You haven’t experienced the last 2 years of layoffs across the tech industry? Do you have any friends in the industry? Do you avoid news about the industry?
Like walmart, mcdonalds, amazon, target, home depot? It’s incredible how insulated the HN audience is to the real life day-to-day concerns of workers in the United States.
These companies do PIPs for software engineers, which is what Steve is talking about. He isn’t talking about a warehouse or fast food job interview. I am not insulated, I am merely staying on topic.
Most places? Are you a human? Have you been to the United States?
Do you genuinely think McDonald’s is building a months long case against a fry cook? That Amazon is building a months long case against a delivery driver or warehouse worker who refused to pee in a bottle? That target is putting a cashier on a pip for months and allowing lost sales or theft?
Sanction them and their companies. Sanction countries that accept these anti-society misanthropes. Bar them from the US and any territories, encourage our allies to bar them as well. Investigate those companies for crimes to the full extent of the law.
Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.
There is very little debate that you should be taxed proportionally to your total wealth; I.e. that the rich should pay more than the poor. In fact the only people trying to debate this are the rich who want to avoid paying back towards the society that enabled their success.
> I.e. that the rich should pay more than the poor
How else could it work? The poor don't have enough money to tax them. That's why they're poor. Schemes where the rich don't get taxed are systems that tend towards the 0% tax for everyone end of the spectrum.
Yeah because today tires are free for anyone with a tread depth of less 3mm, of course.
Realistically tires and brakes are already subject to sales taxes and are not subject to review at annual vehicle inspections. We probably should enforce that cars on the roads have working brakes and tires but that’s seemingly beside the point of how we pay for the maintenance of the roads.
We're discussing a country that bases "Safety ratings" by how well they protect the driver, and ignore every other person outside the vehicle - meaning the people least likely to be hurt here are the ones trying to cheat the tax
The Supreme Court rules on things like the chevron doctrine which allows the executive agencies to implement and enforce regulations across all industries. Does Harlan crowe do business in one of “all” industries? There is of course the topic of the article, citizens united which gave Crowe the ability to massively influence politics. Cases in the Supreme Court affect everyone in the country because it defines or redefines the law with every decision. To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by _all previous supreme court opinions_ is just strange.
> the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it.
You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal.
Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself.
Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?
I don't think it's plain. My motivation for commenting, generally, is that a lot of people seem to have weird impressions of SCOTUS. In this case, I really don't see cause for recusal, though I suppose it would've been preferable to disclose. (But I suspect I only feel obliged to admit that because of the fervor with which the press reported it, which seems to me somewhat politically motivated.)
I'd be interested if there were an example of a case where Thomas took an opinion that was (a) at odds with his judicial style and (b) clearly and directly benefitted Harlan Crowe. The fall of Chevron deference is not to me one of those cases. I see it, plainly, as returning some powers back to the proper branch.
You seem to be suggesting that no judges should receive gifts from at least any business leaders at all? And if they do that they should recuse. I think that's a rather extreme position. I don't think the minds of justices are so malleable.
10th lowest winning margin in all of US history. Far from the picture you are trying to paint that most Americans are pro-trump. Most Americans either didn’t vote or voted against trump.
Trump called the Canadian prime minister a governor while threatening 100% tariffs and threatening to annex Greenland. The US government also did literally reach out to Albertan separatists.
The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.
reply