Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 644

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

dahmage said:

yhwx said:

It’s just that in two instances today, it seems that people thought I was being actually serious when I thought I was being obviously facetious. Frink took my posts in the age thread literally, and both of you seem to take my bit in this thread as literally suggesting that those parents should be barred from voting. I don’t know what’s going on here.

people? frink?

Okay, let’s say it’s Frink. What do you have to say about my post?

Can I answer?

no

dahmage said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

dahmage said:

yhwx said:

It’s just that in two instances today, it seems that people thought I was being actually serious when I thought I was being obviously facetious. Frink took my posts in the age thread literally, and both of you seem to take my bit in this thread as literally suggesting that those parents should be barred from voting. I don’t know what’s going on here.

people? frink?

Okay, let’s say it’s Frink. What do you have to say about my post?

Can I answer?

I’m not sure why that’s a question that needs to be asked, but yes, you can answer.

I don’t know which of you to trust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UYNgUmu35o#t=00m35s

If Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signs a bill that recently passed both houses of the Utah legislature unanimously, parents in his state will not have to worry about getting arrested for letting their kids play outside or walk to school.
…
Clearly, the laws needed to be clarified. Giving our kids an old-fashioned childhood is not negligence. It should never be considered that. I asked Adrian Moore, a policy expert at the Reason Foundation, to help me draft a law that stated — in a lot more words — “Our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and parents have the right to give it to them without getting arrested.” As Moore put it, “There are some bureaucrats who think that it’s not safe for kids to do anything other than play in their rooms. That’s crazy. But without a law sometimes the crazies get to decide.”
…
The Arkansas legislature was the first state to vote on this bill a year ago. It sailed through the Senate but hit a wall in the House, stymied by the all-too-familiar fear: What if a child gets kidnapped? The specter of this rarest of crimes (people are more likely to be hit by lightning than be kidnapped) was enough to trigger the backlash.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/21/free-range-kids-finally-one-state-lets-kids-grow-up-without-helicopter-parents/349501002/

TV’s Frink said:

The way you cut that up I can’t actually tell what the law is.

The article isn’t explicit about it. But the bill says neglect doesn’t include:

(iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including:
(A) traveling to and from school, including by walking, running, or bicycling;
(B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities;
(C ) engaging in outdoor play;
(D) remaining in a vehicle unattended, except under the conditions described in Subsection 76-10-2202(2);
(E) remaining at home unattended; or
(F) engaging in a similar independent activity.

There’s background on this: basically, back in the day, play used to be a matter of “Hey kids, have fun and be back before dinner!” and chores used to be a matter of “Could you bike down to the corner store with this money and buy us some milk?” Things are different now: kids unattended by adults in public places for long periods of time are assumed to be neglected. Police have been called on parents because they trusted their kids to stay safe (and the parents were right), and this triggered a whole “free range parenting” advocacy … er, I wouldn’t say movement, but let’s say discussion.

Is the world more dangerous for unattended kids in public spaces now than it used to be? Not significantly. Our culture has just become a lot more risk-averse, and isn’t very tolerant of people who don’t live the same risk-averse lifestyle, possibly because “free range kids” now stand out, whereas they used to be just “kids”. I’m not even sure risk-averse is the right word, since IMO your kid’s more likely to end up in some sort of serious trouble by using the Internet in their bedroom than by spending the day skateboarding in an empty lot with their friends, and people don’t usually have any problem with the former (neither are really likely to cause harm either way, I’m just saying actual risk isn’t correlated with perceived risk).

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.

The basic facts from the link:

The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.

The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”

A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/966444573374472197

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.

The basic facts from the link:

The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.

The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”

A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.

I don’t understand, wouldn’t what the attorneys get depend on the agreement made between them and Charles Murphy?

I don’t know much about this topic but this situation only concerns what happens when a court awards attorneys’ fees - which normally means the losing party pays the amount the judge awards for those fees (on top of any judgment).

That amount awarded for fees may be different than the attorneys’ actual bill. There is another part of the law that says the client can agree to pay amounts greater than the court awards but these cases typically involve people who do not have money (and may not get a big judgment).

When the court awards $108,000 we would expect the losing party to pay that. But there is this law that says a portion of the judgment must be used to pay attorneys’ fees. Anything above that would be paid by the losing party.

It looks like a simple law to interpret but it’s tricky when you starting focusing on certain words and thinking about what the intended purpose of the law is.

Every time I look at that law I get confused. But for your question: the court can “award” an amount it determines appropriate for attorneys’ fees. The question is how much of that award must come out of the prisoner’s judgment.