So why did this conversation needed to be kept from malign rogue anti-Trumpers in the NSA (who would be risking very real jail time) but did not require the basic level of OPSEC that would keep the editor of the Atlantic out?
Well Jefferson certainly wasn't ever wrong about anything. He certainly wouldn't have held any beliefs contrary to 20th or 21st century values. /s
Obviously the dude had a lot of good ideas, but just grabbing anything he said and acting like it's gospel is flawed for dare I say a pretty glaring reason...
I'm not saying that Jefferson's words were elevated beyond his peers.
His flaws certainly belie such an assertion.
I'm saying that what Jefferson did was to remove problematic judges.
Congress had, has, and will have the power to reshape the federal judiciary as they choose. They can erase all courts below the supreme, and they can add or remove justices to the highest court as they choose (excepting present members, which are lifetime). Thus the saying "pack the court."
To challenge an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge.
> To challenge [the legality of an action by] an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge.
> It could end badly.
This implies that the courts cannot be an effective check and balance on the other branches. Aren't they meant to be?
It depends what you think is meant by the term "effective". Courts foremost serve a truth-finding function and buffer against arbitrary authority being applied to individual people.
It's always been controversial whether a court can disparage a law of broad application or impugn the president directly. The "effectiveness" of those functions was always a little speculative.
Lower courts typically deal with questions of fact and how they intersect with questions of law; higher courts (appeals courts and Supreme Court) typically deal with questions of law (ambiguity/interpretation) exclusively. Courts as an institution don't serve a "truth-finding function" so much as a "law-ambiguity removing function".
> disparage
> impugn
Everyone seems focused on whether a court has the right to, like, insult the president personally. But that's not really the important part of what they're doing. They _of course_ have the right to question whether the law allows what the president is doing -- and questioning this is not disparagement or impugning.
They are meant to be a check and balance on the legislative and executive branch, but those branches are also meant to be a check and balance against the judicial. It's not a one way street. This statement is not intended to address the root current event being discussed.
I guess you could argue back in 1776 AI and aluminum had a roughly equal impact, only for aluminum to over take AI and become far more important by the early 20th century…
Yeah people forget that Sushi was once considered very adventurous to most people, and than a huge percentage of American men only first experienced hot sauce as Tabasco sauce in the army. Other than ethic enclaves I think the American palette was historically considered pretty underdeveloped.
sorry sis but i don't care if he's old or not. monty python is boring and if you gatekeep people using "jokes" from it, you should reconsider your life.
I wonder if a better use would be to establish a new medical school at a university without one. It seems like if society has too few doctors we need additional medical student spots more than a reduction in medical student debt.
Too few doctors thing is problem with different bottlenecks... Mainly being that the US Residency program is funded by the gov't, and is competitive to get into. Many of the lesser schools and especially DO or carribean schools have graduates who are not able to get into residency on first try because there are not enough slots.
You could take that money and open another medical school, and you may well get a pretty good medical school, but you probably won't get one nearly as good as Hopkins'.
That seems fine to me. While it sounds nice, I am skeptical this donation will do much in terms of more equitable access to higher education, precisely because John Hopkins is one of the best med schools around. To get in you already need to be privileged or exceptional and probably both. I'd love to know how many people ever have been accepted into Johns Hopkins and declined to go exclusively because of the cost of tuition; I'd be surprised if it's even like 0.5% of students.
Meanwhile, you don't need to be a genius to better yourself.
Or give the money to a more “working class” med school that trains regular doctors to work in regular practices and hospitals.
Hopkins is the elite - those doctors are going to be the best of the best, and they’re going to be well connected and compensated regardless of where they started.
Yeah it’s always crazy looking down some street perpendicular to the levee and seeing something the size of a skyscraper on its side slide by at 10 mph.
