Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Today the US Supreme Court hears the ultimate "don't stick your dick in crazy" case   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Chemical Weapons Convention, Articles of Confederation  
•       •       •

23773 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:29 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-05 10:54:00 AM  
I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.
 
2013-11-05 10:54:33 AM  

dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":


The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.
 
2013-11-05 10:55:54 AM  

Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.


This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).
 
2013-11-05 10:55:57 AM  

phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...


Yeah, but then I wouldn't have seen it.
 
2013-11-05 10:56:43 AM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: macadamnut: Vietnam?

This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.


So what you're saying regarding her six year sentence that they should instead mark it [to] zero [years]?
 
2013-11-05 10:56:47 AM  

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


Yes, its his fault she tried to poison her friend. Don't you know? Women can't be held responsible for their actions. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich, biatch.
 
2013-11-05 10:56:59 AM  

elvindeath: I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.


50 posts in before somebody finally asked if she was hot.  Fark, i am disappoint.
 
2013-11-05 10:57:10 AM  
FTA But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn.

Haynes complained more than a dozen times to the local police, who refused to take any action. Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.



She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.
 
2013-11-05 10:57:16 AM  
Sotomayor:  "Esse, you shoulda called my cousin Chuy.  He woulda taken care of dat beetch for 2 tamales and a lift kit for his El Camino!"

State abdicated its position to enforce state laws by doing nothing.
Case became federal when she planted toxic crap on a mailbox, endangering a federal employee.
Fed could have charged her with federal assault, I suppose, but violating international treaty sounds cooler.

In any case, doesn't the Supremacy Clause mean the federal assault charge and the international treaty trump the state charge?
 
2013-11-05 10:59:20 AM  

elvindeath: I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.


1.bp.blogspot.com

The GIS brought up this Carol Anne, so I ran with it.
 
2013-11-05 10:59:32 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

[www.toomanymornings.com image 460x300]


So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd.

Got it


Don't be a farking moron. On a soverign level, this is "peaceful" it isnt threatening another nation-state. The gist of this, is that the states should be prosecuting this (and they should) WTF is the government doing in this?
 
2013-11-05 10:59:49 AM  
Okay, using the CWC to prosecute this lady is a bit shady and out of the blue considering there's plenty of ammo just within the attempted murder, reckless endangerment, etc., category to put her away for a very, very long time...but honestly, it's still the law as ratified by Congress. Otherwise, this is a completely open-and-shut supremacy clause case, that I suspect only was granted cert because Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts saw an opportunity to nibble away at cooperative federalism.
 
2013-11-05 11:01:14 AM  

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder?


That's a good question. I could also see some kind of aggravated reckless endangerment charge: she could have gotten the postal carrier by accident, and God help us if that stuff had gotten on the friend's outgoing mail.

Given that, why the chemical weapons convention? It's accurate as far as it goes, but it sounds like it's missing the forest for the trees.

Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

It is, except in some circumstances. But did she actually send toxic materials through the mail? She mixed the poison herself; she bought some of the ingredients through the mail, but those might not have been toxic. Without knowing exactly what they were, it's tough to say.

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.

This is the thing that really bothers me. She pled guilty to harassment, but didn't stop, so maybe this big fancy charge was intended to intimidate her. But the big fancy charge doesn't seem to come with nearly enough jail time: attempted murder would have been a better fit for an unrepentant repeat offender.
 
2013-11-05 11:01:24 AM  
I'm not a fan of charging people with terrorism-related crimes when they only committed civil crimes. I don't think that the  Chemical Weapons Convention laws were meant to be used for this. It reminds me of when they tried to charge someone with manufacturing WMDs for running a meth lab. THAT BEING SAID, she definitely deserved 6 years in prison, and I'm surprised that the state wasn't able to find enough normal crimes to charge her with. Surely there were multiple counts of theft, battery (with a weapon maybe), trespassing, etc etc. I can't believe that the local police wouldn't take any action.
 
2013-11-05 11:02:28 AM  
A chemical used as a weapon is not a chemical weapon.

Iron is a chemical that can be toxic, see: Iron Poisoning

It can also be used as a weapon:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-05 11:02:56 AM  

Madbassist1: Don't be a farking moron. On a soverign level, this is "peaceful" it isnt threatening another nation-state. The gist of this, is that the states should be prosecuting this (and they should) WTF is the government doing in this?


This isn't about the CWC itself, it's about the law Congress used to ratify it   That law itself was in effect a 'mini-CWC' applied to individuals using chemical weapons within US jurisdiction..
 
2013-11-05 11:03:41 AM  
I listened to this story on NPR.  Yeah, she did not commit an act of war.
 
2013-11-05 11:04:01 AM  

blatz514: UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x429]


Sunday dinner at Gram's!!

Thanks for the memories

/needs shredded carrots
 
2013-11-05 11:04:38 AM  

phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...


Be careful what you wish for.

generallyso: FTA But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn.

