#arbitrary and capricious

[astro1derland]

In today’s transits, the Moon 🌙 at 21° Sagittarius ♐️ 40’ 36”, Mercury at 23° Leo ♌️ 12’ 23”, and Chiron at 23° Aries ♈️ 30’ 26” all form a perfect Grand Trine. Our emotional needs, intellectual mind, and capacity to heal from our wounded selves align and work well together in a fiery, impulsive, regal way. Look for ways to refuel one’s passions, motivations and desires today. Realize how our motivational energy has been damaged and wounded and how we may transform that today. Take steps toward transformation today.

Also in today’s transits, the Sun ☀️ at 26° Cancer ♋️ 34’ 3” forms a sextile with Uranus at 26° Taurus ♉️ 26’ 14”. Our sense of illumination aligns and blends nicely with our sense of freedom and ability to invent in an emotional, lucrative and luxurious way. Escape depression today.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

more words for characterization (pt. 2)

Attributes of behavior: [A-D] abstemious, accident-prone, acid, acrimonious, adamant, affable, affectionate, agreeable, aimless, aloof, amuck, animated, anxious, arbitrary, ardent, arrogant, ascetic, attentive, austere, avid, backhanded, bad, barbarian, barbarous, beaming, belligerent, big, blindly, boisterous, bossy, brassy, brazen, brusque, cagey, calm, capricious, casual, cavalier, cheeky, chill, chummy, clumsy, cocky/cocksure, combative, comic/comical, compassionate, complaisant, compulsive, conciliatory, considerate, contemptuous, contrary, convivial, cordial, corrupt, courageous, courtly, cowardly, crabby/crabbed, cranky, craven, crotchety, cruel, cunning, daring, dauntless, debonair, decent, decided, defensive, defiant, deliberately, delightful, delirious, demure, detached, diffident, disagreeable, disarming, discreet, disgruntled, disinterested, disobedient, disorderly, disputatious, disruptive, dissolute, distraught, divisive, doctrinaire, dolorous, doting, double-dealing, draconian

[E-J] eager, easy, edgy, effervescent, emotionless, envious, equable, evasive, even-tempered, excitable, exuberant, faithful, fake, false, fanatical, favorably, fearful, feigned, ferocious, fervent/fervid, fickle, fiery, finicky, flamboyant, flighty, flirtatious, foolhardy, foolishly, forceful, forward, fractious, freely, fretful, frivolous, fussy, gamely, genteel, glacial, gluttonous, goody-goody, graceless, grandiose, gritty, gruff, gung ho, halfhearted, hardhearted, haram-scarum, headstrong, hearty, helpless, high and mighty, high-handed, high-strung, holier-than-thou, hot, huffy, humble, hypocritical, idle, ill-mannered, ill-natured, ill-tempered, impatient, impertinent, impolite, importunate, impudent, inactive, inconsiderate, ingratiating, inhuman/inhumane, innocuous, insidious, insubordinate, intractable/intransigent, introverted, invidious, irreconcilable, irreverent, jaded, jaunty, jazzed-up, jovial, jumpy

[K-R] keen, kittenish, lax, lecherous, lethargic, liberal, lifeless, light-headed, litigious, lofty, loquacious, loud, loving, Machiavellian, maladroit, malicious, mannered, martial, mean, meat-eating, menacing, merciful, mercurial, militant, mischievous, miserly, mousy, munificent, naive, nasty, naughty, neglectful, neighborly, nervy, nomadic, noncompliant, nonconformist, nosy, obedient, obliging, obsequious, obtrusive, offhand, on edge, on purpose, orderly, ostentatious, overbearing, overwrought, parsimonious, passionate, peevish, pent-up, peppy, peripatetic, permissive, pert, petulant, philosophical/philosophic, phobic, pitiless, plaintive, playful, plucky, politic, pompous, pragmatic, precipitous/precipitate, predatory, presumptuous, prickly, prissy, profane, prompt, propitious, provident, prudish, puerile, pumped, puritanical, quarrelsome, quick-tempered, racy, raffish, rash, ready, rebellious, reckless, regardful, relentless, remiss, remorseless, renegade, repugnant, resigned, responsible, restful, restrained, retiring, revolutionary, rocky, rollicking, rootin’-tootin’, rousing, rude, runaway, ruthless

