drsmooth wrote:

Shore wrote:Isn't 21 out of 150 14%? They tested 150 people, and 21 tested positive, and 70 skipped the test. Assuming the 70 were users, then 61% of the referred people would have tested positive.

I mean, it sounds like it's a non-issue, anyway, and speaks only about the accuracy of "screening". But why mis-represent the data?

Gotta look at the positives over the screened population - 7,600 people. Screen/test/reject positives would, as I understand it, be the way the testing protocol works

So I should have said something like "...if all of those tested positive the applicant group's positive rate...'

I don't mean you, I mean the article. Just seems weird. If they identified 150 people out of 7600 to get tested, and 21 of those were positive, and 70 skipped, their screening method is pretty damned good. But, also irrelevant, since that's a low number relative to the applicant population.

Things got muddled in there because they should have tied the numbers involved to the budget implications. If your statute requires all applicants to be screened, the screenings are going to generate your biggest budget waste (unless of course ever other person needs testing, which may well be what the benighted Carolingian legisators anticipated).

But the pertinent ratio is all welfare applicants to positives, as the comparable for the general population/drug users 'baseline' that the writers apparently felt was most compelling - because general population usage rate exceeds the welfare applicant population rate by so much.

So yeah, we should have been asked to write that article for them - leaving it for them to identify which Governor to snidely berate

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

Constitution Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Not seeing any option whatsoever in that bolded part. Teach me to read how you do

Nice to see that you're an originalist, just like Justice Scalia.

Now put on your Democrat hat again (so that you can interpret the founders' intent for a living and evolving Constitution) and tell us what timeline the President shall follow here. If he is still dithering after 6 months, has he violated the Constitution?

You understand, I'm sure, that there is no such specific requirement. You understand the meaning of words in general. If an appointment is to be made, well yep, POTUS shall nominate the candidate. No one but POTUS shall.

Anyhow, it's not especially relevant how you interpret that part of the Constitution, because Barry is gonna nominate someone. What does matter is whether the Senate is bound to advise and consent. Which brings up the timeline (I supppose a fixed timeline for vetting judicial appointments is an unenumerated right, eh) issue again.

TomatoPie wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

I think leaving the spot empty for over a year is ignoring his duty, especially if it's just to keep the GOP from throwing a hissy fit about not getting their way. If they wanted to appoint his successor, they should have won the presidency.

TP, I realize precedent means nothing to the GOP right now, but I think we all know that the president should be able to appoint someone and get them approved before he leaves office. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the GOP decides to block any and all appointments because Obama isn't going to nominate some lefty crazy person.

If reps controlled the presidency right now, there would be no question what should be done by the pres. And if that was the case, I would be really bummed about it, but I wouldn't even think to argue that they didn't have the right to do so. The GOP is institutionalizing obstruction and breaking historical precedents. I suppose tearing down the institutions of government from the inside is doing God's work because the unleashed free market must be allowed to do whatever it wants, but I think it's pretty clear that the any idea that a president shouldn't appoint a judge to the SCOTUS when he has almost a year until he leaves office is nothing more than partisan nonsense. I actually hate to say partisan because it makes it sound like both sides would do it, and I don't think that's the case.

i think the disconnect the right is having is that they fail to see how much they look like whiny ass babies when they say things like "we'll oppose anyone he nominates" and "no way he can get someone approved". it'd be fine if they waited for the nominee to come out then complain that they're too liberal or whatever, but coming out and saying they won't approve anyone comes off as real bad and continues to play to the narrative that they're more interested in obstructing government than actually governing. it also goes against that 2 century plus old document that they all masturbate to while reading nightly. but hey, they've been more unabashed in pretending to love the constitution while completely ignoring it.

Monkeyboy wrote:TP, I realize precedent means nothing to the GOP right now, but I think we all know that the president should be able to appoint someone and get them approved before he leaves office. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the GOP decides to block any and all appointments because Obama isn't going to nominate some lefty crazy person.

If reps controlled the presidency right now, there would be no question what should be done by the pres. And if that was the case, I would be really bummed about it, but I wouldn't even think to argue that they didn't have the right to do so. The GOP is institutionalizing obstruction and breaking historical precedents. I suppose tearing down the institutions of government from the inside is doing God's work because the unleashed free market must be allowed to do whatever it wants, but I think it's pretty clear that the any idea that a president shouldn't appoint a judge to the SCOTUS when he has almost a year until he leaves office is nothing more than partisan nonsense. I actually hate to say partisan because it makes it sound like both sides would do it, and I don't think that's the case.

yeah, but Ted Cruz said we're only a LIBRUL SCJ away from having the 2nd amendment repealed(also this liberal judge will be appointed by theoretical President Trump, because this wasn't crazy enough already). he's got an A+ rating from the NRA so he must know what he's talking about!

