Cory Doctrow is communist bootlicker, he thinks that its his job, to tell others how to spend their money.

Because Wikipedia has detailed information on how to build nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons.

Also, most biochemistry textbooks explain how biological weapons works on neurotransmitters.

Literally any undergraduate in biology should be able to make a biological weapon.

They aren't suing over a copyright, because there is no copyright on jokes `in the style of george carlin`, they are suing over publicity and likeness torts, which are supposed to end when the actor dies.

that is not the legal standard, the legal standard is and always has been on the plaintiff, and even if you had self driving cars as good as humans, you would still have accidents, this is why all drivers are required to have liability insurance to drive.

the biggest proponents are the idiots who are seething, that they think the world owes them something, or are angry that someone is taking their job, and want to engage in rent seeking behaviors. There is literally no new regulation that needs to be made for the protections of consumers, because there is nothing different about AI, that wasn't true with the bullshit artists in the past. I know that you might find this shocking, but people have forged signatures, endorsements, and committed other such frauds without AI for centuries. The answer isn't some new law, as if criminals will obey laws in the first place, but to fix the vulnerabilities in the first place, which has historically allowed these frauds to occur.

" But it's wholly inadequate to support the proposition "that democrats can have 'super delegates' without violating the equal protection clause."

Because the democratic party is a corporation and not the government, and "equal protection" only applies to the government.

"the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ "

>The 3rd Section of the 14th Amendment was a literal ex post facto law and bill of attainder. Please enlighten me as to the legal acrobatics needed to make it ineffective in spite of that being the core of its actual purpose.

No, a bill of attainder is where the legislature says that "Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection" without a trial, not making some law that applies generally to all people. If Donald Trump had a conviction by a jury of insurrection, then there would be no problem with the legislature then removing him from the general election.

>you're citing a case where a state legislature is prohibited from adopting additional qualifications for candidacy

You are missing the point of the holding:

"Our conclusion that States lack the power to impose qualifications vindicates the same "fundamental principle of our representative democracy" that we recognized in Powell, namely that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." ...
"Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their representatives would result in a patchwork of state qualifications, undermining the uniformity and the national character that the Framers envisioned and sought to ensure. "

>Or where you suggest there's any relevant case law on super delegates and equal protection claims.
The bernie bros who sued the DNC in 2016

>Or where you fail to cite which procedural due process right is allegedly impaired.
expost facto laws, and actions in excess in jurisdiction

>Or are you contending that the federal government can impose trial-like conditions on the actions of a state legislature

"U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton" (1995)

>Neutral decisionmaker: CO legislature

That is called a "bill of attainder"

>Look at what you're contending: that in spite of the fact that the legislature in Colorado could literally decide right now that nobody in the entire state will cast a ballot for President in 2024

If you can prove that there was a quid pro quo go a head and indict Thomas, I would be all for it.

But comparing that to the student loan forgiveness, where the money comes from the public purse, is an inapt comparison. There is a massive national debt in addition to inflation, and the only way we've been able to sustain it, is our position as the global reserve currency.

> I don't think they'll find a way to do it but they're going to do a lot of stupid and nasty things trying to find it before we come to our senses and stop letting them make decisions about our lives

Eliminate welfare, social security, such that the only "welfare" you can rely on is a large family.

>Was it life, liberty, or property the Colorado Supreme Court deprived Trump of?

You need to understand the difference between procedural due process, and substantive due process, you are citing substantive due process. In any matter, the Colorado Supreme Court is depriving its citizens of the "liberty" to elect their own representatives, and thus Trump could raise a third party claim in addition to his own "liberty" interest in being able to be in the republican primary, under the first amendment right to free association. A primary election literally does not involve presidential electors, and is supposed to be within the purview the parties themselves (which are literally corporations), which is why the democrats can have "super delegates" without violating the equal protection clause.

With regards to procedural due process, there are no "insurrection" statutes or regulations in Colorado, there is only a federal criminal statute and states do not have the ability to enforce federal criminal law, nor has there been any decision by a court of competent jurisdiction (a federal court) of insurrection, thus the state is either A) engaging in ex post facto law making in violation of the constitution, or B) exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction (making judgements about federal criminal law).

>The US is in serious danger of devolving into a christofascist state,

Utterly deranged, there have never in our entire history been less Christians' than now, most of the magic sky daddy believers are uneducated boomers or migrants.

> and applaud if the Democrats start playing dirty too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw8zvC8iVxw

Barack Obama:
I want to be honest it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past sometimes Democrats have to you know whenever people are in power they're you know they have this tendency to try to you know tilt things in their Direction

>And just to be clear - the US doesn't HAVE a left.

You need to take your meds, a literal socialist ran for president in 2016.

Citing 17th century judges, is important in an unenumerated rights analysis, because there was literally nothing in the constitution about abortion, so you would have to determine what the people who wrote the document, and which was ratified by the people meant. The whole idea of separation of powers, is that the legislative branches make the law, and its not the role of judges to make law, but to interpret the law's meaning or to resolve conflicts between laws, because those legislators are democratically elected and represent the "will of the people".

"We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."