[S-Z] safe, sanctimonious, sassy, savage, scintillating, secluded, self-conscious, self-righteous, sentimental, serpentine, severe, shameful, sheepish, shifty, short-sighted, shy, simple, sincere, skittish, slippery, sluggish, small, smooth, snappy, snide, snooty, sober, soft, solid, sophomoric, spineless, spontaneous, sporting/sportive, sprightly, square, staid, starchy, staunch, stealthy, stiff, stingy, stoic/stoical, stony, strained, strait-laced, strenuous, stringent, stuck-up, suave, submissive, subversive, supercilious, supine, surly, sympathetic, tactful, tame, tearful, tempestuous, tender, tense, thankful, theatrical, thieving/thievish, thoughtless, tight, tipsy, touchy, traitorous, treasonous, truculent, true-blue, turbulent, two-faced, unaffected, unasked, unattached, unbridled, uncivilized, uncontrollable, uncouth, undependable, underhand, unemotional, unfriendly, unguarded, unintentional/unintended, unkind, unmerciful, unprejudiced, unreasonable, unrelenting, unruly, unseemly, unsettled, unsophisticated, unsympathetic, untoward, unwary, unwise, unworldly, uppity, urbane, vainglorious, valorous, vengeful, vibrant, vicious, vigilant, violent, virile, vital, volatile, wacky, wanton, warm, wary, watchful, wayward, well-bred, wicked, willful, wily, winning/winsome, witless, yellow, zany, zealous

NOTE

The above are concepts classified according to subject and usage. It not only helps writers and thinkers to organize their ideas but leads them from those very ideas to the words that can best express them.

It was, in part, created to turn an idea into a specific word. By linking together the main entries that share similar concepts, the index makes possible creative semantic connections between words in our language, stimulating thought and broadening vocabulary. Writing Resources PDFs

Source ⚜ Writing Basics & Refreshers ⚜ On Vocabulary ⚜ Part 1

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.

[abominable-space-they]

A thing I try to remember about Hannibal Lecter is that when he says god would drop a church on a room full of beloved grandmas and laugh about his abuse of power. What he means is, god would murder a little girl in the cruelest manner imaginable then feed that little girl to her brother. Her brother who was a strange little boy that no one understood. A little boy who had no human connections but that little girl. A little boy who as an elder brother was supposed to protect that little girl.

He means he believes god did that, destroyed his sister, his life, future, and universe, not because god works in mysterious ways, but because God works in obviously cruel and capricious ways, because god enjoys the power of destroying the innocent and faithful. He's saying that he has looked at the world, seen the worst and best of humanity, and the only conclusion he could come to was that god thinks hurting his creations is funny.

He has a god complex not because he believes he is a god, not even because he believes he is capable of being as cruel and arbitrary as God.

Hannibal Lecter has a god complex because he believes that a god who would kill a child cruely, and deliver an even more cruel fate on another child for no reason but because he could, does not deserve honoring. He believes that any god that would do such a thing, should not be worshipped, that he should be unseated entirely.

Like Kronos, utterly destroyed for his cruelty to children

He defies god because he believes god should be defied. He worships Will in defiance of god because even as a flawed human who is vicious, vengeful, petty, and mistrusting, even with all his human flaws, Will Graham is more just then god, more reticent to kill then god.

He worships Will Graham as his own personal god of love, death, and war bc he believes Will Graham is more worthy of worship then god.

And that is one hell of a thing

[wilwheaton]

The Supreme Court wrapped up this term with a pair of completely arbitrary and capricious rulings, based on lies and controversies manufactured by far-right political actors, restricting LGBTQ protections and striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Both cases were deeply flawed procedurally, but that wasn’t going to stop the six far-right extremists on the court from imposing their will. This illegitimate court has once again wreaked untold future damage on this country. It has to be stopped.

The Supreme Court is out of control and must be reformed

SCOTUS is dominated and controlled by unelected right wing christian nationalists who are so thoroughly corrupt they present a real and direct threat to every marginalized, Othered, protected class in America.

These are the exact same type of people who supported Dread Scott, and they will do it again if we don’t stop them.

