Those terms were seriously used in academic circles around 2000 and even more recently as well. There's a weird whole complex theory on the outdated idea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
What part of the holding did you think they got the law wrong? I think the EPA shot themselves in the foot by not responding to the issues presented during the comment period as required.
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.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can't. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn't mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
That's just due process of law. The lower court can't just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
I don't think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president's constitutional duties.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he's alright.
It'll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
>Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
>The President enjoys no im- munity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
They recommended 2 USB C + 1 USB A on their website as the most popular choice. I find myself using Type A more often with peripherals, flashdrives, & etc. So that's why I was going with 2 USB A. But maybe I'm behind the times on that and aught to move forward.
2x4GB was a path I hadn't considered, I may have a look at that avenue if not 2x8GB.
Thanks, probably Windows just for the sake of not worrying about being the one guy trying to figure out how to make a specific software work mid-class on Linux.
I'll definitely make sure to shop around for that SSD. I'm a brief look I've found at least a 500GB model for the same FW is billing for 250 GB.
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.
Currently looking at a DIY AMD 7640U, 1x16GB RAM, 250GB storage, 1 USB-C, 2 USB-A, 1 HDMI.
My use case will mostly entail note taking in class. I've got a built PC at home.
But I'm not a hardware guy, would I be better served w/ different CPU or RAM set up in your opinions? I've mostly picked bottom tier specs but is there anything in your opinions that is worth splurging on, all things considered?
Kershaw does well as a budget (read: reasonably priced) carry knife brand. I used to EDC a Shuffle 2 before I upgraded & gave it to a good friend. For how cheap it was it offered exceptional performance. Really solid knife for opening packages and mail. My only gripes were that it didn't have an AXIS style lock and I wouldn't mind a slightly thicker handle for ergo reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years I'm carrying a Kershaw again.
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 cases 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.
These bullets were made to hide their carbide rear end inside the cartridge. They were designed to be given to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion to create barrel obstructions in enemy rifles.
Heard about them from this video (6:34). There doesn't seem to be much in terms of English language sources, from my brief searching, so if anyone finds more info please share.
https://youtu.be/Nwleh3lYjqI
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that prohibit people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the city, Grants Pass, th
>Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.
>Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17027148
>In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws.
Quick explanation for those too lazy for links, and haven't see the posts with different coverages.
What's Chevron?
- Chevron was a judicial doctrine where upon review courts would have to accept any reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law from gov agencies.
What's the Impact of it Being Gone?
- These agencies can still issue ruling but courts don't have to accept them in cases when there is another reasonable interpretation.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
This article was updated on June 28 at 3:46 p.m. In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-
>In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
The court’s press room is still buzzing this morning over Bloomberg’s scoop yesterday on the brief but mistaken posting of the court’s disposition in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, about emergency abortion care. But today, the courtroom will reclaim its rightful place as the c
Considering I made the post Yesterday about the Thursday & Friday rulings, I felt obliged to share that they added another additional day of opinions (July 1st).
A Vermont man arrested in 2018 for allegedly flipping off a trooper has settled a lawsuit against the Vermont State Police.
>MONTPELIER, Vt. (WCAX) - A Vermont man arrested in 2018 for allegedly flipping off a trooper has settled a lawsuit against the Vermont State Police.
>In a lawsuit later filed by the ACLU, the group says that after he was detained and questioned, Bombard cursed and did give the trooper the finger. The trooper arrested him for disorderly conduct, a charge that was dismissed a year later.
>...the 6-pounder weapon capable of firing a devastating round of chain-shot—two cannonballs connected by a length of chain. The idea was both barrels would fire simultaneously, sending the chain-shot hurtling among enemy combatants. Unfortunately, the first field test of the prototype proved a disaster. The barrels did not fire at exactly the same time, causing the chain-shot to fly wildly off target or the chain to break.
In the last five years, over 6,000 victims have reported more than $300 million in losses, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
>The Federal Bureau of Investigation warned of a rise in scams linked to Mexican Cartels targeting older Americans and timeshare owners.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
>Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
>Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
>Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
>Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. [Sic]
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
>Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer[] legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved.”
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
>Issue(s): (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.
>Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
>Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.
>Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson
>Issue(s): Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
>Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.
>Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
Bloomberg News has reported that the Supreme Court accidentally posted an opinion on the website indicating that the justices are poised to allow emergency abortions to go forward in Idaho. The court’s Public Information Office has indicated that the opinion in a pair of cases, Moyle v. United State
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16958292
Bloomberg News has reported that the Supreme Court accidentally posted an opinion on the website indicating that the justices are poised to allow emergency abortions to go forward in Idaho. The court’s Public Information Office has indicated that the opinion in a pair of cases, Moyle v. United State
>...the state Supreme Court ruled against allowing what would have been the nation’s first taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored religious public charter school.
Linked article mostly just covers the bare bones and a comment from the state AG.
If you want more flavor here's some different coverages:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/25/oklahoma-high-court-rejects-religious-charter-school-contract-00164843
https://apnews.com/article/public-religious-catholic-charter-school-unconstitutional-oklahoma-e4ef414605094313331a39cc645ede8a
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/06/25/oklahoma-state-funded-religious-charter-school-unconstitutional/74205802007/
https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-supreme-court-rules-st-isidore-charter-school-contract-unconstitutional-public-religious-funds-statewide-virtual-charter-school-board-constitution-establishment-clause-freedom-religious-practice
Direct link to the opinion:
https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/documents/news-documents/2024/june/1058190300-20240625-085757-.pdf
>the gun was loaded with 3 drams (0.187 oz or 5.315 grams) of powder to fire a 3 pound (1.36 kg) Bomb Lance for an effective range slightly farther than one could throw a hand lance.
>As the name implies, it explodes once it has embedded itself into a whale. The conditions of whale hunting in the arctic led to the invention of the bomb lance. There, the presence of ice floes provide cover for whales to dive under, making it nearly impossible to execute a hand lance kill before the whale can escape. With bomb lances, a well directed shot assures a quick kill.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/04/30/whaling-gun-bomb-lance/
Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas city councilwoman, said officials violated the First Amendment by arresting her after she criticized the city manager.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16749379
Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas city councilwoman, said officials violated the First Amendment by arresting her after she criticized the city manager.
