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.
The Supreme Court even today has over twice the approval rating as Congress (that’s not saying much). Overthrowing one branch of government seems like a novel idea. There is a process for removing justices but it’s never been done before. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, and he wasn’t even removed from the bench.
I feel bad for Suno’s lawyer.
By men you mean males
Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.
and what was the color of their skin?
Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
This 1619 type revisionism not only portrays the period in an inaccurate shade but diminishes the accomplishments of men, like Peter Salem, and ignores facts agreed upon universally by academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.
The choice to have a gun at all actually increases your risk of being victim of a violent crime, and that’s just the odds for you. Having a gun in your house at all greatly increases the risk that you or someone in your home will die accidentally, or by suicide. Those odds are greater than those of any violent lunatic breaking into your home and murdering anyone in it.
Aside from poking fun at the notion a violent home invasion is something to contrast with violent crime, there’s a serious problem here. In the study of criminal justice (and many social sciences) it is nearly impossible in most cases to separate correlation and causation. This is due to the difficulties in setting control groups and the many possible factors that may influence these events.
A person cognisant that they are at increased risk of violent crime might feel inclined to acquire a firearm. This doesn’t necessarily mean the purchase caused the victimization. That is like saying doing chemotherapy increases your risk of dying of cancer. And someone experiencing suicidal ideation might purchase a firearm to commit the act. Putting this notion once again on its head.
M1 isn’t a bad pick. I feel like if the list gets filled out more the AR will become like the cardinal is for state birds.
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.
Bikes are a scam perpetuated by big tire. Run at full speed for all of your travel.
Pros:
Cons:
This model just came out recently. I wouldn’t pass judgement on them for that.
Also, I covered the cubs part. I know I was disagreeing on that point.
Though fear of repercussions shouldn’t be what stops people from harassing wildlife.
I’d add being startled and protecting young to that list of reasons for attacking.
They’re generally cowards but somethings aren’t worth risking.
That’s the problem. No people ever think they’re the unenlightened ones. Society changes but not always for the better.
The Constitution is a safety rail to protect us from ourselves.
Tldr: Don’t do this unless you have a business that requires a steam account for tax purposes. It doesn’t need to be successful but it does need to be real.
Trusts are probably a better option for this sort of thing than a LLC.
Tldr it depends.
You might not notice with adrenaline pumping. As for lethality it really depends on where in your stomach you get hit and the care you get afterwards. In terms of the fight if it’s just your stomach area getting hit nothing shy of a spinal hit would instantly stop you. If they hit an artery you’ve got minutes. If they puncture your intestines and you can’t get care days, before infection catches up to you.
For the actual conflict the only things that will instantly stop are central nervous system hits (brain/spine). Heart and lungs are the next worst, but wouldn’t stop you from claiming a pyrrhic victory. Major arteries are the next big thing to worry about.
The worst part about getting hit in a non vital part of the chest wouldn’t be the force of the blow but the slow agonizing battle with infection that is not unlikely to follow. But absolutely livable and not nearly as bad with modern medical care.
Just look up Trump-isms. Just like Bush-isms or Biden-isms.
Flag code in the US has no teeth. Flag burning is legal per Texas v. Johnson. Symbolizing a stance of the nation being in distressed is definitely protected speech. Impropriety is a stretch for a statement on his private property that amounts to “our country is in turmoil”.
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.