anon_
1mo ago
I appreciate the candor, it also occurs to me that this is probably quite against what I assume is your political preference. I’ve no doubt that you hold this sincerely though.
anon_
1mo ago
I understand and respect that this is your opinion.
For the better part of the century, the core tenant of US labor law is that If a majority of employees vote to empower a union to negotiate on their behalf, The business is indeed required by law to negotiate with that union.
anon_
1mo ago
Indeed, I doubt it's quite that high. For regular convictions, I'd probably say 1/200. For capital cases probably 1/1000.
anon_
1mo ago
Where would you draw the line then?
If he lives in Missoula for 3.5 years and then takes a 6 month contracting gig in London, should his vote be dependent on the timing of that 6 months (e.g. he gets to vote unless it overlaps an election)?
anon_
1mo ago
What does the NLRB do?
I'm not a huge fan, but they do have some function in ensuring that the right of workers to chose to unionize or to chose not to unionize is respected. At the very least, overseeing that voting is a role for a neutral third party.
If a business isn't allowed to shut down without NLRB approval and it must only employ some designated union, I'm going to say they're bad and should have this power revoked.
A business is allowed to shut down for any business reason. It cannot shut down because the workers there voted to unionize, that would be unlawful retaliation.
That's the kind of factual question that is litigated all the time and can be resolved by the normal judicial process. For example, one could look to whether other stores with similar performance shut down during that period, or what the usual process would be for underperforming stores.
Someone has to be decide on it, the NLRB should probably let the federal courts do more of that though.
anon_
1mo ago
I don't necessarily think the NLRB should be abolished, but I do think that its structure leads to a predictable flip-flopping on key legal rulings every 4-6 years in a way that undermines the legitimacy and continuity of the law.
Whatever happens, it's ridiculous that the legal status of a thing just arbitrary flips back and forth and that both companies and unions have to gamble on the result of a Presidential election. It's even more ridiculous that before the end of Chevron, the courts would simply shrug and say that if both interpretations of the statute are reasonable then the NLRB can flip flop between them as many times as they want for no other reason than the President of the opposing party finally got to nominate enough members.
anon_
1mo ago
The DNA found on the knife was not from a potential alternate suspect but some police officer who mishandled it in the station after testing and finding no DNA could be recovered.
Do you have a cite for this? It would be super helpful because of all the "BUT THE DNA EXONERATED HIM" discourse.
anon_
1mo ago
But when talking about the death penalty, we must take the 'reasonable doubt' thing extra seriously. So what do you think mottizens?
I don't think this is true. Justice should be justice. A bunch of convicted murderers in states without the death penalty don't get even a quarter of the extra attention lavished on this guy.
Moreover, I think the DNA evidence is plain inconclusive. A bunch of hucksters are spinning this as DNA EXONERATES which is just totally nonsense -- DNA cannot exonerate someone except by implicating someone else more strongly.
anon_
1mo ago
Their insistence that we should not clean the voter rolls, enforce ballot integrity or deadlines
The deadlines are enforced by the country by stamping the actual time of arrival of the ballots. And they stop taking them on Election Day.
Writing the date on the front is entirely superfluous -- no one reads and no one ought to because.
I'm all for cleaning the rolls, enforcing integrity or whatever, but jeez, find an actually meaningful hill to fight for! Throwing out ballots because a date that otherwise wouldn't matter is wrong doesn't actually advance any of those causes.
anon_
1mo ago
I think it's likely to miss the election entirely if the plaintiffs aren't quick about it.
anon_
2mo ago
Although state law requires envelope dates, election officials do not use them to ensure ballots arrive on time. Mail-in ballots are logged in and time-stamped when received, and must arrive at county elections offices before polls close on Election Day.
This is on the legislature for mandating a feature of the ballot that's not actually useful/used.
anon_
2mo ago
I agree with all this. The unfortunate corollary is that even if the Arab world did reform, there's now enough crazies in the settlements to derail it from the Israeli side.
I don't think there was another viable option or anything, but I do think that we started with a Palestinian population that had altogether unreasonable preferences and their intransigence (as you point out) lead to the conditions where now there are unreasonable preferences given weight on the other side.
anon_
2mo ago
Indeed. So Indiana has to lose on the legislative issue.
In a sane world, the plaintiff would have an uphill case to prove that the care given was so lacking as to be unconstitutional.
anon_
2mo ago
The left-of-median-democrats were already a majority on Reddit/Twitter before the bookings.
That's kind of why the user base as a whole shrugged -- even though they wouldn't have agitated for ejecting anyone, they weren't going to get riled up over this particular instance.
anon_
2mo ago
It was libertarian and anti-authoritarian back when being pro-liberty was pro-left and back when the right had some semblance of power. Back then naughty song lyrics and books with gay themes were sticking it to the man, now the man twerks to it in the corporate gay pride parade.
You can pardon me then for being cynical, but it seems pretty clear that it wasn't the kind of principled David Frenchism. Or at least that the real internet libertarians were a small fraction of the populace.
that.dune.quote.jpg
anon_
2mo ago
Who said anything about a social network, you just said any community with a large percentage of members.
anon_
2mo ago
The only solution is congress to declare that all kind of communities above in which above x% of US citizens participates are public foras with some congress mandated minimum and maximum user rights in relation to 1A.
Unless you chose a pretty small X, this is gonna cover at least the Catholic Church :-/
anon_
2mo ago
I think that probably is a good idea going forwards, in the sense that the legislatures are probably not the right body to be making that determination.
It is sad that the professional bodies are beholden to nonsense, but at least they have the capacity to know what they are talking about and make the evidence-based call.
Ultimately, it seems like a choice between those that don't know and those that know better.
anon_
2mo ago
I wonder though, can the legislature categorically decide what medical care is given prisoners consistent with the 8th/14th amendments? Seems like the answer is no, at least not in an unlimited sense.
In the specific case, I think obviously the plaintiff isn't entitled to the specific care requested. But I think that's a fact-specific thing that is subject to constitutional minimums
anon_
2mo ago
The entire internet leaned left from the beginning.
I think you’re right that in the decades hence, self-selection has narrowed and polarized it much further .
Naturally, the right wing didn't stop for a second to acknowledge that the Biden DOJ has indicted a major D figure.
Part and parcel of a politics where even if opponents do something completely and unambiguously right (for once), it can't be acknowledged. Which is sad, because Adams had it coming and the DOJ was absolutely right to indict him (and Hunter Biden while we're at it).
More options
Context Copy link