Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
Yes, I got a paywall.
The thing about genes is that if there aren’t natural selection pressures to keep certain traits, they tend to drift, and traits can change or become entirely non-functional over a surprisingly short time. I would expect, unless there was a concerted effort to maintain the radiation detection trait over those 10,000 years through careful breeding, the cats would lose their radiation triggered appearance change behavior before it actually had a chance to be useful to people.
No, we’re in this position because of a failure of leadership. Leaders can unite people behind doing things they don’t want to do. It’s how rationing was tolerated for years in WWII. But we have an entire political party built around telling people what they want to hear while working against their interests for the wealthy’s short term gains. We could have conquered this from the top-down with a good plan and charismatic leaders supporting it.
People need to start changing their behavior about this heat. I know this sounds like victim blaming. I know people shouldn’t have to change their behavior because we saw global warning coming for 30 years and should have prevented this from happening. But it’s happening. You can’t go into Death Valley in the summer anymore. You just can’t. Please don’t put yourself in this position.
It’s a tragedy that this death happened. We absolutely need to adapt our emergency services to this heat to try to prevent something like this from happening again. But we also need to change our behaviors so we don’t end up in that position in the first place.
Your comment is technically accurate, but leaves out context and relevant information, which makes it misleading. My comment is accurate as well.
The $80 billion is spread over 10 years, and Republicans have already reduced that by $20 billion. Also, that’s the total increase in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, whereas this $1 billion recovered is only one success story of many. Please don’t make such misleading statements.
Corningphobia?
He’s not asking for the citation for the quote. He’s asking for the citation of the veracity of the assertion. We know Adam Schiff said the thing. What matters is the justification for saying the thing.
With no data to justify it (and plenty available showing it’s not true), this is just further evidence Democratic leadership is stuck in the mindset of political battles from 30 years ago. If Trump were running in the political reality of the 90s with his current background and record, even current Biden would mop the floor with him. But we’re not in the age of the party of Gingrich. This is the party of Trump, and facts and record don’t matter to Trump voters and Republicans in general. Welcome to 21st century American politics, Mr. Schiff.
At least it’s before the election that they’re getting the uptake. Might actually be in time to help something for once.
Viruses evolve, some quite quickly. The flu isn’t the fastest (looking at you, HIV), but it’s up there. Over time, existing vaccines train your body to fight something that doesn’t quite match what’s in the wild (i.e. efficacy goes down with time). That’s why there’s a different seasonal flu vaccine every year.
They create flu vaccines on a yearly cycle, and a pandemic can kick off in a matter of weeks and months, so if it doesn’t match the preplanned cycle, they’ll have to invest more resources to creating the most up to date vaccine off-cycle.
Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide.
I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?
How so? I’m arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn’t suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?
Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.
(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)
I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.
I’m not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.
That’s how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can’t actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn’t be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.
I find the very term “content” fascinating, because the exact definition you choose puts it on a kind of spectrum with “useful” at one end and “measurable” at the other.
When Daniel Ek talks about “content,” he means any pile of bits he can package up, shove in front of people, and stuff with ads. From that definition, making “content” is super cheap. I can record myself literally screaming for 30 seconds into the microphone already in my laptop and upload it using the internet connection I already have. Is it worth consuming? No, but I’ll get to that. And content under that definition is very measurable in many senses, like file size, duration, and (important to him) number of hours people stream it (and can inject ads into). But from this view, all “content” is interchangable and equal, so it’s not a very useful definition, because some content is extremely popular and is consumed heavily, while other content is not consumed at all. From Daniel’s perspective, this difference is random, enigmatic, and awe inspiring, because he can’t measure it.
At the other end of the spectrum is the “useful” definition where the only “content” is good content. My 30 seconds of screaming isn’t content, it’s garbage. It’s good content that actually brings in the ad revenue, because it’s what people will put up with ads to get access to. But what I would consider good content is not what someone else would consider good content, which is what makes it much harder to measure. But we can all agree making good content is hard and thus almost always expensive (at least compared to garbage passing as content).
And that’s what makes Daniel Ek look like an out of touch billionaire. The people who make good content (that makes him money) use the more useful definition, which is difficult to make and expensive and actually worth talking about, while he uses the measurable definition that’s in all the graphs on his desk that summarize his revenue stream.
No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.