New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[CKwi88]

(09-15-2023, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I looked at the Senate floor analysis from 5/27, which would be for the version of the bill that the article was about, there is no mention of the prohibition.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

Apparently, the earlier version of the bill said an employer could not force a non-security employee to intervene, but that was removed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/12/false-claim-california-bill-would-outlaw-stopping-shoplifters-fact-check/70807687007/

Quite frankly, I think it should be law that an employer can't force it. If it isn't in your job description to confront an individual in a situation like that, and you aren't trained to, then you shouldn't be expected to.

In reading some of the revisions, one of the most problematic pieces of language was probably this:

Quote:(D) Maintaining sufficient staffing, including security personnel, who can maintain order in the facility and respond to workplace violence incidents in a timely manner.

IMO this creates an undue burden on the business. Especially smaller businesses that wouldn't necessarily have dedicated security staff. 

The provision that you mention:

Quote:(12) (d)  Provisions (1)  (A)   prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees who are not dedicated safety personnel to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.

 
Is 100% reasonable, and is standard for most big businesses I would imagine. I work as an interpreter in court. I've gotten to see a number of fights, three stabbings and one shooting. You can bet I got the f*** out of Dodge rather than feel obligated to confront any of the combatants. The judicial marshals are both trained and get hazard pay to deal with that shit. I'm happy to apply that to 16 year old Jenny manning the register not being obligated to confront an aggressive robber taking deoderant and laundry detergent without paying. 

It's hardly the first time that a bill has been over-sensationalized by people who are either ignorant to its actual language, predisposed against its authors, or both.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 03:31 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: In reading some of the revisions, one of the most problematic pieces of language was probably this:


IMO this creates an undue burden on the business. Especially smaller businesses that wouldn't necessarily have dedicated security staff. 

The provision that you mention:


 
Is 100% reasonable, and is standard for most big businesses I would imagine. I work as an interpreter in court. I've gotten to see a number of fights, three stabbings and one shooting. You can bet I got the f*** out of Dodge rather than feel obligated to confront any of the combatants. The judicial marshals are both trained and get hazard pay to deal with that shit. I'm happy to apply that to 16 year old Jenny manning the register not being obligated to confront an aggressive robber taking deoderant and laundry detergent without paying. 

It's hardly the first time that a bill has been over-sensationalized by people who are either ignorant to its actual language, predisposed against its authors, or both.

Kudos to Bels for the deep dive.  I will say that while your last sentence is not wrong, lawmakers in this state no longer get the benefit of the doubt. 

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The bill was amended on 09/01, 09/12 and 09/14/23.  Not long after this.

https://sacobserver.com/2023/09/controversial-senate-bill-553-sparks-debate-over-crime-rates-in-california/

While Hollo is being rather generous by praising the apparent removal of the text in question I, having dealt with these clowns for years, would point out that it should never have been in there in the first place.  And you can damn well believe that it would still be in the bill if it hadn't received such a public pushback.

Yeah I did not mean to praise it. I called it the sensible thing to do, because it just is. No medals given.

Overall, I do not doubt the validity of your sentiments. I'd take your word for it, but I don't really have to, what you describe is described plenty and a majority of people in Californian cities seem to harbor similar sentiments.

And it's probably because the balance between progressives and conservatives no longer functions in a polarized society. Hardly any dissatisfaction can bring liberal leaning people to vote for the Trump party, and I can understand why that is. Which effectively leads to an one party system in left leaning California, and that does not support moderate currents. Which is the one point I do not fully share, that Californian Democrats are a valid stand-in for democrats as a whole. Joe Biden for starters is quite different in his views than those folks are.

I'm aware that while arguing this point I declare Trump a valid stand-in for all Republicans, but this party has done all it can to support that view.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Could have went with the cow fart regulation, but it doesn't really do much for the complaint you were talking about, just shows what kinda laws they pass, just more Bull if you ask me, eff it, I'm outa here, time for bed.

https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/news/gassy-cows-are-warming-planet-and-scientists-are-turning-sea-answers

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 06:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Could have went with the cow fart regulation, but it doesn't really do much for the complaint you were talking about, just shows what kinda laws they pass, just more Bull if you ask me, eff it, I'm outa here, time for bed.

https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/news/gassy-cows-are-warming-planet-and-scientists-are-turning-sea-answers

Farting cows have become the big "haha, how stupid is that" issue, I'm aware. Still, a cow actually releases about 200 pounds of methane a year, which is a way more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And there's around 90 million kettle in the US alone. 18 billion pounds of methane per year has a measurable, albeit small, effect on the greenhouse effect, for the US estimates hover around 4% of all anthropogenic causes. It is not bull, although in a way it is.

