OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
Most recently, during the oral arguments for taking Trump off the Minnesota ballot, the Minnesota Supreme Court spent the majority of oral argument time considering if they had jurisdiction as it was a political question. But it was all kind of made moot by the SCOTUS ruling.
I'm not familiar enough with Minnesota law to know specific cases where this happened. The brief I linked to had this argument, but I don't know how to access the cases it discusses:
As noted, our Constitution’s Article III provides for the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and prescribes that “[n]o person or per- sons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others.” As this Court has explained, “[t]he three distinct departments thus created are of equal dignity, and, within their respective spheres of action, equally independent.” State v. Dist. Ct. in and for Ramsey Cnty., 194 N.W. 630, 632 (Minn. 1923). This is no small matter. “The division of powers is the fundamental principle upon which American constitu- tional government is based, and the success of our form of government depends, in large measure, upon the respect paid to that principle by each of the three divi- sions in its relations with the others.” Smith v. Holm, 19 N.W.2d 914, 915 (Minn. 1945).
This separation of powers, of course, protects each of the judicial and legis- lative branches from the other’s intrusion on its internal affairs. For instance, when the Legislature recently tried to instruct the courts by statute to open their Minne- sota Government Access records system to all attorneys, this Court directed that the matter was within judicial, not legislative, competence. Order re Minn. Stat. 484.94 (2023) and the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Minnesota Judicial Branch, No. ADM10-8050 (Minn. June 28, 2023). Similarly, this Court holds that “the Leg- islature’s ability to discipline judges is limited to the impeachment process.” E.g., State v. Irby, 848 N.W.2d 515, 521 (Minn. 2014). And more broadly, separation-of- powers principles surely limit legislative interference with the judiciary’s internal organization. For instance, if the Legislature disagreed with this Court about the constitutionality of the Court’s appointment of a referee in a case before it, and enacted a statute purporting to remove the referee, we have no doubt that the Court would find serious separation-of-powers problems.
By the same token, it is long settled Minnesota law that “[t]he judicial branch may not, therefore, directly or indirectly interfere with th[e] legislative power in any other way than by passing upon the constitutionality … of [the] laws.” Holm, 19 N.W.2d at 916. In other words, “[t]he courts have no judicial control over … matters which the people have by the Constitution delegated to the Legislature,” In re McConaughy, 119 N.W. 408, 415 (Minn. 1909), and must be “wary of unneces- sary judicial interference in the political process.” Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, 903 N.W.2d 609, 625 (Minn. 2017)
There is a lawsuit, oral arguments are today, but like I said at the end:
One problem is that courts have a limit with their jurisdiction over other branches of government. We saw that with the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. Can the legislature keep saying, "No, you do not have say over legislative proceedings, we are going to keep doing what we are doing?" The Minnesota Constitution states clearly, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings."
There is a strong possibility (>50%) that the courts just say they can't rule on this as it is a political question. So they do not decide it at all, and the Legislature has to decide whether or not the Legislature can decide anything.
Minnesota Legitimacy Crisis
A legitimacy crisis can occur when two different groups interpret laws in different ways. This is bad because you wind up with two sets of people in the same jurisdiction, each abiding by different laws, living in parallel legal realities, and whether they are caught violating the law or not depends on which member of the group is enforcing it at the time.
In predominately Blue Minnesota, the state legislature found itself in a tie between Republicans and the DFL (what Democrats call themselves over there.) This made Democrats pretty worried, because it meant they would need to work with Republicans this session.
Then disaster struck - one of the DFL candidates who won their House seat, Curtis Johnson, was not qualified to serve in the legislature, because he did not live in District 40B as the state constitution requires. This leaves the seat vacant until a special election can be held. This gave the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, something the DFL could not tolerate.
So the Democrats refused to show up to the legislature when they were legally required to do so. They were sworn in in secret, and didn't show up. On the first day of the legislative session, the Democratic Lt. Governor showed up, called the House to order, and then said, "You don't have quorum, so you can't do anything, I adjourn the House."
To have quorum, you need a majority of the House's members. Democrats are saying that there are 134 House Seats, half of 134 is 68, therefore the Republicans do not have quorum and cannot do anything.
However, because Curtis Johnson’s seat has been declared vacant by the MN Supreme Court, there are not 134 House members. There are 133. A majority is therefore 67 members—which is exactly what the House GOP has.
Where it gets weird is there are two competing norms written in two different books. Mason's Manual (which governs the Minnesota Legislature’s operations) says:
The total membership of a body is to be taken as the basis for computing a quorum, but, when there is a vacancy, unless a special provision is applicable, a quorum will consist of the majority of the members remaining qualified.
