No one in the NY courts, federal or state, are interested in abiding by the law. It would already have to be appealed beyond the NY Supreme Court, directly to SCOTUS. To be honest, SCOTUS will likely refuse to even accept it, as they did with Texas v. Pennsylvania. Even if they ruled anything, looked what happened with Bruin. SCOTUS was explicitly denied and ignored, even by other courts.
The side that thinks it's a good thing happens to include the entire population of DC, and the whole Republican establishment and donor class.
There is no other court that can hear matters between states. If the SCOTUS won't hear it, then there is no other recourse but armed conflict.
This single refusal to hear a case is enough to have the court abolished (I am pretty sure the POTUS can do it) and replaced by something else which is then DIRECTED to hear matters between states on every occasion.
BTW I don't see why there are so few SCOTUS judges. It isn't like there are few cases; Perhaps they are too busy legislating from the bench to notice that they are not actually a functioning court?
If the court refuses to hear it, then it is inherently a political matter. It sucks that we can't have the law enforced normally, but that means you have to win the issue politically through getting your faction in and attacking other factions in the system. Armed conflict is still not necessary; and is actually one of the primary goals of the establishment at this case.
Given that the issue was original jurisdiction for SCOTUS, it is an abdication of their responsibility; but contrasted with what they've normally done for the past 200 years (making unchallengeable law that provokes armed conflict because a political solution is no longer possible due to judicial interference), that is at least a workable result for the rest of us.
You don't want there to be lots of SCOTUS judges. You want to keep them very few. The Progressive Left has argued for many decades now that the Senate and SCOTUS should be reformed into being turned into an identical body like the House of Representatives: several hundred purely partisan political individuals elected by a general election. Although the courts are partisan at the moment, there are ways to reform it, and ways to make it worse. That is one of the ways to make it work.
Not hearing a case, like not overturning a law (which it never was given the authority to do), is actually a critical component to keeping the judiciary from being a purely partisan political structure which we have managed to turn it into. If the court can't help but effectively turn a political decision into a constitutional amendment, then they shouldn't be ruling on it at all.
It's an excellent lecture on, among other things, the FBI and its history of infiltrating political organizations on both ends of the spectrum. Barnes is especially good on FBI operations of the Jan 6 tourist mill-around known as an "insurrection" and the Whitmer fake kidnapping scheme and the malfeasance of the last Presidential election.
How, you ask? Because the courts are utterly compromised. Because we don't live in a decent, civilized society. Because there isn't a political solution to our problems.
I hope its possible for someone to sign an AI model result in the same way you can sign something on the blockchain- so everyone knows it was calculated fairly.
f
is a computation that takes two weeks to run on a regular computer, but two hours on a data center. You send the data center the computation (ie. the code to run
f
), the data center runs it, and gives back the answer
y
with a proof. You verify the proof in a few milliseconds, and are convinced that
y
actually is the answer.
You can't appeal to a communist's sense of fairness for the same reason you can't appeal to a communist's sense of reason. They're like Martians and just live with completely different and totally incompatible belief systems.
Here is a full archive of all her tweets and retweets. The day before yesterday she stated that "Democrats are trying to throw Trump in jail to save America", acknowleging that this trial is entirely political.
In another tweet she announces that "The fifth amendment won't save the Trumps", declaring that the judge would not accept such a plea.
Yeah I didn't think that normally judges had a little pre-trial with the prosecutor where they decide guilt or innocence, then just continue with a trial for show. A lot of the law is just sophistry to justify injustice.
Actually one of the main excuses is that in a civil trial you don't have any rights. I've seen summary judgement used against a lot of people.
No one in the NY courts, federal or state, are interested in abiding by the law. It would already have to be appealed beyond the NY Supreme Court, directly to SCOTUS. To be honest, SCOTUS will likely refuse to even accept it, as they did with Texas v. Pennsylvania. Even if they ruled anything, looked what happened with Bruin. SCOTUS was explicitly denied and ignored, even by other courts.
The side that thinks it's a good thing happens to include the entire population of DC, and the whole Republican establishment and donor class.
There is no other court that can hear matters between states. If the SCOTUS won't hear it, then there is no other recourse but armed conflict.
This single refusal to hear a case is enough to have the court abolished (I am pretty sure the POTUS can do it) and replaced by something else which is then DIRECTED to hear matters between states on every occasion.
BTW I don't see why there are so few SCOTUS judges. It isn't like there are few cases; Perhaps they are too busy legislating from the bench to notice that they are not actually a functioning court?
That's literally the opposite of true.
