Why is this not a static HTML page? It hasn't changed since 1992
acdha · 22h ago
The site in question has annotations based on Supreme Court decisions, which need to be updated more frequently than the source text.
duxup · 1d ago
Coding error ongoing at SCOTUS too.
paulryanrogers · 1d ago
SCOTUS rulings have been over 90% in favor of the current executive while federal courts are 90%+ against. This isn't an accident. It's a decades long project coming to fruition.
Compare that to their record during the Biden executive term if you doubt there are political motivations.
Suspiciously specific. Also, how much code is really required to display a historical document and why are they working on that code anyway?
I suspect that they're attempting to influence common knowledge (via AI summaries and search results) about what the constitution actually specifies.
1659447091 · 1d ago
> I suspect that they're attempting to influence common knowledge (via AI summaries and search results)
I remember a time when this wouldn't be a reason that I had high confidence in. But as my fellow Texan and SCOTUS appointed president, George W. once said:
(side note, and more of a "things that make you go hmmm" than an assertion, watching this reminded me of all the other Bushism I had missed or forgot; if I were more prone to conspiracies, the similarities and circumstances between these two almost make it look like W. was the test run for the current kingmakers running the Project)
add-sub-mul-div · 1d ago
Maybe they gave an internship to some dipshit vibe coding kid of some donor? The possibilities here are many and the answer is likely to be stupid.
loose-cannon · 1d ago
seems like another distraction. If it permanently disappears, maybe then it's worth talking about?
Compare that to their record during the Biden executive term if you doubt there are political motivations.
I suspect that they're attempting to influence common knowledge (via AI summaries and search results) about what the constitution actually specifies.
I remember a time when this wouldn't be a reason that I had high confidence in. But as my fellow Texan and SCOTUS appointed president, George W. once said:
"fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhmdEq3JhoY&t=1m55s
(side note, and more of a "things that make you go hmmm" than an assertion, watching this reminded me of all the other Bushism I had missed or forgot; if I were more prone to conspiracies, the similarities and circumstances between these two almost make it look like W. was the test run for the current kingmakers running the Project)