4 ms·
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a cons
by datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
Personally, I don’t think that anyone should be speaking authoritatively on this subject because it seems to me to be untested constitutional law, unless a constitutional scholar would like to chime in.
In which case, it’s up to the Supreme Court to either explicitly (through judgment) or implicitly (through denying a hearing of the case) decide.
- junofan 9mo agoOk, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
- datsci_est_2015 9mo agoWelcome to the thread! I trust your expertise, but am a little put off by your flippant tone: > getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say: > Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action” And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court in the land ruled in that individual’s favor.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago> This is rhetorical device of framing Is MAC a thing outside mergers?
- tokyobreakfast 9mo ago> am a little put off by your flippant tone I love this. You: 1. Declare everyone stop talking until an actual expert can speak and educate us all 2. An Actual Expert™ enters the chat and offers his expert opinion. 3. You decide his opinion is bullshit after all, because it disagrees with what you had in mind, and accuse him of being flippant.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo agoHa. I love this comment.
- datsci_est_2015 9mo agoI mean usually an Actual Expert pretends to inform and educate the people he’s interacting with. I didn’t really think he came across as informative or educational.