Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

I mean, just for what little it's worth, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about expanding the Supreme Court. It'd be an entirely political act but as far as the Constitution is concerned, so what? It's more about respecting norms and not sending the country into an endless spiral of tit for tat.

The size of the Judicial branch was left entirely up to Congress. And because Congress is political, the judicial branch is political.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And unneeded addendum, the number of Circuit courts and size of the district courts should "probably" be expanded at this point. But it'll never happen unless the law gets delayed to take effect in something like 8 years.

I've said that I sort of think the number of Justices should match the number of "real" circuit courts too (the DC Circuits don't count) but that'll never happen unless you delay the real date the law takes effect.

This current court term is setting up to be the least productive in a very long time. Some opinions will finally be issued on Monday. The aritcle below says that not since 1950 has the Court had so many Opinions still in limbo entering June.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gns-of-discord

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is telling..... from The Guardian, a British news outlet with free content that's in my news feeds:

Ukrainian forces recapture 20% of territory lost in Sievierodonetsk, says Ukraine

Ukrainian forces have recaptured around 20% of the territory they lost in Sievierodonetsk since Russia’s invasion, according to Ukrainian officials. “Whereas before the situation was difficult, the percentage (held by Russia) was somewhere around 70%, now we have already pushed them back by approximately 20%,” Serhiy Gaidai, the head of the eastern region of Luhansk, announced on national television on Friday.

Gaidai said that Russian forces were attacking and advancing upon Ukrainian positions for hours, only to be driven back by defenders who were not injured. “

Since the invasion, Russian forces have swarmed into the city in attempts to capture it in order to achieve its stated aim of controlling the entire Luhansk province. On Thursday, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced that Ukrainian forces have had some recent successes in the region.

Yep, some good Ukrainian propaganda for sure but the thing that is telling is this: "This is how they are moving forward, step-by-step, because with artillery, aircraft, mortars, they are simply destroying everything,” he said. “But as soon as we..... can push their artillery (that fires on us) away from our positions..... believe me, the Russian infantry, they will just run.”

Recall that Sevedonetsk (multiple spellings) has been the focal point of the Russian Army's attack. They've allocated most of their forces inside Ukraine to this 60km front and have been bombarding it constantly for the last 7-10d. Media has characterized the fall of Severdonetsk, if it can be obtained, signals Russian control of the entire Luhansk Oblast (where the LNR held about 50% pre-invasion).

The CTR I follow doesn't see it that way. What the CTR has repeatedly emphasized is that the Russians have demonstrated consistent application of only one component of doctrinal "Combat Power," firepower. The rest of these components are maneuver, protection, and leadership. When all 4 are skillfully applied, the combination of these four elements at the right time and place is a winning hand .....the Russians by all accounts suck at this and it explains, in part, why they have not achieved likely objectives ..... at all.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Depending on how closely one follows the war in Ukraine, some may have already heard about rumors of Putin being ill. This is a lengthy and detailed article by Newsweek (to me not an optimal source but, nevertheless) that makes the case he's definitely ill. Some of the sources they quote are US and British Intelligence. I can put some weight on the speculation as the article quotes supporting activity that would fit into real evidence that Putin is sick with something and there's already a perceived circling of the buzzards. OTH, it is not uncommon at all for US and British Intelligence to float stuff like this when it is completely untrue. TIFWIW:

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-putin-treated-cancer-april-us-intelligence-report-says-1710357

[Dr. Strangelove]

😥😣😖😭😭😭😭😭

[lineygoblue]

A random question:

If the Tampa Bay Rays (is Tampa Bay a place?) moved to another state/city, .. would anyone notice?

[Obi-Jon]

Look at it this way....the Rays have been to more World Series than the Lions have Super Bowls....

[Dr. Strangelove]

A random question:

If the Tampa Bay Rays (is Tampa Bay a place?) moved to another state/city, .. would anyone notice?

Well Tampa apparently wouldn't notice.

After being a joke for a decade they've had a pretty successful franchise for the past 15 years. 7 playoff appearances in the same division as New York/Boston and two World Series. But they play in what's almost definitely the worst stadium in baseball and get no fan support.

The Marlins are constantly an awful draw as well but they put no money or effort into their team most of the time and still swindled the community into building them a fancy new stadium. Tampa plays in the second oldest dome in MLB (and the Toronto SkyDome is way nicer).

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dave McCormick conceded the race to Dr. Oz today as a recount got going. Guess that means he'll be dropping his lawsuits too?

