Elon discovers the constitution
-
Depends on how much they are ruling based on law and how much on the feels.
On the other hand, our government was designed so that quick action without consensus is discouraged, so we are seeing the balancing act at work. To me it proves that our system of checks and balances works.
-
@Jolly said in Elon discovers the constitution:
He's right.
Judges are supposed to call strikes and balls, based on individual cases. What we have now, is district court shopping and generalized appeals to the court.
The system needs refinement and reform.
Calling balls and strikes takes time, which is why the injured party can often seek a temporary injunction while their case is being heard. It would an exercise in triviality to present a set of facts in which you’d suddenly be Mr Temporary Injinction.
-
I am skeptical of judicial reform. I don't know the details of that essay, but every suggestion I've seen can be summed up as "We're not getting the rulings we want and here's what we could do to turn it in our favor". Just a scant 4 years ago the Dems were screaming that SCOTUS had to be reformed. As I recall that suggestion was not greeted here with open arms.
-
@jon-nyc said in Elon discovers the constitution:
It would an exercise in triviality to present a set of facts in which you’d suddenly be Mr Temporary Injinction.
I don't know about injinctions, but I think on judicial filings where the purpose is to blunt the will of the Executive or Congress, it should be a bit different process. Instead of one judge issuing a stay, make it a three judge panel. If the majority of the panel rules against the plaintiff, fast-track the case to SCOTUS.
-
No. Anyone who believes the EO or law is unlawful and is harmed by it can sue, and can request a temporary injunction while their case is heard. The temporary injunction often requires irreparable harm to be shown (harm that isn’t easily reversible if they win later).
The administration is a party to that, and if they have a good argument as to why the injunction shouldn’t happen they may prevail. Usually ‘cause we don’t wanna wait’ isn’t enough. It would normally require irrevocable harm to the administration’s interest. You could imagine a law with a built in sell-by date after which it’s moot.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Elon discovers the constitution:
This really does come down to Elon’s ignorance.
Well, either that or he's just being a troll.
It's generally impossible to tell with that guy.
-
If an employee is mismanaging funds, a superior should have access to this information.
If it harms the mismanaging employee, good.
Please, go ahead and harm the mismanaging employee.
And then find the superior that didn't already do that.
Thank you for your service Mr. Musk.
-
Wait 3 years. The average maturity of our debt is 6 years. Interest rates started climbing three years ago. Half the debt will need to be refinanced at today’s rates.
And the house is planning to add 4T more debt in the next 2+ years too.
It’s pretty scary.
-
The citizenship test is super easy. Like, measured by units of difficulty equal to the difficulty of getting a gender studies PhD at an Ivy League school, it’s only a five. Only five times as hard as the gender studies PhD from Harvard. You can literally study 30 minutes before the test and pass.
-
I hate to be the obnoxious conservative, here, but you all are wrong, including and especially Elon. We are not living on a democracy. We’re living in a Democratic Republic. The relationship and balance of powers between the executive and the judiciary have absolutely nothing to do with democracy. The judges are not elected, they are appointed by the Executive with advice and consent of the Senate.
