|
Groovelord Neato posted:lmao Damnit, I wish I had seen that TikTok to get this fucker’s credit card number and order some poo poo. Just an absolute rock-hard, baked-in-the-sun piece of poo poo this guy is.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1542533150332653571
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:We're on track to take about a third of extant species with us, but what's a few tens of millions of years spent recovering biodiversity one way or another? Barely a mass extinction. Plus, after the worst one, we got dinosaurs. Who knows what cool poo poo will come after mammals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Leaping into an acidic mud pit so future paleontologists will consider me the defining specimen of mankind
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Leaping into an acidic mud pit so future paleontologists will consider me the defining specimen of mankind  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Leaping into an acidic mud pit so future paleontologists will consider me the defining specimen of mankind Our era's version of the two-dinosaurs-fighting fossil will be a Florida man loving an inflatable pool toy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Leaping into an acidic mud pit so future paleontologists will consider me the defining specimen of mankind There will be not future paleontologists. The Sol System will have two Venuses one day. We're #2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:There will be not future paleontologists. The Sol System will have two Venuses one day. We're #2. Sure there will. Some Ancient Aliens will return, look at the place and one of them will turn to another one and say, "Fine. They were idiots. You won the the bet. Here's your 5 Kreeblors. Next planet we'll go with the dolphins."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Well this is not good. I know they often wait until late June to deliver decisions but, nothing stopping them from delivering one immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:If they took this up for next session (guessing this means when they usually return from recess in October), that means this decision could happen soon enough to affect how the midterms are litigated, right? Realistically no, we are talking about cancelling Democracy in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:If they took this up for next session (guessing this means when they usually return from recess in October), that means this decision could happen soon enough to affect how the midterms are litigated, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Gorsuch finishing the job at the EPA that his mom started, I see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can do whatever the gently caress they want in setting rules for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. State governments are allowed to do whatever the people of their state will tolerate, but they're also allowed to control the degree of influence the people have over them, so electoral politics are a land of contrasts
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. Worse, state legislatures. The state courts can't review, and the theory implies (but I don't think there's a case yet for this) that Governors can't use otherwise present veto powers on election laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Is weed and all gonna be legal now? I thought all that stuff was delegated to the executive branch, like exactly what drugs are scheduled. Any hope on that one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Is weed and all gonna be legal now? I thought all that stuff was delegated to the executive branch, like exactly what drugs are scheduled. Any hope on that one? To quote Biden, "if that's what you want, go vote for the other guy."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Is weed and all gonna be legal now? I thought all that stuff was delegated to the executive branch, like exactly what drugs are scheduled. Any hope on that one? It is still federally illegal. The states are depending on the president not doing anything about it. After Trump won he basically looked at it, thought he might lose votes if he cracked down, and told the DOJ to continue to let the states do whatever they want with marijuana, but unless the law actually changes, a future president could shut down all the stores and dispensaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. The conservative legal theories around the administrative state are just as stupid and it's treated as valid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:It is still federally illegal. The states are depending on the president not doing anything about it. After Trump won he basically looked at it, thought he might lose votes if he cracked down, and told the DOJ to continue to let the states do whatever they want with marijuana, but unless the law actually changes, a future president could shut down all the stores and dispensaries. If it's delegated to the DEA or whatever (not sure), then why not challenge the constitutionality of the delegation with this recent decision as precedent? Not that internal consistency seems to be important, but probably worth a shot, right? Or is there an actual law explicitly specifying marijuana as scheduled?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. Eh, there's still oversight. Congress and the Vice President both have to certify the votes, and have the ability to discard electors they judge to be unfit. While the Electoral Count Act restricts the circumstances in which they're allowed to do that, the ECA is an Act of Congress rather than part of the Constitution, and can be changed or overturned by a simple majority in Congress. And if the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary are all okay with the electors, I'm not sure who the heck else we could possibly hope for oversight from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:If it's delegated to the DEA or whatever (not sure), then why not challenge the constitutionality of the delegation with this recent decision as precedent? Not that internal consistency seems to be important, but probably worth a shot, right? Or is there an actual law explicitly specifying marijuana as scheduled? The supreme court decision was actually very technical and procedural, did not touch Chevron defense, and actually did not do much of anything to the administrative state.... which was a surprise. It was basically through this very specific set of circumstances that doesn't get repeated often, the EPA in this case can't regulate CO2 using the method they chose, but they apparently could try to regulate it in other ways. It doesn't mean much outside that specific case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And if the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary are all okay with the electors, I'm not sure who the heck else we could possibly hope for oversight from. That's when you stop using the ballot box and start using one of the other boxes
