Supreme Court set to deal a sharp blow to unions for teachers and public employees

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, I see. Academia today is filled with not-so-smart people, though. If this person is not in a STEM department, chances are he is a nutter.

[GloryofGreece]

I always found it strange that she did not retire during Obama's term...

During the primaries for that election, she said that she would retire if a D won. Personally, I think she wanted to be able to give the first woman president the opportunity to replace a woman justice. She was probably pissed that Obama won, but she held out because for certain, Hillary would win next time.

I can't imagine she's not kicking herself in the ass about that misguided decision.

It reminds me of Lord of the Rings, in a way. It wasn't so much that Frodo was able to destroy the One Ring because he was good. Evil destroys itself in the end. Frodo and Golem finally gave in and battled over the ring, and in the raging fight that was the product of the influence of the evil ring, the damned thing just fell into Mount Doom anyway.

It just works itself out in the end.

Never would have thought a Catholic would have such a reductionist deterministic viewpoint. Frodo was chosen because he wasn't as easily corrupted as most men are. Hobbits aren't smart but they are good. I've met a lot of unintelligent to middling types that were very good people. I haven't met any gifted / super intelligent saints.

[DBTrek]

Bill Gates?

[Speaker to Animals]

During the primaries for that election, she said that she would retire if a D won. Personally, I think she wanted to be able to give the first woman president the opportunity to replace a woman justice. She was probably pissed that Obama won, but she held out because for certain, Hillary would win next time.

I can't imagine she's not kicking herself in the ass about that misguided decision.

It reminds me of Lord of the Rings, in a way. It wasn't so much that Frodo was able to destroy the One Ring because he was good. Evil destroys itself in the end. Frodo and Golem finally gave in and battled over the ring, and in the raging fight that was the product of the influence of the evil ring, the damned thing just fell into Mount Doom anyway.

It just works itself out in the end.

Never would have thought a Catholic would have such a reductionist deterministic viewpoint. Frodo was chosen because he wasn't as easily corrupted as most men are. Hobbits aren't smart but they are good. I've met a lot of unintelligent to middling types that were very good people. I haven't met any gifted / super intelligent saints.

Did you read it? The whole point of the story was that even Frodo lost the personal battle with the ring. The ring was destroyed while Frodo and Golem fought over possession of it. Evil usually destroys itself.

As far as genius saints.. here are a few:

St. Augustine
St. Thomas

[DBTrek]

As far as genius saints.. here are a few:

St. Augustine
St. Thomas

Yeah, two heavy hitters. Nothing like Augustine, an ancient Roman, making you feel comparatively dumb through his writing nearly two thousand years after he’s dead.

[Speaker to Animals]

The kernel of truth in his statement is that, as mother Angellica once said, Hell is probably filled with some very smart people. Intelligence makes it easier to fall, not harder.

[GloryofGreece]

Bill Gates?

None of us has met or worked with Bill Gate or Elon Musk or fill in the blank with "smart celebrity". I've worked with and had conversations with an assortment of intelligent to super intelligent people. None of them have been particularly good people. They did shit they could get away with and didn't overtly harm people in daily life as far as I know. But every single really "good" person I've met (i.e. they proved they were good through their day to day interactions and deliberate decisions and words) were average intelligence types. They gave more than they had and when they weren't asked. They genuinely helped improve the life of several other people besides their own immediate family. They were polite but also actively compassionate. They did good deeds even when it was not immediately reciprocated or when no one was looking etc. Sorry no "studies or verifiable evidence" to point to. No metrics or citations accessible. Just good ol experience to go by here.

[Okeefenokee]

Bill Gates?

None of us has met or worked with Bill Gate or Elon Musk or fill in the blank with "smart celebrity". I've worked with and had conversations with an assortment of intelligent to super intelligent people. None of them have been particularly good people. They did shit they could get away with and didn't overtly harm people in daily life as far as I know. But every single really "good" person I've met (i.e. they proved they were good through their day to day interactions and deliberate decisions and words) were average intelligence types. They gave more than they had and when they weren't asked. They genuinely helped improve the life of several other people besides their own immediate family. They were polite but also actively compassionate. They did good deeds even when it was not immediately reciprocated or when no one was looking etc. Sorry no "studies or verifiable evidence" to point to. No metrics or citations accessible. Just good ol experience to go by here.

Speak for yourself. I worked for three presidents.

[Fife]

Oh, it's extremely relevant to Thomas, and should be to all of us. What I'm calling its fundamental weakness is the failure to address the real foundation for understanding the dispute, property rights (from which all other rights derive).

Ok. Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.

Peter Schiff kicked some ass on the topic also yesterday. Tom Woods has promised a breakdown on his episode today.

Tom Woods has yet another nice breakdown for you all.

Much ado about meh on this case, IMNSHO -- but that is a big part of what makes it VERY interesting.

[Fife]

Carpenter v. United States

The biggest criminal-procedure case of the term, Carpenter v. United States, could also have far-reaching implications. Carpenter concerns whether police may obtain cell-site records, which show the general location of cell phones, without a warrant. As a general matter, the police are free to obtain information about suspects from third parties, such as where an eyewitness may have seen a suspect and what the suspect was doing. Therefore, the government argues, they should be able to get equivalent information from cell-phone companies. Yet given the pervasiveness of electronics, this could give the government access to extensive information about the whereabouts of large numbers of private citizens. As with prior cases about cell-phone searches and the use of GPS devices by police, Carpenter will force the justices to consider how traditional Fourth Amendment rules apply to modern technology.

I've only had time for a first drive-by of the various opinions, and especially the dissent (!) from Gorsuch.

However, this case has the earmarks of a bad motherfucker. Bet dat.