I'm intrigued by some of these international butterflies...
No problem. It would be really cool if Vice President Meredith is nominated for the Republicans as President going up againstJesse Jackson for the Democrats. Two African Americans on both sides for President in the new millenniumThanks!
I hope you voted in the poll; those things influence TTL, y'know!
Because Gore's dad never lost re-election, Jr stayed in his original career as a reporter and then branched out into documentary filmmaking (I think I mentioned this in an earlier chapter or two, I'll have to check...). So he hasn't held political office. I'll mention him in the next chapter!
How do you have a "court challenge" to a Supreme Court ruling? SCOTUS is by definition unappealable.Driver’s proposal was DOA in the realms of technology and commerce. Its implementation would be very costly, let alone the difficulty of its enforcement, and would no doubt lead to even further litigation. As a result of its overall very poor reception, the comments were swept under the metaphorical rug, and the Dinger Administration’s Attorney General and Justice Department resumed focus on the court challenges to the 6-to-3 ruling...
Right, but the logic there is that enough of the original Roe v Wade justices have left the court and been replaced by conservatives that maybe the SCOTUS will change its mind now -- it's not the sort of strategy that would work right after a ruling.I think the part about it being challenged was the result of me thinking about recent calls in OTL for Roe v Wade to be overturned, i.e., challenged.
Whoops! I must have mixed up some notes or something. I think that bit is supposed to be for the 2010 World Series. My apologies; I'll delete it.Woo Jesse won! Also how the hell are Chris Paul, Kevin Durant, Deron Williams and Al Horford, playing for the Mets? They'd all be 16 or younger at the time.
Yeah, the ruling was in response to growing concerns among some groups of people that anonymity would be used for nefarious purposes (hacking, financial fraud, cyberterrorism, etc). I think the part about it being challenged was the result of me thinking about recent calls in OTL for Roe v Wade to be overturned, i.e., challenged.How do you have a "court challenge" to a Supreme Court ruling? SCOTUS is by definition unappealable.
Now, depending on what legal grounds SCOTUS used to declare internet anonymity illegal (...and TBH I'm really struggling to think of the legal logic used here), Congress could attempt a legislative fix to the ruling.
Good points! Thank you for the help/constructive criticism, I really appreciate this! I’ll be sure to incorporate these ideas/developments into the TL’s future chapters and possibly retcon it so it was a state supreme court ruling! Again, thanks!Right, but the logic there is that enough of the original Roe v Wade justices have left the court and been replaced by conservatives that maybe the SCOTUS will change its mind now -- it's not the sort of strategy that would work right after a ruling.
I'm also just not sure about the court banning anonymity, simply because the Court's not going to do anything without being able to point to a Constitutional right violated by the act in question -- creating positive law in the name of "public safety" simply isn't the Court's job.
It would make more sense to have a legislature do the initial ban (if not Congress, then a state like California which is large enough to effectively force a whole market to change its ways), the tech companies to go to SCOTUS to overturn the law, SCOTUS goes "nah bro, that law's Constitutional" (IIRC the Court declined to find a "right to privacy" in alt-Roe v. Wade here, so that makes sense). So then the Administration's in the position of either helping the tech companies comply with the "California law" or finding ways to challenge the ruling by saying "Okay, so states can ban anonymity but this specific method of enforcement is unconstitutional, etc."