That’s true, bigots will always offer a road deeper into their beliefs, and you can’t stop them. But I think here the road out is a bit more visible than usual. It feels like a seed of doubt could be planted in some heads, which is something.
All because the school was afraid of some trans girl, who statistically speaking, probably wasn’t even one of their best players. The school’s transphobia did presumably hurt the trans student they targeted, but I’m guessing they hurt a lot more cis female athletes, on their own team especially. I hope any of those students who may have been transphobic see how it hurt them more than the trans student, and it gets them thinking…
Trump bucks are so 2023, they should start accepting Trump Steaks futures contracts and other derivatives
Experience which we all know is the backbone of a good presidency, just look at James Buchanan
You mean Donald Trump, who once said on tape that he was famous enough to get away with grabbing women by their genitalia? Seems like a pretty bad guy to trust, unless the thing you’re trusting him to do is sexual assault
American here: their goal is clearly factual reporting, and I don’t see too often where they’ve missed the mark. Nobody’s free of bias, but they’re pretty good at balancing theirs out.
I don’t see this mentioned there, but that Apple has largely ignored enterprise works out as a strength; other companies wrote and open sourced pretty good tools. That can result in tools that better meet your needs, and generally will result in a lower TCO.
So every steam deck that visits the websites that track this counts? It’s probably not many, but it’s certainly likely there are a few counted.
If we’re limiting ourselves to Americans, there’s one woman for the job and her name is Mara Wilson.
Would Musk’s untimely death, thought to be associated with the billion dollars worth of ketamine he bought last weekend off some dude on Craigslist, positively affect SpaceX? It might.
Though it seems like his attention being on Twitter has been good for SpaceX, less of his focus seems to mean fewer bad decisions overall. None of his attention could be a solid improvement
I’d feel better if it were in the hands of Owen Wilson.
Younger millennial here: I don’t remember a particular moment, but it was somewhere during the 2nd Bush administration. Between the horrible things that happened in Guantanamo Bay, the completely unjustified war on Iraq, and the harm I saw No Child Left Behind inflicting on my own community, the country’s flaws were very apparent to me.
When an obvious charlatan got elected in 2016, that devastated my hope that things would improve.
Well an Olympic athlete is probably a public figure in this context, so she’d need to show that Boebert defamed her “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Pretty good, I’d wager.
Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it’s not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.
Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.
IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.
If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it’s not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don’t get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.
Which could potentially create a situation if Trump were to win, where his electoral votes are split across JD Vance, and thanks to the 12th amendment, the Senate picks the VP, and selects Harris’s running mate. If Jon Tester keeps his seat in Montana, which doesn’t seem super unlikely, this probably means a 50-50 Senate, with the VP keeping it in the Dems’ control.
I still don’t understand the logic of this. Tens of millions of dollars a year is a lot of money, but so is the profits from running three casinos.
Wouldn’t running the casinos well be more profitable in the long term? And generally more sensible unless the goal is specifically to hurt the banks?
Harris winning Texas is a very unlikely event, as much as I’d like to see it. I’d be happy if exit polling is ~Trump +1, and they can’t call the state before midnight. A narrow Trump victory would still change the national conversation around Texas significantly