There are confirmation hearings and supposed investigations before these judges were appointed. Whoever did the investigation failed and should be fired as well as their bosses.
I’m sure that pretty much no Google employee is happy with this. But it’s the classic “I don’t want to lose my place near the top of the industry which I’ve spend my entire life getting to, so I can’t criticize my employer or the direction the industry is going in any way.” Self policing and going along with whatever the man decides so you don’t lose your job and means of supporting yourself and your family. Same with a lot of the people working on the Web Integrity thing I imagine.
There are a lot of different places in the industry where these Google developers could work. I am employed by a company where developers have flexible schedules, no overtime work (except in unusual circumstances), and three days a week of work-from-home. The catch is that my company pays a lot less than Google does - still enough for an upper-middle-class lifestyle, but less. So our developers tend to be people who have children and want to spend more time with their families, and they’re willing to take a pay cut to do that. For the sort of person who has the option of working at Google, “supporting your family” means working less, not more.
Google’s developers are people who prefer higher pay and/or a more fast-paced environment. They might not like this policy, but they don’t want to leave. They could if they wanted to.
“what it is today” a tax-evading, weapons-manufacturing, privacy-invading, wannabe monopoly, that’s continually fucking up their core products and radicalizing people into the far right for profit?
ya gotta agree at least significant parts of those workers’ brains are dead
If your mom goes to the restaurant that you work at and you charge her a medium for large fries. That is the level of corruption I am ok with. You are allowed to super size the person who brought you into existence fries for free.
Now let me know if you have any more difficult questions I can sort out for you.
At one point, republicans need to show proof or shut the fuck up. They’ve been talking about the stupid laptop for years to eventually admit they have dogshit. They claim to have dirt on Hunter Biden but never back it up.
It is clearly a diversion tactic as usual.
If they do have dirt on him, throw the book at Hunter/Joe Biden. Until then, shut the fuck up.
He just got offered basically a free pass for a felony of possessing a gun as a prior drug user. Something the average citizen would be sitting in prison for a minimum 10 year sentence for.
That’s sounds like a REAL big order or free French fries.
PS I’m not a republican, I’m just calling out the obvious corruption of that dirt bag getting a pass.
Every gun owner that legally uses weed in a weed-legal state commits the same felony by lying on that same form, when purchasing a firearm. It’s pretty common to not prosecute this felony.
Whataboutism implies that you are using that actions of person A to justify person B. It is not when you point out condemnation of person B for the same actions as person A but person A is not condemned.
If it stays in the media, hopefully he will become a pariah. Roberts still holds on to this idea that his court should be seen as legitimate and respected, and Thomas is undermining that more than anyone.
Back when I took psychology. Gender and sexuality were a small snippet of the course.
You didn’t really cover those topics till human sexuality.
I have taught basic psychology for over ten years and it was something I never covered. Wonder when they started to add it. Basic psychology was more focused on well, basic topics. Theory, history, etc.
AP curricula are standardized, every high school AP psych class covers the exact same material and has the same test. On the other hand, intro college classes, like the one you taught, can vary from school to school or even between professors. The AP psych curriculum including a couple more subjects than you include in your curriculum certainly doesn’t meet any definition of “radically different.”
I think the point is that usually there is a gaggle of hangers on, that think they can avoid being thrown under the bus. That group is shrinking.
Supporters are still supporters, but less inclined to make an effort to support. It’s a sign of waning power as the emperor’s new clothes are indeed missing.
Well, Rudy had a number of embarrassing moments in public that I think caused Trump to lose any respect he might have had for the former mayor. Two that I can think of, the hair dye sweating down his face and the fart picked up on mic in a courtroom.
But his worst offense, in terms of how Trump views people: he lost. He’s a loser.
Can confirm, they are laughed at in law schools. They clique up. None of the actual smart kids like them. The smartest federalist society members are just smart enough to be dangerous. Mostly religious types. Not very diverse.
They basically believe that the law can only be understood in the original sense that it was written in, yes? Instead of the law being living it is dead.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dictionary is, a snapshot of a language in time. The meaning of words change over time. “Nice” used to mean stupid in English.
They believe they can divine the intentions of the dead, that they hear the voices of dead people, and can know what they mean.
They also believe that from the writings of a collective, enacted in the form of statutes, they can discern a single, unified intention. This is of course completely ridiculous, but to hear them tell it, they figured out a way to interpret law “objectively,” which is also of course ridiculous.
Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn’t that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?
If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can’t claim it could be ambiguous. If you can’t claim it is ambiguous then you can’t worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can’t be applied.
You’re looking for logical consistency where there isn’t any. It’s all made up.
There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.
Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it’s the legislature’s job to fix the statute, not the court’s. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.
The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.
Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.
But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.
At this point an indictment of Trump in the US has reached the same level as mass shootings and our dying planet. Which indictment, mass shooting or catastrophic environmental disaster are we talking about? I’m numb and have lost track amongst the desperate hopes for change.
This is definitely some of it. Although being in DC probably also helps to tone things down. DC is a pretty blue town outside of the federal buildings.
What i find interesting is that somehow in developing countries justice was slow but eventually it arrived. I can think of places like Peru with Fujimori. Presidents got away for a while but eventually their own justice systems made them pay. I would be surprised if somehow justice didn’t prevail in this situation with Trump.
Justice has to prevail on some level if the US has any hope of protecting its democracy. This was a direct attack on the most fundamental parts of the country.
Having 3, possible 4 indictments, some of it very damning, I’m convinced shit will happen. IF nothing happens out of 3 (4*) indictments, then I’d lose pretty much all hope at that point. I am at a point now where I have no yet lost all hope.
At this point I’ll take a slap on the wrist for Trump if he’s barred from running for Presidency. I just want all this to end and for the country to move on.
I’ve wanted this all to end since 2016, but this steamroller keeps on going. Barring him from holding office anywhere, should be given at a minimum. These indictments are very serious. If you’re a mathematician, then you know by just the numbers, Trump is fucked and he knows it.
It’s going to take like 3-4 years between appeals for this all to play out within the courts. He NEEDS the Presidency again to even attempt to fix the courts in his favor. As it stands, right now he is royally fucked. It’s Presidency or bust.
Manny Diaz Jr. is a DeSantis lackey, he was handpicked for this position by DeSantis, this is more of a case of them not wanting to lose the state’s advanced placement accreditations.
Also DeSantis may not like it but he’s got a whole bunch of other problems rn.
This guy. I swear that after he’s passed on, and they’re lowering him into the ground, he’ll somehow, some way, still be commiting felonies from inside the casket.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.