Also, there's no talk about any laws. They research ways to possibly reduce the methane through nutrition, why would that anger you?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-16-2023, 11:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Farting cows have become the big "haha, how stupid is that" issue, I'm aware. Still, a cow actually releases about 200 pounds of methane a year, which is a way more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And there's around 90 million kettle in the US alone. 18 billion pounds of methane per year has a measurable, albeit small, effect on the greenhouse effect, for the US estimates hover around 4% of all anthropogenic causes. It is not bull, although in a way it is.

Also, there's no talk about any laws. They research ways to possibly reduce the methane through nutrition, why would that anger you?

cause cows have been farting for a thousand years and we are still here

My bad didn't realize they didn't talk about he law.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/

[hollodero]

(09-16-2023, 01:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: cause cows have been farting for a thousand years and we are still here

Ha, yeah that is true. And cows always contributed a tiny bit to the natural greenhouse effect, natural being the key word. There was an equilibrium disturbed through anthroponegic carbon sources; and reducing cow emissions, as funny as it is to many, could dampen this effect. The second, probably more important point would be that while there always were cows, there never were as many cows as there are now, after humans bred them in intense agriculture. Their numbers have vastly increased compared to a thousand years before.

(09-16-2023, 01:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My bad didn't realize they didn't talk about he law.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/

I see. While I don't know if this law particularly makes sense, the idea behind it is, say, endorsed by science, and that to me bears higher weight than our gut feelings that farting cows are a ridiculous matter.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-16-2023, 02:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ha, yeah that is true. And cows always contributed a tiny bit to the natural greenhouse effect, natural being the key word. There was an equilibrium disturbed through anthroponegic carbon sources; and reducing cow emissions, as funny as it is to many, could dampen this effect. The second, probably more important point would be that while there always were cows, there never were as many cows as there are now, after humans bred them in intense agriculture. Their numbers have vastly increased compared to a thousand years before.



I see. While I don't know if this law particularly makes sense, the idea behind it is, say, endorsed by science, and that to me bears higher weight than our gut feelings that farting cows are a ridiculous matter.

If science is so worried about it, why don't they try altering the genetics so cows no longer fart? That would seem logical.

[hollodero]

(09-16-2023, 02:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If science is so worried about it, why don't they try altering the genetics so cows no longer fart? That would seem logical.

Phew, I don't know really. My guess would be that genetic manipulation with animals is not quite so easy to do artificially and takes plenty of generations - aka too long - to be achieved naturally through selection. Not to mention the expenses and the logistics to alter a population of 90 million cows. Imho, nutrition seems like the easier path to try, and apparently there are successes already.

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 12:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: I would agree with that, employers should probably be disallowed to force their employees to personally stop thieves and robbers. If a law said just that, I'd see no issue... but it does not. It makes it illegal to intervene, that much is clear from the linked article.

I'm not sure what the bill says then. Here is the quote from the sponsor. 

"SB 553 is focused on protecting employees. The bill does not prohibit employees from stopping theft. It does prevent employers from asking non-security personnel to confront a person involved in criminal activity. We don't want rank and file employees to be forced to place themselves in harm's way."

As I read that statement, employees are still free to confront shoplifters, should they choose to show "civil courage."  But an employer cannot order a 16-year-old girl to confront a 30-year-old man twice her size. Perhaps there is an ambiguity in the "stopping theft." Now supposedly that language has been removed.

I also looked at the Senate analysis and concluded the bill is about workplace protections and reporting. I skimmed the bill itself but don't want to deep dive for something that may not be there. 

(09-15-2023, 12:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: And musing about rule of law versus law and order, imho, misses the point. You might be right about the semantics, but it's about the law and the mindset it represents.

My "musing" was not an attempt to turn the discussion to "rule of law." I fully understand--after the fact--that "law and order" was the intended issue.

But when SSF first accused Dems of "awful policy positions" on RULE of LAW, surely you can understand that I hear that as talk about RULE of LAW, and not "law and order."  (How'm I supposed to know he put his own gloss on the term?) Dems are holding accountable a scofflaw president who has repeatedly sought to place himself above the law, while his party, as as usual, defends him to the utmost. So how can the Democrats be the "rule of law" problem in the US?  Hence my call for an example--of how awful Dem policies are on the RULE of LAW. 

And we are only discussing SB 533 now because I asked for an example.

