IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

750

Joined

2 yr. ago

The US Constitution gives state legislatures power to choose Electors – full stop.

Well that was talked about. Kagan and Alito both touched on plenary power and the degrees that applies to Colorado's assertion. But in all that was debated Colorado couldn't find de facto application. Kagan even asked if there was any method that didn't rely de novo. The argument keep getting into "well this is so unique". And that's when it headed into how State's executed elections post 1860 but pre 1880.

The thing is, even if there was an application to the novel assertion of federalization here… I mean you heard it right there towards the end, "this is a feature not a flaw". The Court's couldn't be remedy to enforce uniformity. I mean just look at Colorado here for a second. You have three cases in the State plus SCOTUS, that's four hearings. Multiply that by fifty and by three or four major parties that have codified ballot access in the various States. The court's couldn't handle that and elections would become "who has enough money for litigation?" Which is kind of the opposite of "having less money in elections".

And then there comes from that a desire of "Well then Congress could come up with some limit as to what can be litigated before the courts for elections" and then boom, as indicated "how's that different than where we're at?" If the idea is that eventually some de facto appears by Congress, why allow novel approach now with the expectation that we'll get law later when we can equally say why not wait for law today and allow novel to come later based on that?

And Colorado couldn't find a specific reason why the order should or shouldn't be reversed outside of "well State's rights!" And that's what prompted the question of "well how plenary is plenary to join Article II to 14A S3?"

And another thing that you said in a different comment is:

but that a state could decide to repeal its popular vote in the legitimate way

No. Or at least I don't think so because doing so would be really hard to justify. Article IV, Section 4. Now the degree can vary because as it was before that only land owners could vote. But then the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed the frontier folk the ability to vote. The thing is a vote is always required BUT the definition of who it applies to is up to the State, except that 15A, 19A, and 26A further limit the restrictions that States can apply.

But given Art. II S.1 one could literally read:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…

But in all States the manner is defined by the State's Constitution meaning that the Citizens would have to vote to amend their process to give up their right to vote and even then, it's possible such is a violation of Art. IV S.4. It would absolutely be a Court case. But it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS would permit a State in the Union to operate on a system that denied voting to everyone outside of the political process as that's kind of the whole premises of the Revolutionary War and that specific part of the Constitution. They would need to include at least ONE person not a sworn officer of the State and given the restrictions of 15A, 19A, and 26A I don't see how they uphold 14A S1 and keep on the correct side of those other amendments. It would be difficult to say, this one person over the age of 18 is cool to vote AND still uphold 14A S1 equal protection and deny OTHER 18 year olds. It would definitely be an exercise.

States have rights, but SCOTUS is the first place to tell someone, "No right is absolute". And multiple justices brought that up plenty of times with the perceived plenary that Colorado attempted. I would love Colorado's reading, but SCOTUS has a point, Colorado needs to define a line in the sand and not just be like "Well that's what SCOTUS is here to do, draw lines". I mean given the track record recently, I don't think we should let SCOTUS draw lines. And yeah, funny time for them to suddenly adopt that mantra. But that's the thinking I agree with, which is why WV v EPA was such bullshit in my opinion. But I cannot think both WV v EPA was bullshit and Colorado is correct here. That just doesn't jive. I get inconsistent SCOTUS is frustrating, but at least questioning where that line is from Colorado is the correct move, not leaving it up to SCOTUS to dictate.

And just to make clear. This doesn't mean, "Oh no the Constitution has a defect and thus we're helpless Trump is going to surely win now!" It means that when we come across unclear parts of the Constitution, we don't obtain clarity easily or within a very short period of time. We have always known this. This is the part that should have you all upset about those Senators that didn't disqualify Trump during his second impeachment.

We all knew, that the Senate kicking the can, kicked it into a darker alley with less illumination on what exactly we're all supposed to do. We knew when they punted on that, it was going to get murky on how to hold Trump accountable for what he did. That should have been the most upsetting part.

And so here we are. We're having to do the murky part. It's not going to be easy, there are no slam dunks, you will hear "de novo" a lot because all of this is new ground, Congress was supposed to handle this and didn't. So now we're going to have to go the very frustratingly long path. No court wants to hand a nuke to the Republicans but every bad call that the court's could make can potentially just wreck things. That's how big a deal all of this is. One bad call and we are bad footing.

