Laws override precedent. The court’s job is explicitly to interpret the laws made by congress. Precedent is simply the way that previous courts have interpreted the laws at the time. If the relevant laws to the case haven’t changed since the previous case, that is where precedent comes in. If there are new laws written by congress then those are more important than precedent.

Another user brought up the idea that they might still try to rule the new law unconstitutional but that would be a much harder bar to achieve legitimately since the constitution is intentionally rather succinct. Of course if the court is corrupt and no one actually challenges their power I suppose they could say anything they want- precedent overrules laws, anything they don’t like is unconstitutional, for the low low price of a vacation getaway you too can influence my rulings, etc. But legally speaking laws override precedent and doing away with a law because it is unconstitutional is an extremely high bar which can’t realistically be met by the vast majority of laws unless the law directly goes against the few rules that the constitution establishes.

Not sure what the solution would be that is proposed by the legal experts but it seems to me that we already have a system for dealing with that for the office of the president in the form of vice presidents etc taking over if they die. Not that you should have to have an entire chain of people ready to take over for every SC justice but rather, if one dies or retires or whatever before their 18 years is up then a replacement can be appointed to finish the remainder of their term.

That explanation ignores the “fix it” comment. Even being extremely generous and going with the line of thinking that you proposed and further adding that by “fix it” he meant that he would fix all of the problems of our country within the next term, that would still require the assumption that he has no values for which he believes needs to be stood up for after next term. Or more specifically that he doesn’t think it matters who is elected in the future. While I do believe that he is extremely egotistical and to a certain extent doesn’t care about anyone else, I have a hard time believing that he would be equally okay with anyone being elected even after his presumptive second term. The only way that I can see any of these comments making sense is if he is talking about rigging or altogether doing away with elections.

And to be clear I’m not trying to argue with you since I understand you aren’t saying you agree with the statement you made. I’m just pointing out that you would have to do much more mental gymnastics than even that in order to get to some sort of excuse for those comments.

Bills in the US can originate from either the house or the Senate. If it passes one then it goes to the other. If it passes both then it goes to the President to be signed into law.

E: technically there is an exception that bills for raising revenue have to originate in the house but that the Senate can propose or concur with amendments. But for all intents and purposes the vast majority of bills can originate in either body.

Or more precisely since that sounds like “part of bullet that shattered”, shrapnel in this case most likely being glass from a broken teleprompter.

It is very clear legally speaking. There is a clause specifically to address this issue in the constitution called the supremacy clause. The way that it works is that if there is a federal law that specifies something then it takes priority over state laws. Some of the things that you mentioned would fall into both federal and state categories like education where states have some control but must also abide by federal regulations.

The only exception to this rule is cannabis and the only reason that it has worked this way is because cannabis reform is so widely popular across the US that if the federal government were to withhold funding or otherwise punish states for making and enforcing laws that go against the supremacy clause it would not go over well for the politicians that make that decision. They know that federal cannabis regulations truly are outdated and not in touch with our modern society. That being said, supremacy clause is still in effect and the federal cannabis laws are still absolutely enforceable even in states where cannabis is “legal”. The federal government simply chooses not to enforce those laws there most of the time.

Child labor laws absolutely do not fall into that same category as the vast majority of people don’t believe that child labor laws are outdated. The waters are not muddy on this issue at all.

The MGS games make no sense in the ways that you’ve already pointed out, but at the same time there is a lot of very well thought out plot that does make sense in the context of the universe that he’s built.

In short, lmao it makes no sense and it’s one of my favorite series.

The difference is that being the nominee and potentially being elected again would entail 4 more years of being the president. It is possible to believe that Biden is currently capable enough to finish out this term while also believing that he is showing signs which indicate he might not be fit for another 4 years.

Even within those services you could also just have an actual library that functions the same way as an iPod. You can create playlists or just play your entire library if that’s what you want. There is no need to interact with any algorithm in order to use these services.

