Lester_Peterson [he/him]

Contrary to Liberal interpretations, this ruling doesn’t change much. If the President was capable of openly assassinating politicians, or launching a military coup to overthrow democracy, they would not be deterred by 9 people in black robes telling them they may be liable to criminal charges in the future for doing so.

Until the Chief Justice gets their own division to command, the Court only has as much power over the Federal Government as they are allowed to, which is invariably determined by their usefulness to politically dominant factions of Capital. See what happened after the Marshall Court made a decision impeding the interests early-American Capital had in forcefully dispossessing Indigenous peoples from their land.

I still believe the most incisive commentary on the Law’s function in society was given by Marx. He succinctly attacks the Liberal idea that all social structures (economics, politics, etc.) arise from the letter of the law. Rather:

Society is not founded upon the law; this is a legal fiction. On the contrary, the law must be founded upon society, it must express the common interests and needs of society — as distinct from the caprice of the individuals — which arise from the material mode of production prevailing at the given time. This Code Napoleon, which I am holding in my hand, has not created modern bourgeois society. On the contrary, bourgeois society, which emerged in the eighteenth century and developed further in the nineteenth, merely finds its legal expression in this Code. As soon as it ceases to fit the social conditions, it becomes simply a bundle of paper.

The ruling is hilarious. An Indiana mayor awarded a $1.1 million dollar contract to a truck dealership, then went to the dealership afterwards and said “I need money.” He asked for $15k in cash, and was given $13k.

According to the SCOTUS this is not bribery because a bribe is an award for pre-agreed actions that is quid pro quo, and maybe the dealer just happened to feel generous to the person responsible for awarding them a lucrative contract after the fact. Only money in burlap sacks with dollar bills on them, with a person handing it over with a contract saying “this is a bribe” count as a bribe. Anything else is just a sparkling gratuity.

A suspended sentence doesn’t mean you get to walk free. It means you’re released into the community but subject to a probation order which if broken will have you sent to prison. The conditions always have a “peace and good behaviour” obligation but can also include onerous restrictions. Anyone who works with offenders knows that the conditions imposed by a suspended sentence can be deeply intrusive and severely curtail people’s privacy and freedom of movement, to the point where they may sometimes be harsher than fines or even imprisonment

Providing for suspended sentences for first offences is consistent with the criminal justice system’s commitment to rehabilitation, even if it arguably is of a lesser deterrent value and doesn’t satisfy the desire for vengeance among much of the public.

I’m unfamiliar with Ireland’s criminal law, and the judge may have been more lenient than they had to be, but its not impossible that there’s enough mitigating factors that the sentence will not get appealed. If Crotty breaks the terms of his suspended sentence, and commits a similar act in the future, his sentence will almost certainly be considerably harsher.

I used to think that one of the worst takeaway of the Nuclear Arms race was that if you do nothing about an existential threat to humanity long enough, it will eventually go away. Now I realize the average Western leader who lived through the Cold War has decided its real meaning is that the risks of nuclear weapons don’t need to be taken seriously because there’s no chance they’ll ever be used.

Did Yemen ever learn why the US doesn’t have free healthcare?

The issue with Putin’s red lines is what threats does he actually have to follow through with if NATO crosses then.

Russian missiles have targeted Ukrainian infrastructure for years, and by this point it’s pretty clear that for all the previous talk of “the gloves will come off this time,” they do not have some massive stockpile of munitions waiting for the signal. Rather by now the quantity of Russian strikes are strictly limited by their rate of production. There is also not much more room for Russia to expand their scope of acceptable targets.

Russia could formally declare war, and multiply their forces in Ukraine through conscription. But Putin has always been a cautious and conservative leader. He is seemingly happy with how the SMO is going, and has only resorted to unpopular measures when a real risk of catastrophe exists, such as immediately after the Kharkiv counter-offensive. Until now the Kremlin’s judgment seems to be that the negative consequences of tolerating regular Ukrainian strikes inside the Russian federation do not outweigh those of declaring war.

As for the unthinkable option of escalating through nuclear strikes, will I’m personally very appreciative that Russia has refrained from doing so and pray that continues to be an empty threat.

nothing is sacred and everyone is expendable

Except for Israeli genociders, who we must arm and maintain the most steadfast support for. Also if you ever say otherwise I’ll turn into the most racist person in the world

Ukraine’s deindustrialization since the fall of communism is incredible.

In 1992 Ukraine was the industrial powerhouse of the USSR, with manufacturing holding a 45% share of GDP. By 2022 that share declined to just 8%, with Ukraine transformed into an outpost of American agri-business. One whose only remaining industrial policies were to sell off what was left of state enterprises while praying to become the cheap place for Western tech to outsource.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.MANF.ZS?locations=UA

It speaks to a deeper fault in liberalism, made obvious by the existence of homelessness.

