unmagical @ unmagical @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

491

Joined

2 yr. ago

So let's keep making phones thinner and thinner while simultaneously growing the camera bump instead of making a flat profile with, say, 2 days of life!

Can't tell if the spelling misstakes are engagement bait or just a sad irony.

There are a few ways to reform the court without a Constitutional amendment:

• Increase the number of justices on the bench. The Constitution sets no limit or requirement for the number of seats, only the process by which they are filled. Nomination comes from POTUS and will need to be "consented" to by the Senate. The number of seats has changed in the past and will change again, just a matter of when and who stuffs the court.
• Establish bounds of "good Behavior" and define means of removal. The Constitution isn't very cut and dry on the removal process of Justices (with impeachment being reserved for the "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers" the latter group being left undefined), but it does say that the Judges shall "hold their Offices during good Behavior." Historically impeachment has been the process chosen for removal of Judges, but discussion about Congress' role in defining "good Behavior" and the means for removal have persisted even into the late 1900s. It is entirely feasible that Congress imposes a code of conduct and simple majority review to remove those found in violation. That code of conduct doesn't just have to be about taking free vacations, either. It could assess the quality of judgement and find that if you clearly ignored the facts of a case to push your own narrative (such as with KENNEDY v. BREMERTON) you're in violation.
• Establish a term limit for the Supreme Court and rotate Justices into lower courts when that limit is reached. This one is probably the longest shot as it would depend on whether or not a Justice's "Office" is literally the Supreme Court or the federal Judicial system as a whole and that interpretation would almost definitely be seized by SCOTUS if Congress even attempted this. But, so long as Congress and the Executive are in agreement on the specific interpretation, SCOTUS' opinion here can be suppressed. Worth noting, however, that that is very rarely how the US operates.
• Remove Judicial Review. The idea that the courts have the sole authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress is not found in the Constitution itself, but was manifested by the same court that benefits from granting itself that power. It's the executive branch's job to enforce the law and both Congress and POTUS are elected to represent the people. SCOTUS's job is to resolve conflicts involving the States and those who work with them, they are not accountable to anyone and are not elected. A new law ceding the ability to review constitutionality to some other branch would reset SCOTUS' job to the original intent (a move which I'm sure the 6 textual literalists will gladly embrace).
• Tailor bills to undo recent catastrophic rulings. Congress makes laws. They can make laws that close "loopholes" or perceived ambiguities that SCOTUS uses to derive their rulings. Congress can (and should) undo presidential immunity, Dobbs, judicial review of government agencies' actions, etc.

These will all take work to achieve, and are very unlikely to even be tried, but because they all address shortcomings manifest outside of the Constitution they can all be implemented without amendment to the Constitution.

He was the subject of the case at hand.

Why did you post a 3 year old expired draft whose proposed implementation has been obsoleted?

Sounds like some healthy competition the caps are always on about

This is a literal plot point of Stargate.

Higher dimensional beings exist in a state manifest to us as differing realities. Which "reality" we see is partially dependent upon the difference in locations of the portals we take to the pocket.

There is only one Waffle House with doors around the world.

JFK's head just did that on its own.

So hit them hard and hit them fast, cause you're your only hope.

The message is being conveyed indirectly, the person said; the U.S. doesn’t engage Hezbollah one-on-one because it is a designated terrorist organization, and it relies on public communications or intermediaries.

🤨

“We think there ought to be a diplomatic resolution to the conflict across the Israel-Lebanon border that is keeping tens of thousands of families on each side of the border from returning to their homes,” Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson, told reporters Monday.

Then maybe you should...talk to them?

Regardless of whether or not the parents were around the ability for a body to be forcibly pulled into the machinery is an obvious failure in operating a safe pool.

Why would robots make robots in child form?

Are we sure it's not Biden that turned against them?

SCOTUS nominations are probably the only thing gonna make me actually vote for Biden. He's done some stuff that was good, sure, but no where near what I would have liked to see him accomplish, and his approach to the ongoing genocide is inexcusable, but I can't let that mean I help Trump decide the court layouts for the rest of my life by staying home.

By allowing more people access to your games, more people have access to your games to purchase ... with money ... that goes to you and helps your business's bottom line.

The account really reads like he lept to using his gun as a first resort instead of the last. When all you have is a hammer...

Also, in a country filled with those who pride themselves on the right to own guns and on their actual ownership of guns I'm still surprised that people view other people having guns as a justification to kill them.

Police kill someone in a routine traffic stop? It's okay, he had a gun.

Random citizen kills another random citizen? It's okay, he had a gun.

A terrifically hard audience to serve given the variety of incompatible configurations.

If your game doesn't work with my fully functional operating system (while others do), isn't it literally your game that's "incompatible?"

Grab 5 of the top engineers, sales people, and marketing at the company, double their pay, and grant them a $1,000,000,000 bonus in 5 years time if they beat certain performance metrics. Have them sit on a board as coCEOs and watch true motivation. Kick out the guy that's demanding 3 times your annual income as "motivational" compensation.

I didn't realize I had a constitutional right to commit fraud.