charonn0

joined 2 years ago
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 24 points 1 year ago

"Here is nothing missing, but a cat urinated on this during a certain night. Cursed be the pesty cat that urinated over this book during the night in Deventer and because of it many others [other cats] too. And beware well not to leave open books at night where cats can come."

https://medievalfragments.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/paws-pee-and-mice-cats-among-medieval-manuscripts/

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is a correlation, though. I for one was deeply homophobic before I came out of the closet, and it was based on my fear of being labeled gay.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 21 points 2 years ago (6 children)

They look like they're posing for their album cover.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

Not eating anything at all creates even fewer greenhouse gases.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 16 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Based on the show they've put on in Ukraine, and leaving aside nuclear weapons, I don't think the Russian military is a credible threat to NATO.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago

This isn’t foreign policy.

It's a policy that pertains to how the US relates to a foreign government. If that's not foreign policy, nothing is. Plus, have you read the lawsuit? It wants the court to order the president to "influence" Israel. Influencing a foreign government is smack dab in the middle of the president's authority.

Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff.

Yes. And they have declined to do so.

The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals

It says the Secretary of State shall make that determination. Secretary of State is part of the executive branch.

You think we have a king. We do not.

That's obviously not what I think.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.

The law is not being violated; it's being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive's judgement here--even if that judgement is wrong.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Congress has weighed in.

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/16/senate-israel-human-rights-condition-aid/

So this lawsuit is even deader now than it was yesterday.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

sigh I don't know what else to say and I'm done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn't change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I've pointed out.

Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Except what they ask for is beyond the power of the courts to grant.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

It's enforceable by Congress through their oversight and impeachment powers.

view more: next ›