Marsy's Law
 

So this is going to be on your ballot:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to grant certain rights to crime victims, including to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity; considering their safety in bail proceedings; timely notice and opportunity to take part in public proceedings; reasonable protection from the accused; right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused; restitution and return of property; proceedings free from delay; and to be informed of these rights, so they can enforce them?

This seems pretty broad to be messing with our PA Constitution.

We are having a national discussion about this stuff, see Brett Cavanaugh. I prefer we be more incremental, a fine adjustment versus a hammer blow.

Any thoughts?

"right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused"

This is total BS right here.

If you are going to press charges against someone, they have a right to defend themselves and question you. You can always object to the judge that certain discovery requests cross the line, and the judge can make a ruling, but being able to simply refuse a request for more information when you get to press charges is completely unfair.

That pretty much screws people who are falsely accused whether mistakenly; or, deliberately. It might even embolden people to make false accusations.

It sounds all wonderful like something you can get a crowd going Yeah, let it run Rev, let it run. But the possibilities for misuse are ominous. Vote no.

Thanks for the input guys. This is being pushed hard and I think it smells funny. Kelsey Grammer was on my phone this morning.

amendin' the amendin'
 

So who is doing all the pushing? This sounds so much like the reasons for changing the dates of daylight savings time. For attacking Vietnam and Saddam. Ethanol in gasoline. Obstructing stem cell research. And Brexit. Too much hype targeting emotion. Too few facts. Apparently no investigative research. And not enough time for any sort of analysis to be disseminated.

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved?

Unfortunately that is classic propaganda. It orders me how to think. It does not say why. It does not include the perspectives that must always exist in any honest statement. It is a soundbyte - woefully too short.

It makes blanket statements without the many reasons why that must be included after each paragraph. It is classic propaganda that does not meet any of the requirements for honesty. It is loaded with strawmen.

We know that right wingers say you have no Constitutional right to privacy. So why do so many insist on having their privacy protected? You have no right to privacy according to that 'we will tell you what to think' conclusion. First paragraph about one's rights is a classic example of a strawman. Everybody at one point or another makes that blanket statement when it is convenient to manipulate their followers ... who are waiting to be told how to think.

That article clearly does not honestly answer my questions. It is no different than reasoning used to justify the Mission Accomplished or Vietnam wars. It plays on emotions. And does not promote a single honest fact that says why.

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All not answered.

Too few facts. That article is a classic example. Apparently no investigative research. And not enough time for any sort of analysis to be disseminated.

That ACLU article wasn't posted for you. It was posted for the more astute who already know the answers to your questions and have moved on to summation of their final analysis, for comparison. It's already going to be on the ballot. Front end analysis is done. You snooze, you lose … you missed the boat.

So it was written for people who know only from their emotions. The target audience of wacko extremist lefties and rightists. People that Hitler also targeted to become Chancellor of Germany. He said to disparage the bourgeois and intelligentsia since they will not believe his lies; because they need the underlying reasons why with perspective.

Again, that is why most Americans also knew that smoking cigarettes increased health. That socialism is communism. That Trump is a world class leader because he is a bully who only insults people.

That article was written only for people who will automatically believe nobody has privacy rights because right wing extremist said so. It is not specifically in the Constitution. So a right of privacy does not exist. "I said so". That alone is enough for so many to know it was true.

That is also why I was so adamant almost 20 years ago here; that Saddam did not have WMDs. Because I did not blindly believe lies from the Central Committee of the Communist Party (ie Cheney). Instead I asked damning questions including why, what is his agenda, where are the underlying facts (they never existed), and 'show me the numbers'. Only adults who are thinking like adults do that.

But again - because it is never answered and because the questions are intentionally avoids - to protect the myths: Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All not answered.

Only patriotic Americans will ask or try to answer those questions. Those are typically the same people who advance mankind by constantly pushing out the envelope. Learning new things. Asking damning questions. And did not swallow propaganda from Radio Moscow and Pravda (1960s), and Russian hackers (2016).

Can anyone answer those damning questions in a logical and adult manner - without demeaning commentary as in the Trump style? Can anyone answer those questions about Marsy's Law in an adult manner? Logical and not emotional.

No they didn't, no one who ever smoked more than one cigarette believed those ads you seem to think sold people on smoking. :headshake

Sorry Jonah, you can wail on the dock all you want, we're not turning the boat around for you. As far as we can tell, the only thing you're good for is trying to harass others into doing your research for you. We're not buying your blubbering.

I watch it being done. You did not. The overwhelming majority of American *knew* that smoking cigarettes increased health.

An honest answer would say why and post the relevant numbers. That is the point. That mistake is why we even have a president named Trump. And why Germany had a chancellor named Hitler.

You are wrong. And now to state it in a manner you understand /appreciate. You are a scumbag liar.

Why do you ignore those questions? Nasty people attack the messenger because they cannot understand how to reason logically. Why not, instead, answer the questions rather than attack examples? Scumbag liars routinely do not - that nastiest back in your face.