If the court refuses to hear it, then it is inherently a political matter. It sucks that we can't have the law enforced normally, but that means you have to win the issue politically through getting your faction in and attacking other factions in the system. Armed conflict is still not necessary; and is actually one of the primary goals of the establishment at this case.
Given that the issue was original jurisdiction for SCOTUS, it is an abdication of their responsibility; but contrasted with what they've normally done for the past 200 years (making unchallengeable law that provokes armed conflict because a political solution is no longer possible due to judicial interference), that is at least a workable result for the rest of us.
You don't want there to be lots of SCOTUS judges. You want to keep them very few. The Progressive Left has argued for many decades now that the Senate and SCOTUS should be reformed into being turned into an identical body like the House of Representatives: several hundred purely partisan political individuals elected by a general election. Although the courts are partisan at the moment, there are ways to reform it, and ways to make it worse. That is one of the ways to make it work.
Not hearing a case, like not overturning a law (which it never was given the authority to do), is actually a critical component to keeping the judiciary from being a purely partisan political structure which we have managed to turn it into. If the court can't help but effectively turn a political decision into a constitutional amendment, then they shouldn't be ruling on it at all.
Saw part of this speech this morning by Robert Barnes, the lawyer who occasionally speaks on the Viva Frei podcast: https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/national-leadership-seminar-irving-texas/the-corruption-of-the-fbi
It's an excellent lecture on, among other things, the FBI and its history of infiltrating political organizations on both ends of the spectrum. Barnes is especially good on FBI operations of the Jan 6 tourist mill-around known as an "insurrection" and the Whitmer fake kidnapping scheme and the malfeasance of the last Presidential election.
Thanks, I'll watch that, but I wasn't talking about the FBI.
But the people on one side will say, because they’re habitual liars and get off on telling blatant lies.
Sam Harris did say the quiet part out loud. By hook or by crook, Trump must go down. The Cackle will be king!
How, you ask? Because the courts are utterly compromised. Because we don't live in a decent, civilized society. Because there isn't a political solution to our problems.
Courts need to be 100% replaced by provably impartial AI.
The laws were already passed. We don’t need activist monkeys to pass new laws.
People will disagree but I say bring it on if we ever had...
That's not gonna happen though.
I hope its possible for someone to sign an AI model result in the same way you can sign something on the blockchain- so everyone knows it was calculated fairly.
how DID our ancestors get by without burning an average man's monthly rent on AI calculations for the tiniest daily decisions, anyway?
Historically we hired judges and lawyers based off merit.
Too many diversity judges => unstoppable communism in another branch of government
Every calculation can be signed to prove it was done correctly. And AI is just a calculation.
f is a computation that takes two weeks to run on a regular computer, but two hours on a data center. You send the data center the computation (ie. the code to run f ), the data center runs it, and gives back the answer y with a proof. You verify the proof in a few milliseconds, and are convinced that y actually is the answer.
https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/11/09/starks_part_1.html
This is the smoothest brained take I've heard in a long time.
You're ignorant and a fucking idiot.
On an actually illegal level, her having case information because of her husband should be grounds for a retrial with another judge.
I can't remember the exact legal name, but it's basically mens rea but for the judge instead of the defendant.
You can't appeal to a communist's sense of fairness for the same reason you can't appeal to a communist's sense of reason. They're like Martians and just live with completely different and totally incompatible belief systems.
Here is a full archive of all her tweets and retweets. The day before yesterday she stated that "Democrats are trying to throw Trump in jail to save America", acknowleging that this trial is entirely political.
In another tweet she announces that "The fifth amendment won't save the Trumps", declaring that the judge would not accept such a plea.
https://www.sotwe.com/dm_sminxs
Because the "legal system" is a sham?
I mean it's the same judge who declared the Trump org guilty before the trial started. I'm sure that's some ultra-Kosher legal maneuver.
Did he do that - I had thought that was a bit of online hyperbole.
Edit: He DID fucking do that. Holy shit we are living in the most corrupt empire stage. Aren't we. Fuck.
Yeah I didn't think that normally judges had a little pre-trial with the prosecutor where they decide guilt or innocence, then just continue with a trial for show. A lot of the law is just sophistry to justify injustice.
Actually one of the main excuses is that in a civil trial you don't have any rights. I've seen summary judgement used against a lot of people.
You can't have a mistrial when it's a show trial.
You can hate Orange Man all day long, but don't think this weaponized justice system won't turn on you when necessary.
Wtf are Trumps lawyers doing
I don't really consider anyone with stage 3+ TDS to be sapient.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Stop supporting 9/11
Comment Reported for: Dick Rider
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Stop glorifying 9/11, Hasan Piker.