|
USPS tends to deliver on time with a higher degree of reliability than amazon, but amazon doesn't just go "lol sux, buy insurance" when you get an empty box with a hole cut in it in the mail. So let's keep the USPS but stop shielding them from their own fuckups, basically.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Deuce posted:The USPS is amazing at their job. You got duped by all the propaganda about how they’re in debt, didn’t you? That is also amazingly wasteful in terms of efficiency (due to needing to deliver to every single address every single day), which is why privatizing it would be amazingly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
I don't understand how a discussion of Amazon's business turned into a USPS comparison. It's like I asked about a car manufacturer and you all started talking about different blends of gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:The government has no business doing what Amazon does. They arn't providing any kind of essential public service that the government could do better. In fact, given how worthless the USPS is, quite the contrary. This would be the same USPS that Amazon (and even UPS and Fedex) rely on to deliver to areas they don't want to because it doesn't make them enough money, right? The USPS outperforms every private delivery service in the US but please continue your  idiocy while using Amazon's in house service that not only is worse than the USPS but uses independent contractors who don't even make a living wage in many cases. If you're going to make the (laughably bad) argument that everything works better privatized, you picked possibly the worst target.e: Unless you think rural people don't deserve to have mail delivered to them at non-extortionate rates and/or at much less frequency than the USPS provides while still being profitable despite the GOP actively trying to destroy it. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:I don't understand how a discussion of Amazon's business turned into a USPS comparison. It's like I asked about a car manufacturer and you all started talking about different blends of gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:And unions. And non profits. And... In Georgia at least, we've been arming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Deuce posted:The USPS is amazing at their job. You got duped by all the propaganda about how they’re in debt, didn’t you? More like the majority of large and/or fragile packages that I've had shipped via USPS over the years have arrived damaged, late, or both, whereas almost everything that Amazon has delivered was fine, and when it wasn't they bent over backwards to make it right. I had no idea the USPS was in debt. Drone Jett posted:I don't understand how a discussion of Amazon's business turned into a USPS comparison. It's like I asked about a car manufacturer and you all started talking about different blends of gasoline. Someone said the government should take over Amazon, because ???? Also you'd think that people would be a little leery about giving the government free reign over all of the transaction data that goes through Amazon every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Yeah imagine if the government had access to everyone's financial and tax informa... oh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
The government already sees it because that's how the bank secrecy act works
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:More like the majority of large and/or fragile packages that I've had shipped via USPS over the years have arrived damaged, late, or both, whereas almost everything that Amazon has delivered was fine, and when it wasn't they bent over backwards to make it right. I had no idea the USPS was in debt. almost everything i've had shipped from amazon recently went through usps  edit: i'm behind on this conversation overall whoops
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
I think amazon should take over the us government, in this freakonomics podcast I will
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I think amazon should take over the us government, in this freakonomics podcast I will https://twitter.com/byrosenberg/status/1099023247134187520?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
A district judge ruled male only draft to be unconstitutional. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5747780-190224-SELECTIVE-SERVICE-DECISION-Full.html Is this likely to head up to SCOTUS eventually like Rostker v. Goldberg?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
The draft is slavery/involuntary servitude and it should be unconstitutional for anyone to be drafted under the 13th amendment. (No I am not a constitutional lawyer, but gently caress the draft)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
My dad looks forward to demanding compensation for being drafted to fight in vietnam, if he lives long enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:A district judge ruled male only draft to be unconstitutional. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5747780-190224-SELECTIVE-SERVICE-DECISION-Full.html Almost certainly, but probably not until the circuit split happens. It meets the criteria - large government interaction with people, possibly for seriously different administration rules - if there's a split. But until then it doesn't matter since it's a little weird corner of the equal protection jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:The draft is slavery/involuntary servitude and it should be unconstitutional for anyone to be drafted under the 13th amendment. Butler v Perry 1916 quote:Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
The draft is one of those things where clearly there's a compelling government interest in having it in case things go pear shaped quickly. Like I dunno, an alien invasion or something that lasts long enough that we need the manpower for essential services. Or worst case scenario as some kind of backdoor public works program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
The idea that we need to keep a specific separate draft registry is a bit strange though. We've already got government databases of everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The draft is one of those things where clearly there's a compelling government interest in having it in case things go pear shaped quickly. Like I dunno, an alien invasion or something that lasts long enough that we need the manpower for essential services. Or worst case scenario as some kind of backdoor public works program. But then what's the justification for conscription for a situation where there's clearly no risk of "the destruction of the [government] by depriving it of essential powers" like, say, Vietnam? How do vague strategic interests rise to the level of "exceptional" circumstances? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Feb 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 01:43
