This is exactly what I thought when I first heard about this. The clerks need to work together on this.
The 4th Amendment does require a warrant to compel the phone records but, if your employer requests them and says that you'll lose your job otherwise is that illegal? Unfortunately, in this case, the employer in question is the governmental body that ultimately decides the constitutionality of such a thing.
I'm a man. If I have an unwanted parasite leeching off of my body I'd have the right to have it removed by a medical professional immediately. Why should this change if I'm female or if the parasite is a member of the genus homo? I'm all for the mammalian parasitism that we call human reproduction if the host is a willing participant. If not, then it's best for everyone involved for the parasite to be removed.
It's been mentioned even in mainstream media since he was in elementary school and has existed since before he was born. (It was created in 2003.) What are you really asking here?
Looking at the page code, the flag as spam option seems to require Javascript. In fact, all of the rating buttons do. Without scripts, you are able to view and comment but that's about it.
When using the variable page width setting, the Comment Scrubber covers the left side of the comments.
Suspending the trading of a company only hurts the shareholders, not the company. That's effectively a game of hot potato where whoever is holding the stock when trading is suspended loses.
Normally a "return" request for electronic documents simply means, destroy any copies you have or that you've disseminated. If that's not possible, explain why.
He nominated Gigi Sohn back in October. The ball is in the Senate's court now.
Yes, they would be providing testimony. In the hypothetical you presented, authorities with a warrant would crack the safe to get at its contents rather than ask for the passcode or key.
So, I was going to say that polio isn't quite extinct. However, the last cases of wild polio were in January (one in Afghanistan and one in Pakistan) which is down from 94 in 2020. There were also 170 cases of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus this year (this happens when there are too many unvaccinated people in a population and the weakened poliovirus from the vaccine infects them and mutates into a dangerous form again**). That 170 figure is down from 1069 in 2020 though and so polio may really be on the verge of eradication this time.
*Source who.int
**Source polioeradication.org
You joke but, I'm reasonably sure that none of those fusion patents are of gravity-based hot fusion (the kind that happens in stars). Any patent like that should be rejected out-of-hand.
You seem to be one of the (many) people who misunderstands how money works from the point of view of the issuer of said money. Every dollar that the US government issues is spent on something. That's how new dollars enter circulation. Taxation, on the other hand, removes dollars from circulation effectively destroying them. If you have a perfectly balanced federal budget, then you've managed to remove exactly as many dollars as you added that year from circulation. Even worse, if you have a surplus then you've removed more dollars than you added that year! If you do either of those things and the population using the currency is still increasing then there are either no new dollars for any currency users (you, me, local/state governments, corporations, etc.) to keep or (in the case of a surplus) fewer dollars to go around than we started with. The federal deficit is the number of dollars that the government created that they haven't removed from circulation. Those are the dollars that all of us currency users have in our pockets, bank accounts, and investments. While inflation is a worry in the long term, as long as there are still sufficient goods and services for the number of extant dollars to chase, the economy won't collapse.
Only one of the two infamous Koch brothers is still alive. David Koch died in 2019.
Even if a homicide is found to be justified as those were, it's still the intentional killing of one human by another. That is, by definition, murder even if no crime has been committed.
Unfortunately, this isn't only a metropolitan US policy. In Oklahoma, police have (or at least they had at one point) devices to pull money off of gift cards and prepaid debit cards.
For your first point, just a few days ago a 17-year-old girl was {shouted down at a school board meeting](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10148303/Gay-student-sharing-experience-bullying-shouted-woman.html)* (by an adult) while she was speaking about being bullied at school over her sexual identity (she's gay). As to the second, if you don't allow people without children into school board meetings for "lack of standing" do you also not tax them to pay for education? Remember taxation without representation was a major reason for the creation of the United States in the first place. *Sorry about the Daily Mail link, while I read it elsewhere, this was the first one I found in my search just now.
My ISP blocks certain legal websites that use services other than Cloudflare for DDOS protection. To access these sites, I have to use a VPN (since Spectrum is the only broadband option available to me).
There was no privacy intrusion by Google because of two things. One the user, by way of Google's Terms of Service, agreed to let Google look at their attachments. Two, Google is not the government so they aren't limited by the Fourth Amendment. What the court is saying is that until some being with a mind (let's use the term "person" from here on out) looks at the evidence, no search (as defined by the Fourth Amendment) has occurred. This means that if no person at Google or the NCMEC actually looks at the images, no private search has yet occurred and the police need to get a warrant before looking at the forwarded images themselves.
I'm not going to argue with your point on gun control but, concerning this:
Why not? If reasonably painless assisted suicide was legal those of us who have decided that we don't want to exist anymore wouldn't be as pressured to, let's say, go out with a bang. I understand that some people who would decide to commit suicide-by-cop would still make that attempt but, since the one thing that a person must own outright without the interference of others is his or her own life, why shouldn't ending that life also be a right?