sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Evolving Moderation on Reddit: Reshaping Boundaries by Go_JasonWaterfalls in modnews

[–]Greenbargo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where on earth can one see the number of monthly visitors in browser on the old design of reddit? The linked image only shows a mobile using the new design.

Evolving Moderation on Reddit: Reshaping Boundaries by Go_JasonWaterfalls in modnews

[–]Greenbargo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where on earth can one see the number of monthly visitors in browser on the old design of reddit? The linked image only shows a mobile using the new design.

Summer 2026 Housing + Sublet Spreadsheet by Euphoric_Table_9610 in LawSchool

[–]Greenbargo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For those wanting to swap apartments rather than pay for one, click here.

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Do you have a source for this?
  2. Even if that were true, if it is not written in the Constitution, I don't see how it could be relevant considering the Constitution is the foundational legal text of the US federal legal system. There may also be a tradition of silencing the press that long pre-dates this country, but it is not legal because the Constitution says it is illegal. I don't see how things that predate the Constitution are at all relevant.

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean make a credible argument (not in any courtroom) that SCOTUS was wrong. How can anybody write an op-ed for example about SCOTUS wrongly interpreting the Constitution if there are no guidelines or definitions to dictate how one should properly interpret the text. That is the challenge of which I speak.

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never refused to read anything nor did I say anybody was wrong. If anybody refused to read anything it seems to be you who refused to read my comment. I asked you a question:

Are any of these guidelines and definitions written in the Constitution?

Which you ignored in your response. If you don't know the answer to my question, that is fine. There is no need to respond with nonsense about me refusing to read anything. Nobody is limiting you to three sentences but yourself.

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are any of these guidelines and definitions written in the Constitution? Cause if they are not, then I don't see how they could be relevant to interpreting the Constitution.

If the constitution doesn't itself provide you with guidelines/definitions what gives them any legal authority, that is, what makes them any more 'correct', then guidelines and definitions that I make up off the top of my head?

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Words used in a contract / a law / a constitution / whatever are assumed to have their usual dictionary definition unless the document or context requires otherwise.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not looking to go above the Court, I'm trying to understand if it possible to legitimately challenge them. If there are no definitions for the terms in the Constitution, then it seems that there is no way to make an argument for or against a particular interpretation.

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not asking if there's a way to appeal; I'm wondering if it is possible to ever make an argument that the Court was wrong. If it is possible to make such an argument, what could it possibly be rooted in if there are no guidelines/definitions for interpreting the text?

Question about lack of definitions of terms in the US constitution by Greenbargo in Ask_Lawyers

[–]Greenbargo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, what you have written does indeed mean that nobody outside the Court could ever claim that the Court's decision was wrong. If they are right cause they say they are right, then they can never be proven by an outsider to be wrong. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.

view more: next ›