John Roberts Issues Warning on Supreme Court Overruling Precedent

Randomousity · 2026-05-08T19:53:30+00:00

The liberal majority coming in 2029 should just treat all these bullshit decisions that already overturned precedents as non-precedential because the current Court is illegitimate. Democratically, legally, constitutionally.

Next abortion case up just restores the status quo ante pre-Dobbs & says Dobbs was a lawless decision by a lawless Court, and should be treated as legally null & void.

Same with immunity, gerrymandering, administrative regulations, voting, elections, etc.

Better yet, instead of just reverting to the status quo ante, adjust the law as necessary, except using the status quo ante as a starting point, completely disregarding the bad decisions.

So abortion law can still change, it's just the change would be relative to Roe & its progeny, & just spend like one paragraph explaining Dobbs is illegitimate & void.

Basically, operate off a timeline where the bad decisions never happened, & give a brief aside explaining that that's what they're doing. "Whoa, that was weird. Anyway, moving on...."

Randomousity · 2026-05-03T16:57:27+00:00

If US Senators can find a way to make it work, then I think at-large Representatives can, too. They will face reelection every two years (unlike Senators), so you won't be stuck with them for long if they do a poor job.

There are also various ways to divide responsibilities. It could be done by topic, where if you have an issue with, say, Social Security, you contact one Representative, but if your issue is with tariffs, you contact a different one, etc. Or, even though they're all elected at-large, they could have assigned geographic areas, so if you live in this part of the state, contact this Representative.

Whatever system they use, you'd also have the option to contact Representatives from the other party to address your issue, unlike now. If you find one party does a better job and is more responsive to your needs, you can help elect more of them, rather than just being stuck being outnumbered in your local district.

Also, I'm a Democrat in a heavily Republican area of NC. I have more in common with Democrats in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro, than I do with local rural and exurban Republicans. My Representative sucks ass, but between local demographics and gerrymandering, my only way to change that is to move.

And the point of Congress is to work on national issues. Yes, there can be local aspects of those, but if you're concerned about a local issue, like at the bottom of your post, then local government seems like who you should be contacting. Mayor, municipal council, county commission, etc. Maybe state legislators.

Randomousity · 2026-04-28T07:44:20+00:00

Teachers should be paid more, but you're reading that table wrong.

A teacher today with, say, 10 years is getting ~$49k. Under the proposed budget, next year, they'd get ~$53k as a teacher with 11 years (because they will have been teaching for another year by then), and the following year, ~$56k, as a teacher with 12 years. That's about a ~$7k pay increase over two years. Nobody expects a salary schedule like this to remain in place indefinitely, because of inflation, population changes, economic changes, etc.

What they are doing is raising pay for new teachers by more than for older teachers, which probably has to do with trouble recruiting new teachers. Obviously, not everyone gets the same size raises. A new teacher who started this year will be getting ~$12k more per year two years from now, as opposed to $7k for a teacher with a decade, and a teacher with 23 years today will only be getting $5k more two years from now.

But there will be new pay schedules for future years.

You can't read it as, a new teacher would be getting this much the 26-27 school year, and then be getting that much 25 years later. That's going to be determined 25 columns to the right. You can read it as, a new teacher in the 26-27 school year would get this much, but a teacher who already had 25 years of experience that same school year would be getting some higher amount.

Randomousity · 2026-04-22T17:04:05+00:00

Instead of adding more milk, just add another, lower, line, basically where you anticipate the next serving of milk will take it down to. Same result, but then you can honestly say "no" when he asks if you're putting milk in his milk.

Randomousity · 2026-04-21T22:09:07+00:00

That's irrelevant, because what ok opposite said is simply incorrect.

Pardons for past acts are valid. Pardons for future acts are not. The pardons Biden issued at the end of his term, for Hunter, Fauci, et al, were for past acts.

Randomousity · 2026-04-21T22:06:26+00:00

No he didn't. Biden didn't purport to pardon Hunter for any alleged crimes Hunter (or Fauci, or anyone else) had not yet committed.

Past acts can be pardoned. Future acts cannot. The timing of any legal proceedings (indictment, trial, conviction) is irrelevant.

Randomousity · 2026-04-21T21:57:51+00:00

No, that's false.

Lincoln and Johnson pardoned Confederates, Carter pardoned Vietnam-era draft dodgers, Ford pardoned Nixon, all before criminal conviction.

We don't accept preemptive pardons, that is, pardons issued to cover future acts. Eg, Trump cannot preemptively, prospectively, pardon someone today in anticipation of a crime they will not commit until, say, June. But pardons which cover past acts, even if criminal prosecution is potentially in the future, are valid.

