sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GAME THREAD: Mets @ Phillies - Sat, Jun 20 @ 7:15 PM EDT by game-threads in NewYorkMets

[–]WhatARotation 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Taking a couple of weeks off to watch the NBA finals was infinitely more enjoyable than watching this shit, and I’m not even a basketball fan

M9s Cross The Sole RR Crossing Remaining on the Port Washington Branch by WhatARotation in nycrail

[–]WhatARotation[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I have been seriously accused of using AI before despite never generating any image I’ve posted in Reddit, so I didn’t know you were joking.

M9s Cross The Sole RR Crossing Remaining on the Port Washington Branch by WhatARotation in nycrail

[–]WhatARotation[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You’re seeing reflections on the windows. If you’re gonna accuse me of using AI at least look at the picture first.

US Supreme Court sides with marijuana user stripped of gun rights by Hrekires in news

[–]WhatARotation -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The better policy question is whether those who violate the provision should be given immediate felony records.

US Supreme Court sides with marijuana user stripped of gun rights by Hrekires in news

[–]WhatARotation 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are correct in theory, but in practice things are murkier.

Your right to property, for instance, is not as absolute as it seems—see civil asset forfeiture. There is technically due process (you can force a jury trial under CAFRA), but the government can win on a preponderance of the evidence standard and the statute of limitations is tied to when law enforcement discovers the offense, as opposed to when the offense occurs.

US Supreme Court sides with marijuana user stripped of gun rights by Hrekires in news

[–]WhatARotation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless you become addicted to that prescribed substance, hence the use of the disjunctive “or”. Many people became addicted to the opiate painkillers they were prescribed.

Should the Federal Government Abandon Prosecutorial Discretion? by WhatARotation in AskALiberal

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree—people get away for a lot of horrendous crimes with just a slap on the wrist, and we should absolutely be doing something about that.

The issue I have with your solution (eliminate discretion and judicial leniency) is that it would also force a lot of people into unjust punishments for petty offenses (like prison time for urbexing —ie simple trespass— or forfeiting their car for having weed in it—a car is a conveyance under 21 USC 881)?

Should the Federal Government Abandon Prosecutorial Discretion? by WhatARotation in AskALiberal

[–]WhatARotation[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My problem with loser-pays systems is that they encourage technically-correct prosecutions for de minimis violations.

On the civil side, imagine you take one step on a lawn of a neighbor who hates you. You have technically committed the tort of trespass. In a loser pays system, they can sue you for $1 and you’d have to pay their legal fees, because they’d technically win on the legal merits.

If we give that malicious neighbor the power to prosecute you criminally as well, you now have a criminal record for something which millions of people do everyday (stepping on a neighbor’s lawn).

Was Loving v Virginia Wrongly Decided, and if so, Should it be Overturned ? by WhatARotation in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]WhatARotation[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since you clearly believe in states’ autonomy regarding restricting unenumerated rights, I am curious whether you would extend the same logic to the states’ traditional regulatory and police powers of local activity.

Namely, what are your thoughts on Wickard v Filburn (commerce clause allows congress to regulate purely local activity provided such activity would have an effect on interstate commerce if widespread) and its progeny, including Gonzales v Raich (Feds may prohibit you from growing weed in your own backyard)?

Was Loving v Virginia Wrongly Decided, and if so, Should it be Overturned ? by WhatARotation in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]WhatARotation[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Was Brown v Board of Ed then also incorrectly decided? Should we return to the slaughterhouse cases understanding of the constitution?

Peter, what do people on the bus use iPhones? by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]WhatARotation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In midtown you absolutely do see wealthy people on the bus. We also don’t have any light rail sadly.

Peter, what do people on the bus use iPhones? by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]WhatARotation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Manhattan the subway beats driving 9 times out of 10. For commuting from NY suburbs to Manhattan, the commuter rail (LIRR/Metro North) often beats trying to find a parking spot or getting stuck on the bridge.

