That sort of future casting is all well and good, but I try to be pragmatic, and I would like to get something done. As opposed to getting nothing done while we wait for wishes to come true and people to die off.
I am a fan of Howard Stern. He grew up in the 60s, with vietnam, woodstock, civil rights and womens rights. To paraphrase, he basically said that his generation thought the same thing. They thought after the old folks faded away, their generation would set America right. Meanwhile, when they grew up, they got George Bush and the Iraq War, and things are going backwards as far as the right to choose and other areas. He says his generation ruined the country, lol. But when he was younger, he thought they would make the world better than those before them.
But what is Biden getting done? To me it looks like he’s just dealing with issues that get placed at his feet. He’s not a proactive politician. The least that can be done is to atleast try connecting with the future voter base so that they will be acquainted with his party when the next elections come up. No tiktoks, no youtube videos?
Biden isn’t guiding anyone. Howard Stern’s viewpoint was from the perspective of someone who didn’t think the Cold War would end. We live in the time of the Internet, which isn’t going to end unless something majorly drastic happens. Everything from the 2010s onwards has been because of the Internet. The Internet has caused an acceleration that politicians need to keep up with.
The president isn’t King. Problem is if anyone wants to see meaningful change in any direction you need the party to control congress, senate and the presidency to get anything done.
gone are the days that republicans and democrats can work together. Its either all blue or all red and even then you got some corporate shills who use the slim margin to keep doing nothing.
Its done away with a stroke of the pen. Just look at trump, all he did for the first half of his term was unsigning the executive orders of obama. Look at the ACA, republicans have been trying to kill that thing for over a decade and they couldn’t do it even with all branches of government under control.
Executive orders? Easily done.
The infrastructure bill was important and long overdue. And Bipartisan. Even though the larger Build Back Better Bill failed, the Infrastructure bill passed and was signed in to law. He delivered that with bipartisan support, in an era when people call that near impossible.
The previous administration promised it and couldn’t deliver.
Also worth mentioning the anti-lyncing law was finally passed making it a federal crime (George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery murders for example). It worth mentioning because failures of getting laws like this passed reach as far back at the start of the 1900s.
Until both parties aren’t lapping up the tables scraps, it will never be mere platitude.
They act like independents until the voting call, then they tow the line outside of a few scheduled votes that may break the status quo.
This is why I have no problem swinging left as a Dem.
Yet the party happily takes his money both to be a longshot candidate and influence policy. The scumbags is a competent Trump. If said candidate takes money from or quotes Everytown or their offshoots, they are in his pocket.
Most instances of murder are State jurisdiction rather than Federal and as such many murderers retain their rights to vote and access to job market and economic infrastructure should they manage to finish their sentence
I don’t want to stray too far from the topic than we already have. That seems to be what got Kyalin’s similar Lawsuit thread taken down - some way off topic political stuff.
That being said, the US has a history where certain states in a predictable region would either dismiss cases of lynching, or if things got to court, hand out light sentences.
The Federal Laws make it so these people who commit such crimes essentially have broken Federal Laws and fall under Federal Jurisdiction. So a State Court might hand out a 5 year suspended sentence for manslaughter as a slap on the wrist - it could still be a 20+ year federal prison sentence for lynching, or denying federal rights by causing death, or some other jargon that lets the Feds step in.
Which sort of does bring us back to the topic of the California DFEH and the Federal Government’s attempt at a Settlement. As far as the Feds stepping in on issues the States want to handle themselves, and the extent of it.
A lot of Obama’s executive orders got erased by Trump when he became President.
A lot of Trump’s executive orders got erased by Biden when he became President.
I think we can foresee the fate of a lot of Biden’s executive orders when he leaves office.
(And these is the ones that survived legal challenges. Quite a few from each of those Presidents went down in court.)
Which isn’t true. President Reagan went two full terms without the Republicans ever having control of the House of Representatives. He did a lot. People may not like or agree with what he did (which is totally fair), but anyone saying he was a “do nothing” is a liar. And everything he did had to have democrat votes.
This is the way things are because ever since Bill Clinton took office, each incoming president of either party came in to their presidency with their party controlling both chambers of Congress.
There was no need to work with the other party, just batter their way past the resistance of the other party. Usually come the mid-terms the American people take away that control of one (if not both) chambers of Congress. At that point a given president can’t then work with the other party, there is too much bad blood from battering your way past the resistance.
I had hoped that the Biden presidential election was going to break the cycle and force the president to work with the other party from day one to do anything, but Georgia screwed that up. Now I have to hope for a new president with a divided congress in 2024.
It’s now day 47 of being stuck down a law library book mine. My water is quickly running out and I’m have to supplementing my diet by munching on Amicus Briefs …
Judge in the Cheng vs ATVI lawsuit has upheld ATVI’s motion to dismiss the FAC but has given the plantiffs 30 days to submit a second amended complaint otherwise the case is dismissed.
For those who are going “what you talking about Willis?” and “what do those words mean?” here’s a breakdown
Lawyers will sometimes write motions they would like the Judge to uphold. It’s like them writing letters to santa except these are decisions they want the judge to make and not a pony
In this case they (the ATVI lawyer) put a motion in for the court to dismiss the FAC
The “FAC” or First Amended Complaint is the document they submitted to start this entire complaint off. Effectively the ATVI lawyers are wanting the court to go “that’s balooney get out of here with that”
The Judge has upheld this motion and this makes it official. He’s officially signing “Sounds legit” on the motion
The Plantiffs (that’s the individual shareholders sueing ATVI) now have 30 days to rewrite their complaint then submit it again
If they don’t THEN it’s dead. At the moment it’s been dealt a fatal blow but is only mostly dead. Not dead dead as some news outlets might report
This has nothing to do with the big main DFEH lawsuit. Or the EEOC one. Or even any of the other lawsuits ATVI is under right now.
Read this as second amendment complaint and I was really confused as to how firearms had entered the chat.
Based on what you said are you in law school and/or a lawyer, barrister, solicitor, etc? Starting law school myself in about 3 months and this whole thing has been extremely interesting.
Motions are better thought of as a request for the Court to apply certain rules/laws to facts or events in a case. Then the Court looks at what is asked and if the facts/law support the request.
This was a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” motion (12(b)(6)). It is normal when motions like this succeed to allow a refiling during a limited time. It is not a merits ruling.
Plaintiffs could allege an error or misunderstanding in an appeal if that’s reasonable. But normally, if there’s something to change, the better route would be to rework the complaint to reach the threshold of having a complaint that the law can provide relief for.
(The FAC is not technically the very beginning of the case, but is what replaced that very beginning.)
Ah, nobody kept this thread covered in my absence. What a shame. I haven’t followed Activision lawsuit news very much while I was gone. Here’s the most recent thing.
The Moynihan lawsuit mentioned earlier was dropped.
