Poll of the Day > Supreme Court ... something something

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/23/us-supreme-court-prisoners-ineffective-counsel-challenges

Theyre literally saying that having evidence that you were wrongfully convicted isnt enough to challenge a conviction.

VampireCoyote posted...

Theyre literally saying that having evidence that you were wrongfully convicted isnt enough to challenge a conviction.

And yet Bill fucking Cosby got his conviction overturned but not these guys

You keep giving me lip, we're going to overturn your face.

Good news and bad news

Good news: We caught the guy who actually killed your wife!

Bad news: We're still gunna execute you

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80032479

But yeah, interesting how happily the conservative justices spit on the Constitution. I don't know how anyone can interpret this ruling as anything less than preparation for a fascist takeover. I personally consider this to be a worse decision than overturning Roe Vs Wade.

Gaawa_chan posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80032479

But yeah, interesting how happily the conservative justices spit on the Constitution. I don't know how anyone can interpret this ruling as anything less than preparation for a fascist takeover. I personally consider this to be a worse decision than overturning Roe Vs Wade.

Yeah the people saying we don't live in a democracy anymore are actually pretty correct. Honestly, I kinda hope for North Korea to nuke us. At least then we could start over.

Judging just at face value, it sounds fucked up but there might be some nuance I don't feel like examining.

Lokarin posted...

Good news and bad news

Good news: We caught the guy who actually killed your wife!

Bad news: We're still gunna execute you

Literally not even the same thing being discussed. A conviction of the actual perp exonerates and expunges the conviction of another person. This is a procedural appeal.

Gaawa_chan posted...

I don't know how anyone can interpret this ruling as anything less than preparation for a fascist takeover.

lolwut? Holy bizarre leaps, Batman!

Blightzkrieg posted...

And yet Bill fucking Cosby got his conviction overturned but not these guys

Because the Bill Cosby case was a matter of the prosecution being idiots and offering a plea deal in the civil suit, then using the conditions of the civil suit to convict him on criminal charges.

That is a clear violation of the 5th and 14th amendments no matter how you look at it. It is why the criminal cases are always done before the civil suits. If the prosecutor had done it the right way, Cosby never would have been freed.

Count_Drachma posted...

Judging just at face value, it sounds fucked up but there might be some nuance I don't feel like examining.

Literally not even the same thing being discussed. A conviction of the actual perp exonerates and expunges the conviction of another person. This is a procedural appeal.

ya, it's a joke

Dikitain posted...

Because the Bill Cosby case was a matter of the prosecution being idiots and offering a plea deal in the civil suit, then using the conditions of the civil suit to convict him on criminal charges.

That is a clear violation of the 5th and 14th amendments no matter how you look at it. It is why the criminal cases are always done before the civil suits. If the prosecutor had done it the right way, Cosby never would have been freed.

Well im sure glad those amendments helped an obviously guilty person be freed while allowing known innocent people to remain in prison, clearly the system works

Arcturusisnow posted...

Yeah the people saying we don't live in a democracy anymore are actually pretty correct.

We've literally never lived in a democracy, so it's not a hard statement to validate.



Arcturusisnow posted...

Honestly, I kinda hope for North Korea to nuke us. At least then we could start over.

You should be careful. Someone's seriously going to cut themselves on all that edge.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We've literally never lived in a democracy, so it's not a hard statement to validate.

It's mindboggling people still don't understand this, but America's public schools are glorified babysitting which likely contributes to it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You should be careful. Someone's seriously going to cut themselves on all that edge.

More than just that, a comment like his would probably get me suspended if I said it. The double-standards on this site are insane.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We've literally never lived in a democracy, so it's not a hard statement to validate.

Erm... yes, you do.

Do you vote for your leaders? Congratulations, you live in a democracy.

House representatives, senators, as well as state- and municipal-level governments are all elected directly by the people. The only governmental leaders that aren't elected at the federal level are the judiciary and the president/vice president and even those last two have a pretty large asterisk next to them, given that you elect the people who elect them, which still fits under the umbrella of a democratic system.

People seem to get confused between "democracy" and "direct democracy". One need not be a direct democracy (where the electorate votes on everything) to still count as a democracy. The US is a representative democracy - has been pretty much since the constitution was created.

(and don't get me started on those "we're not a democracy, we're a republic!" clowns - that's the political equivalent of saying, "I'm not a man, I have brown hair!")

darkknight109 posted...

