No, aggressively dismissing civics instruction as being some sort of celebration of evil white colonialist suppression and thus vilifying things like the Constitution are what have been a detriment to civics instruction.

The continual projection of "look! an autocrat!" at the guy who's spent billions to free, for example, a platform like Twitter from unconstitutionally autocratic censorship would be starting to get funny if it didn't betray such a profoundly inverse understanding of the topic.

No, intelligent people are more likely to go to college. And colleges have been administratively occupied by (now) at least two generations of lefties cultivated by the aging hippies from the 1960s. The schools they run become progressive cultural echo chambers, churning out more of the same. If by "liberal" you mean it in the classic sense (liberty-minded), then you're right. But there is nothing liberty-minded about the contemporary liberal (as that term is now used) contingent running education in K-through-PhD. The opposite.

No, the SCOTUS simply pointed out that Biden's actions were contrary TO STATUTE, and that the separation of powers prevents him from just waving his wand and ignoring that. The SCOTUS didn't pick some dollar amount out of thin air, nor set some precedent about dollar amount thresholds. They recognized the structure of a law written by congress, and recognized that Biden's handlers were trying to skate around it for purely political reasons.

You telling people we have to change out the Supreme Court in order to find a way to give more unchecked, counter-constitutional executive power to an administration like Biden's is some seriously toxic stuff.

The technology being described isn't "free energy." It's a low-energy capture device made from expensive-to-make and fragile substances that probably won't sustain very well out in the real world. It transfers a modest amount of energy from the tiny kinetic movement of water droplets in humid air as they - in their random movements - bang into the walls of the material described. A very large, very dense cube of this material might produce a few kilo watt hours of juice in a steady enough way to be useful under some specific circumstances. Who in the summary or article is saying anything about "free?" It will involve a lot of expensive, fiddly fuss to put it to work.

Wow. This is quite painful for you, isn't it. Let me guess: you lost your job at Twitter censoring content, huh? That's a shame.

Wut? This was entirely about the separation of powers. As in:

Right, sort of. That's constitutional issue. The court looks at the matter at hand, and then says, "Nope, what he's trying to do is unconstitutional." Note that the constitution doesn't spell out dollar amounts that make the power to raise and assign the spending of money a legislative activity. The threshold isn't in dollars, it's in statute. If congress doesn't pass a bill supporting a specific type of spending, nobody else gets to. The constitution is structured that way on purpose, and there's no little dollar-dial that pushes the constitution aside when you dial it down from "Medium High" to "Low."

How to tell us you haven't actually read the Heroes Act without saying it out loud, right? And that aside, yes, the Judiciary absolutely has the power to overrule congress when congressional activities (legislation, certain kinds of committee actions, etc) don't pass a test of constitutionality. But that's not the case here. Congress didn't do anything unconstitutional, the executive did.

Why? It's fine as is, and has nothing to do with someone from Suburban DC in a dual-income household making $250,000 having a plumber from Idaho work part of his day to pay off some of that prosperous couple's law school debt.

No, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer didn't have the votes to actually pass legislation aimed at the broader (non-Heroes-Act targeted) audience whose mid-term votes they were looking to buy, so Biden's handlers took a stab at abusing executive power knowing it would still work as a sales pitch for low-information, constitutionally illiterate college students even though it would of course fail scrutiny later. Pelosi, of course, said this out loud in advance, in specific detail. Her own chamber's and party's constitutional lawyers TOLD the Dems this was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, and she said it. Because she knew this is exactly how it would wind up.

Activist Court? Sure, if by "activist," you mean, "acting as the check and balancing power exactly as intended by the founders who wrote the constitution and people of the nation who ratified it." If acting to preserve the separation of powers and keep the power of the purse in congress is "activism," sure, why not, call it that.

Yes, well, that's capitalism for you.

Most Americans have no choice in insurer. And their choices are controlled by a powerful cartel that colludes to keep prices high. There is no competition in the health insurance field.

No American gives a rats ass about the "choice" of insurer. They want a choice of doctors and services, but really, and I can not stress this enough, REALLY hate all insurance companies. More than they hate the government even!

And yet, taxes have been cut again and again and again. How do you reconcile that fact with your statement that "Because the people raising taxes will never reach a point when they say "the government has enough money now, let's cut taxes"."

Seems that it's very, very easy for the government to cut taxes, at least for the rich. Why are you afraid of "the people who want to raise taxes" when those people have never actually done so? Seems you are imagining a scenario that is not just unlikely, but counter factual.

No, people want to pay for things with their taxes. The are not, in fact, idiots. They don't want predatory capitalists taking a cut, and figure, correctly, that government is more trustworthy than a man with a profit motive and no morals.

People recognize that certain endeavors are just not well served by a capitalist free market. Health care is a primary one that simply doesn't work unless heavily regulated or run by the government. You do not know what is wrong with you. You do not know how to fix it. You can not shop around for a new liver.

As it is, we are basically running health care like a for profit government, and we are getting the worst of both the public and private worlds. Health insurance amounts to a system of taxation that forces the healthy to pay for the sick, and lets a third party take a huge cut. Replace health insurance with actual government taxation and what have you lost, except for the greedy bastard trying to mark up your heart medications? Nothing.

You showed no proof of anything.

You assholes have no problem with kids reading those same types of sex scenes if it's straight. Just ask Beverly Cleary. Most YA novels have sex scenes. Doesn't make them pornographic or unsuitable for kids.

You aren't American so stop talking as if you know us or our culture, asshole.

You don't know shit then. Stop talking like you know America if you aren't from here, asshole.

We need to raise taxes on the rich back to what they were in the good old days Republicans pine for. Marginal tax rate of 90%. "Oh!" you whine, "Nobody paid that!" Yes, but they paid more than they do now and that's the point. Raise taxes on capital gains, raise corporate taxes, lower taxes for the middle class and boom! Deficit fixed.

Normal people are not lazy, they just don't want to be taken advantage of. The real drag on our economy is billionaires and other tax cheats.

Oh stop lying. You can't provide any evidence for any of your wild claims. You censorious assholes only ever talk in generalities. Be specific. What fucking books are you talking about?

What normal people have figured out is that it is the right wing and religious figures who are abusing kids. So many right wingers who shout "groomer!" have been caught with child porn. You disgust normal Americans.