It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle.
I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but it is important to note that this is NOT notable. in Idaho, as is the norm:
"[A] conspiracy is established upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an agreement between two or more individuals to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in the furtherance of the illegal purpose. . . ." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 787, 391 P.3d 1252, 1257 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 384, 630 P.2d 665, 671 (1981)), reh'g denied (Apr. 20, 2017). Thus, an overt act must be (1) committed by one of the coconspirators (i.e., someone who is a party to the agreement) and (2) the act must be done in furtherance of the illegal purpose.
State v. Medina, 447 P. 3d 949 (Idaho: Supreme Court 2019).
Hence, IF they agreed to riot, then the crime was complete the moment that anyone committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That includes acquiring weapons, or a car, or many other acts. See State v. Averett, 136 P. 3d 350 (Idaho Court of Appeals 2006) ["In State v. Brown, 113 Idaho 480, 745 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1987), this Court stated that, "the overt act requirement is satisfied by slight evidence," and that the "act in furtherance of the conspiracy need not itself be criminal." Brown, 113 Idaho at 493, 745 P.2d at 1114. It is not required that there be a direct connection between the overt act of legally purchasing items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the criminal act of producing methamphetamine. The legal act of purchasing items necessary for the manufacture of the methamphetamine is sufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."].
Hence, it does matter that, as you note, "it is not illegal to have a shield."
Gdanning
2yr ago
A decade ago the supreme court unanimously ruled that people are actually allowed to appeal federal agency rulings to the court system, which the Obama administration did not want.
That is not the worst summary of a legal issue I have ever heard, but it isn't great. The Administrative Procedures Act provides for judicial review of “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U. S. C. §704. The issue in the case was whether "final agency action" had yet occurred. Not whether "people are actually allowed to appeal federal agency rulings to the court system," since people have been doing that successfully for decades.
Biden's EPA, which had attempted to define the navigable waters of the united states to mean any land on which there is any standing water at any time of the year.
No, 40 CFR 120.2 defines "waters of the United States" to include wetlands, and "wetlands" to mean "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." And according to the Court's decision, that definition dates to the early 1980s. And see, eg, People of State of Ill. v. Outboard Marine Corp, 619 F.2d 623, 627 fn 14 (2nd Cir. 1980) (quoting the rule). It was not a creation of "Biden's EPA," as you imply.
Gdanning
1yr ago
I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust.
Not in the United States. In the United States, it has historically been "racists" who were the perpetrators of various sorts of legal and extralegal repression. Of course, that is because Marxists have never been in power in the US, but that is the nature of historical contingency, and the current relative social acceptance of the two is a historically contingent fact.
California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore,
It is actually an open question whether CA law applied to Damore. The CA Labor Code does not refer explicitly to political beliefs, but rather to political activiities and actions
- No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. (Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)
- No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
The law has been interpreted broadly, but I don't know that it has been applied to criticisms of internal company policy. Note that, in the analogous case of the free speech rights of public employee, the Supreme Court has held that criticism of internal policy is not protected speech. Of course, the federal jurisprudence on public employee free speech is terrible, so it would not surprise me if CA courts go in a different direction.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Here is the problem with advocating censorship of "bad" ideas: If it is permissible make rules about what ideas can be expressed, then someone has to make those rules. And who will that be, people with power, or people without power. Obviously the former.
Btw, I am referring to censorship of ideas, not obscenity, not child porn, and not any of the 1000 other things that those who favor censoring ideas they don't like want to conflate therewith.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Rather than relying on memory, it is easy enough to google the case and discover that they were in fact selling coffee hotter than the norm, that they had previous injury complaints, and that the jury took into account the plaintiff's own negligence and found her 20 pct responsible.
Whether damages were excessive is a separate question, but she did have to undergo skin grafting and was hospitalized for 8 days.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing?
Because it is illegal
Are the people running factory machines inside of Ford and GM (or starbucks, or a hollywood writers room) really that highly skilled?
Autoworkers and screenwriters? Yes. Baristas? Not so much. Which is why unions have historically been more successful in skilled trades than in nonskilled trades; it is difficult for employers to simply fire skilled workers because it is difficult to replace them. More importantly, if it is more expensive to replace them than to give them a raise, well, that answers your question about why employers do not simply fire them.
Gdanning
1yr ago
That brings us back to Hanukkah, which again, is not an important Jewish holiday. This would be like if Christians in Israel started demanding if a minor random Christian holiday near Passover be given equal standing to their most important holiday
In Israel, Christians have the right to paid days off on several Christuan holy days. AFAIK, Jewish employees in the US are not entitled to paid leave on Hanukkah, nor on any other Jewish holy day.
Gdanning
1yr ago
Obviously not all of these people are democrats
Probably, very few are. Staten Island voted 57-42 for Trump in 2020, and the demographics that tend to vote Democratic do not seem very well represented in those pics.
