Looked it up. He does indeed have a trademark for “Change my mind”.
No doubt it has already been genericized. The court ruling anything other than that would be surprising. Pretty much anything that becomes hyper memed gets this treatment.
I had just already assumed that, but good to know it’s been confirmed.
And dude was properly shutdown by El-Sayed and exposed for the hypocrisy him and his group stand for.
Okay. I mean the farmers might have something to say about it, but sure thing on my end. I love beef, but I ain’t married to it for the fuck it all prices it’s currently going for.
Right? There’s a legal distinction here and if the hiring people weren’t aware of that distinction then, that’s on the HR.
Someone who has engaged is VERY DIFFERENT than someone who is a victim of.
And you know, they’re kind of a law agency related thing, the FBI is… Ya know?! Like the FBI does law stuff… Just. I don’t have words here. It’s like five year olds running the place or something and actually that feels insulting to five year olds.
As you’ve discovered, there’s another element before a court accepts a case. Standing.
To have standing, you must show that you have a personal and direct stake in the outcome. You cannot sue just because you are angry or disagree with a law. Courts only solve real, active disputes, not hypothetical questions.
Congress has to bring the suit. Courts have routinely held that in order for “Congress” to have standing in court, they must show that “Congress” has a direct stake in the outcome. To show they do so have such a stake, they routinely vote on a Resolution to establish that Congress as a body is bringing the case.
So while individual members might try to bring a case, it really depends on what’s to be litigated before the court. A President not following the law usually indicates that Congress who created the law, is the one who is to bring it. But if the President does something that affects specifically a single member, then that member by themselves would have standing.
Citizens can sue if they can show they were directly harmed and have a direct stake in some resolution to the harm.
As far as, the Senate or the House, it depends on the injury being talked about. A simple resolution from a single chamber is the most common when the injury is specific to that chamber. A joint or concurrent resolution (by both chambers) usually is to address a broad power violation. It really depends and it’s up to the Judge to uses what’s come before as a guide.
The House usually originates the spending, and so if that’s the topic, usually just the House is enough. If the President is abusing something like war powers, then that is indicated in the Constitution as “Congress” as in the entire thing. So both chambers might be needed to have standing, unless the issue at hand is that “The President has abused their war powers and not reported to the House Oversight Committee”. In that case, the argument is that the President isn’t reporting their abuse to a single chamber and thus only the House is required to have standing. Same if the Senate is conducting an investigation and the President refuses the subpoena. The injury is just to the Senate in that case.
It all depends on how the entire thing is brought before the court.
Article III section 2 of the US Constitution.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Congress can say the President has done something illegal. The President can say they have not done anything illegal. You now have a controversy. The Constitution indicates that the judicial power will now handled it.
To sue someone or something means in the strictest of senses, “I wish to bring this matter before a court of law.” So a controversy has arisen, the courts have the right to review it. The Constitution outlines who is allowed to do what, and nobody is allowed to step out of that. So if a controversy wasn’t present, the the courts would have no jurisdiction.
Congress believes there is a controversy and thus they are suing. That means they wish to bring the controversy to the thing that’s indicated in the Constitution to settle such a thing.
However, you run into the very first question, “Is it a TRUE controversy? Or is it just a disagreement?” This is the no political questions doctrine. Congress and the President routinely disagree on things. The Courts aren’t there to settle a disagreement. It has to be a genuine controversy. That means “The law objectively says XYZ. The President specifically did not do XYZ. Ergo, this is not a disagreement but a President who is not following the letter of the law which is a controversy.”
So like anything Congress brings up, the President is allowed to say it’s not a controversy. What the ruling on that question, the President or Congress can appeal it. If the appeal isn’t good enough, the Supreme Court gets to make a final ruling. Once a controversy has been established, THEN, there’s the actual case. The the final decision of the case can be appealed and then brought before the Supreme Court.
Rarely do we actually get that far with things because you can’t get all that stuff done within a single President’s term. And the real reason a Controversy is attempted is to get discovery and things the President has been doing on the public record. Depends on what Congress is looking for. Perhaps they want to ensure Musk stays out of politics forever, a deep and heavy discovery process into him may just do that.
But Congress can bring a suit to the Courts so long as it’s within the powers of the Constitution for Congress to do so.
Man, I don’t really follow Florida’s primaries and I’m pretty progressive… But dang I hope she loses and that loss is massive. Lady is an insult to progressive politics. Besides she’s made a massive pile off of stock trading, so getting her out is one more gone.
So the case is EMALS had a few corners cut when it was put in. Long story short it’s isolation issues. The old steam systems could isolate a track, the electrical system is just one big unified thing. So on steam, a track goes down they can just turn off that track and keep launching on the others. On the electrical one track goes down, they have to shut the whole thing off, zero aircraft get launched.
There’s already contracts to fix this issue being put out. But this happens with Government projects. Corners get cut to hit a deadline, those cut corners then come back to haunt everyone.
And the thing is what the Government sees isn’t the whole picture. They’re looking at the metric of “number of planes system got into the air”. Which I’m sure we all understand averages here. If a system is getting a 0/hour when one track goes down, that zero brings that average down hard.
