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.

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.

The fundamentals of safety we use today wouldn’t be invented for another 2 decades. At the time keeping your finger on the trigger was a fairly universal practice.

Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don’t take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.

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.

Forestalling legislation is one of the most pernicious aspects of certain judicial rulings. Rather than concrete protections we get thin shells waiting for a new ruling to crack.

The Supreme Court even today has over twice the approval rating as Congress (that’s not saying much). Overthrowing one branch of government seems like a novel idea. There is a process for removing justices but it’s never been done before. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, and he wasn’t even removed from the bench.

He/She looks like a younger Bernese Mountain Dog. Which is kind of interesting because the breed was dying off even in Switzerland around 1900 before efforts taken to re-establish the breed.

TLDR a history of French colonialism which is why people want Kenya at the wheel on any intervention rather than a former colonial power.

I feel bad for Suno’s lawyer.

The funny thing is there’s a bunch of Portlands, but it’s always that particular one.

That part of Boston still looks like that.

That looks like Old North Church on the left for anyone who wants to google maps it to compare to modern day.

By men you mean males

Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.

and what was the color of their skin?

Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.