Leaderboard

- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/30/impeach-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-00021480 I highly recommend reading the rest of the text in the link. I highlighted and shared the portion that shares the statute related to the topic. I find it an enjoyable read, even if it was just an opinion piece. I'm just glad it referenced the statute tbh. I find it fascinating. If Thomas were a judge on any other court and something in regards to his wife came onto his docket, he would probably recuse himself. After reading this, even on the Supreme Court he would have an impossible task of convincing any but the most deluded that he would not need to recuse himself for that. I just don't see how you could argue away reasonable suspicions of impropriety there. The chief justice role is more so meant for an office of a senate court judge and for leading and presiding over hearings in the SC itself. That's why he presided over both of Trumps impeachment. Obviously I know you already know that Inow, I'm just trying to be thorough and descript for the sake of others reading who might be thinking the chief justice doesn't seem to have much of a real difference in roles than the other judges. After reading what we wrote. Why 18 year term limits though? Not disagreeing just wondered what the reasoning is on the number. All that drives my 10 year ideal is the uniformity of a new court for every decade. SC judge: "I'm so impartial that I can decide on whether or not I can be impartial in a given case... because I'm impartial." 😆

Not in your world; they get allowed to carry on, and other people have to change how they dress in order to accommodate them.

You've got in a slight muddle with your equation and the equilibrium constant derived from it. What you have been given is the equilibrium constant for the reaction you were given, not the new one you incorrectly generated on the basis of molecular iodine. You do not have molecular iodine here. You have iodide ions in solution. To balance the reaction there will be some cation, e.g. K+, which does not participate but features on both sides. Apart from the fact that the charges don't balance in the reaction you generated, you can't take an an equilibrium constant you have been given for one reaction and start applying it to a different reaction! I think that, as a result, you have ended up with a factor of 4 in the numerator that should not be there. I did it without that factor and got 2 roots to the quadratic, one of which is 0.38 (the other being 0.73 which is clearly nonsense in this context). With a bit of luck once you have resolved this the rest will come out.

While men are composed primarily of grunts, recent research has found that women are composed largely of hmm-ing sounds. The science on this seems very solid, and a huge population study across many demographics and and nations, conducted by the Trondheim Polytechnic Institute of Technology Institute, found that this is the most reliable indication of gender identity.

I think you're the one missing the point. Chris Rock made a joke about a black woman's hair a decade after he made a documentary about how damaging misconceptions about black women's hair can be to their relationships and self-esteem. He made the goddamn film after his own daughter asked him, "Daddy, why don't I have good hair?" I think that elevates the situation above "He just made a joke about it". He had all the data at his disposal to make the decision that a joke about a black woman's bald head would be hurtful, but he did it anyway for a laugh. I'll take this same stance if Jon Stewart waits 10 years and then starts making fun of 9/11 first responders.

I didn't know you'd seen it ! Are you stalking me ?

And which famous women come to mind? In all of these examples, the 'people' referred-to are mature males, some of whom are considered sexy because of their shiny heads. The cultural standard, and more to the point in this case, the cinematic image of female beauty tends toward the Botticelli Venus type. Different POV for vanity. Different again, whether it's voluntary baldness or pathological.

The above comments give good advice, here's my attempt to give a bit more. The fan belt should be checked as above, but if you hear an unusual squealing noise coming from the engine, usually when you rev the engine from tickover, then that's an extra clue that it needs attention. I use the lights as exchemist advises, but if you look carefully, a good altenator usually brightens the lights when you rev it, and dims slightly when you let the revs drop back down to tickover, so in that case, you can see it's charging, and don't need to turn off the engine. With a volt meter, (surest method) you will get about 12.5 volts with the engine off, 12.8 with it ticking over, and about 13.3 when revving the engine. (all variable) so if you get a constant 12 to 12.5 when off, and the same or less when running, then it's not charging. If you find it IS charging, but the battery is flat in the morning, you have a current leak somewhere. A way to test for that, is to charge the battery, then turn every electrical item off, and disconnect the positive terminal at night. If the battery is good in the morning when you reconnect it, it's likely that the battery has been slowly leaking charge overnight. A friend of mine found that a usb connection to his dash camera had been doing that, flattening the battery overnight.

I believe a relevant comment would be how many SCOTUS decisions were later overturned by a subsequent group. "As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases" "[The list] does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions And what is written in a treaty is not the constitution.

Less chocolate for the cult, per capita. That's why the initiation rites are so...grueling. But the answer is no. The OP has been banned, so witty retorts are moot.

