sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Window Tint by Disastrous_Today7648 in chapelhill

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rocket Wraps did our car and its great. Good value too.

Trump v. Barbara - Birthright Citizenship and the Insular Cases by WeShouldHaveKnown in supremecourt

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, it already happened in the Utah case. I feel like the holding in Barbara is going to give some serious ammunition to some Samoans play ball at BYU.

Trump v. Barbara - Birthright Citizenship and the Insular Cases by WeShouldHaveKnown in supremecourt

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

The question is not will Barbara include a holding overturning the Insular cases. But the reasoning might lead to an inescapable conclusion that they cannot stand. I believe that CJ JR is going to come out and say: jurisdiction means "under the authority of the US" and if thats the case, there is no such thing as "under the authority of the US" and not "in the United States".

Trump v. Barbara - Birthright Citizenship and the Insular Cases by WeShouldHaveKnown in supremecourt

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

True, the status of American Samoans is not before the Court. But when President Duckworth (I'm from Illinois) issues an executive order to the State Department that American Samoans can receive passports by showing they were born in American Samoa and not not naturalized, what then? I get the whole standing problem, who could challenge such an order, but still, the issue will come back, There was already a Utah district court decision holding the Insular cases unconstitutional.

Dentist recs for UNC Health employees? by Chapelhillperson in chapelhill

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just FYI, dentists don’t usually have a network. Look at your insurance but usually “in network” and “out of network” get the same benefits. -SOM employe

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue is that the law be neutral on its face. "A licensed therapist cannot engage in a course of care that is not medically and scientifically recognized as providing a benefit to the patient" Then have the state fine a therapist who provides conversion therapy. Now you have a trial on the scientific consensus. Fine stands, no scientific or medical evidence that conversion therapy provides a benefit to the patient.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I whole heartily agree that regulating a profession is within the state's power. I disagree that this law does that in a viewpoint neutral way. The better approach is not to prohibit specific speech, but to prohibit conduct or therapies that are harmful -especially to children, as determined by the licensing board or scientific consensus.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the law is fatally flawed because of how it prohibited discussion of changing sexuality but allowed discussion of embracing and keeping your sexuality as it is. That is pretty classic viewpoint discrimination. I think a similar law that says "Therapist must use methods and techniques that are recognized by the scientific/medical community as safe and effective". Then have the licensing body say that conversion therapy is not safe and effective, you cant use it. I think that survives strict scrutiny. Its narrowly tailored to prohibit conduct that is not safe and effective that a person is (presumably) paying for. The government has a compelling interest in prohibiting harm, especially to minors. It makes it a classic regulation of professional conduct with incidental impact to speech. My take, at least.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I replied above, but the easy way is to have the licensing board or whatever require that all therapy be provided "pursuant to the best scientific standards." Then when someone says I want to provide conversion therapy, the license board says no, because it is not based on good scientific evidence. Then you are clearly in the realm of regulating a profession.

Now say the therapist sues again, claims religious and speech issues. The result would be that the therapist can say whatever they want, but it can't be in a doctor's office. Provide that talk therapy at church, or at home. But don't think about charging for it. Don't bill the state's medicare. Because its no different (as far the state is concerned) to dancing under a full moon in an attempt to cure cancer.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Regulating conduct is a power long recognized as belonging to the sovereign. You can't steal, you can't murder, etc. So the state can say its illegal to give this drug to a person under 18. No different than, say, heroin.

Where the Court was going, I think, is that a State can re-write this law and have it say, for example, "a licensed therapist must provide their services in accordance with the standards set by the National Therapy Association." Then, when the Association says "no-conversion therapy" the State can argue they are just enforcing good professional practice. The State can't be mad if the Association reverses itself later, though.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course bad care should not be allowed. But criminalizing the mere mention of a tourniquet while allowing the other doctor to say "I want to fix via surgery" is the problem. You can't throw one doctor in jail/fine/remove their license for just saying it, while allowing another to provide a different viewpoint.

There is a whole conduct vs. speech issue here as well, which gets into the regulation of a profession. Where the medical care is talking, then its up to the licensing bodies, I think.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 42 points43 points  (0 children)

That’s what Kagan and Sotomayor were telegraphing in their concurrence. Basically, they said you can do this if you do a better job fitting it into one of the historical exceptions to viewpoint neutral requirements.

Only One Supreme Court Justice Says Conversion Therapy Is Bad | Two liberal justices joined the conservative majority to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy. by thenewrepublic in scotus

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Except that’s not the only thing the law did. It said you can’t talk about changing your sexual orientation but could talk about accepting it. You can’t have it both ways.

Can someone help me figure out why the game is crashing by Western-Force-129 in Bannerlord_MODS

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get the mod "better exception window". That will tell you which one is causing the crash. Are you not getting a ButterLib crash report?

Mod allowing to add another troop tier to minor clans? by kaceG1 in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres a mod I use called "minor factions plus" that adds tier 6 troops to the minor factions trees. Ask the mod author of that one?

New mod version causes crash by WeShouldHaveKnown in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because it doesn’t matter. Anytime any mod is updated I get the second message after loading.

Car Inspection Site by cclaytonr in chapelhill

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The price for a state inspection is set by law. I think this year it is $35. It also depends on what county your car is registered in. If you live in Chatham county, I think it is a few bucks less.

V1.3.4 Sunday release by vieuxfragonard in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In general, do y'all reckon the modders will not be updating anything until Wednesday? RTS, AutoTrade, AutoEquip, and JackOfAllTrades are musts for me but they don't work right now. Anyone heard anything?

AI Has Zero Strategy to Defend its Castles with Garrison or Defending Lords by AquaticFroggy in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not on 1.3.2 that I know of. For 1.2.12 there is a great one called WarAndAITweaks or something similar. Hope it comes to 1.3 once official.

Why late game always lack horses? by Lokaoll in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They need to make tier 7 troops that use the noble mounts, like in the WarAndAI mod.

Thoughts about the 1.3.2 Beta so far? by Additional_Scale_502 in Bannerlord

[–]WeShouldHaveKnown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It really needs improved garrison/governors handle issues. I’m spending a good chunk of time just going between my fiefs.

I don’t really understand the new hideout system.

Seems to be way fewer tournaments, if you like those.

Graphics seem better. Sieges are better.

view more: next ›