IHeartBadCode

This is the thing we found out way back in the 1500s and 1600s. The various teams don't play nice with each other. The only reason they are accepting of one another at the moment is common enemy. The second that State religion is permitted, South Baptist and Catholics are going to be kicking each other's teeth in.

There's a shit ton of money to be had in the church. No one is going to let some other team take it willingly. They will absolutely eat each other and in the process wreck collateral damage unlike anything anyone has seen since the 17th century. That's not guessing, that's like a for sure outcome. We've got a little under 20 centuries worth of history that tells us what the outcome is every time.

Dude who literally looks like Putin is sitting here singing "Wasn't me" on this? Bullshit.

High inflation: I'm losing money faster.

Low inflation: I'm losing money slower.

That's how it should be read.

Despite negative perceptions on the state of the economy, people are losing money a lot slower than its June 2022 peak of losing a shit ton of money per quarter.

The reason for that is that you have to look at this as if you're some greedy corporate bastard.

A robot butler costs money to build and if it doesn't pan out, they're on the hook for the cost. Firing people saves money right now, and if generative art doesn't pan out, they can hire new employees that will work for less.

AI is just the latest craze to justify what these greedy bastards do all the time. The way they're fucking us is new, but the act of fucking us is as old as dirt.

and is doing it likely as someone who is horribly misguided

This is Abigail Disney. She's rich but she's not the brightest crayon in the box politically. Her PhD is in philosophy and her dissertation was about the role of romanticized violence and war in American life. Her lists of philanthropy is what one would expect from a run of the mill rich person level activism. Tossing money at the high level stuff, never diving deeper to the root of the problem.

I'm not dissing the lady, but she absolutely falls into the misguided on this aspect.

Thanks man.

Punishment can include and is not limited to death.

I think there's a bit of a sobering moment that we have a Presidential candidate that is calling for specific names to be held to a firing squad.

If Trump is reelected, there's about to be a whole lot of people within official act range.

Oh I see... (laugh/cry)

My fellow person. Friend of mine in Nashville has been purged three times 2018, 2020, and 2022. Because they thought his insanely common name was dead. No notice, no letter, no info, just silent gone from voting and every year without fail since 2018, he has to head downtown to let them know that he is distinctly not dead.

And today is the day he'll head downtown to "double check" that he has not yet again been purged because if he doesn't, he'll miss the local elections that happen on August 1st.

They're not just asking for random people to be taken off

Yes. That's how this works. They are indeed taking random people off the rolls. I'm glad this hasn't randomly happen to you and I am thankful that this only happen to me once in 2016. But yeah, buddy. It's just "random" grab bag of who they think needs to be purged. I get it, you haven't had it happen to you, so you think it's one way, but buddy, the people who do the purging are just straight up bad at their jobs. And they don't provide any kind of logic or reason on why they removed any specific person and there's zero legal recourse to hold them accountable.

Now what's worse. Imagine if you're someone who doesn't have the time to head down to the election office every two years because you're just trying to make ends meet. The randomness is what they're banking on getting some of the folks who don't have time to double check their status.

Buddy, I just... I'm just glad this hasn't happened to you. But you're talking out your butt on this "isn't random people".

Yeah with Chevron gone this is fluff talk at this point. Nothing can be regulated without the Courts giving it an okay or Congress explicitly allowing it verbatim. The Loper Bright case paired with Relentless, Inc. has basically nullified novel regulatory authority without the Courts consenting.

The framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment

— Chief Justice Roberts (Loper Bright Enterprises, et al, v. Raimondo)

Additionally, Robert's indicated that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 has always provided Judicial review of every regulation and that everything since that point must now be reviewed by the Courts.

Biden is indicating that he's going to produce a heat standard via OSHA which was formed in 1971, so OSHA's ability to even make that standard and potentially their full authority is under question now. OSHA isn't going to be doing jack crap for easily the next twenty years for the Courts to fully review their broad authority, unless SCOTUS overturns this judgement. For all we know, SCOTUS might hold OSHA to follow the exact letter of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which would neuter them in a heartbeat. Luckily things like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which prohibits child labor in particular kinds of jobs will fall outside of that review and OSHA will still be able to enforce that kind of stuff since it's explicit that OSHA enforces any labor law prior to the 1970 act.

