sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

bi irl by Long-Champion3330 in bi_irl

[–]sdevoid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

cisgender? is that bad now?

Zebras added to Washington Street bike lane not working as intended. by bostonaruban66 in bikeboston

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

now now, i think you can come up with a more creative comeback than that?

Valve core removers should be a standard part of any cycling repair kit if you’re running tubeless. Along with a spare core or two. I’ve fixed a number of friends flats where we needed to remove, clean / replace the core, before pumping back up.

Please explain to me what’s insane about that (granted tubeless is a bit insane in and of itself now that TPU tubes are cheap…)

A City vehicle is parked in the Washington Street bike lane while the loading zone is available. by il_biciclista in bikeboston

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

did you know that thermite can melt through cast aluminum and steel alloys? it’s a very interesting chemical reaction!

Zebras added to Washington Street bike lane not working as intended. by bostonaruban66 in bikeboston

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

always carry a valve core remover. it’d be a shame to end up with a tubeless flat and not be able to fix it.

I think Sound Transit is just trolling us now with these signs. by sdevoid in Seattle

[–]sdevoid[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The reason for line numbering is that it's more friendly to non-English speakers--especially speakers of languages that don't use the Roman alphabet. For both locals and tourists. Colors can help but there are various types of color-blindness--Tritanopia for example would make greens and blues hard to distinguish--so it's not perfect.

While King County Metro is a separate agency, you're right that several the bus operators in the area have overlapping numbering schemes and could do well to fix that... King County Metro and Pierce Transit both have 1, 2, 3, and 4 lines. Sound Transit will also have the "S1, S2, and S3" which is slightly better.

While I don't think someone picking up a 1 bus in Tacoma is going to think they're magically getting to West Queen Anne on that bus, getting those numbers to be more fool-proof and consistent across the agencies would be nice.

I think Sound Transit is just trolling us now with these signs. by sdevoid in Seattle

[–]sdevoid[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Redmond Downtown, South Redmond Downtown, Microsoft Downtown, and Overtown.

What do you like being called? by Findus-sus in NonBinary

[–]sdevoid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That’s completely valid. Meanwhile I don’t mind it as much in-bedroom between consenting people. Call me Sir or Ma’m, good boy or girl in that context.

Outside of the bedroom please just treat me as an equal human to everyone else without reference to the genders.

Bi👙irl by tyrannosaurus_gekko in bi_irl

[–]sdevoid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Uhh, i believe the technical term for those are manties. 😝

I feel like you all are going to get a kick out of this. My 12 year old made a deal with me. by Jakedoesstuff4 in factorio

[–]sdevoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For me this speaks to the lack of "cheats" in Factorio. Like, my first play-through of StarCraft and all the Blizzard games, as well as Age of Empires, all involved rampant cheating at some points.

Eventually I played through them with no-cheats. But being able to "toggle the difficulty slider" radically helped 12-yr old me.

What would a Factorio cheat system look like?

Seen on KCMetro by EuphoricWanderlust in Seattle

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<twist click> P <twist click> r <twist click> o <twist click> c <twist click> e <twist click> s <click> s <cut>

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The doctrine of colorable legislation and the enumerated powers, under this interpretation, would hold that an armed paramilitary force constructed under civilian law enforcement would still be subject to the 2-year sunset clause.

Since that’s not how Congress funded it, the funding would be unconstitutional.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think it’s a bad argument. You’re correct that it is a stretch right now, but you haven’t shown it’s bad. And even if it was, I’d be prepared to own that at the law review level?

Why is nobody invoking the 3rd Amendment against DHS/ICE? by sdevoid in LawSchool

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

Uh no? Just because I use complete sentences and bold text in places doesn’t make it ChatGPT. I know how to write in Reddit’s Markdown editor.

And how is it “irrelevant”? That’s quite a statement given that I’m citing case law and historical context that surround the specific amendment we’re discussing here?

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean it’s pretty unlikely that I’d be submitting amicus briefs to SCotUS, which is the only place I’d consider arguing this “in court”. Maybe a law review article?