TomatoPie wrote:You understand, I'm sure, that there is no such specific requirement. You understand the meaning of words in general. If an appointment is to be made, well yep, POTUS shall nominate the candidate. No one but POTUS shall.

{sigh} gee, where might we get an idea of what presidents since the beginning of the nation have felt was the appropriate time span for deliberating about/putting forward a nominee for an open supreme court seat? do we have any source of evidence whatsoever? My, I can't think of a single - oh, wait! I know! - let's go look at the amount of time actual presidents who've actually made those determinations in the past actually have done!

Anyhow, it's not especially relevant how you interpret that part of the Constitution, because Barry is gonna nominate someone. What does matter is whether the Senate is bound to advise and consent.

You're gonna cramp up tying yourself in knots like that

lol that ruling that is trying to compel apple to give the FBI a backdoor into iphones. get outta here with that.

am I misreading this?:

In an ironic twist, however, the FBI didn’t ask the court to order Apple to unlock the phone, but merely to help the FBI in its bruteforce attempts to unlock the device on its own.
Magistrate Sheri Pym, in the US District Court of Central California, ordered the tech giant to provide the FBI with software designed to defeat a self-destruct mechanism on the iPhone, according to the Associated Press, which first reported the news. The self-destruct mechanism automatically erases data on a phone after ten failed password attempts, or rather erases a key that could be used to decrypt that data.

This would allow FBI agents to attempt to open the phone using multiple password tries—a method known as bruteforcing—without worrying that the data will be inaccessible to them forever.

Oddly, in its 40-page motion to the court (.pdf), the government seems to indicate that it hasn’t attempted any password guess yet to unlock the phone, despite statements in the media by the FBI that it has tried everything possible to unlock the phone over the last two months.

They can't figure out the password so they want the equivalent of the Genius Bar to help 'em?

hey, a plan!

maybe she'll pull Bernie to the left on these issues. Primaries are good!

They want a new OS loaded that removes the stipulation that the phone will erase after 10 incorrect passwords. This way they can just brute force it over the course of minutes/hours/days/whatever it takes.

And you can sure bet they'd figure out how to take that OS and put it on any other phones in their possession. I agree that Apple should be compelled to do what they can for this specific phone but not to give the FBI a backdoor into any iPhone.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama knows exactly what he's doing.... fulfilling his constitutional obligation.

He's not under any obligation to appoint a judge. He has the power, but not the duty

I think leaving the spot empty for over a year is ignoring his duty, especially if it's just to keep the GOP from throwing a hissy fit about not getting their way. If they wanted to appoint his successor, they should have won the presidency.

Yes - politically and prgamatically you are right. Americans have already voted on who gets to pick the next Judge. Twice, in fact, as the Puffington Host reminds us

Monkeyboy wrote: The GOP is institutionalizing obstruction and breaking historical precedents.

I get your concern, but the GOP is just politically grandstanding.

Just as (D) Schumer did in 1987.

Neither side has a monopoly on obstruction, and grandstanding IS the historical precedent.

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Isn't Nikki Haley gov of South Carolina?

Yes, but all those Carolina governors look the same to me

McCrory to his credit vetoed the drug test bill, but his veto was overridden

The only conclusion I can draw from a news source that makes an error like that is it's garbage. Do people actually read Vox? I figured it was like buzzfeed or answers.com.

it has some good writers, though it is LIBERAL

JUburton wrote:They want a new OS loaded that removes the stipulation that the phone will erase after 10 incorrect passwords. This way they can just brute force it over the course of minutes/hours/days/whatever it takes.

And you can sure bet they'd figure out how to take that OS and put it on any other phones in their possession. I agree that Apple should be compelled to do what they can for this specific phone but not to give the FBI a backdoor into any iPhone.

Update/correction to this. FBI wants a file that will only work on this specific iphone. However, the precedent it would set if legally allowed would let them do this to any iphone (well, ones without secure enclave) they ask for in the future. Again, the issue isn't the hardware, but the precedent of allowing the FBI to force a manufacturer to basically hack their own security protocols.

Other 3rd party security concerns still apply.

pacino wrote:it has some good writers, though it is LIBERAL

It appears they need some good editors. Also, in general, free news is shitty news. (See television).

TenuredVulture wrote:The only conclusion I can draw from a news source that makes an error like that is it's garbage. Do people actually read Vox? I figured it was like buzzfeed or answers.com.

I'm not sure they made any error - but I do know my summary muddied the waters a bit