The reasonable solution would have been to include a mechanism for quickly and efficiently overruling these decisions when needed. They have to report to congress about anything that is withheld, but as far as I know they didn’t include a provision that would allow them to reject the given justification and order the release.

To achieve the status of measles elimination, a country must have no ongoing local transmission of the disease for at least one year. It will lose that status if it has a chain of cases that spread from person to person for more than one year.

We’ve been heading in that direction, but we won’t have officially lost our measles-free status until the current outbreak has continued for a full year.

I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn’t find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they’ve had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there’s basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can’t rationalize it.

If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.

My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what’s one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.

Surely this will get Donny his Nobel Peace Prize.

I’m a little disappointed that I haven’t see an article point out this one:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name appears 11 times.

Grokipedia: https://grokipedia.com/page/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name doesn’t appear at all.

I would be curious to know how those polled would define capitalism and socialism. Even ignoring the ones that would boil down to cartoonishly good and evil, I would assume that there is a huge disconnect in what each side thinks those terms mean.

I suspect that if you had asked the same people how they felt about policies and priorities without explaining which are capitalist and which are socialist, and included a broad spectrum of ideas ranging from one extreme to the other, you’d see a very different picture emerge.

Unfortunately, Jesus is now in an ICE detention center awaiting deportation to El Salvador.

From the same article:

In the United States, several states have enacted legislation to implement permanent DST, but the bills would require Congress to change federal law in order to take effect. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 permits states to opt out of DST and observe permanent standard time, but it does not permit permanent DST.

Spoon rests are just another thing that needs cleaning. If you are using a pot with a hole in the handle for hanging, a clothes pin can grip a mixing spoon while the other side of the pin gets wedged in the hole. Spoon drips back into the pot, and no additional cleaning is needed.

I have always wanted to check out the timeline where Chris Farley was Shrek.

Off the streets and into the Whitehouse.

At this point, there is no position so indefensible and abhorrent that I would bet against the Supreme Court ruling in favor of it.

We need to have criminal charges for this shit and throw the assholes responsible in prison. And not the minimum security bullshit either, they need to get the same punishment that the rest of us would get if we stole that much from them.

Do that, and seize the money, and hit them with fines, and make them pay for the cost of their prosecution if they are convicted. Then we might start taking the legal risks a bit more seriously.

Assuming the 23% and the 28% aren’t overlapping, that makes 51% that think a shut down is woth it if it gets their side what they want.

The more we communicate in memes and pop culture references, the closer we get to going full Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

The building was on fire, and it wasn’t my fault.

Blood Rites, book 6 of The Dresden Files

That actually involves being slightly helpful. This is just security guard stuff. Paul Blart would be overqualified for this.

Technically, that was in a concurring opinion, so it’s not actually a precedent and lower courts are free to ignore it. But it’s also clear that the Supreme Court will kill this case if it gets to them, they’ll just do it on the shadow docket with virtually no explanation beyond a single paragraph citing a (dubious) procedural issue.

It would be disastrous for the country both economically and strategically. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent for this administration. If anything, that would seem to align with their existing policies.