The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but as I was leaving the Whole Foods in Portland, ME this Sunday there was a guy standing at an intersection with a sign asking for money. The guy had brand new looking clothes (and they didn't come from Goodwill either), was very clean, had a fresh shave, etc. I had serious doubts he was legit, and I had seen plenty of 'help wanted' signs that day, you couldn't tell me that guy couldn't wash dishes. This median is pretty much constantly 'staffed' by one person all day (they take turns, I've seen the 'shift change' before). There was no way I was going to give that guy money. Then you see people you know are in serious trouble with drugs or mental illness or whatever and you can tell they are truly desperate and there is no realistic way they could get or hold a job given their situation.

John Stossel did a report on beggars, trying to figure out how much they take in over the course of a day. This took place out near Los Angeles, and most beggars took in some decent money while begging. During the week he followed these people or staked out the corners, the average was something north of $100/day per person. The story really stuck with me because one guy had a prime place picked out, looked real ragged, took in a lot of handouts, and when he left his spot the camera crew followed him to his car. His car was a recent model BMW that he drove to a home in a nice neighborhood.

Who knows how many people are pulling a scam like this guy, likely a minority of them, but if they're averaging over $100/day (granted, it's southern California, so that's a bit relative compared to other places), there's no way I'm giving handouts to people on the streets. I give to food shelves and homeless shelters, but I'm not handing out cash to someone on the street.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

John Stossel did a report

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there.

If his story really stuck with you, you're a sucker. Stossel is the king of argument by anecdote. It's the old game of following Harvard students around all day, taking the 6 out of 600 who said something stupid, and then editing them all in one clip and running with the "dur, aren't all liberals dumb hur?" story.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

John Stossel did a report on beggars, trying to figure out how much they take in over the course of a day. This took place out near Los Angeles, and most beggars took in some decent money while begging. During the week he followed these people or staked out the corners, the average was something north of $100/day per person. The story really stuck with me because one guy had a prime place picked out, looked real ragged, took in a lot of handouts, and when he left his spot the camera crew followed him to his car. His car was a recent model BMW that he drove to a home in a nice neighborhood.

Who knows how many people are pulling a scam like this guy, likely a minority of them, but if they're averaging over $100/day (granted, it's southern California, so that's a bit relative compared to other places), there's no way I'm giving handouts to people on the streets. I give to food shelves and homeless shelters, but I'm not handing out cash to someone on the street.

Likely a minority? Even if we assume that story is true, and happens more than once, it is not only a minority but it is a HUGE minority. Probably 97-3.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

John Stossel did a report on beggars, trying to figure out how much they take in over the course of a day. This took place out near Los Angeles, and most beggars took in some decent money while begging. During the week he followed these people or staked out the corners, the average was something north of $100/day per person. The story really stuck with me because one guy had a prime place picked out, looked real ragged, took in a lot of handouts, and when he left his spot the camera crew followed him to his car. His car was a recent model BMW that he drove to a home in a nice neighborhood.

Who knows how many people are pulling a scam like this guy, likely a minority of them, but if they're averaging over $100/day (granted, it's southern California, so that's a bit relative compared to other places), there's no way I'm giving handouts to people on the streets. I give to food shelves and homeless shelters, but I'm not handing out cash to someone on the street.

That's a hard way to make $36,500 a year, when in California you're about to be able to work a minimum wage job and make close to the same only working five days a week.

But I'm with you. I do think donations to food shelves, shelters and the like produce a better bang for your buck.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Likely a minority? Even if we assume that story is true, and happens more than once, it is not only a minority but it is a HUGE minority. Probably 97-3.

Do you work downtown at all? The sheer number of beggars in the skyway system and on the streets, and the amount of money I've seen handed out over the years makes me think that Stossel's report isn't all that far off from true. There are clearly some that will do better than others, but there are a few spots where I see people giving cash pretty regularly. There are a couple buskers who've been hitting the same parts of Nicollet Mall for a number of years, and you don't do that continuously for years at a time if you can make better money elsewhere.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

That's a hard way to make $36,500 a year, when in California you're about to be able to work a minimum wage job and make close to the same only working five days a week.

