Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

There are some concerning things in that infrastructure bill, like directives to lay the framework for requiring devices in vehicles to prevent "impaired driving" - so think cameras and other things that measure your attention.  There are things like mandating GPS monitoring of vehicle movement for road taxes.

Those things worry me more than just "fix the roads, dammit."

I haven't seen anything in there that is immediately good for the average citizens, only things good for various industries which may result in indirect benefit to individuals.  There's a lot in there that can easily be abused.

The impaired driving one is a bit weird, yes. Won't take effect for a long while tho, if it does make it through. Also, the main reason that the things that actually would help individuals aren't in there is because all the moderates and conservatives shouted about "government handouts" or some stuff. There was actually some decent bits in there that got nerfed by manchin, pelosi, mcturtle, etc.

[Dostoevsky]

They still owe all the rent when the moratorium ends.

In theory (in theory!) there are various government assistance programs that should help cover the ultimate bills, but as folks have probably read they're mostly dysfunctional at the state/local level and so very little money is actually going out.

As to the bipartisan infrastructure bill (or 'the biff', in reference to the acronym it had for most of its development), it's a pretty mixed bag and mainly designed to appease the moderates. More than a few of the Dem votes are not so much for the biff as they are for the follow-up reconciliation bill. Text of the procedural resolution that lays out the framework of said reconciliation bill was released this morning, and should get floor consideration later this week. And that'll mean another late-night 'vote-a-rama' of minor political stunts and gotcha votes.

[dragdeler]

More than a few of the Dem votes are not so much for the biff as they are for the follow-up reconciliation bill. Text of the procedural resolution that lays out the framework of said reconciliation bill was released this morning, and should get floor consideration later this week. And that'll mean another late-night 'vote-a-rama' of minor political stunts and gotcha votes.

Justice dems are going to give the money in hope to receive the drugs a week later. They are farcical.

[McTraveller]

They still owe all the rent when the moratorium ends.

In theory (in theory!) there are various government assistance programs that should help cover the ultimate bills, but as folks have probably read they're mostly dysfunctional at the state/local level and so very little money is actually going out.

Oh yeah I forgot about that.  While it sounds good on paper, it doesn't work practically.

Consider if you have a pantry you stock with food.  It can hold 50lbs total food.  Say you have a contract to put in 10lbs of food per week, but you have a moratorium where no stocking is required, but it has to be stocked at the end of the moratorium.  Once that food runs out in 5 weeks, and then don't stock it for another 20 weeks on top of that, it doesn't matter if you put in 250lbs at the end of those 25 weeks; whoever was depending on that food in the pantry starved long ago.

Yeah that's reductio ad absurdum but it's reality - you can't just deal with the renter side of the equation, you also have to deal with the owner side.

Also someone mentioned people with $5k to $10k in back utility bills - how is that even possible!? We only spend $2k/year in my house for all energy utilities... were these people trying to mine bitcoin or something?

[Dostoevsky]

Again in theory, the renters would have been getting steady assistance and so accrued debt wouldn't have been happening in the first place.

As to direct landlord assistance, I suspect they'd have ways of getting Small Business Administration aid. Were they eligible for big rounds of covid aid last year? Honestly not sure.

[Lord Shonus]

Protected classes are legislative fiat. There's no reason why a government can't create more.

In fact, California has done just that by preventing employers from firing employees on the basis of political activity or beliefs outside of work hours.

The crux of the legal argument is that the law is in bad faith - they aren't prohibiting employers from mandating vaccines within the state (because Disney would probably crush them), and are quite blatantly creating the law to score political points. Even under the least rigorous principle of legal review, this fails the "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" test.

[Random_Dragon]

This seems like a catch 22 to me. It might be necessary to crack down on states that are bungling the pandemic response or else we'll never be rid of this, but any method written into law is just as likely going to be misused for other purposes.

[Lord Shonus]

No, it really isn't. The legal standards *already* weigh in the interest of the government against that of legal protections. Prohibiting businesses from taking steps to avoid spreading a plague serves no compelling government interest, and is thus extremely feeble in court - there is no enumerated right to patronize a specific business, nor is there an established enumerated right to not be vaccinated. Indeed, SCOTUS precedent holds that you do not have that right - it is perfectly legal for the government to mandate a vaccine, and the government is more restricted than "if you want to come here you have to do this" business policies. Measures to prevent discrimination under the 14th Amendment have an extremely strong compelling government interests, and therefore are quite strong in court. No precedent against the one is of much use against the other.

[da_nang]

The crux of the legal argument is that the law is in bad faith - they aren't prohibiting employers from mandating vaccines within the state (because Disney would probably crush them), and are quite blatantly creating the law to score political points. Even under the least rigorous principle of legal review, this fails the "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" test.

