placeholder

Actually as I pointed out above it was conservative voters who in August of 2021 registered a sharp disapproval of Johnson with a 36% drop in popularity. Are these the "very same people" that you're referring to?

Tagged at the end? Isn't it part of the same sentence? Maybe this could be a problem for a special type of dyslexic person.

You might want to look up judge David Carter. In a civil case being brought against Trump he thought that it was likely that Trump had engaged in a criminal conspiracy

There are electronic toll systems for major highways in the USA. So it really isn't going to be much of a problem. Local roads are usually maintained by county or municipal goverments. Sometimes the State shares revenue with them, other times local taxes cover the cost.

Does it tell you anything that the major manufacturers of EV's are having trouble keeping up can't keep up with demand as things now stand?

The presenter starts out by claiming he's no expert. So why should I spend 26 minutes listening to him? There are experts and reports about the findings of experts that can be read in considerably less than 26 minutes and pack in a lot more information.

Why would batteries have to last for 30 years. Do people expect ICE vehicles to last for 30 years? EV's are less damaging environmentally than ICE vehicles https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/22/yale-study-puts-the-kibosh-on-ev-emissions-myth/

Out of an abundance of caution. Keep in mind that this technology was very news and there wasn't a lot of data about longevity out there.

Nonsense. Congress delegates authority to agencies to decide on all kinds of technical questions that require the contributions and expertise of lots of people. Congress simply isn't designed to get that granular. It's been settled law for close to a century at least that this is the way things get done. It does look like the Supremes could overthrow it. Major corporate polluters and manufacturers of hazardous chemicals and all round polluters if the Supremes go the way they are expected to. Once again, the Supreme Court comes down on the side of the rich and powerful.

Well, now that you've explained the connection so clearly...

Unless maybe she was a direct witness of something criminal that Trump did.

Do you think that's enough to justify a special day of hearings? There's got to be something more. That's just too anticlimactic. Well, I guess we'll know soon enough.

The justices who originally decided Roe v. Wade cited the 14th Amendment not the 9th as justification.

And if that was the crucial paragraph in the decision, you'd have a better point. But the original Roe v. Wade didn't depend on any explicit mention of such a right, nor does Alioto claim it did, which is why Alioto wrote this: "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/text-from-supreme-court-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/2022/06/24/364578ac-f3f0-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html The assertion that rights must be deeply rooted in tradition is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, it dates from 1997. That is the point on which the 3 dissenting justices disagree with Alioto and company, Whether only rights that were recognized as such when the 14th Amendment was created are covered by the 14th Amendment or whether as society's our understanding of human rights changes, those right should protected by the 14th Amendment.

You're absolutley right. My mistake. I misread "fire" as hire.

Actually, I think it speaks highly to the charitable nature of Johnson's supporters that they endorse forgiveness of a person who has enjoyed every advantage that British society has to offer and ought to have known better.

Your argument, such as it is, is extremely simplistic. The teacher in question is, by way of being an employee of a public school, an agent of the government. As such, in the past, it has been held that because their authority is ultimately governmental, they don't have the right to use their authority or position promote religious beliefs. In the past it has been held that such activity is inevitably an abuse of authority since it puts pressure on those who do not share such beliefs to either conform or not conform to a position held by an figure of authority. One whose decision can affect their school career. It was held previously that no student should be put in such a position. Now, apparently, it's okay.

Once again, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with the lack of mention of the right to abortion in the Constitution. They did not make that lack a basis of their decision.

And here is your response. Apparently you need reminding. Abortion in the US has never been a "constitutional right". The US Constitution does not mention abortion. And once again let me advises you that it is utterly irrelevant to the argument made by the majority of the Supreme Court that that Constitution does not mention abortion. That is not the basis on which they decided that the Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. In your defense, it has to be said that your confusion seems to shared by most of the defenders of the Supreme Court decision in this topic.

Your assertion that the militia is the whole of the people is obviously, even blatantly, false. The United States still has militias. They're called the National Guard. Is every adult citizen a member of the National Guard? Have they taken the oath to serve? Are they getting stipends and enjoying the other remunerations and privileges enjoyed by those who actually serve? How do you come up with this stuff?

Because the only media out there are run by liberals? You really want to run with that? Does the name Fox News ring any bells for you?

You clearly don't understand the basis of the court's decision. It had nothing to do with whether or not abortion is mentioned as a right in the U.S. Constitution.

Accusing others of crying because they're protesting is dishonest. Since when is protesting degrading?

The thing about the "promises" made by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh is that they technically weren't promises. They were meant to sound like promises, but, both being good lawyers, couched their words in such a way as to encourage the belief that they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words, they gaslighted. The thing is, now members of the court are doing the same thing in regards to the right for gays to marry and the right to contraception. The same exact reasoning that they applied to overturning Roe v. Wade would also apply to gay marriage and contraception, even though they deny that their decision in Dobbs will necessarily lead to that. It seems almost inevitable that they will nullify the claim to a constitutional right for gays to marry. If that's the case, the law of the land will allow states not only to refuse to marry gay people but also to give legal recognition to gay marriages performed and recognized in other states.

I think he actually meant God and Allah are the same dude.