Possibly the first thing I read about Biden that makes me proud of him.

Finally.

Scalia also thought he was an expert historian which led to several mistakes, not the least of which was Heller.

Textualism has no "intent" involved, it doesn't question what the lawgiver intended, it's solely concerned with what the text to a reasonable person is supposed to mean. Or to put it bluntly: "Fuck the lawgiver". Given that, I don't see in what world originalism can be a subset of textualism if the principle of intent is paramount in one and to be totally ignored in the other.

EDIT: subsuming originalism under textualism is of course a political play. Textualism is a primary interpretation technique; if a law is clear the other interpretative techniques aren't going to move the interpretation. That's why a textual (or as we call it in thet Netherlands "grammatical") interpretation is paramount and considered the most pure; a clear law only needs textual interpretation. By pretending that including the intent of the lawgiver is still a textual interpretation, the suggestion is it is as pure as an actual textual interpretation. It isn't. Originalism is just a bunch of regressives worrying that a static text will necessarily affect a changing world differently than a bunch of wig-wearing racist scumbags could predict.

genus textualism, species originalism. — tim wood

Originalism is not a subset of textualism.

The SC has employed several interpretation methods since its creation. What motivates people to ignore other possible interpretations isn't very interesting, it just makes them bad at their job.

Also, it's rather ludicrous to claim American exceptionalism in this area.

That's a poor translation of what Originalism actually stands for. It's one of various methods you can employ to interpret a text. Limiting yourself in interpretative methods isn't a high ethical calling, it's being a bad judge.

It just occurred to me that the Founders didn't exist in a legal vacuum either. They were part of a tradition that goes back to Roman law. There are no grounds to assume that the US constitution requires a different method of interpretation than any other law that came before it unless they were specific about it. No such specification exists, which is further reason to direct Originalism to the bin.

I find the Originalist's approach to interpretation of legal texts strangely restrictive. Why commit to an interpretation beforehand when there are various methods available? The first is always grammatical, does the text deal with the situation at hand? If not, then the rule is incomplete and we have to interpret what the rule means in respect to this new situation. We have the following interpretation techniques at hand:

1. legislative historic interpretation, you look at the recorded discussion of legislators with respect to that specific law
2. legal historic interpretation, this is broader and also takes into account the social history or even ancient legal systems (like Roman law)
3. legal systemic interpretation, the law is probably related to other laws and the meaning of the law can become clear if its position in the broader legal system is understood
4. teleological interpretation, what did the legislator intend to prohibit or stimulate with the law
5. anticipating interpretation (to be exercised with caution), new laws are expected to be passed and the judge could interpret existing law to match upcoming laws

All methods of interpretation should be employed, compared and then weighted. Judging is about deciding what is the correct answer between alternatives. If you do not allow alternatives because of a self-imposed bias, you're not judging, you're just imposing pre-conceived notions on existing text.

In other words, originalists are bad judges by definition.

As to Amy, I find her non-commital to the point of being untrustworthy. The woman pretends to have no opinions on important subjects by claiming ignorance.

This was the news. Trump can't even do witch hunts right and turns up nothing in what, his third enquiry? At least the Müller "witch hunt" gave us obstruction of justice.

Imo, the verdict is in on illegal drugs. Legalize and control. And that because apparently criminalizing illegal drugs doesn't work. But that's not an occasion for celebration because it recognizes failure and accepts and acknowledges facts in the face of the failure, of loss and cost. — tim wood

Is it fair to say this reduces the question to an economic problem?

Also, it might be a good time to sell Alaska to Russia. After all,

They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska — Sarah Palin

Enter in 3, 2, 1...nosfart with something totally unrelated disparaging Trump's opponents.

Florida is looking good: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/

This is entirely true when you understand "best for whom"? Follow the money.

The risks and hazards of taking at least some drugs, while usually a more complicated subject, is of a kind. If you f*** yourself up, on what basis or ground do I have to pay anything, anywhere for it, because of it, or to fix it? — tim wood

If legalising drugs and helping addicts is cheaper for society than criminalising drug use, should we do it?

After Biden wins, what are the chances Trump ends up in jail?

sounds like something only moderately entertaining with enough shrooms.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/12/texas-galveston-black-man-horse-rope

Uh... You know it looks bad and you do it anyway?

