No self or shitposting. See the sticky at the top of the community.
No self or shitposting. See the sticky at the top of the community.
I had a cat who would sit on my pants. I guess she figured if I couldn’t get dressed, I couldn’t leave the house!
Shows what SHE knows! :)
If she’s like Ginsburg, she’s got at least 4 more Presidential elections in her.
But in the end, it won’t matter. Trump will convince Thomas and Alito to step down like he did Kennedy and we’ll have a 5 member Trump court for the remainder of our lives.
I found out yesterday that the entire family of one of my good friends has been displaced in Lebanon. They are NOT Hezbollah, they just had the bad luck of “living while Arab in Lebanon”.
Israel can get fucked.
Union representation is a fraction of what it used to be… or needs to be.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/01/24/labor-union-membership-by-year/72329342007/
"the rate of union members is the lowest in decades at 10%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A combination of labor laws unfavorable to unions and an uptick in corporate-backed union suppression tactics are two insights as to why union membership is so low in the 21st century.
In the 1950s, 1 in 3 workers were represented by a union. Now it’s closer to 1 in 10."
“Wages may well be rising at all levels, but everyday inflation was more discernible to voters.”
Your wages only rise if you change jobs. If you aren’t willing, or able to change jobs, your wage increase (if you get one AT ALL) is not beating inflation.
They did not join Nato, got invaded twice ANYWAY… Almost like it was never about NATO, huh, go figure.
Finland joined NATO - not invaded… Go figure!
Everything Everywhere All At Once
Not right now, but probably in a month:
“but will hold off on prohibiting the state from enforcing it for one month to allow for a likely appeal.”
They’ve already ruled on that… repeatedly… but of course precedent means fuck all to this court anymore…
D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”
To fully understand this, you have to have been following the Supreme Court gun rulings since 2008. That’s when it started changing.
2008 - D.C. vs. Heller - Handgun ban
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”
How this relates to assault weapons, from the ruling:
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
“The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”
2010 - McDonald v. City of Chicago - Handgun ban
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
Because D.C. is a special district, and not a state, the court ruled 2 years later that, yes, they mean states as well.
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
2016 - Caetano v. Massachusetts
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
This is my favorite of the bunch. Woman buys a stun gun to protect against an abusive ex. MA rules that stun guns didn’t exist back in the day, so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply.
“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
2022 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
This is the one that’s causing lower courts to re-consider all their rulings.
On the face of it, it up-ended how New York State assigns concealed carry permits. In order to get a permit, you had to show “special cause” and statements like “I don’t feel safe” or “I want to defend myself” weren’t deemed special enough.
So to start with:
"the “constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.”
BUT - THE COURT DIDN’T END THERE.
They added this little bon mot for other courts:
“To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).”
So now, all other courts are reviewing the laws with those two bullet points in mind… aaand here we are…
Basically anything that would make your boss go “OMG! What are you looking at?” needs the tag.
The usual nudity, but also anything bloody or dead.
Hey Pete! Mark this NSFW (thumbnail) or I’ll have to remove it.
You might want to mark this NSFW because of the thumbnail.
So I kind of involuntarily quit gaming. :) I had a heart attack, and I was finding it challenging enough just navigating menu screens much less trying to play the game. :(
Fuckin’ Red Dead Redemption 2 just broke me. :(
I’ve gone back a little, but I can’t sit and play 8-10-12 hours straight like I used to!
Looks like the school goes up to 5th grade which would be, what? 10 year olds?
Just the idea that a 13 year old would be trying to access a school for pre-K to 10 year olds is suspicious enough!
I’d be in trouble because I’d be setting up an Anne Frank attic refuge… for monkeys!
I rated it at 9 once, “Wanna know the difference between 9 and 10? I can still control the swearing at 9!”
“do you really think that the Democratic party is going to the mat… and fighting for you?”
Forget about me, or the working class, the Democratic party doesn’t actually fight for anything.
2000 election stolen in Florida? Ho hum, oh well… we’ll get 'em next time! (2004 election stolen in Ohio…)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
https://www.wired.com/2008/03/the-mysterious/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-it-guru-dies-in-plane-crash/
You rightly nominated a Supreme Court Justice but the Senate refuses to give them a hearing? Oh well! Guess we’ll just have to win the 2016 election…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination