No one knows. The creator decided that a source and a year of collection were not relevant information.

This is a motion to dismiss not an answer. That’s how those work. It is linked to by the journalist in the article.

Shout out to the menial workers at Apple Maps who are going to have a crap day at work tomorrow because of the thing their boss made them do, so they don’t get fired and replaced by someone else who would do it.

I agree with the sentiment on Gulf of Americas. But I think the singular (and referring to land of both continents) makes more sense. Firstly because it rolls off the tongue better. Secondly because the existence of the ‘North America’ and ‘South America’ both imply that those lands are parts of a larger body of land called America. North America being the Northern half of America. While South America presides in the Southern half.

‘America’ being the United States is only reinforced by the fact that the United States is the most significant nation in global politics East of the Pacific and West of the Atlantic.

Saying it disproportionately promotes any type of content is hard to prove without first establishing how much of the whole is made up by that type.

The existence of proportionately more “right” leaning content than “left” leaning content could adequately explain the outcomes.

Good mod. Clearly has touched grass.

one of the arguments you used.

It decidedly is not.

I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately the best grenade launcher has already been made.

That’s why you’ve gotta wear the shirts of fictional bands. All the juice of being the person who seems like they’ve got good taste in music with none of the squeeze of talking to strangers.

Imagine if someone made a video of your deceased father with “I’m Glad I’m Dead” in the title where his voice espouses political stances you or him quite probably disagree with.

It’s a worse precedent to set the inversion. Imagine a world where once you die mega corps get to use your likeness to advertise rewriting any legacy you might have had into being “the McDonalds guy”.

Fair use is a four factor test amount used is a factor but a low amount being used doesn’t strictly mean something is fair use. You could use a single frame of a movie and have it not qualify as fair use.