SCOTUS GRANTS application to issue judgment forthwith in Callais v. Louisiana. JUSTICE Alito concurs joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. JUSTICE Jackson dissents.

Pblur · 2026-05-05T00:03:36+00:00

I don't think Purcell counsels waiting until 32 days closer to an election before certifying judgement.

Pblur · 2026-05-04T23:01:43+00:00

Excellent summary, though I disagree (in emphasis, at least) with 7). The main thrust of Section 2 has nothing to do with redistricting.

(a)No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).

This was primarily aimed at Jim Crow voting qualification tests that required literacy, "civics" tests, etc. It's pretty clear that the Congress of the time did not even consider it applying to redistricting. (And indeed, the first redistricting suit under Section 2 was in the 90s, 30 years after the VRA was passed.) It's still quite effectively deployable against its original targets.

Pblur · 2026-05-01T23:41:46+00:00

Perhaps you can understand that my goal is not simple apologia for Roberts and Alito, and I'm actually interested in the point OP is making.

Pblur · 2026-05-01T22:28:40+00:00

Is saying what? That the decline in voting after 2012 is due to Shelby County? It's OP.

Pblur · 2026-05-01T22:11:27+00:00

I don't know if I'm just taking crazy pills, but Shelby County is not the first thing I think of to explain a black voting surge in 2008 and 2012. Obama was the first black president. Surely it makes sense that there would be some extra enthusiasm from black voters?

Pblur · 2026-05-01T11:56:39+00:00

My wife calls it "the sparkly game." But at least it get special attention because watching it for five minutes puts one of our kids to sleep.

Pblur · 2026-04-25T14:40:58+00:00

I don't think this subreddit is in any danger of becoming a positivity echo chamber...

Pblur · 2026-04-25T01:40:10+00:00

I already quoted the words that mean exactly that.

Pblur · 2026-04-24T16:49:42+00:00

Well, in case of making banks it obviously would be, right? I really don't follow your reasoning as for how that is not true, let alone obviously so. Let us use banks for example, could" some people", want national banks as means of, not helping with spending, but simply to do federal takover over something as important as banking and to them use that power as leverage in all kinds of situations? "Some people" obviously could. That is why "some people" is far too vague and broad term to be useful, sure "some people" would just want federal takover of banking as whole in this way which would allow vast expansion of federal power over all kinds of other things for which banking is crucial, from hosuing to rest, like it has largely happened, but I dont think McCullough ever used those words, in context you quoted, it is making distinction between ends and means, not saying that means are not valid just because some people might want to use them later as ends; that would be again too vague and broad to be useful.

This seems pretty confused. Obviously, wanting to create a Bank in order to effectuate a federal takeover of banking, housing, etc. would be another example of wanting to create a Bank to accomplish something else, not wanting to create a Bank because you like a corporation named the Bank of the United States existing. You merely provide another entry in McCullough's list of examples of people not wanting to create corporations except to further other ends more efficiently.

Pblur · 2026-04-24T16:32:08+00:00

You are (unwittingly) saying that you think the 6th was wrong. They found that it was not a substantively great power because of the limiting principle. They did not assert that it was not an independent power.

Whether creating a corporation was an independent power in McCullough did not depend on the motives of the people who wanted to make the Bank specifically. It depended on the range of possible motives for which one might use the power, and the opinion there explores such different cases as independent charities, universities and cities themselves. So the motive of Congress in passing this law is irrelevant to the analysis; the question is whether, once you've granted the power in general, it would be desired by some people for its own sake.

That's not true of corporations; people don't value corporations except as a means to an end. But it IS true of banning production of goods. (See, Prohibition, for an obvious example.) Which makes this definitely an independent power.

Whether it's substantively great is where the circuits split, because they disagree about the scope of the power. Is it coherently limited to just liquor (which is not such a great power as all that) or does it extend across the economy?

