Democrats didn’t vote to vacate because they like to watch chaos. They simply will not support McCarthy unless he offers something in return. Their vote is a bargaining chip and they aren’t throwing it away.

Except the author generally does not design the book cover, and often does not design the thumbnail.

The thumbnail is not the content.

Do you also judge books by their covers?

This is going to involve Bitcoin, isn’t it?

There are no special regulations on what constitutes a “news” broadcast in the US.

If you lie in public, whether on TV or Facebook, you can be sued for defamation. Which is exactly what happened to Fox.

In specific circumstances, you can be prosecuted for criminal libel but those circumstances do not apply to Fox.

It’s a service charge. That implies the money is going to the staff. So they are already getting approximately what they would have been tipped.

Now, maybe “service charge” is a lie and they aren’t actually seeing that money. But if so, then the waitstaff are complicit in that lie, because they handed it to me. And if I’m supposed to assume they are lying then I’m certainly not tipping them.

Trash has been around far longer than corporations, and people have taken responsibility for their trash long before corporations existed.

He did discuss his own criminal record at least once on his channel:

https://youtu.be/Rcv5fuOdcZs

First of all, nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power of judicial review. They sort of made up that power all by themselves.

Regardless, if Congress decided to regulate the SCOTUS then they would most likely strip jurisdiction only from the SCOTUS itself, not from all federal courts. This is also how it was done in the past. The SCOTUS basically conceded that as long as some judge still had the power of judicial review, then Congress could remove the SCOTUS itself from the process.

Which means that the DC Circuit Court would make a final, non-appealable decision on whether the Constitution allows their colleagues in the SCOTUS to be bound by ethics laws - just as they are.

Using the same process, Congress could strip appellate jurisdiction from the SCOTUS in any case that involves a particular law. Which includes a law that they just passed.

The key is that when the SCOTUS reviews laws, it is nearly always exercising its power of appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction. And the Constitution allows Congress to impose whatever regulations it wants over appellate jurisdiction. So if the SCOTUS isn’t allowed to hear cases involving a law, then it can’t strike down that law.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They’ve actually done this in the past

Good behavior is generally used to justify lifetime tenure as a judge, unless impeached.

However, the Constitution does not guarantee lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS itself. Nothing prevents Congress from requiring a Justice to transfer to a lower court after, say, 18 years on the SCOTUS.

There are several situations in which HIPAA allows doctors to disclose your protected health information without your consent. One of the exceptions involves law enforcement. Democrats are trying to close that loophole, at least for enforcement of out of state abortion laws.

Self harm falls into the “mandated reporting” category, one of the few things that is not only unprotected but actually must be reported.

Progressives saw through climate change legislation and student loan reform in the last two years.

The latter was shot down by the SCOTUS, which serves as a reminder that progressive policies can easily be undone.

In this situation don’t think it makes sense to oppose cluster munitions simply on principle.

I think it would be correct to oppose them only if using cluster bombs would cause more harm to Ukrainian civilians than the alternatives. I assume Ukrainian leaders would use similar criteria.

And since Ukrainians are actually at the front lines, they are the best informed and will suffer the most from an error of judgment. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with trusting them to make the best decision either way.

And if you change it to “Delhi rebels threaten to detonate nuke in Delhi, Modi responds by dropping cluster munitions on rebels” then it’s not so clear any more.

Ukrainian civilians are at risk no matter what happens. The ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of Ukrainians are Ukrainians themselves.

You may think you see a better option, but they don’t have to agree with you.

That’s not really the same thing.

If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves. Particularly because Russian troops also pose significant risks to Ukrainian civilians.

I would oppose Ukrainian use of cluster munitions in Russia, for the same reason I would oppose use of Pakistani nuclear weapons in India.

The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.

Minefields pose the same sort of risk to civilians, but I think it would be inappropriate to insist the Ukrainians can’t use mines to defend themselves.