comment: >
  
  "But Hillary's emails!!" was always propaganda that the media willingly gave energy to--and along with Comey et al, helped elect the Putin stooge.
context: A burn bag is a security bag that holds sensitive or classified documents which are to be destroyed by fire or pulping after a certain period of time. The most common usage of burn bags is by government institutions, in the destruction of classified materials.
  If anybody didn't know, I had to look it up myself >
  
  I work for a bank-like company that has to meet strict financial-services industry security compliance. We have big locked, closed trash bins with slots in the top around the office. If you have documents containing PII (personally identifying information) about customers or other data subject to security protocols, you slide the documents in the slot, and a secure shredding company shows up periodically, takes those bins for shredding and replaces them with empty ones. 
  How hard could this be for the SCOTUS?
  Edit: a commenter elsewhere pointed out that these types of bins can't be used for classified documents. My point wasn't that this particular solution would work for the SCOTUS but that there are well established, tried-and-true mechanisms that they could adopt appropriate to the info that they need to protect. The SCOTUS is just winging it when every other agency that handles classified documents uses such methods and protocols. >
  
  You cannot use those for classified documents. >
  
  You cant use secure bins but you can leave them in a bag open in a hallway? >
  
  You could if you hired a company with the appropriate clearance to take control and shred it. But something like the nsa has so many caveats and specific projects that it is a bit more complicated. But yes, there do exist many better ways than leaving a bag in the hall. >
  
  But the hall method is so secure. >
  
  And oh so convenient! >
  
  “This has been going on for years,” one former employee said. >
  
  So the SCOTUS is widely understood by staff to be a lawless place? What a molestation of our legal system. >
  
  No accountability means no need to follow laws.  Who's going to prosecute them? >
  
  Again, fucking TERM LIMITS. How is this not a given? They are unelected officials. If anyone should have a term limit, it is those who have not been elected by the people. These fucks are more powerful and untouchable than any sitting president, any elected congressman or order government official from city to state to federal government, while they quietly steer our country without accountability. >
  
  That doesn't fix the problem of zero accountability. >
  
  Pepperidge Farms remembers just a few years ago there were loud call to lock people up for doing work from personal emails...
  Of course, those same people were silent before and after the lock-up calls when it was their people doing work from personal emails... >
  
  This is a planted story to cover for the fact that one of the judges leaked the Dobbs decision. They weren't hacked or something. >
  
  “Alito” fixed* >
  
  Given that Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby contraception opinion over dinner with christian activists who befriended him for the sole purpose of swaying his rulings, I think they are looking for leaks in the wrong places. >
  
  He also leaked the Roe v Wade decision, which is why Repiblicans were so quick to switch from "TREASON!" to "ehhh whatever". >
  
  
  The problem with the justices’ use of emails persisted in part because some justices were slow to adopt to the technology and some court employees were nervous about confronting them to urge them to take precautions, one person said. Such behavior meant that justices weren’t setting an example to take security seriously.
  
  It’s time for term limits. >
  
  I work in a federal agency. Basic competency with Excel makes you a wizard in the eyes of the long-timers. >
  
  I’ve amazed some coworkers with my use of bcc for emails. >
  
  Although bcc comes from a dead tree world, very commonly used many decades ago >
  
  Same with the floppy disk icon used for save. >
  
  I have worked for the US government twice. Once as a system analyst and the other as a cyber security position(can’t be too specific) and we had to do about 5 hours of yearly training on how to handle sensitive information. Cool to see the politicians who force us to do that fail their own rules. This illegitimate Supreme Court is a joke. >
  
  What kinda systems are ya in Kahn >
  
  Mr. Kahn >
  
  So you’ve gotta do your own typing, huh? >
  
  Why are everyday Americans held to a higher standard than government officials? What insanity. >
  
  Why did everyone make a big deal out of Hillary’s emails ffs? >
  
  Puppet theater. 
  The illusion of appearing to be doing something meaningful, while that something simultaneously destroys the credibility of the next likely Democrat presidential nominee. 
  They had nothing, They knew they had nothing. They didn't care. Multiple investigations was the point. Conviction never was.
  And it worked.
  Expect it to continue. >
  
  
  Democrat presidential nominee
  
  Democratic presidential nominee >
  
  
  dem·o·crat
     1. an advocate or supporter of democracy.
     "as a democrat, I accepted the outcome of the referendum"
     2. a member of the Democratic Party.
  
  Both work here, thought I feel that saying "Democratic" requires that you follow it with "Party". But when referring to an individual, "Democrat" works. >
  
  Democratic is an adjective. Democrat is a noun. 
  'Democrat Presidential Nominee' sounds like it's a presidential nominee that happens to be a Democrat, as opposed to 'Democratic Nominee' which is a nominee of/representing the Democratic party.
  I agree both work but they convey slightly different meanings and people are used to seeing the adjective. >
  
  I know you're not disagreeing with me, but I want to go deeper into the semantics:
  They're all nouns. No adjectives. 
  Both democrat and democratic have the same meaning outside of party affiliation: "an advocate or supporter of democracy." 
  "I am democratic."
  "I am a democrat."
  Neither have party affiliation. Both mean "I am a supporter of democracy."
  Republicans can be democratic and a democrat nominee for their pary. Can.....
  I feel it's more a matter of capitalization (making it a proper noun? I'm fuzzy here, but  I think that's the right term) than anything.
  It's simply preference for someone to say Democratic nominee vs Democrat nominee when the party will only ever put forth one party nominee. When that changes, I'll be more selective with my noun - because then neither would work as it would be co-nominee. Until then, I see no need to fret over it, and I really wish people like dude above would quit trying to make me care, as if only they are right. >
  
  Finish that paragraph, and you'll see that I already know this. >
  
  They're technically not "unimpeachable" but... yeah, good look with the political circus in Congress. >
  
  A conservative Supreme Court justice could probably commit murder and there wouldn’t be enough Republican votes in the senate to reach 2/3 and impeach. >
  
  If they did, republicans would invite them to go on speaking tours with Kyle Rittenhouse and that cop who shot Breonna Taylor. Lately being a murderer seems like a quick way to become a celebrity with them. >
  
  While decrying the innocent death of babbitt. >
  
  When there is no accountability, and the people at the top have jobs for life, why would they bother with even the smallest inconvenience.
  The SCOTUS justices are literally gods - non-elected, jobs for life with immense power, impossible to remove, no oversight or accountability. >
  
  Yeah the GOP has never actually cared about OPSEC or data control. >
  
  This is not a partisan problem, as evident by the discovery of Biden having confidential documents in his home from when he was a Senator. >
  
  r/confidentlyincorrect >
  
  Buttery males. >
  
  Oh yeah, didn't they find those on Hunter Biden's Laptop^TM ? >
  
  Lifetime appointments. Never been impeached. Ethical violations get a wrist slap. Fines are a joke. Supreme court appointments are like Presidencies. They're effectively extra legal.
  I'm shocked anyone else is shocked. >
  
  They're like kings and queens more than presidents. At least presidents can be voted in and voted out instead of having a life-time appointment. The US basically has a total of 9 kings and queens.