Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz

Posts

9

Comments

928

Joined

2 yr. ago

By New York state law you are, any "ill gotten gains" must be surrendered. And the fine accumulates interest during any appeals to boot. it's why Trump is getting his nearly half a billion dollar fine. I wish all fraud laws were that way though. I believe most are typically based on common law fraud, and usually there's some kind of flat fine and the the rest is based off provable damages to other parties, rather than the amount of profit.

You're right, I guess I mean, I'm baffled in the sense that I don't understand why another living breathing human being would act like this, but of course have seen many a petty school official before.

The superintendent's name is Greg Poole

The school district is Barber's Hill Independent School district

The judge is Chap B. Cain III

I'm just truly baffled by the petty vindictive vile school officials perpetrating this whole thing. But I guess it wouldn't be the first time racist school officials fight all the way to the supreme court to deny eduction to kids.

The cheek cells in spit have a full set of chromosomes and given the right conditions could be turned into a growing embryo. Guess that means dentists are mass murderers now, all those little potential lives going down that suction tube of death.

Some religious people are bigots, certainly not all though. And you don't need to be religious to have a bigoted viewpoint. But bigotry is exactly my point, I was not trying to tip toe around it. Saying the belief is religious doesn't make it right, and it's still bigotry. Just as in the same way people who used religion to discriminate on the basis of race (and some still do) were bigots too.

If someone who was Christian was in a case suing because they believed they were fired for their religion, and a potential juror said they thought Christians were evil, they'd be off that jury in a second without anyone batting an eye. And I'd agree they absolutely should not be on that jury. In none of these cases should jurors who hold bigoted beliefs about the issue at hand be allowed on a jury.

If someone was fired from their job because of their race, and a potential juror on the case expressed their religious belief that the "mixing of races" is a sin (was a very common religious belief many people justified on the basis of their version of Christianity, and a belief many in the country still hold unfortunately), they should be thrown off that jury and rightfully so. This is no different. And don't start with any of this "well they don't think being gay is a sin just acting on it is a sin" nonsense, would be like saying being black isn't a sin, just marrying outside your race or using the same water fountains as other races is a sin.

People who hold bigoted beliefs about their fellow Americans have no place on a jury for a case involving them, especially in a discrimination case, whether they believe their bigotry is rooted in religion or anything else.

The fact that Samuel Alito thinks they do belong on juries in cases like this says everything you need to know about him. He doesn't think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, and he believes religious people (specifically his version of Christianity) have a right to use the law to trample the rights of others. Furthermore, he views the denial of the ability to trample other people's rights he doesn't like as some sort of discrimination against himself, in some kind of crazy warped logic.

Bigots like Alito shouldn't be managing a McDonald's, let alone have a seat on the supreme court. When will this "I think my religion says I should be a bigot so I have a constitutionally protected right to trample over everyone else's rights" nonsense stop?

It's not for lack of trying on the federal trade commission's part. Biden admin has been fighting tons of mergers and courts keep deciding against them. We need better anti trust laws (and better judges wouldn't hurt too). They did manage to stop a few mergers at least, for instance against Lockheed Martin trying to acquire aerojet rocketdyne holdings, and Nvidia trying to acquire Arm, and the spirit jet blue merger. And they reopened their case against the Microsoft Activision merger after they violated their court agreements. I will be surprised if the FTC doesn't sue over this purchase of Discover.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-keeps-losing-antitrust-court-battles-few-expect-pullback-2022-10-04/

There might be contracts that make it hard to remove in some cases. This tenant board had to sue to get it removed off their building in 2018:

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607785452/in-the-new-york-real-estate-market-trumps-name-may-be-losing-its-luster

A lot of buildings have successfully taken it off though.

I'm surprised it's only a 5% value hit. Says a lot about the desperate state of NYC real estate though I suppose.

They tried to pass a bill regulating them in the early 90s. All the supplements companies took out ads screaming that doctors were trying to take your vitamins away. Very unpopular, bill went down in flames.

