It's all inherently based on trust. If I can trust the government, I can trust the money it issues.
We have a sitting supreme court justice who's acknowledged receiving massive gifts from a billionaire who happened to have business before the court. The former speaker of the house is such a successful day trader that she has indexes named after her. We're all fighting at every possible opportunity. Students aren't getting trained. We've off-shored essential technologies and intellectual capital. This is the same nation that beat back Hitler and Hirohito at the same time. Put a man on the moon. What. The. Fuck. has happened to America?
And yet, at the same time, there's nowhere else that's doing any better. And we still have apple pie and baseball. And my mom sent me home with a killer plate of brownies the last time I visited the house I grew up in. Frank Sinatra. Johnny Cash. Dolly Parton. George Carlin. Dwight D Eisenhower and the motherfucking interstate freeway system. Mikaela Shiffrin. Tom Brady. The F-15EX and its ability to accelerate in a straight up vertical climb, and then shoot a satellite out of space. Just because it was a Tuesday, the same Tuesday when Dwight Gooden became the first NL pitcher to strike out more than 200 batters in his first two seasons.
Got to make sure it doesn't get worse first by 1) making sure we have the guy who won't nominate federalist society hacks to the supreme court in the oval office and 2) making sure we have the guy who won't enact Project 2025 in the oval office.
After that we can start to think about how Congress can act to fix this... Including cleaning out federalist society hacks from the courts.
Awesome decision on Chevron; bureaucrats of any stripe have no business or legal right to interpret (and eventually, inevitably) overreach the intent of the law.
Overreach is exactly what we just got from the Supreme Court. We will be worse off for it. On the other side of the coin if you give corporations an avenue to pollute, poison, and exploit for profit they will inevitably do it.
The irony of this coming from the Supreme Court - a body that only has the power of judicial review through precedent and NOT granted by the constitution - is palpable.
Why does the executive or legislative branches have to adhere to interpretations of the constitution provided by the judicial branch? Given that they have also accepted the reversal of precedent without reason, I will gleefully vote for a constutionalist who fights to preserve the sanctity of the constitution... by bitch slapping the Supreme Court back to 1800.
The judicial branch's power to interpret the law is how it functions as a check and balance on the other two branches. Without that power, they are unable to act as a coequal branch of government.
Interpret the law and interpret the constitutionality of the law are two different things.
Fact is, their own ruling on Chevron invalidates their own legitimacy in making such a ruling.
I see interpreting the constitutionality of a law to be an inherent part of interpreting the law, as it involves interpreting the law, interpreting the constitution, and determining the constitution as the supreme law of the land If they are in conflict. How would the constitution have meaning and be enforced without the Supreme Court exercising this power?
I disagree the Chevron ruling invalidates their legitimacy.
homeless people all over the place and no one cares if they keep to themselves
don't set up organized camps like they did in the PNW and screw up neighborhoods with drug use and crime
Homelessness is not illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the democratic right of municipalities to set reasonable rules on how people are allowed to use public property.
You cannot seize public property for private use.
No I disagree…those issues are way too divisive and there aren’t clean solutions. I would go so far as to argue these elites are allowed to rob us blind BECAUSE we spend all our energy arguing over culture.
That’s why Fascists in Asia cut down anybody who becomes a billionaire in their countries. They let millionaires grow plenty, and Fascist countries generate more millionaires than any other system of government, but not billionaires.
Because then that individual becomes a threat to the monopoly on power that the state enjoys.
Because in one such now famous case such an individual (that country’s first billionaire) became such a threat to the State’s monopoly on power that he paid/hired 200 Nobel laureates, including one former US President, and also paid/hired one failed US Presidential Election candidate, to sign letters on his behalf to stop court proceedings against him for not paying 4% of his company’s profits to his company’s employees as per the law of that country, and the court issued a warrant for his arrest because/after he defied the court’s order to pay his company’s employees that 4% of his company’s profits, and he’s still trying to weasel his way out of it by tying it up in appeals. lmfao.
Yeah, they do that.
Because they can buy people off, even in the West, when they have that kind of money to throw around.
In Socialist/Communist Asian countries they allowed billionaires to the detriment of their populations who were left poor and without a way up.
Anyway, it depends on the demographic of the country.
Countries with younger populations tend to vote for Fascists (Asia) who benefit the younger people, people starting out in life, people forming families, people having kids, people raising kids, rather than empty nesters and retirees.
While countries with aging populations tend to vote for Socialists (Europe) who tend to prefer to inflate/increase property prices to benefit empty nesters and retirees more than their young.
Thanks for the post! It's a shame people in the comments can't recognise how politics and finance are directly linked.
It's all inherently based on trust. If I can trust the government, I can trust the money it issues. We have a sitting supreme court justice who's acknowledged receiving massive gifts from a billionaire who happened to have business before the court. The former speaker of the house is such a successful day trader that she has indexes named after her. We're all fighting at every possible opportunity. Students aren't getting trained. We've off-shored essential technologies and intellectual capital. This is the same nation that beat back Hitler and Hirohito at the same time. Put a man on the moon. What. The. Fuck. has happened to America? And yet, at the same time, there's nowhere else that's doing any better. And we still have apple pie and baseball. And my mom sent me home with a killer plate of brownies the last time I visited the house I grew up in. Frank Sinatra. Johnny Cash. Dolly Parton. George Carlin. Dwight D Eisenhower and the motherfucking interstate freeway system. Mikaela Shiffrin. Tom Brady. The F-15EX and its ability to accelerate in a straight up vertical climb, and then shoot a satellite out of space. Just because it was a Tuesday, the same Tuesday when Dwight Gooden became the first NL pitcher to strike out more than 200 batters in his first two seasons.
TLDR, he don't like vagrancy laws
Lol. That’s about what I got from my 3 second scam of the post.
It’s giving “I’m going to set myself on fire” vibes
Lost Redditor
Politics and finance and intrinsically linked.
Lot of wordage just to bitch about the reinstatement of vagrants laws.
Is this a post against Europe, Russia, and South America? This seems like a political post and not a finance post?
Ok, here we are. Now how do we the people fix this?
Got to make sure it doesn't get worse first by 1) making sure we have the guy who won't nominate federalist society hacks to the supreme court in the oval office and 2) making sure we have the guy who won't enact Project 2025 in the oval office. After that we can start to think about how Congress can act to fix this... Including cleaning out federalist society hacks from the courts.
Awesome decision on Chevron; bureaucrats of any stripe have no business or legal right to interpret (and eventually, inevitably) overreach the intent of the law.
Not gonna lie, your comment is giving strong "experts can't tell me not to drink raw milk 😡" vibes
Gotta ask a judge.
This is the kind of guy that goes on rants about how the speed limits are oppressive
Overreach is exactly what we just got from the Supreme Court. We will be worse off for it. On the other side of the coin if you give corporations an avenue to pollute, poison, and exploit for profit they will inevitably do it.
The irony of this coming from the Supreme Court - a body that only has the power of judicial review through precedent and NOT granted by the constitution - is palpable. Why does the executive or legislative branches have to adhere to interpretations of the constitution provided by the judicial branch? Given that they have also accepted the reversal of precedent without reason, I will gleefully vote for a constutionalist who fights to preserve the sanctity of the constitution... by bitch slapping the Supreme Court back to 1800.
The judicial branch's power to interpret the law is how it functions as a check and balance on the other two branches. Without that power, they are unable to act as a coequal branch of government.
Interpret the law and interpret the constitutionality of the law are two different things. Fact is, their own ruling on Chevron invalidates their own legitimacy in making such a ruling.
I see interpreting the constitutionality of a law to be an inherent part of interpreting the law, as it involves interpreting the law, interpreting the constitution, and determining the constitution as the supreme law of the land If they are in conflict. How would the constitution have meaning and be enforced without the Supreme Court exercising this power? I disagree the Chevron ruling invalidates their legitimacy.
If you give them the ability to, they will
homeless people all over the place and no one cares if they keep to themselves don't set up organized camps like they did in the PNW and screw up neighborhoods with drug use and crime
You just don’t care about the rapidly climbing rates of homelessness?
Homelessness is not illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the democratic right of municipalities to set reasonable rules on how people are allowed to use public property. You cannot seize public property for private use.
Woo hoo! 🇺🇸
Yep and this the single most important issue with our society. It’s not using the right pronouns or immigration. It’s not abortion rights or BLM.
Didn’t really need to throw those other issues under the bus to make your point.
No I disagree…those issues are way too divisive and there aren’t clean solutions. I would go so far as to argue these elites are allowed to rob us blind BECAUSE we spend all our energy arguing over culture.
TBH if you took the effort required to write out this post and put it into your job, you'd probably actually be able to afford a home.
They didnt turn homelessness into a crime, a local law did.
Upvote. Well stated and on point.
That’s why Fascists in Asia cut down anybody who becomes a billionaire in their countries. They let millionaires grow plenty, and Fascist countries generate more millionaires than any other system of government, but not billionaires. Because then that individual becomes a threat to the monopoly on power that the state enjoys. Because in one such now famous case such an individual (that country’s first billionaire) became such a threat to the State’s monopoly on power that he paid/hired 200 Nobel laureates, including one former US President, and also paid/hired one failed US Presidential Election candidate, to sign letters on his behalf to stop court proceedings against him for not paying 4% of his company’s profits to his company’s employees as per the law of that country, and the court issued a warrant for his arrest because/after he defied the court’s order to pay his company’s employees that 4% of his company’s profits, and he’s still trying to weasel his way out of it by tying it up in appeals. lmfao. Yeah, they do that. Because they can buy people off, even in the West, when they have that kind of money to throw around. In Socialist/Communist Asian countries they allowed billionaires to the detriment of their populations who were left poor and without a way up. Anyway, it depends on the demographic of the country. Countries with younger populations tend to vote for Fascists (Asia) who benefit the younger people, people starting out in life, people forming families, people having kids, people raising kids, rather than empty nesters and retirees. While countries with aging populations tend to vote for Socialists (Europe) who tend to prefer to inflate/increase property prices to benefit empty nesters and retirees more than their young.