bhups

The current proposal is just as regressive, albeit in a way that introduces more inefficiency.

A cap on Ubers/Lyfts + minimum pay will likely increase the price of Ubers/Lyfts. Rich people will be able to afford the new prices, but poor people will not.

> No, it absolutely does not.

Can you explain what the law on the books currently is, and how the majority opinion "absolutely does not" respect it?

> It completely makes up a reason why this should be considered any different than any other instance where things have changed since a law was enacted.

Things have changed since a law was enacted by legislative fiat. The thesis behind those arguing the intended function of the judiciary is that any instance in the past where the judiciary has actually changed a law since it was enacted is considered abuse and not to be repeated.

> Kicking the can to "elect someone else" is just as naive as claiming that this decision respects the law on the books.

But...it does respect the law on the books. Your concern seems to be that the law is bad, and that the judiciary ought to change that law. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement about the former, it's the latter that's more controversial.

From an idealistic standpoint, enacting Federal law is necessarily onerous, owing to the requirement of a strong consensus so as to prevent a marginal majority from shoving Federal laws down the throat of a large minority.

> Okay sure. But don't lose track of reality in your quest for idealism though.

Okay sure, it sounds like you don't care much for the idealistic standpoint, so let's talk pragmatism. If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.

Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will and pragmatism to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.

> We have a system that operates at the pace of 1776. That served us well for a long time, but since the post-war proliferation of mass media, it's hard to argue that it's adequate anymore.

I'd argue the exact opposite. The pace of our system is just a reflection of the current ideological polarization. Enacting Federal law requires a strong consensus (to prevent abuse), and the more polarized we are, the more difficult it becomes to shove Federal laws down the throat of a narrow minority.

If we can't gather this consensus at the Federal level, we have the levers of state legislatures to pass those same laws at a more local level.

Liberal states have the political will, the systems, and (if we're being frank) the majority of businesses that would be affected by Federal law anyway. They just need to have the will to compromise and pass their desired law at the state level until such a time that there's Federal consensus for that law.

This is half true: European infrastructure construction is almost perfectly decentralized to the point that it's (for the most part) fully centralized at the level of each member state.

The US half tries to fund and administer infrastructure at the federal level, state level, as well as local level, depending on the state.

As an American, I find the EU to have phenomenally good infrastructure, but I think that's because decisions aren't being made in Brussels, they're being made concurrently in Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, London, etc.

I feel that the US would do well to emulate the EU, and centralize the funding, regulation, and administration of its respective systems in each member state.

I have the iPhone 7. I've been using Bluetooth headphones since about 2014 (started with the JayBirds, but use the AirPods now). I use my headphones pretty much all day.

Not once have I noticed the absence of the headphone jack, nor have I felt the need for it.

If they were to do that, what do you think would happen to the price of the finite/scarce housing supply?

Possibly, I think "impartial" means reserving the judgement until the judgement is to be made at the end of the trial as opposed to in the middle of the trial, which could very well be wrong - IANAL.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, but I'm just wondering if this is a typical type of thing to assert during a judgement. It just jumped out as impartial to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole point of this case is to prove this. I would find a more impartial adjudicator to take more of a "the motives contradict with the allegations of theft" view.

To outright say that the theft occurs before an official judgement was made seems in poor taste for, well, a judge.

> “Then why did he steal this stuff? That’s the story the jury’s going to want to know about,” Judge William Alsup retorted.

I find it alarming that the judge assumes a "guilty until proven innocent" position. Obviously outsiders like us would take a stance like this, but for a judge on the bench to operate in that manner sets off all kinds of red flags for me.