Had SSF originally said something like "Dems are awful on law and order," I'd have said nothing. But he didn't. And I followed up with a clarification of the terminology, with which, I think, no one should have a serious problem at a time when so many have such difficulty discerning when rule of law is under threat by a "law and order" candidate. SSF claimed it was a distinction without a difference, and thus earned more insistent clarification. That's all. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-16-2023, 11:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Farting cows have become the big "haha, how stupid is that" issue, I'm aware. Still, a cow actually releases about 200 pounds of methane a year, which is a way more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And there's around 90 million kettle in the US alone. 18 billion pounds of methane per year has a measurable, albeit small, effect on the greenhouse effect, for the US estimates hover around 4% of all anthropogenic causes. It is not bull, although in a way it is.

(09-16-2023, 02:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: The second, probably more important point would be that while there always were cows, there never were as many cows as there are now, after humans bred them in intense agriculture. Their numbers have vastly increased compared to a thousand years before.

Yes there are more cows than before, but it is worth noting that we basically just replaced Bison that used to be here with Cows. There were an estimated 60 million American Bison in the late 18th century.

Still more cows than bison, but Bison are notably larger individually.

Admittedly don't know how much American Bison fart, though.

[hollodero]

(09-16-2023, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: My "musing" was not an attempt to turn the discussion to "rule of law." I fully understand--after the fact--that "law and order" was the intended issue.

But when SSF first accused Dems of "awful policy positions" on RULE of LAW, surely you can understand that I hear that as talk about RULE of LAW, and not "law and order."  (How'm I supposed to know he put his own gloss on the term?) Dems are holding accountable a scofflaw president who has repeatedly sought to place himself above the law, while his party, as as usual, defends him to the utmost. So how can the Democrats be the "rule of law" problem in the US?  Hence my call for an example--of how awful Dem policies are on the RULE of LAW. 

And we are only discussing SB 533 now because I asked for an example.

Had SSF originally said something like "Dems are awful on law and order," I'd have said nothing. But he didn't. And I followed up with a clarification of the terminology, with which, I think, no one should have a serious problem at a time when so many have such difficulty discerning when rule of law is under threat by a "law and order" candidate. SSF claimed it was a distinction without a difference, and thus earned more insistent clarification. That's all. 

Sure, never meant to "call you out" or anything of that sort. Since you raised the point, I will rise mine with it though. I for one, even while certainly limited in my comprehension, understood pretty well what SSF was addressing. He made his initial points, then kept expanding on it, gave further examples of what he meant (that the law he mentioned turned out to be more of an initial proposal is slightly unfortunate, but I don't mind that), also shared events from his personal experience, all to paint a pretty clear picture about his grievances with liberal politics and policies.

One can agree or disagree, more often I'd do the latter, not in this case though; but that's not so relevant. It's just, you still asking for clarification instead of addressing the well explained points heads on can have the appearances of deflection, aka rather talk about the correct terminology than the issues behind it because the issues behind it might make the liberal side look not so great. If that is indeed so, I don't know. I just tried to get a direct opinion on the topic at hand out of you. But all of that was not meant to be critizism. I'm literally debating cow farts in this thread now, so it's not like I'm any kind of role model for staying on topic.

[hollodero]

(09-18-2023, 10:09 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes there are more cows than before, but it is worth noting that we basically just replaced Bison that used to be here with Cows. There were an estimated 60 million American Bison in the late 18th century.

Still more cows than bison, but Bison are notably larger individually.

Admittedly don't know how much American Bison fart, though.

It seems no one really knows. The whole methane topic is more complex for sure (nutrition seems to be important for one, fresh grass vs. grain), and a rather important issue seems to be that flatulences of cows (or bisons etc) in free nature have way less of an impact since the animals spread around, the methane does not reach high concentrations and gets degraded more quickly. Feedlots with lots of cows crammed together seem to amplify the problem. I say "seem" a lot, for in the end I am not an expert on cow flatulences either.

In the end, I take everything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions; even if cow farts always existed and contributed. If there's an easy way to cut down on those, why not. Things like "forbidding beef" is of course not part of the measures I'd approve of.

[Belsnickel]

(09-18-2023, 12:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: It seems no one really knows. The whole methane topic is more complex for sure (nutrition seems to be important for one, fresh grass vs. grain), and a rather important issue seems to be that flatulences of cows (or bisons etc) in free nature have way less of an impact since the animals spread around, the methane does not reach high concentrations and gets degraded more quickly. Feedlots with lots of cows crammed together seem to amplify the problem. I say "seem" a lot, for in the end I am not an expert on cow flatulences either.

