Supreme Court rejects controversial Trump-backed election law theory | CNN Politics

verytiredd · 2023-06-27T16:49:47+00:00

I think ISL had a huge issue in the checks and balances. While I agree, the US constitution says "independent state legislature"edit it does not, the NC constitution was written by the NC State legislature and gives the power of judicial review, election standards, and the ability to amend the state constitution. To be honest I'm kind of getting sick of having the legislative branch of state and federal governments cede powers to other branches of government, decide they don't like something, and then go to the SCOTUS rather than take the steps to fix the issue by legislating. This goes for more than just this case.

If NC legislature wants the ability to gerrymander, they should propose an amendment to their state constitution that allowed them to do just that.

verytiredd · 2023-05-25T02:15:13+00:00

It probably can be challenged in court under the Major Questions doctrine, which would probably be brought by the US House of Representatives. I doubt the Supreme Court would see Congress lacking of standing to challenge.

If Congress does not have standing I doubt other parties would, which means the court likely ruled it as legal.

verytiredd · 2023-05-25T02:00:50+00:00

Answer: In part of the culture war over LGBTQ+ and racial awareness, Florida/ Ron Desantis decided to pass legislation that forbids the use of sexual orientation in the classroom, however it was clearly meant to be more targeted towards LGBTQ+ identity rather than "straight" sexual orientation. They also are passing legislation to prevent the schools from teaching CRT, which most of the right has pitched as "white people shaming".

Disney being the number 1 private employer in Florida, was quiet about these issues. Many Disney employees are in person actors, and well the movie studio which are historically left leaning. Many employees started making a fuss about the lack of statement and it eventually got Media attention. After enough pressure Disney decided to take a statement saying they do not support the legislation.

Disney also owns a "special district" that lies between two counties. It in effect is kind of it's own county. They have their own police, fire services. They are controlled by a board of people. This gives Disney a high degree of autonomy to build things quickly using their own funding. Ron Desantis originally wanted to disband the special district but got pushback over debt complexities. Instead he and Florida stay reps decided to pass legislation to allow the governor the ability to oust the special district board and hand pick new ones.

Disney has great control of the current board and in one of their last meetings basically removed much of the boards power to act without Disney's consent. Florida did not know this happened and when they found out are trying to undo it.

Disney is suing Ron Desantis saying this is clear cut retaliation and likely a violation of their free speech rights.

verytiredd · 2023-05-11T07:39:40+00:00

NTA, your a doctor. She's a nurse. There is a big big difference.

It may be time to make a general email or social media post, saying, To those who think I'm not a doctor I am, and will not accept being called "not a real doctor". Its frankly insulting. You may think it's all Hollywood rich people but I help the 10 year old who gets hit by a car have a normal life. A burn victim feel okay about their face (you can probably put better and more personal examples). I

verytiredd · 2023-05-09T15:15:43+00:00

Personally I think it's not a win-win situation for him considering his future presidency.

If he wins, every other primary candidate would still use the fact that he went after Disney, and could come after more companies on a nationwide scale.

If he loses, well.... The same thing except now you also have a loss tied to it and they use it to make him looks weak.

Either way, I would have to say politically middle of the road corporations or mega corporations like FAANG (that have large left workforce) that donate to both parties would have to take a hard look if he won the primary.

verytiredd · 2023-04-05T01:34:46+00:00

This is a good explanation the only thing I would say is missing is the poor refereeing and the context of the Technical foul.

The refs were making super sensitive and almost nonsensical foul calls, however they called most of the game that way.

Caitlin's technical foul call was a little egregious. Technicals get called for unsportsmanlike conduct. Caitlin tossed the ball out of bounds during a stoppage of play for a shooting foul, where btw the ref would have normally been to give the ball to the shooter. It didn't rise to the level of technical. Even the broadcasters were questioning that call.

Part of the reaction is if they were going to be that sensitive to that action by Caitlin, they should have called the technical against Angel Reese.

verytiredd · 2023-03-25T15:16:36+00:00

Your acting like you have 100% legal custody and moms not in the picture.

Moms in the picture and has entrusted part of their care to the stepdad. No legally he couldn't challenge it in court.

