as the Administration refuses to level with Congress

Any plan, classified or not, shared with the Republicans will be in Putin’s sight within seconds.

Too bad he was too decent to name the place. Any retribution that might happen is richly deserved.

That’s how it should work but not how it works.

It’s more like an open-source project going closed-source. They can do that at any time.

Open source products, back in the day, competed against the giant corporations of their time, which spent vast sums on R&D, and yet succeeded. That’s because massive organizations lack agility, suck at innovation and fail to inspire people with real talent. They might make a few prestige hires here and there, but who wants to work for Microsoft or for a greedhead VC tech bro, even if it means a big payday? And there are more ethical organizations around that are not controlled by Altman or other greedhead tech bros like Zuckerberg.

Sociopaths and toxic narcissists comprise only a small percentage of the population, and most of them lack even rudimentary business acumen. I don’t advocate your hypothetical strategy, but if it were sustained, they would eventually run out of those categories of sleazeballs.

“Open” could also mean open publication of papers, open standards for APIs, or (most likely) Altman’s grabby hand always being open for for money.

“Open” doesn’t imply “non-profit.” In fact, it doesn’t imply much of anything In that way it’s like “Active” or “Direct” which are or were used as parts of a number of Microsoft product names.

Everyone with a clue should quit and go over to Anthropic.

The goal is torture.

It’s depressing how many assholes there are out there.

No, he’s a hazard to others and belongs in a cage.

As long as it’s slow and painful, bloodless would be OK too.

The idea that one branch limiting another requires “popular appeal or a Constitutional Amendment” is a bit misleading.

No, it’s plainly incorrect. I was able to come up with three or four counterexamples immediately, and I’m no kind of Constitutional lawyer.

It rules on whether Consitutionally stated powers and their limits apply to specific executive acts and legislation. So yes.

Yep, straight-up power grab, and neither Congress or the President pushed back.

The Constitution lists a number of checks and balances that don’t require a Constitutional amendment. “Last without popular appeal” is just an assumption that we live in a democracy, it’s true of all government actions in that case, and so is almost tautological.

For example, presidential vetoes are used frequently, limiting the power of the Legislative branch, and not requiring a Constitutional Amendment. Same goes for the advise-and-consent powers that the Legislative branch can exercise over presidential appointments. There are plenty more.

The fact that Section 2 plainly says that Congress can regulate how the Court exercises that appellate jurisdiction?

Yes, the Constitution distinguishes “appellate jurisdiction” and “original jurisdiction.” Some cases go straight to the Supremes: for example, disputes between states. That’s original jurisdiction. They try those cases. But appellate jurisdiction is specifically mentioned as something that Congress can regulate, though Congress never has, just as they have never passed legislation to allow enforcement of the Emoluments Clause.

Here’s Section 2, boldface is my own:

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.

That’s very much not “all cases.” There is a very clear qualification added to that. It’s an instance of checks and balances that have never been exercised, since the Supreme Court has only done a small number of power grabs over the year-- the biggest being that, absent Congressional action, they granted themselves the power of judicial review, which is a distinct power from appellate jurisdiction. And that has been something that, through inertia, spinelssness or fear of opening cans of worms, Congress has never addressed, despite having the power to do so.

That would require a Constitutional amendment. That’s where the justices’ term length is defined.

And, like term limits, it would have no effect on corruption, though it would reduce institutional knowledge retention. More power to the Heritage Society? That’s how you get it.

Supreme Court justices have very little in common with average Americans.