FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not as simple as you suggest.

First of all, the "undue burden" standard was used pre-Dobbs to throw out state laws forcing women to jump through hoops before getting an abortion. It no longer applies to abortion post-Dobbs.

The Commerce Clause does not have an "undue burden" standard at all. It does prevent inappropriate burden of interstate commerce, but inappropriate means unfairly burdening other states. It is an anti-protectionist measure.

So for example if WV banned the import of mifepristone while allowing mifepristone to be produced and sold by West Virginian companies, this would be considered an inappropriate burden to commerce because it discriminates against other states.

States can still outright ban the sale of products in the state. Even products that have nationwide distribution and easy availability in other states, like fireworks and slot machines.

More generally, states are mostly responsible for medical licensing and prescriptions within that state. They can certainly regulate FDA approved drugs (after all, cocaine is FDA approved for some medical uses but is also subject to extensive state laws).

Mifepristone is in legally uncharted waters, but you shouldn't assume that the Commerce Clause will necessarily protect it in this case.

The commerce clause does not stop states from restricting the use and sale of medicines within that state. For example, different states have passed various laws restricting the use of opioids.

He's not ambassador to China. An ambassadorship to Japan is relatively low pressure, mostly revolving around organizing and attending social events.

American embassies are usually underfunded and ambassadors often have to pay for social events out-of-pocket, which is one reason why the job often goes to wealthy people.

Those are just nicknames people use because the real names are long and boring.

"Fannie Mae" is actually the Federal National Mortgage Association (aka FNMA). "Freddie Mac" is actually the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

Vomitoria existed, but they were used for people to leave a stadium, not for food to leave the stomach.

There are no special regulations on what constitutes a "news" broadcast in the US.

If you lie in public, whether on TV or Facebook, you can be sued for defamation. Which is exactly what happened to Fox.

In specific circumstances, you can be prosecuted for criminal libel but those circumstances do not apply to Fox.

I don't know how things work in Greece, but in the US the process of mortgage foreclosure and eviction takes way more time than evicting a renter who is no longer paying rent. In other words, the bank is already willing to wait longer than a landlord for a delinquent occupant to resume payments.

After foreclosure a bank does the exact same thing as a landlord: they look for a new occupant, i.e. offer housing to someone who needs it.

Banks most certainly do not "hoard" the property. In fact, banks are usually far more impatient than private individuals who want to sell their homes. The unwillingness of banks to hold real estate is another reason why they end up selling it at a discount.

In Greece, if you stop paying rent then can you keep living in your apartment rent-free? Or will you be forced to find another home?

If people who stop paying rent are forced to find a new home, then so should people who stop paying their mortgage.

That's like saying "This broken iPhone 13 sold on eBay for only $80. That's a big problem."

An LLC paid $25K because the bank owning the home was willing to sell it for $25K. And that's not because the bank hated money. If someone else had been willing to pay more then it would have sold for more. That's how foreclosure auctions work.

Foreclosed homes generally sell for a lot less because the occupant often causes a legal and physical mess and most home buyers are not interested in dealing with it.

Ok, so if I visit a travel site with a Like button, then Facebook knows someone visited that site.

Later if I visit a sports site with a Like button, then Facebook knows someone visited that site too.

But since I don't let Facebook store cookies on my browser, Facebook still can't link the first visit to the second one. Or link those visits to any future sites I visit. So how it can serve personalized ads on them?

Even sharing information, how do they build a profile without third party cookies?

For instance, suppose I visit a travel website on Thursday and a sports website on Friday. Even if they work together, how do they figure that the person who visited on Thursday is the same as the person who visited on Friday? And how would Facebook match that when I visit them in order to serve a travel or sports ad?

If I ban third party cookies, use a VPN, and obfuscate my browser/hardware, then I don't see how they could build a profile that follows me around the web.

How can Facebook track your browsing habits if they can't access third party cookies?

It mysteriously acquired an additional window.

So he fell out of a window created by a surface to air missile.

Well, at least one alternative is war. Which I prefer to avoid, even if it requires a monopoly on violence.

And I will always prefer one group threatening violence to rule-breakers to multiple groups threatening violence to rule-breakers. Especially since multiple sets of rules are more likely to be contradictory.

A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war, either on a local level (gang wars) or national (civil war). Wars are generally to be avoided.

And policy change may be hard, but changing the attitudes of a mob is much harder. We passed laws against racism in the 1960s, we still haven't eliminated racist mobs.

Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.

So I don't see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.

And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That's why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.

You may trust your own judgement, but do you trust the judgment of literally everyone in the world?

Recently a woman was killed by someone who was offended by her rainbow flag. Last year, a teenager killed a boyfriend who wanted to break up with her.

Today, those are the actions only of unstable people. But they would become the norm if you allow everyone to be judge, jury, and executioner. How long do you suppose an LGBTQ person would survive in Idaho?

You said you would not send anyone to prison but cannot offer any alternatives.

Now let me tell you why a policy of not punishing people like Lucy Letby is a terrible idea. She would become a target of revenge-minded people, possibly even the parents of the infants she killed.

She would be tortured and/or killed by individuals who felt justice hadn't been done. After all, if Lucy Letby doesn't face serious repercussions for her actions, then her killer has no reason to worry either.

For better or worse, people demand retribution. Government must provide it, otherwise people will take matters into their own hands.

Her diary said that she enjoyed watching parents suffer and that she knew she was evil.

What other factors would be relevant?