Politics And Current Events

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

cuffs are one of those things that I just don’t comprehend why it’s something people think about. I don’t think it really changes how a suit looks to any practical degree

[tifosi77]

The business card scene in American Psycho could've been cuff links.

[nocera]

If you're wearing cuff links and you're not currently a member of a wedding party, there's a pretty good chance you're an dadhole.

[dodint]

It looks like the discussion is from the LGP days but when I was a defense contractor I used to wear cuff links with no jacket/tie.

[nocera]

Well that was just to establish dominance.

[CBear3]

It's all about the opportunity to accessorize.

[Kaiser]

https://www.wtxl.com/news/florida-news/ ... ng-eclipse

Monday, Florida Highway Patrol took a 22-year-old woman from Georgia into custody after they said she shot at cars on Interstate 10 in Florida's pandhandle.
The woman had recently checked out of a local hotel and told the staff she was going on a shooting spree, directed by “God” in relation to the solar eclipse.

[MWB]

I knew the eclipse was a liberal instrument to make gun owners do crazy things.

[Shyster]

[count2infinity]

What a moron… it’s god being angry at Joe Brandon. Not climate change!

[NAN]

Morons will be morons regardless of political affiliation

[Trip McNeely]

The cicada thing was even more ridiculous.

Whoopi seemed exasperated lol

[count2infinity]

I just watched the clip... I love how Whoopie is just sitting there like "no, no, no, no, no, no... stop, stop, stop." Unfortunately people have to prove how dumb they are.

[Pavel Bure]

Lol, she seems like one of those people that think tradwife videos are real.

[Trip McNeely]

The phrase “I read this online” almost certainly never ends well

[Morkle]

I like how both teams have to explain what trump is thinking.

Leave abortion to states rights - Ds - no what he meant was…

I wish Norway…immigrants came here - Rs - no what he meant was

He’s the most over explained guy in history.

[nocera]

I just watched the clip... I love how Whoopie is just sitting there like "no, no, no, no, no, no... stop, stop, stop." Unfortunately people have to prove how dumb they are.

Even Whoopie, the supposed voice of reason, is explaining how God actually works instead of just saying that looking for magical reasons with scientifically proven events is dumb as ****.

[Morkle]

Arizona SC validates a law from 1864 banning abortion and charging people with crimes for aiding.

This country has gone so far backwards.

[NTP66]

Just in time for the election. Nicely done, dingleberries!

[Kaiser]

I just watched the clip... I love how Whoopie is just sitting there like "no, no, no, no, no, no... stop, stop, stop." Unfortunately people have to prove how dumb they are.

Even Whoopie, the supposed voice of reason, is explaining how God actually works instead of just saying that looking for magical reasons with scientifically proven events is dumb as ****.

This kind of **** is the reason I can't buy into humanity being any different or more important than mold.

[count2infinity]

Very interesting.

[NTP66]

lmao @ the discussion on Americans. Spot on.

[tifosi77]

I do not know what the content is or what "Good People Disobey" guy's spiel is, but he has the look of someone who desperately needs to know what it feels like to get punched in the face in anger for the first time.

[Shyster]

Arizona SC validates a law from 1864 banning abortion and charging people with crimes for aiding.

This country has gone so far backwards.

Whole lotta FUD about this on the interwebs, including the "abortion law from 1864!" Stuff. Yes, while the law was originally enacted in 1864, it was recodified in 1901, 1913, 1928, and 1977, which was after Roe v. Wade. All that stuff about "this law was passed before women could even vote" is bullcrap. It was last codified in 1977.

Second, the case was about whether this statute had impliedly been repealed by later Arizona statutes that came out after Roe and that regulated abortion up to the limits set by Roe and its progeny. The case was not about whether abortion is good or bad or whether there might be a right to abortion under the Arizona constitution.

Third, I see people saying "7-0 Republican court!" Yes, all of the judges on the AZ Supreme Court were appointed by republican governors. But Arizona uses a modified Missouri Plan method of judicial selection where the governor has to pick from a slate of potential judges that are selected by a nonpartisan commission (the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments), which has express has limits on how many members can come from the same party. The governor is not free to pick whoever he or she wants to. Each judge also has to sit for a yes/no retention election two years after being appointed (and then again every six years), and all seven justices on the AZ Supreme Court have been through at least one retention election.

[CBear3]

Arizona SC validates a law from 1864 banning abortion and charging people with crimes for aiding.

This country has gone so far backwards.

Whole lotta FUD about this on the interwebs, including the "abortion law from 1864!" Stuff. Yes, while the law was originally enacted in 1864, it was recodified in 1901, 1913, 1928, and 1977, which was after Roe v. Wade. All that stuff about "this law was passed before women could even vote" is bullcrap. It was last codified in 1977.

Second, the case was about whether this statute had impliedly been repealed by later Arizona statutes that came out after Roe and that regulated abortion up to the limits set by Roe and its progeny. The case was not about whether abortion is good or bad or whether there might be a right to abortion under the Arizona constitution.

Third, I see people saying "7-0 Republican court!" Yes, all of the judges on the AZ Supreme Court were appointed by republican governors. But Arizona uses a modified Missouri Plan method of judicial selection where the governor has to pick from a slate of potential judges that are selected by a nonpartisan commission (the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments), which has express has limits on how many members can come from the same party. The governor is not free to pick whoever he or she wants to. Each judge also has to sit for a yes/no retention election two years after being appointed (and then again every six years), and all seven justices on the AZ Supreme Court have been through at least one retention election.

So the state passed a law in 2022 that allowed for abortions up to the 15th week, with some exceptions. Is this a process issue where that law didn't specify that it was superseding the existing laws? How did its passing effect the decision today?