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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Yeah, but they still can't make you blow into a tube, pee into a cup, or provide a blood sample without something else.
Click to expand...

Right, stopping someone is not a search. They cant even pat you down at a roadblock unless they have a reason to. (I believe the standard is reasonable suspicion but I forget)

Drug tests are not even close to the same things as a road block.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting article on the legacy of Reid's nuclear option.

President Barack Obama can thank outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for triggering the "nuclear option" in November 2013 and securing him one of the most robust judicial legacies of any modern president.

In six years, he has appointed a whopping 307 judges, who will shape the law for decades after he leaves office. The final 12 district judges were confirmed in the closing night of the Senate session on Tuesday, Reid's final move before Democrats surrender control of the chamber.

"The Obama Administration and the United States Senate have given Americans the best possible holiday present: the gift of justice," said Nan Aron, the president of the progressive law and policy group Alliance For Justice.

A total of 132 judges were confirmed in the 113th Congress — the most since the 1970s.

Perhaps most significant is his appointment of 53 judges on federal circuit courts, which have the last word on most matters of law. When Obama took office, just one of 13 appeals courts had a majority of Democratic-appointed judges on the active bench. Today, nine of 13 appeals courts have a majority of Democratic appointees.
Click to expand...

Of course, a GOP president and a GOP majority in Congress would just reverse it. However, for now at least it looks like the Republican's stonewalling of nominees really backfired badly. Assuming they will now refuse to confirm anybody out of revenge, the worst that happens is the number of vacancies increases again, and due to the demographics of GOP vs Dem appointees, the majority of those vacancies will be retiring GOP-appointees.

Plus, if 2016 shapes up like 2008 and 2012, a new Dem president and Dem Senate majority will just continue the trend. Not sure how Cruz et al. are going to convince the pragmatists in the party that this was a good long term strategy. Not that Cruz cares in the least -- it gave him his closeup, Mr. DeMille.
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
Right, stopping someone is not a search. They cant even pat you down at a roadblock unless they have a reason to. (I believe the standard is reasonable suspicion but I forget)

Drug tests are not even close to the same things as a road block.
Click to expand...

How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.

Legal and rights issues aside... If someone is receiving food stamps, but still has money for drugs / cigarettes etc, are they abusing the system?
 
ericredaxe said:
How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.
Click to expand...

Sure. But are you willing to provide the funds for the extra manpower that will cost, never mind the inevitable court cases about whether there really was reasonable suspicion?

This is always presented as a cost savings measure, never mind that it invariably costs more than it saves because contrary to the GOP groupthink, people on welfare generally don't have the money for drugs or alcohol. I think Florida's short lived testing program stopped all of two people before the courts killed it.

I'm sure the thousands of negative tests were well with it to catch those two, though. :rolleyes:

Edit: it was 2 percent, not two people. Still well below the average rate of 8% for drug use. And it still cost far more to run the program than it saved in "undeserved" welfare checks.

Tennessee's program caught one person out of the first 800 tested. Clearly we have a drug use among welfare queens epidemic on our hands
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Tennessee's program caught one person out of the first 800 tested. Clearly we have a drug use among welfare queens epidemic on our hands
Click to expand...

They'd get a much higher rate if they drug-tested the CEOs of companies that get corporate welfare.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ericredaxe said:
How about then if food stamps have to be picked up in person? And if there is reasonable suspicion then they can have you pee in a cup.

Legal and rights issues aside... If someone is receiving food stamps, but still has money for drugs / cigarettes etc, are they abusing the system?
Click to expand...


The key here is to crack down on fraud. Having people pick up food stamps in person/EBT cards in person (and show ID to do so) I'm 100% on board with. Not necessarily every time, but at least once a year. I think Guiliani did something like that in NYC. Only being able to use EBT cards for food and clothing as well. No liquor stores, casinos, etc. Hell, I'd restrict them to in state stores. Also, no cash withdrawal.

This won't solve all the problems, but more than drug testing people, etc etc this is what I'd like to see happen more.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Lots of conversation on whether it would be a "good idea" or not, I'm of two minds on the subject itself, on one hand it seems an unreasonable intrusion of privacy, on the other hand, it seems reasonable that we help those people who will then use that help constructively.

The original question is still out there about whether it would be legal or not. As others have pointed out, employers are allowed to screen employees for drug use. Cops are allowed to give breathalyzer tests (from time to time we have roadblocks in which every car is stopped and the cops look inside every car and question every driver, naturally they have to have "reasonable suspicion" first...does popping a breath mint into your mouth right before you roll down the window constitute "reasonable suspicion"??)

just because something is legal, doesn't make it "right" and just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Two completely different sets of issues.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Lots of conversation on whether it would be a "good idea" or not, I'm of two minds on the subject itself, on one hand it seems an unreasonable intrusion of privacy, on the other hand, it seems reasonable that we help those people who will then use that help constructively.

The original question is still out there about whether it would be legal or not. As others have pointed out, employers are allowed to screen employees for drug use. Cops are allowed to give breathalyzer tests (from time to time we have roadblocks in which every car is stopped and the cops look inside every car and question every driver, naturally they have to have "reasonable suspicion" first...does popping a breath mint into your mouth right before you roll down the window constitute "reasonable suspicion"??)

just because something is legal, doesn't make it "right" and just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." Two completely different sets of issues.
Click to expand...

Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you see if we give them welfare then they're our property. Their children, too.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
Click to expand...

It's also a complete waste of money. Welfare fraud is draining the coffers a lot less than Social Security and Medicare fraud. We should spend less time on Welfare and more on SS/Medicare fraud enforcement. Unfortunately it sounds better to the mindless automatons that you're going after welfare recipients than it does that you're going after Social Security recipients.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This is a tangent from the usual discussion, but: Alice is a real pain in my ***.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ScoobyDoo said:
It's also a complete waste of money. Welfare fraud is draining the coffers a lot less than Social Security and Medicare fraud. We should spend less time on Welfare and more on SS/Medicare fraud enforcement. Unfortunately it sounds better to <strike>the mindless automatons</strike> angry old people that you're going after welfare recipients than it does that you're going after Social Security recipients.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
Requiring all recipients of welfare to be drug tested is both illegal and wrong.
Click to expand...

If a recipient of food stamps is spending other money on things like drugs or even cigarettes are they abusing the system?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ericredaxe said:
If a recipient of food stamps is spending other money on things like drugs or even cigarettes are they abusing the system?
Click to expand...

Are the college athletes with thousands of dollars in tattoos getting paid by boosters?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Could a person make a viable Third Amendment argument against placing government spyware on mobile phones?

That would make a fascinating case...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top