Another person said that s(he) can't form an opinion because s(he) eats meat, and it is almost the same thing. She feels it's wrong, but at the same time thinks it's prejudice against some religions if we are worried about a couple of animals and continue to kill millions just to eat.

I can agree and disagree with this point, but one thing being wrong doesn't give a pass to other things.

But if we agree that it's constitutional to sacrifice animals, then what certain religions do to women (or any person) should be at the same level.

That's why i disagree at the end. It shouldn't be allowed, period.

The animal being sacrificed didn't chose to be there, nor the human being mistreated.

What are your opinions? Can someone point what i'm thinking wrong here?

PS: Sorry for my poor wording because english is not my first language. I wanted to know the opinion here about morals or what is right or wrong, not the law itself. Of course that any discussion on that is welcome too.

For those not aware, packing the court in this context refers to expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court so that whoever's in power can nominate judges they prefer to the newly-created seats, thereby creating a favorable majority for them where there might not have been one previously. It was attempted once in 1937, but failed, and has not been attempted since.

As for term limits, Supreme Court justices have none; the position is for life. The reasoning for this is primarily so that they can't be influenced as easily for political gain, as they've already achieved the final step in their careers.

Personally, the concept of court-packing has worried me no matter who does it, because from what I can tell (though granted I've not researched this), the Supreme Court has thus far done a decent job of avoiding partisanship; I'm concerned packing the courts would damage this precedent. I do believe that term limits could work, though I suspect they'd require a clause prohibiting justices from holding any jobs after their term expires, lest they become politically influenced by down-the-line job offers.

That said, what's your take?

^{(By the way, CGP Grey has a great video on some parts of the Supreme Court if you're interested in learning more about it)}

Hey! I practice IP law with my brothers in Southern California. I primarily do trademark, copyright and litigation work. My brothers do patents and litigation.

I also moderate stuff on Reddit, like IAmA. Ideally, I'd like to host some AMAs here. This is kind of a test to see how it goes at an early stage.

Ask me stuff!

Proof with TruePic

Edit: This was fun. Thank you guys. I'm headed out for a bit. :)

I was reading this twitter post and it made me wonder if you have any ideas to stop speeding by car drivers? Have any of these ideas been tried anywhere? I'm also interested in unintended consequences.

https://twitter.com/agnessjonsson/status/1229103764843438086?s=20

Agnes @agnessjonsson

fact of the day: Sweden once experimented with a “speed camera lottery”. Those who drove within the speed limit were automatically entered into a drawing where the prize fund came from fines that speeders paid.

They tested it in a few different cities and I haven’t read the results of each one, but in Stockholm the average speed on the selected road decreased by 22 percent.

Since Tildes participants generally come from nations with legal systems based on English common law or otherwise requiring jury trial for criminal cases, I'm curious what, if any, experience others have had of serving on juries, trying cases before a jury, or facing a jury as a defendant.

I was unable to participate as fully in this discussion as I would have liked, as I was called to jury service on a child molestation case this week. I'm deeply saddened to say that it was the second time I've served as a juror for judgment on an accused child sex abuser.

That case is now concluded, we returned a guilty verdict today, and I'm at liberty to discuss it if questions arise.

One of the startling things about this case was the huge jury pool called - sixty people, of whom only 8 were seated (6 jurors and two alternates, and we weren't informed as to who the alternates were). The dismaying detail was that of those sixty people, representing a very diverse county, the selected jury pool consisted of 7 white, middle-aged, college-educated, relatively affluent women, and one older white man.

In the U.S., the right to a trial by jury is foundational - it's specified in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Though it's not commonly considered as such, the U.S. civic duty to provide service as a juror is on par with military service, as illustrated here: https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/551818/jury-duty-is-civil-duty/