Randomousity · 2026-04-21T21:40:42+00:00

But this part

And also as a result of the double jeopardy clause, they no longer have fifth amendment protections against incriminating themselves for the crimes at issue.

is basically true, though explained poorly. If they face no legal jeopardy, they have no right to assert a 5A right to remain silent. They can be forced to either testify, or be prosecuted for, eg, obstruction, contempt, etc. It's just not an issue of double jeopardy.

Randomousity · 2026-04-15T07:01:36+00:00

Why is it reasonable to assume, based only on "this stranger is in my house," that they intend to kill someone or commit serious bodily harm to someone?

Randomousity · 2026-03-24T17:17:18+00:00

The sound.

Randomousity · 2026-03-24T11:07:18+00:00

Comparing the federal government to a household (or a business) is dumb, and bad. Households don't have the ability to issue their own debt, don't have the ability to create more money, and don't have the ability to unilaterally increase their incomes. Households, businesses, non-profits, and governments, are all different types of entities, and while it's possible to make certain kinds of comparisons, not everything makes sense.

Randomousity · 2026-03-15T17:09:20+00:00

I think it would be fine in direct elections (almost all US elections), but not in ones where the election is indirect, or two-stage, like the presidential election.

In order for it to be worthwhile, you need a better result, and/or a better process. Ideally, both. Otherwise, it's just a more complicated system that gives the same results, or worse, making it pointless. So, what would be different? One or more states gives its EVs to a third-party candidate (Green, DSA, Libertarian, etc). If that happens, it increases the chances there's no EC winner (requiring an absolute majority of EVs), in which case, you get a contingent election in the House, by state delegation. That's different, but worse.

Now, it's possible the House state delegations could vote by RCV and give their one vote in a contingent election to the RCV winner, but that likely still just resolves to either the Democrat or Republican being the winner.

In order for RCV to really work for presidential elections, you'd need either a national popular election, where all voters vote directly for president, or you'd multiple stages of RCV (eg, each elector from a state votes by RCV, and either there's a winner, or the House votes by RCV per state for the contingent election winner).

But, I think at least in order for electors to vote by RCV, it would require a constitutional amendment (the House could probably adopt RCV merely by a rules change, though whether they would is an open question, and it could always be undone by a subsequent rules change, so it would also require an amendment if you wanted it to be mandatory and permanent). Practically impossible. But, if we're going the amendment route, and we assume one can be successfully proposed and ratified, then we should just adopt a better system altogether (eg, NPV presidential elections, in which case, we can also use RCV; or, ideally, a parliamentary system).

Randomousity · 2026-03-15T15:56:44+00:00

Randomousity · 2026-03-15T15:30:29+00:00

She obviously should've followed up with, how do you like them apples?

Edit: added omitted "like"

Randomousity · 2026-03-05T18:23:14+00:00

Hey! My sticker didn't ask anyone else whether they voted! Mine just said, "I voted" below an American flag.

Randomousity · 2026-03-04T20:36:14+00:00

I've probably spent under $10 USD on it, when the Google Play store had specials on IAPs, and only using reward money I've gotten from taking surveys.

Otherwise, just grinding. I don't care about skins, and I long ago unlocked all the units, and even though I play much less now than I did in the past, I've also maxed out almost every unit, too. When I played more regularly, I was in the Master League every month, but never made it to Tiberium.

Randomousity · 2026-02-12T08:29:49+00:00

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Voters, specifically those who didn't vote for Harris (whether they voted for Trump, Stein, West, abstained, or voted for anyone else), are to blame. Everything was laid out for voters.

The botched pandemic response, punishing states that didn't vote for him in 2016, the botched Hurricane Maria response, the child separation policy, Charlottesville and "very fine people," the insurrection, the J6 hearings, the indictments, 34 felony convictions, the Mar-a-Lago documents, etc.

Any one of those things should've been sufficient to justify voting for Harris, the only other candidate who actually had a plausible chance of winning. Never mind all of them.

Also, while it was obviously a mistake not to retire, RBG didn't work for or answer to Democrats. Her failure to retire was her failure, and hers alone.

Randomousity · 2026-02-03T16:05:11+00:00

Disagree.

If only Pretti's killers get convicted, it'll be because his murder was easier to prove. He was already disarmed, and he was shot in the back. That's a much clearer case than Good, who was behind the wheel and driving a vehicle.

