New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[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.