And I’m behind four firewalls!

Which also has nothing to do with what’s being discussed.

I got an earlier variant purporting to be from a friend who was stuck in London, had their wallet stolen, and needed cash wired to them so they could get home. That was remotely plausible based on my friend’s recent travels. I replied asking them to tell me where and when we first met and what we did the following day. They tried going back to reciting their story but I wouldn’t move until I knew it was really them. Fucking scum. They should be made to drink cold hotdog water that Satan’s hemorrhoids have been soaking in.

Another verification that works is “I’ll call you, let’s talk. What number can I reach you on?” They’ll usually drop contact at that point.

Nothing deep about it.

It’s really not a hard screening algorithm: do I know this person, or have I done business with this company? OK, does the URL check out? Then I’ll respond to that person’s email or go log into that company’s website, not using a link from the message I received. Otherwise, it’s spam.

Also, there are no pictures of my dick online, or of me having sex. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn’t know me. Nice and easy.

It’s depressing how many assholes there are out there.

No, he’s a hazard to others and belongs in a cage.

As long as it’s slow and painful, bloodless would be OK too.

I’m sure, for a price, someone could set you up with a placebo stick shift.

The idea that one branch limiting another requires “popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment” is a bit misleading.

No, it’s plainly incorrect. I was able to come up with three or four counterexamples immediately, and I’m no kind of Constitutional lawyer.

It rules on whether Consitutionally stated powers and their limits apply to specific executive acts and legislation. So yes.

Yep, straight-up power grab, and neither Congress or the President pushed back.

The Constitution lists a number of checks and balances that don’t require a Constitutional amendment. “Last without popular appeal” is just an assumption that we live in a democracy, it’s true of all government actions in that case, and so is almost tautological.

For example, presidential vetoes are used frequently, limiting the power of the Legislative branch, and not requiring a Constitutional Amendment. Same goes for the advise-and-consent powers that the Legislative branch can exercise over presidential appointments. There are plenty more.

The fact that Section 2 plainly says that Congress can regulate how the Court exercises that appellate jurisdiction?

Yes, the Constitution distinguishes “appellate jurisdiction” and “original jurisdiction.” Some cases go straight to the Supremes: for example, disputes between states. That’s original jurisdiction. They try those cases. But appellate jurisdiction is specifically mentioned as something that Congress can regulate, though Congress never has, just as they have never passed legislation to allow enforcement of the Emoluments Clause.

Here’s Section 2, boldface is my own:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That’s very much not “all cases.” There is a very clear qualification added to that. It’s an instance of checks and balances that have never been exercised, since the Supreme Court has only done a small number of power grabs over the year-- the biggest being that, absent Congressional action, they granted themselves the power of judicial review, which is a distinct power from appellate jurisdiction. And that has been something that, through inertia, spinelssness or fear of opening cans of worms, Congress has never addressed, despite having the power to do so.

That would require a Constitutional amendment. That’s where the justices’ term length is defined.

And, like term limits, it would have no effect on corruption, though it would reduce institutional knowledge retention. More power to the Heritage Society? That’s how you get it.

Supreme Court justices have very little in common with average Americans.

Our recent experience with Trump should have made it painfully clear that rich people can be bribed too.

So no, we don’t need to pay them more. We need to send them to jail if the accept bribes. And the law that enables that should be passed with a note that it is not subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.

Accuracy, consistency, explainability.

Greed.

Leon.