For example, unrestrained sexual promiscuity spreads all kinds of horrible venereal diseases, which would be largely absent in a society that committed to stable marriages, instead.
Except even in the ones that claim to hold that value... fail
There are some very influential religious groups active in Western society which openly teach that good and evil, right and wrong are all just an illusion, a lie holding humanity back from achieving its full potential
they're right. It's how you impact others that matters. What you call or what you claim to believe about it is bullshit
...or congress -- but a majority of 9 people on the supreme court and their whims.
Sigh... wish there was an edit function... Or at least an "update" where we can append text to the end of a comment.
"What you call liberals, or really illiberal-progressives only support democracy and the right of citizens self-determination with regards to government "
Which, as many people forget is NOT what America is based on. It's a constitutional republic. It's designed that way to PREVENT exactly what you describe (sort of). In a "democracy" where "self determination" is in the hands of the people solely, you can get popular votes like segregation, jim-crow, no gay marriage...
Democracy isn't the foundation of American government -- it's the "insurance policy" against a government that becomes too oppressive. The foundation of our government is to promote LIBERTY.
I believe Scalia had it right in being an originalist. Example: In US v WIndsor (2013), SCOTUS found that marriage was essentially the realm of the respective states. 2015, the Hodges case basically turned that upside down. In less than 2 years. Scalia, in 2015 said our "ruler" was our president, or congress a majority of 9 people on the supreme court and their whims.
"Any nominee has to pass approval by the Republican-controlled Senate, so anything other than a centrist is very unlikely at this point."
I doubt that. See, I doubt Scalia himself would believe that the Constitution allows the senate to hold up nominations based on political leanings. There's more than enough Republicans that will confirm so long as their qualifications as a jurist are impeccable and not enough republicans to succeed at a filibuster.
However, there might be some snags getting the nomination out of committee. But I believe that will happen, too.
Zombies? Where is my shotgun when I need it?
If you don't know, then guess what? You're going to be playing the part of "Zombie" during the apocalypse. You won't need a shotgun, just tasty, tasty brains.
Ahh, finally you have shown me what to do with my antique Garmin GPS-12s. They have serial ports, and I have ESP-01s and level shifters lying around. DGPS, here I come
What defines the bit width of an instruction set isn't connected to data bus width, as different implementations of the same instruction can have different data bus widths.
That's news to me. When I doing electronics as a teenager in the 1980's, an 8-bit processor had eight data lines,
A microcontroller has a microprocessor in it, yet may only expose a handful of data lines, and not even have enough to make a proper bus as wide as what it can process internally. The interface is not the most relevant feature. The most relevant feature is the size of the data type which can be processed. The second most relevant feature is the instruction size. But frankly, nothing is more relevant than the size of the general purpose registers, which defines that first part.
One review found that it could give substantial performance increases for some games, but it depends on driver support as well as where the performance bottleneck is at.
This remains the AMD problem. The hardware has awesome price-performance, I am still using one of their CPUs and I started with a K6. But the graphics driver problem continues. nVidia's not perfect either, but at least it usually works.
Their Android app doesn't even select the search field when you press the search button (it's a standard Android key code, and it used to be a common physical button back when touchscreen phones still had those) and they want to get into search?
This is why I don't send them money. How's about spending some money to hire some professional mediators to moderate some of these article wars? That would actually be useful and make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
But the context in which those amendments exist DOES change, and therefore so must their application - (e.g. you now have a standing army, which the second amendment was not written/designed/intended to co-exist with).
No, having a standing army only means we need the second amendment more. Now, not only do we have to deal with foreign enemies, but there is the threat of occupation from within — both due to illegal acts by our own government, but also the potential of rogue military elements acting inappropriately, especially during times of crisis. Everyone thinks that the culture of obedience and respect in their military means it can't happen right up until it does.
Democracies are uniquely vulnerable to destructive propaganda, because our strong protections for freedom of expression leave even the best government powerless to defend the culture from corruption, no matter how sickeningly evil the invading message.
Nonsense. Nations with Free Speech are uniquely resistant to some forms of destructive propaganda, because ridiculous ideas can be exposed to the light of criticism. But there is no form of government which prevents the entrenched media from doing the will of the government and helping to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizenry.
The Framers' intentions are important, but should not override every consideration. They were not gods, and a constitution that rigidly locks itself tight is doomed.
There is a process for altering the constitution. If you don't like the constitution, use the process. If you don't like the process, well, you're still going to have to use the process to change it if you want to promise to love the law. Re-interpreting the constitution or its amendments when the authors left copious writings to explain what they meant and why they meant it (which will have been reflected in the actual arguments used to get it passed) is scandalous bullshit and nobody should be giving it a pass, let alone encouraging it. Strict constitutionalism is the job of the Supreme Court. It's Congress' job to change the Constitution, not the Supremes.
We are not rigidly locked to the constitution we have today. We have an amendment process, and if you want to change the constitution, you should use that process. If your changes to the constitution do not merit a constitutional amendment, then you should not be making them.
Anyway, can we stop with all of the anger for a minute and remember that a human being just died here?
For some very small, hateful, harmful, offensive value of "human being"
Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.