Blackbeard

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

The NFA says “by a single function of the trigger”. A button that activates a trigger rapidly with a motor would be legal, because the act’s definition is limited to the function of the trigger, not the action of the controller or the mechanics of the activation. Like it or not that’s the law as it stands, and that’s the only definition that matters unless and until we elect a majority of Congressional representatives who want to change it.

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

They’ve been doing that a lot, and for good reason. The whole gist of originalism, and the legitimate gripe conservative scholars have with substantive due process, is that during the latter half of the 20th century the judiciary usurped Congress’ power in actualizing new legal concepts and theories by creating rights out of thin air. Even RBG admitted that Roe was on shaky ground, because in a representative democracy the only entity capable of making laws is Congress. If the law says “the sky is red”, and that law creates obvious societal problems, it’s not the job of the judiciary to say, “no, the sky is blue”. The job of the judiciary is to say, “the law says ‘the sky is red’” and that’s the law that shall be enforced, and then to interpret the words if there’s any disagreement about what “red” means. A functional Congress elected by a sensible electorate in a healthy democracy free of corruption (HA!) would see the obvious error and pass an amendment that changed the law on the books into “the sky is blue.”

In striking down Roe, they clearly signaled that the only remedy would be Congressional action. From Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs:

The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.

RBG herself on Roe:

The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate. The Supreme Court wrote modestly, it put forward no grand philosophy; but by requiring legislative reexamination of once customary sex-based classifications, the Court helped to ensure that laws and regulations would “catch up with a changed world.”

Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court.

And Roberts in Shelby v. Holder (a decision which I loathe):

That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional.

In short, the only suitable remedy to legal conundrums is a new and updated law. The fact that our democracy has deteriorated to the point where Congressional representatives are really just mouthpieces for interest groups and have insufficient dignity to even attempt overt moral judgments about how to form a more perfect union, explains why the judiciary keeps very clearly reminding them what their job is. Political compromise is hard and takes immense amounts of work and sacrifice, and SCOTUS is reiterating that they’re not going to bail a dysfunctional Congress out by legislating from the bench.

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

That’s not actually true. It’s certainly a trigger, but it’s not the trigger of the firearm. The trigger assembly responsible for activation of the hammer and firing pin would remain unaltered, but the button would activate some kind of rotating and/or vibrating apparatus which engages the trigger assembly over and over and over in rapid succession. They go into a lot of detail about this in the opinion, including the definitions they’re referencing with the word “trigger” (pp 7-14).

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

There’s a lot in your comment that’s not necessarily right or wrong, it’s just harder for me to untangle, so instead I’ll address this very salient point:

you could also easily say constitutional organizists want to strip back any equality or progress our society has made via the courts.

The argument of originalists is very specifically that progress shouldn’t be made via the courts in the first place. It’s not the judiciary’s job to push us forward as a society, it’s their job to interpret the Constitution as it’s written. As soon as you open the door for a judge to push us “forward”, you invite them to define for themselves what “forward” means. I don’t think I can understate the damage that would do to this country if the shoe were on the other ideological foot and Christian nationalists were free to decide that “forward” means putting women in the kitchen as subservient partners in a heteronormative nuclear family. And you’re right that the really sinister problem with this particular SCOTUS is that they seem to pick and choose when they want to abide by their stated principles, but on its face originalism is more in line with what the Framers had in mind. It’s just that they also had a lot of other understandings about the American experiment which turned out to be laughably naïve.

The only way to get out of the moralizing doom loop you’re describing is to revert back to judges/justices being neutral arbiters of written law. It’s not foolproof, mind you, because it’s subject to the whims of overt partisans like Thomas and Alito, but it does have a certain philosophical consistency that’s hard to deny.

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

I think you’re right. I don’t think we’re far removed from a computer being attached to a firing pin such that electrical impulses cause microvibrations which force a firing pin into a cartridge with unimaginable rapidity. In that case, there’d be no trigger mechanism at all except a button and a microprocessor, and so our definitions will have to adapt rapidly to avoid unimaginable bloodshed.

Blackbeard , 1 day ago

That article has given me a huge amount of information to think about. Thanks for sharing.