There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President. Basically, without at least 2 out of 3 branches agreeing, literal nothing will happen. This is literally the setup nobody will enjoy and will cripple Federal Government for the foreseeable future without those rare instances where Congress and the President are of the same political party.

And what exactly is there to stop the opposition from doing the same thing?

Process. The same that that puts barriers on this discussion from AOC. The entire impeachment process is the understanding of the people who created this country, to have a political process that is departed from the legal process. That's why being impeached doesn't also mean criminally convicted and vice versa. Historically, if you were a vassal of the lord and had your fief removed, you couldn't hold court with your lord AND you basically were penniless with the potential to end up in jail. The entire impeachment process is to separate those two things. That's why the process is spelled out fully in the Constitution and the execution solely left to Congress to implement.

There entire point of an impeachment is to execute some political justice without having legal justice married to it. What stops anyone from just abusing the process is the process itself and what it indicates for functioning government. If the goal is have no functioning government, then there isn't anything that stops anyone from abuse. But no functioning government means that those in Congress would lose power, and a loss of power means they become less enticing for lobbyist to enact agendas, for people to seek recourse, and for States to enhance power within the vacuum.

So an abuse of that power would end with them loosing more and more power. This is the same reason why Congress has had a hard time really pinning impeachment and contempt charges and have talked about inherent contempt for Garland (which inherent contempt is basically using Congress to enforce a contempt charge via the Sergeant-at-arms doing the arresting and Congress inventing a "trail" system all of their own outside of the Judicial system... which by the way SCOTUS way back in the 1930s, the last time this was used, indicated that THAT specific instance was not a violation of habeas corpus, but trying to ring Garland up on inherent contempt and trying to put him in Congress jail, would be such a complex process and likely wouldn't survive a habeas corpus challenge, but who knows at this point? For all we know SCOTUS may be completely cool with Congress tossing people into Congress jail without a proper trail. But of course that brings with it ALL KINDS of ramifications about our Federal government jailing people in a a jail completely ran by Congress and outside the entire legal system, but I digress).

Long story short, all of this stuff is political process. And you do all of this to further a political agenda to the public. But if the public isn't backing that action, it has the ability to backfire in that entire you don't get to come back to Congress or you weaken the overall power of the Federal government. So you have to look at the long term goal of anything you want to do with this process. Like the inherent contempt vote got delayed after the first Presidential debate. Biden's performance was so bad that Republicans feel that they got what they wanted. The whole Garland audio tapes, the GOP wanted them so that they could play back the tapes to the public and show that Biden was losing his marbles. But now since the debate, there's little reasons for the GOP to go down the tossing Garland into Congress jail and going down a path that's likely to not play well for anyone except their most harden supporters.

The process limits the process. That's what prevent the whole "same thing".

Are we going to replace the court?

I mean, yeah, that's the goal. SCOTUS has had about a dozen cases that they've overturned decades long, and in some cases century long, established rule. One or two per lifetime of a justice is a lot to completely overturn. This court has overturned nearly a dozen long established rulings. The entire point of a justice system is to bring about stability to the political process. Congress answers to the public, and the public can change their mind often, so random laws flying over the place isn't unusual. SCOTUS is not elected and thus they faintly answer to the public. So they need to have some stability to maintain legitimacy. Even Robert's talked about this in the ruling that overturned Roe and felt the majority was going too far.

So I think if the court itself is saying that it is ruining their own legitimacy, bringing them up into the political process to answer to these statements the court itself is making is fair game. And I don't think that's unfair to mention in that whole process. Judges don't answer to the public, so justices that massively change the landscape in short orders of time, are shaking the stability they're supposed to be building. If SCOTUS wants to rewrite the law of the land, it needs to be gradual not as fast as possible.