I am a bit, um, obsessed with the "sex recession": the dramatic decline in sexual activity in high school and college-aged people. Sex is perhaps the most human activity there is--the physical enactment of our Darwinian imperative, the raison d'etre of so many hormone-drenched adolescents. And yet: young people aren't having sex. Why?
As always when the data only goes back 30 years, we need to consider the possibility that the rates were just unusually high in the 90s, and have since returned to the norm (see, eg, the recent increase in suicide rates, which has simply brought us back to the rates of the mid-1980s. Which is normal, the rates of 10 years ago, or the rates of now and the mid-1980s?).
Gdanning
2yr ago
I learned recently that Allegheny v. ACLU ruled that a Nativity on public land, as a religious symbol, violates the Establishment Clause but a Menorah on public land does not. According to the logic of the ruling, the Menorah and Christmas Tree are secular symbols of the winter holidays and do not constitute the endorsement of a religion while the Nativity does so. The logic is on its face patently absurd as the Menorah is not a secular symbol in any sense.
-
No, only two justices voted that the nativity scene violated the Establishment Clause while the menorah did not. Three judges voted that both violated the Establishment Clause and four voted that neither did.
-
The argument was not so much that a menorah per se is a secular symbol, but rather only that that particular menorah was, in large part because it was part of a larger display which included a Christmas tree and a celebration of liberty, all of whuch they deemed secular.
-
The Court actually remanded the case to determine whether the menorah violated the Establishment Clause for reasons not addressed in the appeal.
-
The Court okayed the display of a creche in 1984 in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668. The difference in Allegheny, in the view of the five justices who voted that the creche was NG, was that "Here, unlike in Lynch, nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche's religious message. The Lynch display composed a series of figures and objects, each group of which had its own focal point. Santa's house and his reindeer were objects of attention separate from the creche, and had their specific visual story to tell. Similarly, whatever a "talking" wishing well may be, it obviously was a center of attention separate from the creche. Here, in contrast, the creche stands alone: it is the single element of the display on the Grand Staircase." Note that this analysis is the same as that applied to the menorah.
-
The creche also included the phrase, "Glory to God in the Highest!"
-
And here is how Justice Gorsuch summarized the case law, just last May: "May a State or local government display a Christmas nativity scene? Some courts said yes, others no. How about a menorah? Again, the answers ran both ways."
So, your example doesn’t work.
Gdanning
1yr ago
How about engaging substantively, rather using perjoratives like "shill"?
Gdanning
2yr ago
The footnote says:
The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.
No cynical take is needed. The Court spent pages and pages on whether the interests served by affirmative action at regular universities are substantial enough to survive strict scrutiny. The interests of military academies might well be different and hence might survive strict scrutiny,and the issue was technically not before the Court, so it makes sense to leave that question for another day.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Here's the kind of thing he chooses to prosecute:
A Manhattan parking garage attendant who was shot twice while confronting an alleged thief at his business was charged with murder after wrestling away the weapon and using it to fire at the suspect.
This is what one gets when one uncritically relies on media sources, esp from tabloids like the Daily Mail: This guy clearly was never charged by the DA. He was ARRESTED by the POLICE on Saturday, along with assailant, and the very next day the DA said that the police made a mistake and that he would not be charged.
Gdanning
2yr ago
March 28, CNN: "DeSantis plans to travel to Jerusalem as tumult strains Netanyahu-Biden relationship". So, the destination was known.
Washington Free Beacon April21: "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is set to begin a trip abroad on Saturday taking him through Japan, South Korea, Israel and the United Kingdom." Note that that was before the bill passed, and that he visited several other places. So it is unlikely that the purpose was to sign the bill.
Gdanning
1yr ago
There are a couple of problems with this question.
Everyone of us know how riots, revolts and political radicalism are born
Those are very distinct phenomena. Conflating them is highly problematic.
a segment of the population, resented or alienated by material means
This is not very clear, but if it is meant to refer to economic deprivation, it has been clear for decades that economic deprivation is a poor predictor of participation in political violence; at best, the relationship is highly contingent. Eg:
There does appear to be an inverted “U” relationship between terrorism and the factors of education and wealth, although that relationship might be contested in terms of measurement validity. Some of this complexity probably stems from the conflation of the revolutions/rebellion literature and the terrorism literature, because much of the former focused on peasant rebellions or the role of the “masses” in fomenting revolution. More-recent demographic research has revealed that individual participants in terrorist groups and in terrorist violence are both more educated and more financially well off than was previously believed—although this was no surprise to scholars who studied anarchist and other social revolutionary terrorist groups in the 1970s. However, the emerging picture of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq suggests that they fit the old model of the undereducated, unemployed, alienated terrorist far better than the new model. This contrast, too, might be better understood by distinguishing types of terrorism.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Criticism of the movie itself is weak, with the arguments boiling down to "it's not realistic" and "the plot doesn't always make sense", things that could be leveled at any summer blockbuster.