But very few want to go back to steam. It’s very costly, requires a lot of very specialized equipment to house all the high pressure systems, and some drones we toss into the air with these systems aren’t made to take the sudden thrust steam gives it. The EMALS system can give a very clean and well defined ramp up for thrust that drone engineers can build around.
But this is one of those things where some wise guy’s cut corners idea starts to threaten a full project because people start getting all worried about sunk costs and what not. But the electrical system is flawed, but we can work around those flaws to bring better isolation to it. It’s just going to take time because… you know, it’s a military vessel, it’s kind of hard to be like “let’s just drag it out of an active war zone and dry dock it for half a year.” Clocks tick differently on projects like that.
But going back to steam, and to be fair it took a while to properly develop those systems as well, is less than ideal. It’s got a much high cost and takes a whole lot more maintenance to keep running. And some aircraft we’d have to yank off duty and fix them to handle steam’s level of yeeting things. But Congress and what not aren’t looking at that dollar metric, they’re mostly focused on “how many aircraft did the system on average get into the air?”
But to be fair here, we are talking about some dude who decided to level an entire wing of the White House before actually going through any kind of approval or formalizing any kind of plan. So… He’s consistent in that whole doing shit and thinking about it later.
Okay. The bill is an interesting one. It does have the side effect that it will significantly damage independent courier services. Which, New York City being New York City and all, they’ve got a lot of two or three employee ran courier services.
I get what the ultimate goal here is. Amazon would then have to pay particular wages, insurance, 401(k) options, etc. That’s a great goal. But Amazon contracts a lot in NYC. Which means the courier business in NYC isn’t owned completely by a single entity, now the primary customer of that industry is one really big company, but Amazon doesn’t own any of those couriers.
What this will do, is force Amazon to buy all of them out. Hire the employees and give benefits. But it will also mean that Amazon owns most of the NYC courier service in the city at that point. Now obviously, it’s better for Amazon if they don’t have to have employees and just subcontract, but push come to shove, if they have to by law take stake, they’re going to want to own all of it. And when Mamdani is gone, they’ll have a unique position to convince a Mayor from the other side to pull the ladder up.
Now all of this is just me thinking out loud. Don’t take any of this with any significant grain of salt. I get what the goal is here, I’m cool with that. But forcing Amazon into the courier service in NYC and take ownership, I can’t imagine them wanting to play fair once they get in. And this honestly relies on a lot of the “new invented” local union that this would create to mitigate a lot of issues.
I get the goal, I’m just thinking concentrating Amazon into pure entity that dominates entirely a local industry is asking for trouble. Maybe I’m being cynical.
Futurama meme coming soon.
Senators aren’t impeached. They are expelled. Expulsion requires two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Oh no. Man I had no idea what you were trying to say on first read. No. It’s just this shit happens all the time in Tennessee. Our State Government gets told what the fundamental issue is, they create some cheap stop-gap solution, it fails two or three years down the road.
Like if you ever drive on Interstate 24 in Tennessee this kind of thing is in your face like all the time. Also the State prison healthcare going on here is just chef kiss perfect example of failing to understand root cause.
“Prisoners keep dying in prison because of sickness, I know! Let’s just privatize it.” Prisoners keep dying. “I don’t know where we went wrong?!” It’s hard to feel like justice is served if everything that lands someone in prison exposes them to a incredibly high rate of death by disease.
Yeah, the entire underlying problem are the pipes that lead to the pool as many have tried to tell him. The pipes leading to and from the treatment machine need to be fully replaced. When the pool was renovated in 2012, the pipes installed were for the wrong application. The land the pool sits on is formerly wetlands. So special attention is required for putting in pipes in that area. This wasn’t done and so the soil is literally crushing the pipes allowing water treatment to leak into the surrounding soil.
This is why they’ve had to have people physically go out there and manually treat the pool. The problem is that the treatment is never making to the pool in a large enough volume to make a difference. But the manual treatment requires people in large “unsightly” protective gear to wade through the pool and treat the water. Then they have to rope off the section that was treated to ensure no one tried to enter the pool until the treatment has diluted enough.
Trump keeps doing the thing Trump is known for, cutting corners that ultimately mean more money is spent long term. The problem is the pipes. They need to be replaced. But then the pool has to be closed for large construction and the short term cost goes up. So Trump keeps just putting a band-aid on it over and over and over again like the idiot he is.
He’s been told what the issue is and what the fix is. He just wants a short-term “fix” so he looks good. He’s not actually interested in fixing the pool. The pipes have to be ripped out and new ones installed. That is the only true fix.
Oh man, this is a doozy. You aren’t wrong but I’ve got to get some sleep. To explain this is A LOT.
The thing is the Leahy Law doesn’t put the power directly in the President’s hands. It grants the vetting process to the Secretary of State. Which is a member of the cabinet of the President. Which I don’t know how familiar you are with how the Executive Office works or not. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.
