|
davecrazy posted:What the gently caress does that even mean?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
davecrazy posted:What the gently caress does that even mean? When you lose a war, there's no-one to appeal the verdict to. It's sort of a much less poetic version of "war is the last argument of kings".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577880686282919937?s=46&t=0fIGJlmF2MKfl6RS3uMeFg so he plans to appeal his dumb purchase to the SC lmao how much you wanna bet they hear the case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:so he plans to appeal his dumb purchase to the SC lmao I'd be interested in your analysis of what basis the Court would have to assert jurisdiction over a Delaware state law contract dispute being heard in Delaware Chancery Court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'd be interested in your analysis of what basis the Court would have to assert jurisdiction over a Delaware state law contract dispute being heard in Delaware Chancery Court. The basis of "gently caress you we do what we want how we want and nobody will tell us otherwise" which this court has no qualms exercising. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The basis of "gently caress you we do what we want how we want and nobody will tell us otherwise" which this court has no qualms exercising. Name one case where the Supreme Court heard it without being one of the classes defined in Article III Section 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
Iamgoofball posted:so he plans to appeal his dumb purchase to the SC lmao No. He has recently become very concerned about nuclear war and controversially suggested that Ukraine just give Russia most of what they want. The backlash was very severe. Elon is probably still worried about nuclear war and has also been sulking about the bad reaction his suggestion got. This stupid tweet is probably somehow related to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No. He has recently become very concerned about nuclear war and controversially suggested that Ukraine just give Russia most of what they want. The backlash was very severe. Elon is probably still worried about nuclear war and has also been sulking about the bad reaction his suggestion got. This stupid tweet is probably somehow related to that. Unless he's proposing private military action if he goes to SCOTUS and loses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
The man does own icbms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No. He has recently become very concerned about nuclear war and controversially suggested that Ukraine just give Russia most of what they want. The backlash was very severe. Elon is probably still worried about nuclear war and has also been sulking about the bad reaction his suggestion got. This stupid tweet is probably somehow related to that. It's this. He got dumpstered on Twitter and is trying to change the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Unormal posted:The man does own icbms. Starship is considered viable for USSF Rocket Cargo which is spec'd as an 85 ton payload to anywhere on earth within 1 hour. That's one hell of a daisy cutter even if his payload is conventional!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Name one case where the Supreme Court heard it without being one of the classes defined in Article III Section 2. Espinoza?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 07:43
|
|
|
Are some of you new to Musk? There's no real meaning to what he tweeted he's a moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
I always figured it was kind of dunning kreuger thing. He thinks he's smart at business, so he *must* be smart at everything else. That or Russia told him they want to use SpaceX rockets, but the sanctions are stopping them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:What the gently caress does that even mean? "did u know that force exists?" *slams another spoonful of captain crunch cereal*
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Espinoza? Unless you’re thinking of a different case, that was a constitutional challenge on the basis of the US constitution, which is well within A3S2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Meatball posted:I always figured it was kind of dunning kreuger thing. He thinks he's smart at business, so he *must* be smart at everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:He’s not even that smart at business. At best, he’s lucky. Yeah I always hear, even from his detractors, that he has a level of genius but... where? He was born into wealth, got lucky with PayPal and now has immense wealth. SpaceX and Tesla have both produced really good products... but how much of that is Elon other than providing the capital? Sounds like he just has tons of money to hire the actual smart people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
Doesn't Musk have Asperger's? He definitely comes across like a guy who is not great at reading the room.Asperger's symptoms posted:Problems making or maintaining friendships
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Yeah I always hear, even from his detractors, that he has a level of genius but... where? They largely succeed despite Elon, not because of anything he brings to the table. Hell, a lot of why Tesla has such a deserved reputation for lousy QA is his meddling in production procedures and pushing unrealistic requirements on manufacturing, and I recall reading that everyone he worked with at Paypal regretted the experience. He's a rich dumbass who lucked into success due to superficial nerd enthusiasm for Science of the FutureTM! Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
The smartest thing Elon ever did was be born the son of an owner of a South African apartheid era emerald mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Doesn't Musk have Asperger's? He definitely comes across like a guy who is not great at reading the room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
i am arrogant and not very smart and I promise you that this is correct, he has me disease
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
I’m smarter than all you dumbasses but I’m not arrogant at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I have Asperger’s and I promise you that he is just arrogant and not very smart yeah, please, musk is the last person we want as the face of ASD. forget about him and watch a hannah gadsby
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:He’s not even that smart at business. At best, he’s lucky. His idea of "business" is "write a check to take ownership of something someone else made, then say he made it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
