OpieCunningham

>The supreme court doesn't make a law unconstitutional. It already was or wasn't.

No. If the Supreme Court is asked whether a law is constitutional or not, they form an opinion on whether it is or is not. The law exists as law up until the moment the Supreme Court is asked and interprets it one way or the other. It does not exist as one or the other until that moment, even though it is the law, and after that moment it only exists as one or the other based upon the majority opinion of 9 people. Laws are not discovered to be constitutional or unconstitutional, because interpretations are not discovered, they are formed.

>A law can be so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional that everyone can see it and refuses to arrest or charge people for breaking it.

That doesn't make the law unconstitutional. It just makes it a bad law. Bad laws can also be constitutional.

>People are flawed.

Sure. But it's not random flaws. Liberal people are flawed to believe rules are written as a liberal would interpret them. And conservatives just the opposite. Because the rules do not exist outside of subjective interpretation.

I may be the only person using the word objective in this conversation, but that doesn't mean everyone else in the conversation is not building their arguments on the existence of objectivity in regards to a judges interpretations.

>I often read opinions I don't agree with, but I can see where the justice just had a different life than me and sees things differently.

That's right. Their opinion is nothing more than their interpretation. A couple of people had the opinion that something was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it is, just that they believe it is.

Justice is supposed to be blind. And the Supreme Court opinion that CU was unconstitutional helps corporations just as it helps pro-choice non-profits just as it helps pro-life non-profits. But at the end of the day, it was 5 people who interpreted it as unconstitutional. They did not make the discovery that it is unconstitutional.

> They're saying the Citizens United ruling was of the first type, not the second. You seemed to miss that, so I was trying to clarify it.

I did not miss that. I was responding to it. Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying.

How did they determine CU was of the first type? Did they interpret it to be of the first type, or is there an objective view of it that simply makes it so? And if the latter, where is this objective view located that all can see? And why did 4 of the 5 justices not have access to see the objective view?

In other words: deciding something is unconstitutional and interpreting something as unconstitutional are exactly the same thing. There is no such thing as unconstitutional outside of interpretation.

OK. I was responding to parent, which stated there is a difference between a judge's interpretation of constitutionality and literal constitutionality - i.e. that a law can be unconstitutional regardless of whether a judge interprets it to be such. Which is obviously nonsense.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

So there’s an external source for this objective information, or are the judges making their own individual interpretations of “how the law applies”? If the former, why do we end up with split votes that so often fall down partisan lines? Seems like if there were a correct interpretation of a law as distinct from an opinion of a law, they would all have access to it and we could cut the justices down from 9 to 1. And we could call that judge The Conveyor of Truth.

Also, why are Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?

I’m not dismissing canons of interpretation as being incorrect. I’m stating that canons of interpretation are themselves nothing more than subjective opinion. And there are surely many versions. Some of which align with conservative beliefs and some of which align with liberal beliefs. So what is a “correct” canon of interpretation? Or are canons of interpretation just another layer of obfuscation used to pretend there are objective opinions?

What’s the difference between a court opining that a law is unconstitutional and a court interpreting a law as unconstitutional?

Sure, they each have their own specific beliefs. But none of them are tapped into the objective “what a law is”. Because that doesn’t exist. It’s just a nice mythology we tell ourselves in an attempt to trick our brains into thinking a 3 branch form of government with checks and balances is well checked and well balanced (which it may be, but if we think of 1 branch as objective even when it can’t be, it makes us feel better about the whole system).

> rule on what the law is, not decide what the law should be

That’s just, like, your opinion man.

What is the law? A bunch of words. What do those words mean in combination the the surrounding words? Uh oh, we just hit subjectivity.

“Originalism”, “Textualism”, “Absurdism”, etc. are all pure nonsense. Judges, and most particularly Supreme Court judges are definitively expressing their unique opinions as to what a law is, which is identical to “what a law should be”. Someone could attempt to argue that a judge’s opinion of what a law is may not align with what that judge actually believes it should be, but the evidence of consistent partisan split votes makes such an argument particularly weak.

Sure. I didn't say anything differently. The parent though was mistaken to believe supermarkets do not have similar structures to Amazon in terms of product placement/promotion. In other words, Apple pays Amazon in some form in order to have Amazon prioritize Apple products based upon user search. Supermarkets are paid by Starkist to get Starkist tuna on the eye-level shelf as opposed to the first shelf from the floor. Starkist and Apple still get paid for products sold, otherwise neither company could exist.