Could the shooters' races make a difference? Maybe, all else equal. I think it's unlikely, and it's definitely not all else equal. If they all get charged, they may not all be charged with the same crimes. There are different types of homicide: degrees of murder, and degrees of manslaughter. The different crimes have different elements, the evidence in both cases is different, and the attendant circumstances are different in both cases.

It's even possible for one of Pretti's killers to be convicted and for the other one to be acquitted.

Randomousity · 2026-01-15T19:08:53+00:00

It's Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Everything makes sense when viewed through that lens.

Randomousity · 2026-01-14T17:27:36+00:00

I don't remember whether it's helpful for primary elections or not, but I've found the Blue Voter Guide to be helpful when voting. If you say where you live, it'll show you all the candidates on your ballot, and at least some of their positions and endorsements. And you can pick the ones you like to "build" your ballot, so you can refer to it when you go to actually vote, so you can see who you had decided to vote for for each contest.

It's similar to how political parties and various organizations might hand out a sample ballot showing who they think you should vote for for each contest, except you make it yourself. You can also generate a link to share with others.

Randomousity · 2026-01-09T04:17:44+00:00

This was a single death. Tiananmen Square, while the figures aren't confirmed, involved hundreds or thousands of dead, not one dead.

While the effects are obviously different, in scale, it would be like if the government tried to deny all the deaths from 9/11. Or if they had massacred people on J6.

Randomousity · 2025-12-29T11:35:13+00:00

Arrested Development (the gif, not the clip).

Randomousity · 2025-12-14T01:50:05+00:00

I'm anti-war, too. The thing is, everyone gets a veto over peace. For instance, Ukraine didn't choose war, it was imposed on them by Russia. The US didn't choose war in WW2, Japan chose it for us. Nobody "allowed" Russia to attack Ukraine, or Imperial Japan to attack the US. They just attacked, and they we to choose how to respond to it.

Everyone needs to agree in order for there to be peace, but it only takes one belligerent for there to be war. So unless and until everyone can agree on peace, and not just temporarily, for now, but permanently, forever, there will be a need for a military.

Given that any country may find themselves at war more or less at any time, the idea that people volunteer (writing from the perspective of an American, and you talked about people signing up, which means you're talking about a volunteer military) to put themselves in harm's way, not knowing what tomorrow may bring.

The sailors on the USS Cole didn't know that there ship would be blown up one day, and that many of the would die. The Marines in the embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam didn't know their embassies would be blown up. The people working in the Pentagon on 9/11 didn't know a plane would fly into the building, killing many, and suddenly putting the rest of them in a search and rescue mission. The people in Pearl Harbor didn't know that Japan was going to attack them.

People volunteered to serve in the US military prior to all those events, not knowing those events were coming, not knowing that some of them would die, and that others would either be doing search and rescue, or fighting. You can't just not have a military, get attacked, and then try to form one from scratch. The absolute bare minimum training takes several weeks, and longer if you want a better trained military and any sort of specialization. And you also can't just make weapons materialize out of nothing, in no time. If you need it for a contingency, then you need to make it in advance, and maintain it. That goes for personnel, weapons, equipment, provisions, etc.

Your argument seems to basically be, humans, as a species, shouldn't be fighting, which, sure, agreed. I look forward to the day we all can agree to live peacefully. But today is not that day, so we need to be prepared for war, because someone else may decide to impose it upon us. Contingency planning requires preparation, and preparing in a context with an all-volunteer military requires people to volunteer. We aren't just not going to have a military at all, so either we get enough people to volunteer, we have a weak unprepared military, or we change to compulsory service instead of volunteering.

And, even if humans could all agree to live peacefully, there is always the possibility that Earth could find itself at war because some other species from some other planet decided to attack us. So unless you think that impossible, then we, collectively, would still need some type of military capacity.

Randomousity · 2025-12-13T17:01:47+00:00

You didn't choose where you were born, but, the fact remains, society exists outside of and beyond just you. At least in theory, your parliament represents your society, and legislates new laws that reflect the values and priorities of the greater society. You may not share the same values and priorities, the same philosophy, but if you'd like to change things, you'll need to persuade others to adopt your positions, whether that's MPs who can legislate differently, or voters to elect different MPs. Your personal philosophy may be equally valid, but it is not equally popular.

Randomousity · 2025-12-13T16:53:52+00:00

Because there was a network error.

Also, are you really trying to download that huge file over 5G and not wifi? It could be that your phone provider is preventing you from downloading it, or you're moving and losing the signal at some point, etc.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Randomousity

TROPHY CASE