ceejayoz

22 ms·

661.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
I think that’s the only logical conclusion of the “shall not be infringed” absolutists. They shy away from admitting it, though. “Oh, those aren’t arms. They’re, uh, destructive devices!”
662.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
663.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. > I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the
664.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Keep reading! > In Second Amendment cases, this Court applies the Amendment to semi-automatic handguns even though those did not exist in 1791 or 1868. "Shall not be infringed" apparently applies to unimaginably better weaponry
665.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> What is a definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” that excludes Indians, other than saying “well, Indians aren’t included?” This seems fairly simple; we made treaties with Native American tribes, up until 1871, and Article I says t
666.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Kavanaugh's dissent is kinda hilarious in this context. > The original constitutional principles do not change absent a constitutional amendment, but the relevant principles— both the rules and exceptions alike—must be faithfully ap
667.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Per Thomas's dissent: > The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.
668.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Now do the management/ownership side.
669.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
My dorm room was on the ninth floor of a nine floor building. I assure you, heat passes through elevator shafts and floors just fine, and office buildings aren't usually built like a BSL-4 laboratory. If anything, they're typica
670.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?
671.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!&quo
672.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops, no jurisdiction!"
673.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
No, the 16th Amendment expands taxation to income; there was some dispute at the time over its legality. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26... .) Article I establishes's Congress's
674.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally different. This already happens, though. Candidate
675.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
"Reactionary" is the term you're looking for.
676.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> Can be done through statute. And undone through statute, or SCOTUS intervention.
677.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
I take it you haven't met people.
678.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Which, as heat rises, is probably reasonable.
679.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
But why does the arbitrator deem $22k/hour reasonable? What the fuck is happening at that point ?
680.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> It was never established in Trump v Cook that the federal reserve lies in the executive branch. But that's insane , right? "You can make an agency the President has no control over, but you can't make one the Preside
681.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Yes, I read both opinions, and am left wondering why "out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference" applied to one and not the other.
682.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> The congress cannot create a fourth without an amendment. Sure. So explain the results of Trump v. Cook, which involve exactly that. The same justice, on the same day, issued one opinion that says Congress can't put limits on firi
683.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Seize a few shadow fleet tankers to pay for it. (This is already happening, today, for other bits of their misbehavior!)
684.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
My car shows "last seen" on its Bluetooth connections. The murderer in this case was an invited friend; it's hardly implausible he's connected to Bluetooth there. > I'm interested in evidence that this type of da
685.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> I do agree the federal reserve as independent makes no sense but I don't think it's the same question posed. I think it's the core question; are there really rules at all? The two rulings make that answer clear, I think.
686.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> It obviously depends on what rules they make. Today, the Court ruled that Congress can make the Federal Reserve an independent agency, but not the FTC. Same day, same justice! What are the rules, exactly?
687.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
Yeah, that's why we have the veto power; as a check on their power. SCOTUS has now given the executive retroactive uncheckable vetos. Yikes. "Those rules we agreed to, signed into law, and followed for the last 90 years? HAHA PSYC
688.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
SCOTUS does not enjoy papal infallibility. They fuck up. (Or act maliciously, as when Alito invented the new "history and tradition" test.)
689.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
> Statutes don't supersede the constitution… "We can make rules the President has to follow" does not supersede the Constitution.
690.
by ceejayoz 4mo ago
I don't think it's implausible that an Echo would have an internal list of trusted Bluetooth devices and their last date of connectivity.

More ›