A temporary ceasefire is the first stop to a permanent ceasefire.
One of Hezbollah’s stated goals is the “liberation of Israel”.
A temporary ceasefire is the first stop to a permanent ceasefire.
One of Hezbollah’s stated goals is the “liberation of Israel”.
Propaganda? It’s called oppression. It’s literally illegal for people to complain about this.
deleted by creator
The remaining employees are just there for the money.
You just described “work”.
It’s the middle name at least.
Last names are often used as first names.
It’s his middle name. His first name is Loki.
Nor should he be. What he said was most likely “protected” speech.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
I always take somebody’s opinion on HIPAA seriously when they misspell it.
And yet he remains in power with no sign of that changing.
You keep saying that but it’s not necessary to keep power as evidenced by… History.
What would cut into their profits?? Have you never seen how authoritarian regimes work? Do you think North Korea officials want to revolt because of their starving labor pool?
They don’t care about “the labor pool”.
They will probably make a fortune from Putin. Why would they fight him?
We have a strong “anti-expertise” streak going on at the moment, and it’s painful to watch. “Trust experts to select judges? What do they know?”
It’s a problem, and I have no idea what has led to it.
I didn’t think we were “arguing” - just a discussion. You’re right that there is no such thing as “rule of law” without corruption. Or government without corruption. Or a fantasy soccer league without corruption. etc. All human things are corrupted by bad people.
The point is not to remove corruption completely, which isn’t possible, but to minimize it and make it less effective.
I’m not sure what you could mean here. What qualifies someone to hold any political office is their conduct and their rulings and how those are interpreted is by what the people believe is fair.
A judgeship is not a “political office.” Yes yes yes, I know - I hear you clicking the “reply” button, but it’s not supposed to be. And by making them directly voted on they they definitely will be.
I’m going to preface this with “none of these problems are solved by either options but some things are better in some situations than in others.” There is no silver bullet.
But - I want you to imagine a scenario: A judge wants to be on the supreme court.
Scenario 1: Big Evil Co. starts up a PAC that spends billions on getting that judge elected and they win. Big Evil Co. has business before the court and threatens to dissolve the PAC when the judge comes up for election again. Maybe PACs are illegal in Mexico - I don’t know, but they can find some way to fund campaigns since they’re often expensive ordeals.
Scenario 2: An elected official who was chosen by the people (sometimes the good people, sometimes “those other guys”) nominates somebody for office. They are chosen by other elected officials. Now when Big Evil Co. comes before the court they don’t have many options. They can bribe or give gifts. But they can’t really effect whether that judge remains on the bench. And such actions are often deeply looked down upon or outright illegal.
Which is what the legislature is for.
Probably. You’re now going to have judges raising money to campaign. And the average on-the-street voter knows fuck-all about what qualifies somebody to be a judge, so they’re unlikely to pick better candidates.
deleted by creator