America and Americans broadly do not respect “international law” as an idea. We don’t vote for representatives in a UN House of Reps or UN Senate. And if we did why would we wish to be beholden to a majority rules vote when that majority combined might be inferior militarily.

America tolerates international law when it doesn’t interfere with our course.

The idea of a “one world government” is treated as a fringe tin hat conspiracy theory nonsense that no one is advocating for.

Why would you have your default as sort by controversial?

This is a motion to dismiss not an answer. That’s how those work. It is linked to by the journalist in the article.

Shout out to the menial workers at Apple Maps who are going to have a crap day at work tomorrow because of the thing their boss made them do, so they don’t get fired and replaced by someone else who would do it.

I agree with the sentiment on Gulf of Americas. But I think the singular (and referring to land of both continents) makes more sense. Firstly because it rolls off the tongue better. Secondly because the existence of the ‘North America’ and ‘South America’ both imply that those lands are parts of a larger body of land called America. North America being the Northern half of America. While South America presides in the Southern half.

‘America’ being the United States is only reinforced by the fact that the United States is the most significant nation in global politics East of the Pacific and West of the Atlantic.

Saying it disproportionately promotes any type of content is hard to prove without first establishing how much of the whole is made up by that type.

The existence of proportionately more “right” leaning content than “left” leaning content could adequately explain the outcomes.

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.

Kinda like that time the king of England took away Massachusetts’ legislatures. But I have a feeling the king here will fair better this go around.

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.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/

They are typically a heavily biased source.

Maybe we hire a different chef who isn’t an octogenarian. There’s a lot of chefs out there. We don’t have to accept the false dichotomy that there’s only two chefs capable of running a kitchen.

The hiring process is meant to weed out bad chefs like those that are sleep or hold political beliefs anathema to most. Not to lock them in as the only possible cooks.

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.

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.