Yes, and those exact criticisms ARE levied by critics at summer blockbusters, all the time. I see that the film has a 74% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is the same as Elemental and Asteroid City, and better than the Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones and Fast X. Are you sure there is a culture war angle here?
It’s never exactly been a secret that you can’t really fail out of university
That doesn't seem to be consistent with the high dropout rate, the fact that low GPA is the best predictor of dropping out, and that apparently 1 in 6 first-year students are placed on academic probation
It is easy enough to look at Biden's campaign site from 2008 and find out. The answer clearly seems to be "no."
It is also easy to look at the 2008 Democratic Platform, which calls for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell; refers to climate change as a "national security crisis", calls for the "end the tyranny of oil", and says "our response will determine the very future of life on this earth; condemns "inequalities in our criminal justice system"; promises to "restore vigorous federal enforcement of civil rights laws"; calls for "banning racial, ethnic, and religious profiling"; and opposes voter ID laws.
Edit: Biden could not have been "very anti-gay marriage" in 2008, given that he rather famously came out in support of it only 4 years later, much to the annoyance of the Obama Administration.
Gdanning
2yr ago
The entire internment camp story appeared out of no where 5ish years ago
Perhaps because that is when the camps were opened?
And note that China has not denied the existence of the camps but of course claims they are "vocational centers."
And see here
Gdanning
2yr ago
It is pretty undisputed that Alex Jones repeatedly falsely claimed that specific parents, who he named by name, were "crisis actors" who were lying about losing children at Sandy Hook, and that those parents were rather viciously harassed (death threats, etc) by some of his listeners. Whether he is liable for those actions is a different issue, and I don't know enough about the facts to know, but of course normally much of the actual damages from defamation are the result of actions by third parties who hear the defamatory statements, so it is not exactly a stretch.
Snyder v. Phelps is not going to help him: In that case, the Court emphasized that the speech was not directed at a particular person, and for that very reason Snyder was not a defamation case (the trial court dismissed the count alleging defamation). Snyder was basically about the right to make non-defamatory statements which cause emotional distress.
Gdanning
2yr ago
But I was struck by a particular take on the religious freedom in commerce case that I saw popping up in a few places today.
303 Creative is a freedom of speech chase, not a religious freedom case.
But taking CNN's "just asking questions" article at face value, it makes me wonder where all the real gay people are, and why we can't seem to get a gay rights case in front of SCOTUS with parties who aren't being puppeted, Chicago-style. Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole, but still, two points form a line.
There is only one point in the line. You seem to think that 303 Creative was an enforcement action brought by the state of Colorado against the company. It wasn't. It was a lawsuit brought by 303 Creative and its owner, for an injunction, because she planned to enter into the wedding website business, but had not done so yet, because she feared that she would get embroiled in an enforcement action. From the Supreme Court decision:
For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. Id., at 1172–1175. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.
Note also that the fact that the standing issue was not disputed before the Court means that the whole issue of whether or not anyone asked for a wedding website is essentially a red herring.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I cannot think of anything that less "fully counts as culture war" than the removal of a symbol of imperialism by country X against country Y at a time that the military of county X has invaded country Y. If THAT is a central example of the "clown world" we supposedly live in, then we are in much better shape than I had supposed.
Gdanning
1yr ago
The young people aren't having sex.
I want to note that the linked data is only re: "ever had sex," not "are having sex", which is not the same thing. For example, the data here says that, while 38 percent of teens have had sex, only 27 percent are currently sexually active. I know a young man who lost his virginity at 13 when he and the young woman were drunk at a party, and that was it for him for years. It might be that such opportunities are fewer these days (more helicopter parenting, other avenues of entertainment). I would like to see trends re the pct sexually active.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Now, however, if a child runs away from home, and claims a "transgender identity" the state will use its powers to keep the child from its parents.
If anything, the quote you included says the opposite: MN courts will not enforce another state's attempt to take a child away from a parent because the parent allowed the child to "receiv[e] medically necessary health care or mental health care that respects the gender-identity of the patient."
And this is what section 1 of the law says:
A law of another state that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child's parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health care, as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b), is against the public policy of this state and must not be enforced or applied in a case pending in a court in this state. A court order for the removal of a child issued in another state because the child's parent or guardian assisted the child in receiving gender-affirming care in this state must not be enforced in this state.
Muslim immigrants from where? India, home to about ten percent of the world's Muslims? Indonesia? The Balkans? Even Trump's original "Muslim ban" did not apply to 90% of the world's Muslims.
More options
Context Copy link