ameister14

>Lawyers don't use PACER. They'll have a LexisNexis or Westlaw terminal. That gets them all of the rulings and so forth, but annotated.

I don't know about that; I've used PACER a fair amount, despite also using Westlaw.

While I generally agree with your foundation of the political switch, I just want to point out that elections in the 1970's through 1990's were still very regional. Southern candidates tended to do well in the South against candidates from California or the North, despite policy differences that would seem to strike the other way. The JFK/Nixon election was much more of an urbanization/rural divide as both candidates were from away.

Carter being a Georgia peanut farmer made a huge difference in GA, AL, and SC voting in the 1976 and 1980 elections. You have to remember, he was the first deep south president since the civil war - white voters especially really cared about that. He was just also a disaster of a president, which is a big reason he lost anyway.

I'm not saying current political conservatives are the cause, Bork was hugely influential beyond traditional conservative circles, particularly in antitrust law.

If you read Bork's work, especially The Antitrust Paradox, and if you study the caselaw prior to and post 1970's, you'll see a stark difference.

It was really a conservative idea at that point but I'd say it's more neoliberal, which has a strong backing in the democratic party and has for decades, beginning with Carter.

The per se analysis and application, particularly, is just massively different from the pre-Bork era. He's the single largest reason that the three main elements of cost, quality, and quantity as a standard for antitrust analysis has eventually boiled down almost entirely to cost, partially because it's so much easier to measure but also because he advocated for it as a mechanism to measure business efficiency.

One of the big problems of this is the change in fundamentals since Bork was writing in the 70's, particularly with union membership declining so heavily. He was countering a very strong and powerful union system and factored that into his analysis, and we just don't have that in the private sector any longer.

I've been working on a paper for a while about theoretically adding in wage and labor market analysis into the mix, particularly with monopoly and monopsony situations, but it's kinda stalled since I've been clerking.

Honestly, read the guy's book and read some cases if you're interested. You'll see it fairly quickly.

Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal.

As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule is applied when the courts have enough experience with an accused restraint to know that it is so plainly anticompetitive, and so often lacks any redeeming virtue, that further inquiry in any given case is almost certainly wasted effort

Bork and his acolytes really screwed us, basically, turning a half-baked understanding of economics into a justification to ignore legislation and 60+ years of jurisprudence, and that's carried the day since.

The cotton gin was not invented in 1793, but the claim wasn't a narrative hustle.

The short staple cotton gin was invented in 1793.

Well, in the United States it doesn't make the news.

>Unpopular opinion here... If you tread carefully you'll most likely not succeed. I am not American and I know you guys like to sue eachother for putting cats in microwaves and stuff so maybe this is not great opinion to have in America at the current moment.

It's not actually about personal suits, financial advice may fall into financial services regulations and that's regulated by the government of the US, EU, etc. so wherever the company is registered may have issues in addition to the potential of the regulations applying to the individual and not shielded by the company.

>I'm aware that Khalil's case involves the McCarthyesque Immigration and Nationality Act because he's a lawful permanent resident where non-citizens are being processed under things like the Alien Enemies Act. Let's not get lost in the weeds here

That's not why. Both are non-citizens. The reason the different laws are being applied matters, because they are totally different legal fights, taking place for different social and political reasons.

>All persons on American soil are entitled to constitutional protections [1]

Some, but not to the same extent as citizens where speech is concerned. For example, foreign nationals are not allowed to spend money to directly support a candidate for elected office, though they may spend to influence an issue. Cf Bluman v. FEC with Citizens United.

It's a matter of degrees, and certainly is impacted by immigrant status and ties to the United States. From a free speech issue and where concerning the speech I have heard from him, I think it's clear that Khalil should not be subject to any kind of government restriction or punishment. That said, it seems likely that he may be deported for other reasons.