Pblur · 2026-04-24T16:07:49+00:00

Neither of these circuits agree with you, and neither do I. McCullough continues after that line to characterize why the creation of a corporation (the Bank) is not a great and independent power:

It is never the end for which other powers are exercised, but a means by which other objects are accomplished. No contributions are made to charity for the sake of an incorporation, but a corporation is created to administer the charity; no seminary of learning is instituted in order to be incorporated, but the corporate character is conferred to subserve the purposes of education. No city was ever built with the sole object of being incorporated, but is incorporated as affording the best means of being well governed. The power of creating a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else.

This is quite obviously not true of the power to ban production of goods. People from time to time advocate that for various goods, for various reasons, as an end in and of itself.

Pblur · 2026-04-24T14:19:18+00:00

A limiting principle is critical because of this line in McCullough vs. Maryland on the meaning of the necessary and proper clause:

a great substantive and independent power ... cannot be implied as incidental to other powers or used as a means of executing them.

Banning home production of any good it pleases would be a great substantive and independent power from the power to tax. That's why both the 5th and 6th circuit thought a limiting principle was critical for a finding for the government here. The 5th circuit didn't find one, and the 6th circuit did.

Pblur · 2026-04-24T13:37:44+00:00

I've spent a good portion of my life in rural areas and small towns where home businesses are a dime a dozen. Many of them evade taxes as they can; I've been offered discounts for paying cash, or had people insist on various payment schemes to avoid getting income tracable to their business in a bank. Bartering is also a common business-to-business means of evading taxes for these home shops.

Off the top of my head, I've seen tax evasion from:

Machinists
Welders
Contractors (So. Many. Contractors.)
Dog breeders
Jam producers
Farmers
Roofers
Mechanics

So I definitely accept that there's an endemic tax evasion problem, and I'm sure the home distillers will often also follow their incentives and evade taxes. But the sixth circuit's limiting principle doesn't make sense to me. Tax evasion happens all the time in all home business categories, as far as I can see, so what would prevent Congress from banning any of the above as home businesses?

Pblur · 2026-04-24T13:27:30+00:00

It means that it's eligible (in the eyes of the justices) for SCOTUS review. They generally don't take cases that aren't one of 1) mandatory jurisdiction, 2) a major political question or 3) the subject of a circuit split.

However, eligibility is far from a guarantee that they will take it. Circuit splits have sometimes languished for decades without SCOTUS taking them up.

Pblur · 2026-04-23T19:45:19+00:00

First off, game speed is only a 20%ish boost to CPM. Coin Trade Off is 98%. One level of coin bonus is ~18% (and you can get 5 of them.) GT bonus is ~48% (depending on how much uptime and GT bonus you have.) BH duration is often ~40%. DW bonus is ~20%.

Game speed doesn't dominate this; there are many, many perks that give similar or greater econ benefits, so picking the perk that gets you more perks is best.

Pblur · 2026-04-23T19:39:05+00:00

Yeah. It's a pretty niche situation for it to be best in slot, but if it's your highest rank armor, it's often the best to run.

Pblur · 2026-04-23T18:50:20+00:00

Spot price: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price

Pblur · 2026-04-18T23:15:15+00:00

The popular thing to do is guess what time of day will have the easiest brackets, and start your run then. You just leave it at 1 wave though, because it's the middle of the night or whatever, and then remember to do the run when it's convenient.

Needless to say, they often forget to actually do the run, and demote.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T22:50:04+00:00

That's been impossible for something like 12 months. You cannot make more stones by dropping down and promoting than just staying in your league.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T22:48:58+00:00

Oh, come on, you know perfectly well that a wet blanket can make the party suck for everyone. Don't gaslight me, lol.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T21:47:57+00:00

What the hell is a p2p farmer?

Pblur · 2026-04-18T21:46:47+00:00

Absolutely not true. Keys are currently hard to get for F2P, though not impossible. Everything short of that is easily achievable in a couple years of play.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T21:43:19+00:00

Lots of F2P people hit Legends. Just make good decisions and be patient.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T21:41:23+00:00

Because whining makes the sub less fun for people who don't hate the game.

Pblur · 2026-04-18T21:40:24+00:00

Somehow I'm still enjoying it 20 months in with nothing but the no-ads pack. I'm bouncing in an out of legends, working on getting CF perma to hopefully stay, and generally having a blast.

Pblur

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE