The repeal would return public masking rules to their pre-pandemic form — created in 1953 to address a different issue: limiting Ku Klux Klan activity in North Carolina, according to a 2012 book by Washington University in St. Louis sociology professor David Cunningham.
Actually, Anti Klan legislation.
That’s true.
But the chickens didn’t notice the difference.
The US has already dropped two nukes on South Carolina.
What more do you want?
No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law.
If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned.
Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck.
Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless.
No, the case was about protesting war.
So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned.
Feinstein was on the following committees. You don't think she pushed California's interests in every one.
Committee on Appropriation
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on Defense
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development (Chairman)
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Committee on Rules and Administration
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism
Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
Subcommittee on the Constitution (Chairman)
Select Committee on Intelligence
You believe a freshman senator on Ways and Means, a committee of 29, welds a significant amount of influence verses Patty Murphy, Chairmain, who has been on Appropriations for 26 years?
I was referring to relative power within the Senate. How long do you think it will take for a freshman senator to gain the same amount of influence as Patty Murphy under the current system?
That would be from a different state and then that state would lose the power of having a senior committee member.
There is a reason Senator Robert Byrd was the longest-serving U.S. Senator. Serving three different tenures as chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations enabled Byrd to steer a great deal of federal money toward projects in West Virginia.
The only reason there is power in her seat is the Seniority System. Whoever takes her place will have no power relative power, and will have to work their way up the ranks.
People talk about term limits, the easiest and most effective change would be to eliminate the Senate Comittee Seniority system.
Blame the Senate Committe Seniority system.
Seniority in the United States Senate is based on the length of time a senator serves on a committee. The majority party member with the most seniority on a committee usually serves as the chair.
That is the only reason to keep sending these people back as old as they are. You send someone new, they have zero power.
Federal and State are both pardonable, it is just different entities.
Federal means no parole.