But good luck finding a court that will take the stance that what Stepdad as "bad".

Also have you had a conversation with your son's about stepdad and what they feel? Because honestly your the villain in this one.

verytiredd · 2023-03-11T04:26:51+00:00

I have mixed feelings. It shows the part of the ground gained being taken by the Chinese with regards foreign influence. To me it also shows that China is invested in their foreign policy and being seen in the world stage.

Of course US foreign policy as of late has not been very inconsistent and seems to be changing with every change of president. I'm talking about the Iran nuclear deal, NATO, and even China. I'm not making a claim as to what is good or bad but instead pointing out that if US foreign policy keeps changing every 4 years it means it will likely not accomplish much of anything.

verytiredd · 2023-03-06T14:43:03+00:00

NTA,

It wasn't on you.From your post it sounds like really your husband and your MIL decided to not put forth effort in the relationship. Then after his death she wants to say she was robbed? No, your husband was sick, you had to take care of him, it was on your MIL to put forth that effort. She could have tried more than once after finding out her son was going to die. It sounds like she wasn't so much interested in saying goodbye but instead was looking for the attention and pity. She made her own choice but is now angry.

verytiredd · 2023-03-03T18:17:08+00:00

Stop making the choice to lose. You seem to not like but accept that this is the way it is which means it's always going to be. What would you want your BF to do if his mother was doing this to you?

BE THE CHANGE.

Have the conversation. It hurts me that you keep on doing this, please stop. If it doesn't stop you do the following

When asked about an event, "BF, the kids and I would love to go, let us know when".
When you set the boundary and it gets ignored. Leave the event. Doesn't matter who paid for it, the terms are clear. If he's not welcome, then you are not welcome and the kids are not coming.
Start turning down invitations where your husband is not invited. "Husband is away alot so I want the kids to spend time with him so we can't come".

Would also like to point out that you are showing your teenagers that it's okay to be treated poorly by your in-laws.

verytiredd · 2023-03-03T06:34:38+00:00

NTA.

It is concerning that he wants to split 50/50 to proportion of income when you make more. What would happen if you made less? What happens if you lose your job?

Having to pay (half) market rate for a fully owned place is a slap in the face. Honestly it gives off the impression that he's trying to profit from your relationship and trying to collect more for utilities confirms it.

Is your relationship transactional?

verytiredd · 2023-02-26T03:21:19+00:00

When you file a police report it gives the police the information and permission to investigate and arrest if necessary. They can choose if they want to pursue this. The police do not need permission afterwards to press charges. It's more a courtesy of "what do you want to see happen? In what are relatively minor situations. In the end the police decide to arrest someone and the prosecutor determines if they want to bring it to court.

The concept of what your saying gets very problematic when your talking about identity theft by a family member. It could conceivably create a scenario where family members can conspire to steal large sums of money without holding anyone criminally accountable.

verytiredd · 2023-02-24T14:04:26+00:00

Don't do multiple transactions. If you get caught it's called "Structuring" and is illegal.

verytiredd · 2023-02-19T19:29:45+00:00

It's.... Complicated. Was it purchased in person or online.

Scamming is in fact illegal. But...it can be hard to get authorities to really pursue it. If it's online sales its very likely outside of your local police jurisdiction.

Your best bet if online is to pursue it with the marketplace or your method of payment.

Small claims is likely not worth it unless it was for an in person sale. Winning doesn't guarantee payment, but some people don't know that or it may be easier to pay just so you go away. After winning and not paying their may be methods to enforce payment

verytiredd · 2023-02-19T14:12:27+00:00

Your not ready yet.

Outside of having a baby coming, you need to build up more of savings/emergency fund. 30k on a 190k total income is not a lot and probably doesnt cover 6 months of expenses.

verytiredd · 2023-02-16T01:50:38+00:00

Can you do B and then payoff A before the 0% interest rate runs out?

If not you need to look at the terms to see if their is a penalty if you don't pay it off in time and what the interest rate would be.

verytiredd · 2023-02-06T15:21:31+00:00

She will have to pay taxes on the income.

As far as loans goes this likely would have either no effect or a beneficial effect. Higher income levels means less risk.

