I don't recall any SCOTUS nominee ever stating outright that Roe "...would not be overturned by me..." during their confirmation hearings. My memory says that they all refused to limit their discretion as to what their decisions would be in any new case. Citation?

Prohibition of same-sex marriage was once "settled law" - until it wasn't. "Settled law" in the end only acts as a restriction on lower courts. The fact of the matter is that the Supremes can decide any issue in any way they deem fit, regardless of precedents set in any previous Federal cases.

Good luck with your "sex strike". Maybe that will solve the population problem to which you refer.

Arizona secretary of state, Katie Hobbs sent a letter to the Arizona attorney general yesterday asking him to please investigate Donald Trump. And of course his close allies, Rudy Giuliani, and possibly even Sidney Powell for possible election interference in the state of Arizona.

Here's what happened in case you missed it last week, it was revealed that both the Trump white house and Rudy Giuliani on separate occasions and on multiple occasions made phone calls to officials in the state of Arizona following the November election, trying to get them to stop the counting, begging to be called back. In fact, it got so bad, the Arizona Republic detailed two separate attempts by Trump to reach Republican supervisor Clinton Hickman in the weeks after the election, as the president's allies sought to alter the election results in a state he narrowly lost to Democrat Joe Biden at the time, Hickman was chairman of the board of supervisors, the elected body that oversees elections in the state's most populous county, Maricopa. Hickman received the first call from the white house switchboard on December 31st while he was out celebrating the coming new year with his wife and friends, he let the call go to voicemail.

Second call came on the night of January 3rd after the Washington post published a recording of Trump's hour long phone call with Georgia secretary of state Hickman sought to avoid talking to the president because of ongoing litigation, any let the call go to voicemail and yes, for the record, the Arizona Republic does in fact have those voicemails where you can hear what they were trying to do. Then of course, Rudy Giuliani steps in, he starts emailing or I'm sorry, texting and calling the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican party, trying to get her to somehow interfere, stop the counting of the votes. Honestly, it is pretty much identical to what these idiots were doing over in Georgia, trying to get them to stop the vote, trying to get them to go find the votes as Trump said, and let's not forget... Trump is already under criminal investigation in Georgia. I know we all get distracted with New York, but there have been two grand juries empaneled in the state of Georgia regarding Donald Trump's potential criminal election interference in that state. That's a big deal that everybody seems to have forgotten about.

And now the same thing might happen in Arizona. There's a catch here. Arizona's attorney general, a Man by the name of Brenna Vich Is running for US Senate as a Republican. So he's got a lot, uh, got a lot at stake here. He can't PISS off Republicans by investigating Donald Trump.

Brenna Vich did, in fact, support Arizona's sweeping new voter suppression laws.

Edit: btw, multiple Republicans including but not limited to McConnell have gone public with their plan of hoping they can cause maximum chaos and division for the next 18 months because it will help them successfully block any and all legislation, then they can blame the gridlock on Democrats during the election. Total nationwide chaos with the corresponding rise in crime and damage to the economy....that's the Republican plan for victory. True patriots. 🤦‍♂️

Better donate to the Trump Twitter lawsuit quick before they manage to destroy your investment portfolio with the planned chaos...Trump can't sue social media without your cash donations because he's really a billionaire so he needs your cash...pay no attention to his standard microscopic fine print explaining that he may, at his discretion, use your donation for personal debts. Doesn't matter, DONATE NOW. He needs your money....to fight the invisible fight against those paper tigers and windmills. Please don't remember when he did the exact same thing begging for money to fight for the "election fraud" fraud in court but then pocketed the money and fired his (now disgraced and disbarred) lawyers without filing a legitimate lawsuit.

I think that's at the discretion of the judge, if you asked for 15%, likely you'll get your principal back, if you asked for 1500%, chances are you won't get a dime back as punishment, and may end up owing the borrower if you went overboard trying to collect.

I live in California, building codes change constantly. I agree, it is maddening and often backwards. He was specifically talking about codes for building stand alone solar, which are newer building codes. Even old building codes are often poorly thought out and contradictory. I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of red tape here, especially for building.
That said, his contractor should have been aware of all codes, submitted his plan, and would have approval or notes on what to change in weeks tops. There's something wrong when it takes over a year to get a shed built, some reason his plans weren't approved like they weren't to code.
Citation : personal experience - I installed solar in California, it took 3 days for my permit approval....and only that long because my contractor was being lazy.

That's the thing I disagree with, no new laws are needed at all, just a removal of exemptions/deregulations for businesses that pay large enough bribes (contributions) to elected officials. Even making all credit businesses operate on the same rules, allowing them 30% interest, seems ok, but that isn't reality today. It's unconscionable to allow 1600% interest on loans peddled to desperate people that don't actually qualify for a real, legitimate line of credit, many of whom don't understand it's what they're agreeing to, but the payday loan lobby is well funded and connected.
Citation:
Although U.S. states set their own maximum legal interest rates, a Supreme Court interpretation of the National Bank Act of 1864 preempted state usury laws and created a path toward a national consumer lending economy. The most important federal case in credit card interest rate deregulation was decided in 1978.

Her problems were multifold. The predatory loan took a fixable issue, her terrible customer service, and compounded it with insurmountable and ever expanding debt, which in turn undoubtedly hurt her customer service more, thus increasing her debt..... It sounds like she never should have purchased a service oriented business, and likely overextended herself from day one just to do it.