being raised by someone like musk's dad will gently caress you up enough, but then you add on top of that the thing that billionaires do whether they know it or not where their lives begin to curate around only those who appeal to you by gladhanding, nervous emotional accommodation, and straight up sycophantry even just a few years where people don't wanna talk over or correct you because they want to be cool with cool billionaire guy will gently caress you up unless you have a sufficiently self aware, humble, and protectively cynical nature, and the children of the super rich don't get this, they get "these are real people, these are clean my house and stay invisible people" we don't need to go hunting through the DSM for which type of neurodivergence it represents imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Unless you’re thinking of a different case, that was a constitutional challenge on the basis of the US constitution, which is well within A3S2. It was a case where a state supreme court interpreted state laws and the state constitution, a domain where SCOTUS traditionally has (and has even admitted it has) no jurisdiction. SCOTUS went "hey you know that 150 year old provision in your state constitution which is also duplicated in 3/4 of the constitutions of the other states? Even though this breaks our own past rulings, we just noticed actually it happens to violate the US Constitution based on our brand new interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Suck it." Seems to me that violates federalism even more than your case. I don't think IAmgoofball was saying SCOTUS will create a new cause of action out of whole cloth beyond what is specified in Article III (correct me if I'm wrong), just that it will use whatever flimsy 'constitutionality' pretext it feels like to hear whatever case it wants to intervene in, exactly like it did in Espinoza. But if you really want that for some reason, Marbury v. Madison? Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Oct 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:It was a case where a state supreme court interpreted state laws and the state constitution, a domain where SCOTUS traditionally has (and has even admitted it has) no jurisdiction. SCOTUS went "hey you know that 150 year old provision in your state constitution which is also duplicated in 3/4 of the constitutions of the other states? Even though this breaks our own past rulings, we just noticed actually it happens to violate the US Constitution based on our brand new interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Suck it." Seems to me that violates federalism even more than your case. The Montana court said "this doesn't violate our constitution nor does it violate the First Amendment." The plaintiffs appealed it to the Supreme Court claiming it violated the First Amendment. That's quite neatly a "case[] ... arising under this Constitution." SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to interpret a state law or constitution as applied within the state, but they have always had jurisdiction to examine whether those comply with the U.S. Constitution. And in the Espinoza case, the Court quite explicitly did not rule on the Montana constitutional provision, they just said the state law violates the Constitution. There's no jurisdictional problem there - the fact that it's a poo poo interpretation of the free exercise clause doesn't mean it falls outside of the ordinary run of cases where a state law or constitutional provision is challenged as violating the federal constitution. Musk's case lacks any remotely plausible connection to a Constitutional violation, even one the current court would consider plausible. (Marbury is an even weirder one to point to, since it was explicitly looking at a Congressional enactment for compliance with the US constitution. Which is a case "arising under ... the laws of the United States."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:They largely succeed despite Elon, not because of anything he brings to the table. Hell, a lot of why Tesla has such a deserved reputation for lousy QA is his meddling in production procedures and pushing unrealistic requirements on manufacturing, and I recall reading that everyone he worked with at Paypal regretted the experience. Yeah, Musk and his companies are basically the Chris Robert's Star Citizen of tech that actually exists, if only because a lot more money is involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Meatball posted:His idea of "business" is "write a check to take ownership of something someone else made, then say he made it". When we see him do a project that is ‘his’, it’s stupid poo poo like The Boring Company
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Are some of you new to Musk? There's no real meaning to what he tweeted he's a moron. This is true but bc hes the richest man alive we have to pretend his words have meaning bc his insane rambling might actually start a war or some bullshit. Its hosed up as hell, any non hellworld would have executed him by now
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Is it possible to put sanctions on Supreme Court Justices? If the US is putting sanctions on Iran over women killed for not wearing hijabs, and women’s rights are under consideration and the reason, why can’t you sanction the court justices that risk the lives of women here in the US and remain consistent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Is it possible to put sanctions on Supreme Court Justices? No. Not because they are supreme court justices, but because they are American citizens. There's all kinds of poo poo the government can do to foreigners, including economic sanctions for political activities against our stated national interest which we don't like, that are just not even options at all for citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Can drone strike US citizens anytime though, oddly enough
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
If Texas weren't a state we'd have sanctioned them over things like executing the mentally handicapped. I'd love to watch them succeed and the subsequent campaign for the liberation of the democracy-loving people of Texas (and their oil.)Staluigi posted:
We can say that he's a stupid rear end in a top hat with too much money, and leave it at that - it's honest and correct, and doesn't invite libel or slander because both statements are 1) true and 2) don't besmirch his reputation as a stupid rich rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Rigel posted:No. Not because they are supreme court justices, but because they are American citizens. There's all kinds of poo poo the government can do to foreigners, including economic sanctions for political activities against our stated national interest which we don't like, that are just not even options at all for citizens. Or more succinctly the f in OFAC means foreign
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
moths posted:If Texas weren't a state we'd have sanctioned them over things like executing the mentally handicapped. I'd love to watch them succeed and the subsequent campaign for the liberation of the democracy-loving people of Texas (and their oil.) 1) Did you post this in the thread / forum you meant to post it in? 2) Don't be horrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
moths posted:If Texas weren't a state we'd have sanctioned them over things like executing the mentally handicapped. I'd love to watch them succeed and the subsequent campaign for the liberation of the democracy-loving people of Texas (and their oil.) why can't we do that? the EU can... say strong words and maybe do something about the governments of Hungary and Poland, we should be able to do maybe something to Texas
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
VSOKUL girl posted:why can't we do that? the EU can... say strong words and maybe do something about the governments of Hungary and Poland, we should be able to do maybe something to Texas Republicans would bust a gasket and scream that they're singled out, then would identify a state that has similar problems, that's typically democrat run, to whataboutism and muddy the water. Anything that's put in place to stop it gets rescinded by the next Republican admin, and they start sanctioning blue states for bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 11:42
|
|