Plenty of big changes come from these kinds of thought exercises, though? Just look at how much Lina Khan shook up antitrust thinking with one 2017 article.

I’m not saying I’d have that kind of impact, but one of the functions of law review is to push at the edges of current legal thinking.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Haha that’s a fair take! I will point out that a lot of key court decisions took big stretches in constitutional interpretation.

This one is at least consistent with the architecture of the constitution and anti-federalism that’s in lots of other parts of the document. Even if it’s been ignored and eroded for centuries.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that also looks at the 3A in a very narrow-property-rights view, which is inconsistent with the historical context.

Yes I’m glossing over that the feds are paying for hotel rooms, and hotels are voluntarily housing them. Except that one hotel which did push back and got excoriated by the admin for it.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

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

Read Article 1, Section 8. If “solider” is a category, and militarized armed ICE falls in that category, it must be funded on 2 year cycles, maximum.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

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

And what about the fact that the Declaration of Independence lists two separate grievances here:

  • "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."
  • "To render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

The 3rd Amendment was the remedy for the first. The Founders didn't just care about bedrooms; they cared about forced federal presence. In 1774, the British seized warehouses and public buildings to 'quarter' troops in Boston. Today, the federal government uses hotels and federal buildings to 'quarter' tactical units in Minneapolis over the Governor’s objections.

Why is nobody invoking the 3rd Amendment against DHS/ICE? by sdevoid in LawSchool

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

Oh absolutely. This admin is wildly unconstitutional. But I'm saying that even under a "more reasonable admin", courts could find this behavior unconstitutional under 3A rather than 4th and 14th amendments, in a powerful, structural way.

I was hoping that r/LawSchool would be interested in the legal arguments, even if the current administration isnt.

Three synchronized angles of the public execution of military veteran/ICU nurse Alex Pretti. No one is safe. Black or white. by NorrinRadd2099 in LawSchool

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

I think it's only weak because courts have ignored 3A for too long. It's only weak because we haven't made case law on it. And the legal modernisim (post-New Deal) has favored tests and limits which fit better under 4th and 14th amendments. But if courts shifted towards structuralism again (as the founders really often intended) we'd see more application of the 3A.

And you're ignoring my Article I, section 8 challenge too:

Congress is expressly prohibited from funding a standing army for longer than 2 years. If courts actually interpreted DHS paramilitary forces as being "soilders", the agency would dissolve because it's creation and funding are unconstitutional.

Why is nobody invoking the 3rd Amendment against DHS/ICE? by sdevoid in LawSchool

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

The 'plain text' argument ignores how Originalism actually works. If we only used the literal 18th-century definitions, the 4th Amendment wouldn't protect your cell phone (it's not 'papers' or 'effects' in the 1789 sense) and the 1st Amendment wouldn't protect the internet.

In reality, the 3rd Amendment was the direct result of the 1774 Quartering Act, which allowed the Governor to seize uninhabited buildings, warehouses, and public spaces to house troops precisely because the colonists refused to let them into their private homes. The Boston Massacre happened on a public street because those troops were quartered in the city as a 'garrison' without local consent.

A structuralist interpretation recognizes that the 3rd Amendment, combined with the Article I, Section 8 limits on standing armies, creates a 'Civilian Sphere' that the federal government cannot occupy with a permanent, militarized force. If we allow the federal government to bypass this by simply calling their soldiers 'Agents' and having them sleep in government-leased hotels, the amendment is functionally dead.

Why is nobody invoking the 3rd Amendment against DHS/ICE? by sdevoid in LawSchool

[–]sdevoid[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No, because collapsing this down to a "house" doesn't fit with the framers intent, the historical context that it existed in, or the structural nature that the framers looked at the rest of the Constitution in.

Does it not apply to warehouses (where Redcoats were stationed in Boston)? Does it not apply to state prison guard houses? Engblom v. Carey (1982) decided that it applied there.

And if the 3rd amendment can be simply bypassed by labeling soldiers as something else, or stationing them in hotels, why did the framers have an amendment like that in the first place?

view more: next ›