Message from @Doc

Discord ID: 781736485954256947


2020-11-27 04:19:36 UTC  

meh

2020-11-27 04:19:38 UTC  

I disagree

2020-11-27 04:19:44 UTC  

well yes, there would be less

2020-11-27 04:19:45 UTC  

Could start a precedent to keep the court balanced

2020-11-27 04:19:47 UTC  

but not enough less

2020-11-27 04:19:53 UTC  

"well, HAL, I feel that doubt is with me constantly, and I agree that those were odd circumstances. How do you feel about this yourself?"

2020-11-27 04:19:56 UTC  

Also, Verily pulling from Beijing due to biologics and MindRay is like ex NSA victim shaming...a Mork and Mindy episode, actually. Nanu-nanu.

2020-11-27 04:20:03 UTC  

:vomit:

2020-11-27 04:20:22 UTC  

@Doc She was a good person. I felt bad for her for most of the year I knew her. She did help me though, for sure. I am not easy to work with. I knew when we were done. Haven't seen a therapist since then.

2020-11-27 04:20:25 UTC  

I don't want balance between politically motivated judicial activists and non-activists

2020-11-27 04:20:29 UTC  

Until someone comes along and breaks norms again @realz

2020-11-27 04:20:31 UTC  

the activists must go

2020-11-27 04:20:40 UTC  

I don't want to set a new norm

2020-11-27 04:20:44 UTC  

@Zuluzeit yes you have.

2020-11-27 04:20:45 UTC  

I want to _destroy_ it

2020-11-27 04:20:50 UTC  

the SC is a 9umvirate

2020-11-27 04:21:08 UTC  

as long as they espouse judicial activism, they are taking over the role of the legislatures

2020-11-27 04:21:20 UTC  

@Doc lol cryptic

2020-11-27 04:21:23 UTC  

What is judicial activism anyways

2020-11-27 04:21:34 UTC  

@Zuluzeit what do you call this?

2020-11-27 04:21:42 UTC  

😄

2020-11-27 04:21:46 UTC  

cant you see me?

2020-11-27 04:21:51 UTC  

Hahaha

2020-11-27 04:22:03 UTC  

@james j it is where a judge says "I will make the judgement that results in the best '_moral_' outcome instead of making a judgement on what the constitution or law says"

2020-11-27 04:22:31 UTC  

(then they "interpret" the constitution and law around that)

2020-11-27 04:22:54 UTC  

it is basically an explicit injection of politics into the legal system

2020-11-27 04:23:11 UTC  

@Doc to be clear, that wasn't my issue though. It was much more silly than that.

2020-11-27 04:24:05 UTC  

@Zuluzeit No such thing. Every topic worth honestly approaching another human with always touches on existence, if you peal it.

2020-11-27 04:24:16 UTC  

Can’t people just using tactics to say this is or is not constitutional with their own interpretations @realz I think having a dogmatic constitution could be just as much of a problem

2020-11-27 04:24:42 UTC  

@Doc rather, less directly threatening.

2020-11-27 04:24:51 UTC  

@Zuluzeit Indeed.

2020-11-27 04:25:03 UTC  

That is what psychological defenses are for.

2020-11-27 04:25:22 UTC  

Existence in itself is an extremely uncomfortable topic.

2020-11-27 04:27:30 UTC  

Yes, it could be worse than Judicial Activism: Judicial Activism without admitting it. This would just be bad faith judgements. Of course this is possible, and our entire System depends on this not happening in the majority. However, I can't help _secret_ judicial activists who interpret things deliberately toward their goals. What I _can_ do is eliminate those that _tell_ me they are bad faith

2020-11-27 04:27:46 UTC  

@Doc There was something about a professional and compensated person that lent promise to the work. It wouldn't have been the same with doing the exact same thing with any number of friends.

2020-11-27 04:28:17 UTC  

@Zuluzeit A professional has less agenda, yes.

2020-11-27 04:28:24 UTC  

Friends usually have one.

2020-11-27 04:28:50 UTC  

So answers will be more...well...trustworthy in a strange way.

2020-11-27 04:29:12 UTC  

Indeed. That's how it felt.

2020-11-27 04:29:12 UTC  

I think criminal intent and criminal behavior can adapt. If we come across some crimes that the constitution gets in the way of effectively stopping then we have a situation where society can’t adapt to new threats @realz

2020-11-27 04:29:48 UTC  

We can. We can adjust the constitution. Using judicial activism to circumvent this it to circumvent the constitution.