anon_
1d ago
It's a particular subset of the left that is also gunning for the other half of the left.
I claim it remains to the benefit of the nation (not to mention the median mottizen) that they not succeed at shivving the institutional left. I guess we'll see in Michigan how it goes with AES, although I heard Gretch is going to line up against him.
anon_
1d ago
result in Minnesota's disorderly conduct statute being nullified with regard to offenses that are limited to speech and no other disruptive behavior.
This is "as applied", so it would only cover specific applications.
There is also, perhaps unfortunately, the "fighting words" doctrine in which speech that any reasonable person would anticipate to imminently cause affray can be criminalized, at least as to directly uttering them in public (as opposed to, say, on a podcast). It's not totally beyond reason to imagine that racial slurs could be considered in that frame.
anon_
5d ago
I suppose I'm on team "let kids have interests." Probably because that's the kind of attitude my parents took towards me and it seems to have worked out fine.
This is overly simplistic. Let kids have interests, unless those interests are truly beyond the pale. Everyquest, Star Trek, soccer, whatever. But not toasterfucking.
And indeed I think it's worthwhile for parents to teach children where appreciating something begins and where it ends up into fandom.
anon_
5d ago
Does it? I don't think the Israeli police can wander directly through the center of Gaza City and arrest whoever they like.
But even moreso, many military forces have held a foreign territory without automatically annexing it to their state. The US occupation of Japan went on, and the solution was a Japanese government, not Japanese representation in the US system.
It's even more outlandish given that such annexation would be against the manifest will of both populations. It runs directly contrary to any norm of self determination to tell both the Gazans and the Israelis that we've just gone and decided that it's now a part of the Israeli state.
anon_
7d ago
partitioning your state to exclude a specific citizenry
Which is question-begging. Asking that question doesn't resolve the antecedent question of what is part of the State.
anon_
8d ago
ANJRPC finally dropped, in about the most expansive way possible.
More importantly, I think there is now a circuit split with the 7th that is more likely to merit cert. The Court presumptively (although, who knows) denied cert in a previous case (Highland Park?) to let things percolate. They have now definitely percolated.
anon_
14d ago
Yeah, but it's also why not every deliberate legislative action that materially impacts a business, even if it causes real harm, can be a taking. That would imply that once those laws are passed, they can never be repealed.
anon_
15d ago
It's not even an option in any traditional sense. It pegs the option to the auction's strike price, which is nonsensical.
anon_
15d ago
It's not one body, it's every locality!
If your argument here is "the optimal size of a town is somewhat smaller than the current size", I can see that.
anon_
15d ago
The reason I say this is because when Anthropic and GPT hiked their prices – which was probably aligning the value closer to their overall cost to manufacture the product – there was (apparently) an immediate and noticeable climb-down from high-volume AI use on the part of corporate America.
This is because, prior, corporate America told everyone to go and experiment with potential AI uses.
The climb-down was almost entirely pruning the bad/wasteful rather than actual narrowing the scope.
anon_
15d ago
FWIW, I would get rid of zoning and permit restrictive deeds including racial.
This is incoherent. There's no philosophical difference between "I am buying this land and subdividing it with a restrictive covenant that it may only have single family homes" and "I am founding a town and passing a zoning ordinance that only allows SFH".
anon_
15d ago
It's not an original mover problem to SCOTUS logic, it's a baseline definition problem in the 5A. Defining a "taking" requires comparing against some counterfactual to compare against.
anon_
15d ago
Framing deliberate government action as a "business risk" is ridiculous. If a mobster shows up at your door expressing his sincere concern about the flammability of your property, you wouldn't call your protection money payment a "business risk,
Let me give you an alternate example. Massachusetts mostly prohibits grocery stores from hard liquor. As a result, a substantial fraction of shopping plazas that have a grocery store also have a liquor store.
It is a deliberate government action to repeal those prohibitions and allow the grocery stores to sell liquor. It is also a business risk to those liquor stores as they would likely lose significant business to the larger grocery store that can offer better prices (due to amortizing fixed costs over a larger sales base).
It is, however, insane, to think that MA cannot repeal those laws without running afoul of the 5A.
So where does this land? I think a mobster or government specifically targeting individual properties for regulation is likely illegal (as under Penn) but that the uniform application of general laws is fine.
anon_
15d ago
I cannot see how the lost value of your property is not a taking!
The issue courts have seen with this logic is that vast swaths of regulation lower the value of property, including longstanding practices like zoning and setbacks and even nuisance. A property might indeed be more valuable if the owner can store cars on the front lawn or dam a stream.
Where I think the line is currently drawn is that regulation cannot completely extinguish the value of a property and it can't be specifically targeted. That's a workable legal one, but probably a suboptimal policy.
[ BTW, that court case is actually a pretty good example of bad facts making bad law. A mobile home situation is one where the "renter" owns the home on top of the pad and is substantially invested in an asset that costs more to move than it's worth. This is probably one of the strongest cases for how a landlord/tenant situation can be financially coercive because the realistic cost to the tenant of moving out is giving up a huge asset. ]
anon_
15d ago
In this case, no, but we have to understand that NJ specifically did the thing where they label it ROFR but it operates totally differently. In the standard understanding, ROFR would be the option to purchase the property at the winning auction bid.
anon_
27d ago
It's not quite as bad as you make it out -- SCOTUS has placed limits on warrants, at least as to generality and specificity. Groh v. Ramirez & Riley v. California come to mind. They only mostly disagree with you :-)
Also, while McNeely holds that a blood draw is valid, Winston v Lee holds that a surgery to remove a bullet isn't. So there's some cognizable limit there too.
anon_
27d ago
Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.
To do this, Sweden would have to
- Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
- Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
- Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
- Bring a case overturning all that precedent
- Remigrate
In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.
Given how quickly the same elements would claim rape in equivalent-or-more coercive situations in other contexts, I think it's reasonable here.
More options
Context Copy link