$30B over ten years to reduce blackouts and grid instability is a good deal. For reference, the 2021 Texas blackout caused ~$100b in damage.
Very very few people in the power industry want to run coal plants- but they cannot in good conscience turn them off. The whole “turn off the lights” mantra is not funny. It’s unfortunate the grid is fragile and facing increased demand. Operating coal plants, preferably at zero or super low utilization rates, for another ten years or so until the grid is more resilient seems reasonable.
If you win in lower court you can still bring the case to the Supreme Court to create national uniformity. One of the consolidated cases for Brown vs. Board of Education won in Delaware while others lost.
That is the appropriate way to determine national uniformity in law.
IANAL, but IIUC (and I many be wrong) if there is no controversy (e.g., competing precedents in multiple jurisdictions) there's nothing to litigate.
Moreover, assuming that the "winner" of a case has gotten "relief," they no longer have standing to sue.
That said, the issue at hand doesn't include a decision on the merits of a case, but rather what the scope of a Preliminary Injunction (PI)[0] might be.
In the example I used, if a court implements a PI it's to limit the potential harm to those impacted by the harm claimed by the plaintiffs.
The SCOTUS ruling limits the scope of such a PI to just those who are either directly named as parties to the case and/or those within the jurisdiction of the district court.
In that circumstance, there is no set of cases to be consolidated since no trial has been held.
Given a government acting in bad faith, this leaves open the option that those harmed by the action of the government can be detained and moved outside the jurisdiction of the district court. At which point, according the the SCOTUS majority, the government can cause the harm being litigated and anyone caught up in this would need to bring a new case in the new federal district jurisdiction, even though Federal law applies everywhere in the US.
Please note that at the point a PI is granted, no one has "won" anything -- only that the judge has ruled that there is harm (and as such, standing to bring the case) and that those bringing the case are likely to succeed on the merits.
Again, since a PI isn't precedent, and the litigants claiming harm have already gotten relief -- at least until the trial is complete, they have no standing to push anyone to extend the PI to additional litigants in other Federal district jurisdictions, even though the legal question is relevant across all those jurisdictions, as it's Federal action.
If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures relief is tailored to the parties or district, preventing a single district judge from dictating national policy.
While federal law applies uniformly, reasonable people and courts can disagree on controversial issues. Localized PIs allow diverse judicial input and foster a broader dialogue before a final ruling.
Court shopping for nationwide injunctions, common in cases like Obama’s DACA or Trump’s policies, lets one judge halt national policy…
Affirming a democratically elected executive’s mandate, Obama with DACA or Trump with immigration reforms is reasonable and respects the separation of powers.
IMO Congress needs to act more effectively, passing clear laws on issues like immigration to reduce reliance on executive orders and judicial battles.
>If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy.
That doesn't matter if it's a federal issue (which it would have to be if it's in federal court). A single district judge dictating national policy temporarily, while a higher court makes its determination, is exactly what they're there for.
Either the activity is legal (nationwide) by federal law, or it's illegal (nationwide) by federal law. Limiting to the plaintiffs violates equal protection.
Funny thing about a recession now is you can have standards of living increase for 10s millions of people due to how concentrated consumption and wealth is. Weird times
What you are saying is simply not sufficient. Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor.
In case it’s not obvious, 100% tariffs on China means economic decoupling. Pick a side or strike out on your own but globalization as we know it just ended.
> Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor.
Generally, if you want other countries to do what you want, then you aim for that rather than pushing them towards China, or worse, making China seem like the best trading partner in the world.
China always seems to play the long game and it's so much better to buy from a reliable trading partner rather than one where the rules can change with no notice. Almost the entire point of having trading deals between nations is to provide predictability. The U.S. is now going to be treated as an international pariah with pretty much every nation aiming to reduce trade with the U.S.
I would pay tons of money for control of the algorithms. It’s annoying I can’t tell YouTube, twitter, etc. what type of content I want to see, what I do not, the frequency, etc.
The complete lack of control by users of their feed makes Feed Providers publishers imo. Give me control or take responsibility for the content.
You can see this dynamic in various investment markets. Stocks are priced according to their expected earnings while fart coin is a repository of excess liquidity. If you massively increase liquidity through money/debt creation you pump asset prices. Assets with a well determined return profile are inflated, but those with an unknown distribution (speculation)see an explosion of value. Only people with large stores of wealth can invest in the memes without risking financial ruin from crashes. Terrible policy choice imo
Yes. Airplanes are complex, high value products with military applications. The skill set to successfully develop and field a fleet of planes is an obvious upskilling of labor which will bleed over to other fields. China cares about economic development so they will build planes over and over again until they master it. Aviation firms are one of the few industries which closely protected their trade secrets making knowledge transfers tough.
The defense primes are 5-10x larger by today’s market cap. It seems unlikely the defense industry will shrink from here. Plenty of room to run. Anduril has been conservative on valuation imo.
Private equity has not, as an asset class, had excess returns since around 2006. Prior to that, private market companies were systematically undervalued relative to public. Post-2008, an accommodative equity market has supportive private equity as a volatility dampener for portfolios. Volatility is often used as a proxy for “risk”. There are still many private market firms generating excess returns. It’s a competitive market now and many players are getting eliminated.
Very very few people in the power industry want to run coal plants- but they cannot in good conscience turn them off. The whole “turn off the lights” mantra is not funny. It’s unfortunate the grid is fragile and facing increased demand. Operating coal plants, preferably at zero or super low utilization rates, for another ten years or so until the grid is more resilient seems reasonable.