Bad faith doesn't seem to be a problem for the courts, lest the many, many tax bills that were designed to destroy government and passed by Congress should've been overturned a long time ago. Or hell, the omnibus bills that no-one had the time to read before voting on them; surely there was bad faith involved in those.

Is there any Constitutional or Federal law that prohibits bad faith laws in general? I know the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act have a few (almost-butchered) provisions but they are more incidental as they deal more with disparaging effects than bad faith.

No, it really isn't. The legal standards *already* weigh in the interest of the government against that of legal protections. Prohibiting businesses from taking steps to avoid spreading a plague serves no compelling government interest, and is thus extremely feeble in court - there is no enumerated right to patronize a specific business, nor is there an established enumerated right to not be vaccinated. Indeed, SCOTUS precedent holds that you do not have that right - it is perfectly legal for the government to mandate a vaccine, and the government is more restricted than "if you want to come here you have to do this" business policies. Measures to prevent discrimination under the 14th Amendment have an extremely strong compelling government interests, and therefore are quite strong in court. No precedent against the one is of much use against the other.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mention what kind of discrimination that government is allowed to prevent through legislative measures. I imagine Black Americans have a right to patronize a specific business, public accommodations in particular, if not in the Constitution then in the Civil Rights Act. Why then should the government be allowed to fight that kind of discrimination but not others?

Why should protected classes, as currently enumerated in Federal law, be set in stone?

[Lord Shonus]

Bad faith laws are routinely struck down by the courts. You just rarely hear about it because it usually isn't trumpeted from the rooftops. Tax bills get through because there is no "Congress may only pass tax bills that Bay12Forums member da_nang approves of" provision. Unless they are specifically trying to put extra taxes on a protected class, they're fine. The giant omnubus bills routinely get elements discarded by the courts, you just rarely hear about it unless it is controversial.



Protected classes are not set in stone, and the government has the right to expand them. But until the United States Congress adds a "anyone who refuses a vaccine is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against" clause, they have no protection whatsoever in Federal court. No action by a state government is in any way binding on the Federal level. Without a major change in Federal Law (which wouldn't matter anyway, because law changes are not retroactive) it is completely impossible for this decision to set dangerous precedent.

[Naturegirl1999]

I guess I was vague (for obvious reasons) but I wasn't talking about the sex organs being sentient.  I was pointing out that some people might question whether the resulting children have souls.

While I personally don’t believe in souls, others have described them in a way that makes me think it’s another way of saying self awareness, thinking of yourself as yourself, I do believe that we have that, a recognition of ourself. Since that is part of the brain, likely a combination of the various parts, we don’t really know what exactly causes consciousness, whatever it is, it must be brain related, therefore, since the resulting child would have a brain, and thus be able to think, those who believe in souls might say said child has one. Do we move this to the religion thread or make a separate thread specifically about what souls may or may not be?

[Rolan7]

Probably not, particularly since no one actually took the position here.  It's just the sort of thing I worry about sometimes, particularly when I've got Alpha Centauri on the mind.

[JoshuaFH]

Also someone mentioned people with $5k to $10k in back utility bills - how is that even possible!? We only spend $2k/year in my house for all energy utilities... were these people trying to mine bitcoin or something?

I wanted to ask that question myself to these people, but I'm obviously not allowed to pry into my customers' lives. Even for a whole year I can only really think of couple possibilities:

1. They have a large, poorly insulated home, and were taking this grace period to mean they could BLAST, JUST FUCKING BLAST the AC and Heating all the time. You might not think people this shortsighted and irresponsible exist, by my own Mom is one of them, so more must surely exist. This might be compounded by people who already had significant energy bills at the start of the moratorium, and the moratorium just let them go crazy.

2. They really do just have intense energy needs. Dehumidifiers, water pumps, oxygen machines for the infirm, things that use a lot of electricity but can't be turned off without some other hassle coming up. That last one is especially pertinent, I do get calls from people that are just crippled and have medical devices that need to be on all the time.

3.They were using this opportunity to escape future debt by designating one person in the family as a 'pariah' who has multiple homes' utilities under their name, and all the expenses from these homes get conglomerated under one person, who becomes horribly burdened by debt, but this debt is largely uncollectable and so everyone else in the family gets to cheat the system until the grace period is over. I don't have evidence for this but it seems possible. I'm only basing this idea on a poor Grandma I had spoken to, who had her grandson's utility bills under her name, and she got saddled with $3,000 dollars of his debt. What the hell was he doing to accrue all that energy usage? Beats me.

[Micro102]

Is it possible that some landlords are overcharging for utilities? Or is that strictly regulated?

(That also evoked the possibility of people stealing electricity and water from their neighbors)

[Dunamisdeos]

How the fuck do you steal city water from neighbors :[]

That sounds like some james bond shit, I'm interested.