I'm unsure of your point in the last paragraph.

That's right Fox is fake news now as well isn't it.

There is video evidence of the kick, are you saying it is CGI?

The police always have the discretion of whether on not they pull the trigger.

Local politicians create the Law. PD is obligated to enforce it. on 1 - 10 he seemed about a 1 or 2. They should have taken him home and fined him a token amount (50 bucks ). However Law states ZERO tolerance which led to this sad situation.

Change the law so cops can have more discretion.

Guess MADD has a lot to do with current laws.

Discretion in police action (other than speed cameras)---is all about people with privilege getting a chance to get let go--because of a special license plate frame that recognizes a contribution to a widow and orphans fund for dead patrol officers...because of ethnicity...because (from college) a cute friend who was girl undid another blouse button and smiled a lot...And in this case, to allow them to pull over some for driving while black. Ugh.

This is really about as bad as gets.

Tyranny 101:
1. Setup laws such that EVERYONE will inevitably break some of them.
2.Selectively enforce those laws

Now your law enforcement can use discretion to not enforce the letter of the law on some folks, while putting others beneath a microscope where you examine them for even the smallest possible infraction.

Now, it may be possible the overcompensating officer in the video pulled our guy here over randomly. However, you can't ignore what a great poet of my generation has also observed:
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses

You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------


The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

Since you are ignorant of the law and incapable of finding it yourself, here is section 7214 ....read it and get back to me, I'll explain how it applies.



26 U.S. Code § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or
(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or
(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or
(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or
(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or
(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or
(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;
shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.


Edit: I'll save time, here's the other law he's violating which unambiguously states he had no choice but to turn them over immediately.

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(11) Disclosure of information regarding status of investigation of violation of this section
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Edit: allow me to save time again, by not following 6103 (11) (f) and furnishing the return requested in writing by the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, he undeniably violates 7214 (a) (3), which comes with a 5 year sentence. Understand now?

As hamsteralliance says, ContentAware uses proximity matching and relative area matching. If you tried to fill in the white space with ContentAware, it'd be full of everything except eyes. They nVidia folks used thousands of images to train the neural net (ie generate the model using training data) which has more discrete sequential or spatial relationships between features (ie. eyes go to either side of the nose, below the eyebrows, level, interpupilary distance etc etc). The neural approach ALWAYS needs training data sets - it doesn't appear to (from reading the paper) any adaptive or learning algorithm outside of the neural framework (so, it's not AI in the sense that it learns from any environmental stimulus and alters its response... that I can see anyway. The paper doesn't get into the minutiae). But I'd still date her, if only she'd have me.

Funny, but a tangible item is much easier to market.

It's only been in recent human history that we have decided to accept currency sources that are technically not backed by a physical equivalent and. Even then, until bitcoin and other recent crypto-currencies started appearing, we required the force of a large body behind it like a government.

At least with items like gold and silver, people knew that it was an unknown new item that had limitless potential. Imagine a person coming up to you ages ago and saying, "I've filled an empty mine with rocks, but every 1000th rock is blue. I am the only one that can allow access to the mine, so I can manage the rarity of the blue rocks. What I want you, and the other people to do, is treat these blue rocks as valid trade items." I can almost guarantee that you, or anyone for that matter, would say that you would do that only if that person speaking to you guaranteed to make the blue rocks redeemable for valid currency from him at your discretion.

That is one of the problems many have with crypto-currency, the guarantee factor of being able to convert to a more recognized form of monetary unit. It's changing now, but it is still going to be a rough road since the only true guarantee at the moment is that multiple places are starting to recognize it as currency. It could be amazing, but it also has massive potential to financially cripple a lot of people if they trade goods/services for it and it flops.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Those baggy shorts discretely conceal his enormous balls.

I think what Alan is trying to say is that every prosecutor has discretion. Comey isn't guilty of obstructing justice because he decided Clinton wasn't guilty with her email server. He's not guilty of obstruction because he didn't investigate Seth Rich's murder as it related to the DNC and wikileaks. These are all judgement calls. And he's saying as President, Trump has the ultimate authority in judgement calls in what to investigate, and it's completely legal to say investigate this, don't investigate that, or fire someone to stop an investigation. Furthermore, congress has the unilateral power to impeach him if they think any behavior of his is improper. It doesn't need to be illegal and isn't reviewable by a court. They could impeach him for putting katsup on his steak and that would be legal.

Basically you don't need any codified legal basis for impeaching a President.

This is extremely important, and (as far as I know) is extremely prevalent in Judaism, where the notes and interpretations are literally just as important as the scripture itself. These notes have been debated and clarified over the centuries by people who specialise in studying it; beyond that there is still debate, and the notes are still evolving. This means they have something of a self-righting mechanism whereby the mistakes of the past can be corrected.

This is in a way similar to the scientific approach, but using debate instead of empiricism.

The problem is that most christian churches ignore this fact and go by the interpretations of the church leader(s). The most extreme are the bible literalists who can justify pretty much anything by cherry-picking passages. The larger established churches like the catholics have some of this, but are largely missing the key feature of self-correction (except over far longer periods of time, and almost fully at the discretion of the pope).