Readit News logoReadit News
redczar commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders   theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10
sbuttgereit · 2 months ago
[flagged]
redczar · 2 months ago
Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.

Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.

redczar commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders   theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10
gsibble · 2 months ago
And the final check today but the Supreme Court said those judges were wrong and don't get to do that anymore.
redczar · 2 months ago
And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.
redczar commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders   theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10
quotemstr · 2 months ago
And one guy gets to decide what's legal?
redczar · 2 months ago
What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.
redczar commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders   theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10
redczar · 2 months ago
According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?

This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.

redczar commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders   theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10
chriscrisby · 2 months ago
It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.
redczar · 2 months ago
An injunction is not a judgment. It is temporary. A new rule or law is passed. It might be unconstitutional or otherwise not enforceable. Until this can be sorted out sometimes the law/rule is blocked until it is sorted out. Since the law/rule was not in place before the suit it is sometimes ok to temporarily block the rule until it’s legality can be determined. One goes by the principle of causing least harm.

It causes the least harm to block the birthright executive order until it’s legality can be determined. Therefore it should be blocked nationwide.

redczar commented on U.S. plans to rescind rule blocking logging on national forest lands   apnews.com/article/loggin... · Posted by u/geox
redczar · 2 months ago
We’ve exploited the resources of other nations and caused great pollution in other nationw. It’s time that we do it to ourselves.
redczar commented on The economics behind "Basic Economy" – A masterclass in price discrimination   blog.getjetback.com/the-e... · Posted by u/bdev12345
onlyrealcuzzo · 2 months ago
It's made it so that relatively poor people can afford to regularly fly all over the world, which is a relatively new thing.

Lowe middle income people in lower middle income countries can afford to fly somewhat regularly, and even internationally, too.

Flying used to be just for the rich only as far back as the 60s, and for nobody as far back as 200 years...

redczar · 2 months ago
The vast majority of the world’s population can’t afford to fly. The relatively poor part of your comment is weird. Flying is still for the rich.
redczar commented on How many PhDs does world need? Doctoral graduates outnumber academia jobs   nature.com/articles/d4158... · Posted by u/TMWNN
dekhn · 2 months ago
That's a great question. To the extent that increasing the budget caused more smart people to get PhDs and more of them were able to contribute to the scientific effort (as well as help bigtech develop ML and contribute back to science), I think it was a good idea.

It might have been better executed- somehow matching the increased supply of grad students with increase supply of faculty positions, or perhaps just growing it more slowly to let the inequalities equilibrate a bit more. But ultimately, I think it was a good thing, in that it increased the total science being done.

redczar · 2 months ago
Thanks for the clarification.
redczar commented on How many PhDs does world need? Doctoral graduates outnumber academia jobs   nature.com/articles/d4158... · Posted by u/TMWNN
dekhn · 2 months ago
This happened when I was in grad school back in the late 90s. Clinton increased the budget of the NIH significantly (thanks Bill) which led to a huge increase in training grants allowing PhD programs to expand. However, faculty positions did not expand, so many PhDs had to find alternate careers (most people go into PhD program to get a faculty/researcher position). This actually worked out really well for bigtech, which hoovered these folks up. I worked with tons of ex-physicists who were great programmers especially at machine learning. It turns out that many of the things you need to thrive in a PhD program translate to bigtech engineering needfs.
redczar · 2 months ago
You think it was a bad decision to increase NIH budget?
redczar commented on By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment   independent.co.uk/climate... · Posted by u/bilsbie
jleyank · 2 months ago
Well, my decades of pet ownership didn’t kill any birds because they were indoor pets. All sorts of other things, natural and otherwise, killed them without my help. We fed and watered them from time to time, so I think of myself as a net positive re birds.

And is the impact of pet ownership larger than, say, the impact of those involved in sports? Huge amounts of unnatural green spaces are maintained and direct and indirect carbon emissions are created. This directly impacts the former natural population of these areas, usually driving them away or just eliminating them. And I suspect the economic distortion caused by those into sports exceeds those into pets (although there is significant overlap).

Will the authors propose banning sports?

I would think that the impact on the biosphere from having children greatly exceeds having pets. We only had the latter, so I guess we did our part in reducing aggregate damage?

redczar · 2 months ago
Will the authors propose banning sports?

That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.

u/redczar

KarmaCake day180March 24, 2025View Original