Tweet
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"...just put them somewhere else...
-
Shut the fuck up Donny! -
Big win for Twitter and supporters of Section 230 in general. Plaintiffs were attempting to hold Twitter liable for aiding and abetting terrorist attacks because they allowed ISIS recruitment material to be uploaded. There was a similar case against Google./Youtube that got kicked back to the Circuit Court in light of this decision. Which was unanimous, should point out.
EDIT: I should make more clear that they didn't rule directly on 230 itself. The ruling is more that Plaintiffs failed to reach a threshhold to even sue under the Anti-Terrosim Act.
21-1496 Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (05/18/2023) (supremecourt.gov)Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; May 18, 2023, 10:15 AM.Comment
-
From today's WSJ. I don't know how to get rid of the banner. Sorry
The threat of a debt default is again in the air, with the possible dreadful effect of ruining the credit of the U.S. To stave off that default and embarrassment, President Biden is toying with the idea of asserting that the debt ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. Neither the Constitution nor the law nor common sense is on his side.
The 14th Amendment is often cited but rarely quoted. Section 4 both repudiates Confederate debt and promises to honor U.S. debt. The provision at issue provides that the “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.” Section 4 doesn’t address default or other failures to honor terms of a debt contract. It bars repudiation. A debtor who is late on a payment isn’t questioning the debt’s validity; he is merely tardy. To my knowledge, no one on either side of the debate is suggesting that the U.S. repudiate its debt.
Further, even if one assumes the 14th Amendment bars debt defaults, it nowhere authorizes the president to take whatever measures he deems necessary to prevent default. It no more empowers him to take such measures than it does you or me. As per the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the power to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” If the Constitution bars default and more money is needed to prevent default, Congress must act. The president can’t issue debt on his own say-so.
And even if one assumes the president has the authority to borrow to pay interest on existing debts, why would he be able to issue debt sufficient to fund all fiscal operations, including not only debt service but hundreds of billions of spending? What Mr. Biden is contemplating isn’t an increase in the debt ceiling sufficient to pay the interest. He is considering defiance of the debt ceiling altogether to spend all that Congress has appropriated. There is no constitutional requirement that once Congress appropriates funds, the federal government must do whatever it takes to spend that money. If Congress appropriates $1 trillion and the Treasury has only $900 billion, there is no constitutional issue with spending only the money available. What the president is contemplating has nothing to do with questioning the validity of federal debts.
Perhaps most important, the White House and the Treasury are hiding the ball. Even with no increase in the debt ceiling and no new borrowing, there’s more than enough money to service the existing debt. According to the Treasury, in March federal receipts were $313 billion and interest payments were $67 billion. In April the receipts were $639 billion and interest $62 billion. There is no month of the year when interest on the debt will outstrip federal tax receipts.
Hence, even if there were a constitutional requirement to avoid default—and there isn’t—the government has ample funds to meet that obligation. The Treasury knows this. Secretary Janet Yellen’s May 15 letter warns of being “unable to continue to satisfy all of the government’s obligations.” The “government’s obligations” aren’t limited to the debt. Ms. Yellen is referring to the money that Congress has appropriated. In other words, if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the amounts that Congress appropriated for this year won’t be spent because there are insufficient funds in the Treasury. But that isn’t a constitutional problem, and it has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the only reason there would be a default is if the executive fails to pay the interest on the debt as it comes due. But if the executive branch believes there is a constitutional requirement to pay the interest, why would it even consider refusing to do so? To my knowledge there is no law that prevents the executive from prioritizing interest payments above all other spending.
In fact, there is an argument that having by statute pledged the “faith of the United States Government,” Congress implicitly prioritized the payment of the interest and principal. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the Treasury should pay the interest as it is due and spend less than Congress appropriated. That would be the best solution in the wake of a mismatch between total inflows (taxes plus new borrowing) and Congress’s desired spending.
If Mr. Biden borrows money by executive fiat, the U.S. would be in dangerous and uncharted territory. It’s unclear if anyone would have legal standing to bring a court challenge. But purchasers of these Biden bonds would be assuming an enormous risk. Because the 14th Amendment refers only to debt “authorized by law,” the government could repudiate the Biden bonds.