Supermarkets do not pay for product as you describe. Manufacturers and/or distributors pay the supermarkets slotting fees to get their products on the shelves. Additionally, slotting fees are higher for ideal shelf location, and in some cases proximity to competitor products. For example, the bottom shelves are undesirable. And then you have end caps which are highly desirable.

I also expect AI drivers to be safer than human drivers ... in about 50 - 250 years.

The cost is so low as to be non-existent. The downsides of printing money are effectively nil. If this were not true the modern global economy would have died out decades ago, when printing money became the primary method of commerce. Your concern here cannot rationally be a concern for printing money, a ship that sailed long ago. So I’d have to assume your concern is how the printed money should or should not be used. And in this case you were replying with concern to a post that recommended using printed money to pay high-risk people a sustainable income when their jobs should be furloughed. But instead of making a case as to why high-risk people should continue to sustain high-risk, you instead want to falsely claim printing money is significantly detrimental.

It’s “all too common” because it’s how most 1st world economies work (though to be fair: your fear-based view and false belief that it is anomalous is the true “all too common” viewpoint). Case in point is the US that has been running deficit budgets for decades - and yet it still exists! It is still an economic power house! The general disconnect is that nearly all discretionary spending is directed towards the military, which somehow eludes all those who ask the question “but how are we going to pay for that?” whenever anyone proposes providing money to people who definitively need it.

That’s a shame, I guess? Ubuntu exists though, so if you want definitive control, you can have it. If you want Brand X commercial software that only runs on Mac, you can have that too. I don’t see why Apple should be required to facilitate both.

Can’t find a reference online, but in 1993/1994 a Russian fabricated paperwork to place him in charge of a newly formed Ministry. He was about to have a building assigned in Moscow and he got caught.

We’re meant to question it.

I don’t know. I haven’t had a single good take out or delivery meal, beyond food types that were generally deliverable pre-COVID. Delivered sushi? It’s rubber. A crisp pan seared chicken breast? Also rubber. Don’t even waste your time with a steak. Once we get through this pandemic the restaurant industry will sky rocket.

This is the comment that has a car behind it.

Monty’s knowledge is irrelevant. The original problem can be modified with no change in probabilities to:

Pick one of three doors. You can have whatever is behind that door, or you can change your pick to both of the other doors and win whatever is behind both of them. Should you switch? Obviously.

Is that really the argument? That high quality and low cost are only possible if students are responsible for solving problems? Sounds fine to me. Students solving problems is at least half the point of undergrad anyway.

VHS tapes of the Saturday afternoon movie matinee on the local UHF channel, showing ads from the Truck Driving Institue.

Money will only get you so far in your public facing political ambitions if you are politically incompetent (Bloomberg) or devoid of charisma (Steyer). But money got both of them to the stage.

But really, that is a good question.

That seems like an argument that could be made against literally every opinion poll. The “specifics” according to whom?

“Walmart is my Soma” would make an excellent t-shirt.

That’s an odd distinction. Perhaps you judge your country firstly by how it treats its citizens, because you want to be treated well. But if it’s not your country, what’s the difference? Perhaps you live in a country that provides for your well-being by slaughtering and plundering all around the world. In that case your country is rather horrible. Objectively, the US actions in Iraq were far worse than China in Tianamen Square. In any case, China is obviously a horrible country (Uyghur treatment is just one example).

I was just pointing out the foundation of your argument is categorically false. We can quibble over the rest - such as “creating greater value for others” being a completely arbitrary concept. Perhaps a better argument to make for your position is that money collated by organizations such as the ACLU, BLM (or the NRA), is used for political advertising, and therefore justifiable. I would personally find that argument difficult to refute. On the other hand, I personally think 100% of lobbying, which includes political advertising, should be illegal.

“Time is money” is a cliche, not a fact. There are plenty of people who have lots of money but didn’t spend commensurate time getting it, as there are plenty of people who spend inordinate amounts of time making little money.

Could you point to these Apple docs? That’s the topic I’m most interested in. Thanks!

True. I edited to reflect personal preference.