Cushing’s Law Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th Edition (1874), which Mason's Manual cites, says:
When the number, of which an assembly may consist, at any given time, is fixed by constitution, and an aliquot proportion of such assembly is required in order to constitute a quorum, the number of which such assembly may consist and not the number of which it does in fact consist, at the time in question, is the number of the assembly, and the number necessary to constitute a quorum is to be reckoned accordingly.
Which can be interpreted as that the number of seats determines quorum, BUT Minnesota does not have the number of seats fixed by constitution. So it does not appear that this rule applies. Conveniently, when Democrats cite the rule, they leave out the first part of the quote that references the constitution.
This is a good write up if you want to read all the details: https://decivitate.substack.com/p/legitimacy-crisis-in-my-minnesota. Or if you prefer something written by an actual expert, and not an internet hobbyist, this brief provides a good (if biased for GOP) summary: https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=be8019a34d345648b6cf0337f337a772f1da69c972cc5609aef2144e14f85fc1
Meanwhile, the GOP has elected the first Black Speaker of the Minnesota House and is trying to get things done. The DFL is trying to stop them from getting things done by avoiding work and by sending people to harass the GOP in the legislature.
Oral Arguments are going in front of the Minnesota Supreme court today, at 1 PM local. The Supreme Court is 7-0 Democrats’ appointees. I think the GOP's argument has a stronger legal basis, but that does not mean that the DFL will lose the case. What happens then?
One problem is that courts have a limit with their jurisdiction over other branches of government. We saw that with the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. Can the legislature keep saying, "No, you do not have say over legislative proceedings, we are going to keep doing what we are doing?" The Minnesota Constitution states clearly, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings."
So you can wind up in a situation where the GOP legislature passes a law saying that it is illegal to wear red T-shirts on a Sunday, a GOP cop arrests someone for this new crime, and whether or not you end up in prison depends on if the judge is GOP or DFL. People in Minnesota have a real risk at the moment of living in a land where two sets of laws are enforced by two sets of people.
Of all things, I think this is the greatest risk to our country. Not worried about Minnesota specifically (sorry to whomever lives there, please escape at your earliest convenience.) But something similar can happen on the Federal level, might very well happen with Trump trying to shred norms as best he is able. And if that happens... it could spell the end of the Republic (or at the least a Civil War until we can force States to sign an amendment that corrects whatever crisis arose.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9d ago
Goodness, reply to one thing and the goalposts get moved by the referee.
Yes, Musk is both exuberant and awkward, and I don't harbor him ill will for his appearance. I was responding to the idea that his awkwardness was only an artifact of malicious media. Instead, it seems like his supporters are likewise incapable of finding nice-looking images of Musk.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9d ago
But it's also apparent in videos, and people who support Elon Musk keep sharing photos of him looking awkward as heck while talking about how "exuberant" and "joyful" he is.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9d ago
Does anyone else find Elon Musk supremely anti-photogenic, in the sense that every photo of him looks awkward and unappealing?
I respect his business skills, but he could have used some time at a finishing school. Needs a Princess Diaries makeover.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9d ago
I was pretty nervous but everyone remained civil. I hope that we can keep that civility for the years to come.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
10d ago
Or even... a marriage certificate?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
10d ago
In any case I feel very comfortable asserting that ~no one enforces their own desires and boundaries as they might like 100% of the time.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that I don't consent to it. I make the decision to accept that I am working late instead of hang out with my husband. I make the decision to watch the show my husband likes and I don't really care about. I consent to all these things because I weigh up their plusses and minuses, and make a decision. That's just what it is to be a human person in an imperfect world making decisions. "Sure, I decided to take on student loans, but I felt pressured from my parents to go to the more expensive school and I don't like the idea of paying them back." Still consent.
An employer or landlord trying to get sex out of an employee/tenant is bad for reasons that have nothing to do with consent. It's bad because it creates an unfair labor or housing market, which is based around who is willing and able to provide sexual favors.
The point is that maybe sex is special, and consent is necessary but insufficient to guarantee an ethical sexual encounter.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
20d ago
Most books are written by a single author and you get a look inside a specific person's head. Most games are written by committee and you are less likely to get a coherent psychology and theme. There are exceptions in both mediums.
Reading is a shared endeavor that the writer starts but is completed by the reader. The words the author provides are the building block for the imaginative experience the reader creates in their own heads, supplying the sights, sounds, smells inside.