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Eh, there's still oversight. Congress and the Vice President both have to certify the votes, and have the ability to discard electors they judge to be unfit. Well the VP doesn't have a meaningful role, and his decisions can be overruled by congress..... and not just any congress but the newly-elected congress who "wins" in 2024 under the future dreaded new SCOTUS-blessed calvinball rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Kentanji Brown Jackson has been officially sworn in as the newest justice.quote:Ketanji Brown Jackson marked a milestone in American representation on Thursday when she was sworn in as the first Black woman in history to sit on the nation's highest court -- officially taking on the title of justice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:If it's delegated to the DEA or whatever (not sure), then why not challenge the constitutionality of the delegation with this recent decision as precedent? Not that internal consistency seems to be important, but probably worth a shot, right? Or is there an actual law explicitly specifying marijuana as scheduled? A potential roadblock is the international treaties the US has signed (forced upon the rest of the world, depending on how you see it). It is still signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It has thus agreed to enact legislation to limit the “cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention," as well as "[i]ntentional participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connexion with the offences.” I’m uncertain about how this interacts with the Supreme Court and how it might interact with things like executive authority (c.f. the Paris Agreement). Does anyone know what would need to be done to withdraw from these treaties and who could do it? New UNODC report dropped btw https://twitter.com/unodc/status/1541428669473865729
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I can't believe that "States governments can set whatever loving rules they want for federal elections and there's not going to be any oversight" is being treated as a valid legal theory. Yet here we are. Also good example of how originalism is a sham. When the constitution says equal protection for all that doesn't include gay people because the original founders were homophobes and so were the authors of the 14th so ignore the actual wording of the law let's just imagine they must have meant to put "no homo" in there because sodomites have been punished for 200 years and we're not changing now But oh this bullshit legal theory invented less than a decade ago that upends what the constitution has meant for its entire history in favor of the doctrine that anywhere the term "legislature" is used the state legislature has absolute power and can't be vetoed or constrained by courts or even state constitutions, yeah sure fine no need to look into the founders' intent or history or tradition here
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Me, with a middle school Greek class under his belt: but what's so wrong with nation states? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Eh, there's still oversight. Congress and the Vice President both have to certify the votes, and have the ability to discard electors they judge to be unfit. So if Mike Pence had actually decided to accept alternate Trump electors in 2020, and Democrats objected under the Electoral Count Act but the Republican held senate voted to sustain, you'd consider Trump's reelection legitimate because hey the VP ruled and congress didn't overrule? I must be misunderstanding you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you serious Hey, you'd also have to get the supreme court on board, and they're just neutral arbiters of the law. No chance they'd vote party line to outright steal an election, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:23
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:If it's delegated to the DEA or whatever (not sure), then why not challenge the constitutionality of the delegation with this recent decision as precedent? Not that internal consistency seems to be important, but probably worth a shot, right? Or is there an actual law explicitly specifying marijuana as scheduled? The CSA's delegation of authority is very explicit. You'd have to sue over the specifics of how the delegation has been executed, and that's been tried many times.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:A potential roadblock is the international treaties the US has signed (forced upon the rest of the world, depending on how you see it). It is still signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It has thus agreed to enact legislation to limit the “cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention," as well as "[i]ntentional participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connexion with the offences.” Almost every treaty the US signs has a clause allowing the president to unilaterally withdraw after giving notice. Trump pulled us out of some nuclear weapon-related treaties for example. A required very long notice was the only thing keeping Trump from pulling us out of WHO when Biden rescinded his withdrawal notice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't believe this has happened, can you cite an example of "leftists" backing anti-choice candidates in primary elections against pro-choice opponents? Sorry, I didn't realize