Haynes complained more than a dozen times to the local police, who refused to take any action. Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.


She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.


What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.

Gotta remember to leave a gift card for my carrier during the holidays.
 
2013-11-05 11:05:57 AM  
Whats to keep the USA and Canada from making all sorts of treaties to expand the power of federal government into areas previously governed by the states?
 
2013-11-05 11:06:08 AM  
A .22 revolver and a 1 liter soda bottle would have done the job a lot quicker and not end up  involving a freaking decision about Treaties, biatch ... you're making Betty Broderick look good, sweetcheeks ...
 
2013-11-05 11:06:52 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

[www.toomanymornings.com image 460x300]


So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd. and you're not doing it as part of a terroristic act, just a criminal one, then you should be charged under state criminal law, and not under an international treaty.


FTFY. He's not saying she should get away scot free, but that it's the state that should be punishing her, not the federal government. The federal government only has very limited power to imprison people, typically limited to interstate or international actions, those on federal property, etc. Historically, it's because one of the reasons for the Revolution was that the British Crown would force their own criminal laws and punishments on colonial citizens, regardless of the colonial laws, and those laws and punishments could be arbitrary, since you have no real representation there.

Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?

This treaty was about use of chemical weapons by nations against other nations or citizens, and Congress does have that power:
Art 1, Sec. 8, clause 10 "The Congress shall have the power... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"
But that doesn't really apply to normal criminal assault between a jilted spouse and mistress. That's something that's part of the traditional state police power, and not granted to Congress.
 
2013-11-05 11:07:07 AM  
Take her to the woodshed and shoot that biatch.

I don't care what the SCOTUS figures out. That woman should not be put back in our society.

They should be investigating the state police for not doing anything.
 
2013-11-05 11:08:18 AM  
Given that the purpose of the convention was to prevent chemical  warfare, I think there are actually three ways the court could go on this:

1. Yes, states have to abide by the specific wording of treaties.

2. No, prosecutors shouldn't be able to kick local-jurisdiction matters up to federal court based on treaties in general.

3. This specific interpretation of the treaty's wording is bullshiat, here's a common-sense limitation/test on the application that compensates for the poorly-worded overbroad crap usually found in international literature..
 
2013-11-05 11:08:54 AM  

TheWhoppah: A chemical used as a weapon is not a chemical weapon.

Iron is a chemical that can be toxic, see: Iron Poisoning

It can also be used as a weapon:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x427]


It's a good thing that the treaty defines the term "chemical weapon" for use within the context of the treaty, then. As it turns out, some chemicals are considered chemical weapons when you use them as weapons, and iron is not one of them.
 
2013-11-05 11:09:00 AM  
...and yes, that fact that it involved the USPS makes it Federal.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:02 AM  
greentea1985:
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether crazy should be prosecuted as a terrorist under federal law or as a harraser under state law. I'd argue that crazy's intent was to terrorize her ex-husband and ex-friend, and crazy did it in such a way to put innocents like postal workers at risk. Would you charge someone who plants a bomb at the workplace of their ex with terrorism? This is a similar situation.

No, and no. "Terrorize" doesn't simply mean to "scare" or "injure" someone. If you rob a bank, you're not committing bank terrorism. If you sideswipe someone's car during road rage, you may scare them, but you're not terrorizing them. If you drive drunk, you're not committing an act of terror against every citizen on the roads. Terrorism is specifically about attacks on civilian populations to cause them to petition their government to change a political policy. It's not trying to kill your ex-husband.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:04 AM  
Dick v. Crazy, Mendoza, et. al.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:36 AM  
This is why you should never sleep with a married man.
 
2013-11-05 11:12:16 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.

She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.

What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.


Counterpoint - apparently the USPS will let your neighbor try to poison you 23 times before they get tired of watching and do anything.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:01 AM  
Also, what do these people look like? Does anyone have any Facebook pictures?
 
2013-11-05 11:15:45 AM  
FTA: Clement, however, holds firm and poses his own hypothetical. "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Fark yes, we would, moron.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:03 AM  

Yugoboy: At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


You'll get whiplash watching it disappear if it's ever put to the test. War on _________ !!!
 
2013-11-05 11:17:09 AM  

TheWhoppah: Whats to keep the USA and Canada from making all sorts of treaties to expand the power of federal government into areas previously governed by the states?


For the US, a treaty requires 2/3 majority vote from the Senate. That's a pretty big hill to climb.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:36 AM  

Theaetetus: Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?


The way I see it is a question of whether that treaty is applicable to this situation at all, not whether the federal government has a right to enforce it in this case. If the treaty could ever apply to this action, involving the mail box made it the federal government's business. If the treaty isn't supposed to apply to this situation, then the action isn't prosecutable under the treaty regardless of where it occurred.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:55 AM  

cowsspinach: Also, what do these people look like? Does anyone have any Facebook pictures?


