Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D

dhork

@ dhork @lemmy.world

Posts
4
Comments
2267
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Transcript: Angry Trump Urges GOP to Rig Midterms as Polls Turn Brutal

    Jump

  • The Senate literally makes it's own rules, and chooses how to organize itself. The rules are so convoluted that the Senate established its own office, the Parliamentarian, to advise on those rules. This is a non-partisan office that serves the Senate as a whole. They get no actual vote, but their decisions affects how work in the Senate progresses. (In particular, they are the ones who make decisions on these "reconciliation" bills that provide a way around the filibuster.

    Trump can't fire her, because she works for the Senate Leadership. The Majority Leader can fire her, but won't (at least so far), because once the rules start breaking down, it's impossible to get anything done in the Senate. Republicans could just dispense with the rules to give the majority more power, but they are terrified of what Democrats would do with that power if they ever gained the majority afterwards.

    So, if we ever do get to the point that Republicans fire the Parliamentarian, or further restrict the filibuster, it will be because Republicans are counting on never having to give up control of the Senate again.

  • Tesla Stock in Freefall After Disastrous Earnings Report

    Jump

  • The stock is hovering at around $324 at the time of writing, down over 15 percent over the last five days and about 28 percent year to date.

    That ain't free fall, it has a ways more to go

  • Transcript: Angry Trump Urges GOP to Rig Midterms as Polls Turn Brutal

    Jump

  • The parliamentarian simply advises the Majority Leader, all of their rulings only constrain the Senate because the Leader lets it happen. Trent Lott fired the Parliamentarian in 2001 because Lott was angry about his rulings (although Lott didn't go as far as to ignore those rulings....)

  • Major Supreme Court changes proposed by Pete Buttigieg: 3 reform ideas

    Jump

  • Applying a set term to Justice's tenure will greatly reduce the amount of time a justice is in any particular role. Once we have those terms in place, no justice will be sitting there for 40 years without any further discussion of their fitness for office. Even if we allow justices to be re-nominated for more terms, they would at least be subject to another Senate vote.

    But your comment about their finances is a whole different matter. Did you know that the SCOTUS justices are not formally bound by any code of ethics? There is a code imposed on lower court justices, and SC justices tend to follow those because they were all lower court justices at one point, but they have no formal accountability to anyone but themselves. Congress has threatened to withhold their funding if they don't adopt a formal code of ethics, but that hasn't gone anywhere.

  • GrapheneOS duress PIN could land a man in prison

    Jump

  • US citizens have an unequivocal right to enter the country, eventually, just not necessarily on a flight they booked (or any flight in the next few weeks, until the goons are done with them....)

  • Major Supreme Court changes proposed by Pete Buttigieg: 3 reform ideas

    Jump

  • This balanced bench thing is a horrible idea. Because if one party gets to have a run where voters trust their candidate to be President for four or five terms in a row, then why should the party that lost those election retain control over any seats?

    Straight term limits are a better idea. If each President was guaranteed to be able to appoint a few justices during their 4-year term, it would minimize the impact of additional appointments. (It would also reduce the number of justices who have to be replaced because they die while serving).

    If the Presidency continues to ping-pong between the parties every term or two, then the balance would come naturally. But if voters favor one side for a stretch eventually the court would come around to reflect that....

    ... And the idea that the sitting justices would appoint more is a non-starter too. It would just serve to further enhance partisan control, because the party with partisan advantage would get to appoint more partisans.

  • Trump Threw Expletive-Laden Tantrum Over Iran War Failures - Donald Trump is freaking out behind closed doors.

    Jump

  • He should be careful. A man of his age having a temper tantrum might be too much for his heart to handle. What a shame that would be....

  • Trump Invents the Corporate Pardon

    Jump

  • No, you dont get it. My objection isn't that the outcome is uncertain, it's that if the US military stages a coup in the US, it's not clear to me which side it would be fighting for.

  • Trump Invents the Corporate Pardon

    Jump

  • We need to stop worshipping a piece of paper that's become so bulky and cumbersome, and which was disingenuous, from the beginning. Portugal did that, and so can any other state.

    I agree with you in principle, but I will note that in the US it is hard to agree on anything new, and at least the Constitution has stood for 200+ years as something we all agree on, even as we disagree on how to interpret it.

    And please expand on what you mean about Portugal. I am ignorant on their history, but according to Wikipedia they got their current constitution 50+ years ago, after a military coup. I would like to avoid a coup here, because I can't really guarantee which side the military would pick....

  • Trump Invents the Corporate Pardon

    Jump

  • This notion of corporate personhood is purely for our own convenience, so corporations can enter into contracts, have bank accounts, and so on. In no universe did the folks who wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" mean to include corporations on that. After all, corporations were not created by the same Creator as people, were they*?

    I would be 100% in favor of an amendment that clearly spells out that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are limited to actual humans, and any corporation or other group of people are not entitled to any more inherent rights than the humans who make up the corporation are entitled to collectively. You don't get more rights simply by paying a filing fee to Delaware!

    This does not remove all of the privileges that we have granted corporations to make it easier to organize, but does mean that corporations have no inherent "right" to anything. Humans have those!

    Edited to add: someone has proposed it already! https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment

    = Yes, this is Lemmy, so some snarky person will come along and say "of course they are! We made up both corporations and God!". But, the founders were deists and believed in a Creator, so let's try to look at it from their point of view, because that's what our backwards Supreme Court does....

  • Mitch McConnell’s staff refuse to answer basic questions on his health

    Jump

  • Trump wants to deny healthcare to impoverished cancer patients. Welcome to the great American cruelty regime.

    Jump

  • No, they understand that other people's money helps fund their bills. That's different - they work hard, and deserve it! Other people are just lazy moochers, though.

  • Mitch McConnell’s staff refuse to answer basic questions on his health

    Jump

  • It would be a fitting end to his political career if he is fillibustering his own obituary.

  • Trump Badly Screws Susan Collins as Maine ICE Death Takes Darker Turn

    Jump

  • For the love of all that is holy, I hope that headline is a metaphor.

  • Trump wants to deny healthcare to impoverished cancer patients. Welcome to the great American cruelty regime.

    Jump

  • Of course! God forbid their tax money goes to pay someone else's bill who is less deserving. That's Socialism!

  • Trump wants to deny healthcare to impoverished cancer patients. Welcome to the great American cruelty regime.

    Jump

  • I've noticed that all the dead malls around where I live are being repurposed into various medical campuses. Specialists, urgent care centers, labs. One-stop shopping for your HSA!

  • Apple Plans to Defeat RAM Prices by Letting You Lease a Mac

    Jump

  • Thanks for the clarification, I thought I had read somewhere that they were doing something special in terms of their specs but maybe that was wrong (or maybe they transitioned at some point to save money)

  • Apple Plans to Defeat RAM Prices by Letting You Lease a Mac

    Jump

  • My understanding, though, is they have their own chip specs, for custom die nobody else uses , and they integrate that into their chiplets or whatever it is they are using. So it's not like those vendors can just sell those die to other customers. Whoever is making Apple's RAM is making it specifically for them.

    Unless their contracts with Apple have some sort of escalation clause, I would figure Apple would be pretty insulated from all this price nonsense. Heck, they have enough cash on hand that I bet they can buy a smaller RAM vendor if they had to. It mainly depends on how much of that custom RAM tech they own vs. licensing from any particular vendor. If they are using patents from their vendor, then that makes it harder to just switch.

  • Apple Plans to Defeat RAM Prices by Letting You Lease a Mac

    Jump

  • Wait, don't new iPhones and Macs have that unified memory? Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Apple be in the best position with regards to memory prices in their products?