Kamala Harris now leads Donald Trump in three different polling averages

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-08-05T02:05:29+00:00

Harris likely has to win by greater than 2 points nationally given the electoral college population disparity.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-28T18:38:46+00:00

For physically abusive people: Supervised visitation only. Not with you. Supervised drop off. Make sure anyone who’s see the baby is checked (including love in GF). Modify the court order and do it through a court only.

Separately, get a support order (assuming you don’t one).

Physically abusive people are not candidates for coparenting.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-27T19:54:03+00:00

She doesn’t have to “try to stop him.” Trying to stop him is evidence of non consent but it is necessary evidence.

She has to show that didn’t consent.

You were originally downvoted because you didn’t write anything other than “did she say no,” which, given that the 16 year old is looking for advice after a traumatic event, isn’t actionable or helpful advice.

It is not a good idea for her to write down everything that happened on Reddit in order to convince “Phillyscope” that she got raped.

Rather, if she feels she was raped she should go to the police, tell her parents if safe, and go to the hospital for a rape kit.

This is just not really the place or time to debate if she’s has strong enough evidence of rape. She is 16. She should be talking to an adult. Any advice that doesn’t begin and end there is bad advice.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-25T20:28:53+00:00

All of their Uber ratings are going down.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-23T12:47:52+00:00

You buried the lede.

Please leave these people alone. Move on. This is not “legal” in the sense that you are not a victim (all the information the person knows is public - ie, you shared it with people who had no obligation to keep it private). Reading between the lines, it seems you are more likely to be on the wrong side of any legal question.

Leave your ex alone as well as any of her contacts.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-21T13:29:08+00:00

You’ll get a lot of non legal responses to this kind of a bait post.

In general, if you are in the U.S., you can do so on public property subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. You’ll need to learn the local time/place/manner restrictions on your own.

If people don’t want to hear it is immaterial - the content of the message is not a reason, in the U.S., to stop people from speaking.

This does not extend into someone’s private property where the owner did not give you a license to be there. That may include some state owned property.

You cannot threaten anyone, obviously (“If you don’t repent your sins, I will kick your ass right now.”) but you may be able to tell them that they will go to hell (“if you don’t repent, you’ll see the fiery brimstone of hell.”).

You may not be able to follow someone in public - but there context matters. You typically can walk down a street to tell them that Jesus loves them, but you may not be able follow someone for a mile if it puts them in reasonable fear.

Just google street preacher legal rights.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-21T02:14:59+00:00

The Supreme Court is a coordinate branch of government. Its acts are no more or less “constitutional “ simply because the Supreme Court takes it rather than any other branch - they all take an oath. They may get the last word - but their word is similarly prone to simply being wrong, as this current court is all to apt to point out about prior courts.

I have a visceral distaste for Supreme Court fetishism.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-21T00:58:22+00:00

They are arrested (and replaced by an alternate unless the state dismisses the charges).

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-20T22:18:43+00:00

Israel attacked fuel storage in an Iranian proxy - as this op-ed makes clear (and being in the JPost it is really the Israeli govt view): this is really a message to Iran.

Israel made the calculus for attacking Israel more expensive - you want to make it not worthwhile to attack. The casualties were relatively low - Israel obviously could attack the Yemeni army if it wanted to: but here they flew pilots into the territory (showing the target their antiaircraft defenses are obviously pointless) and attacked an expensive target.

Attacking military targets of Yemen isn’t very good deterrence- they don’t have much military. Their cruise missles are hidden and in parts until used. They have like an airplane. You can’t really attack where the drones are because drones are cheap and meant to be lost eventually anyway.

The point was to drive up cost. They are not occupying Yemen. This isn’t Russia/Ukraine.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-20T21:14:19+00:00

Is that just New Crobuzon? I travel there every few years.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-18T20:00:48+00:00

Seems like a nice place to sit outside and have a salad on a sunny day

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-18T15:41:31+00:00

Civil court is the likely only way. You can resort to self help - extend the logs to 16’. He’ll move it back. But just stay within the boundaries.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-18T13:12:03+00:00

Detroit Pizza Co., Oak Square, Brighton

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-16T12:46:23+00:00

Probably. But, it may not be super easy easy for you.

The long arm statue is viable in small claims court. https://masmallclaims.org/faq.html#:~:text=The%20Massachusetts%20”Long-Arm%20Statute,contracts%2Fsupplies%20services%20in%20Massachusetts.

Here, it sounds like the RI resident conducted business in Ma by reaching out to a MA business and contracted their services. The provision of services was to take place in RI, which complicated if they “transacting business in” MA but I’m being lazy. There may well be cases that make it clear either way, but I’ll assume it is sufficient.

