$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Supposn]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

Not at all. You simply ignore the premise and the law. Employers don't need good cause to fire an employee or suffer some legal liability. There is no legal basis to require good cause for an employee to quit in an at-will employment or suffer some legal liability. It is unequal protection of the law and is a privilege and immunity that is not granted on the same basis to all citizens.

Like I said, you're not prevented from quitting a job, plain and simple. In an at-will state you and all citizens are equally allowed the option to quit a job. You haven't given ANY legal basis for that to be false.

Yes, persons are prevented economically from simply quitting a job. There is no basis to have any laws which have the effect of denying or disparaging that legal right by any (Agency of any) State by economic means.

They are not prevented from quitting by a law. THAT is where you fail, completely. You cannot quote a law to me that states an employee is prevented from quitting a job. There is no law that even has the EFFECT of denying or disparaging the right to quit a job. UC law certainly does not. You can always quit a job in an at-will state, and all employees are treated equally under UC law.

Under Capitalism? Only your appeal to ignorance denies and disparages the plain meaning of the law.

If a person is not prevented from quitting for good cause, there is no basis to require good cause for unemployment benefits.

Those two ideas are only linked in your mind, not in the law or even in the real world. If they were, the law would be different. Therefore, we are free to allow you to quit a job for any reason, and free to not compensate you for doing it.

That is just your fallacy not how the law works. Stop whining about less fortunate illegals.

Now you're exposing your fallacies. I didn't say anything about illegals. Like the linkage between UC and other laws, it's all only in your mind. You've proven nothing.

All you have is fallacy. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. No judge has to take You seriously in legal venues. Knowing that now, why should I take You seriously now?

 

[danielpalos]

Why do y'all believe solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure would be Bad and not Good regarding the general welfare and its promotion?

1. Existing UC law and infrastructure can't solve poverty. It's not designed to.
2. Changing UC into something you think will solve poverty makes it a massive new welfare program. It's not UC any more and won't perform like it. It will perform no better than existing welfare programs.
3. We've been throwing money at poverty for generations and still have poverty. We're not going to fix it by paying people who refuse to take a productive job when it's available.

You like to cite Biblical principles when you think they'll suit your political goals. Do you remember what Jesus had to say about whether we'd ever be able to solve poverty?

1. Yes, it can. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Promoting the general welfare means the design can be upgraded to accomplish it.

2. The change is due to an infringement to equal protection of the law. And, simply eliminating that institutional inequality can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner that promotes and provides for the general welfare.

3. Our alleged War on Poverty only treats the symptoms, it does not solve for actual economic phenomena such as capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

adit, no legal court or hearing has determined other than denial of individuals’ claims for entitlement to unemployment compensation due to their unjustifiably choosing to be unemployed; [Apparently no USA court or hearing has ever agreed with Daniel Palos’s unique legal concept of such denial being unconstitutional].

Employment is at the will of either party. That is the law. Any laws to the contrary are repugnant to that concept and the law. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

 

[hadit]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

Not at all. You simply ignore the premise and the law. Employers don't need good cause to fire an employee or suffer some legal liability. There is no legal basis to require good cause for an employee to quit in an at-will employment or suffer some legal liability. It is unequal protection of the law and is a privilege and immunity that is not granted on the same basis to all citizens.

Like I said, you're not prevented from quitting a job, plain and simple. In an at-will state you and all citizens are equally allowed the option to quit a job. You haven't given ANY legal basis for that to be false.

Yes, persons are prevented economically from simply quitting a job. There is no basis to have any laws which have the effect of denying or disparaging that legal right by any (Agency of any) State by economic means.

They are not prevented from quitting by a law. THAT is where you fail, completely. You cannot quote a law to me that states an employee is prevented from quitting a job. There is no law that even has the EFFECT of denying or disparaging the right to quit a job. UC law certainly does not. You can always quit a job in an at-will state, and all employees are treated equally under UC law.

Under Capitalism? Only your appeal to ignorance denies and disparages the plain meaning of the law.

If a person is not prevented from quitting for good cause, there is no basis to require good cause for unemployment benefits.

Those two ideas are only linked in your mind, not in the law or even in the real world. If they were, the law would be different. Therefore, we are free to allow you to quit a job for any reason, and free to not compensate you for doing it.

That is just your fallacy not how the law works. Stop whining about less fortunate illegals.

Now you're exposing your fallacies. I didn't say anything about illegals. Like the linkage between UC and other laws, it's all only in your mind. You've proven nothing.

All you have is fallacy. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. No judge has to take You seriously in legal venues. Knowing that now, why should I take You seriously now?

I'm not trying to overturn a law, you are.

 

[hadit]

Why do y'all believe solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure would be Bad and not Good regarding the general welfare and its promotion?

1. Existing UC law and infrastructure can't solve poverty. It's not designed to.
2. Changing UC into something you think will solve poverty makes it a massive new welfare program. It's not UC any more and won't perform like it. It will perform no better than existing welfare programs.
3. We've been throwing money at poverty for generations and still have poverty. We're not going to fix it by paying people who refuse to take a productive job when it's available.

You like to cite Biblical principles when you think they'll suit your political goals. Do you remember what Jesus had to say about whether we'd ever be able to solve poverty?

1. Yes, it can. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place. Promoting the general welfare means the design can be upgraded to accomplish it.

2. The change is due to an infringement to equal protection of the law. And, simply eliminating that institutional inequality can solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner that promotes and provides for the general welfare.

3. Our alleged War on Poverty only treats the symptoms, it does not solve for actual economic phenomena such as capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

You would have to change UC into welfare, which means it wouldn't work the same way, and there is no "infringement to equal protection of the law" as I've explained. There was no legal case ever made that agrees with you. And finally, changing UC "does not solve for actual economic phenomena such as capitalism's natural rate of unemployment".

 

[hadit]

adit, no legal court or hearing has determined other than denial of individuals’ claims for entitlement to unemployment compensation due to their unjustifiably choosing to be unemployed; [Apparently no USA court or hearing has ever agreed with Daniel Palos’s unique legal concept of such denial being unconstitutional].

Employment is at the will of either party. That is the law. Any laws to the contrary are repugnant to that concept and the law. It really is that simple.

Only in your mind is refusing to compensate someone for quitting a job repugnant to that concept of employment at the will of either party. Nowhere else.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

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."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

adit, no legal court or hearing has determined other than denial of individuals’ claims for entitlement to unemployment compensation due to their unjustifiably choosing to be unemployed; [Apparently no USA court or hearing has ever agreed with Daniel Palos’s unique legal concept of such denial being unconstitutional].

Employment is at the will of either party. That is the law. Any laws to the contrary are repugnant to that concept and the law. It really is that simple.

Only in your mind is refusing to compensate someone for quitting a job repugnant to that concept of employment at the will of either party. Nowhere else.

Only right wingers say that. We know right wingers don't actually care about being legal to the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

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."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

 

[hadit]

adit, no legal court or hearing has determined other than denial of individuals’ claims for entitlement to unemployment compensation due to their unjustifiably choosing to be unemployed; [Apparently no USA court or hearing has ever agreed with Daniel Palos’s unique legal concept of such denial being unconstitutional].

Employment is at the will of either party. That is the law. Any laws to the contrary are repugnant to that concept and the law. It really is that simple.

Only in your mind is refusing to compensate someone for quitting a job repugnant to that concept of employment at the will of either party. Nowhere else.

Only right wingers say that. We know right wingers don't actually care about being legal to the laws.

No one other than you says different.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

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."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.