Is this response still in review?

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.

I didn’t say that EVERYTHING was well thought out. I also said that it makes no sense. But I do think that a lot (ie not all) of it was well thought out. Things like what you’re talking about are I would say extremely minor nitpicks in terms of the overarching plot and character motivations and that type of thing. Also, I find it hilarious that you say Big Boss since he was never pregnant as far as I’m aware lmao

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.

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

https://youtu.be/zHbv2YQ6yF4

Good video covering the incident in detail

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

There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let’s say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can’t KNOW that it’s at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won’t know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.

I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn’t for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that’s another argument.

“The researchers found that Sky was also reminiscent of other Hollywood stars, including Anne Hathaway and Keri Russell. The analysis of Sky often rated Hathaway and Russell as being even more similar to the AI than Johansson.”

As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I’m not entirely sure that it is. I’ve heard that a surprising percentage of people just don’t even know that ad blockers exist. If that’s the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don’t have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

I agree that those people need to understand her point the most and that they likely won’t even if they did hear it unedited but even the people who are already on her side like myself still need to hear it. Not because we don’t already understand what she’s saying but because it shows that we haven’t given up yet.

I don’t think she’s really talking to them or expecting them to suddenly admit what they are doing and change their actions. I feel like she’s moreso talking to the American people. I know personally it at least gives me a modicum of hope to see that there are still people who will stand up for what’s right and call them out on the floor of Congress. It’s certainly better than living in a world where no one challenges them anyway.

The survey isn’t about the “niche” subset of the population that is religious. It is about the composition of the entire population. Not a subset of the population so that isn’t relevant.

Edit: to be clear, I understand that there may be some niche subsets within this survey that may not be represented because there are only 20 people in the US that believe in that weird religion, but again, that has nothing to do with the larger, non-niche subsets which are absolutely represented with enough accuracy to draw statically significant conclusions with a sample size of 1000

https://www.mili.eu/learn/is-a-sample-size-of-n-1000-sufficient-for-accurate-survey-results

The only reason plant based meats haven’t been way cheaper than animal meat the entire time is because of how heavily subsidized the animal agriculture industry is. Without the government literally single handedly propping up the industry it wouldn’t be a viable way to make money.