The remedy is you release them.
This is the same question as "we illegally searched your house/car and found drugs". The faulty search voids the conviction and the person goes free, even if they were exactly the drug dealer the state accused them of being. Of course, in this case, virtually none of these people are being convicted of any crimes so there's really nothing to overturn and the state isn't going to release them because it's a fascist shit twinkie, so the real remedy is "try to survive until the next election".
Why? No one is ever going to cite this ruling. There's no citation required for "bullshit stinks". If someone wants to go to Court B and try a lawsuit without any of the things that a lawsuit requires, then you don't write a 69-page thesis on how they already got tossed from Court A for trying that.
Playing this game with them is giving them entirely too much deference.
Something feels off about courts taking more time and page space to rebut nonsense than is required to create it. I look forward to when the judicial response is just "LOL NO".
“C.I.A. is not the Library of Congress,” Ms. Sanner said with a laugh. “The intelligence community shouldn’t be your librarian.”
Mr. Sanner is a dumbass. The CIA World Factbook is a useful piece of information for the CIA, that also happens to be something for which there is no reason to classify it. It's just basic information about various countries in the world. Not secret stuff, just the basic surface level Random Country 101 every good intelligence officer dealing with a country should have memorized before doing any work related to it. So we bring ourselves to a question.
Is the CIA still creating and maintaining this information, but hiding it? If so, why? Nothing in the factbook was worth hiding. If it's not still creating and maintaining this information source internally, why not? Isn't that what a good Central Intelligence Agency should be doing?
And when they do, they’re going to discover that the employees they’re trying to recruit remember what happened.
The old, feeble, high-cost low-output ones will anyway. The bright-eyed kids rolling out of college and willing to burn the candle at both ends will have no idea. Same as it ever was.
"Context and situation matters"
Proceeds to make a false comparison with a totally different situation under a totally different context
There is a special badge that lets you barge into people's houses (with a warrant). There is no special badge that lets you be a journalist. Everyone can do that. Journalism doesn't allow you to break other laws, but that's not what's happening here. That is transparently not what is happening here. Everyone with at least one eyeball can see the government is punishing two journalists for covering something they don't like.
If you can find fault in any of the above, tell me what that would be in the comments.
Here's the major problem that will never be fixed no matter how many signatures you get: You can't legislate that a defunct company with no employees do software development. The end result isn't that games must be "left" in that state so much as they must "initially" be in that state before they can legally be sold because after that point, at virtually a moments notice, the developer can cease to be. Further, the penalties are absolutely toothless. You can't extract penalties from a defunct company.
So what is it going to be? Is there going to be a demand that games sold in Europe must conform to a set of rules before sale and then never release patches which may fundamentally alter the state of that already sold game? Or is there going to be some kind of financial "bond" that must be secured by the state to preemptively account for penalties which might be paid in the future if the developer at some point violates the rules before (or after) going out of business?
This is some prime grade "we must do something, this is something, ergo we must do this".
You want to know the really fucked up part of all of this? The whole operation in Minnesota has and continues to be wildly successful. Allow me to explain.
First off, Donald Trump is not a racist. I don't think he sincerely holds any actual belief that Minnesota is some sort of hotbed of illegal immigration in need of fixing (or that he holds any sincere beliefs at all really). What he does believe is that his supporters simply don't care what happens there (up to and including killing Minnesotans, even Minnesotan Americans), and most importantly it gets the latest crisis out of the news.
It doesn't matter to him that people are dying. People dying is great because that means the news cycle can't focus on Epstein stuff, which is apparently the only public news topic that he really truly seems to care deeply about. The real fucked up part is that he's killing Americans not in some hateful quest to stick it to non-white people, but simply to keep himself (or more likely someone quite close to him) from getting named in some at-least-ten-years-old smut.
And look. Lo and behold! It's working. Trump's administration continues (as it always has) to bleed people who thought they could ride the tiger but are now discovering they can't stomach this [insert crisis du jour], only to surely be replaced with ever more embarrassing seals who are eager to heil, er, clap on command. Same as it ever was. "He's losing support on immigration!" major newspapers trumpet, trying to find one statistic where Trump is sagging lower than he did last week, because they can't report that his net approval rating still stands at 37% without having moved in a statistically significant manner since September. Trump has lost no real support at all, because Joe MAGA Hat in bumfuck Tennessee doesn't care about white responsible licensed gun owning/carrying Americans (Mike, plz add Strikethrough) LiBeRaLs getting gunned down by masked goons on the other side of the country. The Epstein report that apparently doesn't even name Trump directly is still unreleased and the crisis over it has been all but forgotten.
Multiple people are dead and the Donald is sleeping happily at night. He's not even happy that they are dead. He doesn't even know who they are. He actually just doesn't even care.
If the rule that says you can bust down someone's door and bag them based is a big secret that you don't want to share with the class, what exactly is ICE's genius plan when they get sued? You, the officer, get put there on the stand and the judge asks you to point to the part of your training that says you were allowed to do what you did and you cannot. Your lawyer cannot. No one can, because it's secret (and also non-legally binding nonsense).
Maybe I'm smarter than the average ICE recruit but that seems like a giant liability and a guaranteed promise to throw individual officers under the bus when the whole thing is challenged in court.
You know what else is against the law? Raping a woman in a department store dressing room, but I guess when you do that you don't gotta go to jail.
It's about priorities.
If invading a country is what you do when you don't win the Nobel Peace Prize what do you do when you don't win the Economics Prize? Hyperinflation?
If he fails to win the physics prize is he going to do magic?
This is going to go the same place as those companies who promise they "won't do crunchtime" go. It's still there, but it's just not talked about or given another name.
"We don't use AI. We use Adaptive Gaming Enhancement Technologies and then we don't mention them to anyone."
That's some solid math, I can respect that. But why draw a random line in 1977? Seems rather arbitrary. There's variance in any given sample, and the fact that the 52 year period from 1921-1976 had 33 replacements, over twice as many, says that the variance can be quite severe.
I'll openly admit I did no work to come up with that number, but because facts are worth a lot more than opinions let's do some digging shall we?
According to this article from Harvard law school the average age of a federal judge is 69 years old. According to SSA actuarial tables, a typical 69 year old man is expected to live 14.76 more years while a 69 year old woman is expected to live 17.03 additional years. You can probably assume that federal judges, being reasonably wealthy people who can afford very nice healthcare, may live a little bit longer than the SSA average but it's a very safe bet that more than 1 in 20 federal judges is probably going to die or retire in any given year. In the United State's roughly 250 year history, there have been 121 SCOTUS appointments or roughly one every 0.48 years. The size of the court has varied from 6 to 9 justices until just after the Civil War. If we negate all the justices appointed by everyone before Grant (40), then that means 81 justices have been appointed to the 9-member court in 157 years, which is actually a 51% chance of judge replacement per year. Divided by 9 and times 100 gives us 5.73 judges per year, on average.
That is, of course, assuming a constant rate of death or retirement. Real life is not so neat and tidy so you can expect that in the natural course of human events, some years will have relatively few vacancies while some years have more than average. The average presidential term of four years would be replacing nearly 23 judges. It's not inconceivable that an exceptionally lucky president might end up replacing 35 or more.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think it really addresses the problem and you're getting at two different things (the quality of rulings in general and the current state of the court as a Trump doormat). Yes, the Supreme Court very much appears to have been captured, but by whom? Trump only personally nominated three of the justices. The other three conservatives were there before he ever ran for office. If his nomination powers are too strong, how would a 100-man SCOTUS fix the problem? Judges skew kinda old. A pool of 100 judges would probably have at least 5 dying every year, maybe as many as 10 or more though. It would turn the Senate into a 24/7 confirmation machine. If the Senate were to pass on this confirmation power it would just become a rubber stamp. Trump got extremely lucky (in many ways). If we assume he got similarly lucky under the new rules, this problem would still be here because he packed the 100-man SCOTUS with 30ish new appointees and would still have an inexplicable grip on the judiciary via all 21 or whatever other Reagan/Bush/Bush Jr appointments still ambling along.
As for quality of rulings, I don't see how 100 people are going to make better rulings than 9. Does our congress make better laws because it has so many people in it? I think the general purpose of the supreme court is to create consistent law (as opposed to "good" law) and for that purpose a small number of justices who don't rotate frequently is fantastic.
Of course, if the problem with SCOTUS is that all the judges have been corrupted then yes, trivially, it is harder to corrupt 51 judges than 5, but it's certainly not any less difficult to corrupt 51 judges than it is, say, 51 senators.
Whatever magic pixie dust Trump is using to mind control the right, I think it would work just as well however you rearrange the seats at the table.
The United States does not have a general federal police force. There are federal law enforcement groups, such as the FBI though, which can do things like carry out investigations and make arrests. What ICE is doing right now is very much a novel thing in America. Historically, they've been confined to doing law enforcement work around the border and at international airports. What's happening now is... something else, something unhinged from written law or established precedent. It's just people wearing things and doing stuff with no one to stop them.
The remedy is you release them. This is the same question as "we illegally searched your house/car and found drugs". The faulty search voids the conviction and the person goes free, even if they were exactly the drug dealer the state accused them of being. Of course, in this case, virtually none of these people are being convicted of any crimes so there's really nothing to overturn and the state isn't going to release them because it's a fascist shit twinkie, so the real remedy is "try to survive until the next election".
Why? No one is ever going to cite this ruling. There's no citation required for "bullshit stinks". If someone wants to go to Court B and try a lawsuit without any of the things that a lawsuit requires, then you don't write a 69-page thesis on how they already got tossed from Court A for trying that. Playing this game with them is giving them entirely too much deference.
Something feels off about courts taking more time and page space to rebut nonsense than is required to create it. I look forward to when the judicial response is just "LOL NO".
This Trump administration is working double time to find all the waste, fraud, and abuse it can... and get a cut for itself!
Oh. Strikethrough works now. It's not in the Markup. Boy do I feel silly now.
You want to know the really fucked up part of all of this? The whole operation in Minnesota has and continues to be wildly successful. Allow me to explain. First off, Donald Trump is not a racist. I don't think he sincerely holds any actual belief that Minnesota is some sort of hotbed of illegal immigration in need of fixing (or that he holds any sincere beliefs at all really). What he does believe is that his supporters simply don't care what happens there (up to and including killing Minnesotans, even Minnesotan Americans), and most importantly it gets the latest crisis out of the news. It doesn't matter to him that people are dying. People dying is great because that means the news cycle can't focus on Epstein stuff, which is apparently the only public news topic that he really truly seems to care deeply about. The real fucked up part is that he's killing Americans not in some hateful quest to stick it to non-white people, but simply to keep himself (or more likely someone quite close to him) from getting named in some at-least-ten-years-old smut. And look. Lo and behold! It's working. Trump's administration continues (as it always has) to bleed people who thought they could ride the tiger but are now discovering they can't stomach this [insert crisis du jour], only to surely be replaced with ever more embarrassing seals who are eager to heil, er, clap on command. Same as it ever was. "He's losing support on immigration!" major newspapers trumpet, trying to find one statistic where Trump is sagging lower than he did last week, because they can't report that his net approval rating still stands at 37% without having moved in a statistically significant manner since September. Trump has lost no real support at all, because Joe MAGA Hat in bumfuck Tennessee doesn't care about
white responsible licensed gun owning/carrying Americans(Mike, plz add Strikethrough) LiBeRaLs getting gunned down by masked goons on the other side of the country. The Epstein report that apparently doesn't even name Trump directly is still unreleased and the crisis over it has been all but forgotten. Multiple people are dead and the Donald is sleeping happily at night. He's not even happy that they are dead. He doesn't even know who they are. He actually just doesn't even care.Bold of you to assume Trump would give out amnesty to all those who served him blindly but have nothing left to offer.
If the rule that says you can bust down someone's door and bag them based is a big secret that you don't want to share with the class, what exactly is ICE's genius plan when they get sued? You, the officer, get put there on the stand and the judge asks you to point to the part of your training that says you were allowed to do what you did and you cannot. Your lawyer cannot. No one can, because it's secret (and also non-legally binding nonsense). Maybe I'm smarter than the average ICE recruit but that seems like a giant liability and a guaranteed promise to throw individual officers under the bus when the whole thing is challenged in court.