That will just lead to people starting separate threads to complain about bannings.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/

Is Texas a swing state this year?

To be fair, that makes exactly 0 difference. The point is that his remarks aren't defensible. Whether Biden identified them first, is irrelevant. Trump identified them too. Trump's intention? I didn't even go into it because it's irrelevant but it's utter lunacy to defend it based on idiocy. Are we seriously entertaining whether Trump knows what "stand by" means? A native English speaker? Fuck off. It's not "convenient", that's the type of bullshit parents peddle when their kids are chastised by strangers for being horrible: not informed by the facts and informed by a misplaced optimism about their character (eg. They're not bad, they just don't know any better).

If Trump's "condemnation" leads to an uptick in racist shits joining the Proud Boys then we have 2 options : 1. he didn't condemn then but encouraged them, 2.Trump is such a threat to white supremacists they feel a need to rise up.

Whether he did 1 accidently still leaves no room to defend it.

Try carmageddon.

I mean, seriously, this is so fucking stupid. There's a group Proud Boys, that goes out of its way to deny it's white supremacist is then identified by Trump as white supremacist and militant, while he's telling them to "stand back and stand by" and this results in exactly 0 complaints from the group that they are called white supremacists, celebratory tweets from members and an uptick in membership all because Trump "condemned" them.

Can we fucking ban the racist scumbag still defending this shit?

Members of the Proud Boys called Trump’s message “historic” on private social media channels and one member said they have received a spike in new recruits, the New York Times reported.

“The Proud Boys were quick to react to the president’s remarks. They heard them as a call to action and rapidly created ‘standing by’ memes designed to help mobilization in the group,” Joseph Carter, program manager at network analysis firm Graphika, told The Washington Post.

I know your dumb but I didn't take you to be dumber than a Proud Boy.

As any psychologist will tell you: listening, summarising and asking open-ended questions are the only way you're going to persuade anyone. If you don't listen to someone, they're not going to listen to you. Of course, internet fora don't support such a format.

The eternal misrepresentation. The Steele dossier was not considered actionable intelligence by itself. It was Papadopoulos' bragging that did it.

Second, nosfart is equating opposition research with hacking. Only one of those is a crime.

Polls are flawed because pollsters have to make judgment calls about who they think are likely to vote. And considering historic low voter turnout in the US, that's probably a very vague science.

That's true. My use case would ideally be for both work (legal stuff; annotating contracts mostly) and reading on my own time. I'd still buy it if my employer would be prepared to foot 50% of the bill. I'm not sure they can support it at work though as a BYOD.

EDIT: although admittedly, a 28 inch screen where I can put two document up at the same time is useful too when drafting so really, really ideally I could switch between the two on the fly.

The Remarkable 2 doesn't have a backlight. Not buying it then. :cry:

I zoned out after 30 seconds. I like my speakers to have more charisma than a sack of potatoes.

If this happens, expect BLM protest but with guns every day until Trump is gone or the US has finally spiraled into an openly oppressive police State with a nice tally of shot protesters, curfews and all that other stuff we're used to seeing from Honduras and Yemen.

Yeah. Not going to happen soon I'm afraid. E-ink is hella expensive and doesn't have many other applications (unlike LCD which is tablets, monitors, TVs, watches, babyphones etc.). The upside is some important patents have expired a few years ago so some drop might be expected.

It seems to be cheaper. 400 EUR is 470 USD and the Boox is 550 USD at current exchange rates. Or maybe you get different pricing than I do. :chin:

I'm considering this one for Christmas: https://remarkable.com/store/remarkable-2

I'm an avid ereader. I would like the A4 sizes for ereaders to become more affordable to be able to read books with pictures and diagrams as well.

I don't read physical books anymore to save paper plus it doesn't require a light when reading while the wife is sleeping. And to be honest, I prefer the ereader in general as well. No mushy romantic feels for hardcopies from me.

I take it Stephen is a cunt. Why is he a cunt?

He's so drugged out, he isn't even aware he's drugged out. Better than 20 years ago. Lol.

Me strong. Me smash covid.

So Trump puts people at risk by getting into a hermetically sealed car while being contagious. Nice.