Do you vote for your leaders? Congratulations, you live in a democracy.

Do you also describe China as a democracy?

darkknight109 posted...

People seem to get confused between "democracy" and "direct democracy". One need not be a direct democracy (where the electorate votes on everything) to still count as a democracy. The US is a representative democracy - has been pretty much since the constitution was created.

People seem to get confused between "government" and "democracy." It's like saying a truck is a car rather than both are automobiles.

darkknight109 posted...

(and don't get me started on those "we're not a democracy, we're a republic!" clowns - that's the political equivalent of saying, "I'm not a man, I have brown hair!")

Don't get me started on those guys who resort to name-calling because they can't form a cogent, logical argument.

darkknight109 posted...

Do you vote for your leaders? Congratulations, you live in a democracy.

That is not what a democracy is. That is a republic.

We live in a Presidential Republic. Granted, some things at the state/local level are voted on in a democratic way, such as school budgets, propositions, etc. But there really hasn't been a pure democracy in the world since ancient Greece. Otherwise we would be voting directly on every piece of legislation that goes before congress and I am pretty sure we don't want that.

And even then in ancient Greece you had to be a citizen to vote; In the modern era everyone is a citizen but that wasn't the case in ancient Greece.

Until 1992 you had to own land and a horse to vote

The ancient athenians actually lived under a system called a demokratos, not a democracy. This is because they hadn't invented English yet and were big Sony fanboys.

Count_Drachma posted...

lolwut? Holy bizarre leaps, Batman!

... You don't see why?

"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Craft trumped-up charges against someone you want to throw behind bars indefinitely, and give them an incompetent lawyer that works for the State (deliberately incompetent or not, doesn't matter), and just from the lawyer selection alone, you can use this Supreme Court ruling to fuck them completely. You could do it to anyone.

I think you haven't thought about the natural consequences of this ruling. Even putting aside how fascists would chomp at the bit over this, even on a personal, petty level it is obscenely dangerous. You could have a bigoted lawyer that throws your case on purpose, for example.

Gaawa_chan posted...

... You don't see why?

"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Craft trumped-up charges against someone you want to throw behind bars indefinitely, and give them an incompetent lawyer that works for the State (deliberately incompetent or not, doesn't matter), and just from the lawyer selection alone, you can use this Supreme Court ruling to fuck them completely. You could do it to anyone.

I think you haven't thought about the natural consequences of this ruling. Even putting aside how fascists would chomp at the bit over this, even on a personal, petty level it is obscenely dangerous. You could have a bigoted lawyer that throws your case on purpose, for example.

Can't be deliberately incompetent. That's an oxymoron.

Count_Drachma posted...

Do you also describe China as a democracy?

@Count_Drachma
No, because there is typically only one candidate to vote for (and where multiple candidates are allowed, only candidates approved by the ruling party are permitted).

Count_Drachma posted...

Don't get me started on those guys who resort to name-calling because they can't form a cogent, logical argument.

I mean, what do you want me to say? There's no "cogent argument" to be had, because this isn't a matter of opinion: you're factually wrong and I've already given the definition as to why. Here, I'm about to do it again:

Dikitain posted...

That is not what a democracy is. That is a republic.

Incorrect.

"Republic" refers to who owns the country - specifically, the people do. This is in contrast to, say, a monarchy, where a royal or royal family owns the country. You can have a democratic monarchies (e.g. Canada, Australia, the UK, and the rest of the British Commonwealth) and you can have democratic republics (the US, Israel, etc.).

And you can have republics that aren't democratic as well. Iran (or, to give it its official name, the Islamic Republic of Iran) is an excellent example. The Soviet Union used to be, and modern day Russia effectively is even though it pretends to be democratic. No one would ever confuse these nations for democracies, yet they are undeniably republics, even though their leaders either aren't selected via election or are, but those elections are so corrupt as to be non-existent.

This is why I said, "We're not a democracy, we're a republic!" is like saying, "I'm not a man, I have brown hair!" - you're describing two completely different facets of the country. An equivalent statement would be, "We're not a republic, we're capitalist!".

Dikitain posted...

But there really hasn't been a pure democracy in the world since ancient Greece. Otherwise we would be voting directly on every piece of legislation that goes before congress and I am pretty sure we don't want that.

That's a direct democracy, which is a subtype of democracy.

