dudinax @ dudinax @programming.dev

Posts

7

Comments

969

Joined

2 yr. ago

Is it as hard to prove someone intentionally damaged there car as it is to prove someone wasn't raped? If so, then yes, insurance companies are covering for intentional damage.

A better fit for your example if is the rules change so that insurance companies only paid out if the other driver intentionally rammed into you. If it was an accident all around they don't pay out. How would you enforce such a rule? You couldn't.

How do you prove sex is consensual when you can't even demonstrate which sex act caused the pregnancy?

Buttigieg is quite ambitious

Just a reminder that the only sensible way to determine if a pregnancy was caused by rape is to ask the woman.

If you're pro-rape-exception, you're pro choice.

Even Putin was embarrassed. Heck, even the U.S. press was uncomfortable.

She needs better than +2% (typically) to beat the EC bias.

and may have unchecked health problems.

That part's for sure. They were just some farm dogs.

Whoever Harris picks for veep, I'd like to see an ad of them saying "I believe JD Vance when he says he never had sex with his couch."

A church to what?

Got my dog for $30 bucks out of the back of a truck in a grocery store parking lot.

I see maintained serenity in the face of loss.

Whether some populations breed true "in the wild" defines species. In the real world this is seriously muddy, but that's beside the point.

Since the Republicans on the FEC refuse to vote for any investigation into Donny, the Democrats shouldn't feel any compunction about quashing this.

Neanderthals weren't a distinct species otherwise we couldn't have interbred with them.

The court simply didn’t have anything enabling them to delegate their powers in the Chevron case.

They made up presidential immunity a few days later, then gave themselves control over it.

The court has a long tradition of deferring to the elected branches on matters of policy. This is based on the principal that voters should have a say. If a rule is reasonable under existing law, then changing it is properly the work of the legislature.

And I guess per our infallible supreme court he can donate in complete secrecy if he wants to.

Biden won the nomination because he kicked butt in the South so bad everybody else dropped out.

He always was kind of a weak candidate, but he won, and more importantly he made his win stick during the whole run up to the coup and after. He wasn't in the news much then, but that took a cool head.

to adapt language beyond it’s original meaning

If the executive's rules leading to Loper Bright were not reasonable, the court wouldn't have had a reason to overturn Chevron in order to decide against it.

Edit: the fact that court first wisely delegated the power to set regulatory rules doesn't change the fact that they unwisely took it back.

There's at least a possibility of the executive having enough expertise to regulate reasonably. The courts don't have the resources, but they've grabbed that power to themselves.

SCOTUS now rules whatever they want. Lower courts are getting the message.

This all feels a bit like the revenge of the Nixon team.