one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.
I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
Wow .26mm of disparity is a lot for such a crucial part. It may not be a high end printer. But seriously? At $280 USD I’d expect the pulley to be tighter tolerance.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I’d guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer’s salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.
It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.
That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.
Forestalling legislation is one of the most pernicious aspects of certain judicial rulings. Rather than concrete protections we get thin shells waiting for a new ruling to crack.
TLDR a history of French colonialism which is why people want Kenya at the wheel on any intervention rather than a former colonial power.
I feel bad for Suno’s lawyer.
Wasn’t Ethiopia never colonized?
PCs. Gaming laptop underperform for price, are larger than non gaming laptops, and generally are less serviceable & durable. Just the entire market segment lags behind.
Here’s a few on reports:
-If you think it merits a report report it.
-If you’re unsure if it breaks a rule DM a mod.
-Idealy on a report write the rule # broken. If you’re typing past three sentences it’s may have unnecessary info.
-If someone is breaking a “don’t be mean” rule, the answer isn’t for you to break it too.
Here’s a few non report ways you can help:
-Set a positive tone.
-A lot of good posts/comments probably never get heard because people think it’s too lower effort or no one is interested.
-Crosspost to related communities to help people find related communities.
We acknowledge that you may use this container for refuse. And we’ve decided to write “DRINKING WATER” on the side in big text, just in case you don’t.
That seems like a pretty standard UoF continuum for that kind of mission.
Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president’s official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.
If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they’d have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.
As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don’t sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.