You live in a representative democracy, where you elect representatives to vote on your behalf, hence the name. And, per the second word in that title, it's still a democracy. You vote "indirectly" on matters involving state by choosing your representative, knowing how they will likely vote and what their opinions are on matters likely to come before them.

...and for some reason GF is being dumb and not letting me post this, so I'm going to do it as a second post.

Dikitain posted...

We live in a Presidential Republic.

@Dikitain If you want to be specific, you live in a federal liberal representative democratic presidential constitutional capitalist republic, and you can continue adding as many descriptors onto that as you want.

Federal: The government exists as a union of several smaller regional governments (in this case states), with authority divided between the two. Contrast with confederalism (same system, but with the smaller regional governments having supremacy over the federal government) or unitarianism (where the central government holds all or nearly all power).

Liberal: Rules of law govern how leaders must lead and protect the rights and freedoms of the general populace. Contrast with illiberal democracy (where the leader or leaders are largely unconstrained by the law and are free to govern as they please).

Representative (Democratic): The electorate selects leaders who vote on their behalf on matters of state. Contrast with direct democracy (the electorate votes on most or all matters of significance) or demarchy (those who vote on matters of state are selected randomly at regular intervals).

Democratic: Leaders are selected by the general public in elections and matters of state are voted on by the general public, either directly through referenda, or indirectly via representatives. Contrast with autocracy (where elections are either rigged/staged or absent, and a leader holds power until they either step down for a successor or are overthrown), some forms of theocracy (leaders are chosen by religious ceremony/officials), or anarchy (there are no leaders or authorities and the people are left to govern themselves).

(continued)

-Presidential: The head of the executive branch is separate and independent from the legislative branch and does not need to hold majority support of the legislature to govern. Contrast with a parliamentary system (the executive is part of/controlled by the legislature and must therefore have a majority in the legislature to govern).

-Constitutional: Laws are derived from a written constitution. Contrast with theocratic (laws are derived from religious texts and officials) or authoritarian (laws are whatever the leader says they are).

-Capitalist: Government has minimal interference in commerce. Contrast with socialist (government has significant oversight of commerce and distribution of wealth) or communism (commerce is largely banned, with all exchange of goods happening via government diktat).

-Republic: The country is owned by the general populace and all governmental authority is derived from them and their consent to being governed. Contrast with monarchy (the country is owned by a royal or royal family and authority is derived from them).

VampireCoyote posted...

Until 1992 you had to own land and a horse to vote

https://okcfox.com/news/offbeat/conrad-students-ride-horses-to-school-montana-missoula

:/

darkknight109 posted...

@Dikitain If you want to be specific, you live in a federal liberal representative democratic presidential constitutional capitalist republic, and you can continue adding as many descriptors onto that as you want.

The difference is that Presidential Republic is the official term for our form of government (as well as most governments in North and South America, plus parts of the middle east) , where as everything else you described is just random descriptors, some of them redundant, others not even forms of actual government.

Presidential Republic simply means that the executive and legislative branch of governments are both electable by the people, as opposed to a Parliamentary Republic where the "executive" (prime minister) is picked by the legislative branch. Or a Constitutional Monarchy which is a Parliamentary Republic but with a Monarch that holds no actual power (England, Canada, Australia, etc.). Or Saudi Arabia which is an Absolute Monarchy. Or Russia, which is just fucking weird.

Dikitain posted...

The difference is that Presidential Republic is the official term for our form of government

If you want to split hairs, that's because democracy isn't a form of "government", it's a method of selecting the government. "Presidential republic" refers to how the government functions (who gets what powers, etc.); democracy has no bearing on the actual functioning of government once that government is seated.

Which is all a sidebar, because it doesn't somehow make the US "not a democracy". The US is led by leaders who vote on matters of state, who are elected by the general populace to represent them. That ticks all the boxes of a democracy.

Dikitain posted...

Or a Constitutional Monarchy which is a Parliamentary Republic but with a Monarch that holds no actual power

To be technical, a constitutional monarchy doesn't require that the monarch be powerless; it's just that most constitutional monarchies still in existence today happen to feature them (the British Commonwealth countries, Japan, Denmark, Belgium...). There *are* still some constitutional monarchies where the monarch holds significant power (Morocco and Bhutan are two examples) and that historically was the norm.

A constitutional monarchy is simply those countries that have laws derived from constitution AND a reigning monarch who owns the country. The powers the monarch has may be non-existent, absolute, or anything in-between.

big featherless biped vibes in this topic

everybody knows what is meant by democracy in common parlance