You know what else is against the law? Raping a woman in a department store dressing room, but I guess when you do that you don't gotta go to jail. It's about priorities.
If invading a country is what you do when you don't win the Nobel Peace Prize what do you do when you don't win the Economics Prize? Hyperinflation? If he fails to win the physics prize is he going to do magic?
This is going to go the same place as those companies who promise they "won't do crunchtime" go. It's still there, but it's just not talked about or given another name. "We don't use AI. We use Adaptive Gaming Enhancement Technologies and then we don't mention them to anyone."
That's some solid math, I can respect that. But why draw a random line in 1977? Seems rather arbitrary. There's variance in any given sample, and the fact that the 52 year period from 1921-1976 had 33 replacements, over twice as many, says that the variance can be quite severe.
I'll openly admit I did no work to come up with that number, but because facts are worth a lot more than opinions let's do some digging shall we? According to this article from Harvard law school the average age of a federal judge is 69 years old. According to SSA actuarial tables, a typical 69 year old man is expected to live 14.76 more years while a 69 year old woman is expected to live 17.03 additional years. You can probably assume that federal judges, being reasonably wealthy people who can afford very nice healthcare, may live a little bit longer than the SSA average but it's a very safe bet that more than 1 in 20 federal judges is probably going to die or retire in any given year. In the United State's roughly 250 year history, there have been 121 SCOTUS appointments or roughly one every 0.48 years. The size of the court has varied from 6 to 9 justices until just after the Civil War. If we negate all the justices appointed by everyone before Grant (40), then that means 81 justices have been appointed to the 9-member court in 157 years, which is actually a 51% chance of judge replacement per year. Divided by 9 and times 100 gives us 5.73 judges per year, on average. That is, of course, assuming a constant rate of death or retirement. Real life is not so neat and tidy so you can expect that in the natural course of human events, some years will have relatively few vacancies while some years have more than average. The average presidential term of four years would be replacing nearly 23 judges. It's not inconceivable that an exceptionally lucky president might end up replacing 35 or more.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think it really addresses the problem and you're getting at two different things (the quality of rulings in general and the current state of the court as a Trump doormat). Yes, the Supreme Court very much appears to have been captured, but by whom? Trump only personally nominated three of the justices. The other three conservatives were there before he ever ran for office. If his nomination powers are too strong, how would a 100-man SCOTUS fix the problem? Judges skew kinda old. A pool of 100 judges would probably have at least 5 dying every year, maybe as many as 10 or more though. It would turn the Senate into a 24/7 confirmation machine. If the Senate were to pass on this confirmation power it would just become a rubber stamp. Trump got extremely lucky (in many ways). If we assume he got similarly lucky under the new rules, this problem would still be here because he packed the 100-man SCOTUS with 30ish new appointees and would still have an inexplicable grip on the judiciary via all 21 or whatever other Reagan/Bush/Bush Jr appointments still ambling along. As for quality of rulings, I don't see how 100 people are going to make better rulings than 9. Does our congress make better laws because it has so many people in it? I think the general purpose of the supreme court is to create consistent law (as opposed to "good" law) and for that purpose a small number of justices who don't rotate frequently is fantastic. Of course, if the problem with SCOTUS is that all the judges have been corrupted then yes, trivially, it is harder to corrupt 51 judges than 5, but it's certainly not any less difficult to corrupt 51 judges than it is, say, 51 senators. Whatever magic pixie dust Trump is using to mind control the right, I think it would work just as well however you rearrange the seats at the table.
The United States does not have a general federal police force. There are federal law enforcement groups, such as the FBI though, which can do things like carry out investigations and make arrests. What ICE is doing right now is very much a novel thing in America. Historically, they've been confined to doing law enforcement work around the border and at international airports. What's happening now is... something else, something unhinged from written law or established precedent. It's just people wearing things and doing stuff with no one to stop them.