Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, who ruled with the majority, criticized Evnen and Hilgers for attempting such a massive rollback of voting rights right before a major election. “Why now?” she wrote. “Why not take the opportunity to challenge the laws long ago with available remedies, rather than creating uncertainty at this time?”
We all know why
This is what is so fascinating to me about most people, they don’t understand that companies hord their assets in my different kinds of investments when they are this large. Having real estate gives them an asset they can can store large sums of money in that generally appreciate in value over time. If a company is under finacial duress, they can fire a bunch of employees, then sale the land where those employees worked and and save themselves from much larger losses on revenue for a given time period.
You do understand that large corporations invest in many kinds of assets in order to diversify them right? Real estate is one of the oldest investments any entity can make, and is often considered a pretty strong investment. Everyone needs land right?
Lol, “my personal anecdotal story, means someone else is crazy and wrong, despite me having no other evidence either.”
Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.
This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.
[103] Ord, George (1840). “Minutes from the Stated Meeting, September 18 [1840]”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1: 272.
They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.
Be mad then I guess lol
I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some “correct” way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.
Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.
Had a dude come around in my neighborhood a few times. It was the middle of the summer and it can get above 100 where I live. Gave him pbj and some water because if was all I had at the time. He only asked for food and water. Haven’t seen him in a year now though.
As opposed to your evidence based approach of using divination to determine the person you replied to in your original comment was in some sort of minority of opinion?
Illegal according to who?
The US? Why would China care, they are their own country with their own laws.
International courts? Who is enforcing those judgments?
Idk, Maybe instead of avoiding nazi spaces, people should take a page from their book and just invade them and overwhelm them. Idk about you, I have to put up with hearing and seeing bullshit daily, so my tolerance is high. A lot of these fascist can’t even handle a picture of a catboy lol
So, before I begin, I want to bring back in some context that is important to the point I want to make. Alito made his statement in response to a juror fighting summary rejection from a case, in which the rejection was due to their belief that “homosexuality is a sin.” The plaintiff, in this case, identified as a lesbian.
I think it is very important to point out that Alito is being very careful in picking his focus of concern from a constitutional perspective as, you have to remember, the sixth amendment garuntees “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. To put it another way, the court try to eliminate, from they jury, pool any individuals whose bias would negatively affect the outcome of a case in a way not congruent with the law. To me, it seems very intentional that he would champion one constitutional right and neglect another as Alito, a Supreme Court Justice, should be taking all angles of the constitution into question. He should not take into account just those parts that align with his held bias and beliefs.
Now, how should we as individuals, considering both the 1st and 6th ammendments, broach asituation in which two individuals right clash?
I have tried to look into if there was any precedent on determining what happens in the case of conflicting constitution rights, but I could not find anything. So, as to my limited knowledge, I can’t really look to precedent (if someone knows anything about this, please share).
Personally, I would believe that since it could be the matter of someone’s freedom on the line in the case of a trial, I lean in favor of the summary dismissal. Not being on a jury does not, in any way, amount to an injury to said individual that in anyway compares to the possible ramifications of allowing bias onto a case in which someone’s life or property is on the line. The individual can continue to believe whatever regressive asinine dogma their religion subscribes to(and yes, I am showing my bias), while the case is decided by people more willing to only consider the law of this country and not some diety who has no authority here.
If you read the article it does not mean states will have to issue licenses to same sex couples in their own state, just, from my understanding, honor ones issued in states where it is legal (which while Obergefell stands is all of them). It is also important to note that the Supreme Court had the power to overturn legislation if it deems it unconditional, so, while it would be hard for them to outright overturn this bill using the constitution, since a state cannot hold religious preference due to seperation of church and state, it cannot be ruled out entirely. I feel it is likely they rule in favor of an individual, such as a county clerk, not having to issue a marriage license if it “goes against their religious beliefs”, which could basically mean a ban for large areas of some states with highly religious conservatives.
Not having constant updates is not necessarily a bad sign either. Developers have lives too and maybe something else is priority over small bug fixes in this project for them right now.
“Only human intelligence can solve” gives answer
No it doesn’t because a person chooses to get intoxicated. One does not choose to be a child or be mentally impaired.