In the end, I take everything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions; even if cow farts always existed and contributed. If there's an easy way to cut down on those, why not. Things like "forbidding beef" is of course not part of the measures I'd approve of.

We must also keep in mind that cattle populations are likely higher now than they ever were. Our creation of the current cattle species through domestication and our reliance on them has meant that we have gone out of our way to provide them habitat. As beef and dairy became more commonplace in our diets post-industrial revolution, that demand only grew. Much like with white-tailed deer and wild turkeys, they exist in higher numbers and in more places than they did before human intervention.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2023, 11:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, never meant to "call you out" or anything of that sort. Since you raised the point, I will rise mine with it though. I for one, even while certainly limited in my comprehension, understood pretty well what SSF was addressing. He made his initial points, then kept expanding on it, gave further examples of what he meant (that the law he mentioned turned out to be more of an initial proposal is slightly unfortunate, but I don't mind that), also shared events from his personal experience, all to paint a pretty clear picture about his grievances with liberal politics and policies.

One can agree or disagree, more often I'd do the latter, not in this case though; but that's not so relevant. It's just, you still asking for clarification instead of addressing the well explained points heads on can have the appearances of deflection, aka rather talk about the correct terminology than the issues behind it because the issues behind it might make the liberal side look not so great. If that is indeed so, I don't know. I just tried to get a direct opinion on the topic at hand out of you. But all of that was not meant to be critizism. I'm literally debating cow farts in this thread now, so it's not like I'm any kind of role model for staying on topic.

This is sadly the typical experience.  One cannot have law and order without the rule of law.  Also, no sensible person discussing in good faith could possibly claim that I was referring to law and order as it would be implemented in China, North Korean, Iran or Russia.  As we are discussing the US that could be the only location we are discussing and anyone who lives here knows what is being said.  As you point out, focusing on semantics and avoiding the actual topic like the plague gives the impression of not wanting to actually discuss an area of politics in which the left is utterly failing.  It gives that impression because it is exactly that.

As to the topic, it is indeed unfortunate that Newsweek got their facts so badly wrong, as it distracts from the actual point.  This bill may not be as bad as advertised, there are plenty that are  Here are some examples.

https://archive.ph/A7vcl

The consequences of Measure 110’s shortcomings have fallen most heavily on Oregon’s drug users. In the two years after the law took effect, the number of annual overdoses in the state rose by 61 percent, compared with a 13 percent increase nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In neighboring Idaho and California, where drug possession remains subject to prosecution, the rate of increase was significantly lower than Oregon’s. (The spike in Washington State was similar to Oregon’s, but that comparison is more complicated because Washington’s drug policy has fluctuated since 2021.) Other states once notorious for drug deaths, including West Virginia, Indiana, and Arkansas, are now experiencing declines in overdose rates.




https://archive.ph/7aXfx




For the second year in a row, Washington saw an increase in homicides and other violent crimes in 2022, while the number of officers statewide dropped to the lowest rate in its history.





We've already covered how just Target alone, a single retailer, experienced $400 million in shoplifting loses in one year in California.  

So you're right, there is a concerted effort by many on the left to ignore this, as this issue is horrible for them.  The fully bought into "criminal justice reform" and similar sentiments and the residents of those areas are paying the price.  Crime rates dropped rather steadily for close to thirty years.  Dems become criminal friendly and crime rates increased.  They don't have the pandemic to fall back on as an excuse anymore, so ignoring it seems to be the preferred tactic now.  I could provide more examples, but you don't need them and the people who pretend to need them won't address them anyways.

[Dill]

(09-18-2023, 06:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is sadly the typical experience.  One cannot have law and order without the rule of law.  Also, no sensible person discussing in good faith could possibly claim that I was referring to law and order as it would be implemented in China, North Korean, Iran or Russia.  As we are discussing the US that could be the only location we are discussing and anyone who lives here knows what is being said.  As you point out, focusing on semantics and avoiding the actual topic like the plague gives the impression of not wanting to actually discuss an area of politics in which the left is utterly failing.  It gives that impression because it is exactly that.

You are saying that North Korea and Iran do not have law and order?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2023, 11:44 AM)Dill Wrote: You are saying that North Korea and Iran do not have law and order?

You even have Hollo pointing out this behavior now.  Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you at this point.  If you don't want to actually discuss the topic then go troll somewhere else.