[follow-up-news]

A federal judge on Monday paused plans by the Trump administration to end temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, a week before they were scheduled to expire. The order by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco is a relief for 350,000 Venezuelans whose Temporary Protected Status was set to expire April 7 after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem reversed protections granted by the Biden administration. Chen said in his ruling that the action by Noem “threatens to: inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States.” He said the government had failed to identify any “real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries” and said plaintiffs will likely succeed in showing that Noem’s actions “are unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.”

[transgenderer]

Taking an edible is an act of devotion to tezcatlipoca in his aspect as the god of capricious fate, the eternal arbitrary. I will get however high I get. If I get scared there will be nothing I can do, and I will think it's forever. Exactlt the sort of classic aztec playacting-with-stakes

[astro1derland]

In today’s transits, Mercury at 6° Capricorn ♑️ forms a sextile with Venus at 4° Scorpio ♏️ and a trine with Jupiter at 6° Taurus ♉️. Our intellect and mind align and blend well with our ability to relate, connect and explore past-lives and align and work well with our ability to communicate creatively in an effective manner that brings abundance in a practical, meaningful, intense, and confident way.

Expect the unexpected today. Be happy with the small details today. Be happy with yourself today. Impress yourself today.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Law-Related Vocabulary

for your poem/story (pt. 2/4)

Admiralty - of or relating to conduct on the sea

Alter ego - second self

Attractive nuisance - a thing or condition on one's property that poses a risk to children who may be attracted to it without realizing the risk by virtue of their youth

Bequest - an act of bequeathing

Bequeath - to give by will

Bona vacantia - goods that are unclaimed and without an apparent owner

Capricious - governed or characterized by impulse or whim (e.g., lacking a rational basis; likely to change suddenly); not supported by the weight of evidence or established rules of law—often used in the phrase "arbitrary and capricious"

Colorable - having an appearance of truth, validity, or right

Damnum absque injuria - a loss for which the law provides no means of recovery

Dying declaration - a statement that is made by a person who firmly believes that he or she is about to die and has no hope of recovery and that concerns the circumstances or cause of the presumed death

Eleemosynary - of, relating to, or supported by charity

En ventre sa mere - in the womb

Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured persons in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; called also "mercy killing"

Exculpate - to clear from alleged fault or guilt

Filius nullius - an illegitimate child; bastard; called also "filius populi"

Finger - to accuse or identify as guilty

Fireman's rule - a doctrine holding that a property owner or occupant is not liable for unintentional injuries suffered by firefighters or police officers in responding to a problem on the property

First blush - initial view, appearance, or consideration—used especially in the phrase "at first blush"

First degree - the grade given to the most serious forms of crimes

Hereditament - inheritable property

Homestead - a home and surrounding land

Inchoate - not yet made complete, certain, or specific : not perfected

M'Naghten test - a standard under which a criminal defendant is considered to have been insane at the time of an act (as a killing) if he or she did not know right from wrong or did not understand the moral nature of the act because of a mental disease or defect; called also "M'Naghten rule"

Mulct - fine, penalty

Mysterious disappearance - the loss of property under unknown or puzzling circumstances which are difficult to explain or understand

Pierce - to see through the usually misleading or false appearance of

Poison pill - a financial tactic or provision used by a company to make an unwanted takeover prohibitively expensive or less desirable

Prior art - the processes, devices, and modes of achieving the end of an alleged invention that were known or knowable by due diligence before and at the date of the invention

Pur autre vie - for another's life

Shark repellent - any measure taken by a corporation to discourage a hostile takeover attempt

Silent record - a record of a criminal proceeding which does not show that the defendant acted with knowledge or understanding of his or her rights (as in entering a plea of guilty or waiving the right to counsel)

Sui generis - constituting a class alone; unique or particular to itself

Vexatious - lacking a sufficient ground and serving only to annoy or harass when viewed objectively

Wrongful birth - a malpractice claim brought by the parents of a child born with a birth defect against a physician or health-care provider whose alleged negligence (as in prenatal testing or diagnosis) effectively deprived the parents of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to avoid or terminate the pregnancy

Yellow-dog contract - an illegal employment contract in which a worker disavows membership in and agrees not to join a labor union in order to get a job

More: Law-Related Words ⚜ Word Lists

[argumate]

the idea that a restrictive immigration policy has to be as arbitrarily cruel as trump does it seems unjustified. While it will inevitably involve cruel actions, trump does it in an extra randomly cruel way.

all border control falls on a spectrum from mildly arbitrary, capricious, and cruel, to extremely arbitrary, capricious, and cruel; the problem is the idea that people lose their humanity when they travel.