But I'm with you. I do think donations to food shelves, shelters and the like produce a better bang for your buck.

The piece aired a number of years ago, not recently, sometime before Stossel moved to Fox News. Off the cuff, I'd say it was 2001 or 2002.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The piece aired a number of years ago, not recently, sometime before Stossel moved to Fox News. Off the cuff, I'd say it was 2001 or 2002.

I remember that piece.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Do you work downtown at all? The sheer number of beggars in the skyway system and on the streets, and the amount of money I've seen handed out over the years makes me think that Stossel's report isn't all that far off from true. There are clearly some that will do better than others, but there are a few spots where I see people giving cash pretty regularly. There are a couple buskers who've been hitting the same parts of Nicollet Mall for a number of years, and you don't do that continuously for years at a time if you can make better money elsewhere.

I have worked downtown (in areas with more beggars than Nicollet) and lived in areas with huge amounts of beggars...if you honestly think they are making a good living at it you might want to check out where these people go to after the work day is over. I will give you a hint, the skyways usually lock at night because homeless beggars sleep there. Go to the bus depot or walk around 1st ave, maybe hit up the Salvation Army...none of those beggars are living the high life and that is how most of them live.

You want to see beggars who are doing it for the wrong reasons hang out in Seattle, where rich ******y bourgeois twenty-somethings live on the street to stick it to their parents and show they know how the other half live. If you think the people on Nicollet Mall are driving around in cars going to homes in nice or even ok neighborhoods then you obviously arent paying attention hard enough. JMHO.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I have worked downtown (in areas with more beggars than Nicollet) and lived in areas with huge amounts of beggars...if you honestly think they are making a good living at it you might want to check out where these people go to after the work day is over. I will give you a hint, the skyways usually lock at night because homeless beggars sleep there. Go to the bus depot or walk around 1st ave, maybe hit up the Salvation Army...none of those beggars are living the high life and that is how most of them live.

You want to see beggars who are doing it for the wrong reasons hang out in Seattle, where rich ******y bourgeois twenty-somethings live on the street to stick it to their parents and show they know how the other half live. If you think the people on Nicollet Mall are driving around in cars going to homes in nice or even ok neighborhoods then you obviously arent paying attention hard enough. JMHO.

By no means do I think it's all beggars who are making good money at this, but there are plenty doing better than people seem to expect. Most are on the streets for various psychological issues, but I it's impossible to ignore the idea that there are some prolific beggars out there.

 

[BassAle]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

By no means do I think it's all beggars who are making good money at this, but there are plenty doing better than people seem to expect. Most are on the streets for various psychological issues, but I it's impossible to ignore the idea that there are some prolific beggars out there.

I think most are barely scraping by, getting just enough to eat and feed whatever addictions they may have, but some able bodied people have figured out a way to make a good living at this. I read one study that found the average Union Square (San Francisco) panhandler made around $25 a day and most of the money was spent on food (some on alcohol or drugs). Union Square is a busy spot with lots of tourists and high end shops. But then you hear about something like this (no idea if this story is true or not): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-begging-pretending-mentally-handicapped.html

The truth is the guy I saw by whole foods was able bodied and fit, had money for new clean clothes, had somewhere to shave and shower. Did he live in a shelter and spend his money on nice trendy clothes (instead of buying some clothes at Goodwill?). Maybe. But I had doubts in that case, he just didn't seem legit to me. And that is pretty common for that intersection. No comparison to other panhandler's I've seen.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

very few justices are explicitly policy-driven in the same way that politicians are. They favor policies as citizens, but I don't think they go into Court saying "today I'm going to willfully misinterpret the law for policy ends."

(Now, whether they just pick out the outcomes they want and they con themselves into believing those are just the accidental consequence of deliberately reasoned political theory is anybody's guess.)