I don't disagree with you re due process at all.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Technically at the time of the arrest he was accused of criminal conduct, but not charged with criminal conduct. I believe he is still within the legally required timeline to be charged with criminal conduct, though he may be subject to deportation without such charges, we'll see.

Your second and third point is confused. The foundation for the government's belief they can deport Khalil is not the Alien Enemies Act (which is what I assume you mean, as there is no Alien and Seditions Act-the term "Alien and Seditions Acts" refers to four separate acts, one of which is the Alien Enemies Act), it's the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same basis Trump tried to use for Executive Order 13769. More specifically, I think they're using 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).

That said, the government is absolutely using the Alien Enemies Act to round up people and send them to El Salvador.

>If these people don't have rights to free speech and due process then nobody does.

So this is an interesting legal question because non-citizens definitely do not have complete free speech protections, but the border of where their speech is protected vs unprotected is not entirely clear. It's not true that if they don't, nobody does - it is absolutely clear that citizens of the United States do have rights to free speech and due process. That has been established many times.

Ownership is classically a combination of a bundle of rights. You have most of those rights, but you do not have all of them.

>All famines are caused by natural disasters.

The great leap forward would like a word with you.

He stole those too

Using state violence to protect property is literally one of the main reasons for having a state at all.

So I won't go into too much detail given the nature of the forum, but beyond the complete change in tone that Jackson brought to the presidency, something that Trump is also routinely criticized for, prior to Andrew Jackson we had an entirely different banking system.

He engaged in a conflict with the central bank overseeing national finances and banking and vetoed the bill renewing its charter, in part because he perceived the bank as supporting his political opponents. It still had four years to go, but the next year he unilaterally pulled all federal deposits from the bank, putting them in smaller state banks. This crippled the Second Bank of the United States with no Congressional approval or oversight. In fact, he was officially censured by the Senate for doing it.

Some other similarities in tone or type:

Jackson wasn't initially taken seriously as a presidential candidate - he was a political outsider and "a man of the people." He thought the federal government was corrupt and against him. This feeling was not helped by his winning the popular vote in the election of 1824 but it being taken away by the electoral college and ultimately decided by the House of Representatives in a "corrupt bargain."

He basically replaced his entire cabinet because of a conflict between the wives of his cabinet members and the wife of his chief of staff, who had married the widow of another cabinet member after a rumored affair and that member's subsequent suicide.

He had a "kitchen cabinet" of unofficial and unappointed advisors who had extremely significant power in the Federal government, such as Martin Van Buren (who would later become VP), John Overton, and Francis Blair (Editor of the Washington Globe), including some of the richest people in the country at the time - some of whom were bankers, by the way, and directly benefited from the destruction of the 2nd National Bank.

He criminally investigated his presidential predecessor's staff, alleging (and allegedly finding) corruption.

He was accused of being a dictator and a despot, and rattled his saber against Europe, almost going to war with France.

He nominated and successfully appointed completely unqualified judges.

We didn't have the current system of executive agencies until the latter half of the twentieth century, but if we did Jackson would probably have dismantled it.

A couple of books I liked about this era are: The Birth of Modern Politics - https://archive.org/details/birthofmodernpol00lynn

American Lion by Jon Meacham

Interestingly that is the exact opposite of the Chesterton's fence concept - it illustrates that it is much better to grasp the system as it exists before attempting to change it, as then you can learn why a Chesterton's fence exists without tearing it down.

I tend to disagree, in terms of coordinated upheaval we saw something similar in Andrew Jackson's presidency. Nothing new under the sun, I'm afraid.

How did I severely exaggerate anything? I am not OP

Sure, that makes sense. If the risk of something is 1 in 10, 10 people do it, you have 9 examples of people who have no problems and 1 example of someone with an issue.

I was thinking you were saying that you had examples of people who were successful because they smoked weed, where others similarly situated were unsuccessful having not smoked it.

You have a bunch of anecdotes where the only successful people from the same school and friend group are the ones that regularly smoked and still smoke weed? They have the best memories of the people you know?

