The PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.
The primary reason why the statute should fall is that the United States inherently doesn't have jurisdiction over a quasi-state entity halfway around the world. But, this isn't based in a concept of "due process". If anything, by asserting a right to due-process, the PLO does implicitly consent to jurisdiction, in a way that "not ceasing a policy" does not.
The "foreign policy" note is more concerning. There is a 🔥 far-right theory of government that would hold that the Constitution only governs how the federal government interacts with US citizens, and does not bind its external actions 💡 other than a few enumerated exceptions, such as "participating in the slave trade". I disagree with this; and I generally feel that the blanket exception various courts are working towards is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.
But, the limits of American power will remain evident. A court can issue as many universal injunctions as it wants, but the PLO will not act based on it. And the ever-increasing fines based on foreign activity by a kangaroo-court will impugn the United States more than they will ever punish the PLO. When Russia fines Google an amount so large the TV announcer cannot pronounce it ⚙️https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo, it is dismissed as the folly of a rogue state. 💡 Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, spells it out more thoroughly. That Congress may override general principles of international law does not imply that it should, but instead that the relevant considerations are not constitutional ones. If you view international law as superseding the constitution on certain matters, it should not be surprising that the Constitution does not incorporate these restrictions.
The first case ⚙️ Case No. 2024100129 Parent v. San Diego USD. The topic was a very long, approximately 90-minute bus ride for a student with autism who had to be restrained on the ride. The verdict was that a maximum of one hour would be reasonable for the 12-mile drive in San Diego County.
The second case ⚙️ Case No. 2024100512 was Parent v. Fresno, USD. Student was represented by parent. The case was 17 pages and not very interesting. None of the parents' claims were found to have merit.
The third case ⚙️ Case No. 20214101050 seemed an exercise in bureaucracy. 🔥 We are unable to comment publicly on counsel in the case. The remaining claim was a request by the school for due process hearing to have the court authorize the IEP. The parents had elected not to consent to the IEP. After a three-day hearing, the court, in a 56-page ruling, determined the IEP was reasonable and allowed it to be implemented.
The fourth case ⚙️ Case No. 2024110856 concerned a student who was paralyzed and did not have control of their bowels. The question was what nursing care is required and whether this needed to be discussed and litigated in an IEP meeting. The verdict was that the provisions for the student's medical care were insufficient.
I see a certain sense that people want it both ways regarding Special Education.
As I see it, there should be a binary distinction.
Either: you are in the general education classroom.
Or: you are in Special Education.
The problem is that we have parents who, on the one hand, request Special Education services ... but, on the other hand, demand placement in the General Education classroom.
These are both mandated by the IDEA. They are contradictory mandates.
For many students, there is not a need for full-time Special Education. The student can spend 80% of their time in General Education, and 20% in Special Education. ⚙️ both accelerated / honors courses and remedial courses would fit this pattern
For other students, there is a need for full-time Special Education.
When there is a conflict regarding the time spent in Special Education, the default outcome should be that no time is spent in the General Education classroom, if there is a colorable argument that the student's presence harms other student's educational outcomes. 🔥 this raises a perilous question: if it is found that the presence of a disruptive / violent student in a classroom was beneficial to other students' educational outcomes, would it be incumbent on the State to allow or engineer such situations?
Roe v. Wade survived an additional 29 years—more than half of its ultimate lifespan—solely because he defied expectations by not voting to overturn it in 1993.
reading through the article, my inescapable conclusion is that term-limits for Supreme Court justices are necessary.
But also: Franklin D. Roosevelt had appointed all nine sitting justices over his 12-year presidency by the time he died in 1945.🔥( twelve is fewer than eighteen)
The basic facts: in 2019, a bank in Virginia was robbed. The police used a geofence warrant to request information from Google related to the individuals with cell-phones in the vicinity of the crime. One of those individuals was Chatrie, who was later identified as the suspect. Chatrie eventually pled guilty, conditional to the geofence evidence being admissible.
My views align with none of the opinions in full.
1. Was this a "search"?
Yes. Google, through an informal process involving their own counsel and external law-enforcement, developed a three-step process for geofence warrants. That process is not freely available to all law-enforcement for any reason, but requires a warrant to be issued.
