That's the thing about felony murder. If her death occurred as a result of their commission of a felony, then they should be on the hook for felony murder. It doesn't matter that they didn't directly kill her.
Felony murder isn't a phrase to disambiguate between a murder that's a felony and some kind of nonexistent misdemeanor murder. It refers to a very specific type of "murder" where somebody dies as a result of somebody else committing a felony. The commission of the felony is enough to make the person liable - they don't have to have intended to kill anybody in the process or be directly involved in the death.
Four unarmed teenagers break into a house. The homeowner shoots and kills one of them. The three survivors are all liable for felony murder for the fourth's death, and can face life in prison or even a death sentence.
A group of criminals break into a house. One stays outside as a lookout, completely unaware of what is happening in the house. The elderly homeowner tries to stop the criminals in the house, but slips and falls and hits his head and dies from a brain hemorrhage. The lookout is liable for felony murder.
Two cops are having a disagreement at work. They get a call of a burglary in progress and drive out there and start chasing the suspect. One of the cops shoots at the suspect, but "accidentally" misses and fatally wounds the other cop they were fighting with back at the station. The burglar is liable for felony murder for the cop's death.
If the same standards were applied to the criminals who raided the journalist's house, then they'd all be charged with felony murder.
This is a pretty optimistic view. Inflation is (mostly) a one way street. The rate at which prices are rising might have slowed down, but the prices themselves aren't going to go back down. That damage is already done. Come next year, I don't think people are going to be thinking "I'm paying an extra dollar for a big mac than I was 4 years ago, but at least it didn't go up another dollar this year too"
The top 10% of Americans own 70% of the country's wealth.
Have you ever stopped to consider the logical conclusions of that? If they lived at the same standard as the average American, we would only need to use 30% of the resources we're currently burning through. It's grossly inefficient. We waste more than 2/3rds of our resources so that rich assholes can live in $100 million mansions and fly around on private jets.
Say you're an American working a 9 to 5 job. Once you hit 1 pm on Tuesday, you've done enough work for the week to meet all the actual needs for society. The rest of Tuesday, all of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are all just to pay for rich assholes to take a "hunting" trip to Africa and needlessly slaughter native wildlife. Or to buy the 400th car in their special collections that they've nearly forgotten about. Etc. Etc.
70% of the irreplaceble oil being drilled? Flushed down the drain just so that rich assholes can horde wealth. 70% of the pollution in the air? Put there so that billionaires can have parties on a private island. So that they can fly their private jets to private retreats and pretend to be outdoorspeople for a weekend. 70% of the new extreme weather being caused by anthropogenic climate change? All so that rich assholes can do things like jet around the world so they can say they've played a round of golf on 7 different continents in 7 days. Etc. Etc.
Exactly. There's basically two parties right now: the one running around setting things on fire, and the one beholden to corporate interests that won't let them use a fire extinguisher or a water hose.
Is starting fires worse than letting an already started fire continue to burn? Yes. Are the currently burning fires going to be extinguished either way? No.
No, that was for other judicial nominees. McConnell extended it to Supreme Court nominees in 2017 after 2 failed cloture votes on Gorsuch's nomination. Which he obviously wouldn't have done if Hillary won.
Even with a strict definition, gerrymandering is still absolutely a thing with presidential elections, with Dakota boundaries being drawn to break it into two states to give Republicans twice as many electoral votes.
Right? Hillary wins, Democrats still have less than 60 in the Senate, and no Supreme Court justices get appointed, including RBG's seat after she passes. Next Republican president wins, Kennedy retires, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret still get appointed. The end.
That's the thing about felony murder. If her death occurred as a result of their commission of a felony, then they should be on the hook for felony murder. It doesn't matter that they didn't directly kill her.
Felony murder isn't a phrase to disambiguate between a murder that's a felony and some kind of nonexistent misdemeanor murder. It refers to a very specific type of "murder" where somebody dies as a result of somebody else committing a felony. The commission of the felony is enough to make the person liable - they don't have to have intended to kill anybody in the process or be directly involved in the death.
Four unarmed teenagers break into a house. The homeowner shoots and kills one of them. The three survivors are all liable for felony murder for the fourth's death, and can face life in prison or even a death sentence.
A group of criminals break into a house. One stays outside as a lookout, completely unaware of what is happening in the house. The elderly homeowner tries to stop the criminals in the house, but slips and falls and hits his head and dies from a brain hemorrhage. The lookout is liable for felony murder.
Two cops are having a disagreement at work. They get a call of a burglary in progress and drive out there and start chasing the suspect. One of the cops shoots at the suspect, but "accidentally" misses and fatally wounds the other cop they were fighting with back at the station. The burglar is liable for felony murder for the cop's death.
If the same standards were applied to the criminals who raided the journalist's house, then they'd all be charged with felony murder.