Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[danielpalos]

The border has nothing to do with your being stupid.

Why be hypocrites about being Legal to the Law, Right-Wingers? It is a moral turpitude.

 

[hadit]

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

Thus, the State is obligated to provide the equality of equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation.

And that's exactly what they are doing. Will you actually have the strength of character to admit you were wrong when your case is thrown out or are you just going to double down that you are right and the entire legal profession is wrong?

 

[danielpalos]

And, obviously, you were allowed to quit your job without any prosecution or penalty. But not verifying that unemployment compensation would be available was stupid.

Also, you have to be employed for a certain length of time. Were you?

You simply appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes and engage in hypocrisy when the less fortunate are involved.

You are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right-Wing, like usual for right-wingers, because you seem to understand nothing of the Law for Legal purposes, yet want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" when you have nothing but falseness.

For you to be correct this is what law would have to say: Section 2922. 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. However, An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

It is not codified like that for a purpose.

 

[hadit]

We can use a dissertation on how solving simple poverty would reduce the crime rate.

That would be worthless, as most people acknowledge that high poverty and high crime are related. You problem is that you insist you have the solution for poverty, but you haven't thought past how unfair it is that you can't just quit a job and have the government take care of you.

 

[hadit]

You simply appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes and engage in hypocrisy when the less fortunate are involved.

You are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right-Wing, like usual for right-wingers, because you seem to understand nothing of the Law for Legal purposes, yet want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" when you have nothing but falseness.

For you to be correct this is what law would have to say: Section 2922. 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. However, An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

It is not codified like that for a purpose.

Nonsense. Since the two are not related, at will employment laws don't have to reference UC laws at all. The linkage only exists in your mind, as you will find out when your case is dismissed. There is no requirement whatsoever that you have to qualify for UC simply for existing, none.

 

[WinterBorn]

You simply appeal to ignorance of the Law for Legal purposes and engage in hypocrisy when the less fortunate are involved.

You are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right-Wing, like usual for right-wingers, because you seem to understand nothing of the Law for Legal purposes, yet want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" when you have nothing but falseness.

For you to be correct this is what law would have to say: Section 2922. 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. However, An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

It is not codified like that for a purpose.

So you quit your job, and then found out you can't draw unemployment.

Rather than get another job, you tried for welfare. But then you found out about the means testing and that would disqualify you because you have too much to truly need welfare.

You just want to get paid for doing nothing and are mad that you cannot do it.

 

[danielpalos]

Nonsense. Since the two are not related, at will employment laws don't have to reference UC laws at all. The linkage only exists in your mind, as you will find out when your case is dismissed. There is no requirement whatsoever that you have to qualify for UC simply for existing, none.

I demur. Why should I care what you claim through ignorance of the law?

 

[danielpalos]

So you quit your job, and then found out you can't draw unemployment.

Rather than get another job, you tried for welfare. But then you found out about the means testing and that would disqualify you because you have too much to truly need welfare.

You just want to get paid for doing nothing and are mad that you cannot do it.

Yes, that is the abuse of social power in question. It has nothing to do with Capitalism only Government.

 

[hadit]

And that's exactly what they are doing. Will you actually have the strength of character to admit you were wrong when your case is thrown out or are you just going to double down that you are right and the entire legal profession is wrong?

You didn't like what I said, Daniel. What part do you disagree with, the fact that the state is acting constitutionally by means testing UC or that you will likely double down that you are right even after getting your case thrown out?

 

[danielpalos]

You didn't like what I said, Daniel. What part do you disagree with, the fact that the state is acting constitutionally by means testing UC or that you will likely double down that you are right even after getting your case thrown out?

I disagree with your attempt at legal gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

 

[hadit]

I demur. Why should I care what you claim through ignorance of the law?

You haven't demonstrated that you know the law better than every member of the legal profession.

 

[hadit]

I disagree with your attempt at legal gossip, hearsay, and soothsay.

IOW, you can't say. You just know you don't like it.

 

[danielpalos]

You haven't demonstrated that you know the law better than every member of the legal profession.

You have demonstrated your incompetence or lack of care for being Legal to the Law.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, you can't say. You just know you don't like it.

You have nothing but gossip, dear.

 

[hadit]

You have demonstrated your incompetence or lack of care for being Legal to the Law.

I am on the side of established law in this case, it is on you to demonstrate how and why the entire legal profession has gotten this wrong all this time, and you have not done that. All you have done is quote various parts of various passages from various papers throughout history, many of which have nothing to do with UC law. At least now you have a case in court and it will be interesting to watch your reaction when it gets thrown out.

 

[danielpalos]

I am on the side of established law in this case, it is on you to demonstrate how and why the entire legal profession has gotten this wrong all this time, and you have not done that. All you have done is quote various parts of various passages from various papers throughout history, many of which have nothing to do with UC law. At least now you have a case in court and it will be interesting to watch your reaction when it gets thrown out.

What is this?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[struth]

This is the specific law in question: An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her most recent work.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

No Cause is required in an at-will employment State; thus, requiring cause for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of the at the Will of Either party not just the "capitalist" or the State (as the most wealthy under our form of Capitalism) Laws. It is why the social rules of socialism must apply to abridge, deny and disparage any abuse of (social) power by the Government.

The Law must be this Majestic:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

oh i get what your flawed arguement is

you just don’t understand the equal protection clause

not insurance it would seem. Insurance is for something that happens that is no fault of your own

you are certainly free to get other welfare benefits and apply for them

but has repeatedly shown you are completely wrong for unemployment insurance

 

[danielpalos]

oh i get what your flawed arguement is

you just don’t understand the equal protection clause

not insurance it would seem. Insurance is for something that happens that is no fault of your own

you are certainly free to get other welfare benefits and apply for them

but has repeatedly shown you are completely wrong for unemployment insurance

You misunderstand the argument; are you on the right-wing?

At-will is more analogous to no-fault insurance.

 

[danielpalos]

Why doesn't the judge handling this case simply dismiss it due to my being as ignorant as right-wingers regarding the law?

Simply ignoring it is worse for them and makes it seem they are afraid of losing their argument on appeal.

 

[hadit]

What is this?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

"This" is your feeble attempt to invalidate means testing in government programs, and when pressed, you have to admit even your fantasy has means testing. You cannot, for example, collect if you are a child or over retirement age.