He is responsible for a lot of policies that resulted in the mass incarceration we have today.
Biden works with far-right Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond and the Reagan Administration to pass the Comprehensive Control Act. The law expands federal drug trafficking penalties and civil asset forfeiture, allowing police to seize a person’s property without proving them guilty of a crime. Two years later, Biden co-sponsors the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which creates new mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including the notorious 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. A conviction of possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute carries a five-year sentence for 500 grams, while the same conviction for crack carries a five-year sentence for only 5 grams, so the harshest penalties are enacted on low-level drug sellers and impoverished drug users.
The controversial legislation known as the 1994 Crime Bill is Biden’s most significant contribution to the expansion of policing the drug war. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, written by Biden, increases funds for police and prisons, fueling an expansion of the federal prison population. It also newly applies the federal death penalty to 60 crimes, including large-scale drug trafficking and drive-by-shootings resulting in death. Biden brags after the law passes that “the liberal wing of the Democratic Party” is now for “60 new death penalties,” “70 enhanced penalties,” “100,000 cops,” and “125,000 new state prison cells.”
I read that he could be taken off the ballot in some places, but I haven't verified that.
That's not true. There are other felons with a chance at winning, they just haven't been convicted yet.
The public disclosure "would have been devastating to his campaign, so at Trump's direction Cohen negotiated a deal", Mr Colangelo told the jurors.
Are you supposed to use "Mr" instead of "Mr." now, or is that just a style thing that BBC does?
Yeah, I just needed a sanity check because I couldn't find one in the article.
I think I found it:
Is there a link to the report in this article?
Don't worry about it.
Sadly nothing Boeing has done is criminal in the US even though it absolutely should be.
I doubt that you know whether Boeing has or has not broken any laws.
The internet archive has worked reliably for me, but I am definitely checking this out.
From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use.
Several members of the crew walked off set earlier that day because safety protocols were not being strictly followed.
Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.
...
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.
I spoke with several employees of Sweet Baby Inc. to learn what the company actually does and how the misunderstanding of its role in the industry highlights a far broader problem.
You don't know what Sweet Baby Inc. does, but you assume the people complaining about SBI must be incorrect? Do journalists in any other sector of the market fall all over themselves rushing to defend companies like they do in game development?
Eating, getting dressed, and talking with real people are all good things for your mental health. Typing on a keyboard doesn’t help, otherwise we’d be the least depressed generation ever.
I agree that typing on a keyboard isn't a substitute for therapy. Writing can serve as an creative outlet for emotion in the same way as music or painting.
It is a little complicated:
Before proceeding further, the Court notes the limited scope of this case, this opinion, and the relief granted. This case does not involve creating a count of the representatives’ locations or second-guessing the House’s own count and listing of its members. Instead, the Court takes as true the House’s recitation of its proceedings and its designation of certain members as participating by proxy. Further, the Court makes no judgment on the wisdom of the House’s proxy rule, only its constitutionality as it pertains to counting absent members as part of the quorum. Nor does the Court address whether some members may permissibly vote by proxy if the constitutionally required quorum is otherwise physically present at the time of the vote. Finally, although the Court finds that the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act violated the Constitution, Texas does not seek an injunction of—and the Court does not enjoin—the entire Act. Rather, the Court enjoins only the application of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against Texas. The relief granted here is limited to abating the injury that Texas has proven will occur.
https://www.scribd.com/document/709363863/State-of-Texas-v-Merrick-Garland-Et-Al