anon_
4d ago
It's not quite as bad as you make it out -- SCOTUS has placed limits on warrants, at least as to generality and specificity. Groh v. Ramirez & Riley v. California come to mind. They only mostly disagree with you :-)
Also, while McNeely holds that a blood draw is valid, Winston v Lee holds that a surgery to remove a bullet isn't. So there's some cognizable limit there too.
anon_
4d ago
Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.
To do this, Sweden would have to
- Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
- Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
- Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
- Bring a case overturning all that precedent
- Remigrate
In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.
anon_
4d ago
That's not a good argument that a specific statute (from 1934, no less, before my dad was born) covers it.
anon_
4d ago
And it's just a punt onto the merits: I fully expect the 5th to go "okay, it's a reasonable search", maybe even snark about how technically precedent doesn't require warranted searches to be reasonable, and then SCOTUS to deny cert on the eventual appeal.
Why wouldn't it be a reasonable search, given that the police in Chatrie had a warrant?
The only thing the Supreme Court seems to be saying here is that you can't completely punt the issue by declaring it a non-search (because reasons) rather than a reasonable one.
anon_
4d ago
The question isn't about whether it's controversial, it's about whether Congress in enacting a specific statue, forbade it.
A legislator facing this argument could come up with a cogent reason to agree with you, but that doesn't mean that the law that some past (1934!) Congress chose to write forbids it.
anon_
4d ago
I’ve never had an actual bro that was East Asian.
My lived experience (heh) is that the East Asian bros somehow end up more-bro. Some kind of overfitting thing.
anon_
4d ago
One steel man aside is that there is a substantial history of an independent central bank in the Founding Era whereas for-cause-only removals for administrative agencies are a much more recent thing.
One can argue whether such history embodies a real rule of Constitutional interpretation, ie. that a document should not be interpreted to forbid what its contemporary supporters were doing, but it's not entirely wacky.
anon_
1mo ago
The fourth report dropped a few weeks back, this time focusing on involuntary childlessness and infertility
I'm not very certain on this, but I understood that involuntary childlessness is a smaller factor in overall TFR declines than the reduction in the number of kids in each family. IOW, the problem is not the number of 0s.
I asked an LLM (also not a great marker of certainty) as well:
62% of the decline is driven by smaller family sizes among parents (fewer progressions to second, third, or fourth children).
38% of the decline is driven by an increase in lifetime childlessness (more people ending their reproductive years with zero children).
Unpopular though it might be among certain cohorts to point out, the solution to declining fertility reasonably also should somehow involve convincing women to have children while they're still young; not enabling every pregnancy to be geriatric.
Indeed, and that's why focusing on the childless is less productive. We should be focusing on getting the 1-kid families to 2, the 2s to 3 and so forth. One important factor there is making sure they start while they still have time.
anon_
1mo ago
You are absolutely right, a product is a series of decisions.
But to me, what AI absolutely changes is that software is perpetually wet clay. So I doubt that you can train an agent to take those decisions, but you could absolutely have one take your feedback about it and turn around and do the needful.
anon_
1mo ago
Isn't the more parsimonious explanation that the Court wants to see what the En Banc 3CA does with ANJRPC.
There's an old saying that a right delayed is a right denied
There's another one, which is that the law is moved by people more patient than you or I.
anon_
2mo ago
He was in favor of AA as a temporary corrective required to rebalance the scales. It is not at all clear that 70+ years later he would still endorse it. And in a decade or so, everyone in the US will have been born after the CRA.
At the very least, consider Return of the King as the alternative view.
anon_
2mo ago
While it’s on a completely different plane (although both are notably enjoyed by stoners) I think sincerity is also the key to the durable appeal of SpongeBob.
SpongeBob came of era in the shadow of peak Simpsons and was really the opposite — a totally straight and earnest vibe.
anon_
2mo ago
Not meaningful increase productive employment in the US.
Not help the balance of trade issue.
Not hem china in in any way, and in fact increase their gravity as an economic center.
Not lower the debt at all, public or private; and in fact increase the debt massively. (This one didn't amount to much, there isn't much money to be made here until the US starts to go downhill for real, so it's just positioning for now.)
What's the actual position you can take that tracks any of this.
anon_
3mo ago
Given that the US is a net exporter of oil and AUS/China/EU are net importers, it would behoove them to do escort duty out of the straits.
anon_
3mo ago
Certainly the overall course of the Revolution would seem to undermine any claim that the rebels meant to be loyal to English law or tradition, and later on in the Revolution they seem to be very conscious that they are doing something new and without precedent.
And yet after victory despite instituting a political system (separation of powers) that was in direct contravention of the British system (parliamentary supremacy) they at the same time left continuity English legal system. The majority of States adopted English Common Law as the presumptive source except when explicitly altered, in Constitutions contemporaneous with the Founding:
- Maryland: "That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England"
- Delaware: "The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature"
- New Jersey: "That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature"
And so forth.
In a sense I think that, in a macrohistorical sense, the American Revolution is most significant as a kind of prototype for, and a contributing cause of, the French Revolution.
Indeed. But they were dealing with very different substrates! France had no centuries long tradition of representative democracy and rule of law. So you're right, the US revolution was more of a secession.
anon_
3mo ago
I'm sure they are, but I'm also relatively sure they are entitled to their own view on separation of powers. As noted below by another poster, it's historical precedent that Congress & The President cooperate on it.
anon_
3mo ago
I mean, it's a verifiable truth that many people are on average more politically aligned with their spouse than a median American.
I don't support the injunctions, but I can see a fairly clear causal pathways where the judge and their spouse both believe in a set of axioms and vibes about the republic that lead them to where they were. And yes, they were all overturned (as they should be).
anon_
3mo ago
I think this misses something very crucial. To borrow from another revolutionary, they came not to abolish English Law but to fulfill it.
Moreover, there is significant verbiage in the Declaration of Independence first, on not renouncing one's due allegiance for trivial or transient causes, and second on claiming that it was the King that had violated his duties first and foremost.
It was certainly quite different than revolutionary France that swept away the Ancien Regime and replaced it root and stem with their own devising. Of course, England had a centuries long tradition that, at least imperfectly, matched their ideology.
anon_
3mo ago
This topic can often boil down to a question of whether individual liberty is or is not more important than the government taking steps to keep society physically and mentally healthy. But that is not an answerable question. It really is just a matter of taste, odd as that might seem.
While I do get and agree with this, there is some useful discourse around the implications of those vibe-driven policies.
For example, I'm relatively OK with laxity on drugs, but I wish those folks would either ge% behind efforts to exclude the indigent from libraries/parks or else admit that this laxity has a real consequence in the destruction of those places and the deprivation of those that would usually benefit from them.
One doesn't have to confront the unsolvable issues to have that conversation. And maybe it helps not to talk about it directly but to work on how to accommodate it and what tradeoffs are needed.
anon_
3mo ago
There are DC judges evaluating suits trying to find a justification to block it, and their motivation is primarily that their wives aren't going to be invited and they're going to hear about it for the next 10 years.
I'm sure you can come up with a better model of your opponents' thoughts that this.
Underrated retort
More options
Context Copy link