Unofficially Oz won by around 1,000 votes.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/03/dave-mccormick-dr-oz-senate-primary

[AlabamAlum]

I mean, just for what little it's worth, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about expanding the Supreme Court. It'd be an entirely political act but as far as the Constitution is concerned, so what? It's more about respecting norms and not sending the country into an endless spiral of tit for tat.

The size of the Judicial branch was left entirely up to Congress. And because Congress is political, the judicial branch is political.

No, nothing unconstitutional. It’s the strong arming of the current process until you get the desired result that is the issue. Take whatever controversial proposal you wish and apply the test of ending the filibuster and packing the Court with with as many justices as needed to obtain a desired result is the issue.

My opinion on late-term abortion is well known. If another politician, to end late abortion, suggested what Rep. Jones said he’d do for gun control, I would be just as upset. It’s not partisanship (with me) and it’s not whether I agree with the proposed law.

And if this precedent is set for this, it will be used for other things.

Dateline 2032: The 13 Supreme Court Justices have voted to remove the 2nd Amendment!

Dateline 2041: The 21 Supreme Court Justices have voted to reinstate the 2nd Amendment!

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah, but what you describe isn't the reality on the ground. Companies aren't being punished for taking ANY political stance. In Florida they get punished only if they take a political stance DeSantis doesn't like.

And just as a random note, I would really like to emphasize that virtue signalling is not something only liberals do. I personally find many of DeSantis' actions, like his social media bill, to be virtue signalling of the conservative strain. He knows the bill won't hold up but passed it anyways, knowing it likely won't be ruled unconstitutional once and for all until he's out of office and his frothing base has long forgotten it.

Well, it kinda is on the ground. I remember an article in Fortune (Business?) talking about Chik Fil-a and how other eateries in certain areas were given money/land/tax breaks to build, but Chik Fil-a could not get the money, but they were also denied a business license altogether because of the owner’s stance that God didn’t approve of gays or something.

I am sure there might be some other examples. The partisanship isn’t an issue with me. There are a ton of strings attached to receiving public funds. In a previous life, I witnessed that first hand.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, it kinda is on the ground. I remember an article in Fortune (Business?) talking about Chik Fil-a and how other eateries in certain areas were given money/land/tax breaks to build, but Chik Fil-a could not get the money, but they were also denied a business license altogether because of the owner’s stance that God didn’t approve of gays or something.

I am sure there might be some other examples. The partisanship isn’t an issue with me. There are a ton of strings attached to receiving public funds. In a previous life, I witnessed that first hand.

I don’t really know what Chik Fil-A’s stance is at the moment but if they’re against gay marriage and refuse to hire openly gay employees then that’s well beyond a milquetoast and vague declaration that you want changes to society in response to the slaughter of schoolchildren. That’s spitting in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions that made gays a protected class of citizens.

A company that openly and proudly discriminates against gays is violating the Constitution, per Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch. A company that vaguely urges change after a bunch of fourth graders get killed with an AR-15 style rifle is guilty of nothing except offending gun fetish nuts.

[Tom W]

I saw where he's forgiving the debt incurred by people who took out federal loans to pay for school at Corinthian Colleges. Meh, I'm sympathetic to that. That's different, IMO, to forgiving all student debt anywhere. Corinthian was a total and complete for-profit scam.

Ah, but Brandon is likely to likely to “forgive” at least 10k for borrowers making less than $150k/year. This isn’t good enough for Schumer, Warren, Bernie and the test of the progs.

it’s bad enough that “forgive” really means “transfer it to the taxpayers”. But it’s downright appalling that they either don’t know or care that almost everybody else in this country HATES this idea.

[AlabamAlum]

I don’t really know what Chik Fil-A’s stance is at the moment but if they’re against gay marriage and refuse to hire openly gay employees then that’s well beyond a milquetoast and vague declaration that you want changes to society in response to the slaughter of schoolchildren. That’s spitting in the face of recent Supreme Court decisions that made gays a protected class of citizens.

A company that openly and proudly discriminates against gays is violating the Constitution, per Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch. A company that vaguely urges change after a bunch of fourth graders get killed with an AR-15 style rifle is guilty of nothing except offending gun fetish nuts.

Not sure if you’re kidding, DSL. They absolutely hired gays. They never discriminated. They used some funds to support some Christian organizations that believed gay went against god and iirc (don’t quote me) tried the gay conversion scam.

As far as the Justices, once we have 37 justices and 19 are anti-gay, there will be some changes!

[AlabamAlum]

If you’re interested: the Chick-Fil-A founder controversies:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the...obia-dan-cathy

They didn’t issue statements or start discriminatory hiring practices: The main issue, is that they donated to “anti-gay” groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army (etc). ITA it mentions donating to a group that supported “gay conversion”.