Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Probably not. Their cited basis is they are individuals who are currently pregnant who will have children born more than 30 days from now that will be impacted by the order.
I predict a TRO or preliminary injunction before the week is out. The ACLU has already announced its intention to sue.
ETA:
Lawsuit already filed in the District of New Hampshire.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I feel like this comment still comes back to the notion of being subject to the criminal law, rather than political allegiance. The reason the quote from The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon talks about it being "obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society ... if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country" is that if people did not owe such allegiance then they would not be subject to the criminal law or the jurisdiction of courts of the nations such individuals were in. It seems like the proposed logic here is that the lack of a "license" (implied or otherwise) to enter is supposed to imply a lack of that temporary and local allegiance and that lack of temporary and local allegiance implies a lack of jurisdiction necessary for the 14th amendment to come into effect. Somehow that lack of temporary and local allegiance and related jurisdiction doesn't mean that courts actually lack jurisdiction though (such as for criminal prosecutions) even though that seems like the take The Schooner Exchange would imply. If the local and temporary allegiance is not intertwined with the jurisdiction of courts for the prosecution of criminal matters where comes the concern about the lack of such allegiance being dangerous to society?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
This seems very straightforwardly false. I've worked with a lot of women, none of whom have had relationships with management.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Unfortunately not. I saw them linked elsewhere. I do with discoverability of things like this was more of a priority for the government.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I think one can generally be (and feminists are) pro-sex generally while thinking particular categories ought to be prohibited or warrant additional scrutiny.
Are you saying we should restrict all sex at the workplace and in any relationship where power dynamics could be employed?
I think those relationships at least warrant extra scrutiny but I wouldn't be opposed to a general prohibition.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Situations like this are precisely why progressives are skeptical of employee/employer sexual relationships and it sounds like it was worse here because Gaiman and Palmer were also providing Pavlovich housing as part of the deal. If your combination landlord/boss came onto you one day might one go along with it even if they didn't want to? Might the implicit threat of "I could make you unemployed and homeless" convince someone not to resist? I hardly think we can generalize from "a woman might pretend to enjoy sex to keep her job and housing" to "no women anywhere can be treated with as having agency."
In any case I feel very comfortable asserting that ~no one enforces their own desires and boundaries as they might like 100% of the time. Do you tell your boss how bullshit it is every time they drop work on you that you think you shouldn't be doing or have to do? Do you bitch to your spouse every time they want to do That Thing they like but you don't? Or do you sometimes suck it up and do the thing with a smile anyway? Sexual assault is an extreme case of this but the consequences of not doing so (unemployment, homelessness) probably seemed pretty extreme to Pavlovich.
Apparently $MELANIA is live now too. There are like six different scam impersonation accounts in the replies, with hundreds of likes.
ETA:
To make this a bit more substantive, why assume the price action of $TRUMP is organic rather than wash trading in advance of a rug pull? It's not like Trump's previous crypto grift (anyone remember World Financial Liberty?) went all that well. Why do people want to buy this but not that?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
au contraire I think the medical malpractice was a result of the chilling effect. They were afraid to give her an abortion due to fear or prosecution so they wanted confirmation of the much more bright-line exception in the form of the fetal heartbeat results.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
My point is that the "reasonable medical judgement" standard is an objective one, not a subjective one. Whether you committed a crime doesn't, necessarily, depend on whether you thought your actions were reasonable. Rather it depends on whether you can do a better job convincing a jury your actions were reasonable against the state trying to convince the jury they're unreasonable. Most doctors, understandably, do not want to take that risk! That is why they obsess over the fetal heartbeat thing. That is a much clearer line.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Sure, but this is quite different than "the physician need only say some magic words and will thence be immune to prosecution."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
This is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court of Texas held in Zurawski v. State. In that case the Supreme Court of Texas emphasized that the standard was objective and that if the State could prove that no reasonable physician would have authorized the procedure, then it would be criminal to perform. Quoting that case:
We examined the meaning of “reasonable medical judgment” in In re State. In that case, the trial court replaced “reasonable medical judgment” with “good faith belief.” While we observed some overlap, we held that the law does not permit an abortion based on belief alone. Rather, a doctor must identify a life-threatening physical condition that places the mother at risk of death or serious physical impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
The Center argues that such a standard means that doctors are susceptible to a battle of the experts when not every doctor might reach the same medical judgment in each case. We rejected such an interpretation in In re State. “Reasonable medical judgment,” we held, “does not mean that every doctor would reach the same conclusion.” Rather, in an enforcement action under the Human Life Protection Act, the burden is the State’s to prove that no reasonable physician would have concluded that the mother had a life-threatening physical condition that placed her at risk of death or of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion was performed.
The state is absolutely permitted to second guess the judgement of a physician and potentially inflict criminal penalties on them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I don't understand why people suddenly forget about chilling effects in this context. The government passes a law that bans doing X but it's ambiguous whether some similar behavior Y is part of X. Even if Y is not covered by X that ambiguity might chill people from doing Y if they think the government might prosecute them for doing Y. Even if the government ultimately does not succeed (jury acquittal) defending yourself in a criminal trial is not exactly free.
So, let's ask how the exemption for a medical emergency works. Is the standard subjective or objective? Does the physician merely have to say the magic words "I think there is a medical emergency?" Do they have to actually believe there is a sufficient medical emergency? Is their determination open to challenge by the state after the fact? Maybe you're pretty sure, in the moment, such a medical emergency exists. Are you "the state couldn't find a doctor who could convince a jury otherwise on pain of conviction of a first degree felony" sure? Especially if the alternative is, what, a medical malpractice or wrongful death claim? Your insurance probably covers the latter. It won't protect you from a felony conviction!
