• 0 Posts
  • 125 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ve been thinking about this for a minute, and I think a good standard here is making a list of (relatively) non-overlapping causes of death that have claimed over a billion human lives.

    Infectious disease is almost certainly at least one entry on this list, primarily secular war as well, starvation/famine probably a few times over, cancer and heart disease are probably distinct entries, and death attempting to grow/hunt food. I suspect deaths by religion could be on that list as well, but it’s the entry I’m least confident in.

    In every sense of the word, this is a bad list to be on, but I don’t think religion is near the biggest culprit on the list, even if you do a lot of special pleading, and group all deaths by religious cause together, but split each disease, war, etc up for some reason.






  • Even the most skilled money saver in the world, when their income is barely above their necessary life expenses, will fail to save much. Savings is a luxury only the rich can afford much of.

    But you’re right, putting money into the hands of people living paycheck to paycheck, or barely able to save is great for the economy as well as those people personally. Even if they save 10% and spend 90%, it’s tremendously more beneficial than that money going to a wealthy multimillionaire who won’t even notice saving it. For everyone except the multimillionaire, who really isn’t negatively impacted.












  • nfh@lemmy.worldtoDank Memes@lemmy.worldRip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months 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



  • 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.