarily to the degree that gay marriage is instantly insulated, but it would bolster the arguments used in Windsor and Obergefell to the point that it would be a much smaller jump and much more constitutionally sound.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

SomeonesAlt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Does this... actually add anything that isn't already there?

I think it's just symbolic for whatever reason. This is 37 years late, lol

No, it would change equal protection cases in a substantial fashion. Currently sex is not a suspect criteria with regards to equal protection, because the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns race and national origin. This amendment would make sex an explicit suspect criteria, and sexual discrimination cases and state actions allegedly discriminating on the basis of sex (for example the leaning towards the mother in custody cases) would be subject to strict scrutiny and require the state provide a compelling state end and the action taken be the least restrictive alternative.

It wouldn't be ground shattering, but it would not merely be symbolic.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Trayvon posted...

I wonder how many college offers and scholarships he would have gotten if he was white.

like same personality, grades, etc.

For some reason I thought they stopped allowing race to be a factor into college acceptance. Am i wrong?

Yes. Diversity (not just race) is still a compelling end with regards to higher education admission. However, race cannot be the sole factor, be overweighted in comparison to other factors, and anything that even resembles a racial quota is likely to be canned by lawsuit. If the admissions process can be demonstrated to be an individualized process, then diversity criteria are viewed with less suspicion.
---

Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!