Bay 12 Games Forum

in this case, the constitution simply states that the supreme court is the supreme court, and enumerates what classes of cases it will decide on.

Specifically:

Article III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Since the issue of persons leaving one state (where abortion is not legal) to go to another (where abortion is legally protected) to obtain an abortion, falls squarely within these enumerated classes-- Namely "—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;"..."— between a State and Citizens of another State", to which the controversy of abortion applies to all three--  the SCOTUS's ruling on Roe-v-Wade is a legitimate case to be heard and decided by the SCOTUS, and this new decision only just causes this kind of case to be forced to be decided YET AGAIN in the future--  The constitutionality of the Roe v Wade case is unquestionably within the scope and purpose for which the SCOTUS was established, **IN THE CONSTITUTION**.

Asserting that the SCOTUS hearing and deciding on Roe v Wade is somehow unconstitutional, is clearly made by somebody who apparently has reading comprehension problems.

Now, as relates to RIGHTS, which the constitution has the 9th amendment, which reads:

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

which is in accordance with what would be within the United States Bill of Rights-- which has this to say:

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Meaning that the personal religious views of certain members of government shall not be interpreted to be the law of the land, and that no such laws respecting a specific religious view are to be enacted.)

AND--

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

EG, just because it is not specifically cited, does not mean it is not a right, and attempting to assert such a position is forbidden by the bill of rights. (JUSTICE ALITO.)



As you can clearly see, the text in the constitution is not at all unreasonable, and in fact, is completely counter to the notion set forth in the preliminary decision by the SCOTUS about Roe v Wade.

It is important to understand that there are at least 3 kinds of "Republican" in the United States.

There are "Old guard" republicans, which aside from having some somewhat dodgy business models, and being all about getting and staying super fucking rich, aren't really that onerous.

There are "NeoCon" republicans, which are the worst kind of republican, in terms of fiscal policy...

and there are the "Qtard/Religious whacko/Chemtrails/xenophobic/Transphobic/Homophobic" republicans (which are can be comorbid with the first two, but usually are their own kind and breed, that just latch on to the GOP because the GOP courts their votes, because of how horribly unpopular their actual core tenets are, and how alarmingly prevalent the batshit craycray is) who are Always Afraid, Always Oppressed, and STRONGLY BELIEVING (at the expense of EVERYTHING else).


It is important to stress that the core tenets of the republican party are **NOT** religious.  They are quite succinctly summed up with "If you are rich, we want you to stay rich-- you are our people, and we will butter your bread. All those poors can go get fucked. In fact, we will HELP you fuck them, both figuratively and literally." 

They simply court and exploit the religious nutball demographic, asserting that they represent their interests. In reality, the policy decisions implemented are ones selected for the intersection of three criteria:

1) It will anger/disenfranchise the democrats
2) It will allow rich fuckers to get away with bigger, more obscene abuses of the public at large.
3) It strokes the strongly believing but poorly educated in just the right way, to make them bend over and take the above two things, and feel "represented" doing it.

Consider what the actual consequences/fallout of overturning Roe vs Wade means, in terms of women's autonomy.  It will anger/disempower democrats.  It will enable rich fucks to get away with obscene shit like they did in the 50s, and it strokes the "Belief!!" button of the strongly believing but poorly educated, in just the right way to get them to gung-ho support the measure.

Basically everything the current crop of GOP leadership has been up to meets up with that pattern.

I would conjecture that the "Oppression Narrative" that the strongly believing demographic has, has created a mindset that cannot conceive of a world where they are not oppressed. As such, the baked in oppression that the GOP promotes to its wealthy backers is not seen as the oppression that it is-- it is seen as "normal" and "expected."  It is the lack of oppression, in contravention of the oppression narrative, that they cannot comprehend or deal with-- and they invent phantasms to fill that void. (Q-Anon conspiracy, Chemtrails, et al.)

I would suggest that as a step toward the right direction, we emphasize the actual oppression that takes place, shut down the clearly purposeful and orchestrated misinformation campaigns that promote and sustain the "Oppression Narrative" in the country (That includes the fearmongering conservative preachers! There is nothing wrong with church sermons, but there is everything wrong with fearmongering "You are oppressed by the EVIL DEMOCRATS" ones, which are ALREADY illegal, just not enforced.).

Inanely Germane

misshaping boy

Delicious food chemistry.

BBQ Guinea pig gone terribly terribly wrong.

That might not work out the way you think it will...

As much as the media likes to try and romanticize the discipline, machine learning is not going to produce skynet, Durandal, Leela, or Shodan any time soon.  (and certainly not by accident).


More realistically, the kind of machine learning that this represents, will further demonstrate the fallacy of considering original works original.  (All works created by human hands, are likewise reflections of previous works or experiences that the human in question has encountered, and then processed into 'new' media-- that is to say-- all works are derivative works.)  Since the legal system has already clearly taken the position that AI cannot hold copyrights, (and thus the derivative works produced by AI cannot have copyright ascribed to the AI--- the matter of ascribing the creator of the AI, or the operator of the AI, that copyright is still up in the air) there is an opening for this kind of revelation to continue to eat away at the notion of intellectual property as a whole, which I am excited for.

However, this machine learning exercise really is just boiling down the process of image creation based on keywords, down to a fixed subset of mathematical expressions and iterative processes.  It is the exact opposite of the romatic notions the press ascribes to AI--- It is the active removal of the 'magic' from the creative process, through demonstrating that the 'creative process' is purely mechanistic.

Eventually, it MIGHT end up that what we consider "consciousness" (and I use that word very broadly, as it means different things to different people) is indeed a wholly mechanistic process itself, thus eliminating all conceptions of "human uniqueness" (and thus the "magic" of free will, independent thought, and creativity as a whole), or "human exceptionalism".

That day is a long way away however.

Society would have a number of very difficult questions to ask itself if human behavior is a wholly mechanistic process.  Much like you dont ascribe blame to a food disposal when it eats a person's fingers when they reach inside with it turned on, a "Humans are mechanisms, and we can prove it" world would have a greatly difficult time with such simple things as ascribing guild, blame, or fault via a legal system-- as any outcome could be ascribed to a set of pre-existing conditions prior to the event being put on trail.  "Choice" would not be a thing that makes sense, and thus, neither would "blame".

It is my personal conjecture, that should the reality of "Humans are mechanisms, and we can prove it" come to pass, what will happen is just that humans will continue to insist that they are magical and special, with "souls" and thus "free will" is not an illusion, etc.