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The idea that we need to keep a specific separate draft registry is a bit strange though. We've already got government databases of everyone. Keeping a separate registry is actually a bit useful because of that- there's some security and security against abuse merit in not parallelizing that info. AreWeDrunkYet posted:But then what's the justification for conscription for a situation where there's clearly no risk of "the destruction of the [government] by depriving it of essential powers" like, say, Vietnam? How do vague strategic interests rise to the level of "exceptional" circumstances? There are still potential situations where that can occur-they're just really, really unpleasant to think about.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
 Opinion! JIM YOVINO, FRESNO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS v. AILEEN RIZO Holding / Majority Opinion: The petition in this case presents the following question: May a federal court count the vote of a judge who dies before the decision is issued? A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt, died on March 29, 2018, but the Ninth Circuit counted his vote in cases decided after that date.* In the present case, Judge Reinhardt was listed as the author of an en banc decision issued on April 9, 2018, 11 days after he passed away. By counting Judge Reinhardt’s vote, the court deemed Judge Reinhardt’s opinion to be a majority opinion, which means that it constitutes a precedent that all future Ninth Circuit panels must follow. See United States v. Caperna, 251 F. 3d 827, 831, n. 2 (2001). Without Judge Reinhardt’s vote, the opinion attributed to him would have been approved by only 5 of the 10 members of the en banc panel who were still living when the decision was filed. Although the other five living judges concurred in the judgment, they did so for different reasons. The upshot is that Judge Reinhardt’s vote made a difference. Was that lawful? … When the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in this case, Judge Reinhardt was neither an active judge nor a senior judge. For that reason, by statute he was without power to participate in the en banc court’s decision at the time it was rendered. In addition to §46(c), §46(d) also shows that what the Ninth Circuit did here was unlawful. That provision states: “A majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute a court or panel thereof, as provided in paragraph (c), shall constitute a quorum.” … Because Judge Reinhardt was no longer a judge at the time when the en banc decision in this case was filed, the Ninth Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the majority. That practice effectively allowed a deceased judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States after his death. But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Lineup: Per Curiam. Sotomayor concurs in the judgment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-272_4hdj.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
What is in Sotomayor’s concurrence?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
I’d missed the good news about Reinhardt, but trying to illegally count the vote of a dead man was a fitting tribute to his body of work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What is in Sotomayor’s concurrence? Nothing, apparently. It is a per curiam opinion that only mentions that Sotomayor concurs at the end, but no concurring opinion. So, I guess its 8 judges signing off on the opinion, and Sotomayor only signs off on the judgment but not the text of the opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
I was curious to see if she had opinions about how they date opinions or some such. (Ie it’s be fine if you date your opinion on the day you sign it even if it’s before everyone else signs on or some such)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Nothing, apparently. It is a per curiam opinion that only mentions that Sotomayor concurs at the end, but no concurring opinion. Sotomayor is leaving open the possibility for RBG's zombie to participate in future decisions She joined in the judgment because the judge in question was dead, but not undead. From the opinion: quote:That practice effectively allowed a deceased judge to exercise the judicial power of the United Statesafter his death. But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity. As long as we can find and destroy Scalia's phylactery before he has time to reconstitute himself, I don't see this being a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
That opinion reads like garbage but I mean you can't really fault the conclusion, even if the guy had been involved with the case and heard arguments and decided before dying, his vote being counted while dead kind of forestalls a bunch of stuff that could happen to the decision afterwards even if it didn't in this case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That opinion reads like garbage but I mean you can't really fault the conclusion My money's on Gorsuch, but yes, I don't think you should have a dead judge being the deciding vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
I feel like it was a mistake on my part to not link this here earlier, in case people didn't know what the avatars were from. Supreme Courtship: Comedy, Adventure, JUSTICE! Order in the Court! This comedy visual novel puts YOU on the Supreme Court! Befriend the Justices, argue cases, and solve a mystery!          
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
I don't know which I hate more, this for existing, or you for bringing it to my attention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Why was that case something that even needed to be issued per curium?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Harik posted:I don't know which I hate more, this for existing, or you for bringing it to my attention. as far as i can tell you can't date the justices 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
I feel like it's extremely poor taste to include Clarence Thomas in a dating simulator, even if it is satirical. At least Kavanaugh isn't included.
Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Why was that case something that even needed to be issued per curium? They often do as a sort of “r u loving kidding me with this” to appellate courts - it’s an indication that the issue is so trivial that no one can be bothered to take individual credit for slapping down the nonsense at hand. Signed opinions count against your share for the year, no one wants to burn one on a few paragraphs telling the 9th circuit they are still disgraces to the judicial profession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
The 9th circuit tried to let dead people vote? This is my shocked face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
I can't imagine enjoying a game that has Ginsburg walking around wearing a spunky "Dissent" sweatshirt and reminding we live in a conservative hellscape the entire time
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 22:17
|
|
Stickman posted:I feel like it's extremely poor taste to include Clarence Thomas in a dating simulator, even if it is satirical. At least Kavanaugh isn't included. They have a question on their FAQ related to exactly this, and it's why Kavanaugh's not there.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
That's an impressive amount of careful thought and community discussion put into the issue - good on them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Opinion! NUTRACEUTICAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. TROY LAMBERT Holding / Majority Opinion: To take an immediate appeal from a federal district court’s order granting or denying class certification, a party must first seek permission from the relevant court of appeals “within 14 days after the order is entered.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f ). This case poses the question whether a court of appeals may forgive on equitable tolling grounds a failure to adhere to that deadline when the opposing party objects that the appeal was untimely. The applicable rules of procedure make clear that the answer is no. … On February 20, 2015, however, the District Court revisited that decision and ordered the class decertified. From that point, Lambert had 14 days to ask the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the order. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f ). Instead of filing a petition for permission to appeal, Lambert informed the District Court at a status conference on March 2 (10 days after the decertification order) that he would “want to file a motion for reconsideration” in the near future. The court told Lambert to file any such motion “no later than” March 12. Id., at 76. Neither Lambert nor the District Court mentioned the possibility of an appeal. Lambert filed his motion for reconsideration, in compliance with the District Court’s schedule, on March 12 (20 days after the decertification order). The District Court denied the motion on June 24, 2015. Fourteen days later, on July 8, Lambert petitioned the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the decertification order. Nutraceutical’s response argued that Lambert’s petition was untimely because more than four months had elapsed since the District Court’s February 20 order decertifying the class, far more than the 14 days that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows. Notwithstanding the petition’s apparent untimeliness, the Court of Appeals “deem[ed] Lambert’s petition timely” because, in its view, the Rule 23(f ) deadline should be “tolled” under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Rule 23(f)’s time limit is “non-jurisdictional, and that equitable remedies softening the deadline are therefore generally available.” … When Lambert filed his petition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f ) authorized courts of appeals to “permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification . . . if a petition for permission to appeal is filed . . . within 14 days after the order is entered.”2 The Court of Appeals held that Rule 23(f )’s time limitation is nonjurisdictional and thus, necessarily, subject to equitable tolling. While we agree that Rule 23(f ) is nonjurisdictional, we conclude that it is not subject to equitable tolling. … Whether a rule precludes equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional character but rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility. Where the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving. Courts may not disregard a properly raised procedural rule’s plain import any more than they may a statute’s. Here, the governing rules speak directly to the issue of Rule 23(f)’s flexibility and make clear that its deadline is not subject to equitable tolling. To begin with, Rule 23(f ) itself conditions the possibility of an appeal on the filing of a petition “within 14 days” of “an order granting or denying class-action certification.” Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(2) likewise says that a petition for permission to appeal “must be filed within the time specified.” To be sure, the simple fact that a deadline is phrased in an unqualified manner does not necessarily establish that tolling is unavailable. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 2 (allowing suspension of other Rules for “good cause”); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b) (similar); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 45(b) (similar); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(b) (similar). Here, however, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure single out Civil Rule 23(f ) for inflexible treatment. While Appellate Rule 2 authorizes a court of appeals for good cause to “suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case,” it does so with a conspicuous caveat: “except as otherwise provided in Rule 26(b).” Appellate Rule 26(b), which generally authorizes extensions of time, in turn includes this express carveout: A court of appeals “may not extend the time to file . . . a petition for permission to appeal.” Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b)(1). In other words, Appellate Rule 26(b) says that the deadline for the precise type of filing at issue here may not be extended. The Rules thus express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)’s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist. Precedent confirms this understanding….Because Rule 23(f ) is not amenable to equitable tolling, the Court of Appeals erred in accepting Lambert’s petition on those grounds. … Lambert devotes much of his merits brief to arguing the distinct question whether his Rule 23(f) petition was timely even without resort to tolling. First, he argues that, even if his motion for reconsideration was not filed within 14 days of the decertification order, it was filed within the time allowed (either by the Federal Rules or by the District Court at the March 2 hearing). The timeliness of that motion, Lambert contends, “cause[d] the time to appeal to run from the disposition of the reconsideration motion, not from the original order.”...The Court of Appeals did not rule on these alternative grounds, which are beyond the scope of the question presented. Mindful of our role, we will not offer the first word. If the Court of Appeals concludes that these arguments have been preserved, it can address them in the first instance on remand. The relevant Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure clearly foreclose the flexible tolling approach on which the Court of Appeals relied to deem Lambert’s petition timely. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Lineup: Sotomayor, unanimous. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1094_bq7d.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 16:20
|
|