It’s part of the common law tradition though. Could it not be brought back?

Doomscrolling will doom us all. Fatalism is fatal. Rage against the dying of the light. Start building community, or start building bombs. Those are your choices.

The president is also openly corrupt, by orders of magnitude more. That crypto scheme for one is just a blatantly obvious bribery mechanism. Sure, the justices serve for life. But if a president is willing to directly violate explicit court orders, he could easily decide not to leave office as well. He could issue an executive order saying, "in my opinion, the two-term limit doesn’t apply because And then when the court rules against him, just ignore their ruling. A lawless president is a president for life.

Ultimately, philosophically, I don’t see why a president that openly defies the law should enjoy the protections of the law. Want to be lawless? Then you can be an outlaw. Those who live by the sword should die by the sword.

Maybe not in terms of criminal accountability. But again, the court has ruled against Trump numerous times. The idea they blindly support everything he does is pure fiction. In his first term, they ruled against him many times.

They would have checks and balances. They could still be removed by impeachment. Members of the court would still have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Couldn’t the same be said for impeachment and conviction in the Senate? If Congress can simply remove a president they don’t like, how does this not end up making kingmakers like the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome?

The court has ruled against Trump on numerous occasions. The idea they blindly support everything he does is simply not backed up by reality.

Did they rule that he has broad immunity? Yes. But ultimately they ruled it in a way that puts them as the arbiter of which acts have said immunity.

Fuck! I knew I should have stocked up on bauxite!

I mean, there could be a worse answer.

You know what, this would be easier if done in person. I have your address as ____. I’ll be by in ten minutes.

Granted, you have to tell/text me to find a time that works for both.

My nightmare: when I ask someone what times they are good for, and they give one specific time on one specific day.

That’s it. Time to bring back crucifixion.

It really wouldn’t be the end of NATO. Greece and Turkey have had numerous spats while both NATO countries. An Article 5 resolution can be vetoed by any other NATO member. The US would assuredly do this.

A much more worrying possibility would be Denmark specifically withdrawing from or reducing cooperation with NATO. Forget Greenland, Denmark itself is in a very strategic location, considering its place in the Baltic.

You know what. Fuck it. Let’s make the world more interesting. Let’s legalize consensual cannibalism! We’ll regulate it like assisted suicide, so there are safeguards in place to prevent exploitation and such. And you won’t be able to pay someone (or their loved ones) in order to let you cannibalize them. But if everyone involved is of sound mind, if there’s plenty of time to change your mind, and no one is getting paid or coerced? Have at it! I believe in freedom so much, that if you want to willingly let a cannibal kill and eat you, by God, that should be your right! Let us legalize consensual cannibalism!

My guess is it’s an LAPD operator. The civilians stayed out of the restricted airspace. Some chud cop thinks the rules don’t apply to him, so he flies a drone in an unauthorized zone. He manages to hit a firefighting plane. And the LAPD quickly sweeps the whole thing under the rug and blames it on a never-found civilian.

Yes, you recognize the fact, but you haven’t internalized its implications. You can only have a universal present in a universe of shared time. Ultimately, “the present” is something applicable to and that exists within the mind of a single observer.

One of the hallmarks of science is that different people can independently measure something and confirm its existence. If no two observers can ever agree on what constitutes “the present,” then how can “the present” be said to exist at all? It’s a fundamentally unscientific concept.

You’re still imagining that there is some fixed universe playing out at constant time, and that we all just experience the echoes of this present in different orders. This isn’t what relativity says. Clocks traveling near the speed of light don’t just appear to slow down, they actually slow down.

Different regions of the universe don’t even experience the same flow rate of time. Someone living on a mountaintop experiences time faster than someone at sea level. And yet you cling to this fantasy of their being some universal “present.” You cannot have a universal present in a universe composed of different flow rates of time!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The present does not exist. From the previous link:

It can be argued that special relativity eliminates the concept of absolute simultaneity and a universal present: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different measurements of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame’s judgments over those of another. However, there are events that may be non-simultaneous in all frames of reference: when one event is within the light cone of another—its causal past or causal future—then observers in all frames of reference show that one event preceded the other. The causal past and causal future are consistent within all frames of reference, but any other time is “elsewhere”, and within it there is no present, past, or future. There is no physical basis for a set of events that represents the present.

Many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism.[6] Philosopher of science Dean Rickles says that, "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism.

If two observers will disagree on which events happened in “the present,” then “the present” cannot exist as a real universal entity. “The present” only makes any physical sense in classical, pre-20th century Newtonian mechanics.

This is why the block universe or eternalism makes more sense.

And yet, you’ve concocted this fantasy that you call “the present,” as if such a thing could exist in a relativistic universe…

You assume the past and present no longer exist. You have no proof of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)