No, but maybe Rebel Wilson.
nickhammes
joined 1 year ago
Would Musk's untimely death, thought to be associated with the billion dollars worth of ketamine he bought last weekend off some dude on Craigslist, positively affect SpaceX? It might.
Though it seems like his attention being on Twitter has been good for SpaceX, less of his focus seems to mean fewer bad decisions overall. None of his attention could be a solid improvement
I'd feel better if it were in the hands of Owen Wilson.
Younger millennial here: I don't remember a particular moment, but it was somewhere during the 2nd Bush administration. Between the horrible things that happened in Guantanamo Bay, the completely unjustified war on Iraq, and the harm I saw No Child Left Behind inflicting on my own community, the country's flaws were very apparent to me.
When an obvious charlatan got elected in 2016, that devastated my hope that things would improve.
This has implications for the Tommy Westphall Universe as a whole.
Well an Olympic athlete is probably a public figure in this context, so she'd need to show that Boebert defamed her "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Pretty good, I'd wager.
Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it's not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.
Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.
IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.
If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it's not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don't get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.
Which could potentially create a situation if Trump were to win, where his electoral votes are split across JD Vance, and thanks to the 12th amendment, the Senate picks the VP, and selects Harris's running mate. If Jon Tester keeps his seat in Montana, which doesn't seem super unlikely, this probably means a 50-50 Senate, with the VP keeping it in the Dems' control.
I still don't understand the logic of this. Tens of millions of dollars a year is a lot of money, but so is the profits from running three casinos.
Wouldn't running the casinos well be more profitable in the long term? And generally more sensible unless the goal is specifically to hurt the banks?
If we're limiting ourselves to Americans, there's one woman for the job and her name is Mara Wilson.