I hope a compromise is reached. But if our politicians fail us again, the president would be violating the Constitution if he ignored the debt ceiling and borrowed money without Congress’s authorization. The Constitution doesn’t make the president a Mr. Fix-It, empowered to do whatever he feels just or right.
Last edited by Da Geezer; May 18, 2023, 10:09 AM.Comment
-
Ok I know many of you differ from me on the Bud Light stuff but surely all of us or almost all of us can agree that calling for a congressional investigation into Bud Light’s “ties” with Mulvaney is fucking stupid.
Comment
-
I’m not sure I differ from you too much. I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me. If I were a Bud Light drinker, I would still drink it. I just think it was a massive marketing blunder (surely you do, too?) and I think it’s hilarious.
Yes, a congressional investigation into what spokesperson a private company hires is idiotic."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
In the late 70's Schlitz Beer sales were crashing so they tried to run a series of ads that really hyped up how "macho" the beer was. The commercials would feature a boxer or a lumberjack or a construction worker or some other "tough guy" stereotype and a narrator who would offer to replace their Schlitz with another beer. The tough guy would inevitably get menacing and act like "boy, you better not try that if you know what's good for you". It became known as the "Drink Schlitz or I'll kill you" ad campaign.
Within five years Schlitz had ceased to be an Independent brewery.
Schlitz, 1977 12 11, Wilderness man and cougar - YouTubeComment
-
Lotsa beers from that era died off in popularity or went belly-up. Remember Falstaff? Lowenbrau? Jax (one I grew up with in NOLA)? Mickey's Big Mouth? Stroh's? Some of those got sold off and are still made on a more limited scale, but they are not national or international brands anymore."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
We can only hope that Bud Light faces a similar fate...
Look, guys like beer. They also like girls in bikinis. They DON'T like being lectured and reprimanded for what thye like of for just being, well.. guys.
It's not that hard.Comment
-
Yeah, the transition from the 50's to the start of the 80's is an interesting time for the big beer brands. It was definitely not the case that Busch, Miller, and Coors were destined to be the "Big 3". Schlitz was a bigger seller than Miller for many decades.
A lot of the once-huge brand names ended up being owned by Pabst. Falstaff, Schlitz, and Ballantine among them. All the major cities of the Midwest and Northeast kind of had their own local big brewery that tried to go national, succeeded for a while, then most crashed and burned. Ballantine was a top 3 selling beer in the 50's. I think there may have been a Mad Men episode that used them.Comment
-
Legal Twitter is abuzz about Kagan's dissent in this Andy Warhol/copyright/fair use case. Very unusual breakdown with Kagan and Roberts the only two dissenters. Kagan goes full blast mode on none other than Sotomayor who wrote the majority opinion.
Warhol's estate lost by the way.
21-869 Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (05/18/2023) (supremecourt.gov)Comment
-
Nobody is telling you what to drink or what not to drink. Nobody is lecturing you on what to like.Originally posted by Tom W View Post
If your fucking masculinity is so fragile that having a person who is not a manly man endorse a product is enough for you to not drink the redneck beer of choice, you are a fucking
download.jpg
BTW, I agree with AA. It was a stupid marketing move, but what is even stupider is the reaction to it.
Maybe you should put a case or two in your Yeti cooler and blow it up.
That'll show them dam libtards!
I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it onComment
-
I wonder what the Prog reaction would be if Bud Light put DJT on the can...Shut the fuck up Donny!Comment
-
This is apparently making the rounds. Ford made a "Very Gay Raptor" model last year that only showed up in Europe. But rules are rules and I look forward to seeing Kid Rock pump a few thousand bullets into his F-150 in protest.
Ford’s ‘Very Gay Raptor’ Set to Redefine ‘Tough’ at Goodwood | Ford of Europe | Ford Media CenterComment
-
I wonder what the Prog reaction would be if Ford named a truck after DJT...Shut the fuck up Donny!Comment
-
My reaction would be that Bud Light had finally found the perfect representative for their absolute shit beer.Originally posted by THE_WIZARD_ View PostComment
Comment