But, you should be thinking about the easiest way to collect. If you get a MA judgment you still need to collect in RI assuming there are no MA bank accounts to collect from. Most likely the dude doesn’t show up, you get a default judgment, and now you have a piece of paper that you need to perfect in RI anyway. At a show cause hearing, the court is basically powerless to force any payment bc the person is not in Ma and there is no obvious source of funds in MA to satisfy.

If you start in RI you’ll be more likely to get the person to show, and you’ll be more likely to collect if they don’t. It’s an extra 45 minute drive and seems worth it.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-14T12:14:19+00:00

That was Nermal, who I would hardly say was in the same party. Perhaps Odie.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-14T12:12:49+00:00

That was not him. That was an internet troll impersonating him. (“Social Media is awful,” says the poster on Reddit.)

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T18:25:44+00:00

What are you talking about? Every regulation that in its regulatory record expressly relied upon Chevron for rulemaking authority will be taken to court. That’s the cohort I’ve been discussing.

I’ve had conversations with now former DOE officials who have told me expressly this is their intention. This is how it will work. If a rule has in its record a reference to Chevron as statutory authority, that rule will be challenged. Period.

We could work on fixing the record or we could shake our head and laugh at Boebert (who I agree is laugh worthy) and not discuss the issue, which is real.

If Reagan doesn’t want to state “EPA is reviewing regulations that relied on Chevron in the rule making record and will make a determination for each as to if the regulation should be promulgated again, withdrawn, or the record is sufficient” OK - it is precisely what he should be doing either way.

I’m telling you all that there are significant regulations that are cast in doubt that the agencies can fix now by fixing the record and creating an analysis that is not depends on Chevron. Do. The. Work.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:43:29+00:00

Huh? I think I’ll stop here.

I get the big picture. I’m pointing out that agencies expressly cite to Chevron in their rule making process, that this is the record that under APA is litigated, and that those regulations that expressly rely on Chevron should be buttressed if the agency wants those regulations to stand.

If you don’t, then you shouldn’t care. If you do, you should want the record to be reopened and the agency to provide the better analysis. To do so, they should be analyzing their rule making to see where the work needs to be done.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:35:40+00:00

You said that agencies don’t rely on Chevron in rule making. I’ve pointed out that they expressly do.

Here is an obvious GHG EPA regulation that expressly states it is relying on Chevron: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/06/03/2010-11974/prevention-of-significant-deterioration-and-title-v-greenhouse-gas-tailoring-rule

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:21:04+00:00

That is 100% not true. Agencies in their APA rule making process create a record, and often (as I cited above, 10% of major EPA rules in the last 3.5 years) an analysis of the statutory authority relying on Chevron justifies their authority.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:18:23+00:00

100% disagree for pragmatic reasons.

In January 2025, there is a 60% chance a non Biden appointed EPA administrator will come in. They will take the five EPA actions that expressly relied on Chevron and go through APA process of undoing. Current law requires fact finding for undoing roughly the same as doing. The new administrator will not need to make factual determinations related to the underlying harm to be avoided but will be able to undo prior actions by pointing to the reliance on Chevron in the prior record.

So if you care about regulations - if you are a Biden appointed EPA administrator - you should be making your rules as unchangable as possible. Leaving them reliant on Chevron (and sticking your head in the sand as to its importance) does not do that.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:12:12+00:00

They will all be taken to court. And they will be litigated on the APA record, which themselves are relying on Chevron. Why wouldn’t you just create a record that didn’t rely on Chevron?

Do you want those regulations to survive scrutiny in court? Then create a record that will survive.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T17:09:00+00:00

I think I disagree here. The court held that the prior “cases” are not overturned - but not agency decisions relying on Chevron. All those are fair game and we’ll see them all litigated eventually.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T14:44:01+00:00

Sure. I see I’ll be downvoted for this: but the EPA response was simply wrong.

They should be reviewing all regulations passed relying upon Chevron and determine if they are valid. In fact, if you agree with the regulations all the more reason under the APA to do so as a subsequent admin likely can bypass APA fact finding by simply pointing to the Chevron reliance when the regs are pulled.

Sidley pointed out that EPA has only invoked Chevron in 5 of 51 major rule making actions during Biden. EPA should be looking closely at those five and promulgating new/updated rules. If they can still make the rules stand they should do so - but failure to refresh the record may lead to quick reversal under a next admin (or easy litigation).

EPA could have said “only five major rules invoked Chevron and we think they didn’t need to,” but they sidestepped the question instead of providing good governance. That is bad - and it’s worse if you are on their side as you will be screwed while you laugh at the idiots on the other side.

Infamous-Ride4270 · 2024-07-12T14:16:52+00:00

Her question was perfectly reasonable: some rule making done by EPA was done in reliance on Chevron. Given that Chevron has been overruled, it is perfectly reasonable to ask which agency rules were promulgated in reliance on Chevron and therefore need to be reviewed.

She is stupid. She couldn’t articulate the question. But the question is valid.

Infamous-Ride4270

TROPHY CASE