GeorgiaDon

The 15-year-old staged the scene, then called 911 and claimed his 13-year-old brother was the killer and that he survived by hiding in a bathroom. He thought everyone was dead, but his 11-year-old sister was wounded and survived by playing dead, then escaped through a window. If she had not survived, it's conceivable the killer might have gotten away with it. I have a vague recollection that years ago someone who used to post in SC murdered her parents and tried to frame her brother for the crime. Does anyone else recall that story, or is it just some fever dream of mine?

A long time ago I read about a guy in England during WWII who was branded a coward and ostracized by the townspeople where he lived because he wasn't obviously in the military (didn't wear a uniform/wasn't deployed). It turned out he was a scientist involved in developing radar. Hard to argue that developing radar wasn't a useful contribution to the war effort. Also hard to work on developing radar (or any new technology) while at the same time fighting on the front lines. Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us why nothing any of us could possibly be doing, no matter how essential, is as important as military service?

I think it's part of his pathology, that he has no concept of a sense of humor, so he often seems to substitute cruelty.

Regarding a more mundane application of “AI”, I help to moderate a forum that is largely devoted to fossil identification. Lately we are getting lots of posts from people who are confused by identifications given by a google ap. Most of the ID suggestions are so far off as to be comical. One poster was concerned that google misidentified a common fossil as a toxic mineral, and was insistent that they needed to go to the hospital immediately. I’m sure it’s a challenge to get an algorithm to parse out the meaningful data from a poorly photographed image, make appropriate comparisons to hundreds of thousands (or millions) of possibilities, and make a plausible suggestion as to an identification. However we have many humans on the forum who are excellent at doing just that.

Actually this is a good example of perhaps the biggest threat of a Trump presidency. He may be blind, or at least unable to see beyond his own grievances. However he is surrounded by truly malignant people who will easily manipulate him, putting themselves in positions of power to do enormous harm to the country, and to the world. They were not prepared last time, as they did not expect to win. Project 2025 is enough to show they won't make that mistake again, and it's likely even worse is being planned by people who are smart enough to keep things under wraps until it's too late to stop them.

It seems to me many conservatives are hung up on conformity. We all should be straight, gun-toting, country music loving, American-speaking evangelical Christian baby-making machines. Maybe we don't all have to be white, but it's expected that we should all act white (no "ghetto music", no funny hair styles etc). Maybe it's a control thing, any life choices or actions that are different from theirs is somehow threatening, and must be eradicated. Personally I would find a society that has total uniformity to be painfully boring.

I have a nephew who suffered from gender dysphoria for many years, beginning well before their teens. Now in their 20s, they went through hormone treatment and recently underwent surgery to complete the transition to female, at least externally. Although they still have work to do psychologically, it's mostly to deal with damage done by years of dysphoria and the social stigma that comes with that. At least we no longer have to worry constantly about suicide. I find it interesting that before any hormone treatment was started it was determined that the male bits they were born with were never able to produce sperm, which suggests that they were never a fully functional male and the dysphoria may well have had a physiological basis. I know that I, personally, never made a choice as to my gender identity, it was "built in" by a combination of genetics and hormone environment during development. I assume the same is true of everyone else. It is absurd to assume that other people consciously choose their gender, and even more so to assume people choose an identity that often results in a lifetime of suffering.

Also depends on what is considered to be a "human right". Some countries consider access to health care to be a right, not just a commodity for sale to those who can afford it. Same for education. OTOH few countries consider unrestricted access to firearms to be a basic human right.

I think this decision will come to be seen as on par with Dred Scott. Like Dred Scott, the damage will likely require a constitutional amendment or two to repair. Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on putting forward a couple of amendments, one to limit presidential immunity and to define a process to decide what acts are "official" and what are not (with self-dealing firmly in the "not" category), and a second amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices. An enforceable code of ethics would be good too. Perhaps another amendment could introduce an upper age limit to the presidency. Another thing they could campaign on is a repeal of the Comstock Act.

If everyone who hates this SC decision were to mail each justice who voted for it a pair of MAGA embroidered knee pads, I wonder if they would get the message. Also an inflatable Trump doll and a "bag of dicks" might be appropriate.

Yes, and no. The ruling so hamstrung any possible prosecution that it is difficult to see how it would even be possible. It is now forbidden to seek testimony from, or even to interview, anyone in the administration. It is also forbidden to raise any issue regarding the president's motive for an act. How could a prosecutor even establish if an act falls under the "official" or "unofficial" category under such circumstances? As an example of the situation we now have, imagine Trump announces on the White House social media feed that he will sell pardons for $1,000,000, and then he actually does so. Issuing pardons and communicating to the public on official White House channels are part of his official duties, so neither of those things could be used as evidence. His motive for issuing the pardons also cannot be raised. So all we would have is the payment, which could easily be disguised as a donation to a PAC, from which he could legally use the money for personal purposes. So, in practice the Supreme Court has just legalized bribing the President. Similar arguments could be raised for all manner of other acts that would be criminal for you and me, but now not for the President. Perhaps someone could argue that a President could still be impeached and removed from office for such conduct. Leaving aside the glaring fact that virtually no Republican in Congress would vote for that (so the Democrats would have to control the House and over 60% of the Senate to actually remove a Republican President), yesterday's SC decision means that if the President does such things they are not illegal. So what is left that might qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors"? With this decision, the SC effectively neutered the possibility of impeaching and convicting a President as well. The President is now indeed our King. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. This decision by the Supreme Court qualifies in every meaningful way, except perhaps in name, as a constitutional amendment, making the President the modern day incarnation of King George.

First off, with the Chevron decision (plus eliminating the statute of limitation for lawsuits) they castrate the ability of government agencies to protect the public interest, and give carte blanche to big corporations to do whatever. In the process they install themselves as arbitrators of every government function. Then today they make the president above the reach of the law. Project 2025 indeed. Roberts, Thomas, Alito et al must be very proud of their handiwork.

Adding to the decision to throw out Chevron, today the supreme court effectively threw out the 6 year statute of limitations Congress set for entities to challenge rules or regulations set by government agencies. Despite the plain language of the law, the conservative members of the court twisted that language like a pretzel to achieve the long standing wet dream of the Heritage Foundation and ensure that they (the judicial system) would become the ultimate "deciders" who really run the country. I guess unless you are a conservative justice, you must be just a "mud-sill", too stupid to be allowed a say in how society functions. (If you subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson's blog you'll know the term mud-sill; if not, it is an old term for the laboring class, good for providing the "muscle" to keep the economy running, but only under the control of the ruling class.)

I give it about 5 years before this court abolishes the EPA.

Regarding things in general, every regulatory decision that has a financial impact on any business will have to be litigated to death before they can be enforced. The courts will be overwhelmed to the point of paralysis. It will be impossible to respond to any health or environmental problem, indeed any issue, on a time scale faster than decades. And in the end, any decision no matter how technical will be made by judges who have no training in the subject. However lawyers are well known for their confidence that they can read a one page brief and know more than anyone who has spent their whole career working on a topic.