There are 257 open positions with titles that lead with "Senior" {Scientist|Engineer|Manager}. That seems extreme. Does no element of the organization develop from within?
"We conclude that GBPs are an ineffective policy strategy to reduce gun violence, a
finding consistent with descriptive evidence that (i) firearm sales prices are set too low by cities
to appreciably reduce the local supply of firearms, (ii) most GBP participants are drawn from populations with low crime risk, and (iii) firearms sold in GBPs tend to be older and less well functioning than the average firearm.
The San Jose Mercury has just changed their style guide to do exactly this (capitalize Black when used in a racial identity context)[0]. When using "white" in the same context, it remains uncapitalized.
GrubHub... lost $33.4 million over the last 3 months. (In fairness: COVID-19.)
I don't understand the qualifier. Hasn't Covid-19 been a boon to delivery services? If they can't profit during these artificially beneficial market conditions (boosted demand and endless supply of minions to do delivery), how can they ever profit?
They are engineered to take a loss. If market conditions improve they ramp up costs. It’s not a game to maximize profits yet, it’s a game of trying to maximize vale extracted from losses.
I'm guessing it's because of so many of the restaurants being closed in urban areas during the lockdown and people having less money to spend on things like takeout.
You should tell the SCOTUS that. They overturned 55% of Obama executive directives that reached them, and his administration had the most overturned unanimously (yes, even Ginsberg and Sotomayor) of any Presidency.
>>Also, the U.S. Constitution's requirement that State governments be (small-r) republican
There is no such requirement
Dude. This is literally in Article IV:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..."
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..."
Perhaps it’s my imperfect understanding of English here, but to me this reads more like a guarantee to the states that the federal government itself will take the form of a republican government, not that the states themselves must be republics.
It’s like a shopkeeper saying “My store shall guarantee to every shopper prices that are no higher than that of a competitor’s.” The guarantee is on the shopkeeper’s part; no obligation is required of the shoppers themselves.
The Constitution clearly sets up a Republican Form of Government for the Federal Government. Clearly, the Republican Guarantee clause's only meaning would be to limit future Amendments' scope if it were only to apply to the Federal Government. But look at more of the Article:
| The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; ...
That makes it pretty clear that this is about the States.
The Republican Guarantee is a commitment of the Federal Government to the States about the States. It means that the Federal Government will tolerate no State monarchies.
Perhaps I just don't understand something, but I'm still not seeing anything that would imply any restrictions on the type of government a state chooses to implement. To me, the additional clause you showed just says that the federal government shall protect the states against invasions.
> The Republican Guarantee is a commitment of the Federal Government to the States about the States.
I'm not quite sure where the "about the states" part came from. To me, Article IV just reads like a set of promises the federal government must make to the states.
The key word in my comment is "additional", which was intended to indicate that I was replying to "and shall protect each of them against Invasion".
I have to admit it's also partially my fault since I didn't notice at the time that you are not the same person who made the original comment I replied to, so I left out some context.
Otherwise I agree that it is just a list of commitments.
extremely partisan Wisconsin court has now struck down that law in a blatant act of judicial activism
"Extreme partisanship" is more evident in your complaint about a "striking down" that didn't happen of a "law" that doesn't exist. The Court upheld existing law and struck down executive actions that violated it.
By the way, Supreme Court justices here in Wisconsin are elected on statewide ballots, not nominated for life like Federal judges. Your basis for calling them "extremely partisan" is, what, exactly?
The Court does not deny or rewrite that. It simply asserts that 227.24 also applies. Seems reasonable to me, since "227.24 does exist".
> We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.
> Palm responded that Emergency Order 28 is not a rule. Rather, it is an Order, fully authorized by the powers the Legislature assigned to DHS under Wis. Stat. §252.02.
So the Executive asserted that Emergency Order 28 is not a rule.
> We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by theLegislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule."Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.
