8 ms·

> which prevents the government from bringing a case Genuinely, from outside, it seems like your government doesn't give a damn on what they are and aren't all

by midasz 8mo ago

> which prevents the government from bringing a case Genuinely, from outside, it seems like your government doesn't give a damn on what they are and aren't allowed to do.

dylan604 8mo ago
Looks that way from the inside as well.
- nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
  Yes and all of the credulous rubes still whinging about how they "can't imagine" how it's gotten this bad or how much worse it can get, or how "this is not who we are" at some point should no longer be taken as suckers in good faith, and at some point must rightly be viewed as either willfully complicit bad faith interlocuters, or useful idiots.
  - dylan604 8mo ago
    Learning about WWII in high school, I often wondered how the people allowed the Axis leaders gain power. Now I know. However, I feel we're worse for allowing it to happen because we were supposed to "never again".
    - causalscience 8mo ago
      Worse, I often wondered how some people collaborated. Now I know that many people would rather have a chunk of the population rounded up and killed than lose their job.
      - nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
        "Whoever can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." and "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." etc, etc. So it goes
    - nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
      Agreed. To see "Never Again" morphed into "Never Again for me, Now Again for thee" has been one of the most heartwrenching, sleep depriving things I've witnessed since some deaths in my family.
    - Zak 8mo ago
      Watching it in real time, I still don't understand it. I could see how Trump won the first time around; Hillary Clinton was unpopular with most people outside of her party's leadership, but the second just seems insane. The kinds of things that would happen were obvious to me, and I am no expert.
      - dylan604 8mo ago
        Two party system. As many people didn't like Hillary, clearly there were a lot of people unhappy with Biden->Harris. When you don't like the current admin's direction and/or their party, there's only one other party to select. I think there were plenty of voters that truly did not believe this would be the result of that protest vote.
        mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Protest votes are probably overstated, I think most of it comes down to people staying home. Everybody in America already knows what side they're on, and they either vote for that side or not at all. Virtually all political messaging is either trying to moralize your side or demoralize the other, to manipulate the relative ratios of who stays home on election day.
        dylan604 8mo ago
        > I think most of it comes down to people staying home Obama was able to get people motivated. Neither Biden nor Harris had anywhere near that motivating ability. I don't know that the Dems have anyone as motivating as Obama line up. The Dems seem to be hoping that enough people will be repulsed by the current admin to show up.
        mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Newsom is an extremely strong candidate. Vance has several critical vulnerabilities that can demoralize right wing voters if the election is handled properly, and the Republicans really don't have anybody else. Rubio maybe, but Rubio won't be able to get ahead of Vance.
mothballed 8mo ago
They haven't for a long time, just that most of the time they were doing things we thought was for good (EPA, civil rights act, controlled substance act, etc) and we thereby entered a post-constitutional world to let that stuff slide by despite the 10th amendment limiting the federal powers to enumerated powers. Eventually we got used to letting the feds slide on all the good things to the point everything was just operating on slick ice, and people like Trump just pushed it to the next logical step which is to also use the post-constitutional world to his own personal advantage and for gross tyranny against the populace.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  If civil rights are unconstitutional, you don't have a country.
- anon7725 8mo ago
  The civil rights acts had firm constitutional grounding in the 14th and 15th amendments.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    14th and 15th amendments were binding on government. The civil rights act was binding on private businesses, even those engaging in intrastate trade. The civil rights act of 1875, which also tried to bind on private businesses, was found unconstitutional in doing so, despite coming after the 15th amendment. But by the 60s and 70s we were already in a post-constitutional society as FDRs threatening to pack the courts, the 'necessities' implemented during WWII, and the progressive era more or less ended up with SCOTUS deferring to everything as interstate commerce (most notable, in Wickard v Filburn). The 14th and 15th amendment did not change between the time the same things were found unconstitutional, then magically constitutional ~80+ years later. The truth is, the civil rights act was seen as so important (that time around) that they bent the constitution to let it work. And now much of the most relied on pieces of legislation relied on a tortured interpretation of the constitution, making things incredibly difficult to fix, and setting the stage for people like Trump.
ModernMech 8mo ago
You have to remember that "the government" is not a monolith. Evidence goes before a judge who is (supposed to be) independent, and cases are tried in front of a jury of citizens. In the future that system may fall but for now it's working properly. Except for the Supreme Court... which is a giant wrench in the idea the system still works, but that doesn't mean a lower court judge won't jettison evidence obtained by gunpoint.
- cperciva 8mo ago
  Evidence goes before a judge What evidence went before a judge prior to the two latest executions in Minneapolis?
  - gruez 8mo ago
    There's a pretty big difference between getting killed in an altercation with ICE, and executing someone just because they refuse to give up their password.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      Not really. ICE breaks into your home — remember they don't need a warrant for this. Demands to see your phone. It's locked. Holds a gun to your head and demands you unlock it. You refuse. Pulls the trigger. Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders?
      - gruez 8mo ago
        >Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders? No, not really, because in the two killings you can vaguely argue they felt threatened. Pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding the password isn't anywhere close to that. Don't get me wrong, the killings are an affront to civil liberties and should be condemned/prosecuted accordingly, but to think that ICE agents are going around and reenacting the opening scene from Inglorious Bastards shows that your worldview can't handle more nuance than "fascism? true/false".
ncallaway 8mo ago
Yes, but I’m not going to unlock my phone with a passcode, and unlike biometric unlock they have no way to force me to unlock my phone. The district courts will eventually back me up on this. Our country has fallen a long way, but the district courts have remained good, and my case is unlikely to be one that goes up to appellate courts, where things get much worse. There’s an important distinction: the government doesn’t care about what it is allowed to do, but it is still limited by what it is not capable of doing. It’s important to understand that they still do have many constraints they operate under, and that we need to find and exploit those constraints as much as possible while we fight them
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  They are capable of putting you in prison until you unlock your phone, or simply executing you.
  - tclancy 8mo ago
    Feels like the latter would be counter-productive unless there's an app for that.
  - ncallaway 8mo ago
    They are, but again, district courts have been pretty good, and I would be out of jail in <30 days, unless my case goes up on appeal. And if I die in jail because I won’t unlock my phone: fuck ‘em, they’ll have to actually do it. I don’t plan on being killed by the regime, but I don’t think I would’ve survived as a German in Nazi Germany, either. I’m not putting my survival above everything else in the world.

