Even if you think the court is a terrible partisan pro-trump rag, there's no reason to support trump out of office.
At the very least there's a chance that the court will simply refuse to hear a case concerning trump, leaving it to lower courts to determine the limits of presidential authority.
At the very least there's a chance that the court will simply refuse to hear a case concerning trump, leaving it to lower courts to determine the limits of presidential authority.
November 7, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Even if you think the court is a terrible partisan pro-trump rag, there's no reason to support trump out of office.
At the very least there's a chance that the court will simply refuse to hear a case concerning trump, leaving it to lower courts to determine the limits of presidential authority.
At the very least there's a chance that the court will simply refuse to hear a case concerning trump, leaving it to lower courts to determine the limits of presidential authority.
I dont agree. I'm pretty much in agreement with Greenfield's argument that the court ruled the only way that was feasible and pragmatic.
This court has also been pretty neutral of trump barring two exceptions: anything relating to unitary executive theory and its overuse of emergency dockets
This court has also been pretty neutral of trump barring two exceptions: anything relating to unitary executive theory and its overuse of emergency dockets
November 7, 2025 at 2:55 PM
I dont agree. I'm pretty much in agreement with Greenfield's argument that the court ruled the only way that was feasible and pragmatic.
This court has also been pretty neutral of trump barring two exceptions: anything relating to unitary executive theory and its overuse of emergency dockets
This court has also been pretty neutral of trump barring two exceptions: anything relating to unitary executive theory and its overuse of emergency dockets
Well, he only enjoys the presumption of immunity for official acts. Immunity can still be pierced if it can be shown as not within his powers.
As for what, the test is still new and untested, so trump would be the perfect person to test the boundaries of what is considered an "official act".
As for what, the test is still new and untested, so trump would be the perfect person to test the boundaries of what is considered an "official act".
November 7, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Well, he only enjoys the presumption of immunity for official acts. Immunity can still be pierced if it can be shown as not within his powers.
As for what, the test is still new and untested, so trump would be the perfect person to test the boundaries of what is considered an "official act".
As for what, the test is still new and untested, so trump would be the perfect person to test the boundaries of what is considered an "official act".
"And don't write sour software. If your software doesnt taste like umami, I'm gonna fire your ass."
November 4, 2025 at 10:54 PM
"And don't write sour software. If your software doesnt taste like umami, I'm gonna fire your ass."
Okay let's split the difference its (3 stars) + (1star×1/2) = 3 and a half stars.
October 31, 2025 at 7:53 AM
Okay let's split the difference its (3 stars) + (1star×1/2) = 3 and a half stars.
120/4 =30 so quarter price.
October 30, 2025 at 9:30 PM
120/4 =30 so quarter price.
You're the one giving Cure a (4 star)×1/2 = 2 star rating.
People have a right to be upset.
People have a right to be upset.
October 30, 2025 at 9:26 PM
You're the one giving Cure a (4 star)×1/2 = 2 star rating.
People have a right to be upset.
People have a right to be upset.
Mid-20s? AFAIK you were writing The Misadventures of a Jilted Journalist (excellent for a first publishing btw) and praising Hunter S. Thompson online in your mid-20s.
The idea of you writing MoaJJ while religiously watching Glenn Beck is a hilariously contradictory image.
The idea of you writing MoaJJ while religiously watching Glenn Beck is a hilariously contradictory image.
October 30, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Mid-20s? AFAIK you were writing The Misadventures of a Jilted Journalist (excellent for a first publishing btw) and praising Hunter S. Thompson online in your mid-20s.
The idea of you writing MoaJJ while religiously watching Glenn Beck is a hilariously contradictory image.
The idea of you writing MoaJJ while religiously watching Glenn Beck is a hilariously contradictory image.
Hey you're that guy that was working undercover at floating point headquarters for the integer crew.
You are the one who abbreviated measuring floating point performance as "Flops". The most blatant successful attempt at corporate sabotage.
You are the one who abbreviated measuring floating point performance as "Flops". The most blatant successful attempt at corporate sabotage.
October 18, 2025 at 11:15 AM
Hey you're that guy that was working undercover at floating point headquarters for the integer crew.