All I could find was a college graduation shot of an black woman. Carol Anne Bond is a native of Barbados. Why do the local papers not have pics of all parties? Strange.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:48 AM  

Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


I don't know about that... I have a soldier quartered in my house.

/She pays pretty awesome rent though
 
2013-11-05 11:20:49 AM  

Theaetetus: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.

She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.

What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.

Counterpoint - apparently the USPS will let your neighbor try to poison you 23 times before they get tired of watching and do anything.


Counter-counterpoint - This is still better than what the local cops did.
 
2013-11-05 11:23:35 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Theaetetus: Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?

The way I see it is a question of whether that treaty is applicable to this situation at all, not whether the federal government has a right to enforce it in this case. If the treaty could ever apply to this action, involving the mail box made it the federal government's business. If the treaty isn't supposed to apply to this situation, then the action isn't prosecutable under the treaty regardless of where it occurred.

 It's both. In this case, the treaty is non-self-executing - it doesn't criminalize any conduct on its own, rather it requires signatories to the treaty to pass their own laws criminalizing possession and use of chemical weapons. Accordingly, the question is whether Congress has the power to criminalize possession and use of chemical weapons by a person within a state against another person within the state, or whether that's a matter for the state to criminalize.
 
2013-11-05 11:27:28 AM  
racingwindsblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-05 11:27:53 AM  
Yugoboy:
At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).

Tell that to the phone company central offices hosting servers for the NSA against their will.
 
2013-11-05 11:31:52 AM  
The Supremacy Clause specifically states that treaties made by made by Congress trump state law so...yeah. I would expect this to be pretty open-and-shut.
 
2013-11-05 11:36:05 AM  
Proverbial mountain out of a mole hill. Sad fact is she should have been tried under State laws, not that she hasn't earned a 6 year stint in prison, but because this will be used to dismantle the power of the Federal Government to make and enforce Treaties.
 
2013-11-05 11:37:26 AM  

Yugoboy: At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


The history of the Third Amendment is actually really interesting. The only thing that came close to going to the Supreme Court (though ultimately it didn't) was a case involving prison guards who were also given housing on the prison grounds. When they went on strike, the state deployed the National Guard to guard the prisoners - and quartered the Guards in the employee housing. The striking guards sued under the Third Amendment and it was found in the favor, but the state wasn't punished because of qualified immunity (i.e. they didn't know that the law could be interpreted that way so they were acting in good faith at the time).

The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.
 
2013-11-05 11:38:03 AM  
Why is this necessary?

If your spouse, or gf, bf, etc, "cheats on you," what are you cheated out of?
What did you have before that you don't still have?
Get over it.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:20 AM  
I'm surprised the Supreme Court is even hearing this.  Treaties necessarily preempt states' rights; this is because only the federal government can enter into a treaty, but naturally some treaties will cover issues reserved to the states.

This is the reason treaties need to be approved by the 2/3 of the Senate (which, you'll remember, once represented the interests of state government).  I wonder if the Supreme Court is thinking that now that Senate doesn't represent the interests of state government, why should treaties preempt states' rights any more?  Maybe we need an amendment that state legislatures need to approve treaties from now on.

This is also why certain treaties don't need to be approved by the Senate: if the treaty is judged not to preempt states' rights--for example, NAFTA, which was entirely concerned with powers assigned to the federal government--then it doesn't need 2/3 Senate approval.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:33 AM  
Terrorism is the new Hero...

Whats even more disturbing is the amount of Farkers around here who have lost their minds and actually think this, or many other acts are terrorism. Whats even more disturbing then that is the fact that these mouth-breathers are not called out. This is how shiat like 'Hero' becomes a word tossed around for people who are not even remotely close to being a 'Hero' like the victims of a school shooting.

Terrorism has a very distinct definition. An act of violence designed to coerce a population of people into changing their minds or actions regarding a political or social cause. A woman spreading chemicals to kill her ex-husbands new lover is absolutely NOT terrorism. Some
arse-hole who decides to snap and go on a shooting rampage is NOT a terrorist, criminal, yes, mass shooter, yes, mass murderer yes, terrorist no.

Some arse-hole shooting up an abortion clinic because he doesn't like abortion, terrorist, burn down a logging operations headquarters because they hate the logging industry, terrorist, blow up your neighbors garage because his dog wont stop barking, not terrorist.

Any Farker who claims this womans acts were acts of Terrorism should be locked in a Mall in Kenya during an actual terrorist attack....
 
2013-11-05 11:49:12 AM  
This seems like something that the federal government clearly shouldn't be involved in, but some people oppose any limitations to the federal government's power.
 
2013-11-05 11:52:35 AM  
This dude's Strange might want to fake her own death ala Enron Ken whilst the nutter is in the joint. Dude might want to consider it as well.
 
2013-11-05 12:03:27 PM  
Uh...the story teaches you not to get married to crazy. Just sticking your dick in crazy is usually a lot of fun
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report