The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Donuthole]

The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

I suspect your commander's stat is close to accurate. Most victims don't report these crimes, especially children.

This is going to sound much harsher than is my actual intent, but I agree that the commander’s stat is probably close to accurate. But primarily because the definition of sexual assault has been changed so much that the proffered stat, even if accurate, doesn’t really reflect what is going on.

[frank ryan]

This is going to sound much harsher than is my actual intent, but I agree that the commander’s stat is probably close to accurate. But primarily because the definition of sexual assault has been changed so much that the proffered stat, even if accuse, doesn’t really reflect what is going on.

Seriously? What has changed, definition-wise? That's certainly inconsistent with the experiences individuals have shared with me. Like I said, people tend not to report horiffic sexual crimes. I don't think we have an epidemic of overly sensitive people whining about sexual assault that is the reason for concerning numbers. I'm also not sure the numbers are higher then they've historically been.

[swampfrog]

Seriously? What has changed, definition-wise? That's certainly inconsistent with the experiences individuals have shared with me. Like I said, people tend not to report horiffic sexual crimes. I don't think we have an epidemic of overly sensitive people whining about sexual assault that is the reason for concerning numbers. I'm also not sure the numbers are higher then they've historically been.

This is at least one area where it has changed. It's moving beyond the universities though.

Those familiar with American law’s fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” may notice that affirmative consent standards effectively flip this principle on its head, leaving accused students guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Such a standard amounts to an abandonment of the principles of fundamental fairness in campus tribunals.

[frank ryan]

This is at least one area where it has changed. It's moving beyond the universities though.

That's not really related to the discussion. We aren't talking about proving these crimes.

[cowboy]

This is going to sound much harsher than is my actual intent, but I agree that the commander’s stat is probably close to accurate. But primarily because the definition of sexual assault has been changed so much that the proffered stat, even if accuse, doesn’t really reflect what is going on.

I agree with you. While it's complicated, I also tend to believe the definition needed to change. When I was in high school in the '80's, the locker room mentality was to keep trying until a girl gets worked up enough to say yes. Obviously, this is a horrible way to treat a human being, and it may have been defined as assault even then, but it was still acceptable in many circles and hence not considered "real" assault. Looking back, I think most people now understand that there was no way know if someone was consenting or just giving up. That's where it gets complicated. People could conceivably convince themselves they were victims when they are not as a coping mechanism for feelings of remorse over their actions. Likewise, one party may think there is consent when it is not expressly given, or it is given under duress. If there is no other good reason, this is a good enough reason for people to avoid sex until they are in a committed, monogamous relationship.

That's not really related to the discussion. We aren't talking about proving these crimes.

Perhaps not, but it is an important topic. Because of the gray area outlined above, it is very difficult to prove assault as we define it. I have two daughters, and I'm fine with the currently accepted definition of assault. I also have two boys, and don't want them to suffer consequences for an assault they didn't commit.

[swampfrog]

That's not really related to the discussion. We aren't talking about proving these crimes.

You asked specifically what has changed definition-wise. The definition has changed (not globally) to include the ability to call what had previously been consensual sex, sexual assault.

...affirmative consent policies generally require that participants in sexual activity obtain objectively demonstrable consent at every step of a sexual encounter.

These policies are problematic because a student who engages in consensual sex may be found guilty of sexual assault simply by being unable to prove that he or she obtained unambigious consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter.

That's a change in the definition of sexual assault. And it's new.

[frank ryan]

This is like Inception; a threadjack within a threadjack. We should probably start a whole new thread.

[Bo Diddley]

How much of a chance does Ginsburg have to outlive a second Trump presidency? I just know if Trump nominated another conservative justice, heads would explode.

[Lost Student]

How much of a chance does Ginsburg have to outlive a second Trump presidency? I just know if Trump nominated another conservative justice, heads would explode.

According to this morbid site, she only has a 64% chance of making it through the current term. Odds of making it 4 additional years seem small, but RBG has been defying the odds her entire life.

[Uncle Ted]

According to this morbid site, she only has a 64% chance of making it through the current term. Odds of making it 4 additional years seem small, but RBG has been defying the odds her entire life.

Odds of making it another 4 years seem extremely small, IMO, and defying the odds is an understatement. RBG has been diagnosed with cancer at least four times. The survival rate of pancreatic cancer is not usually good but she seems to be a fighter.

[Uncle Ted]

Drumpf wins another one with the Supreme court...

Supreme Court allows 'public charge' rule to take effect nationwide

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on Friday night in a case that contested the president’s “public charge” rule, which critics have called a “wealth test” for legal immigrants.

The policy in question, the Immigration and Nationality Act, would make it harder for immigrants who are “likely at any time to become a public charge” to obtain green cards. The policy discourages legal immigrants in the process of obtaining permanent legal status or citizenship from using public assistance, including Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps.

The case heard by the court, Wolf v. Cook County, sought to reject the policy’s effect in Illinois. The district court filed a preliminary injunction, which temporarily halted the policy in the state and sent the case to the Supreme Court. On Friday, the five conservative justices ruled in favor of the stay, while the liberal justices opposed it.
[...]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...across-country

Sotomayor issued the dissent and blames it on the fact that Drumpf and the senate are picking a bunch of conservative judges...

She went as far as to say that the practice is “putting a thumb on the scale in favor” of the party that won a stay -- a pointed dig at the Trump administration and her conservative colleagues.

“Claiming one emergency after another, the Government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,” Sotomayor wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”

https://news.yahoo.com/sotomayor-sca...200903899.html

Now Drumpf has even flipped the 9th Circuit:

Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’

When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.


In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.
[...]

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...es-9th-circuit

In other news Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh still likes beer...

[Shaka]

Drumpf wins another one with the Supreme court...


https://thehill.com/regulation/court...across-country

Sotomayor issued the dissent and blames it on the fact that Drumpf and the senate are picking a bunch of conservative judges...


https://news.yahoo.com/sotomayor-sca...200903899.html

Now Drumpf has even flipped the 9th Circuit:


https://www.latimes.com/california/s...es-9th-circuit

In other news Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh still likes beer...

I got mocked when I stated that my number one issue in the last election was the appointment of judges....

[myboynoah]

I got mocked when I stated that my number one issue in the last election was the appointment of judges....

8adaef2fc7827f78269e8d3edbf342c9.jpg

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Odds of making it another 4 years seem extremely small, IMO, and defying the odds is an understatement. RBG has been diagnosed with cancer at least four times. The survival rate of pancreatic cancer is not usually good but she seems to be a fighter.

She's had the Dave Rose and Steve Jobs type of pancreatic cancer, not the more common Patrick Swayze type. Still, she was quite old when she had it and she still fought it off. She's very, very tough. Even though I can't say I agree with a ton of her decisions where there's a split court (a lot of decisions are unanimous or near so), she is a very good justice, in contrast to Sotomayor who's an embarassment.

[frank ryan]

She's had the Dave Rose and Steve Jobs type of pancreatic cancer, not the more common Patrick Swayze type. Still, she was quite old when she had it and she still fought it off. She's very, very tough. Even though I can't say I agree with a ton of her decisions where there's a split court (a lot of decisions are unanimous or near so), she is a very good justice, in contrast to Sotomayor who's an embarassment.

Isn’t she personally well-liked by her peers on the court, including the conservative justices?