They're not that new. The Democratic Party has been the party of the super rich and giant corporations for at least a generation. That equity and equality stuff is just baubles they wheel out when they need to to get the rubes to the polls.
The Republicans at least have the advantage of not being able to figure out who or what they are. The country does a pretty good job of running itself, with most important issues being handled at the local level. A useless federal government is the best most of us can hope for.
The first amendment applies only to the government, but free speech, the idea that the best antidote to bad speech is more speech, is a vital cultural norm. There is no need for quotes just because Facebook is a private company. They have taken a stand against free speech; the fact that they have done it on their own dime is irrelevant.
The fact that they have successfully put themselves in the position of playing a key role in public discourse is irrelevant to the free speech question, but relevant to why it matters.
Ehh, probably true, but this sort of thing is true of every poll. This particular "anomaly" has been singled out because certain people in certain quarters don't like how he votes. That's why we give more weight to 538's "10,000 foot view" (to coin a cliche) than any particular poll.
You don't get to selectively filter out the anomalies you don't like.
It's common and proper for a court to assume that a person in possession of facts that he does not release does not release them because they are harmful to his case.
The officer here is not in the exact same position, but he is in a very similar one--if he thinks the window won't go down because there are drugs in the door, the simplest next step is to check to see if the window goes down. The court notes that he did not, but it does not take the obvious leap that the officer did not because this was a ruse rather than a reason. He did not, at that time, believe that there were drugs in the door.
Normally I'm a fan of each side presenting its case as it sees fit. If one side presents a dumb case, then you take that into account when deciding who has the better argument. But some presentations are so dumb that it hurts my world view to know that they probably make more money than I do.
More importantly, there is no requirement that presidential candidates release their tax returns. Trump is free to not release his and you are free to draw whatever conclusions you want from that. What you are not free to do is pretend that Trump is doing something wrong by not releasing his tax returns.
One of them is, "bills shall be of a single subject." Sure, there will be lots of fighting about what constitutes a single subject, but no more omnibus late night rider crap. The issue stands or falls on its own. Period.
I know enough about the news media and their relationship to first amendment lawsuits to know it doesn't pass the smell test. The idea that they would hold this tape because they were worried about getting sued is laughable. They get sued all the time. Occupational hazard. They know it and they budget for it.
I'm blocked from many sites at work because of filters that don't work--online dictionaries because they contain "adult content" (of course they do, they're dictionaries!). One of my favorite legal analysis blogs has been blocked for a couple months as pornography (for no reason I can fathom). I check it almost every day to see if they've fixed their problem.
So if they're tracking my attempts to access porn, then I'm down for at least a hundred attempts, even though I have not once attempted to access porn at work.