[Dill]

(09-18-2023, 11:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, never meant to "call you out" or anything of that sort. Since you raised the point, I will rise mine with it though. I for one, even while certainly limited in my comprehension, understood pretty well what SSF was addressing. He made his initial points, then kept expanding on it, gave further examples of what he meant (that the law he mentioned turned out to be more of an initial proposal is slightly unfortunate, but I don't mind that), also shared events from his personal experience, all to paint a pretty clear picture about his grievances with liberal politics and policies.

One can agree or disagree, more often I'd do the latter, not in this case though; but that's not so relevant. It's just, you still asking for clarification instead of addressing the well explained points heads on can have the appearances of deflection, aka rather talk about the correct terminology than the issues behind it because the issues behind it might make the liberal side look not so great. If that is indeed so, I don't know. I just tried to get a direct opinion on the topic at hand out of you. But all of that was not meant to be critizism. I'm literally debating cow farts in this thread now, so it's not like I'm any kind of role model for staying on topic.

To the first bolded--SSF started this thread, I thought, to address a violation of constitutional principle. He talked about that some, and fascism. Then in his post #44 he made some sweeping generalizations about "the left" and how the right tends to defend organic society. I could have let that pass, but wanted to know what "awful" policies against "rule of law" he thought Dems were responsible for. When I asked, I did not know that he did not know the difference between "rule of law" and "law and order." Now I do. I can't find anything before that which looks like shared events from personal experience or the like. Or I don't know what you are counting as "well explained points" before that.

When I corrected the conflation, he just doubled down on it. Still does. Like it's no more than the difference between "bachelor" and "unmarried man."  So it's not like he knew perfectly well what rule of law is and just confused terms. I have asked quite reasonable questions of him on quite reasonable grounds, so from my side "deflection" is refusing to answer simple, determinative questions like--Is there law and order in Iran and NK? If there is, and there's no difference, then there must be rule of law there too.

At a time when U.S. democracy is under threat because people don't seem to get, or care, about the basic distinction between "rule by law and rule by men," I don't want to let it go if someone seems appears not to get or care about it. If you still think responding to the double down just looks like deflection, then I guess the conflation, which can no longer be regarded as accidental, doesn't bother you. Skip that and get to law a regulating employer-employee relations, since that's what SSF "intended." He's offered personal grievances and other examples--and adds he will never vote Dem again, presumably because he wants what I would call law and order solutions. Don't see how that makes "the liberal side" look "not so great."

[Dill]

(09-19-2023, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You even have Hollo pointing out this behavior now.  Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you at this point.  If you don't want to actually discuss the topic then go troll somewhere else.

No one is discussing the NM governor any more.

But if they were, what you call a "distinction without a difference" could have some application,

both to the governor's legal argument and posters' responses to that argument,

since the point of the both federal and state constitutions is to have rule of law, not of men.

Maybe you need to hear it from somewhere besides "the left" though.

https://www.fff.org/2016/02/26/the-rule-of-men-vs-the-rule-of-law/

There is a common misconception regarding the term “the rule of law.” Lots of people, including U.S. officials, believe that it means that people should obey the law. But that’s not what it means. What it means is a society in which people have to answer only to the law and not to the edicts or orders issued by government officials. A society in which people have to respond to edicts and orders issued by politicians and bureaucrats is what is called “the rule of men.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2023, 12:55 PM)Dill Wrote: No one is discussing the NM governor any more.

Not solely, no. We are discussing the Dems utter failure in the realm of the criminal justice system, of which she is most certainly a part.  You arguing that the thread is already derailed so your contributing to that further is not a problem is interesting though.

Quote:But if they were, what you call a "distinction without a difference" could have some application,

both to the governor's legal argument and posters' responses to that argument,

since the point of the both federal and state constitutions is to have rule of law, not of men.

Maybe you need to hear it from somewhere besides "the left" though.

https://www.fff.org/2016/02/26/the-rule-of-men-vs-the-rule-of-law/

There is a common misconception regarding the term “the rule of law.” Lots of people, including U.S. officials, believe that it means that people should obey the law. But that’s not what it means. What it means is a society in which people have to answer only to the law and not to the edicts or orders issued by government officials. A society in which people have to respond to edicts and orders issued by politicians and bureaucrats is what is called “the rule of men.”

Are you not getting that literally no one is interested in your semantic parsing of hairs?  We all understand that you utterly avoid topics that you can't nitpick to death, this being a perfect example.  The vindictive part of me would keep this going as it's doing nothing but making you look bad.  But I'm going to leave it at this.  If you have nothing to add to the discussion beyond this then please, do stop wasting everyone's time.  My thanks in advance.