After a series of strokes last year, the subject of this profile, a friend, was left with bad amnesia. He called last week to tell me that someone read the piece to him during his recovery, and it helped him begin to remember his life and identity.
Probably the best feedback I've ever received.
I think that protests did drive a large number of resignations actually. Certainly in NY. The large amount of overtime allowed them to fudge numbers and maximize their pensions making it an ideal moment to quit.
What's even funnier, is this would be literally impossible in at least some US states (definitely in NY). NY won't take you off the ballot, except for a limited set of circumstances of which withdrawing isn't one. A candidate in Ithica, NY dropped out and won their election anyway, 2 years ago.
I mean yeah, organizing locally is the way to really address this. Your ability to affect federal elections and federal courts is pretty minimal as an individual. But if you can unionize a bunch of places and take over your city council so can start really building power.
And I really think labor unions are a good avenue for this. There are a lot of unions that have a ton of money, but are incredibly morbund, run by leadership uninterested in doing anything or who basically have no leadership at all. A few activists mount a campaign and you get the current UAW!
The president shouldn't act outside his authority. In order to prosecute someone though, you would need to allege a law they have violated. Absent a statute explictly making violating this amendment a crime, they're going to be prosecuted only for existing crimes.
PSA: if you're talking about doing actual political violence on social media in public, you are a dangerously ignorant twerp who lacks the situational awareness required to do anything useful for anyone.
Yeah, but that's just for convenience and minimizing disruption. Until the moment of inauguration, Trump had every single presidential power available to him.
Even if you legitimately believed that was what the constitution required, why would you rule that way? It's like these justices don't care, support, or just can't conceive that this could literally be the end of the USA as it currently exists.
This is the problem with the very idea of having immunity defenses for anyone. It encourages extending them to others. In order for people not to be above the law, the law needs to apply to them at all times.
Yeah, it's sorta weird to me that people keep interpreting the end of chevron as though SC adopted the non-delegation doctrine. Agencies can still write regulations. I'm just wondering if I'm missing something.
This is just completely incorrect. The ruling that was overturned literally stated sleeping outside couldn't be criminalized so long as their weren't shelter beds available.
oh yeah, the single shelter (Gospel Rescue mission) in Grant's pass
bans non-approved socialization between men and women bans service animals,
requires you to work 40 hours at the shelter while bars you from looking for work elsewhere
requires turning over all your medication to the shelter
And of course, leaving aside that any proper reading of Powell would, under Marks, have Justice white's opinion (and not the plurality) be the holding of the court. And his opinion held it was impermissible to punish public intoxication provided you could prove it was involuntary.
And ignores the later majority holding in Driver v. Hinnan (1966), which held that a public intoxication statute could not criminalize public intoxication of someone who was a chronic alcoholic.
Almost all prisons and jails are public. Most work in prisons is stuff like laundry or meals in the prison itself. And people will be going to jail not prison, which often have zero work requirements. This is to get people out of sight or drive them out of town.