Let me know when you will post in an adult manner.

I apologize for tw folks. That last post was only five paragraphs long and one of them was a one liner. He just isn't the crazy old coot he used to be, now being a mere shadow of his former self. Please see the mods for a full refund of your thread admission price. Thanks for your understanding.

Crazy because you were constantly exposed for believing extremist rhetoric?

And again you demean rather than address the topic - as all good extremist are taught to do by The Don. The relevant questions still ignored: Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All still ignored - because that is what extremists do - alongside their good friend Mayhem.

You're too underdeveloped to do the research yourself and need someone to feed information to you like they're feeding a baby. We're not going to babysit you no matter how much you cry. As an adult who still acts like a baby, you can learn to do the research yourself; or, do without.

Poor tw believed his father was the smartest guy in the world so tw swallowed all the madmen bullshit the old man spouted.
That's why he's so delusional, poor boy. :rolleyes:

The relevant questions still ignored: Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All still ignored - because that is what extremists do - "wreck shit". Not one honest answer.

It Just Doesn't Matter!!!
We're all FUCKED!!!
So just be nice to each other for a change.

If you give a damn enough to post in-thread, go the extra inch and google 'marsy's law' then you'll find out 'who', 'what', 'why', etc.

That's what I did. What I found is the reason I posted what I posted up-thread.

What makes you think any of us knows the answer?

Griff came here asking our thoughts. We speak English and could read the text of law and gave our thoughts.

Sure. It would be interesting to know who is behind the push for the law. Why don't you go find out and come back and tell us instead of insulting everyone?

It's a moot point...

link

You failed to post your credit card information. From now on you'll be charged for these services you moocher.

If you cannot answer the question, then why are you posting? Griff and I have both asked for your thoughts. Not emotional outbursts. I already have answers to those questions. But like Griff, I asked to know what others thought. Since learning how biased or uninformed other can be is also informative.

Instead, so many only posted insults. Without bothering to answer any relevant questions.

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved?

Whereas xoxoxoBruce noted the Courts suspended ballot counting (over a week ago), he did not say why. Among the reasons, it violates a State Constitution requirement that amendments only address a single issue. This amendment does not.

Anyone answering those relevant questions would have mentioned that.

You only quoted the amendment. And did not even attempt to say what it means. It is so vague and subjective that it could mean anything. Which is why the relevant questions remain:

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? Especially when existing laws already address many of those issues. What really is the problem that must be solved? None of those questions answered up-thread.

No. I edited it.

No, you did not ask for our thoughts, you asked That's right, instead I gave you the link so you could read the decision and the dissent for yourself. The ACLU said because it was invalid because it covered more than one issue, but three of the seven Judges disagreed.

The reason for it is because a CA tech Billionaire had a sister murdered by an ex-boyfriend who was arrested. A week later the victim's (and Billionaire's) mother ran into the murderer in the grocery store. So the rich dude is funding this law in every state.

Tw clearly placed second in the blockhead contest, aye.

He seems composed entirely of an antisocial, let alone anti-American, perfidy. We have, after all, absolutely *no* notion of what tw is *for,* though we have a lot of testimony on what he's against. In this his life's thought strongly resembles Fascism, which had the same trouble expressing what it was for, being explicit only about what it was against.

Bad company to keep, I'd say.

His hobby is mouthing off about how all things and all circumstances betray and offend tw. By design. Even the weather -- perhaps the Ice Ages. I suppose everyone can do with a hobby...

But if tw actually wants to be treated like a human being, he's going to have to abandon this, remaking his whole self, and not dying in his current mode. (Did he ever in life have another, or was he a crabby sour tween too?) His comprehensive hatreds suggest in turn that tw hates himself most and chiefest of all. Lacks amour-propre, and is very bitter for this lack. Counseling alone may not be enough to repair him; psychoactive drugs may also be called for.

This is the first I've heard of tw having... family. The very first.

Replies are always based in facts that expose / challenge emotions in so many conclusions. Cited repeatedly is how easily some only use emotions to know something. Saddam's WMDs are a classic example. Mission Accomplished, that resulted, was also based in lies justified by emotions. And the resulting disaster - ignoring phase four planning - was but another perfect example of the emotional - challenged by facts even defined by SzeTzu over 2500 years ago.

Even The Don was elected only because he lies and insults people. That appeals to the emotional.

We went through same with a book on strategic objectives in military strategy. You only read the first chapter and gave up. It was too complicated. And therefore did not realize, so well defined in that book, why America would have to return and fight that war all over again - resulting in most of the 5000 Americans uselessly killed there.

But that is too long for an emotional person who needs everything explained in a soundbyte - a 140 character post.

So you attack the messenger rather than address the topic. Learning reality from so many paragraphs is too hard. Better is to wait for the Central Committee to say what to believe. And that, sir, has always been why we will constantly disagree. I do not wait to be brainwashed by extremist talk show hosts.