you meant within the party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court decision was actually very technical and procedural, did not touch Chevron defense, and actually did not do much of anything to the administrative state.... which was a surprise. It was basically through this very specific set of circumstances that doesn't get repeated often, the EPA in this case can't regulate CO2 using the method they chose, but they apparently could try to regulate it in other ways. No, that’s not what anyone in the field of environmental law is saying. While the holding was narrower than it could have been, the case effectively gives a tool to every Fed Soc district judge to strike down — or at least nationally enjoin for months — any regulations they don’t like. Major question is a completely subjective standard that gives plenty of leeway to judges, and is a huge change in doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Barely a mass extinction. Plus, after the worst one, we got dinosaurs. Who knows what cool poo poo will come after mammals? Most scientists theorize is going to be cockroaches that are probably the next thing, or some sort of insect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court decision was actually very technical and procedural, did not touch Chevron defense, and actually did not do much of anything to the administrative state.... which was a surprise. It was basically through this very specific set of circumstances that doesn't get repeated often, the EPA in this case can't regulate CO2 using the method they chose, but they apparently could try to regulate it in other ways. Yeah, it basically said they overstepped their authority by implmenting cap and trade, but they *probably* could regulate the pollution of power plants in other ways, for instance just setting maximum emission levels. From an environmental standpoint, cap and trade is pretty awful and a large portion of the carbon offsets used for it are areas that weren't threatened with destruction anyway. I think in California something like like 1/3 of the carbon credit providers over stated how much benefit they are providing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The supreme court decision was actually very technical and procedural, did not touch Chevron defense, and actually did not do much of anything to the administrative state.... which was a surprise. It was basically through this very specific set of circumstances that doesn't get repeated often, the EPA in this case can't regulate CO2 using the method they chose, but they apparently could try to regulate it in other ways. Sure it does. It means whenever SCOTUS doesn’t like what an agency is doing they can say the agency is dealing with a major question and look for very specific authorization from Congress, then not find that and torch the action. But it doesn’t matter it’s all Calvinball now anyway. https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1542520261953458177
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Cap and trade should always have been just cap and no trade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Almost every treaty the US signs has a clause allowing the president to unilaterally withdraw after giving notice. Trump pulled us out of some nuclear weapon-related treaties for example. A required very long notice was the only thing keeping Trump from pulling us out of WHO when Biden rescinded his withdrawal notice. I see, thanks. This is usually a good thing, as every time it happens it undermines international trust in the United States and its word. Most US allies have much stronger enforcement of cannabis law and are not pursuing cannabis legalization the way the US has — see Sweden, for example. As the self-appointed guardian of the rules-based international order, my view is that the US can ill afford to withdraw from these treaties without further damaging its already tarnished image (ratings of US reliability are up since 2021, FWIW: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-attitudes-toward-the-u-s-nato-and-russia-in-a-time-of-crisis/). Russia has called out the United States (having a hard time finding from all the Griner search results nowadays) and Canada before (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-condemns-canada-decision-legalize-weed-994690) and reminded it of its international commitments in this regard, so it would give further ammunition to their efforts to propagandize the rest of the world against the USA if legalization happened in the US. The UNODC is still focused very much on prevention from the report linked above, and calls out legalization for increasing problems in the report linked above, while highlighting the role of capital in these developments: quote:- Cannabis legalization appears to have accelerated the upwards trends in reported daily use of the drug, with a pronounced increase in reported frequent use of high-potency products among young adults. Relevant to cannabis and the Supreme Court specifically, I would say the courts have signaled last week that you shouldn’t count on it to fix the problems we all know (and presumably hate): https://www.marijuanamoment.net/u-s-supreme-court-denies-medical-marijuana-workers-compensation-cases/ quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a pair of cases concerning workers’ compensation for medical marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you serious Who said anything about legitimacy? When you've got state governments arguing with the federal government over who won the election, legitimacy kind of goes out the window regardless. It's not as if a judicial intervention (like Bush v Gore) is much better. I was responding to someone who thought there was no oversight other than the courts, and I pointed to the other potential oversight mechanisms that legally or semi-legally exist. Yes, the GOP could have potentially used these same routes to force Trump's reelection (and it's noteworthy that even they didn't dare to do so), but again, if the state legislature and all three branches of the federal government are in agreement on something, I don't know where you expect further oversight to come from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2022 20:08
|
|