bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

"he's old" is literally age discrimination.

I mean, it literally isn't. Voters can choose any criteria to choose their political candidate.

Of all the criticisms of Biden, "he's old" is not relevant in the least.

How is age not relevant? The risk of dementia quintuples from 70s to 80s. The elderly are more susceptible to almost every disease. Not to mention that the presidency is one of the most stressful jobs, just look at the before and after photographs of presidents.

As in other studies, the ADAMS analysis showed that the prevalence of dementia increases significantly with age. Five percent of people ages 71 to 79, 24.2 percent of people 80 to 89, and 37.4 percent of those 90 years or older were estimated to have some type of dementia. The estimated rate of Alzheimer's also rose greatly with older age — from 2.3 percent of people ages 71 to 79 to 18.1 percent of people 80 to 89 to 29.7 percent of those age 90 and older.

So weird that they're not successful at something that they don't care about.

Just a quick question, how would one go about embarrassing Louisiana? Seems like a tall order...

2014 unanimous Supreme Court case says that they do not need to be paid. State law may require otherwise though. Believe there was a PA case recently that ruled they did need to be paid.

Yes, the terms used in those statutes are substantially similar to the terms used in my jurisdiction. I'm not sure what your point is?

What does substantiated mean to you? People are routinely convicted of crimes (beyond a reasonable doubt standard) on testimony and circumstantial evidence alone. Restraining orders are civil and only require a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Attorneys aren't required for any cases (except corporations outside of small claims). Family law, small claims, and restraining orders typically use a simplified structure to allow for easy access by the general public.

Regardless, the issuance of a restraining order still has elements that need to be met, and they need to be proven to a preponderance of the evidence.

But Republicans don't see losses like this, realize they're unpopular, and adjust their ideas to better represent their constituents. Invariably, in the days and weeks following these losses they make pushes to change voting maps to further gerrymander districts, or alter polling places and times, or just screw with the process. Because no matter the rebuke, the problem must be with the voters, it cannot possibly be their policies.

Thank you for summarizing how every court in every state in every county in the US works. It's very helpful to know what all 400,000,000 citizens can expect to experience every single time.

I guess you'd prefer the scenario that someone made up based on what is almost certainly biased information?

Jurisdictions vary to be sure, but I've represented clients with respect to restraining orders, I know the law and I know the process. Judges hear liars every single day, they are not immune to bullshit, but they're pretty good at figuring it out.

The general Gazan population was given weeks of advance notice and provided safe/r places to evacuate to. If 100% of the civilians had chosen to cooperate, and Hamas had not forcibly used them as human shields, then there would be no casualties.

So any country can say all civilians in an area must leave immediately. And if they don't, it's ok to indiscriminately murder civilians? Are you insane?

IDF is actually attempting to minimize casualties whenever possible.

They most certainly are not. They have bombed hospitals and refugee camps after claiming that Hamas terrorists were among them. That's a war crime.

Intent is satisfied by reckless disregard for known dangers, if you really want to go down the legal route.

It's actually not that simple. You had better have a lot more details because you're going to get grilled by the judge. If that's all you say they're going to deny your request. I've seen numerous initial requests denied.

Even if you did get an order issued, it only lasts 10 days, and then you're going to have to appear again at a two party hearing.

You're wrong

I'm an attorney who has represented clients seeking restraining orders and those opposing them. I assure you I'm not.

In my jurisdiction, a filer has to complete an affidavit and appear before a judge. At that point a temporary order can issue for no more than 10 days. That allows time for the Defendant to be served and appear for a two party hearing. After that the temporary order can be extended for up to one year, dissolved, or allowed to expire.

The Defendant will be heard within 10 days. I'm not sure how you'd better balance the competing interests. If an order isn't issued, someone could be seriously harmed or killed.

You're saying that judges are instructed to remove the guns of someone who is determined to be a reasonable threat to harm another or cause serious bodily harm? Fantastic!

How often do you imagine that restraining orders are weaponized, versus the number of times they're issued because of need? Not to mention that affidavits have to be sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury, that can include years in prison.

You should reread Bruen, and many of the exasperated appellate decisions that insist that they don't know how to comply with it, with some claiming they'd need to hire a historian to comply with it.

Here's the problem, there's simply no logical way to square this with Bruen. Restraining orders and domestic violence prevention weren't part of the gun regulation at the founding of this country. It's obvious to most people that the state should have that authority, but it doesn't seem possible in the light of Bruen. Incoming mental gymnastics from SCOTUS...

What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions. They must satisfy all elements required to that standard. The elements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though. In my jurisdiction it is caused or attempted to cause harm, or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

If you make a question ambiguous enough, can it have an answer?

Who is they? Hamas didn't win a majority in the 2006 election. Then they fought a civil war and took autocratic control in 2007. So what are you talking about when you say they? It certainly isn't all Gazans or Palestinians.

You're championing genocide and the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Do you honestly believe that a terrorist attack allows the unrestrained murder of civilians?

Whoa! You can have any gun you want, but we draw the line at allowing logic.

Have they though? I struggle to find positions that the Democrats hold that are to the left of where they've been for the last 20-30 years. They are pro-choice, for racial equality, for gay rights, etc. Republicans on the other hand have swung wildly to the far-right.

I wish the Democrats would move left, but I haven't seen it in my lifetime, they are a party of centrists, for the most part.

Any reason this wouldn't be blatantly unconstitutional as a prior restraint of protected speech?

You are not a skeptic if you reject information you don't want to be true or sources you don't like. Skeptics research things to see if they could be false.

As a skeptic I do not accept claims until they have been sufficiently demonstrated.

There's nothing wrong with discounting sources which are unreliable. State controlled media from Türkiye, a country rapidly sliding toward authoritarianism, gives me serious doubt. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it does mean that I'm not willing to accept it based on their reporting.

Also, I never claimed it wasn't true, simply that I would be careful basing my beliefs on non credible sources.

TRT is state owned Turkish media. You may want to seek this story out from a more trusted source before deciding on the veracity of the claims. I'm skeptical until something more comes along.