abff08f4813c

I thought the number one rule of being a liar: lie about being a liar. Just how dumb is this loser?

Conservatives got what they deserved, eh?

Yes, people forget that not every founding father was Christian. Ben Franklin was a deist, as per his autobiography, for example.

As a temporary fix, instead of service systemd-resolved restart as per the article, you can try this, service systemd-resolved stop

Once the service is stopped the port should be free. You’ll have to do this on every reboot (though maybe you can try adding the command to /etc/rc.local to stop it on every reboot)

Yep, it might be enough to just add that file with the setting set to no and restart.

Didn’t the UK already reduce arms sales?

Maybe it’s time to reduce even more and for other countries to follow suit.

Different federal circuits have ruled in different ways on these matters.

Hence why I mentioned an SC decision, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, above. Can’t get more settled than an SC decision - the only way that can be reversed is if the SC reverses itself later or if there’s a constitutional amendment in response to the decision.

Considering the current SCOTUS’ “interesting” interpretation of concepts like bodily integrity and immunity,

Would need to see the specific references to the rulings on this by the SC to come up with a fully informed response (and I apologize if these were actually mentioned in the article but I missed them).

If you’re referring to the case that was recently decided as per https://www.justsecurity.org/95636/supreme-court-presidential-immunity/ then I’d argue that a) this is unrelated to the your statement below and b) is an example where the current SC has disrupted existing settled law.

I stand by my statement that constitutional rights and protections for non-citizens within the US is not a settled matter of law.

And I stand by my statement that it is settled law, albeit with the significant caveat that the current SC could undo that settled law any time the right case is brought before them.

I’d argue that it should be seen by party rather than by individual. So the real lame duck period doesn’t start until it’s clear that the White House is about to change parties. This is much shorter (election in Nov, new Prez sworn in late Jan) and also covers the period major winter holidays (so don’t expect too much to get done).

Came on just to say this. I’d argue that it’s by party rather than by individual, so with the Dems trying to get another term Biden has to be careful not to throw a spanner into the works for Harris.

Wow, Swift broke Orange Voldemort!

It’s doubly so when you realize that far from being neutral, that the NYT board has repeatedly endorsed the Dem candidate since this guy started running on the GOP ticket:

2016 - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html
2020 - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/opinion/joe-biden-2020-nytimes-endorsement.html

Why can’t they do it again?

That distinguishes this case from the one involving the Green Party in Nevada - where they had the right paperwork, but were told by the officials of the State to use the wrong set and then got disqualified for it.

For the latter - usually, if the gov’t screws up, they usually have to do something to fix it (either allow the outdated paperwork that they said would work, to actually work - or extend the deadline to two weeks from now to file the correct paperwork, or something).

Good for her and good on you for checking.

Just pointing out that one can have statutory rights - provided by law - that aren’t outright in the Constitution. You are correct to add the “YMMV” caution - as in theory, it might be Florida’s laws rather than the 2A which give your wife the right to carry. Florida’s laws attempt to implement the 2A but in practice they might have opened the requirements wider than absolutely mandated by the 2A.

It is not a settled matter of law that the protections and rights provided by the Constitution to “the People” extend to non-citizens, even when those non-citizens are legal immgrants with long-standing ties to their community in the United States.

This is wrong. From the article you linked to,

Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country

And note that this part of the article cites earlier US Supreme Court decisions, e.g.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (holding that aliens receive constitutional protections when they enter the country and have “developed substantial connections”)

What the article makes clear is that gun ownership by noncitizens hasn’t been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court yet. Some district courts have ruled on legal permanent residents having this right (1)

Others have said that for temporary visa holders, they don’t have the same right (2)

Of course, this is not to say that the SC cannot upend existing settled law. By reversing Roe vs Wade, they proved that they can. But that’s different from saying the law hasn’t been settled yet.

(1)

The District of Massachusetts, in Fletcher v. Haas, ruled a state law unconstitutional because it categorically excluded noncitizens from firearm ownership. The court found “no justification for refusing to extend the Second Amendment to lawful permanent residents” because they have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States.

(2)

In 2012, the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that a state statute barring temporary visa holders from purchasing weapons was valid. The court distinguished Fletcher on the grounds that it applied only to permanent legal residents, and an open question existed as to Second Amendment protections for temporary residents. It ruled that those protections did not extend to temporary visa holders.

How dumb do you have to be to confuse a chicken with a cat?

Interesting. So fediverse the term was only coined (2012) after the first instance by Mozilla was shut down (and it seems that there were many protocol changes in between).

And also ActivityPub was a few years in the future when the term was coined (2014 being the first mention).

In a way, AOC was right.

Wanted to add that the there’s an exception to this. The actual law states that, among other categories,

Candidates for the senate and assembly nominated by each political party at the primary,

Also, from https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/08/26/wisconsin-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-lawsuit-against-green-party-ballot-access/

Legislative candidates can also be electors.

So if the Green Party had fielded candidates for these lower offices, then those candidates could also serve as the electors and they wouldn’t have this problem. Which hits the point that AOC made well, that the Green Party needs to be building at the grassroots and fielding candidates in more lower offices.

If we check the law itself again, there’s also this bit,

8.185 Write-in candidates for president and vice president. … (2) Any candidates for the office of president and vice president of the United States as write-in candidates shall file a list of presidential electors … Compliance with this subsection may be waived by the commission … In such event, the write-in candidate shall have until 4:30 p.m. on the Friday following the general election to comply with the filing requirements of this subsection.

It’s interesting to see that the requirements are more lax for write-in candidates - not needing to decide on the electors until after the election has been held.

And if a write-in or independent or third party did win the election, I think it’s a possibility that retiring state senators from other parties might well agree to serve as electors for that candidate (as the better alternative to seeing the state’s electoral votes lost).

So if Jill Stein were a write-in candidate, then it’s possible to see her getting an actual slate of electors in Wisconsin if she did win the election in that state.

That being the case, perhaps there’s some legal rabbit that the Green Party is waiting to pull out of their hat to solve this when the time is right - say to argue and convince the WEC and the courts that the more lax write-in deadline should apply to Stein and the Green Party upon their victory.

From earlier, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jill-stein-slams-nevada-supreme-court-after-green-party-suffers-big-blow-in-ballot-battle/ar-AA1qfyLA

The campaign team for Stein and her running mate, Dr. Butch Ware, have said there is “no legal recourse” to fight the Nevada decision.

Well, I guess he was wrong then.

“And secure the election and jam the Senate”. It sounds like the guy thinks they’ll will the presidency if they force a shutdown. Has that worked, like, ever?