A person is free only to the extent in which they have access to a physical space in which they can exercise that freedom. It would be absurd to say that I have freedom of speech, if they were banned from speaking freely at home, in public, or anywhere but inside my head. Without a place in which a person can go to and enjoy the protections of a right, they do not actually have that right.

A core tenet of classical Liberalism is that the only place in which our government recognizes the sanctity of a person’s ability to exercise their rights, is upon their own land. On public spaces, or the property of others, the exercise of rights may be readily curtailed, and always have been. This fits in nicely with the traditional Liberal notion that only people with property are citizens, whose rights deserve to be safeguarded.

However, for the homeless their ‘freedoms’ are illusory because they have no personal space to physically go to and enjoy it. Instead, the liberty of a homeless person to do anything (ie: sleep and eat) is strictly curtailed to the very limited range of activities permitted on public lands. And their right to protection from certain things (ie: invasions of privacy and involuntary search/seizure) similarly has virtually no guarantees.

This is also something I always emphasize when discussions of banning certain activities from any public spaces comes up. To ban encampments on all public property is to deprive our society’s most vulnerable of any right to shelter themselves from the elements, or sleep undisturbed, as they will no longer have legal access to places in which they can shelter or sleep.

To rebuke the argument that Georgia’s Foreign Agents Registration bill is necessary to prevent State Department NGOs from undermining Georgian sovereignty, the Foreign Ministers of Iceland and the Baltics have arrived in Tbilisi to participate in and encourage Georgia’s color-revolution protests against the “Russia law”

deleted by creator

The technical answer is that a decision by a state supreme court can only be appealed directly to the SCOTUS, who has to choose to take it up. This section specifically cannot be appealed because it is a concurring judgment which does not make law, and would probably be considered non-binding orbiter dictum regardless.

One of the biggest frontline updates this past month, which UA and RU commentators have discussed at length, was the capture of a single restaurant in Avdiivka.

Its like a parody of ww1 battle reports

lmao the press release even said the quiet part out loud, that this is her reward for bringing Finland into NATO

Ms Marin has a record of accomplishment, from setting one of the world’s most ambitious climate targets – enabled by a full programme of digitalisation and deployment of technology – to shepherding her country’s accession to NATO following Russia’s aggression in Ukraine (the swiftest accession in the alliance’s history).

https://www.institute.global/insights/news/sanna-marin-former-finnish-prime-minister-joins-the-tony-blair-institute

deleted by creator

The artist plays both sides so she always stays on top

Engels in “The Conditions of the Working Class in England” responded to this point better than I could, though written in 1844 Marx fully endorsed the analysis in Capitol Vol. I

Let the wise bourgeois ask the people who sweep the streets in Manchester and elsewhere (though even this is past now, since machines for the purpose have been invented and introduced), or sell salt, matches, oranges, and shoe-strings on the streets, or even beg, what they were formerly, and he will see how many will answer: “Mill-hands thrown out of work by machinery.” The consequences of improvement in machinery under our present social conditions are, for the working-man, solely injurious, and often in the highest degree oppressive. Every new advance brings with it loss of employment, want, and suffering, and in a country like England where, without that, there is usually a “surplus population,” to be discharged from work is the worst that can befall the operative. And what a dispiriting, unnerving influence this uncertainty of his position in life, consequent upon the unceasing progress of machinery, must exercise upon the worker, whose lot is precarious enough without it! To escape despair, there are but two ways open to him; either inward and outward revolt against the bourgeoisie or drunkenness and general demoralisation. And the English operatives are accustomed to take refuge in both. The history of the English proletariat relates hundreds of uprisings against machinery and the bourgeoisie; we have already spoken of the moral dissolution which, in itself, is only another form of despair.

The advance of industry, in the hands of a Communist society, will be a tool for the improvement of all. But in a society ruled by the Bourgeois, such innovation will facilitate more oppression, exploitation, and unemployment, if doing so is the most profitable. You can look at the immiserating consequences which followed the invention of the cotton gin to see that; not even accounting for genuinely awful inventions like leaded gasoline, credit card scores, and nuclear weapons.

You can also see it in how fast Liberals starting claiming credit for gay marriage after a decades long struggle by LGBT activists did the hard work of making it broadly popular, and even then they relied on a court ruling that made the issue moot. A little over a decade ago (when gay marriage was seen as politically toxic) Obama, Clinton and the rest were all signing laws stating that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman.

Now LGBT rights discourse are being used as a cudgel against state enemies while one of America’s ruling parties is attempting as much social murder against trans people as they can get away with, and Liberals are doing virtually nothing in response.