You are the one who abbreviated measuring floating point performance as "Flops". The most blatant successful attempt at corporate sabotage.
You are the one who abbreviated measuring floating point performance as "Flops". The most blatant successful attempt at corporate sabotage.
Doing this while staring and winking at the only big booty co-worker in the conference room.
October 17, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Doing this while staring and winking at the only big booty co-worker in the conference room.
More callous than vile. Seems the commentary is aimed at pinknews, aside from the he/she change.
If an underage teenager commits suicide because he can't wait for reconstruction surgery, that was due to issues other than the surgery itself. Something the parents or the health system failed to see.
If an underage teenager commits suicide because he can't wait for reconstruction surgery, that was due to issues other than the surgery itself. Something the parents or the health system failed to see.
October 12, 2025 at 6:25 PM
More callous than vile. Seems the commentary is aimed at pinknews, aside from the he/she change.
If an underage teenager commits suicide because he can't wait for reconstruction surgery, that was due to issues other than the surgery itself. Something the parents or the health system failed to see.
If an underage teenager commits suicide because he can't wait for reconstruction surgery, that was due to issues other than the surgery itself. Something the parents or the health system failed to see.
When McCulloch v. Maryland happened, it wasn't just about the constitutionality of taxes. It ended up permanently gutting state power and establishing a clear hierarchy.
SCOTUS is at risk of political retaliation because SCOTUS, unlike the french council, has a lot of power over every branch.
SCOTUS is at risk of political retaliation because SCOTUS, unlike the french council, has a lot of power over every branch.
October 10, 2025 at 2:09 AM
When McCulloch v. Maryland happened, it wasn't just about the constitutionality of taxes. It ended up permanently gutting state power and establishing a clear hierarchy.
SCOTUS is at risk of political retaliation because SCOTUS, unlike the french council, has a lot of power over every branch.
SCOTUS is at risk of political retaliation because SCOTUS, unlike the french council, has a lot of power over every branch.
SCOTUS has a much broader power to create constitutinal standards from whole cloth.
If a case ends with SCOTUS ruling that the President doesnt have presidential immunity in a vast majority of cases, its not just a law being struck down, its the entire presidential authority being gutted.
If a case ends with SCOTUS ruling that the President doesnt have presidential immunity in a vast majority of cases, its not just a law being struck down, its the entire presidential authority being gutted.
October 10, 2025 at 2:00 AM
SCOTUS has a much broader power to create constitutinal standards from whole cloth.
If a case ends with SCOTUS ruling that the President doesnt have presidential immunity in a vast majority of cases, its not just a law being struck down, its the entire presidential authority being gutted.
If a case ends with SCOTUS ruling that the President doesnt have presidential immunity in a vast majority of cases, its not just a law being struck down, its the entire presidential authority being gutted.
to be considered unprotected. This new standard applies to everything.
"This law is unconstitutional" ruling is limited power given to the french constitutional council. The lawmakers might balk at it, but it's a rule on the constitutionality of a single law, and doesnt have downstream effects
"This law is unconstitutional" ruling is limited power given to the french constitutional council. The lawmakers might balk at it, but it's a rule on the constitutionality of a single law, and doesnt have downstream effects
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 AM
to be considered unprotected. This new standard applies to everything.
"This law is unconstitutional" ruling is limited power given to the french constitutional council. The lawmakers might balk at it, but it's a rule on the constitutionality of a single law, and doesnt have downstream effects
"This law is unconstitutional" ruling is limited power given to the french constitutional council. The lawmakers might balk at it, but it's a rule on the constitutionality of a single law, and doesnt have downstream effects
That's the thing. The French court has limited ruling power based on french constitution and signed documents and mostly relates to a given law.
Ex: When SCOTUS ruled Brandenburg v. Ohio, it didn't just strike down Ohio law, it created a standard of imminent incitement that must be met for speech..
Ex: When SCOTUS ruled Brandenburg v. Ohio, it didn't just strike down Ohio law, it created a standard of imminent incitement that must be met for speech..
October 10, 2025 at 1:49 AM
That's the thing. The French court has limited ruling power based on french constitution and signed documents and mostly relates to a given law.
