more hypothesis?

@Adam135 Republicans would never engage in retaliatory court packing. They have already said it is a shameful abomination and would never reframe it to justify their hypocrisy.

Maintain the mission

what is HAL actually saying?

why is he addressing this topic?

I would like to think that my approach to SCOTUS is not partisan... I would not support adding 4 justices to take over the majority. I am advocating balance. If the current court proves to be the super majority the Left fears, then adding 2 justices in an attempt to balance the court without giving a clear majority might be a palatable compromise that might not trigger retaliation in the future.

Politics have changed a long way, look at the trend of supreme court nomination picks. Scalia and RBG had over 90 votes, Kagan and Sotomayor has 60, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had barely over 50. As soon as you throw the common courtesy of not packing the court, then the next time the other party is in charge will have their hay day

He understands motives and intention while gently suggesting deeper thought and understanding, perhaps.

Thanks. I didn't know that. My father has MS and I will have to check it out.

Yea paying attention to the news and this channel is challenging if I want to be productive

see how hard it is to just listen to what HAL says?

without interpreting it?

He wants to know . What they hiding from him

I would want the right to retaliate

again, it isn't the principle I'm arguing, but the logistics. Things like moderate and leftist are far open to interpretation and have no meaning in law. You may see it as trying to balance the court, the other will see it as trying to dilute it. It's just one of those things you don't mess with.

@Doc HAL wants Dave to question what he has been told as reality. I'm trying to connect it with that's how you kill patients

the court system needs to be destroyed (and fixed via constitutional amendment), and having both sides pack the courts to ludicrous numbers would force the issue

@Zuluzeit wrong.

The federal legislature already has enough power, they don't need to add to it

The intention of Hal is for Human to listen and exactly interpret data to precision.

"The most comprehensive between-country study of masks for COVID-19 infection is a comparison of policy changes, such as social distancing, travel restrictions, and mask wearing, across 41 countries. It found introducing a mask-wearing policy had little impact, but mask policies were mostly introduced after social distancing and other measures were already in place." https://theconversation.com/face-masks-cut-disease-spread-in-the-lab-but-have-less-impact-in-the-community-we-need-to-know-why-147912

@Zuluzeit hal says: "Maybe I am just projecting my own concerns"

HAL clearly states that he is having second thoughts.

The reason they need to be destroyed is because the left-wing judges believe in judicial activism (choosing the "moral" resolution instead of the actual good faith interpretation of the constitution and US law, where their morals are partisan), which leaves no role for the legislature (judges are legislating), and basically we then have a 9umvirate, which is a civil-war situation for me

(he is going into the Hofstadter-Mobiutz loop and is scared)

How does Dave respond?

@Doc How does that get patients killed?

Empathy

It's been a very long time since seeing this film so would have to watch again for better context. Seemed fitting about Hunter is all.

Ok hang on. I have to listen again.

The way I see it is that the left looks at the court as their ultimate shortcut. If they get the court to mandate something, they don't have to convince 50 states, and they don't even have to convince the federal legislatures. They can just get a judge on the bench who is partisan (everyone is ofc) and also believes in judicial activism explicitly and proudly

That’s in line with my view, being in public places stores (high risk places) , close talking face to face with cashiers etc @meglide

the way I put it is: outside is better than inside, social distancing is better than a mask ... if you're inside and can't social distance then you better be wearing a mask

@Doc Dave just registers his suspicion of it being a ruse to evaluate his psychology.

I am not as inclined to think that 20 of the last 24 justices were nominated by Republican presidents.

Indeed. He interprets HALs communication in light of what he thinks HAL is.

Right which is why those people barging into store without a mask are so annoying @meglide

And kills the mission.

Not inclined to think _what_ ?

@Zuluzeit You see how *interpretation* kills?

They say so explicitly (that they want judicial activism), just google the words "judicial activism"