by midasz 8mo ago

> which prevents the government from bringing a case Genuinely, from outside, it seems like your government doesn't give a damn on what they are and aren't allowed to do.

dylan604 8mo ago

Looks that way from the inside as well.

nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
Yes and all of the credulous rubes still whinging about how they "can't imagine" how it's gotten this bad or how much worse it can get, or how "this is not who we are" at some point should no longer be taken as suckers in good faith, and at some point must rightly be viewed as either willfully complicit bad faith interlocuters, or useful idiots.
- dylan604 8mo ago
  Learning about WWII in high school, I often wondered how the people allowed the Axis leaders gain power. Now I know. However, I feel we're worse for allowing it to happen because we were supposed to "never again".
  - causalscience 8mo ago
    Worse, I often wondered how some people collaborated. Now I know that many people would rather have a chunk of the population rounded up and killed than lose their job.
    - nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
      "Whoever can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." and "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." etc, etc. So it goes
  - nyc_data_geek 8mo ago
    Agreed. To see "Never Again" morphed into "Never Again for me, Now Again for thee" has been one of the most heartwrenching, sleep depriving things I've witnessed since some deaths in my family.
  - Zak 8mo ago
    Watching it in real time, I still don't understand it. I could see how Trump won the first time around; Hillary Clinton was unpopular with most people outside of her party's leadership, but the second just seems insane. The kinds of things that would happen were obvious to me, and I am no expert.
    - dylan604 8mo ago
      Two party system. As many people didn't like Hillary, clearly there were a lot of people unhappy with Biden->Harris. When you don't like the current admin's direction and/or their party, there's only one other party to select. I think there were plenty of voters that truly did not believe this would be the result of that protest vote.
      - mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Protest votes are probably overstated, I think most of it comes down to people staying home. Everybody in America already knows what side they're on, and they either vote for that side or not at all. Virtually all political messaging is either trying to moralize your side or demoralize the other, to manipulate the relative ratios of who stays home on election day.
        dylan604 8mo ago
        > I think most of it comes down to people staying home Obama was able to get people motivated. Neither Biden nor Harris had anywhere near that motivating ability. I don't know that the Dems have anyone as motivating as Obama line up. The Dems seem to be hoping that enough people will be repulsed by the current admin to show up.
        mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Newsom is an extremely strong candidate. Vance has several critical vulnerabilities that can demoralize right wing voters if the election is handled properly, and the Republicans really don't have anybody else. Rubio maybe, but Rubio won't be able to get ahead of Vance.

