A constitutional amendment implies that the constitution doesn’t already cover this when, in its plain language, it definitely does. This provides an implicit concession that the court was right.
Don’t give them that. Pack the court and issue the opposite decision at the earliest opportunity.
We already oppose it. Shoot your guns if you’re not a fucking coward.
Well another medieval thing we’re bringing back is not learning history
Fucking guillotines already
He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.
There’s probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.
The example they set was “throw bricks at cops”, and I agree, the world should listen.
Donald Trump has never served anything except himself and maybe a few tennis balls.
God I fucking wish, do you know how many terrible politicians we’d be free of if it were?
There was a chance he might be in a room with black people. You think he was gonna risk showing up?
he listens to his better angels,
One subtle diversion from this: I think the joke here is not that Everett opposes homelessness (and is generous regardless); the joke here is that he wants to encourage this fellow, and is actively fighting those who would discourage him.
It’s just a little different perspective on why this is funny.
She should be pissed in any scenario. You propose to your partner, you post a photo, and then you put ANYTHING other than I LOVE MY FIANCEE in your post? That sucks, dude.
I’m pretty anti-AI but even I’ll cop to this one. ChatGPT is good at figuring out what you’re trying to describe. Know you need a particular networking concept? Describe it a bit to ChatGPT and ask for some concepts that are similar, and the thing you’re looking for will probably be in the list.
Looking for a particular library that you assume must exist even though you’ve never seen it? ChatGPT can give you that.
You’re on your own after that, but it can actually save you a bit of research time.
The problem is this: it’s sure it has the answer 100% of the time, but about 30% of the time it gives you a list of nothing but wrong answers and you can go off in the wrong direction as a result.
Intent matters in criminal law and would be considered in future cases of this type. If someone is being arrested for violating the law, and the intent of the arrest is to prosecute legitimate criminal behavior, you’re good. If it can be shown that the intent was political retaliation, you’re in the shit.
On the contrary: guys like that are big on fear. That’s at the root of conservatism and toxic masculinity: fear of losing one’s life, one’s property, one’s place in the social hierarchy.
When he saw another gun come out, he felt fear. Nothing teaches you better than that.
I mean, that’s probably not gonna get the girl, but I think you taught her dad a little humility
Are these things literally Little Tykes Cozy Coupes like wtf
So they overturned the students’ vote and probably pissed off every high school student, undermined everyone’s trust, so they could veto… Bulldogs? What was so bad about Bulldogs?
I respect the inclusion of Haiti here.
To sum up: we recently got the awesome FTC instruction that noncompete agreements are disallowed in almost all cases.
Noncompete agreements keep workers from being able to work in their trained field just because they previously worked somewhere else in that field and had to sign a paper to do so. They’re a tool used to harm worker power; traditionally for knowledge workers, but now it’s being used all over the place.
The judge
SCsaid, you can’t ban those. Noncompetes are cool and good. Fuck workers.EDIT: This was a 5th circuit judge, so not the USSC. A little below that level.