Charge the original management with the penalties of violation of that plea deal. Have them cover the fiscal penalties personally.

If they can't cover it with liquid cash, liquidate all their assets and make them work at minimum wage, for a minimum of 40h a week (or applicable worker laws) until they can cover that. This debt should be non-dischargible in bankruptcy.

Perhaps you can point to any economic policies that the Republican party actively advocates for and are opposed by the Democratic party, that are proven to reduce the cost of eggs and baby formula, as demonstrated to actually work in another developed economy?

For the answer to be taken seriously, please provide a policy that Republicans advocate for, where it has been implemented elsewhere that actually resulted in a drop in prices for those (or similar) items, and how Democrats are opposing it.

Agreed, given that if you care solely about the performance of the economy, you vote for the Democratic party. There are far too many people who have regressive opinions about abortion and vote against their economic best interests and voted for Republicans.

Source for the evidence that Democrats give a better return on investment in the stock market than Republicans, going back to 1946.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932?op=1

Until we ditch the Electoral College, and certain States no longer have massively more political influence than others, disproportionate to their population, it won't happen.

That, or Florida no longer becomes a swing state.

Reality.

Which often has a liberal bias, as least to the modern Republican party.

And what's going to happen to them?

If the penalty for activity like this is not bigger than the profits generated, they're going to keep doing it.

Source?

Searching "wa liquor tax one year" turned up literally nothing related to the tax only being in place for a year.

Try again, it was previously able to be restricted, and laws implemented by states made no allusion to any personal ownership outside of a militia.

DC vs Heller the first to recognize that interpretation.

If you disagree, please provide citations as to what court case previously recognized personal ownership being the core point of the second amendment.

Laws were on the books that infringed on personal ownership, and the two cases I provided made no reference to any personal ownership, outside of those relating to a militia.

If it was clear in the wording, then why was the first part about militias even included, and why were other restrictions made by states prior to the decision allowed to stand prior.

Again, I don't see anything about personal ownership of firearms being protected, because it did not exist outside of relating to a militia, until that right was invented in DC vs Heller.

If that right existed and was recognized by the courts, from 1788 - 2008, please let me know and link the court cases.

What an odd year to bring up. Here's two decisions that DC vs Heller effectively overturned, in practice if not officially, by inventing the private right to firearms, rather than its function in a militia (which in turn could generally be regulated by the states).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller - 1939, restriction of firearms not used by the military (short barreled shotguns aren't used by the military, don't relate to the performance of a militia, and aren't protected under those rules).

"it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois - 1886, Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. This included their personal equipment.

Private ownership over firearms was seen as something that states could (unless their own constitution prohibited it) restrict, and said States could also restrict non-federal militias and the actions and equipment those militias possessed.

DC vs Heller overturned this by creating the personal ownership right out of thin air, untethered to a militia, in defiance of the prior interpretations of the second amendment, since it was passed.

Look, if you like guns, that's fine. Just admit that you like guns and you want more of them in people's hands.

The shootings that come at schools are a result of that view, but if personal ownership of guns are more important than stopping school shootings, that's your decision, and the school shootings are the price in blood we pay as a society for it. That and a significant lack of an adequate social safety net around mental Healthcare, economic stability, and the like, when compared to other developed (or even underdeveloped) countries.

The history behind the prior interpretations around the 2nd Amendment before DC vs Heller, and the lack of Originalism in the viewpoints that decided it is well documented.

The Supreme Court took a significant departure from prior interpretations, and essentially invented a new right.

The prior interpretations of the 2nd amendment, for literally two hundred years prior, saw it only as be for the purposes of a functioning militia and the ability for their members to function in that militia.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but two hundred years of decisions and interpretations, overturned by "Originalist" judges in a narrow decision and a radical departure from prior form, are stated facts. They aren't my opinions, they are well documented.

Of course not. Did you forget the first part of that sentence, or did you skip to the end?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For over Two Hundred Years, that was interpreted as "to ensure the security of a free state, you need to have a well functioning and regulated militia, and for the people actively in that militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Except it already has been, since your average person, even in a militia, cannot own weapons like nuclear bombs.

But skipping over the first part of that, the part that defines the purpose of the amendment, seems to be common for people who pretend that they follow "Originalist" interpretations of the constitution, rather than just admitting that they like guns and want more people to own them. It was only in 2008 that this significant departure from previous understanding was taken, two hundred years later.

Correct, but the modern version of states being unable to put additional restrictions on firearm ownership was invented through decisions made by "Originalist" (also known as conservative wish fulfillment) judges.

It is the result of putting judges who are perfectly happy to decide an election they don't like (Bush vs Gore) and hiding behind a shield of "Originalism" that's handily tossed aside as soon as it accomplishes a political goal of the Conservative party.

It is clear in the text of the second amendment that a well functioning and regulated militia is required for the common defense. In no words does it say anything about the "personal ownership" of firearms. That was invented wholesale by "Originalist" judges.

DC vs Heller in 2008 was what happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Turns out that inventing a concept of personal firearm ownership (whereas it had previously been interpreted as in conjunction with a militia) has negative consequences on a societal level.