jigglesniggle

If the fees are applied only against non-California cars then it is likely those fees will be held to violate the interstate commerce clause due to being de facto discriminatory.

Not that I agree with the outcome in this case. The interstate commerce clause is a horrible abuse. But that is what it is.

If you disagree in this case you should be blaming the interstate commerce clause. I strongly suspect the union is going to eventually rattle apart due to being held together too tightly by its abuse.

Perhaps the only rationale (not that I necessarily agree with the outcome) is that California imposing such restrictions violates the interstate commerce clause. The test involved does not consider intent, only whether or not out-of-state businesses are disadvantaged because of state law. So if (e.g.) bespoke carmakers have problems selling to CA because of this then it is a discriminatory law.

This is potentially permissible (in contrast to the Hong Kong holding company vs. Australia suit about cigarette packaging) as the functioning of the US is predicated on states that can work together despite their regulations. Note how states must recognize each other's wedding certificates and driver's licenses, for example.

True, I suppose. My comment was supposed to be commentary on the article in the vein of the original opposition to a fiat currency.

On one hand I recognize that the conspiracy to manipulate the money supply is supposed to be in the best interest of all participants in the economy, but is does not seem to achieve this in practice.

Can you be sure it is not connected to the Internet? I thought previously someone gave example of a Chinese TV connecting to open hotspots, or perhaps that was just a thought experiment.

I've lived my whole life under a recession, where is my bailout money?

The test is one that doesn't care about intent. If it can be found that, say, bespoke car makers (do they even exist?) based outside of California have a much harder time selling to California residents because of this law then it could be struck down. It would also be possible to use the lack of any small car makers as evidence against the law in question.

There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states.

There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again).

Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

If California regulation de facto prohibits out-of-state cars from being sold or operating inside of it the rules may run afoul of the interstate commerce clause.

At least in the history book I used there is a direct parallel: a precedent setting case had to do with regulations about tractor trailer wheel mudflap sizes. States would set different conflicting values so that they could restrict the traffic through them (or force a waste of time before coming in).

There may also be another argument based on how states must, in general, respect each other's licenses (marriage, driver, etc; but interestingly not concealed carry, something I suspect will be tested again soon).

> If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise.

mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?

It seems like he refused because of her association to Epstein (or perhaps just not being interested), and knew she was probably underaged and coerced despite her own coerced statements.

People are giving Mr. Minsky flak for not refusing the donation, but refusing before the wide publicity of the Epstein scandal probably would have landed him in hot water for some variation of "why did you not take the free money?" or "why are you accusing this upstanding donor of human trafficking and statutory rape?"

There is a comment of his talking about "voluntary pedophilia." This is likely (very likely) a misuse of terms, though -- having had this discussion with others on the Internet, they do not usually intend pedophilia, which is an attraction to the prepubescent. Prepubescent children have no sex drive and their interest in sex is usually taken to be a sign of sexual abuse. Consequently it is hard to see voluntary pedophilia as something that can happen.

He probably means hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (14-19). In some countries (Italy, Germany) or cultures the age of consent is as low as 14. Some are perhaps lower. The strict liability concerning statutory rape may also be different, which is likely what he wanted to bring into question.

There are currently people serving sentences for sexual crimes they "committed" after being lied to by their partner.

I did, and that is true but not what I am talking about. The claim is about the victim's willingness, not who RMS defended.

Further do court documents and other testimony related to the Epstein investigation not agree with RMS's comments on Mr. Minsky? There is a statement that Minsky refused relations with the girl, perhaps due to realizing what was going on.

There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.

This article is predicated on lies. Was the original not libel? Mid-page there is a link to a Daily Beast article stating RMS claimed the victims were willing, which is something he did not do.