So yes, I get it, SCOTUS hasn't inspired the greatest of confidence. You'll hear no argument about that from me. But yesterday's en banc hearing, that was not on display. I'm giving credit where credit is due, this is something that was being talked about very carefully yesterday by the Justices. I know everyone wanted a slam dunk, but this shit ain't it. There's going to be no slam dunks with this issue. So anyone convinced of such, really needs to get a firm grasp of reality of what's in front of us. Trump's bullshitty lawyers likely think this is all a joke, but the rest of the system is not laughing. This is serious stuff. There's not going to be any easy answers.

Okay I'm going to say it. This is a really bad opinion piece on what actually happened yesterday. The biggest thing that stood out was this.

The court wanted to disagree and was desperate to find a way to restore Trump to the Colorado ballot without addressing the underlying question of whether Trump committed an insurrection or not

SCOTUS is not a fact finding court in this case. I don't think I can say this enough and geez has this been some very basic facet that lots of people have missed: "Did Trump commit impeachment or not? The Supreme Court DOES NOT RULE ON THAT."

The best way to think of what came before SCOTUS yesterday was this question: "Does Colorado have authority to execute section 3 of the 14th Amendment?" That's the question. Not, "did Trump commit treason?" I don't know why this continues to be a missive for commentators on this case. What's being argued is how much power is indeed vested into States for their election. This is why when the question was actually asked "did Trump commit insurrection?" Justice Jackson spoke and then that was the last anyone heard about it. Because it's a moot point for what is before the court.

I get we want to toss this treasonous slime ball into jail. But every case that exists with him isn't boiling down to this aspect. There are times when we have to have separate cases to establish different things that eventually build up to that. We've not really had something like this before and so new things need good foundations. So a treasonous President is going to spawn lots of SCOTUS cases that ask questions about the foundations of different arguments.

Left to their own devices, the justices went fishing, looking for an argument that could plausibly allow them to exit the case, since Mitchell did not provide them one

If you listened to the Justices yesterday, you could tell in their voice that none of them felt comfortable with the entire case in general. Because this has massive ramifications. For all the justice that people want, a bad call with poor foundations makes it insanely easy for future people to rampantly abuse this. Multiple times various justices hinted at how Florida is just chomping at the bit to charge Biden with treason and how even if they know they'll lose, they'll use every method of litigation to drain his election funds. And SCOTUS gave every hint that Congress does not have the Judicial setup to handle that and likely because of the political ramification, Congress would just kick the can until we're literally fighting each other.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

— Article III Section 1 US Constitution

Congress gets to mold the Court system as they see fit and SCOTUS was indicating, the Courts cannot do this "feature of federalization" that Colorado was attempting to indicate. That States should be allowed to apply limitations as they see fit and have the Courts figure out the collateral damage. And it's highly likely that Congress wouldn't act to fix it so that the Court could. And so bad faith actors would absolutely wreck the election process. And what they were looking for was a reason why they should believe otherwise. That Congress would enact something to punish bad faith actors, or setup the Courts to handle this, or create procedures that could be litigated at the State level, or literally anything outside of the one thing in Title 18 that's for criminal treason.

I get that nobody likes that answer. It shitty to see that most Justices easily see that Trump did indeed commit treason and that the various Courts are just left with "oopsie Congress forgot to give anyone any power to do anything about it."

And yeah, let's talk about Bush v Gore, because that sounds outright like the same thing.

Here, Bush indicated that different counties in Florida were using different methods for the recount because of the hanging chad issue. Here it was the 14th Amendment Section 1, Equal Protection Clause. SCOTUS had ruled that the various counties couldn't come up with various standards for a recount, that there needed to be a common standard, to which Florida and Gore couldn't come to single standard for the recount. It wasn't a question of "who won Florida" it was a question of "how do we have a unified standard for which a recount of this nature can be done?" And the answer was (and this is the part that was controversial) we couldn't and still make the "safe harbor" date. The "safe harbor" date and ensuring we made it was the biggest debate point. To which for those still sour about that, you have The Electoral Count Act of 1887 to thank for putting SCOTUS into that position.

All the anger that gets directed to SCOTUS, and some of it is rightly so, Elections have a lot of Congress induced defects. Keep that in mind.

I putting all my beans on meth futures.

"Look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power!"

— something, something Arch BTW

Do you know who Bryan Lunduke is? That's what this video is about.

If that name happens to not ring a bell, you aren't missing anything.

"The Columbus Police Department was conducting a welfare check on a subject following a report of potential self-harm," Nebraska State Patrol said in a press release.

"Mission Accomplished"

He also denied Trump’s request for sanctions and criticized Trump’s attorneys for first making the motion for a mistrial in front of the jury during Carroll’s cross-examination when they had known about the deletion of messages for over a year

To give context. Carroll’s attorney had indicated long before this started that the initial death threats were deleted and gave Trump’s team the fair chance to raise objections then. Trump’s team was silent during the entire period. Fast forward to today like a few clicks past a year in length of time.

Trump’s team: We’d like to file a mistrial!

For those wondering, no, you don’t get to sit on something for over a year and then finally bring it up that you have an issue with it.

They went heavy on the serve part and totally gave zero protect part.

This is literally the second time Trump helped torpedo a border deal between Democrats and Republicans. Remember back in 2018 when Democrats were ready to give Trump initial funding for the wall and then Fox and Friends convinced him that he could get better and then Democrats basically took their ball and went home?

GOP is constantly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at the behest of Trump. I guess the GOP thinks Trump's penis tastes like a creamsicle. It's just sad watching them do it to themselves for a second time.

FAA LADD and PIA programs are just there. Swift has no excuse outside of her getting called out for CO2.

This was a non issue when Musk did it. It continues to be a non issue whilst Swift does it. Aircraft enrolled in both programs do not prevent lookup databases from third parties from getting the data eventually, but prevents in most cases real-time tracking unless there’s literal people standing at the airport watching and reporting.

No, she’s just being petulant about this issue because she’s embarrassed that she’s being told her flying around in a private jet is destroying this planet we’re all living on.

But it’s a negative when his antics have helped erase more than $200 billion of shareholder value.

I'm guessing his reply to that is:

Impeachment is not a legal process, it is a political process

Literally says this in the Constitution.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

— Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 paragraph 1 US Constitution.

And this extends from historical basis that in days of yore political power was granted from a liege to a vassal on fief. But there existed the ability for political power to be withdrawn, a person struck from their liege's court, and that would in turn automatically have them lose any title to their fief. That is a loss of political power could also mean a complete loss of your way of life.

The US wanted a clear barrier between political career and personal liberty. This is why Santos is still a free man even though he got kicked out of the House (though that might change soon enough). The two are different processes and they mean different things. Just like if Trump goes to jail but hasn't been disqualified, he's entirely able to run for office.

Disinflation is different than deflation. Prices aren’t changing, that’s good. Prices changed to be bad and aren’t changing, that’s bad.

Now, while I don’t think we want deflation amok, because that’s insanely bad for everyone, what I think we can all agree with is wages need to go up or there needs to be some price control the likes this country hasn’t seen before.

That’s the problem with the economy. This new normal isn’t comfortable. While we’re finally solidifying what this new normally is and volatility is going down, what we’re settling on isn’t good. And pretending that eventually wages will come to match, that’s not realistic. Playing the waiting game is going to wreck a lot of jobs.

She is running for office in House District 75 of the State of Tennessee. The current incumbent is Jeff Burkhart who won in 2022 when Burkhart ran unopposed.

While abortion access is indeed important to Tennesseans, it is greatly diminished by poverty issues, cost of living, deteriorating education, medical debt, insurance cost, and opioid problems, in that particular order. Tennessee is having an exploding homeless population, ranking in the top 5 of the entire nation. Additionally, Tennessee has enjoyed a relative low cost of living, so when the pandemic inflation began, it hit Tennessee very hard.

I applaud her for running. I just wish more people could see that Governor HVAC and his crew's policies aren't helping this State. But 2024 for local elections, abortion is so far down on the list of priorities for Tennesseans in general. Homelessness and poverty has to be anyone running in 2024 top talking point.

