YSK call your house rep. They’re more likely to answer. Also call your state reps first. Most issues are handled on a state level, not federal, and state house reps tend to be the most accessible.

The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.

Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.

Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.

People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.

Didn’t realize I was on .ml till I saw this

1. Do they not like you for things intrinsic to your being or for you actions? If the former their opinion should hold little weight, if the later proceed to step two.

2. Reflect on why someone of their perspective might feel that way about your actions and assess the merits.

3. If you feel after sober contemplation that their critiques of your actions were well founded, adjust yourself going forwards. Otherwise remain as you were.

If it is as low as 5% I’d imagine it reflects more so on where they are in their lives, having little knowledge of the situation.

Voting isn’t only about winning. It’s also about making your voice heard. In hard Blue or Red states an individual vote won’t likely make a difference. If a 3rd party got enough of the vote Republicans and Democrats would be scrambling over each other to make their party platform more palatable to that 3rd party.

More power to them, beats not voting.

Ignoring that one of their snipers saw him pull out a rangefinder though…

Well just seeing that probably shouldn’t be enough to use lethal force. At that point he’s effectively just a guy looking through binoculars or a monocular.

They probably just had a use of force policy that required approval from above to use deadly force before anyone had shot.

There’s a slight but significant difference between being addicted to Starbucks and crack.

Probably the most unique thing is a Garmin watch w/ a built in flashlight. Which as someone not willing to carry an actual flashlight because I know I’ll never both to take it out of my pocket 90% when I need it I find very useful. More smart watches should pick up the feature.

Sharing things you find useful in your everyday life so that others might enjoy them or recommend things that would better suit your needs.

The overturn of Chevron is only significant in that courts, particularly lower appeals courts, won’t be forced to accept agency interpretations on law. They still can if that’s the better of the two. It’s a big development in APA law but it is just on how laws get reviewed when contested.

Having not looked into the drug scheduling system much I can’t say for certain on that particular topic. But I wouldn’t be shocked if something like an interpretation on paraphernalia by the DEA got shot down.

If you want some good from the Loper Bright case keep in mind that it limits new presidents from coming in and appointing biased ‘experts’ to agencies to create new interpretation of law to aid their causes. This is a double edged sword. But I think with time we willl benefit from the end of the practice and we will settle in to a more stable set of administrative rulings that doesn’t shift every 4 years.

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.

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.

I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I’d guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer’s salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.

It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.

That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.