https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/02/supreme-court-rejects-qualified-immunity-defense-for-the-first-time-in-years/

😃 👍 that's a great start

Agree, hopefully some people follow suit

wow look at that

I'd normally question how you can subject someone to such conditions but the Stanford Experiment (I believe that's what it was) answers the question.

@DeathRhodes666 yeah the prison experiment was brutal.

The Stanford prison experiment is infamous. A movie was made about that.

yeah i saw it. it was pretty good

and i heard is pretty faithful to what really happened

Check out Milgram's torture experiment as well, if that isnt known. @TheParamedicGamer @True

The two compliment each other somewhat.

oh really now. i shall

Uncomfortable insight into human nature.

sounds about right

But hey, if youre a paramedic, I am preaching to the choir. 😄

the name is only slightly misleading

im working on it

but i am still an EMT

so yeah

still

good for you. Hit me up if I can help.

Hippocratic oath §2, take care of the family

thanks!!

Can we get the 9ths ruling on concealed carry being reasonable suspicion of a crime to SCOTUS? Like I am just curious if anyone wants to defend that ruling 😂

@DeathRhodes666 I have heard that the Stanford experiment was not sound science. Basically it was one guy engaging in most the abuse. And he said later he just did it because he thought the experiment was going well and felt sympathetic towards the professor.

Yeah there were so many flaws in what went on and how it was guided. Still a pretty hard lesson on what people do when given almost unlimited power over others

`felt sympathetic towards the professor` rofl

https://youtu.be/CElJEVMrnto

Yeah I've looked into it. Far better example here: https://youtu.be/JM2o9e-pwoE

My father in law (Polish) survived Auschwitz. Brainwashing and psychological transformation is totally possible but not likely to happen within a few weeks without a major cataclysmic event imho ☺

* grandfather-in-law

Yeah, it takes four years to brainwash people on average.


I mean four years ago all my liberal friends believed everyone’s vote should count equally. Flash forward to two weeks ago and I see people saying they would rather end Trump than COVID.

@Lady Georgia You dont need to brainwash people to bring out the tyrant. Its build into the human psyche and will come out if nurtured. It looks like the "debunker" has misunderstood the experiment and is attempting to falsify an experiment which did not take place. Zimbardo is showing what *can* be done. Not what develops by random. Massive difference.

I think the experiment has largely been used to 'prove' what is likely to happen in the absence of external factors, and that seems to be the conclusion encouraged by the researchers 🙂

If so, that is a misunderstanding of data provided.

I agree a tyrant is within each of us. I just disagree that the experiment does much to prove that.

Its not what Zimbardo is showing. Like Milgram, he demonstrates what can be done.

We repeated it when I was a resident, and i checked out here as well. Nurses were inclined to administer harmful doses of medication if an authoritarian doctor ordered it.

If key participants stated they were in fact 'acting' the whole time, in such a small sample I would suggest that puts the experiment largely out of the pool of useful research

Unless you can confirm it again and again.

And test it by *coherency*

Oh for sure, but that's not what the Stanford experiment was about, no? The idea was without authoritarian leaders, individuals are still likelu to devolve into cruelty.

Id call that misinterpreting the data.

and misunderstanding how humans act in packs.

Humans in populus always have leaders.

You cant avoid that, as hierarchies are formed 3 sec after the elevator stops.

So the authoritarian doctor in the Stanford scenario is one of guards who's taken control?

I can see that.

You can have one authoritarian captain who demands cruelty. Does not invalidate the experiment. Such captains are found plentyful in the real world. All colors, genders and nationalities.

It really depends on who gets the leadership in a lot of ways. But again if the 'pack leader' in the experiment was 'acting'....

I agree.

We're basically turning the scotus chat into a Petersonesque discussion lol

It is polyfactorial. Always.

For sure.

We are. And I would like to continue it. I have a full day, however, and we are contaminating now, yes. Ill look you up later for this? It is interesting.

I think Ordinary Men is still far better example

Sure

Have a good one!

u2

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

what's that?

ahh

scotus orders

What happens if they hadn't separated the votes?

Since per constitution the state legislators make election rules, it is silly that roberts bounced it back, this could have been avoided.

The reason it got bounced back is because of the potential of a 4/4 split. At least now it could be a 5/4 or 6/3 in favor of Trump

@WatchingYouDaily If ACB votes as we expect. She's already declined to participate. Robert Barnes has no faith in her.

@GregInHouston2 I had not faith in her I am with Barnes on his selection because Barbara Lagoa would have taken the time to get familiar with the briefs and would have taken the time to review them during oral arguments as well. She is a member of the same National Honor Society I am but I am a 2 chapter inductee. Also, In April 2019, Lagoa wrote for the unanimous court when it found that DeSantis acted within his authority by suspending Sheriff Scott Israel for his response to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

I thought day before election acb had opportunity to vote on it but said she wasn't prepared, so they bounced it back because view would remain 4 4 without her vote.

I think Barnes was right, hope I'm wrong

@NavigateTheAbyss, you just advanced to level 1!

a ghost ^

!rank

When is Powell going to start her litigation

You probably want to put your question in the election2020 case section. But I imagine it's likely the same pleading that is in the court listener link I just posted, which also has all of the evidence files.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/amp/

If a case makes it on the docket, does that guarantee it gets heard?

Do you mean on the docket for the Supreme Court? Yes. If they "grant cert" then the case will be considered.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

So, it's gonna be heard?

I think they are just showing the initial filings with the court. I see no order granting Cert

Ah, I see. Thanks!

Yeppers

someone posted this link on twitter: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

"If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket."

That would show up in the orders as `Petition GRANTED`, no?

do you have an example showing this is wrong? its uscourts.gov lol

Taken from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

can someone show me a case where the record shows a case being docketed and then later declined to be heard?

hmm looking back at the cases on the scotus homepage, it does show docketed preceeding petition granted

all very confusing, it would be great if robert would pop in and tell us whats up in a sentence or two lol

Yeppers. If they grant cert then they case will be heard.

I do not see an Order of Cert from the SC, yet.

Generally a Justice will review the complaint. He/She may then direct further filings (response, brief, whatever). When the Court reviews those filings they will decide whether or not to grand Cert.

Hmm.. So, in light of this ruling on the case in PA, it's likely they will not grant cert on the TX case. Am I understanding it right?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-pennsylvania-tom-wolf-courts-0b7005328243eeca23f8bc3368549879?fbclid=IwAR3PQNlrJm5hAICfBYlVWQv3yt1GMIdlh0JIX9Jjajtp3Q7j086s5tLR6wA

Im not sure about how their electronic docketing system works. I dont think the fact that it made the electronic filing system/electronic docket that cert is granted. I just think its a way to keep up with the status. No cert, yet.

Oh wow.... that is news to me. the SCOTUS declined to take the case....

I honestly think that Texas is going to have standing problems so I sincerely doubt that gets heard

No, the denied the Kelly case

Texas case is docketed

Louisiana joined in w texas