Fueling that poverty is the sudden shock that the State received in the pandemic. Tennessee was in the top 10 States that people moved to during the pandemic. People from States with lots of wealth came to this State and the flood of cash coming into the State priced natives out of literally everything and dealing with that massive influx was just massively mishandled by Señor Air Duct. It hasn't washed evenly across the State (because what are taxes?) which has created pockets of massive wealth inequality.

Which of course leads to all of the other issues like education falling apart in this State, which it's crazy how it plays out, because you can go to one town where a lot of new people moved in, and they'll have one of the best schools in the State, and then drive not but ten minutes away and the school there is just happy the majority of the school is getting D as grade or better. For education in the State, there's not schools get worse as you travel away from the city. There's schools where everyone from out of State moved to that is doing wonderful, and then literally a school in the same town that's been there for ten-fifteen years is just in shambles. There's very little in-between.

Then of course with education going to shit, that plays into poor health, drug issues, and so forth. I live here, I assure you, most people think the State's current abortion policy is crap and want some exceptions carved out. But holy crap, that is so far off in the distance for a lot of people here. Like, even the secure border thing, that I know a lot of media likes to play up as an issue we have, that too is really low on the priorities here. Cost of living, homelessness, and education are pretty much dominating the political landscape here.

I honestly hope she wins, I don't live in Burkhart's district but all of those good ol' boys run government like crap and can't understand the basics of economic policy to save their lives. But she's going to need a very large platform outside of abortion to stand on. But I would highly caution folks who attempt to read anything Tennessee related in State elections as a referendum on abortion policy. There are just so many other fish to fry at the moment in this State.

And yes, anything anyone wants to say about "Republicans" and "Making people poor" trust me, you aren't going to say something that's not been clearly obvious to Liberal leaning folks in Tennessee since forever. It's all uphill, been that way since as long as I've been voting.

Only problem is they’re not around long enough for strong interactions and that makes it impossible for them to form Hardons.

See that’s actually all wrong. We’re going to need fewer people working with increasing automation. We’re just going to have an “unfortunate” situation where people who cannot work ALSO cannot afford to stay alive.

We’ll have 80 year olds that just die and gosh if there was only something we could of done to save them. Tots and pears.

TILA-RESPA of 2015. Extends only to banking institutions in limited situations related to home loans. 12 USC ch. 27.

You cannot just read a single sentence from that act, the three day period, and just randomly apply it everywhere. And I have no idea where the 45⁰ thing comes from but sounds right up there with bay leaves and candles.

Obey the law. #NotLegalAdvice

Literally from the article:

One person wrote on X (formerly Twitter)

And that's it for citations on this "backlash". "This story is fucking trash" and since one person on kbin said that, it must be true!

Sometimes I read this garbage and I feel like it's that part from Mean Girls.

Stop trying to make outrage happen!

Okay so for the person indicating cars, sure you can make a casual link to the two. But that misses the major point here.

Type 2 diabetes, which is the type we're talking about here with this article so I'm strictly sticking to just Type 2, is primarily caused by obesity which is the primary factor that leads to diabetes.

This is because of a combination of abdominal and intra-abdominal fat distribution AND increased intrahepatic and intramuscular triglyceride content. These two factors conspire to increase insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction. So anything that leads to this kind of situation needs to be addressed, which gets to my point. We could literally list dozens of various things that contribute to this kind of situation, there's no ONE factor that just predominately contributes in meaningful ways more so than any other outside of diet and physical activity.

While cars have indeed contributed to a decline in physical activity it is important to remember that diet also plays a role in this. I'm not disagreeing with anyone here about cars contributing to the issue. But anywhere I go, I always remind folks that it is always diet AND physical activity. If this was fucksoda or something, I would still remind them that diet is indeed important but we must remember that it is diet AND physical activity.

I know it sounds pedantic, but given the strong message that all health agencies the world over have given, we need to always remember that it is both diet and physical activity that play a role in diabetes and prediabetes.

Wonder if this shift corresponds to the age of automobiles

So yes, I would agree that physical activity has decreased but also diets have become absolute trash at the same time. We absolutely should address the lack of physical activity along with encouraging better diets. Given how important health agencies have linked the two, I just think it would be a miss if we just solely spoke on JUST the physical activity.