What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

u no fun said:
the line between an independent contractor and an employee/employer relationship is constantly being tested, argued, and redefined.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen the standard six-prong test many times. If you apply the typical standards, then it is obvious that the childcare workers clearly are NOT employees of the state. the state does not set their hours nor provide direct daily supervision, it does not do any withholding (the childcare workers often file as employees of other companies or as self-employed on their federal income tax returns), it does not pay matching FICA taxes, etc. etc.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

joecct said:
No. They collect the dues, buy off the politicians to pass rules / laws like this which increase the dues which allow them to buy off more politicians who .... well, you get the picture.

But they have the right to inject their views into the political process and to encourage their members to vote for candidates that best represent the views of the union. However, I think this case crosses the line and the plaintiffs should prevail.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, people who qualify for Medicaid yet work for whatever fast food restaurant flipping burgers would have to be represented by SEIU now, too. Oh, and then there's the retail segment workers, they're not in any better of a position. Where does it end? Will people start declining raises so that they can qualify for Medicaid and thus some union representation?

What service would the SEIU provide for these people (those caregivers or any other Medicaid recipient) really? Are they going to go on strike from not caring for their loved ones if their Medicaid doesn't provide yearly enemas or something? Where's the benefit of unionizing in this situation?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Priceless said:
Goddammit, that's the corporations' job!
Click to expand...

In case you hadn't noticed, unions essentially are corporations, with the same highly paid management and political motivations. It's sh*tty that they have to spend their money on Democrats just to counteract the money that other corporations and individuals spend on Republicans, because both parties receive a disgusting amount of influential money that should not be involved in this country's politics at any level.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
In case you hadn't noticed, unions essentially are corporations, with the same highly paid management and political motivations. It's sh*tty that they have to spend their money on Democrats just to counteract the money that other corporations and individuals spend on Republicans, because both parties receive a disgusting amount of influential money that should not be involved in this country's politics at any level.
Click to expand...

Money is speech! Ask any Republican (except John McCain)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

While this is not SCOTUS-related, it is an interesting legal development:

A bill introduced earlier this month in the Granite State's House of Representatives would require judges to tell juries in every criminal case that they are free to exercise a long-standing but controversial power called "nullification." That means jurors can vote to acquit defendants not only if they have reasonable doubt of guilt, but also if they simply don't agree with the underlying law.

Juries in criminal cases in the U.S. have long had the power to acquit using the nullification principle. But New Hampshire is the only state in recent years to take steps to ensure juries in the state are aware of the concept.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I knew juries have done that in the past but I had no idea it was legal.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

ScoobyDoo said:
I knew juries have done that in the past but I had no idea it was legal.
Click to expand...
The problem is your term "legal". Juries have had the power to do it simply because they have the power to vote yes or no on guilt. They don't have to explain why. They aren't asked if they vote not guilty because they disagree with the law. They don't get instructed that they can do it. The attorneys aren't supposed to argue for it, or ask them to do it. It's believed that some juries just do it. Basically, all they are doing is ignoring the judges instructions.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yah, the concept of nullification has been around for quite awhile. Though I recall reading somewhere that nullification may be happening more now than it used to. Really, there's never been anything stopping juries from doing it. But I think maybe there's more awareness than there used to be.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

SJHovey said:
The problem is your term "legal". Juries have had the power to do it simply because they have the power to vote yes or no on guilt. They don't have to explain why. They aren't asked if they vote not guilty because they disagree with the law. They don't get instructed that they can do it. The attorneys aren't supposed to argue for it, or ask them to do it. It's believed that some juries just do it. Basically, all they are doing is ignoring the judges instructions.
Click to expand...

True. What I meant to say is more along what you said but I was being lazy. It's pretty difficult for a jury to figure out how to nullify on their own, and extremely difficult for an attorney to argue a case in such a way because they are not allowed to argue for it directly. If Judges are able to give instructions to that effect then are attorneys able to argue for it directly? I can't login to read the article.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

ScoobyDoo said:
If Judges are able to give instructions to that effect.
Click to expand...

if the law passes, then according to the excerpt that was included, the judges will be required to include it in their instructions in every criminal trial. Hard to imagine that a defense attorney couldn't say "please pay attention to the judge's instruction on this point."

The examples cited in the article that you couldn't access were all related to arrests for marijuana possessed by sick people.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Subscribed because I think it's funny that USCHO mobile caused me to unsubscribe TO A THREAD I G***** STARTED
 
FreshFish said:
if the law passes, then according to the excerpt that was included, the judges will be required to include it in their instructions in every criminal trial. Hard to imagine that a defense attorney couldn't say "please pay attention to the judge's instruction on this point."

The examples cited in the article that you couldn't access were all related to arrests for marijuana possessed by sick people.
Click to expand...

That'd make for an interesting conundrum. Judges instruct the jury that they are to follow the law since juries sit as finders of fact. This law would then require judges to say "never mind, ignore the law if you want."

While it's always been an inherent right since juries do not have to explain their reasoning, it sends a bad message to have a law requiring others be told they can ignore the law.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob Gray said:
Yah, the concept of nullification has been around for quite awhile. Though I recall reading somewhere that nullification may be happening more now than it used to. Really, there's never been anything stopping juries from doing it. But I think maybe there's more awareness than there used to be.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt there has ever been any awareness whatsoever among jurors that there is such a thing as "jury nullification." Juries just come with their own prejudices and go with their gut, and nullification happens now and then.

I haven't read the bill or the article, but this appears to be just a flakey representative. It will never hit a courtroom, IMO.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

unofan said:
That'd make for an interesting conundrum. Judges instruct the jury that they are to follow the law since juries sit as finders of fact. This law would then require judges to say "never mind, ignore the law if you want."

While it's always been an inherent right since juries do not have to explain their reasoning, it sends a bad message to have a law requiring others be told they can ignore the law.
Click to expand...
Cynical me would say the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has been doing a good job on this for years.
 
joecct said:
Cynical me would say the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has been doing a good job on this for years.
Click to expand...

Cynical you also says executive orders are not part of the law, so I don't give cynical you much weight.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

burd said:
I highly doubt there has ever been any awareness whatsoever among jurors that there is such a thing as "jury nullification." Juries just come with their own prejudices and go with their gut, and nullification happens now and then.

I haven't read the bill or the article, but this appears to be just a flakey representative. It will never hit a courtroom, IMO.
Click to expand...
I think in most cases you are correct. But, there are people out there aware of the concept, and it just takes one on a jury to block the rest from reaching a verdict. It's not a commonplace event, but I know I've seen articles about it over the years and there has been some concern that it could become more common.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Jurors hardly listen to the jury instructions. Lawyers fight over them, but jurors **** near fall asleep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top