He also used to be a left leaning black nationalist. Not once in the 30+ years he has been an SC Judge, has he recused himself. Not a once. He won't anytime soon either. Thomas's story is a very confusing one. He'll make a bit more sense to you after I explain... but despite knowing his history, I still find who he is today perplexing and at times, positively aggravating to say the least. He was born in the 40s in Georgia. I forget the name of his birth town, I only know he loved it there. While he was still young, his family moved to Savannah Georgia. This was while things were still segregated. His first experience of racism, according to his own words, actually came from other black people. One of the things said of him by people there "he's so dark, if he was any blacker, he'd be blue.". Prior to the end of segregation, class divides in black communities was much more of a factor than it tends to be today. Within his all black community there, the darkness of his skin in comparison to others was a sign of being lower class within the black community while having a lighter skin color was usually perceived as being upper class. Thomas fundamentally believes that white people are incapable of not being racist. He has often espoused support for racial separatist ideology. Believing that black people must be the leaders of their own communities. As a judge, he is a strict originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation. In stark contrast to myself as a pragmatist and instrumentalist. It must be said, understanding Clarence Thomas is something that I don't think many people, including myself, are very good at. I'm only familiar with his upbringing and how influential that was in the formation of his belief system. However what I think influences him most today, is his relationship with his wife. Of which, I know little. I often wonder how we would answer the question were it put to him "How have black people benefitted from having you on the Supreme Court for 30 years?" I'll probably need to do more research now because this thread has repiqued my curiosity on this subject. I suppose I'll start with his wife's upbringing first. I think he should recuse himself. I don't believe he will though. Unfortunately the Supreme Court justices have sole discretion in deciding whether or not they can remain impartial and they customarily close ranks when it comes to that. It's an extremely difficult area of law to make the SC judicial guidelines legal requirements. If you or I were a lawyer, even the appearance of impropriety could have us disbarred. Unfortunately as it stands, failure to recuse yourself from cases where you may have a personal inability to remain impartial, is not a crime, the appearance of impropriety, is not a crime. Therefore you can't really impeach a SCOTUS judge for not recusing yourself. It's a tremendous oversight in the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the USA. I don't really know how it can be remedied without enough support in the legislative and executive branches to make changes to how a Supreme Court Judge can behave on the bench. Sometimes to me, it feels like the checks and balances system can sometimes lead to situations where the other branches cannot check and balance the other, without doing so in a way that may also require a check and balance on that. In my opinion, the least that could be done is the ending of lifetime appointments for SC judges. I feel that there has got to be a more democratic way and more public inclusion on who gets to wield so much power for such a long time. Thomas has been on the court for 30+ years, a lot of changes have taken place in that time. The voters who picked George Bush, who nominated Thomas, are not all the same voters today. Is there a good reason why the voters of today should not have any say in who sits in each of those SC seats presently? Not just for Thomas but for all the rest too? Even a public vote once a decade is better than someone having that much power well into senility.

Ah, OK. Got it! So to me what's going on, schematically is, 2SO2 + O2 <> 2SO3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First equilibrium: 0.3 0.2 1.5 Added SO2 (out of equilibrium): 0.3+0.1x 0.2 1.5 Second equilibrium: 0.3+0.1x-0.1 0.2-0.05 1.5+0.1 So I think the calculation should be, \[ 125=\frac{1.6^{2}}{\left(0.2+0.1x\right)^{2}\left(0.2-0.05\right)} \] Which is, I think, what @Dhamnekar Win,odd meant when they wrote, That is, 0.3-0.1+0.1x instead of 0.3-0.1 +x Am I right?

You do like wasting server space.

There's no salt water in the sun, much less being used as fuel.

Opinions aren’t necessarily supported by evidence. I think chocolate is better than vanilla. Am I a cult?

Anything that isn't supported by evidence is a cult. It doesn't have to do with the paranormal. Next, Aristotle said that everything was made up of earth, water, air and fire. Was he right? I wonder what he thought about the orbit of planets too. Whatever it was, he was probably wrong. People can have various philosophies. But when you speak of nature as it is, you are either right or wrong. Next, some things just don't need study. You can go on and on about why religions exist. But then the fact that they are nonsense gets buried in the mountains of pointless debate. Next, the truth is the truth. I don't give a flippin flying fuck what people think of it. It is what it is. Reality. I am also reminded of something Samuel Clemens once said. He said, "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."