[rei-ismyname]

TFW your girlfriend is a God

Current state of canon is that this is not Jean Grey at all - it's the Phoenix/it's complicated. Something I've always wondered is - how does the Phoenix feel about Scott Summers? Clearly it cares about Earth and specifically mutants enough to keep coming back to them (except Chuck - kill his ass) so there must be something going on. There's a lot to be said about the gender politics and power dynamics in this panel, but I'll write about that another time.

As I've said before I don't like how The Phoenix has been beaten to death as a storytelling vehicle (though Kieron Gillen's X-Men Forever/RotPox was a rare exception) and diminished in universe through overuse. I find it hard to believe it would force a bunch of Avengers + Wolverine into a bizarre tournament as part of a million year old legacy resulting in multiple Phoenixes fighting Dark Phoenix Mystique (and being Thor's mother.)

It makes the Phoenix look fickle, capricious, and above all arbitrary - with its recent interest in either possessing or fucking members of the Grey-Summers clan a passing fad. Then again, Jean is 'mother-me' and together they impregnated Hope's mother so there must be at least a corner of the White Hot Room that's just for them.

[ciphertology]

" [...] So this is why being introduced to ICP finally makes him snap: it represents a collision between this satirical avatar, the fictional embodiment of this complete joke of an idea, and the fourth wall—breaking exposure to the very content he was designed to mock. On some level Gamzee understands that he's been forced to confront the fact that his entire existence is a joke. He was designed to ridicule that which he reveres. So he just fucking loses it and is never really the same guy again. It's almost a kind of dark, clowny enlightenment, an achievement of chaotic self-awareness. He quite effectively harnesses this grudge by getting revenge on the very story that created him for such humiliating satirical purposes. His method of revenge is linked to Caliborn's modus operandi (whom he comes to revere as the true godhead of his religious beliefs), which is to degrade and defile the story he inhabits. Gamzee's influence appears to be arbitrary, always occuring at the exact right (wrong) moment, to do the exact thing that will fuck things up in a totally incomprehensible way. He becomes an agent of plot chaos, of narrative entropy, and achieves a certain zen in the loathsome, capricious role he plays in the story. These tendencies are linked to his aspect, and could be seen as a certain mastery of it."

bold/italics added by me. anyway this is literally what i am always saying about Gamzee--he is playing a role! he is lashing out against the story itself! he is not a character on the same level as the others are, and, ironically, despite being aware of the falsity of their reality from much earlier on he is the one character doomed to be stuck in the narrative while all the others get to jump ship.

and then:

"Make no mistake: Gamzee sucks. He is, on a conventional layer, a "bad character." His personality is unpleasant, his actions are repellant, and his presence is always an affront to good taste and judgment. Yet, in my view, it's hard to avoid another conclusion that seems to contradict these awful truths about him: there are some potent themes and ideas governing his existence as a character, his actions, and the reasoning behind his dark turn."

hussie admits this is an interesting idea while still dismissing gamzee entirely as an idiotic one dimensional clown. ultimately get the feeling that they believe they wasted the concepts on gamzee but realized they had wrote themself into a wall re: keeping him around. if they thought encouraging fandom to hate him would make them not notice this then well they were mostly right because gamzee is still extremely misunderstood by the majority

[freethebook]

Would you give up everything you have, if it meant getting everything you want?

For Morgan Pajpjow, normalcy is perhaps a relative term. To most, moving to a new town twice a year would be a bit unusual, but that's Morgan's normal, and he's resigned to it. After all, what's the point of making new friends when it would just be wasted effort? So he keeps his head down, content to be ignored by most, and staves off the meddling and antagonism of the few who won't.

But when Morgan finds a silver branch waiting for him on his way home, normalcy abandons him. Down a disused fork in his driveway, he tumbles headfirst into the Otherworld--a land of arbitrary laws ruled by capricious fairies. A dance, a gift, or an invitation suddenly become waiting snares, eager to bind him into servitude. Now, far from home, Morgan will have to learn how to embrace vulnerability and ask for others' help, or face being stranded in the Otherworld forever.

______________________________________________________________

So since April is apparently Indie Promo Month, let's try this again.