The research on "confirmation bias" suggests that Justices, like any other human being, start with the conclusion they think "ought to be" right, and then work backward from there to determine where they need to start from so that a logical chain will then appear to exist.

Confirmation bias is never apparent to the person who has it (and we all have it, and none of us notice it in ourselves, because that is a fundamental part of how it works).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The research on "confirmation bias" suggests that Justices, like any other human being, start with the conclusion they think "ought to be" right, and then work backward from there to determine where they need to start from so that a logical chain will then appear to exist.

Confirmation bias is never apparent to the person who has it (and we all have it, and none of us notice it in ourselves, because that is a fundamental part of how it works).

Are there actual studies of justices in particular? That would be interesting to read.

Though it should be noted (as I'm sure you know) that confirmation bias doesn't play into argument or the drawing of conclusions except indirectly by unequally weighing the frequency of observations. CB is behind everything from broadcasters thinking "the guy who makes the great play that ends the inning often leads off the next" to faith healers thinking that they really did cure Old Mr. Smith's cancer.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It seems to me that the "reasoning" about why we "need" a "living constitution" is a willfully specious and disingenuous mis-representation of our actual situation.

Article V lays out very clearly the steps required to amend the constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, we have seen an additional 17 amendments ratified* , and even more proposed. Clearly, the Constitution is already a "living" constitution, which is already inherent in its basic design and utilization.

So, either people do not have enough confidence in their ability to persuade others to adapt to their point of view ("I can't persuade you, so I'll force it on you by fiat instead!"), or they are impatient ("I don't want to wait for persuasion to work; I want my results now"), or perhaps just lazy or undisciplined? ("Persuading other people is hard work and it takes a lot of persistence").


It seems to me that we'd all have been better off in some situations to have addressed serious social problems in this manner (see: 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment). How hard can it be for the Justices to say: "this issue just hasn't yet been adequately addressed; we really need a Constitutional amendment to clarify the situation."

The mechanism is already there, it's been used, and in some cases it permanently closed off debate over a contentious subject. and for the one huge mistake, it was corrected the same way.


* (averages out to one every 13 years, although they seem to come in bunches with more time in between each bunch). Last amendment ratified was in 1992.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Life after Scalia.

Today the Supreme Court released a pleasant surprise of a unanimous decision in Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, rejecting the challenge of Republicans who viewed the commission’s desire to comply with the Voting Rights Act as a partisan act that was intended to disenfranchise Republicans. The court rejected this absurd view in a unanimous decision by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Nino might have been able to come up with one of his infamous logic pretzels to fig leaf this blatantly political move, but with him safely in the ground, stake in chest and pillow over head, Ailto and Thomas either weren't up to it or couldn't be bothered.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

The research on "confirmation bias" suggests that Justices, like any other human being, start with the conclusion they think "ought to be" right, and then work backward from there to determine where they need to start from so that a logical chain will then appear to exist.

Confirmation bias is never apparent to the person who has it (and we all have it, and none of us notice it in ourselves, because that is a fundamental part of how it works).

Dissonance theory and confirmation bias affects us all, that much we know. But to say judges are also affected by it is not to say they are as affected by it.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

"The research"...

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

"The research"...

Tavris and Aronson cite a number of studies in their book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). They discuss dissonance theory and confirmation bias in many contexts, including world politics and law, though not much on judicial decision making. Pretty entertaining read.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Who would have expected it? Roberts and Sotomayor are the two dissenters in a 6-2 decision.

Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy on the same side.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Who would have expected it? Roberts and Sotomayor are the two dissenters in a 6-2 decision.

Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy on the same side.

I don't know the case, but it sounds like something accidentally got decided on the merits rather than on politics.

Sometimes the extremists link arms in a strange bedfellows dissent when one is against x and the other thinks x doesn't go far enough, but this pairing doesn't map to that -- it's sort of random.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Another interesting case is going to be the DWI case. Can a state jail you or take away your driver's license if you refuse a breath test without a warrant?