The pointy-haired boss is still clueless. Now, the world around him is just nonsensically shifting in a way that also makes most of us feel clueless, so we can empathize.
Funny how you criticize someone who pokes fun of people who fall into their own version of reality (and a giant corporate structure who encourages everyone to fall in line) as the one who is sinking into his own version of reality.
Much of the CEO compensation was in Unity stock. Unity had their IPO in 2020, so that was a really good year for the CEO. The stock's high was $196 in 2021. It's down to $37 or so now, near its all time low. So the CEO takes a hit on that. Although he was topped up with a grant of more stock in 2021.
Because they are pandering for votes. They know that the average citizen doesn't know that the law would be deemed unconstitutional based on the most recent ruling.
The Dobbs case has everything to do with whether or not a federal abortion law would be constitutional. The court determined on 10th amendment grounds that the constitution was silent on abortion. Therefore, that power belongs to each state. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
They ruled that the constitution does not confer the right to an abortion. That’s it.
The constitution does not confer the right to clean water and yet, it’s not unconstitutional for the federal government to make laws regarding clean water standards.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore each state has the power to legislate it as they see fit. Any federal abortion law would be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.
Stop being obtuse. The majority of federal law exists only because broad interpretations of the few subjects the feds were granted the ability to regulate. If abortion was intertwined with interstate commerce or national defense it would be regulated. Of course there's BS that's just as detached as abortion that gets regulated federally but if those subjects were big ideological issues and got the same scrutiny they likely would not be.
It's unfortunate that there isn't a stronger right to bodily autonomy enshrined in the constitution but that's tangential here.
Absent a strict law, congress could just make medicare funding or infrastructure or whatever dependent on abortion access, and every state would fold, just like with the drinking age.
When I travel between states to partake in a service that is allowed in one state but not another that is not interstate commerce. I'm still conducting intrastate commerce within the state where I am located. The federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate all laws federally just because I can travel to a state with different laws.
Regarding bodily autonomy, it becomes a little tricky to make that argument when a mothers' decisions affect a separate body from her own. A body with its own DNA that happens to rely temporarily on her mother. Is the argument that a mother can kill her healthy child as long as it couldn't survive without her?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Abortion regulation powers were not delegated within the US Constitution and therefore those powers go to the states.
These media companies are regulated by the FCC, so media companies will now feel pressured to effectively regulate free speech on behalf of the political party in power to avoid any negative repercussions in unrelated matters.
It's disturbing that the constitution limits the government from quelling free speech so now the government is pressuring private companies to achieve what they are forbidden to do on their own.
No, Parler wasn't a platform for "freedom". It was a platform for right wing ideologues and frequently banned left wing content but had trouble cleaning up death threats.
I don’t think the right wing platform that was kicking up dangerous conspiracy theories which was funded by the same people as Cambridge Analytica was a “free speech platform”. It surely marketed itself as that though.
A government middle man is not going to reduce income inequality. First, we need to decide whether or not inequality is necessarily a bad thing if everyone's situation is improving. Otherwise, it just comes off as covetousness. Second, we need to evaluate if mental health/drug rehabilitation facilities would solve a lot of the homelessness problem. Third, we need to reduce government restriction on building to put some downward pressure on housing costs or encourage people to establish employment or businesses in areas that are more economical.
