The Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate is tied 50-50. It's bad but not quite as bad as you've stated. My reply to JBDragon goes into more detail on the specifics.
Yes, the Democrats have the Presidency and a majority of the House. However, with a 50/50 split in the Senate, two Democratic Senators who often don't vote with the party, and 60 votes necessary to defeat a filibuster, they don't have full control of Congress. Also, the Supreme Court is split 6-3 in favor of conservative justices. Out of the three branches, that gives the Democrat party about 50% control. That's quite a bit down from your "100% of the power" wouldn't you agree?
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has 7 Divisions (including its home in San Antonio). One of those happens to be Waco and the Waco Division only has one judge. In total, the Western District of Texas has 12 District judges (with one unfilled vacancy) in addition to its Chief Justice and a few Senior Justices who are allowed to take reduced caseloads due to a combination of age and seniority (their age plus time on the bench must be at least 80 and they must be over 65-years-old to get such status).
First, we don't have term limits for Congress. There's an argument for them but, if you're using that as an example of why Justices should be similarly limited, there's nothing there. Secondly, Justice Thomas is on the faculty at George Washington University in addition to his position on the court so he has "an actual job". Thirdly, retired Supreme Court Justices keep their titles, are allowed to maintain an office at the court, and still draw a salary. The more retired Justices there are, the more Supreme Court Justice salaries will be paid. Finally, the point of having lifetime appointments for federal judges is to prevent a President from requesting the resignation of judges he doesn't agree with. How many of the Democrat-appointed federal judges would have survived Trump's Presidency without that protection? Also, having fixed lengths for their service wouldn't necessarily protect them. The heads of the FBI and CIA are technically appointed to 10-year terms but they often resign once a President of a different party takes office unless asked to stay on until a replacement is confirmed.
Your own source says that only 14.2% of Indians are Muslim. That's similar to the percentage of Americans who are black (13.4%) and I certainly see myself as a minority.
I'm not going to argue with your point on gun control but, concerning this:
Society shouldn’t make suicide easierWhy 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?
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.
It's not the prison board that's elected in this case. It's the county board of supervisors, the group that runs the county government. In most American states, the County Sherrif is also an elected position but, if it wasn't then they'd be appointed by that same county board of directors/supervisors.