web analytics

Daily review 27/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 27th, 2025 - 4 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

4 comments on “Daily review 27/05/2025 ”

  1. SPC 1
    27 May 2025 at 5:54 pm

    And the doctor goes quack quack.

    A doctor is of the same opinion as Foucault, that HIV does not exist. Foucault died of HIV AIDS.

    Foucault also believed in a state having an order of discipline over society, so would have no problem with quack quacks being held accountable.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-tvnz-presenter-and-doctor-samantha-bailey-taken-to-tribunal-for-claiming-hiv-doesnt-exist/MVPM6KECO5ELRG7VT4UHJSMKT4/

    Fun fact

    Discipline” is the term Foucault uses to designate a particular kind of power that operates directly on individual bodies and that may be used as an anchoring point for other types of power.

    Foucault may have contracted HIV in a San Francisco Bathhouse, where he enjoyed being under discipline.

    Reply
  2. Muttonbird 2
    27 May 2025 at 7:41 pm

    It gives me great hope that we have such capable and effective young people:

    In February, the tenants advised the landlord, Man-Oock Holdings, they would be withholding rent and taking her to the Tenancy Tribunal.

    The tribunal's first ruling found the landlord "turned a blind eye" to many of her responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act, but it was also "not open for one party [the tenants] to unilaterally decide to stop paying rent".

    No surprise the Tenancy Tribunal, which in this country is basically a landlord advocate service itself "turned a blind eye" to its responsibilities.

    But these children wouldn't give up and dragged the Landlord Tenancy Tribunal to mediation where they backflipped and properly criticised themselves:

    It was only after mediation that Eckhoff and her fellow tenants were able to end the tenancy.

    A second tribunal ruling followed, saying “as a result of the agreement all costs will lie where they fall, and the previous order of the tribunal cannot be enforced”.

    Eckhoff felt the system was stacked against her.

    “I think that landlords need to be held way more accountable for the kind of stuff that they get up to.

    Then the big dogs came in:

    Last week, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment tenancy compliance and investigations team conducted visits to 53 Dunedin properties.

    The majority had some maintenance issues and three properties had "multiple breaches" of the healthy homes legislation.

    So, in the space of 4 months, these young students have cancelled a contract with a slumlord, fought and beaten the Tenancy Tribunal and made them take a long, hard look at themselves, and brought in the most powerful government entity to investigate all student flats in Dunedin.

    That's more than any of our useless politicians have done.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/562308/tenants-scarred-by-flat-of-horrors

    Reply
  3. joe90 3
    27 May 2025 at 8:23 pm

    'Murica, you're done.

    /

    Friends,

    I’ve been following with a mixture of dismay and disgust Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill, soon to emerge from the House. I’ll report back to you on it later this morning.

    But I want to alert you to one detail inside it that’s especially alarming. With one stroke, it would allow Trump to crown himself king.

    […]

    In a separate case, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis has demanded that the Trump administration explain why it is not complying with the Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of Abrego Garcia.

    Xinis questions whether the administration intends to comply with the order at all, citing a statement from U.S. Department of Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem that Abrego Garcia “will never be allowed to return to the United States.” According to Xinis, “That sounds to me like an admission. That’s about as clear as it can get.”

    So what’s next? Will the Supreme Court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce contempt citations?

    Not if the Big Ugly Bill is enacted with the following provision, now hidden in the bill:

    “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

    Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

    […]

    Hence, with a stroke, the provision removes the judiciary’s capacity to hold officials in contempt.

    As U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.

    “Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. …

    “This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”

    With this single provision, in other words, Trump will have crowned himself king. No Congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try to stop him, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and laws.

    https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly

    Reply

Leave a Comment