Neuro plasticity indicates that what you repeatedly perform becomes a more entrenched behaviour as those neural paths become strengthened. That would seem to indicate that it would exacrebate natural tendencies. If you naturally are repelled by psychopathic behaviour, then performing it could strengthen that revulsion. If on the other hand you have psychopathic tendencies....

Brane or string theory.

It's Microsoft trying to get a 30% cut of every software purchase for the Windows 8.1 platform. Now I'll grant you that Apple and Google do the same thing on their mobile platforms, but they didn't have established sales ecosystems to trample on. It's questionable what service they provide to users and developers for that 30% cut.

Anyways Microsoft tax now has a new meaning (although you're free to also talk about Apple tax and Google tax too). The interesting thing is that there are competing App Stores such as Amazon and Samsung for the Android platform but they all take the same cut - 30%. That vaguely smells like oligopolistic collusion to me.

Amicus curiae briefs during the original trial?

There's also the tricky matter that PhD students get paid minimal wages given their schooling, whereas career scientists need/expect to be paid a living wage that can support a family and build a retirement fund.

Now there can be problems with the standing requirements for legal challenge, and that's when you get into issues of national secrecy Catch-22s, such as with the Patriot Act, where the people who are being harmed aren't allowed to demand access to any evidence that would show that they are being harmed. But that's quite different from allowing everybody with an axe to grind free rein to butt into the business of other people who they otherwise would have no dealings with.

Now suppose everyone but a trucking company supports this law but it makes them late for their deliveries so they pay a governor a lot of campaign contributions and then take the law to court claiming it unconstitutionally impedes their right to travel and participate in commerce.

That's the thing you see, they would have to buy off the governor and the judge. They could try judge shopping by carefuly choosing the jurisdiction in which the case is tried. In the end whether a law is popular shouldn't matter, but whether it follows established constitutional precedent does.

But even if the scenario played out as you said, the difference is that anybody who had had a child injured due to an incident where a car didn't stop for school bus would have had standing to appeal the ruling striking down the school bus law. If nobody can prove standing by showing that they were actually harmed (as opposed to not being allowed to promote their bigotry) then yes the state by default gets the chance to look at the ruling on prop 8 and say: the judge is right and the prop is garbage so no point throwing good money after bad.

Prop 8 was bought and paid for by religious fundamentalists who were upset that other people that they don't like might have the chance to be happy. There was plenty of precedent that indicated that piece of toilet paper shouldn't get the time of day at any jurisdictional level.

Ok, one more time for the slow among us. The Sjpreme[sic] court's take on it is not impkrtant[sic].

Of course the Supreme Court's take is important. The Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court provides a verification check that all laws are consistent with and do not violate the Constitution.

While the people may be capable of using referendums to pass laws that violate the constitution, if the state believes that that law violates the constitution then why should the state be forced to waste court and legal resources defending a law that they know is going to be eventually stuck down? Since when are conservatives in favour of useless waste of government resources? Oh I guess it's OK when those wasted resources are spent defending their pet bigotries.

Theo has been a strong proponent of hard hats/steel helmets, not tinfoil hats. Most people thought that approach was overkill for general walking around, at least up until Snowden showed there were lots of national actors firing lots of rocks into the air.

In theory reverse traditional polygamy would be a solution. In practice, there are biological/evolutionary and social reasons why fewer people seek such an arrangement, making it an unsuccessful approach to correct gender imbalances arising from traditional polygamy.

That's because standing is paramount in pursuing cases. The state and the individuals being married are the main parties affected in a marriage contract. The Supreme Court properly identified that everyone else who wanted to intervene to prevent gay marriage were self-important busybodies who would not actually be personally affected in any significant way (compared to the requested imposition on equality rights of the prospective spouses) if Joe marries John Doe or June marries Julia, and who should therefore butt out.

Apparently it was due to Fox News-style "we don't actually have to portray reality" type of ruling.

All laws are about behaviour modification, whether it be deterring/reducing murder, theft, or jaywalking. You just happen to think your preferred behaviour should be exempt from legal limitations. Not a big surprise considering your post seems to peg you into the "Libertarian - the free market solves everything" bucket.

Probably has to do with residuals paid to actors. Don't forget that kerfuffle a few years back where writers wanted to be paid more for digital distribution because the previous agreement was just for physical media. You can bet that there are similar issues with actors and directors. So the studios/distributors make more profit on digital distribution (because they don't need to pay as much on residuals) and provide deals to Netflix et al. to encourage digital distribution over DVD rentals

Bingo!