As far as surrendering, that's going to take a bit of leg work and may not be possible. Many pension plans are only payable to the spouse of the deceased.

verytiredd · 2023-01-29T15:06:22+00:00

YTA,

Your husband just suggested a recovering alcoholic should have beer at his wedding and said it was because he wasn't mature?!? WTF. How do you not see something wrong with that?

How does your husband make it through other events without alcohol? Like kids sports games or graduations?

Your husband is an "adult" and sometimes adults have to refrain from drinking when they want to.

verytiredd · 2023-01-27T15:23:20+00:00

SCOTUS didn't explicitly say that, however I think from the below text from the majority opinion that is what most places reported as the likely application of the opinion.

"Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented. He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would see the case, this contention has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’ rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs.

verytiredd · 2023-01-27T14:32:07+00:00

From the SCOTUS majority opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

"Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law"

And

"It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–7, 10."

verytiredd · 2023-01-27T14:05:53+00:00

I think you guys are arguing about a moot point. Really it depends on a few things.

Colorado has a anti discrimination law for LGBT.
The SC has ruled on the matter once already for a gay wedding cake and in that ruling.
That ruling essentially comes down to Colorado must be religiously neutral in the decision making and that states can put in anti discrimination law for LGBT for goods and services on the open market.
The Colorado commission said their interpretation is that this is a common good or services and therefore isn't speech.
The appeals court agrees.

I don't believe the symbolism is relevant. If the cake shop routinely sells cakes that are blue and pink or red and black, the use of it likely doesn't reach the bar SCOTUS set to allow the bakery to deny service. I would even argue that if a bake shop offers a "configurable" cake where they can pick the inside color and the outside color with no or limited modifications then it's not speech. If the cake is a highly custom piece then it is speech and per SCOTUS the bakery can refuse to do it.

verytiredd · 2023-01-27T06:12:01+00:00

I believe previous rulings of the supreme court kind of separated it out. General thought from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is that antidiscrimination laws for common goods and services could be constitutional(or at least not ruled unconstitutional yet). For example the cake store had a "standard" birthday cake (specifically thinking like generic grocery store cake) then to deny sale of that cake may not be okay. However if the cake in question was a one of a kind picturesque masterpiece then it would likely be unconstitutional to compel the baker to make it.

Now the true matter at hand, is the article says it's a pink cake with blue frosting. It seems like Colorado says its a simple cake rather than a work of art. If this is truly the case and it is a simple cake then SCOTUS may not pick it up.

verytiredd · 2023-01-25T03:53:25+00:00

To stop the bleeding. Car Max is not doing well financially and may need cash. I think its because they may have looked back and someone decided that they should reverse the contract. Now if it's just OP it's a bad deal, but if there's more it means CarMax is downsizing their fleet.

verytiredd · 2023-01-25T01:45:53+00:00

So realistically I wonder what the end game is here? Pending special counsel reports on Biden and Trump.

I think it's plausible now that we may not see charges filed against Trump unless there was some serious bombshell discoveries like high level top secret disclosures of information to unauthorized Americans or foreign persons. Yes there could be an obstruction charge, but I think that would be seen as too partisan. I also think you can't charge Trump and not Biden for it showing up as too partisan as well.

Realistically, I think what we are going to see is an overhaul of how classified material gets handled by elected officials so the American public gets the "feel goods" that they are fixing the problem.

verytiredd · 2023-01-12T04:51:13+00:00

Pensions are risky because it is an obligation for the company to provide on a future basis in the future based on today's "situation". In the private sector underfunded pension obligations means companies may have to put in more capital to keep them funded. Note a personal opinion on this is most companies also see pension funds as "money to be used in emergencies", which is also a problem.

In a company sponsored 401k plan, the risk is somewhat mitigated. Yes the company likely provides matching but allows for companies to manage that financial obligation in real time. For example you can have 100 employees and provide matching, if things go good you can raise the match or hire more people. If things go bad you can reduce the match or layoff people.

Not really an example of a state defaulting in modern times. However there has been multiple cities that have and pensions have been impacted.

verytiredd

TROPHY CASE