Not necessarily. In the state in which I practice law (Oklahoma), murder 2 has no intent requirement:

21 O.S. 701.8:

Homicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:

1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual [emphasis mine]; or

2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.

Could that "low consumption" be at all related to geographical factors? A large portion of the United States is located in places where air conditioning is necessary; Germany, less so.

Your post suggests that methylmercury differs from ethylmercury by being an organic compound, combining mercury with carbon; that is, that ethylmercury is not an organic compound, that it doesn't combine mercury with carbon. Would you like to clarify that, or do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry?

"‘It’s the wild colour scheme that freaks me out,’ said Zaphod, whose love affair with the ship had lasted almost three minutes into the flight. 'Every time you try and operate these weird black controls that are labeled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up in black to let you know you’ve done it.’"

Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?

If this is about foreign tampering with our elections, how do you expect to gain jurisdiction over foreigners physically located in a foreign country that appears to officially support the actions in question? (Note: the same question could be asked of our own CIA.)

I'm familiar with at least two satellite providers, so unless you're in some very rugged terrain, your "only one ISP" claim is false on its face.

You are more correct than you realize.

When SCOTUS is sitting in appellate jurisdiction--as is nearly always the case--it's not there to hear the facts of the case. Facts are developed and judged at the trial level. Appellate courts don't judge facts, they judge law: was the evidence properly admitted/suppressed under the Rules of Evidence and relevant caselaw? Were there procedural errors in the handling of the case? Is there a constitutional issue making a statute invalid, or making an interpretation invalid? Was a statute used in a manner contrary to previous use without a good reason for the divergence from established jurisprudence?

The appellate court judges are experts on the law; it's not up to them to decide the accuracy and weight of the facts, just to decide whether the trial court followed the established law in getting to the result it reached. If you read most appellate court decisions, they rarely change the outcome of the trial court outright, but rather remand the case to the lower court with instructions to hold further proceedings "consistent with this ruling." That is, "y'all messed up on these points, go try again and get those bits right this time." It's not unheard of for the trial court to have new proceedings, make the procedural changes required by the higher court, and still reach the same result.

His argument was grounded in the First Amendment. No mere statute can override the Constitution.

On a specific condition, he very well might; even as specialists, doctors need to have a wide breadth of knowledge.

This is true of a lot of fields: somebody with a personal interest in a very narrow field and the motivation to teach himself everything about that narrow subject can very easily know that subject better than someone with extensive formal education covering a much wider field of study.

With hookers! And blackjack!

See Wickard v. Filburn, as I mentioned upthread.

I'm not familiar with your chicken case, but in Wickard v. Filburn, the High Court held that wheat that didn't cross property lines, let alone state lines, affected interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to federal regulation. Seriously--there was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could grow; a farmer grew his quota for market, and an additional amount for his own personal use. The Court held that his personal crop reduced his demand for wheat on the open market, thus affecting interstate commerce, and bringing it within the sphere of federal control.

It's all been downhill since then. Thanks, FDR!

No, it really isn't...if you give the complete quote:

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, if wrong, to be put right."

Amazing how that second half changes things.

Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... .