Meanwhile, xoxoxBruce has finally attempted to answer one of the questions. The billionaire is a founder of Broadcom. If I remember (from so long ago), his name is Nicholos. His objective is to get a Constitutional Amendment at the Federal level by first getting it implemented in many states.

His objectives are admirable. But the laws (amendments) that he is promoting are too vague, too broad, and too easily used to subvert personal rights. At least that is the analysis by some who use reason to make conclusions. These concepts and principles have been too little discussed to justify and sudden legal change.

It is currently promoted using the same 'we don't need to learn' attitude that justified changing Daylight Savings Time.

The proposal has pros and cons. Both would be discussed by moderates. Unfortunately a citation by sexobon demonstrates a one sided opinion. It does not discuss both pros and cons. And is therefore best ignored as if written by an extremist.

What then follows are so many personal attacks that never answer the questions: Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved?

One can only conclude that most have opinions but could not even answer those simple questions. And that was the purpose of those questions. Separate moderates (who learn facts before having opinions) from extremists (who make conclusions from and justify their attacks only using emotion).

Not surprising, so many cheapshots came from the usual suspects - who refused to answer any of those questions. Apparently because they could not.

Curious is why UG did not immediately join in the usual personal attacks. That is expected from people who only want to 'wreck shit'.

Since this is so long, I expect the usual disparaging comments devoid of any honest discussion. And find it curious that neither moderates nor progressives post in these discussions anymore.

I did my own research and posted what I did up-thread because of what I found.
 

I was cryptic, not uninformed.

My citation comes from the ACLU. The PA. ACLU's position on the matter prevailed and the PA. Supreme Court ruled that Marsy’s Law votes won’t be counted.

The citation was also part of a linked article that gave background information for those willing to do their own research.

Sexobon cites winners. Tw cries with losers.

So, we're all opposed glad we're so agreeable.

Noted is that tw was the last to get on board and then only after a decision had been handed down. Everyone else called it right prior.

Wait. What?

IKR?

It is simply accounted for: you do not have an accurate understanding of me, and you never will -- as an exertion of the emotional thinking you have always denied on the one hand yet always evidence on the other. You own the emotional thinking, and it is yours in perpetuity. You desperately want my character to be as low as your own. I'm not sorry to inform you that I have more self-respect than that.

You are completely summed up by your bitternesses and prejudices and idées fixes. None here think of you as anything but a piñata. You demand that the world offend and injure you. Sure enough... compliance happens, happened, will further happen.

You'll die alone. Having voted Democratic one last time.

Hell, I didn't hear a damn thing about it until I read it here.

This movement started in CA. Did CA not have a Proposition for this amendment? CA is famous for its voter initiated laws.

If we did, I didn't notice it in the voting booth, not the last election nor the one before.

Such proposition would appear on a general-election ballot -- that'd be every four years. With me, propositions have to meet a high bar; I most often vote No.

The League of Women voters once distributed copies of the ballot at least one week before the election. So that voters could know what was on their ballot and investigate days before. It does not happen any more.

Since the ballot is locked in long before the polls open, we should be able to see our ballot on-line weeks before the polls open. Just wondering why nobody thought it necessary?

Google, et al could earn significant advertising money doing this across the country.

The PA LWV became more interested in their political side than their voter education side.

I watched it happen when I attended the state convention in 1997.

This last election I was greeted, as usual, with a dozen people lining the last 30 feet to the door trying to had out pamphlets for their candidate. Body language and glare usually make them back off, but there was a keyed up newbie overachiever this time. I didn't take his pamphlet but I did stop and tell him, if someone gets to this point and doesn't know who they're voting for they shouldn't be allowed to vote. He didn't know what to say but the regulars laughed.

I wonder if the LWV backed off because for the weeks leading up to the election our mailboxes are stuffed with literature every damn day.

My rinky dink county supplies that.

http://susqco.com/Dept/Voter/Pages/default.aspx

My county also supplies sample ballots. So do the parties, with the correct choices helpfully filled in.

Also, does the LWV still exist? I used to know people who were members. Hell, my Mom was the state president when I was a kid. But I am not aware of anyone in the LWV anymore.

Where you are this doesn't happen? Here in Louisiana (specifically, my *parish, Acadia) paper and on-line sample ballots are published well in advance of votin' day.









*equivalent of county

Based on my experience, after they kept their political side and not their voter education side, there is no reason for them to actually exist, unless there is a severe shortage of potluck dinners in the nation.

Have not seen one since the 1980s - in multiple states.

Beyond being available on-line, both major parties deliver ballots in my township.

How do you get them? Where did you find out about this? And how far in advance do they provide them?

In the old days my Dad was a Republican committeeman and remains on the county GOP mailing list. Pete did some phone work for the Democrats last election cycle and is now on their countywide mailing list. The Democrat ballots used to be hand delivered by a neighbor but he moved to a blue area.

Just another example of how more employment (and no bias) was created by replacing neighbors with computer networks.

Was it the Far Side where this expression would be in tiny letters?

"Russian hackers."