We're not talking about murdering someone during a robbery here, we're talking about the advisability of using a shotgun to shoot down a drone that follows you out the store while shoplifting. Most shoplifters aren't going in armed anyway. Extra charges might not deter someone prepared to do violence, but most petty criminals are savvy enough not to put themselves in the pot for gun charges if they don't have to.

Having the coach come out and kick dirt at the ump is part of the game. It's like taking fighting out of hockey.

It can, and has been in the past, cf Andrew Jackson. This is why the court always pussy foots around matters of "national security", e.g. torture at gitmo, extraordinary rendition, mass wire tapping, etc. There is a tacit understanding between the court and the executive. There are certain things the court refuses to rule on because the executive will just ignore them and undermine their authority if it does so.

IF being standalone isn't constitutional, then they should be dissolved altogether. These are rule making organizations that congress has delegated some of it's legislative power to. Outside of enforcement, they are supposed to be independent. The executive has no constitutional right to rule by fiat.

If that is not possible then they must be disbanded and congress must regulate drugs, trade, radio spectrum, highways, etc. through statute. Of course the country would grind to a halt and all our infrastructure would crumble to dust, but small price to pay so Trump gets his way I guess, right?

I would argue the coma started during the Wilson Administration.

When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say? Well there are just 3 parts of the government defined - you won't find those agencies described or the mechanisms Congress created in the Constitution if you go look. So they have to exist SOMEWHEE within one of the three branches. If the President is the on that gets to nominate the "principal officers" that are the folks that run these agencies - then they should serve at the President's largess. He is allowed to fire any other principal officer - say the US attorneys - at a whim without any reason. Logically the members on these agency boards, etc. fall in the same bucket.

You also can't use it in a commercial manner that might imply a relationship or endorsement. Coke can use Pepsi in a commercial to compare the two products. They can't have the Mets mascot dancing around in their commercial for no reason because it could be taken to imply an association or endorsement from the team.

Companies trademark different variations of their marks. Logos and characters are resigned all the time. A clip from Steamboat Willie is currently the opening logo for Disney Animation Studios so you can't even argue that particular form of the mark is not in use.

Borrower 1 has the capability to take on $45k in unsecured debt at a moment's notice. If they do this, they might be too stretched to afford to pay me back. I would rather lend to 2.

If you properly quote text, and format date cells as dates, then yes, it does.

Other INDIE devs. Indie devs aren't charging $100 + loot boxes. Team Cherry are in the unique position of being like 3 guys whose previous game blew up and are basically guaranteed to sell 10M+ copies of the sequel. They can afford to spend 7 years on Silksong and then sell it for $20.

Other teams that aren't already set for life are worried because they will need to charge more for smaller, less polished games in order to afford to eat.

Yes, but then the GOP implemented the southern strategy, and deliberately switched places with the Democrats, who were already beginning to support civil rights. Since then, republicans have consistently stoked racist fears among southern baptist conservatives. This is a dumb tired argument that assumes history stopped in 1968.

Vouchers rarely cover the entire cost of a private school tuition. Poor people can't afford to avail themselves of the voucher. They amount to a tax break for people of means who were going to send their kid to private school anyway. They also suck money out of the public education system. The district still has to pay the fixed costs for facilities, staff, and services, regardless of how many families take money out of the system with vouchers. This leaves the more impoverished kids in underfunded schools with even less funding.

It should be "Court Tells Google to Continue Violations of User Privacy". If they made multiple billions and were fined $0.5b, and none of the executives went to jail, then there is no reason not to keep doing it. The fine needs to exceed the benefit derived from the infraction.

Look at productivity vs wages since the mid 70s when digitization really started taking off. Rich people have derived virtually all the benefit. Yes, a handful of middle class knowledge workers have been created in IT, but compare that to the number of jobs that have been deskilled or eliminated.