>Weed isn't going to give you a leg up in life, but it's not a guarantee that you're going to end up in a dead end job and live with your parents forever either.

Sure, and smoking doesn't guarantee lung cancer. It sure as hell makes it more likely, though.

I don't think I've ever worked a white collar job where a couple of low performance people equaled the output of a single high performing employee.

Which is honestly weird. It's Little Red Book, not Red Note, in reference to Mao's little red book.

>Likewise with vaccines, careful study with placebos could demonstrate that the vaccine under study didn't prevent transmissibility of the infectious virus any better than the placebo did. Notably this was a problem with all the Sars-Cov2 vaccines, none seem to have prevented transmision from an infected person to a vaccinated person. Why wasn't this seen in the clincal trials, one wonders?

I think this is from a misunderstanding of what transmissibility people were talking about. People getting the vaccine did not transmit the disease to others simply by virtue of being vaccinated. What that means is, you can get the shot and not worry that, by getting the shot, you are going to transmit the disease to others.

What that does not mean is that, once vaccinated, you cannot ever transmit the disease to others. If you get sick, the vaccine will likely make you get over it faster and have it less impactful, reducing transmission as an added bonus of those two things happening (you're coughing less so less is put in the air, you are sick for less time so the period you will be heavily contagious for and also symptomatic is shorter) but it will not entirely prevent transmission.

>It doesn’t cause her to be any less attentive to her writing; it just makes it possible to write.

I was not really referring to accommodations under the ADA. For people that do not require accommodations, the use of them is unfair to their classmates and can be detrimental to their ability to perform without them in the future, as there is no requirement to have the accommodations available to them. This is not the case for someone with dyslexia.

The article mentions 'responsible' grammarly usage, which I think is an oxymoron in an undergraduate or high school setting. Undergrad and high school is where you learn to write coherently. Grammarly is a tool that actively works against that goal because it doesn't train students to fix the grammatical mistakes, it just fixes it for them and they become steadily worse (and less detail oriented) writers.

I have absolutely no problem using it in a more advanced field where the basics are already done and the focus is on research, for example, but at lower levels I'd likely consider it dishonest.

I don't know why you think this but you are incorrect.

Especially in health, wellness, and nutrition, holistic is used to mean 'concerning the whole' all the time.

>I wouldn’t never work for a company that does this.

Your double negative is genuinely confusing me. Is this intentional, or is it an error?

Totally agree with you about online ads, I worked in that space for years and that's not the goal with Ads. Years ago it became clear that Google was shifting towards taking over the lower level advertiser markets and providing services and automated systems to use Ads without requiring a marketing agency while providing higher levels of data analysis and tools for agencies to tap that market. Has nothing to do with stealing from advertisers, and a lot of Google's internal programs will likely drive more money to these smaller players.

> iOS and search both generate revenue by making the product they're actually selling more effective

In the abstract, sure.

The problem starts with separating financial incentives internally from product improvement and aligning it with short term revenue increases. Then you start separating the financial side from all other aspects of the business entirely, a la Jack Welch. That's where a lot of major US corporations are right now. When that happens, you end up with a conflict between what is best for the company and what is best for the people running the company, and you end up with product quality decreasing.

Right now from an outside perspective it looks like there was an internal conflict in the Search team at Google and the more product oriented leaders were pushed out in favor of the finance guys over the last year or two, with a side effect being lower search quality.

Reasonable is definitely an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's random.

In legal and economic contexts, reasonable profits are a thing that is routinely calculated. Where industries are more regulated, 'reasonable' profits are often bound by statutory guidelines. In more competitive markets, prices are not fixed in the same way but you can take a look at industry standards to ascertain what might be reasonable.

I think you're making a mistake confusing the way things are today in terms of market concentration with the way things were in the past. In terms of market concentration in the US at least, things were massively different even 20 years ago.

Adding a link to the Boston Fed report on it from a couple years ago: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspe...