I don’t support using it as a basis to shove politics into everything, I was just following that this is a common trope of people who do, which leans on semantics while ignoring the spirit of people not wanting everything to be a political debate.

For such people, there’s no way to word a rule ironclad enough, and you simply have to make judgement calls at some point.

Since “everything is politics” it seems impossible to ever word a rule is a way that an obnoxious wannabe rules lawyer won’t argue, but the plain intent of the rule seems clear enough. Enforcement will normalize the tone, and if a post is removed and the poster reacts will outsized outrage, in my observation, it was probably because they were emotionally invested in the politics of the post.

The immunity regarding official acts pertains to judicial proceedings. An impeachment is a legislative proceeding. While it uses judicial terms like “trial” it is not the same thing and can not directly result in criminal conviction or sentencing.

An impeachment conviction results in removal from office. The previous impeachment proceedings did not result in a conviction.

(Edit for additional information: While an impeachment uses terms like “trial” and “conviction” it is not a judicial proceeding. It is entirely a legislative proceeding which is formatted to resemble a judicial one, but is not bound to judicial procedure and it also can not produce a criminal conviction or sentence.)

Or more recently (and I suppose in the same wheelhouse as the topic at hand), Hunter Biden’s pardon was a blanket pardon for any potential crimes that may have been committed on January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024. It wasn’t just for what he had specifically been charged with at the time.

Oh those. I meant the Gillette Fusion razor heads. They are supposed to be disposable, and I do eventually get rid of them, but I extend the lifespan by a lot with a squeeze bottle of alcohol on them to clean them. A head that should last weeks will end up lasting me months with just a little care.

Reverse osmosis filter, you can just get an under the sink one of you don’t plan on drinking your shower water. Kind of pricey up front, and you have to replace the filters every so often, but it gives good taste and peace of mind for filtering.

I am telling you from first hand viewing that bottled water plants use the same kind of filtering.

disposable shavers

I have them, but clean them with a squirt of alcohol and they last ages. I think the last time I bought a pack was 2020.

I was just pointing out the way on a limb theoretical to cover all my bases. The Presidential pardon could in theory be used on a mass scale (and it has been in the past) but in realistic terms, no it won’t happen. That said, inside the realm of some sort of reality weed will still be a factor on 4473 until the law either removes the question about illegal drugs, or weed is made federally legal. That’s not something controlled solely by the executive branch.

To bolster your point, Andrew Johnson issued a blanket pardon to all Confederate soldiers in regards to treason and insurrection. Not every individual former Confederate soldier had been convicted of these crimes, but still gained immunity.

That question is required by HR 1025 (“The Brady Act”). To get rid of weed as a factor, there would either need to be a change to the form requirement, or weed to be made federally legal and thus not an illegal substance. The requirement is not an ATF determination.

Joe Biden could theoretically pardon all people in violation of this, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for a blanket universal pardon involving guns and weed together.

Christmas is canceled.

I know, I know we are on lemmy, where all judges are wrong and evil, but this actually seems pretty cut and dry.

Act No. 320 of 1937 (“Pennsylvania Election Code”). Section 1306-D:

(a) General rule.–At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the mail-in elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed “Official Election Ballot.” This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector’s county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.

Abridged:

At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election the mail-in elector shall […] then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope.

The “correct date” is any date before or on the day of the election, according to the code. A judge reads and interprets the written law, and this seems like a simple read.

The counter argument to the apparently unanimous reading of the law by all parties presented in court hinged on: "Pennsylvania’s constitution, which says that elections in the state ‘shall be free and equal’ " making the law itself unconstitutional, which I’m not surprised wasn’t very persuasive. Ballot envelopes without written dates were presumably treated equally (as opposed to being treated differently based on the vote cast) and the state didn’t interfere with the ability to fill out the date. The rules were laid down and everyone who followed them had their vote counted equally.

I can already hear people in the comments screaming about how they don’t like it. The standards for the mail-in ballots have been there since 1937 and nobody had a problem with them until right this moment when it looked like letting them slide might flip a close election. If you still don’t like them, pressure the legislature, not the judges. There’s not a ton of wiggle room in how to read the code.

BY GAWD THE DNC IS (rhetorically) TORN IN HALF!

and the whole hooters/twin peaks concept

I haven’t thought about Hooters in years. It always did seem like a dated concept from the 1980s that was somehow still clinging to life in the 90s. It’s still in business, so obviously somebody must be going to them, but I don’t know if I’d call it normal for most Americans.

Anecdotally this is also my experience. I grew up with shoes off in the house, but even up to the early 00’s it seemed to be a cultural outlier in the US.

These days I think the majority of people who I go over to visit have a shoes off rule. Seems like the split is between the older half of millennials and up shoes on, and younger half and down shoes off for the most part.

If a business has a sign posted stating “no guns allowed,” you can still legally carry your weapon in that business.

I’m sure that’s the practicality, but I am skeptical of the legality of a CCW permit trumping the rights of the property owner.

It sounds more like breaking the law and just not getting caught. Do you have any links to CCW permit overriding property owner rights?

#8: Police

State police enforce state level laws, and Federal agencies enforce federal laws.

The whole semi-autonomous thing. If a state and the Feds both have their own laws against something they could each try to arrest somebody, but there could also be a situation where one might not have a law while the other one does. For example , weed is still illegal under Federal law. The Federal government has mostly chosen not to enforce these laws, but it could. Many states have legalized weed to varying degrees.

So there could be a situation where somebody is smoking weed in a state that has legalized it. The state police have no power to arrest that person, but the Feds do.

I’m sure this has all made it more confusing.

In the US with all the variety there are places like that, but then places where you seemingly can’t find alcohol to buy and take home anywhere.

There’s differences between how wine & beer, and hard liquor are treated. I’d say the “average” experience is beer in any corner shop or gas station, beer and wine in a grocery store, and hard liquor in specific liquor stores.

Alcohol sales vary hugely between states. In some states, you can get hard liquor at Wal-Mart while in others you can only get it at state run stores.

The rules about licensing mean some areas gas stations usually don’t even sell beer, while in other places they have giant walk in beer freezers.

Some states or counties have dry laws where they don’t sell alcohol on Sundays, or maybe no hard alcohol, or maybe you have to wait until noon to be able to buy it.

It’s all over the place.

As for the Wal-Mart machineguns, I think you’ve gotten enough replies on that detail, but again gun sales are something with huge variety. Some states have put restrictions in place where a Wal-Mart theoretically could still sell guns but doesn’t because of the hassle, and gun stores end up being few and far between, while other places basically just have the Federal minimum in place.