Ex: When SCOTUS ruled Brandenburg v. Ohio, it didn't just strike down Ohio law, it created a standard of imminent incitement that must be met for speech..
Ex: When SCOTUS ruled Brandenburg v. Ohio, it didn't just strike down Ohio law, it created a standard of imminent incitement that must be met for speech..
Okay? Why is it better? I don't understand why you think more predictability is better. If the predictability doesnt help the partisanship issue of the supreme court, why is it better?
And is it better enough to justify the cost of political retaliation risks on the justices?
And is it better enough to justify the cost of political retaliation risks on the justices?
October 10, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Okay? Why is it better? I don't understand why you think more predictability is better. If the predictability doesnt help the partisanship issue of the supreme court, why is it better?
And is it better enough to justify the cost of political retaliation risks on the justices?
And is it better enough to justify the cost of political retaliation risks on the justices?
We might know when a judge retires, but we don't know who's going to be in power to appoint the next justice, so it's a moot point.
If we know Roberts is retiring in 10 years, how does that help. If RBG was forced to retire during the Bush administration, how would that have helped?
If we know Roberts is retiring in 10 years, how does that help. If RBG was forced to retire during the Bush administration, how would that have helped?
October 10, 2025 at 12:30 AM
We might know when a judge retires, but we don't know who's going to be in power to appoint the next justice, so it's a moot point.
If we know Roberts is retiring in 10 years, how does that help. If RBG was forced to retire during the Bush administration, how would that have helped?
If we know Roberts is retiring in 10 years, how does that help. If RBG was forced to retire during the Bush administration, how would that have helped?
How does it make the system predictable if we know that one judge is retiring in 2029 and the other in 2037? Both of these could still be republican victories during election season, which could lead to even more conservative justices. Its not predictable because you can't predict elections
October 10, 2025 at 12:27 AM
How does it make the system predictable if we know that one judge is retiring in 2029 and the other in 2037? Both of these could still be republican victories during election season, which could lead to even more conservative justices. Its not predictable because you can't predict elections
"Why don't courts with no power have big scandals?" The answer is obvious. Its because the courts only exist to rule on law and not designed as a check and balance system against the other branches of government.
October 10, 2025 at 12:21 AM
"Why don't courts with no power have big scandals?" The answer is obvious. Its because the courts only exist to rule on law and not designed as a check and balance system against the other branches of government.
SCOTUS is unique in its ability to strike down laws from congress based on constitutionality. This makes it powerful, and sometimes controversial.
Compared to that France and Germany courts don't even have the power to use precedence for their rulings. They are beholden to the lawmakers completely.
Compared to that France and Germany courts don't even have the power to use precedence for their rulings. They are beholden to the lawmakers completely.
October 10, 2025 at 12:18 AM
SCOTUS is unique in its ability to strike down laws from congress based on constitutionality. This makes it powerful, and sometimes controversial.
Compared to that France and Germany courts don't even have the power to use precedence for their rulings. They are beholden to the lawmakers completely.
Compared to that France and Germany courts don't even have the power to use precedence for their rulings. They are beholden to the lawmakers completely.
France, Germany and Japan all use the civil law system, and certainly don't have courts to rule on constitutionality as their highest function, which gives their supreme courts fundamentally different capabilities and a lot less power.
October 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
France, Germany and Japan all use the civil law system, and certainly don't have courts to rule on constitutionality as their highest function, which gives their supreme courts fundamentally different capabilities and a lot less power.
But the bigger issue is that forced retirement solves nothing. Mental competence does not decline at a specific age. The SC is immune to current political climate by design, and the problem of "imbalanced courts" is not at all solved by forced retirement because it turns that into roulette.
October 10, 2025 at 12:10 AM
But the bigger issue is that forced retirement solves nothing. Mental competence does not decline at a specific age. The SC is immune to current political climate by design, and the problem of "imbalanced courts" is not at all solved by forced retirement because it turns that into roulette.
Of course if KBJ turned senile, the impeachment process for SC justices still exists. If she's no longer capable of working as a justice, she can be removed. But forced retirement ages solve nothing.
October 10, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Of course if KBJ turned senile, the impeachment process for SC justices still exists. If she's no longer capable of working as a justice, she can be removed. But forced retirement ages solve nothing.