Ron DeSantis

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 158

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a significant legal and constitutional issue, specifically the Chevron doctrine and its impact on the separation of powers and the administrative state. The tone is assertive and critical, aiming to highlight the perceived negative consequences of the Chevron doctrine and the importance of the Supreme Court's decision.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a critique of a legal doctrine and a judicial decision, which is a legitimate part of public discourse. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on a legal critique.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It critiques a legal doctrine and a judicial decision, which is a legitimate part of public discourse. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to engage in a discussion about a significant legal and constitutional issue, which can be seen as contributing to the betterment of society by fostering informed debate. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity. It engages in a substantive legal critique without resorting to misinformation or inflammatory rhetoric. [+1]