Gaming is also a shared endeavor, but different. The game developers provide visuals and audio, the player makes decisions and solves challenges.
There is massive potential in both mediums, and I hesitate to say that one could be substituted for the other.
I read 15,539 pages last year, according to Goodreads. There might be a handful of physical books, PDFs of books I read from my computer, and rereads left off there. And all the kids books (we read Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe, Charlie and the Chocolate factory, and a whole host of small picture books I cannot remember the name of. If those count then I beat the sheer number of books you read, though not page count.)
With four young kids, I seldom get an hour to myself before 8 PM, and even after 8 PM I am often interrupted. Most of my reading happens in snippets on my phone. Sometimes I'm able to read a physical book in the play area and the kids will leave me alone, sometimes the youngest ones want to sit on my lap and rip the pages up. I think I will get back to reading more once the kids are older.
Edit: What I think is more important is how much you're taking away from the books you read. Are you reading to spend the time on something or are you reading to pull something away from the book? Are you getting a good mix of genres and styles or are you interested in a specific topic?
I follow https://closereads.substack.com/ and their Daily Poem podcast and read along with everything but the Monthly Mysteries (I just don't care about mystery novels.) Having a group to discuss the novels with is great. Outside of those books, I read Sci-Fi/Fantasy and Philosophy/Theology/Spirituality. Occasionally I read a parenting book, though less so now that I have the hang of it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
21d ago
There have also been allegations that homeless people were lighting fires, I haven't seen any proof of this. TBH fire-lighting seems like very low-risk, high-return terrorism, it's astonishing we haven't seen it become more common in certain vulnerable countries.
It's not exactly proof, but there is evidence that someone witnessed a group starting a fire and was willing to risk prosecution (for a false police report) to call it in: https://x.com/hubermanlab/status/1877236580676493784
They didn't video catching them in the act, just after it happened.
There also is video evidence of powerlines sparking on trees: https://x.com/kylezink/status/1876870818153828459
There is a lot of tinder, physically and metaphorically.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
down on the farm, labor costs are typically less than 20% or for specialty crops close to 40% of total operating costs, and the price from the farm is about one-third the price on the shelf...
Quadrupling those wages might cost the typical family $300 in a year.
From Oren Cass' "Jobs Americans Would Do" https://americancompass.org/jobs-americans-would-do/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Outbreeding and not killing their offspring. It seems to have been a numbers game.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
The Ritual multivitamin only has 50mcgs so maybe that is it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Blood vitamin d is usually on the lower end, I've taken supplements (Ritual multivitamin) for years without seeing a change. I don't get sick in the summer but am sick all winter long.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Is there an easy way to make vitamin d indoors? Something like a lizard lamp? I don't think vitamin d supplements are doing the job.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I wouldn't discount that possibility. If people are violating Federal laws in hysteria then maybe something needs to be done.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
When people start pointing green lasers at commercial airplanes then maybe there is something worthy of a briefing.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
You are welcome to do a big write up. I'm interested but too feverish right now to do original research.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
What's the deal with the drones?
Are there even any drones?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not SSCReader, but for a different example:
I have the low-deductible buy-up plan. Deductible is 1500 per person or 4500 over the whole family, for in-network providers. This is not the same as an Out of Pocket Maximum. When the deductible is hit, insurance starts paying 50% of the costs until the Out of Pocket Maximum is hit. Individual Out of Pocket maximum is $6,850, over the whole family it is 12,000.
I had the ill fortune of reaching my family's Out of Pocket Maximum a couple years back. Three young kids hospitalized with complications from a bad combo of RSV and Parainfluenza. Two of the kids spend 2 days in the ICU, the third spent 9 days in the ICU. Each day in the ICU was $8,140.00 charged to insurance, and that is leaving out all other services that were provided while they were in the ICU. In the end, about $300,000 was billed to insurance and I paid only $12,000 of that. (That doesn't count the hundreds of dollars we spent on the Starbucks in the hospital over the three weeks we were swapping kids in and out, but you can only expect so much from insurance.)
Naturally, when I was sitting in the Emergency room with an unresponsive kid I had no way of knowing how much would get charged to insurance. I think by the time I was bringing my second child we assumed we were hitting our Maximum.
Also, my husband has annual colonoscopies and SSCReader's experience is also our own.
That's the mysterious part of it to me - there is no long term win here. Are they going to stay away from the legislature for a whole year until they get a simple majority? I don't know if they have a long-term strategy.
More options
Context Copy link