o-90

4 ms·

1.
by o-90 2y ago
> I also think that this opinion seems to be exactly in line with existing legal precedent. Truman was never prosecuted for the massacres he presided on. Nixon was never prosecuted. Reagen was never prosecuted. We just don't seem to
2.
by o-90 2y ago
> They believe that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets them. This process that you just described is what produced Chevron deference.
3.
by o-90 2y ago
> That's an odd thing to say on a case where the government did absolutely coerce Facebook. But that's what this case is about. So "absolutely" is an incorrect word. The Supreme Court is currently deciding this. >
4.
by o-90 2y ago
> If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." If you simply listened to the oral arguments in this case, you would know that is not what is be
5.
by o-90 2y ago
You're making my point for me. You read one sentence she said, and made a determination about the entire context of the argument, which , pointing this out, was the purpose of my original post. The relevant part is the entire oral argu
6.
by o-90 2y ago
You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents&#x2
7.
by o-90 2y ago
Where/in what case was this argument made?
8.
by o-90 3y ago
The audio for oral arguments if anyone is interested in listening: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2...
9.
by o-90 3y ago
One explanation for this is that another country just has better military technology than the United States. And the cover-up/conspiracy is that the US government knows this, but just made up something about aliens because they knew th