Taking away protections for people wanting to join/form unions may make it harder to make that decision, and we should fight against those trying to remove those protections, but let’s not forget that they can’t take away the power that a unified workforce has. If every worker at Amazon decided that they were all going to stop doing their jobs at the same time and demand better working conditions it doesn’t matter what Congress says, it’s a matter of business for Amazon. Even if Amazon technically has the right to fire everyone because of the shitheads in Congress taking away all protection for unions, it is simply not a wise financial decision to try to rehire an entire workforce and train them all at the same time without anyone left to do the training, all while not making any money during this time and making their customers mad. It is much easier to just give some concessions and improve the working conditions to get their current workforce to come back. Of course this is an extreme example but it doesn’t take literally the entire workforce doing this to functionally cripple a company. And of course the demands can’t be so unreasonable that the company is unable to provide them. But this IS possible to achieve in reality. It takes a large group of people working together for the benefit of everyone but it is absolutely possible, even without protections which didn’t always exist by the way. So even if those protections go away temporarily, don’t give up on the idea of unions. That is what they really want. Fight for fair working conditions. And fight to elect politicians who will put in place/keep protections for unions. Don’t give up because that’s the only way that they win. Even a king has no power if his subjects refuse to kneel.

I recently got two of those exact same USPS ones which I reported as spam and blocked. They must have a really large operation.

Rip

Obviously we still have political protesters and things like that but nowadays things are so divided politically that it is typically a topic that you would avoid in everyday conversation. If you were to bring up anything political with your coworker at a get together after hours for example and you find that you are on opposite ends of the political spectrum it could make it very difficult to work together at best and potentially endanger you at worst.

To add onto your already excellent answer, another reason that going vegan for purely health reasons doesn’t make sense is that, as you said, veganism isn’t a diet. Or more specifically, the ethical stance that is veganism includes more considerations than just food. Someone that eats plant based foods only may not care about things like leather or other animal products that they may use on a daily basis that aren’t part of their diet. That person wouldn’t be vegan, but rather simply eating a plant based diet. I don’t mean to be pedantic but that is the distinction between being vegan and eating a plant based diet and there is no reason to be entirely vegan for health reasons alone unless you want to take it to the extreme and say that you don’t use animal products like leather because the animal agriculture industry creates pandemics and contributes significantly towards global warming. Despite those being perfectly valid (and important) reasons to be vegan I think that it’s a bit of a stretch to call those personal health reasons.

I’d also just like to add that nutritional yeast is a great source of vitamin B12 and is naturally vegan.

https://youtu.be/zHbv2YQ6yF4

Good video covering the incident in detail

Thank you. That’s about what I suspected. And an email may not technically be a paywall but imo if they’re going to sell it or even just use it to spam me with shit that’s just another form of payment. I could make a fake email address or something but honestly I’m not going to go through all of that for what seems like a clearly shitty article from that parts that I can see.

Paywall link + no context given as to what actually occurred other than someone claiming that they are being silenced. That very well may be true but without more context I can’t make that determination. It may also well be true that the claims by the DoJ are true and that the narrator of this article is an unreliable narrator.

If you want me to think or feel a particular way then don’t lock the article behind a paywall and give actual context so that I can come to my own conclusions.

That is one of the most disgusting websites I’ve ever seen. If you’re reading this please don’t click the link.

What you’re referring to are legal classifications that prevent discrimination in very specific circumstances such as when applying for a job. When someone decides to make fun of vegans they absolutely DO NOT think to themselves “is that a legally protected class? No? Okay, I’m in the clear.” This reasoning is blatantly incorrect.

If this were the actual reason then why do people also discriminate against groups that are protected classes like women? The answer is because we aren’t in a court. We are talking about social values, not legal ones. Despite how much of a fucking asshole it would make someone to be misogynistic in their daily life there is nothing preventing them from doing so other than the fear of being outcast by their peers. It only becomes illegal in very specific circumstances.

I can’t speak for the people that made the community but I don’t think that places like this are necessarily made by vegans for vegans as you describe. Personally I can attest that it’s just extremely frustrating to be made to feel like an out group in the ONE community where you shouldn’t be made to feel like that. I personally welcome nonvegans to participate in discussion so long as they come with the understanding that they are a guest in our community and should respect the community as such which does include taking care to not come across as tone deaf. I’m not religious and in fact actively oppose religion but if I found myself at a church for whatever reason I’m not going to go in there and start a bunch of arguments and whatnot. I would be respectful because I understand that going to their place of worship and causing a commotion is uncalled for and doesn’t benefit anyone. To be clear, I’m not trying to say that veganism is a religion because it is not and it is not viewed in the same way as religion is by its followers. I am merely using the analogy to illustrate how you should act when going into a community that you are not a part of.