Hi Tumblr, I'm Kurt and this is my debut novel! Morgan and the Fey sits squarely in the space where Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom meets the Nibelungenlied. If you're interested in stories about:

Lonely queer teens discovering friends and support,

Pan-European fairylore,

Getting lost in strange worlds,

Magic, whimsy, and maybe a touch of terror,

then this might be your book!

You can find Morgan and the Fey available for purchase as an ebook at any of the locations below:

Amazon

Apple Books

Rakuten Kobo

Smashwords

Everand

Palace Marketplace

And, if you're interested, you can also purchase directly from me at my Payhip!

[jkottke]

Five Former Treasury Secretaries: Our Democracy Is Under Siege. “[We’re writing] this piece because we are alarmed about the risks of arbitrary & capricious political control of federal payments, which would be unlawful & corrosive to our democracy.”

[darkmaga-returns]

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr joked recently that “[m]ore Americans trust gas station sushi than the legacy national media.” That statement, sad but true (or perhaps not so sad), is indicative of the new Trump chair’s approach to his job: to call out the powerhouse institutions that have long gotten a free pass on their relentless bias, illegal DEI practices, and general disservice to the American people. The chairman has had enough, and the left is losing its collective mind as a result.

The current iteration of that fight is prompted by a complaint filed by my organization, the Center for American Rights, against CBS for its misleading editing of then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ interview with 60 Minutes. The chairman has taken those charges seriously (as he should) and held a public comment period that ended this week. Numerous everyday Americans spoke up, critical of CBS’s electioneering, while left-wing senators and media groups are outraged at the supposed assault on the First Amendment.

Typical is Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has opened an “Inquiry into FCC’s Political Targeting of Newsrooms” from his post as ranking member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In his release announcing the probe, Blumenthal lambasts the FCC for its “unprecedented, intrusive investigations against media broadcasters under arbitrary and capricious pretenses.” The senator is concerned that these “vexatious investigation[s]” by the FCC “may be designed to intimidate newsrooms,” so he’s apparently decided to launch his own investi

[the-cimmerians]

A federal judge in Texas recently blocked a new Federal Trade Commission rule that would have prohibited new employee non-compete agreements starting September 4. Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 20 that the FTC lacked the power to prevent employers from requiring even entry-level fast food workers to enter into really stupid contracts that prohibit them from getting better jobs at competing businesses. And maybe, given recent Supreme Court rulings, the FTC has no power to regulate anything at all, you never know.

Noncompete agreements were supposedly needed to keep executives and industrial secret-havers from stealing important “trade secrets” — like “Arby’s Arby-Q barbecue sandwiches contain no more than 30 percent roadkill” — and giving them to competing businesses. But for workers below the management level, the agreements all too frequently suppressed wages and kept people from changing jobs or starting their own businesses. That’s why Joe Biden started calling for an end to the damn things since his 2023 State of the Union address.

Backers of the FTC rule argued that existing intellectual property laws do a fine job of protecting genuine trade secrets, and that for the vast majority of folks, noncompete agreements amounted to cartel-style barriers to competition. The agency estimated the rule could potentially increase wages by as much as $488 billion over the next decade, amounting to a $524 annual wage increase for the average worker.

But businesses of all sorts, mostly Big, and the US Chamber of Commerce objected, arguing that stifling competition is the American way, and that the FTC has no business interfering with how they break their workers’ spirits and keep wages down. Judge Brown held that the FTC “exceeded its statutory authority,” that the rule was “arbitrary and capricious,” an attitude that is reserved solely for petty dictator jackwad bosses, and that the rule would “cause irreparable harm” to said jackwad plaintiffs.

When the rule was introduced in April, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan argued that the “freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy,” and that noncompete agreements unfairly limited workers’ freedom to seek higher wages and better work conditions, and that noncompetes were bad for business too, “depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand.”

The ruling is pretty much guaranteed to go to the US Supreme Court, because in July, a different federal judge in Pennsylvania upheld the FTC rule, noting in that case that “The FTC's substantive rulemaking authority has been confirmed by circuit courts interpreting the FTC Act, as well as by Congress when it enacted its 1975 and 1980 Amendments to the Act,” which sounds convincing enough until you remember that was a long time ago and the Supreme Court now believes businesses can do almost anything they want.

If we’re lucky, the case may eventually be resolved without the Supremes deciding that indentured servitude is also legal again.