These laws fulfill their obviously intended effect of chilling doctors from providing abortions whether or not they have a fig leaf of an exception.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Is that not the norm for anonymous wire fraud or whatever charge they're levying here? I'm near-certain none of the Does (none of the major ones, at least) live in the US.
Probably? Microsoft did secure subpoenas to various ISPs to try and determine the actual identities of the individuals involved. Whether that can be done remains unclear.
I'm a rube unfamiliar with the American legal system - what do the results of that typically look like in ghost cases like this? Does Microsoft get their damages, if yes then whence?
Microsoft is going to get a legal judgment from a US court that X individuals are responsible for Y damages. How likely they are to actually get Y damages likely depends on the legal jurisdiction that X individuals reside in and their perspective on enforcing the judgement of US courts. US courts, for example, won't respect foreign civil judgements regarding liability for speech where that speech would be protected by the First Amendment in the United States.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Why rely on random anonymous compilations? Courtlistener has the full docket and will almost certainly be updated as the case progresses. So far looks like no defendants or lawyers for any of them have made an appearance. If the case continues this way the most likely outcome is Microsoft secures a default judgement against them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I guess I'm not seeing the angle where the employees should be grateful to the company. This sounds like it's cheaper for you to train them than it would be to hire replacements and additionally you hope they'll accept a lower salary. Should they be grateful your business didn't waste money firing and replacing them?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I can only speak to my own experience but I expect companies have a lot of incentive not to do this proactively (though it varies by company). The upside is increased retention of people who might have left for a better offer. The downside is paying a bunch more money to people who were not going to leave anyway. Depending on what your turnover looks like the balance could tip either way. Ideally companies would target these raises precisely to the people who would leave without them but identifying them is probably hard, unless they self identify by negotiating with you and another company at the same time. I got my largest raise ever doing something like that but it was definitely nerve wracking. Concerns about retaliation or adverse action even if I stayed. Would not be surprised if people just take outside offers and skip the further stress of negotiating.
January 3rd in an odd numbered year? Time for the United States House of Representatives to choose a new Speaker! Mike Johnson (the current Republican Speaker) is the favorite but the Republican majority in the House is even narrower than it was when Kevin McCarthy took 15 ballots in 2023. The current rolls stand at 219-215 Republican-Democrat. The Speaker election requires a majority of all votes cast, which will be 218 if everyone votes and less if some Representatives-elect abstain. This means Johnson cannot afford to lose more than two Republican votes (or more than four abstentions) in order to be elected. At least one Republican (Massie) has committed to voting against Johnson, meaning he cannot afford to lose another voting Republican (or three abstentions). This is all on the assumption that all 215 Democrats vote for Jeffries on every ballot. The first ballot is about to commence.
ETA1:
At the end of the first ballot the totals stand at 216 - Johnson, 215 - Jeffries, 3 - Other. No Speaker elected.
ETA2:
One hour later Norman and Self change their votes to Johnson, delivering him the win 218-215. Formally electing Johnson on the first ballot.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I think I am lacking some clarity. When you make the decision to keep them on and train them as you migrate their infrastructure to the cloud is this a business decision or a charitable one? Would it be cheaper, for you, to fire them all and hire replacements/do the migration yourself? Or is training them as part of doing the migration also the correct business decision?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
Interesting. I guess what makes it breeding "kink" in my mind is that it's getting sexual arousal from the thought of becoming pregnant. It's less obvious to me how prevalent that is. Lots of people want to be pregnant and have sex with the goal of becoming pregnant but for what fraction is becoming pregnant sexually arousing?
The other way animals are bred just involves a stallion going to town, which I'd argue is better described by other kink names, including, if relevant, petplay kinks.
My impression is that a breeding link is often coupled with (though not identical to) what is being described in this paragraph and often subsumed under the same name.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
I recognize that it is because "breed" is standing in for two different mental images but the conjunction of these two paragraphs is something.
On the one hand, describing the act of humans procreating with "breed" is very disrespectful. That's what animals do, or what we do to animals, not humans! On the other hand, the existence of the term "breeding kink" is insane because the human urge to breed is natural and not at all kinky.
What if someone gets off by being inseminated like an animal!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
No, but that's because I've been in the same long term relationship since I was a teenager. Also the changes are in the opposite direction of your question. Generally it has led to me being more willing to date people I would not have otherwise, rather than less willing to date people I was already inclined to.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
As I mentioned in another thread I've done this same reflection myself and it's changed my own perspective on who I would or would not date. In any case I don't imagine this reflection necessarily entailing any particular change. I suspect most people who experience any change will do so in a way that's the opposite of certain standards of beauty common in their cultural milieu but that doesn't have to be the case.
Illinois and other states claiming that federal Medicaid portals are not working as of this morning. The memo contains a footnote carving out Medicare and Social Security but not Medicaid. I doubt this freeze persists through the end of the week. Someone who was a recipient of a federally authorized grant is going to sue and a court is going to enjoin this in short order.
ETA:
Lawsuit and request for TRO already filed.
ETA2:
Politico has posted what is alleged to be a spreadsheet of the list of impacted programs. I'm sure there's something in here for everyone. Hope people weren't relying on their WIC or SNAP benefits!
ETA3:
Turns out end of the week was wildly conservative. I'm seeing reporting the judge assigned to the lawsuit above granted the TRO from the bench a few minutes ago, lasting at least until Monday Feb 3rd.
More options
Context Copy link