Like no, doctors just don't want people getting amphetamines in their creatine supplement. Or unexpectedly getting St John's wart in some supplement that doesn't list it as an ingredient, suddenly causing severe and dangerous interactions with multiple medications the person is taking. It says a lot about the supplement industry that they fight tooth and nail against any regulation that would require them to accurately report what's in the bottle. They can basically just make it up out of thin air as it is. Tons of supplement makers with expensive "proprietary blends" where they don't even attempt to show what's inside, then market them toward incurable diseases like alzheimers, very carefully avoiding the name of the disease in advertising, and taking money out of their pockets in exchange for false hope. Looking at you neuriva. If your blend actually works, test it, patent it, become billionaires (they won't because it doesn't).

And some being sold are just straight up harmful. You can hop on Amazon right now and buy 250 mg /pill vitamin b6 supplements. If they're reporting that accurately, that's a toxic dose that could be harmful to your health and even cause neuropathy (ironically many who take it are hoping it will help with neuropathy, but that's only true if you're deficient, and you don't need anywhere near that amount even if deficient).

He would likely do this by buying a bond. It would be substantial though, and even if he won the appeal the bond would like cost like $35 million or something he would never get back, and he needs to pay that before the appeal. It's all money being sapped away from the republican party at least.

Definition is somewhat vague still, the draft text is here:

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/student-loan-debt-relief-proposed-regulatory-text-section-30-91-hardship-session-4-v-1.pdf

Likely vague on purpose so the secretary of education can be flexible in setting the exact terms.

when the Secretary determines that a borrower has experienced or is experiencing hardship related to such a loan such that the hardship is likely to impair the borrower’s ability to fully repay the Federal government or the costs of enforcing the full amount of the debt are not justified by the expected benefits of continued collection of the entire debt.

There 17 different potential factors for hardship listed that could be considered, including "other."

It's called a discharge petition for anyone looking for more details.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition

But basically no filibuster in the house. Can force a vote on pretty much anything against the speaker's wishes if a majority is in favor. Might take up to a month though.

I don't know how they would have decided on this specific case, but I'm happy to see anyone standing up to the extreme extent the modern court has taken things with the second amendment. DC vs Heller, which started this nonsense not allowing basically any effective gun control legislation to stand, was a close decision, 5-4. The dissenting opinion was even written by a conservative registered republican, appointed by a republican president (John Paul Stevens, yes he was considered a conservative appointee, but looked more liberal over time as the court got more extreme around him): In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law."

Our current judicial extremism on gun rights is out of control. More recently a gun control law that had stood for a hundred years in New York was struck down. And yes it was 6-3 with all the liberal justices strongly dissenting. Our current interpretation of the second amendment is an extreme modernist interpretation twisted by people like the Federalist Society and NRA, with plenty of money from gun manufacturers and other interests flowing in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

Sorry Loving v Virginia, it didn't used to be widely understood that the equal protection clause would forbid inter racial marriage bans. After all, both white and black people are forbidden from marrying other races by those laws. There, equal. That's how it was historically understood, heck it was illegal in 16 states still at the time and widely disapproved of.

But this presumes origialism is some coherent philosophy in the first place, instead of an excuse for partisan hackery cherry picking by Heritage Foundation stooges to get the conclusion they want.

Count me in favor of packing the court, not like there's any integrity to jeopardize. More to lose by doing nothing while they continue to rampage.

The conservatives on the supreme court are crap historians and even worse judges.

Hard to say until it happens but it might be paving the way for that to happen, from the article:

"Such remediation could include actions from refreshing the assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense articles or, as appropriate, defense services," it says.

So the executive branch does have a lot of leeway in how it distributes foreign aid allocated by congress, but not unlimited. For instance when Trump unilaterally blocked allocated aid to Ukraine during his presidency, he likely violated the law and eventually did have to release the aid allocated by congress anyways.

Setting up regulations like this beforehand could be an attempt to create a legal basis to stand on later if aid is withheld to Israel or other countries.