Blackbeard , 3 days ago

That works for American football/gridiron, doesn’t it? Since there’s no female alternative? I don’t think I’m seeing any actual NFL players here, but they’ve certainly made it to the collegiate level:

en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_female_gridiron_footba…

Blackbeard OP , 4 days ago

Not until it gets to a Circuit Court or SCOTUS, unfortunately.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

Whoa. This is huge, no?

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

The fact that they’re leaning on the “arbitrary and capricious” argument means that they don’t have another grounded legal theory for why it’s an exceedance of EPA’s authority. They’re throwing A&C at the wall to see if it sticks because the alternative is willingly take on a liability that’s going to potentially peek into the billions of dollars. It’s a hail mary, plain and simple.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

Yeah it’s pretty squarely in their wheelhouse.

Does it do the following?

• the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
• the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
• in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

If so, then:

• the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this subsection.

Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

Yeah it’s potentially a much higher cost, depending on how class-action lawsuits play out, but that study doesn’t necessarily say it’s coating the surface of the ocean. It’s diluted into the ocean itself, and because it likes to stick to foam it tends to accumulate at higher concentrations close to the surface. That study is documenting that air particles have a much higher concentration than what’s typically seen diluted in sea water, so it’s essentially congregating in the air-water interface zone.

But yes, your point is well taken that they’re facing catastrophic liability costs from a combination of past health impacts and future cleanup/removal.

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

You laugh, but that’s exactly what they’re claiming, without a hint of irony:

“The businesses in our state, including those in manufacturing, have a proven track record of supporting North Carolina’s economic vitality and doing so responsibly. It is important that we do not hastily pass regulations without fully accounting for both the positive benefits and potential negative impacts proposed rules would have on the state and its business community.”

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

😁

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

It’s sad how true that is.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

I also question whether or not we’ll ever see significant, sustained net approval of a President in the internet/social media age. Information is so decentralized and echo chambered now that there will simply never be a shortage of media describing why President ______ is bad and everyone is poor and in mortal danger.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Other sources say 66% right now.

They said 78%, 60%, 55, 63%, or 61% last year.

65% in April and 60% in December.

61% in 2022.

69% in 2020.

78% in 2019.

78% in 2017.

68% in 2012.

72% in 2010.

65% in 2006.

Numbers are all over the place, but 58% looks like almost the lowest reported by any source over the past 10 years or so (from what I could find).

Blackbeard , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure spending, student loan forgiveness, clean drinking water, lowered costs of generic drugs, expanded Medicaid, increased domestic manufacturing, rejoining the Paris agreement, increased nationwide gas mileage requirements, and improved healthcare access for veterans not enough policies for you?

edit 3 hours later…

return2ozma: “There are policies we can champion that are more than ‘not Trump.’”

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

“What about policies?”

“Here’s some.”

“Not THOSE.”

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

I don’t disagree, but that’s a bit like a teenager telling their mother, “This meal is shit. I was hungry HOURS ago.” Can we not be happy things are changing NOW? Is that somehow not allowed?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

That’s it? That’s all he’s supposed to do while millions are still struggling?

In aggregate, they’re actually not. Consistently.

Single mom: “I’m working three jobs and my kids are still hungry. We’re about to be homeless.”

Family homelessness is actually down by a lot, and a recent uptick isn’t enough to counteract the decline in homelessness since 2013.

“Hey now, Paris climate agreement! Be grateful!”

You skipped: Marijuana rescheduling, infrastructure spending, student loan forgiveness, clean drinking water, lowered costs of generic drugs, expanded Medicaid, increased domestic manufacturing, increased nationwide gas mileage requirements, and improved healthcare access for veterans.

Why?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

So no? We should spit at the gift horse?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Literally not what I said. Can you address what I actually said instead?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Then why would anyone do anything good for you, ever? If you’re going to blame them for the fact that it wasn’t done before now, then shouldn’t they completely ignore what you want and move on to someone else?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Is weed now legal nationwide? Everyone in jail for marijuana convictions now released? Records all expunged?

Many pardons , clemencies, and commutations, to date.

