EmptySlime

On June 29, 2021, the district court dismissed the operative complaint, and the court entered final judgment the next day. The district court dismissed Science Feedback without prejudice for lack of service, and it dismissed the remaining Defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Quick search for "with prejudice" in the document. I guess they tried to argue that Meta was acting on behalf of the state when they "censored" their anti vaccine posts, but they failed spectacularly in doing so.

Small note. The writer didn't choose the title, the editorial staff at the Boston Globe did. The person who actually wrote the article, Greg Beacham is a writer for the Associated Press, which syndicates their stories to papers worldwide. Those papers are then allowed to choose the headline they run with if they decide to run it. That's why he's included in the apology. He talked about it over on his Twitter.

So I have a hard time believing anything other than actual malice on the part of the Globe's editorial staff.

I would absolutely kill for a Weird Al parody of "Not Like Us" about how deeply and toxicly creepy and weird these rightoid freaks are.

More than just non-conforming generally too. They super quickly embraced that non-conformist image when it came to the masks.

But it feels like just calling them weird triggers a primal fear within them that they're not really part of the "in-group" after all. It works where other insults don't because they can't easily write it off as their enemies simply being jealous of how cool they are basically.

Most likely you'd have to allow the sitting president to appoint an acting justice to serve out the remainder of that justice's term. Yeah we'd still have the problem of RBG dying under Trump and giving us a 6-3 conservative majority, but if she only had a few years left on her term when she died the damage would at least be limited.

As for what McConnell did to Garland, having term endings scheduled would make that a lot harder. If their terms are staggered such that they always end 1 year and 3 years into each president's term it destroys the argument that it's too close to an election and the people should get to decide who makes the appointment. They'd be forced to outright deny the nominee and let the president try again. That's much harder to maintain.

The idea would essentially be that they wouldn't all hear every case. You'd randomly assign a panel of say 5 justices from the pool and each panel would hear their own cases.

That way we stop bullshit like what Thomas did in his Dobbs concurrence where he straight up said he thinks cases like Obergefell (gay marriage), Lawrence (can't criminalize gay sexual acts), and Griswold (contraception) also need to be reversed and all but instructed conservative legal circles to back challenges to those cases. Since there'd be no guarantee that a baseless partisan legal challenge would end up in front of favorable justices they would be much less likely to succeed.

This does potentially introduce a problem with consistency, but such a problem isn't unsolvable. You could institute a rule that allows for basically an appeal on a SCOTUS ruling to be heard by either a different panel of justices or the entire body as a whole, for example. It obviously wouldn't be perfect, but we don't need perfection. We need SCOTUS to not be some unaccountable council of high priests who can act with blatant partisan interest and we can't do anything about it.

Not really. Using % of forecast area as % chance of rain inherently gives equal weight to your position being anywhere within that area. Even if you limit the forecast area to the 5m or whatever it is radius that smartphone GPS is typically accurate to which a weather app could theoretically do, simply using % of the forecast area covered as % chance of rain inherently gives equal probability of you being literally anywhere within that 5m radius. It would obviously still be more accurate, but those numbers wouldn't be the same thing.

To be fair, calling them "wings" was to my knowledge more about linking them to how chicken wings as a dish were prepared and presented than a statement on where the meat came from on the bird.

I don't know much about this case in particular but it fits into a long pattern of activist conservative judges basically legislating from the bench to protect business interests. So it's unsurprising that one of them would basically say "no one actually believes the wing part, so there's no reason for them to believe the boneless part either, and therefore there's no liability if there are bones in the product."

Because they're not in it for profit. It's a project of the chuds at the Daily Wire. Any profit is a side effect of their true goal, right wing culture war. It exists to take money from their fans and use their "successful business" to prove that they're correct. They'd still do it even if it wasn't profitable just to push their preferred narrative.

Not a piss take. But yes part of the show. It's entirely owned and operated by the chuds at the Daily Wire and their entire purpose is right wing culture war. It's just classic conservative grifting

They don't. If you look into them it's entirely a company owned by the same guy that owns The Daily Wire. It's literally only there to grift from their audience and further their culture war.

Of course. It's not political if it's just The Way Things Should Be™

• The two Races: White and Political
• The two Genders: Male and Political
• The two Sexualities: Straight and Political

Their views are never "political" because theirs is the "natural state" of things. They're on top because they deserve to be, and they deserve to be on top because they are. It's anything that deviates from that so-called natural state that's being political.