The detailed information is private; it includes the person's name, additional personal information, as well as their location. Furthermore, Google has a business interest in keeping this information private, and makes representations that it will do so to the extent of the law.
There is no way this was not a "search" in some form, governed by the protections of the 4th amendment.
I do have some amount of a contrary view to the 4th Amendment interpretation. There is no direct burden on the person being searched here. (At least as long as one assumes the search is against Chatrie, rather than Google). No government agents are entering houses, examining physical papers, etc. The extension of the 4th amendment to an abstract right of privacy-of-information, rather than security against physical intrusions, is not something I am willing to agree with in an unqualified manner.
2. Can a "geofence" warrant be allowed under probable cause? I give an unqualified "yes".
As a result, whether this specific geofence warrant complied with a not-yet-expounded procedure is irrelevant; the "good-faith" exception to exclusion of the information would apply, and the information would not be excluded regardless of whether this exact procedure is endorsed.
Several opinions specify that the first step of the process is (or at least should be) designed to not include any "private" information. Later steps, by contrast, contain sufficiently-detailed information as to be "uncloakable", or on-its-face identifying information. 💡( the arguments that the later steps should require a separate warrant are somewhat compelling; I take no position on them.)
In addition, Carpenter v. United States is frequently referenced, in the context of "cell-tower records". While the exact details of opt-in v. opt-out are heavily discussed, I personally don't find that a meaningful distinction.
The warrant clearly described the "place to be searched": Google records, as provided to the government by Google.
While some of the specific concerns (should each step of the process require a magistrate's approval) may be resolved differently, I see no way that the general concept of such a warrant is impermissible.
A warrant for a nearby business's security camera footage might have similar privacy issues, but it is clearly allowable. The fact that some of the individuals might have been "entering a private space" is not a reason to disallow it.
The arguments are focused on whether it was a search; once it is stipulated that it is a search, the overarching arguments against this type of search collapse. A "reasonable expectation of privacy" cannot prevent one from being subject to a warrant, and whether one is identified by name or as the person possessing a specific cell-phone is irrelevant.
A warrant does not require naming the exact individuals being searched, especially in a situation where they are not physically burdened by the search.
One additional footnote of note: The Fifth Circuit has held “that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”
This is an aggressive take, far beyond the text of the Fourth Amendment.
One can imagine an argument that such a warrant will, necessarily, be a privacy violation. In fact, there is one argument in the case, presented as a hypothetical by Judger Berner: Obtaining a warrant would require probable cause to search all individuals who fall within a particular geofence. The government would thus need to show probable cause that every individual near the scene of a crime was involved in the crime or witnessed it.
That standard is wrong. A de minimis privacy violation, which occurs without the awareness of the person involved and does not lead to any harms against them, should not throw out the entire tree of evidence.
More broadly, the claim that technology that might violate a privacy right is inherently illegal when used for law-enforcement is absurd on its face. It is also not supported by the Constitution, federal law, or the population at-large.
The product is too expensive. $600/year is too much. This probably should be a $79 (or even $179) one-off purchase. 💡( of course, revenue experts recommend a subscription model, so you capture the most value from your loyal customers.) However, to a certain extent, the cost is a feature; people are more motivated to use a product they are paying more for. 💡( there is also an element of customer selection to it; they are more likely to get results when their clientele is "people willing to pay a lot")
The best phrasing was "a gym for math". 🔥( the negative version of this is the Duolingo-esque gamification that seems to be part of the product)
The attitude in both reviews was largely penitent. I used to hate math, but now I'm in a better place.
The results are largely theoretical; they think they know math now, but what real-life evidence do they have of this? 💭( I generally say that I am completely useless for teaching secondary-school math; I don't understand how people could possibly struggle with it.)
Their website ⚙️( https://www.mathacademy.com/pedagogy ) has a lot of claims. Some of it is unremarkable 🔥( my rule-of-thumb: anyone who brags about "spaced repetition" is probably wrong)💡( the claims that they encourage students to "practice" are almost vacuously distinguishing from any other product), other parts I disagree with: New concepts should be taught alongside or following dissimilar material so as to avoid this problem.
