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.
The bullet is heavy. The pressure wants out it’s easier to breach a little bit of brass than to move a heavy bullet. The greatest risk here is the fragmentation of the brass casing.
On the heat issue prolonged fire would cause the metal to soften allowing for increased degradation of the rifling.
The easiest ways for it to happen would be either a poorly made barrel or a barrel not designed for a specific projectile. Different barrel twist rates are better for different cartridges. A heavy bullet is better in a faster twisted barrel. If you fired a very heavy bullet in a slow twisted barrel you would likely not have it reach a proper stabilization.
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.
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.
I feel bad for Suno’s lawyer.
The whole mess could have been avoided with airlock style gates
Maxim’s inspiration:
“I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States,” Maxim told the Times of London. “He said: ‘Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other’s throats with greater facility.’ ”
It’s the cotton gin logic. Eli Whitney thought his invention the cotton gin would reduce the need for manual labor on cotton plantations and reduce slavery. Instead it made cotton farming more profitable and revitalized slavery.
Tldr: Don’t do this unless you have a business that requires a steam account for tax purposes. It doesn’t need to be successful but it does need to be real.
Trusts are probably a better option for this sort of thing than a LLC.
But the other one has better pirate vibes. And if you aren’t looking cool, well, what’s the point?
Unfortunately the best grenade launcher has already been made.
In practical (non legal) terms possibly if it was an actual private party and not a licensed dealer.
Alien is definitely a unique way of putting it. I guess it makes sense in that they are “alien to the nation”. But If I were to ever be forced to move to a different country I’d probably go by ex-pat.
Although I’d say we have more of a culture (increasingly so) of acknowledging immigrants as Americans first. Probably due to the whole melting pot thing. My view of it is anyone who immigrate to the US is an American. But if I moved to another country, like Japan, I don’t think they’d consider me Japanese.
Also that reminds me alien ≠ immigrant. Aliens would be people in the country either temporarily or illegally. Someone who got a green card by marrying an American wouldn’t be an alien for example. If you do the whole immigration thing you’re just an American not an alien.
It decidedly is not.
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.