According to arch communist Antonin Scalia.

Becker might not have been.

Here it’s more about Newsom, that I’ve noticed.

The throat clearing people (or whatever persuasion) are completely insufferable and add nothing meaningful to any conversation. Emo politics are suited for the right wing, we should keep it about numbers, power, results over on this side.

Many such cases-General Sherman probably did more than any other human to emancipate slaves in the U.S. and was also a scourge on American Indian populations.

Not totally reliable for sure, but he’s pretty good on balance, ahead of his time.

It would be good as a replacement for unemployment insurance if appropriately sized.

I’d love to see if there’s a good one, particularly not one funded by the financially interested parties.

There’s a lot of wishcasting and vibe coding of these ideas. The closest productivity enhancer case I’m aware of is software coding. But I don’t think there’s yet been a good controlled study about overall coding productivity when one looks at the efforts to integrate and debug the code.

Adding UBI on top of the safety net makes sense. Glibertarians want to replace the safety net with it, and the present value of the cash won’t come close to the value of the benefits it replaces.

If and when AI actually produces substantial productivity growth or meaningful job loss I’ll take that conversation seriously. Data do not support those positions though.

Finally looked this up. I’ll take John Marshall Harlan in dissent in the 1890s as decent evidence of how the majority *should* have ruled.

I asserted no such thing. I’m sorry but if you can’t do basic reading comprehension or good faith you get blocked. One more try for you.

Well, true, but those really are fake unions.

It’s definitely not true. Teamsters effectively endorsed him in 2024.

When he gives a speech? No, that’s ridiculous.

Anyway, you’re mendacious, so to mute with you.

No, and I made no such claim. As I’ve explained several times that is (contrary to your initial claim) not the view of the court itself, which has never been expressed. I’m accurately accusing you of bad faith because you are smart enough to know exactly what kind of dishonesty you are peddling.

Dude, if you can’t speak in good faith what are you doing?

Timeframe seems off. NCLB has been around for years. This is newer.

You told me I am not well read on the subject, which is both false and condescending. I interpret the evidence differently, and more correctly.

Typical Bluesky smug nonsense.

I said that he wasn’t speaking for the court when he said that. Which he was not. It would be nice if you could behave with some intellectual honesty and a bare modicum of reading comprehension.

In other words, Congress can try to pass a binding code of ethics and we can test the claim. Your condescension is unearned by the way.

You are referring to a statement Roberts wrote in his personal capacity and an op-ed. These are not SCOTUS cases or a position of the court.

Where has the court made this clear?

Where has the court expressed this claimed position?

What act or omission is the question-you literally have to prove that to prove criminal bribery.

How would you draft that criminal statute ? Bonus points if you can do it in a way that is constitutional.

I’m quite well read on the subject and there is no credible allegation that Thomas was asked to change his vote in a case. You don’t get to condescend from below.

Someone else cited the federal bribery statute, which requires an act or omission. What act or omission did Thomas do?