How so? I'm arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn't suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?
ignirtoq
joined 1 year ago
Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn't mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn't mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.
(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)
Not only did my math master's thesis adviser use Linux, he read his email from a command line program and wrote his papers in plain TeX, considering LaTeX a new fangled tool he didn't need.
I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn't know there were so many other agencies that aren't even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I'm having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than "correcting" earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.
That's how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can't actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn't be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.
Roberts turned to history in his opinion. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote.
Some courts have gone too far, Roberts wrote, in applying Bruen and other gun rights cases. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” he wrote.
In dissent, Thomas wrote, the law “strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process.”
The government “failed to produce any evidence” that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, he wrote.
“Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue,” Thomas wrote.
Am I taking crazy pills? Why is some arbitrary reading of history the sole mechanism by which these opinions are being made? What happened to the textual literalism these justices claimed to follow? Doesn't that require reading the words in the Constitution and making judgements from that?
Why is the arbitrary choice of legislative implementation of the state governments of the 1800s determining what laws states are allowed to have in the 2000s? If they passed a law that was unconstitutional, but no one challenged it for 200 years, then it's suddenly not only constitutional, but now a metric against which new laws can be judged to determine if they are constitutional? How is that anything but laws "trapped in amber"?
Did I miss the slow court transition to this singular decision-making process? Or was this a sudden shift that I just missed the headlines? I knew they used suspicious historical reasoning in Dobbs to throw out abortion rights, but do they do that for every case now?
Humans getting it? Yes, from farm animals. Humans getting it from other humans? Not yet, but I wouldn't bet on that staying the case forever.
There are two aspects that make this different from COVID. One is that the mortality rate is much higher: near 50%, whereas COVID was around 1-3%. That's the bad difference. The good difference is that it's a flu variant, and we've studied flu variants for a very long time. I've heard there's already a vaccine, but I haven't verified that claim from any reputable health organization.
So if people actually follow health advice from officials, this could be handled much better than COVID. But if they don't and they get it, it's a coin flip if they die. And people are already doing things like drinking more raw milk because the CDC has identified the virus as being in raw milk from infected farms, so draw your own conclusions.
The Tribunal accepted that creed should include non-religious belief systems, yet still rejected ethical veganism because it “does not address the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher order of existence”.
What the hell kind of "non-religious belief system" addresses the existence or non-existence of a "Creator"? Are they trying to expand "creed" just enough to cover a particular definition of atheism and absolutely nothing else? The whole point of atheism is that is doesn't have to address a "Creator" because the laws of nature work just fine without that question being addressed. Sure, some flavors of atheism take a stance on the question, but not all of them do. Are those flavors of atheism suddenly not a "creed"? How could they possibly justify that without applying a biased religious lens (which by its very nature violates basically all atheist "creeds")?
Edit: I just realized this is exactly like when people who do not understand the first thing about homosexuality ask a male couple which one is the "woman."
I was expecting some kind of analysis showing that otherwise normal people who adopted GOP politics simultaneously transitioned to showing sociopathic behavior, like in a measurable, scientific way. Instead the author gives a definition of sociopathy ("acting without feelings of guilt, remorse, or shame coupled with a tendency to reject the concept of responsibility") and proceeds to label the policy positions and enacted laws of the GOP as sociopathic.
Applying neuroscience terms developed for individual people to actions of groups does not seem scientific at all. Isn't that the field of sociology? I'm not really sure how such a labeling helps the conversation, especially from a neuroscientist. I don't disagree with the positions, but this isn't neuroscience, so I can't really take this author as any sort of authority or expert on this; I feel like this article has the same level of expertise as a Lemmy comment (like mine).
The best way I have heard it phrased is that tolerance is a social contact. By being intolerant, they break that contract, and we have no obligation to follow through on our part if they don't do their part.
I don't have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?