There’s Executive Orders (EO) that the President can give but there’s the whole “what if” Blinken quits given an EO and then we have to get the Senate involved which is currently 50-50 on Republicans and Democrats. Which that turns it even more complex and Senators can delay confirmation until after the election or if they’re really bitter, until next year. Which means that everything that requires a Secretary of State would get put on pause.
I get that everyone thinks the President gets to have the final say, but the President orders people around on EOs, which the various Secretaries can just quit if they don’t want to follow them, and then that kicks everything to the Senate. That’s kind of a built in protection in our system of Government to prevent a President becoming a dictator. If a President wants XYZ done and the Secretary thinks that’s bad, they quit and the Senate becomes involved potentially delaying the President forever.
There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published, unless the President does so since the President has unilateral authority on classification markings (except for anything related to the name of spies and nuclear bomb designs, that is one of the few things that requires both the President and Congress to sign off on, there’s a few other exceptions as well but I won’t go into them).
But anyways, Blinken is the one who can stop aid. The President could order him, but he could also quit, which means the Senate would get involved, and I can explain why all of that would be messy if you need me to.
why can’t he veto the military aid
The President only has veto power on bills that have passed both the House and the Senate. Once something becomes law, the President “has” to carry it out. There’s a ton of background on “Executive Discretion” and any time the President wants to exercise discretion, Congress can sue, which then brings the matter into the other branch, the Judicial. Plenty of States that would sign on, to a Congressional suit (which that’s a requirement for Congress to sue the President, at least one State has to join in).
So Biden could use Discretion to delay funding, and he’s done that quite a few times, but he can’t just outright NOT pay when the law requires him to do so. That discretion comes from a kind of EO called a “Reviewing Executive Order” and it requires a department to “review” ((insert whatever the topic is)). That’s a delay, but it isn’t a halt. The President has to follow the law as well. So if we have a law that says, “we provide $xxx to Israel’s Iron Dome”, we have to send that money to them at some point.
A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion. There’s been recent upping of that funding that Congress has passed, but that’s been on things called Continuing Resolutions (CR). Republicans in the House (who are the ones who control what the US Budget is) have been using CRs to get choice things enacted. That’s because Republicans in the House have passed rules on how a budget may be formed in the House that are impossible to comply with (which that’s a whole long story). So if Democrats in the House refuse to accept the CRs the Republicans offer, the Government shuts down.
Anyways, that’s been a lot already. If you need me to clear anything up, let me know. But Harris likely wouldn’t have Blinken as Secretary of State, which would fix A WHOLE LOT. But I don’t know, because if the election isn’t kind to Democrats in the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they could block Harris’ Sec. of State unless they specifically pledged to support Israel. Now they could absolutely lie about that, but then Congress could also impeach them, but that would cut off aid to Israel for some time as that’s not an easy process to impeach a secretary of state.
I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide. Biden is the President and historically, foreign policy during the tenure of the President by the Vice President doesn’t veer too far off from the President. That said, Harris has absolutely called for investigation into the suffering of civilians in the conflict.
Congress sets the budgetary amount of aid to direct to Israel and the President distributes the money via their diplomatic channels. There are very few options for the President to just suspend funding, which Biden has done twice for weapons under the rules established within 10 USC § 362 (a)(1)
Of the amounts made available to the Department of Defense, none may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
But outside that, there’s very little the President can do once Congress approves funding and that funding has been signed into law. This is why an independent channel investigation is required and is exactly what Harris has called for. This would allow the the US Government to establish their own inquiry into the human abuses. This would give the required evidence to cancel funding under Title XII authority. But none of that can happen overnight. It’s not an easy path to override the will of Congress.
On the opposite side, Trump has indicated that he will absolutely turn a blind eye to the whole thing and allow Israel to determine solely the “best” course of action for their current conflict. Trump has literally stated in his rallies:
From the start, Harris has worked to tie Israel’s hand behind its back, demanding an immediate cease-fire, always demanding cease-fire
Trump would not see a cease-fire as a required condition for the on-going conflict.
Harris and Democrats historically have called for a two-state solution. Trump’s plan which has been broadly adopted by the Republican party in general would:
Trump has all but given up completely on a two-state solution. Which means, he’s for a one state solution. And people are fooling themselves if they believe that Trump would seek a “peaceful” one state solution. He has told Netanyahu directly, “Just get it done quickly”. Now we can play a game as what manner is used to “get it done quickly” means, but only idiots are the one’s thinking that doesn’t give a tacit nod to ethic cleansing.
I just have no idea what these people who think Harris is a bad idea for Palestinians are actually thinking. And really, I don’t think they are thinking at all. You have one solution that is long, stupid, and required because we are a nation of laws. And you have the other solution that is “fuck it, firebomb them all and call it done”. It is difficult to imagine that there are truly people this blind and ignorant to this reality. But yet, here we are.
The notion that we might get a 3rd party into office like twenty years from now if we start today, helps nobody if the people we’re trying to help are all eradicated over the next four years. Going down this “third road” only ensures an outcome where we are fifteen years too late to help.
Isn’t ticket voting available there? Can’t Republicans just say “Republican” and boom that locks their vote for those races?
I can’t feel sorry for them giving how they’re just redistricting in the middle of an election year.