Nougat

I wouldn’t worry about it. Even on brand new cars, there are plenty where losing (burning) a quart of oil between changes is “within specifications.” The engine is likely going to burn a little bit of oil just because, and you’ll be lower again soon enough.

That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.

Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.

Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”

Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.

Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.

Doesn’t matter, that’s not the point. Delay and chaos are the point.

By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

Since we’re talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.

And to follow up on @[email protected]’s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.

Unless you’re president.

I initially thought Boeing was buying Spirit Airlines.

… the ABC entered “Miscellaneous Ad Interim Permits,” which allow the facilities to continue serving alcohol until a hearing on the renewals is held.

So, still no consequences.

Wasn’t it already decided that police are not obliged to help anyone? How can this go anywhere?

That you know of.

Monk doesn’t go that far, and it’s still obvious. “Here’s a joke before commercial!” Pause. Fade back in to a new scene. Pause. “Here’s a little cliffhanger before commercial!” Pause. Fade back in to a new scene. Pause.

I’ve been watching Monk recently, without ads, and it’s very interesting how television shows used to be written and edited for commercials. It’s dead obvious where the commercials used to be, and even that detracts from the overall experience.

Taking up two parking spaces? Prison is good enough.

Life without parole.

From the little we know about Frisian, yes, very similar.

Those are all arguably fair - but they seem to apply to national military judicial systems as opposed to civilian criminal courts.

Edit: And when it comes to the United States, those offenses would be federal ones, found in the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 - an Act which I still think goes too far. Above, I used the word “state” in its general sense. US States have no purpose applying capital punishment beyond revenge.

The only purpose executions serve is revenge, and the state should not be in the revenge business.

It starts with proto-Indo-European (PIE), and is a fantastic mixture of history and language and how the two intersect. And no ads!

I forget the numbers I’ve heard, but that sounds right. It’s also important to remember that in the 11th century, English vocabulary was much smaller than it is today, so those 10,000 words were a much larger proportion of the English language than might be apparent.

Another thing to know is that English was heavily influenced by Old Norse prior to the Norman Conquest, too. The mixing of those three languages, each having some differences in grammar and inflection, ended with English dropping a lot of inflections and turning to word position in a sentence to determine what’s subject, object, verb.