After SR1.0 got shut down, there were a bunch of forum posts from people who had been fronted large amounts of drugs to sell online. The drugs had been sent out, and then the resulting bitcoins got seized by the Feds. Now they owed very unpleasant people huge amounts of money that they didn't have.
Whether in the drug market or the stock market, trading on margin has its risks.
I would really like to live underground.... you would not have to worry about
Spoken like someone who has never had a basement in a flood-prone area.
Sand has a lot of uses but it's non-renewable. There's no way (yet) to manufacture it.
Can't you manufacture sand by repeatedly hitting a rock with a hard object?
Or did I just miss out on the patent of a lifetime by publishing my idea in an open forum?
a law that was very clearly intended to apply to accounting and finance
Ah, originalism. What basis do you have for ascribing such intent? Are you basing this on published opinions of the legislators themselves, or merely a subjective belief? If the former, do you have citations? If the latter, is there a reason why others should share your belief?
I sympathize with textualism. The law is what it says it is. If it's written in a way where the text does not agree with the legislators' intent, the onus should be on the legislators to craft proper legislation. It's literally their sole fucking responsibility. If SOX is being used contrary to the intent of Congress, there is nothing stopping Congress from replacing it with legislation that does reflect their intent. By allowing the judiciary to effectively do the legislature's job for them, we're compromising our system of checks and balances.
This is just another classic case of the law being used as worded rather than "intended".
Why are you so confident that you have knowledge of the legislators' intent? Do you have any actual references regarding your claimed knowledge of intent, or is your knowledge more of a "gut feeling" (and therefore entirely subjective)? Furthermore, do you have an explanation for why they worded the legislation such that it would be at odds with their intent?
Based on the rest of your post, it is evident that you subscribe to a conservative view of judicial interpretation, one in which judicial activism is minimized. More specifically, textualism, or even strict constructionism. I also favor a conservative view, as I feel that allowing judicial activism necessarily weakens the rule of law and afford the judiciary more power than was intended when our system of checks and balances was crafted. I agree with you that our legislators are failing to do their duties (really their sole duty, drafting proper legislation), and believe that this is the reason why increasing levels of judicial activism are tolerated (and indeed claimed to be needed). Is it really asking too much of our legislature to keep our legal code meaningful and up-to-date so that we don't have to rely on the judiciary to generously "interpret" laws in order for them to serve our society?
Tangentially related case: the second amendment unambiguously states that the government can't stop people from owning nukes. We can all agree that that's not okay, so we allow the judiciary to "interpret" the text in a more pragmatic fashion, because that solves the problem of people being able to own nukes. However, the correct solution would have been for our legislature to amend the constitution to allow for such reasonable abridgement of the right to bear arms. There's the easy way, and there's the right way. We've been doing things the easy way for way too long, and it's finally coming around to bite us in the ass.
tl;dr: blame congress (as a whole, not in some retarded partisan fashion), for they suck ass.
and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."
You appear to be blaming the existence of violent Christian groups in CAR on the violent Muslim group that preceeded them. In a sense, this isn't wrong, although I don't agree with it (for a reason that will soon be apparent).
Would you be surprised to hear that Islamic State rose to power in the wake of Western military incursions into Iraq? Would you then blame Christians for the existence of Islamic State?
If you're going to be applying this type of logic, please apply it consistently.
It's a matter of the prosecutors (and even more scarily the courts) completely subverting the law through overly literal interpretation.
Isn't that what we call "rule of law", as opposed to "rule of man"? Why do you find the rule of law scary?
The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says?
Isn't that more like judicial activism, the polar opposite of strict constructionism?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
