Hah, you think those ICE officers give a shit about what experts say?

There are legitimate concerns about American participation in the ICC:

• the US Constitution guarantees jury trials for major offenses, and the ICC doesn’t use them

• the US Constitution states that the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and there is no room for an international court to fit in that structure

• US courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and there is no mechanism to insert the ICC into that.

So it’s not just that the US doesn’t want to play nice, there are things in the structure of the ICC that violate the US Constitution. Those contradictions would have to be resolved before the US can join, either by changing the ICC or changing the US Constitution.

The US is an ICC signatory and is supposedly obligated to comply

Not anymore. Clinton signed the treaty but never submitted it for ratification, so the US technically was never part of the ICC, and Bush “un-signed” it, absolving the US of any responsibilities whatsoever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

There are two reasons he can’t do anything.

First is the idea that when the UN chose to place its HQ in New York, the US likely had to agree to safe passage for all diplomats and officials going to the General Assembly. That just makes sense. The UN can’t function if the Host Nation gets to control who goes to the meetings.

Second, the US isn’t a party to the ICC in the first place, and doesn’t formally recognize its jurisdiction. IMO, this is actually the correct position, because the ICC as it is currently run does not guarantee all the protections that US courts grant its citizens, so the US could not subject its citizens to it. (Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty at first, acknowledged this and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. George W Bush “un-signed” the treaty a few years later).

So, it really would be impossible for a local police force to arrest a foreign leader with diplomatic immunity on the warrant of a court which is not recognized by the government.

No,you don’t get it. The mere fact that he is talking about it now is a good indication that he’s already done all the analysis, and knows he can’t take any action. So, by coming out and saying he’s “examining” it, he continues to keep the issue in the news and gain popularity on it in spite of knowing the law is not on his side.

He has made the political determination, though, that even New York City, which by some estimations has over 1M Jewish people living in it, is fed up with Netanyahu. Which is pretty remarkable.

Researchers aren’t interested in our individual data, but companies sure are interested in selling it…

I guess Oregon just doesn’t get to vote, then? They’ve been mail-only for years

Those 2 independants caucus with Democrats and would vote for their candidate for Leader, so the current margin once Mitch departs is 52/47 (or, 2 1/2 seats).

The real problem for Fetterman “flipping” is after the election. While there’s every possibility the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, if they claw back a few Senate seats then the balance may end up 50/50 (or even 51D/49R). That’s when Republicans will put on a huge pre$$ure campaign to get someone to defect and promise them all sorts of shit to bail them out of election consequences.

I could be. But where do they get the data?

University of Minnesota researchers analyzed 120 million vehicle trips across the United States from four Wednesdays in 2021 using driving data on national road networks, speed limits and U.S. Geological Survey elevation data. The analysis included roads with speed limits of 45 mph (72 kph) and higher.

Where did they get the data? Did the drivers of all 120 million trips consent to being part of their study?

“Driving data on national road networks” sounds innocuous, but hides a lot of questions. Was it part of information gathered by the governments for toll roads, or for other reasons? Or was it telemetry gathered from the cars themselves? Do the drivers know that their data on their individual trips is being distributed to researchers?

This is a giant red flag to me. Our information is being distributed everywhere, and there’s fuck-all we can do about it…

How does the judge plan to enforce it? Because the Administration will not listen.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes

Oh yeah, not only will they ignore it, but we are about to get all sorts of vile memes making fun of that judge and her name, aren’t we?

If you press a US “second amendment enthusiast” about gun reform, at one point they will inevitably reply angrily with something like “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”

There are other parts of the Bill of Rights that, while written in an absolute manner, have been found to have some limits. The First Amendment is rather demonstrative that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Yet, we recognize limits on speech, the most famous one being yelling “fire” in a theater (when there is none) Yes, you have the right to speech, but if your speech unnecessarily created panic the government can punish you on that basis.

It seems quite clear to me that gun ownership here, even with the 2nd amendment, should come with responsibilities too. Gun owners still have a moral duty to be responsible about it, and not just carelessly put others in danger. Yet, the 2nd Amendment is presented as an absolute, with no strings attached, as if God sent them Himself on stone tablets. It’s like the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters…

Lol, I just heard about people calling it “MAHA Blast”

https://bsky.app/profile/crobertcargill.bsky.social/post/3mqs653ozb22q

It is illegal, if anyone else in Government did it. But if the President does it, it’s not illegal, somehow.

When your diaper’s getting packed and your hair is kinda wack - Trumporrhea!

I’m waiting for this Administration to argue that only US citizens are guaranteed “human rights”…

My link may have been a bit misleading. We have never had an entity named “civil defense force” but pre-9/11 the same function was filled by a hodgepodge of agencies, which that Wikipedia article discussed. After that they were all folded into the “DHS” trench coat.

A few things to talk about first in regards to the US:

• We have the concept of the National Guard, which is a military reserve force under the control of the States but with the ability for the President to call it to active duty. While still a military force, state governors will mobilize them for things where the local police force needs help, like natural disasters, so it is possible to deploy them on missions that are closer to Civil Defense actions.

• We also do have a bunch of agencies that collectively make up something like a Civil Defense Force, but since the Bush administration those agencies have largely been sucked into the Department of Homeland Security, and even the concept of “civil defense” has been eaten by the idea of “Homeland Security” (which is a bit different, don’t you think?) The one exception is emergency preparedness/ FEMA, which is still a priority in most people’s minds despite our President treating everything he touches like his own personal piggy bank.

Now, in relation to your idea about a “draft” for civil defense purposes, we call the idea National Service and we have many such agencies, like Americorps. However, the idea of mandatory national service will never happen until Americans as a whole become less selfish. And even if it does, I am confident those who are well-off will find a way to buy out of it, which will defeat the whole purpose, won’t it?

Did they score 4 touchdowns in one game?