timothyraben.bsky.social
Genetics. Physics. Tango. Dogs. Musicals. Courts. https://traben.github.io/
504 posts
213 followers
670 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Doesn't the admin think trump controls them unilaterally anyway? Can't he just revoke them without cause? Or just mumble "national security"?
comment in response to
post
I was so caught up in the break up that I forgot this was happening!
comment in response to
post
If i remember correctly from ashg2024 there was a bunch of talks about rare variants in PGS and most of the effect was in the tails. I too wouldn't be surprised if there is GxG there too.
comment in response to
post
Also wanted to mention some colleagues of mine showed some of the limitations of deeply learning for a few ukb traits a few years ago.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Data and methods have improved since then but it seems a lot of the limitations are still there.
comment in response to
post
lolol I was sure I was missing some obvious and well known reference to the Ormonter literature.
comment in response to
post
I have major questions about this!
comment in response to
post
His views on who gets to be in a class don't reassure me for the upcoming habeas class fights.
comment in response to
post
I'll note that in addition to NN we built some simple non linear models and found that we could use them to find a "fake" non linear signal when the underlying genetic model was linear. Seems very similar to your result here.
comment in response to
post
Congrats to all!
I'm feeling a wee bit scooped as I had been pushing along this line for a little while now, but excited to dig in regardless.
comment in response to
post
I'd be interested to read about this if you know any good literature?
My lay impression is the current scotus won't care, but I'm interested in the ideas regardless.
comment in response to
post
I get the feeling there is a lot of talking past each other in this thread.
If I am understanding you wouldn't object if the university "investigated" without telling the target/student?
comment in response to
post
Be careful what you comment on, be careful what you spend time on, and be careful what you give attention to. Especially on anonymous forums.
comment in response to
post
I really do think sometimes this current court is marching toward the idea that regardless of statute or the constitution, the only constraint on an executive is impeachment (as long as they are willing to give up some financial liability)
comment in response to
post
I think the circuit court is trying to tee up the idea that while scotus might rule mspb isn't independent from potus, potus can't just ignore the statute.
Although my guess is this scotus would say that is a "political question" and say only impeachment solves it.
comment in response to
post
I think good evidence for this is the American Constitution Society. It doesn't have nearly the power as fed soc and has been around for over 20 years.
comment in response to
post
Kagan has long had a reputation of someone who is always trying to be a "deals" person on the court. I think the most likely thing here is that Kagan didn't join the public dissent because she thinks it will give her leverage on the eventual case decision.
(Not saying I endorse this strategy)
comment in response to
post
We actually don't know the votes on this, we just know Jackson and Sotomayor *publicly* dissented and explained their reasoning. It's very possible Kagan did as well.
comment in response to
post
I'll just add that it's really, really easy to break stuff. Almost all of Musk/Doge's "accomplishments" are just breaking and shutting down things in the government. None of this took any special skills or know-how. It was just walking around with a sledge hammer.
comment in response to
post
Doesn't give me hope, but isn't that slightly better than the reverse?
comment in response to
post
"One of the intended use cases is wearing the device around the neck."
So it's jewelry? I.e. the *point* of the thing is to be decorative?
comment in response to
post
NIL era is wild.
comment in response to
post
Gonna take me a while to figure out how I feel about this because it seems clearly that the Apache are getting screwed, but I don't love the expansion of "religion trumps everything" world view that seems to be coming from the Roberts court.
comment in response to
post
I'm in a few "adult" leagues and occasionally we have some young pups join and it can be...exhausting...
comment in response to
post
Yes
comment in response to
post
I remember when we were all like "yes keep calling them weird!" And then it just disappeared without a trace.
comment in response to
post
I don't think the onus is on people to *prove* things didn't happen, but I think it's really easy to come out and just say "yeah no, nothing like that was going on". If nothing like that was going on that is.
comment in response to
post
I should add Bagley and Mortensons work about delegation at the founding has also convinced me that "unitary executive " isn't originalist.
comment in response to
post
Re the stare decisis approach. Dress it up in all the Latin you want, but I don't think there is any reasonable way to interpret that approach to Humphrey's as the court admitting "law be damned, we like the policy choice of keeping the fed independent".
comment in response to
post
I was also surprised that coming from an originalist scholar, thr article doesn't try to shed light on if "unitary executive" theory is "originalist". My view, greatly influenced by Shugerman's writing and judging it against the backdrop of the politics it has embraced, is that it's not.
comment in response to
post
I think it's pretty easy to argue that letting a single person easily and quickly wield (all?) executive power has a lot of downside.
It also makes it likely that the entire executive branch wildly changes with pres party changes (something the court said was bad when it overturned chevron)
comment in response to
post
This oped does a fine job explaining why what the court did this week is not unexpected or even out of line with extremely recent precedents.
It doesn't really touch on whether these recent decisions are good or bad.
comment in response to
post
The bar of my expectations wasn't even above ground, but this week's "all (republican) policy, no law" proclamations from the court have really caught me off guard. I keep telling myself this court can't surprise me anymore...and yet...
comment in response to
post
Whilr i agree, I think a lot of everyday people are burnt out from two administrations of protests, marches, fires on TV etc.
I think public resistance really needs to start coming from people, politicians, and companies with more power.
comment in response to
post
Cant tell of this is a dig at the gobbledegook that just overruled Humphreys, but if it's about real teeth problems then godspeed!
comment in response to
post
As part of our constitutional reconstruction to undo what has become for all intents and purposes an elective monarchy (with the elective part at risk), it's not just Humphrey's. We should reject root and branch this whole concept of unfettered presidential firing power as a constitutional mandate.
comment in response to
post
Also here's a bunch of policy issues Manchin ran out ahead on to kill early, even tho he wasn't running for reelection:
taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/joe-m...
comment in response to
post
Here's a bunch of other biden judges manchin opposed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bid...
comment in response to
post
He certainly did not vote for every biden judge.
news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/...
comment in response to
post
Well it's semi-private, but not from the semi-private region of France so it obviously doesn't count toward the "fed is a special baby, pls don't freak out markets" theory of constitutional law.
comment in response to
post
When push came to shove Manchin did things like vote for Kavanaugh.
comment in response to
post
Manchin went out of his way to shit on dems, shoot down proposals, and voted for gop nominees even when he wasn't running for reelection.
Manchin was bad, but Sinema was worse. (Tester was good imo!)
comment in response to
post
Kagan's dissent, effectively (and accurately) characterizing Roberts and his fellow judicial wingnuts as political operatives and liars, should be the headline and lede here:
comment in response to
post
Reread this in light of today's gobbledygook overruling of Humphrey's on the emergency docket. Really makes me question your framing of the court not being one of the "political branches" as you say.