Bridges are literally crumbling. Where’s the high speed rail?

$40 billion is being spent to fix bridges. $8.2 billion on high speed rail.

$1,600,000,000,000 total student loan debt, 45,000,000 Americans. He’s wiped $150 billion. That’s around 9% of the total and most of that has already been added back from the interest. “We did it Joe!”

To the ones who got relief, yes. Courts stopped him from doing more, unfortunately.

Flint would like a word.

Sure. Let’s have one.

expand Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level (about $20,780 annually for an individual or $35,630 for a family of three.) - How are they even surviving on that much? MURICA is doing great sweetie!

Why are you trying to change the subject?

What’s the output not including the tax subsidized spending? Small businesses are being decimated.

False actually.

While increasing oil production he said he wouldn’t do. There’s a reason Sunrise Movement won’t endorse him.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Thanks Bernie Sanders!

Takano and Kaine, actually.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

We’re talking about politicians who do things for votes. The whole system is predicated on popularity being the only thing that matters.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just “not Trump”.

Maybe an acknowledgment that there are actually policies we can champion that are more than “not Trump”, since that’s what you started with?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Ok. Can we start with an acknowledgement that there are policies we can champion that are more than “not Trump”, since that’s what you asked for?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

It would be nice if we actually had policies we could champion instead of just “not Trump”

There are always policies they run on.

So…you were wrong, then? There are policies we can champion, but you just don’t like them? Or you don’t believe they actually happened? Because many of these are in the past, which means “seeing them follow through with them” won’t work anymore.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Again, these are policies that actually happened. So are you acknowledging that there are, in fact, policies we can champion which are more than “not Trump?”

You can acknowledge that they exist without endorsing them, and I’d prefer not to chase your divergent threads until you can directly address the response I provided to you.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

You asked for someone to show you something. I showed it to you. Can you acknowledge it exists without changing the subject?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

You can’t simply bring yourself to say, “There are policies we can champion that are more than ‘not Trump.’”? It’s a very straightforward part of human dialogue.

“Can someone give me a spoon?”

“Thank you for the spoon.”

It’s incredible how difficult it is for you to say something so innocuous.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

You simply can’t have a conversation like a human being, can you?

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

Some more effective than others…

Blackbeard , 4 days ago

I think both things can be correct at the same time. Unfortunately, they have quite a bit of evidence to support the former argument, which means they don’t have to openly engage with the latter. The closest we got to the veil coming off was 2016, but whether or not we agree with them that the left can win elections, the fact of the matter is they generally don’t except in the most ideologically homogenous districts.

Blackbeard , 5 days ago

End the war in Gaza and make housing more affordable. Those are the top two concerns for the youth vote.

False. It’s healthcare and inflation, inflation and healthcare, abortion and inflation, or healthcare and education, depending on who you ask. Housing is third(ish), and Israel/Gaza is next to last or last. A few months ago the top two were wages and inflation.

Blackbeard , 9 days ago

DEI made the front fall off.

Blackbeard , 10 days ago

…and for years thereafter.

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

what about additional executive action on anything else like women’s rights

research.va.gov/…/0324-Executive-Order-for-Womens…

minimum wage,

www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/…/eo14026

or anything that could count toward the human good

whitehouse.gov/…/fact-sheet-president-biden-issue…

whitehouse.gov/…/executive-order-on-covid-19-and-…

whitehouse.gov/…/executive-order-on-scaling-and-e…

whitehouse.gov/…/executive-order-on-adjustments-o…

whitehouse.gov/…/executive-order-on-federal-resea…

whitehouse.gov/…/executive-order-on-strengthening…

Blackbeard , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

FDR had his anti-immigrant blemishes, too.

Several, actually.

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

The President cannot unilaterally increase the minimum wage, which is spelled out in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Only Congress can amend that law. Biden’s Executive Order went as far as he’s legally allowed to go.

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

I agree. I don’t know which is more interesting, that the progressive standard-bearer unilaterally executed one of the most egregious civil rights violations of the 20th century, or that progressive voters have completely forgotten that he did.

Blackbeard , 12 days ago

That’s quite literally not what I said or implied.