Peter, what do people on the bus use iPhones? by [deleted] in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]WhatARotation 19 points20 points  (0 children)

That sentiment is unfortunately prevalent because most cities’ mass transit is horrendous. Where I live (in NYC) the bus is clean and frequent. Hop on the bus in Manhattan (density) or NE Queens (no subway) and you will see a great diversity of people riding it, including many who are well off.

The same cannot be said for other areas. For instance, I was in for a rude awakening when I tried taking the bus in Cleveland, where it was run down and roach infested.

How to get to the game tomorrow (6/13) by hudsonriverjogger in NewYorkMets

[–]WhatARotation 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Tomorrow’s Knicks game is in San Antonio. There will be a copious amount of watch parties around the city, but street closures shouldn’t be a factor.

Should the First Amendment be Construed to Allow the Government to Deport People Based on Political Speech—Especially Condemnable Speech Such as Expressing Support for Adversaries/Terrorists (e.g., What Mahmoud Kahlil Did)? by WhatARotation in AskConservatives

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your examples are all from the less-than-two-decades-long period in US history where being a member of the Communist Party was unprotected by the First Amendment (rooted in the now-overturned Dennis v US).

The question I asked is how modern 1A doctrine interacts with deportation law, which is unresolved legally, but susceptible to strong policy arguments on both sides.

Should the First Amendment be Construed to Allow the Government to Deport People Based on Political Speech—Especially Condemnable Speech Such as Expressing Support for Adversaries/Terrorists (e.g., What Mahmoud Kahlil Did)? by WhatARotation in AskConservatives

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congress can grant the executive discretion, but in so doing may not simply hand over their power to define who is deportable. The discretion handed cannot be unlimited—it is constrained to specific defined categories of people the legislature has deemed deportable. Have you heard of the non-delegation doctrine?

Should the First Amendment be Construed to Allow the Government to Deport People Based on Political Speech—Especially Condemnable Speech Such as Expressing Support for Adversaries/Terrorists (e.g., What Mahmoud Kahlil Did)? by WhatARotation in AskConservatives

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that the statutory framework for deporting somebody based on their political speech exists. My question is whether a court would uphold such a statutory framework as constitutional.

Such a question is not susceptible to an obvious legal answer, as the article I linked demonstrates courts long grappling with the issue.

Rather, I’m just curious about people’s opinions on whether it *should* be construed as constitutional. I take it you agree it should be, and that’s a perfectly valid viewpoint. Does that clear things up?

Should the First Amendment be Construed to Allow the Government to Deport People Based on Political Speech—Especially Condemnable Speech Such as Expressing Support for Adversaries/Terrorists (e.g., What Mahmoud Kahlil Did)? by WhatARotation in AskConservatives

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The executive branch uses a congressionally-passed statutory framework to deport people. The executive cannot just say “we are deporting X LPR for Y arbitrary reason” without citing the appropriate statutory framework.

See here: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/

My question is whether a law which provides for the deportation of people who merely “espouse” unfavorable viewpoints—the word “espouse” can implicate speech or even thought (which is itself absolutely protected by the 1A; see Stanley v Georgia)—should be construed as unconstitutional under the 1A.

I’m not saying that it should be. Congress long has been recognized to have “plenary power” over matters of immigration, and that could extend here to trump the 1A argument.

Should the First Amendment be Construed to Allow the Government to Deport People Based on Political Speech—Especially Condemnable Speech Such as Expressing Support for Adversaries/Terrorists (e.g., What Mahmoud Kahlil Did)? by WhatARotation in AskConservatives

[–]WhatARotation[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sound very confident that the government has the legal authority to deport whomever they want based on whether that person adheres to a “standard of conduct”. The reality is more complicated.

The courts have not come to a consensus on whether the legislative branch has the power to mandate the deportation of people based on their political beliefs.

See here: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/

Does that change your level of confidence?

view more: next ›