I cannot endorse the St. John's College approach (all college students, for all 4 years, in the same curriculum, largely based around reading of >100 year old works). But it is interesting enough (and for some students, effective enough) that I also have no interest in arguing against it.
I am also not sure if the work selection is better or worse than similar lists, such as the 1952 Great Books of the Western World series.
But, as a reference, here is the first-year curriculum.
The other day a woman asked if I only wrote children’s books or if I also wrote “real” books. It was said with absolutely no malice and if you don’t spend tons of time in storytelling land/the planet of publishing, I get why you would word it that way. But it gave me pause because it’s far from the first time such a question has been asked to me, with the understandable-yet-false reasoning that books for adults are real and books for children are not.
She is partially correct. But, in many important ways, books for children are NOTreal books, and pretending that they are (or should be) is harmful.
🔥 her argument that it is a real book because the pictures are pretty, proves my point.
🔥 she might as well talk about the inescapable pathos of the gastronomic gospel of Sam-I-Am.
The first argument 💡( and one sufficient to "win the argument", though insufficient to explain the concept) is that the primary purpose of books, through about the third grade level💡( as always, the concept of grade level is flawed; but commonly understood well enough to be useful) is to teach language. Trying to use the books to also teach deep concepts will cause them to fail at both tasks.
The books are supposed to be simple. Pleas that children should be exposed to complex themes or are capable of understanding complex themes ... are wrong, and should not be indulged.
As far as children’s books are real books because children are real people ... I must invoke Guild Law.
As far as Children’s books are specifically written to be read by a section of society without political or economic power. ... no. I must invoke Guild Law again.
💭 Without a clock, chess is a flawed game. It is a game where you can play perfectly and only hope to draw. And, for a human, without years of (unnecessary) training and good luck, you will play nearly-perfectly and lose, against the machine. ... With a clock, chess is a footrace of the mind. It is reflexes, time-management, and also the goal to play perfectly enough to draw.
In chess, the clock is often considered a crucial piece, even though it is not physically part of the board setup. It regulates the pace of the game, ensuring that players make their moves within a specified time limit. Unlike traditional chess pieces, which are used to attack, defend, and control squares, the clock serves as an external arbiter (仲裁者) of time management. Losing on time is just as decisive as checkmate, making the clock an indirect yet powerful factor in gameplay.
Strategically, the clock influences decision-making just as much as material and position. Players must balance deep calculation with time management, ensuring they do not overthink moves and risk flagging (running out of time). In blitz and bullet chess, where time is extremely limited, flagging the opponent can become a primary strategy, making fast and practical moves more valuable than objectively best ones. This dynamic adds an additional layer of skill beyond pure chess knowledge, favoring those who can handle pressure and think quickly.
Psychologically, the presence of the clock changes the way players approach the game. It introduces stress, particularly in time scrambles, where precision can give way to instinct and speed. Some players excel under this pressure, using the clock as a weapon to force blunders, while others struggle to maintain accuracy when time is low. In this sense, the clock is not merely a passive timekeeper but an active participant in the game, shaping the way it is played and ultimately determining who wins or loses.
At ~1200 ELO on Lichess, for Bullet Chess ⚙️( 1+0 or 2+1 time control), there are noticeable distinctions in both player skill and player speed. When one player is faster than the other, but the other player is more skillful ... there is an interesting dynamic. 💡( while one could try to score both dimensions separately, the product is better for not doing so)
a comment on the interpretations of the NAEP results, that is too good not to share:
In the face of dismal national NAEP results, almost every state claimed victory and did a goofy, unconvincing touchdown dance.
Wyoming’s performance dropped on three of the four NAEP tests and was flat in the other. Its official statement, which makes no mention of this, says Wyoming “continues to stand out nationally.”
It was a popular move. The logic? Because other states did poorly, our state is doing awesome by comparison - even if our students are learning less than before. Shout outs to Illinois and Washington, among others, for going all in.
Florida, which had particularly bad reading results, goosed the ante by having its state chief, Manny Diaz, write a letter saying NAEP’s methodology is wrong and calling for the Department of Education to be abolished.
The only thing more disappointing than the NAEP results themselves has been the state response. Truly a low point for our sector. We are hiding from the truth about what we are providing for our students. Let’s do better, friends.