Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Wait, they can't grow seaweed commercially? Then where do they make packaged seaweed wraps?

The cow fart reduction requires a specific type of seaweed, asparagopsis taxiformis, that's not current produced at those sorts of levels. The scientists involved collected it from the wild on some islands.

Also, to feed 1.5 billion cattle worldwide, and other animals (it works in sheep too) would require absolutely amazing amounts of this stuff.

[smjjames]

SCOTUS just upheld the travel ban in a 5-4 decision, Also, NUUUUUUU! Justice Kennedy voted to uphold the decision! /drama

[PTTG??]

I mean we knew the supco was tainted since Gore V Bush but this is something else.

[EnigmaticHat]

SCOTUS just upheld the travel ban in a 5-4 decision, Also, NUUUUUUU! Justice Kennedy voted to uphold the decision! /drama

As far as I'm concerned the supreme court is and has been since Scalia a bunch of far right activist judges.  For example, there's no way in hell Citizens United came from the constitution.

[PTTG??]

So a hypothetical driver pulls off to the side of the road and mows down Steve. As he's being arrested, he tells the officer:

"Officer, I had a perfectly reasonable justification for pulling over on the side of this highway. You see, I just wanted to check my windshield cleaner level."
"And Steve just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
"Yes Officer."
"These daily tweets of yours talking about how you know he jogs here, and how much you want to run him over? And this recording you made of yourself saying 'there's that bastard Steve, I'm finally going to run him over like I've been promising to do,' while you were livestreaming your drive? This recording of you asking your lawyer for a way of legally killing Steve?"
"What does all that have to do with checking my wiper fluid?"

[PTTG??]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/nifla-v-becerra-decision-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-analyzed.html

Also, the Supreme Court has found that you can lie to people about their medical options and impersonate doctors.

[EnigmaticHat]

I have such mixed feelings right now.  The Supreme Court's ability to arbitrarily ignore everyone else in the country has done good things in the past.  But now its really pissing me off.

[sluissa]

So a hypothetical driver pulls off to the side of the road and mows down Steve. As he's being arrested, he tells the officer:

"Officer, I had a perfectly reasonable justification for pulling over on the side of this highway. You see, I just wanted to check my windshield cleaner level."
"And Steve just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
"Yes Officer."
"These daily tweets of yours talking about how you know he jogs here, and how much you want to run him over? And this recording you made of yourself saying 'there's that bastard Steve, I'm finally going to run him over like I've been promising to do,' while you were livestreaming your drive? This recording of you asking your lawyer for a way of legally killing Steve?"
"What does all that have to do with checking my wiper fluid?"

It's more like, Steve had a gun pointed at you and you kill him instead. Any prior statement of public hatred of Steve which might have been motive for murder of Steve goes out the window when Steve gives you a legitimate reason for self defense.

[Dunamisdeos]

That's a.... very interesting article.

This seems like the most logical point put forward there

“if a State can lawfully require a doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion about adoption services, why should it not be able, as here, to require a medical counselor to tell a woman seeking prenatal care or other reproductive healthcare about childbirth and abortion services?”

With the current political lines drawn in the sand, it's more likely we are about to see a whole lot of extremist fighting about it and everything is going to be harder for everyone. Does this mean that states will have to reconsider the question for themselves? Where does this have the potential to lead?

[hector13]

So a hypothetical driver pulls off to the side of the road and mows down Steve. As he's being arrested, he tells the officer:

"Officer, I had a perfectly reasonable justification for pulling over on the side of this highway. You see, I just wanted to check my windshield cleaner level."
"And Steve just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
"Yes Officer."
"These daily tweets of yours talking about how you know he jogs here, and how much you want to run him over? And this recording you made of yourself saying 'there's that bastard Steve, I'm finally going to run him over like I've been promising to do,' while you were livestreaming your drive? This recording of you asking your lawyer for a way of legally killing Steve?"
"What does all that have to do with checking my wiper fluid?"

It's more like, Steve had a gun pointed at you and you kill him instead. Any prior statement of public hatred of Steve which might have been motive for murder of Steve goes out the window when Steve gives you a legitimate reason for self defense.

Would you say Steve is representative of all Steves, or a very visible outlier that gets a lot of press ‘cause he shouts a lot?

[pikachu17]

Who is this Steve?

[EnigmaticHat]

This current supreme court wildly abuses the 1st amendment IMO.  If you read the details from the article, they ruled a state government is legally allowed to force professionals to give disclaimers but it is not allowed to alter the content of those disclaimers.  Basically they picked an extremely specific interpretation of the first amendment that just HAPPENED to strike down a law passed by liberal politicians without touching almost identical laws passed by conservatives.

This decision isn't why I say they abuse the 1st amendment mind you, it just isn't changing my mind.

[PTTG??]

So a hypothetical driver pulls off to the side of the road and mows down Steve. As he's being arrested, he tells the officer:

"Officer, I had a perfectly reasonable justification for pulling over on the side of this highway. You see, I just wanted to check my windshield cleaner level."
"And Steve just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
"Yes Officer."
"These daily tweets of yours talking about how you know he jogs here, and how much you want to run him over? And this recording you made of yourself saying 'there's that bastard Steve, I'm finally going to run him over like I've been promising to do,' while you were livestreaming your drive? This recording of you asking your lawyer for a way of legally killing Steve?"
"What does all that have to do with checking my wiper fluid?"

It's more like, Steve had a gun pointed at you and you kill him instead. Any prior statement of public hatred of Steve which might have been motive for murder of Steve goes out the window when Steve gives you a legitimate reason for self defense.

There was and is no legitimate reason for the travel ban. The statistics show that travelers from the listed countries were no threat to the united states and that our existing security measures were sufficient. On a less rigorous level, this ban would have prevented zero of the 9/11 hijackers from entering the USA.

I stand by my metaphor.

Steve is the global Muslim community.


And Dunamisdeos, the other finding has concluded that states cannot decide.

[Dunamisdeos]

@EnigmaticHat

Yeah I have to agree that it feels like cherry picking. I can understand their explanation of wanting to make sure that everyone is aware of all options at all times, but it does seem like an attempt to open the way to push a conservative agenda.

[EnigmaticHat]

The ruling is also going to come back in some unrelated trial like someone suing a cigarette company.

Because much, perhaps most, human behavior takes place through speech and because much, perhaps most, law regulates that speech in terms of its content, the majority’s approach at the least threatens considerable litigation over the constitutional validity of much, perhaps most, government regulation. Virtually every disclosure law could be considered “content based,” for virtually every disclosure law requires individuals “to speak a particular message.”

Edit: Granted, I'd say "making most government regulation unconstitutional" is a bit alarmist, considering regulations apply to what a company does not just what it says.  Some regulation, absolutely.  One of the justices who voted with the majority wrote a hilariously alarmist dissent explaining why he voted for different reasons.  He stops just short of invoking godwin and its hilarious to me.

Double edit: shit wouldn't this apply to your miranda rights too?  Since cops have to give a *specific* warning.  1st and 5th amendments confirmed mutually exclusive.