mothballed 8mo ago

They haven't for a long time, just that most of the time they were doing things we thought was for good (EPA, civil rights act, controlled substance act, etc) and we thereby entered a post-constitutional world to let that stuff slide by despite the 10th amendment limiting the federal powers to enumerated powers. Eventually we got used to letting the feds slide on all the good things to the point everything was just operating on slick ice, and people like Trump just pushed it to the next logical step which is to also use the post-constitutional world to his own personal advantage and for gross tyranny against the populace.

direwolf20 8mo ago
If civil rights are unconstitutional, you don't have a country.
anon7725 8mo ago
The civil rights acts had firm constitutional grounding in the 14th and 15th amendments.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  14th and 15th amendments were binding on government. The civil rights act was binding on private businesses, even those engaging in intrastate trade. The civil rights act of 1875, which also tried to bind on private businesses, was found unconstitutional in doing so, despite coming after the 15th amendment. But by the 60s and 70s we were already in a post-constitutional society as FDRs threatening to pack the courts, the 'necessities' implemented during WWII, and the progressive era more or less ended up with SCOTUS deferring to everything as interstate commerce (most notable, in Wickard v Filburn). The 14th and 15th amendment did not change between the time the same things were found unconstitutional, then magically constitutional ~80+ years later. The truth is, the civil rights act was seen as so important (that time around) that they bent the constitution to let it work. And now much of the most relied on pieces of legislation relied on a tortured interpretation of the constitution, making things incredibly difficult to fix, and setting the stage for people like Trump.

ModernMech 8mo ago

You have to remember that "the government" is not a monolith. Evidence goes before a judge who is (supposed to be) independent, and cases are tried in front of a jury of citizens. In the future that system may fall but for now it's working properly. Except for the Supreme Court... which is a giant wrench in the idea the system still works, but that doesn't mean a lower court judge won't jettison evidence obtained by gunpoint.

cperciva 8mo ago
Evidence goes before a judge What evidence went before a judge prior to the two latest executions in Minneapolis?
- gruez 8mo ago
  There's a pretty big difference between getting killed in an altercation with ICE, and executing someone just because they refuse to give up their password.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Not really. ICE breaks into your home — remember they don't need a warrant for this. Demands to see your phone. It's locked. Holds a gun to your head and demands you unlock it. You refuse. Pulls the trigger. Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders?
    - gruez 8mo ago
      >Does it really seem that far–fetched when compared to the other ICE murders? No, not really, because in the two killings you can vaguely argue they felt threatened. Pointing a gun to someone's head and demanding the password isn't anywhere close to that. Don't get me wrong, the killings are an affront to civil liberties and should be condemned/prosecuted accordingly, but to think that ICE agents are going around and reenacting the opening scene from Inglorious Bastards shows that your worldview can't handle more nuance than "fascism? true/false".

ncallaway 8mo ago

Yes, but I’m not going to unlock my phone with a passcode, and unlike biometric unlock they have no way to force me to unlock my phone. The district courts will eventually back me up on this. Our country has fallen a long way, but the district courts have remained good, and my case is unlikely to be one that goes up to appellate courts, where things get much worse. There’s an important distinction: the government doesn’t care about what it is allowed to do, but it is still limited by what it is not capable of doing. It’s important to understand that they still do have many constraints they operate under, and that we need to find and exploit those constraints as much as possible while we fight them

direwolf20 8mo ago
They are capable of putting you in prison until you unlock your phone, or simply executing you.
- tclancy 8mo ago
  Feels like the latter would be counter-productive unless there's an app for that.
- ncallaway 8mo ago
  They are, but again, district courts have been pretty good, and I would be out of jail in <30 days, unless my case goes up on appeal. And if I die in jail because I won’t unlock my phone: fuck ‘em, they’ll have to actually do it. I don’t plan on being killed by the regime, but I don’t think I would’ve survived as a German in Nazi Germany, either. I’m not putting my survival above everything else in the world.