That's like saying "This broken iPhone 13 sold on eBay for only $80. That's a big problem."

An LLC paid $25K because the bank owning the home was willing to sell it for $25K. And that's not because the bank hated money. If someone else had been willing to pay more then it would have sold for more. That's how foreclosure auctions work.

Foreclosed homes generally sell for a lot less because the occupant often causes a legal and physical mess and most home buyers are not interested in dealing with it.

It mysteriously acquired an additional window.

Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.

So I don't see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.

And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That's why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.

You said you would not send anyone to prison but cannot offer any alternatives.

Now let me tell you why a policy of not punishing people like Lucy Letby is a terrible idea. She would become a target of revenge-minded people, possibly even the parents of the infants she killed.

She would be tortured and/or killed by individuals who felt justice hadn't been done. After all, if Lucy Letby doesn't face serious repercussions for her actions, then her killer has no reason to worry either.

For better or worse, people demand retribution. Government must provide it, otherwise people will take matters into their own hands.

Her diary said that she enjoyed watching parents suffer and that she knew she was evil.

What other factors would be relevant?

She murdered seven infants. What more information would you need in this case?

Would you punish her or sentence her at all? If so, how?

"Actings" generally can do some but not all of the things that a confirmed candidate can do.

Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOTUS in any case that involves a particular law. Which includes a law that they just passed.

The key is that when the SCOTUS reviews laws, it is nearly always exercising its power of appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. And the Constitution allows Congress to impose whatever regulations it wants over appellate jurisdiction. So if the SCOTUS isn't allowed to hear cases involving a law, then it can't strike down that law.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

For one thing, understanding implies that a word is linked to a mental concept. So if you say "The car is red", you first need to mentally compare the mental concept of "red" to the car in question.

The Chinese room bypasses all of that, it can say "The car is red" without ever having seen a red object at all.

I don't have a problem with that. There are plenty of decent Mormons, just like there are plenty of decent people in any religion.

But I do have a problem with Card's rabid homophobia.

Personally, I don't see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.

Personally, I don't see how people using adblockers can be abusive. It is their computer and they can display whatever content they want with it. It is their choice whether an ad plays on it or not. If YouTube thinks the adblockers are out of control, they can start paying people money to watch content on YouTube's computers.