iNow

QFT

You misspelled realist

My money’s on, No.

No distinction either

Maybe not hosting the talks, but at least he’s hosting Ukrainian refugees… around 25-30,000 already, it seems. That’s a huge help to real people facing real danger.

Agreed. In practice, most courts almost always are. Thanks for clarifying.

Again, I’m certain you have a point of some sort buried here, but I’ll be damned if I know WTF it is

I don’t believe them

That wasn’t the constitution. It was the Declaration of Independence, not itself a governing document. It’s also why the constitution was later amended.

It’s on the border, not within the country. News only just broke about 10 minutes ago so still trying to learn more.

Your point? That ruling was a huge mistake, but it was also inline with the original constitution and after the Civil War the 13th and 14th Amendments overturned it. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

There’s also an agreement for Russian and Belarusian forces to meet negotiators from Ukraine along the border. May be an attempt to sow confusion. US is delivering an additional $350M in military aid including ammunition and surface to air missiles, bringing total military aid provided to Ukraine over past year to over $1B Germany has also reversed their longtime policy not to share military equipment with countries in active war zones and is shipping heavy equipment to support Ukraine defense now.

Yes, it’s both. False dichotomy. Then you’d be wrong.

Planet of the Apes? War of the Worlds? Man of the Hour? I’ll stop, but will not be tamed.

Maybe we’re just more open to vocalizing our frustrations here in the US than you lot who struggle even to tell one another you love them. Maybe this is a difference of cultural expression more than it’s a difference of judicial objectivity and jurisprudential purity. I’d agree we may have a greater degree of bias in our courts now, but cannot agree that your judges have none at all (at the risk of exaggerating stances and oversimplifying, if that makes sense, just making a point).

Exactly, the source of which being the very smartphones TheVat mentioned. Confused why this is confusing.

Good chat. Thanks for the exchange. But not to civilians and onlookers around the whole world, which I suspect is closer to thevats point

This may be an interesting idea to explore in another thread, but judgment is an act of interpretation. Our interpretations vary based on our own background and upbringing and even our genetics. You really do appear to think judges are 100% objective robots driven by one’s and zeroes absent any bias, but that’s not the reality anywhere around the planet, even in your own system in your own country, no matter how highly you think of them.

Ballsy move. Go Turkey. You seem unfamiliar with signals and intelligence??? The intelligence community was spot on all along with their assessments on this and that allowed leaders of NATO countries to speak so clearly about what was about to happen. Every time they said Putin would do XYZ, he then went and did XYZ. That doesn’t happen without high quality intel. Your unfounded opinions about what the next 50 years will bring may make for fun fantasy novels, but aren’t a relevant basis for discussion here. If you’re suggesting the west should’ve agreed that Ukraine would never join nato and agreed to change their military posture across Europe and this would’ve appeased Putin, it leaves open the question of what Putin would’ve demanded next time. Don’t negotiate with terrorists and whatnot.

59 million years ago, “humans” looked like a shrew.

They’re picked for many reasons. Are you suggesting no other criteria are used other than their political leanings? Can you provide a few examples of where judges get appointed by politicians but where political leaning played zero role in their selection? What about judges who get elected directly by the people? Are you saying there are zero politics involved in elections? Were they maybe chosen based on a lottery or random number generator? I understand your point, but struggle aligning it with reality. Right, but aren’t we discussing the United States here? We can usually predict how the justices will likely rule on specific cases, but there are almost always undecided justices in the middle where their opinion is uncertain and it’s a leap IMO to call the cases coming before them “predetermined.”

Which is why I asked you to clarify it. Lol. Can we not agree it’s based on both? This is what all judges do. They review, interpret, amd make judgements. It’s right there in the name confirming that their opinion is always involved in what they do. They “judge.” Which is why there are more than one of them on the bench. The check and balance is built right into the structure of the court itself. Their individual power is restrained and personal motivations suppressed by the fact that other judges with different backgrounds and different motivations and different incentives must decide cases alongside them and the outcome of those cases is based on the majority consensus. Those with dissenting opinions also write those into the ruling and these dissents are often used to decide or inform future cases.

I agree with many / most of these points, but struggle with the first. When viewed in context of the wellbeing of his people, then sure. Failed leader seems to fit. When viewed in context of his level of control and authority and power, he’s anything but failed. He went from a kid born to a factory worker and a crewman on a sub whose previous siblings died from diphtheria in a children's home to the richest man on the planet capable of seizing other countries and preventing the US from stopping him. It all depends on how one defines failure and success. Agreed. Same here. Stay safe over there, sir.

Which is neither making nor writing laws. It’s interpreting them, which you seem to be already aware of since you said the same thing yourself 7 hours ago.