That’s exactly it. Everyone cheers it when it’s their guy, without realizing that a relatively weak executive branch is one of the best safeguards we have against tyranny. Expanding that power sounds great for now, but if Trump takes office again, do we want him having the power to spend on whatever he wants without congressional approval?

Weird way to spell constitution. Get congress to do their job, and Biden wouldn’t have to violate the separation of powers to unilaterally try and do things he’s not permitted to do.

Every time I leave my house, I see dozens of Teslas driving around. If they’re not profitable, then they’re horrifically bad at making money. They’re ubiquitous. Pretty impressive market penetration for a business run by people who don’t know what they’re doing.

This is such a dumb sentence…

I think what the other user is asking is, have any of his rooms gone differently than you’d expect from someone with his constitutional philosophy. Saying, “He ruled in favor of a friend,” is significantly different than, “He ruled in favor of a friend with a ruling that’s very out of the norm for how he typically rules.”

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

If two things lead to the same result (in this example, neither asking the questions nor not asking the questions get us closer to the answer), then isn’t the lesser effort option optimal?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yeah, someone from the UK lecturing Americans on how EV infrastructure is just fine is rich. There are EVs capable of getting them pretty much anywhere in their country on a single charge. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be able to visit my parents two states away without needing to charge halfway through. And the options if you have a family are even fewer and more expensive. There are six of us in our household. Which EV should we drop 6 figures on to get us and our luggage 600 miles away for the holidays?

deleted by creator

When the Democrats decided they wanted to be the “Urban Elite Party” and paint the Republican party as the “Rural Uneducated Party”, they basically threw away Iowa. Iowa is as middle class plain-folk as you can get, so they will naturally align in opposition to the Urban Elite. That was a tactical error in how the Democratic Party formed its identity.

The relevant text says:

" Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races."

deleted by creator