TheSanSabaSongbird

joined 2 years ago
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

Would you rather he didn't do it?

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 0 points 2 years ago

More than one thing can be true at once.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They only test for alcohol after a reportable incident. Nobody cares if you drink on your own time. Source; I have been through OSHA 30 training. They do screen for MJ though, which is bullshit since it's legal in so many states now. IBEW, UA and a few other powerful trade unions are currently leaning on the feds to end the screening requirements in states where it's legal, so we may see real progress relatively sooner than people think, unless Trump wins.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

I don't think you can blame people for being sick of the negativity. It's everywhere these days. You can't get away from it. You'd be forgiven for thinking that this smallish move on Biden's part would be greeted with indifference rather than outright boos, but no, nothing is ever good enough, this is the world we live in.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 5 points 2 years ago

As an Oregonian I took an embarrassingly long time to figure this out.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A string of non sequiturs does not an argument make.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

It would have been used against them anyway, so they might as well use it where it actually applies.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Again, the Colorado court ruled that section 3 is self-executing. That's a thing, whether you like it or not. I suggest you Google the term.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 3 points 2 years ago

The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn't have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don't have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn't eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.

Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.

The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it's well within the Colorado supreme Court's remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Why do you keep saying "Dems" like this is some kind of decision arrived at by the DNC or the Biden Administration? This is the result of a group of attorneys and 4 judges in Colorado. I and everyone else in this thread had zero say in the matter. I even think you may be right that this ends up being a negative for the Dems. We will see.

That said, attorneys and judges being what they are, I don't see how this wasn't going to happen one way or another regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Also, I would take Desantis over Trump in a heartbeat. Desantis would be bad, but he is not a gifted politician and doesn't have anything like Trump's cultish following and ironclad control over the cowardly leadership in the Republican party. There is no universe in which a president Desantis becomes a permanent dictator. He'd be lucky to complete a single term in office.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

It's due to their population. It's like 10 times bigger than most other states so there are a lot of competing interests. Also, California is the only contiguous state that encompasses its own geographic region that's not shared with any other states. I don't know that this complicates its laws necessarily, but it is just one more way in which it's unique.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

That's its reputation, yes. Not sure if true.

view more: ‹ prev next ›