I know my response. ' UNION SELECT username, password FROM users--
IHeartBadCode
joined 2 years ago
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
- Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
- Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.
- Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.
- Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
- Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person's reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
If the duopoly of our government is enough to convince folks not to vote, they weren’t going to vote anyway and were just looking for a reason.
I don’t disagree with OP, but at the same time, we’ve only got one tool to enact change. So let’s use that tool to get things like ranked voting.
But you’re also right, plenty of folks out there telling folks to give up. All the more reason to not in my opinion.
The hype train derailed.
COVID and MAGA??
Material scientists hate this one trick.
And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors.
That is a gross simplification of what happened. Title X of the 1968 Civil Rights Act was found to be a violation of the First Amendment's protection to free speech. Given that the Government's main backing for bring about the charges on the Chicago 7 was no longer valid, the Government sought to not retry the charges that were remanded by the appeals court. The Court did not toss out some of the criminal charges, just simply indicated the Government needed to redo the trail and the Government declined because their core argument was gone. I cannot see the State of New York's core argument that Trump took money not his, suddenly evaporating any time soon. But deadly virus in 2019 was not on my Bingo card so, who knows at this point?!
Additionally, the parts that were tossed out or remanded were of criminal nature for the Chicago 7. Trump in this case faces civil penalties, there's hardly the incentive to undo a wrong that's just moving money around as to freeing someone who has been wrongly jailed. And finally, Trump's case has the State of New York seeking equitable remedy, not legal remedy.
There are so many facets of Trump's case that are so wildly different than the Chicago 7. That's not to say that there's no parallel, obviously a Judge must behave and prudently deal with mischief within their courtroom. So there is a concern about the gag order that the Judge has issued, but at the same time there's been a deluge of threats sent into the office of the Judge. What those threats entail, who knows, but the Judge has shown a massive amount of restraint because if this was literally ANYONE else, that person's ass would be in jail for contempt at light speed. So the threats might be shown to be serious enough to justify the Judge's near exasperated sentiment with Trump.
So Alan Dershowitz does have a point and Dershowitz is not some idiot lawyer, so him saying this indicates that someone has a very good idea of the path that they would navigate. Would Alan Dershowitz step in if Trump got hauled off for contempt and blaze the path forward? (Because Alan Dershowitz is not currently Trump's lawyer, he was his lawyer during the first impeachment trail. Which interestingly, Alan Dershowitz was repaid for his time as Trump's impeachment lawyer by the then President pardoning ten of Alan Dershowitz's previous clients. One of them being George Nader who plead guilty to child pornography. So it's actually a good question if Dershowitz would get involved since Trump no longer has the power to pardon anymore of Dershowitz's clients.)
That's not to say that Chris Kise cannot hold his own. Chris Kise being Trump's lead lawyer on the New York case. Chris Kise is not an idiot either, he's not exactly the best lawyer but his experience as Florida's solicitor general has given him some experience at having a cool composure in pretty stressful situations in a courtroom. And he's not exactly one to seek out limelight for sake of being popular. So I wouldn't put it pass Chris Kise to have some idea about how to do this strategy that Dershowitz is indicating. But that said, them being open about trying their hand at this does also hurt their case. Additionally, Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven case compared to Judge Engoron who presides over this case, the difference to how they've handled the respective cases thus far is pretty stark. Judge Engoron has gotten upset but it has been way less of the "YOU DAMN YUPPIES!!" that Judge Hoffman exuded.
So, if this is indeed the plan by Chris Kise, Kise is smart enough to likely pull it off. But that said, the details of their example case and this case are so vastly different, it's really hard to see the parallel and indicate that they could absolutely pull this off.
NO TIPPING
My plans to topple the Motormat by flipping it on its side have been foiled!!
Forbes isn't handing out a kiss of death. Forbes is just a publication gushing about the headliners of a rapacious and fraudulent group of people. It's like wondering why a bakery smells like bread.
There are presumably no laws against this
For the United States, that is correct. It is up to each business to dictate how this works.
it was mentioned in some legal bullshit I ignored when signing up
Yes it was. Patreon's Terms of Use
You may cancel your free trial or recurring payments at any time, as described above. For monthly and annual memberships, canceling or lowering the tier support of your membership will impact your next recurring charge
Canceling your membership or lowering the tier support below the applicable threshold may result in your loss of access to membership subscription benefits, including a creator’s patron-only posts and other benefits. You may also lose access to offerings you’ve purchased and membership subscription benefits
There are two things being discussed here. The service and the payment. The first statement indicates that a change between you and Patreon on terms will affect the payment on the next cycle, so if you were billed monthly on the next month. But a change between you two will affect the service immediately.
There is no technical reason they can’t just cancel rebilling and allow me to access this subscription until the end of the month
There is a distinct possibility that they actually cannot do this because they've never asked their programming team to write such a thing in their payment processing. Can their programming team write such a thing? Oh absolutely. But if they've not actually written such a thing, then they cannot technically do it because it just simply does not exist. I written software for some time now, and this kind of technical, has actually happened to me where the dev team asked if such should be programmed and higher up indicated specifically that such SHOULD NOT be written for pretty much the reason that it thus prevents such from ever being a possibility to be offered to customers. So just FYI, their software might not be able to do this by purposeful omission of such. It would not be the first company to have done this.
I think this kind of practice is shit. And the "free but if you don't cancel becomes a monthly subscription" kind of stuff the FTC is looking to add to their list of dark business patterns. I won't bore you with details but the FTC is pretty hit and miss with their regulations and Congress is constantly in a back and forth of giving it super charged powers and making it toothless. So companies that can, usually litigate the FTC until a new President or Congressional composition comes into play that will pull back the FTC.
but I do think that there should be a law that forces providers of subscription services to allow users to access their subscription for the entire period for which they have paid, regardless of whether they cancel their subscription if no refund is due
You know what's really crazy is in other industries, things like pro-rated and payment terms must match service terms, all of that is required under law. I'm in an industry now that has such regulations and boy if the law didn't require it, they sure as shit wouldn't do it. There's nothing stopping these same tried and tested laws from applying to online services, outside of lobbyist "asking" Congress and State Assemblies to not do such. So I agree with you there, this kind of pattern in online services is shit. But they are absolutely legally allowed to do this kind of bullshit.
Her children. She's indicating care required as her residence is Florida and she is being ordered to appear in New York.
However an update to this, which should surprise nobody, is that the Court thought about her argument for fifteen seconds and replied, "Hell Fucking NO". Like that's how ridiculous her request was. It got same day response from a high court because it was just so easy to deny.
Usually there needs to be a really good reason for seeking a continuance (postponement of something that has a deadline). Having trouble finding daycare arrangements for your children is pretty fucking far from what usually rises to requiring emergency continuance. By like........A LOT.
Of course this came after her motion to quash her subpoena was also roundly told to fucking pound sand. She is absolutely doing her best to stall and basically the court is clearly having none of her fucking shit.
So it's an idiot from some other State trying to tell Ohio what and what not to do. Gotcha.