Gromnir

is some curious conflating o' the religious right and libertarians going on here which is odd. regardless, none o' these groups is monolithic or homogenized, although evangelicals is arguable one o' the more polarized/radicalized voting groups, which is precise why the gop caters to their demands. is perhaps unfair to him, but guard dog is a useful example o' the libertarian who embraces alt-right radio talking points and conspiracies, but am doubting many is gonna suggest his opinions is motivated by a fear o' brown people. am also doubtful gd sees himself as a poster child for the religious right values. the libertarian ideology is most often linked to a distrust o' government, which is a quality shared by the minorities some is suggesting is the real target o' libertarian angst. the above linked politico piece which seeks to describe the origins o' the religious right does indeed mention those catholics who were opposed to roe, but curious dismisses their significance, as if those folks disappeared. catholics voted democrat overwhelming until roe and even post roe it took a few years to see serious changes in voting patterns in part 'cause it were only catholic women who appeared invested in the abortion issue. took a while for catholic men to take their wives, sisters and daughters serious? please note, as o' 2014, same year as the politico article linked, catholic represented 20.8% o' the US population, and evangelical christians accounted for 25.4%. the thing is ~50% o' catholics were able to look past abortion and vote for biden instead o' trump. better than 75% o' evangelicals voted for trump in 2020... though that were actual down from better than 80% in 2016. we also posted a link to a rolling stone article in this thread, a few times, which sought to explain evangelical support o' trump. is ez to forget how evangelicals were part o' the dissatisfied working class americans who helped get obama elected 'cause while they likely were harboring the kinda mundane bigotry so prevalent 'mongst americans, those folks were even more angry with those they perceived as traditional politicians. the thing which kinda shocked us 'bout the rolling stone piece were that the evangelicals mighta' been in denial regarding their racial biases, but they were quite vocal and forceful 'bout the affront they took at the rainbow flag and what it stood for. obama were acceptable until he started defending lgbt... well that and 'cause like minorities, working class americans were facing the pain o' protracted income disparity issues which had been growing unchecked through multiple Presidential administrations (republican and democrat) since the clinton years. is too ez to look at a group as monolithic. is a mistake. HA! Good Fun!

The Politics of Overturning Roe Are Bad for Republicans "On Tuesday, at a Republican press conference, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked three times about the big story of the week: A draft Supreme Court opinion, leaked to Politico, that exposed the Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. McConnell was furious about the leak. But each time reporters asked him to talk about abortion, he refused to engage. "Morally, this reticence seems bizarre. For half a century, Republicans have campaigned on promises to expunge Roe. They said millions of unborn lives were at stake. Now victory is at hand, but McConnell won’t talk about it. Why not? "The answer is simple: He knows this issue is bad for his party. Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority." HA! Good Fun!

if folks is seeing a new trend, they ain't been paying attention to our shadow docket posts. is also multiple affirmative action and admission policy cases related to public education which if you do searches you will realize has already been decided or is current up for review. bakke, gratz v. bollinger, and grutter v. bollinger would appear to be the next education precedents on this Courts' chopping bloc. keep in mind, bakke were a decision which rejected racial quotas specific, but it upheld affirmative action policies in general. were a plurality much like roe which makes it ripe for overturn. HA! Good Fun! ps is a short-term memory loss thing happening as well regarding The Court. please recall the two nightmares mentioned most frequent during the ACB hearings were the prospect o' roe being overturned but also (and more significant) the ACA being declared unconstitutional. is possible the ACA might be killed in the future, but the fear were an immediate disillusion ACA as the result o' a case which were projected to soon be before SCOTUS. and for those who so quick forgot... The Health 202: ACB helped save the ACA after all these issues is often not as portrayed. but regardless, is worth doing a search o' shadow docket shenanigans by this Court via your favorite search engine. the so-called conservatives has been kneecapping fundamental rights cases for a while now and such efforts has been garnering shocking little press 'cause few in the media understand the significance o' the shadow docket.

HA! Good Fun!

two quick points. first, our problem with the J. alito opinion is the history & tradition approach taken. a genuine textualist approach considers history but only in the context o' revealing the plain meaning o' the words o' legislation or laws as written at the time they were authored. a history and tradition analysis to legitimize conservative favoured substantive due process claims is therefore suspect from a textualist pov. which history means more anyways? previous to roe, there were indeed considerable history which would show a tendency to criminalize abortion. however, the s'posed justification for roe itself were the changing values o' american society as a whole which had shifted in favour o' a recognition o' a woman's right to self determination in matters o' medical treatments. since roe, the weight o' traditions has clear shifted even further such that today most polls show support o' some kinda abortion protection anywhere between seventy and eighty percent in favour o' maintaining roe. we now got fifty years o' tradition and history which appear to show a trend towards support o' a right to abortion. J. Gorsuch authored the recent obergefell v. hodges case... which we criticized. J. Gorsuch in obergefell observed the shift in societal values and opinions regarding same-sex marriage as validation for the granting o' a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. we observed how such an analysis were far too touchy-feely for The Court and that such an analysis were in fact the kinda policy choice Congress were meant to indulge. furthermore, support for same-sex marriage, even post obergefell, is 'ccording to most polls less pronounced than is the support for a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. regardless, the so-not-a-textualist-approach taken by J. Gorsuch in obergefell were criticized by J. alito as a violation o' textualist principles. says alito, “The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. it sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current value of society.” 'course the alito draft opinion similar undermines a textualist approach but instead replaces modern societal values with history and tradition as the guide. as such alito's criticism o' obergefell, while valid, is more than a little hypocritical. whatever. obergefell and the alito draft opinion, along with the first amendment cross case we mentioned earlier, reveal a new trend in the Court away from textualism as J. Scalia woulda' described in favour o' a highly subjective interpretations o' law. the so-called conservatives o' The Court has since the death o' J. Scalia become reactionary activists, a most disturbing trend as judicial restraint were previous considered the purview o' the conservatives. even if you didn't like conservative values, a so-called conservative Justice were less dangerous 'cause he/she would be less likely to make law as 'posed to limiting their efforts to interpretation o' law. unfortunate, if the alito draft opinion stands as has been leaked, then it might be time to give textualism a viking funeral. second, individuals receiving Presidential nomination to SCOTUS observing roe is settled law is meaningless. plessy v. ferguson were indeed settled law... up until brown v. board of education. is many examples o' The Court overturning precedent and in each case the Justices is rejecting established jurisprudence in favour o' a new rule o' law. am having no idea what were stated by SCOTUS nominees in private meetings with Congressmen, but am unable to recall any hearings in which Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or ACB stated unequivocal that they saw roe precedent as inviolable. and speaking o' precedent, am gonna observe how one year removed from the leak o' the alito draft, we observed how justice thomas were telegraphing his willingness to overturn roe, and alito had done similar laying o' groundwork if a bit less overt. ... well, not so quick points after all, but what were you expecting from a Gromnir response, eh? HA! Good Fun!

'course drug dealers are all metric as well. however, speaking o' obstinance, english drug dealers use the imperial system o' measurements. HA! Good Fun!

we were assigned near nightly homework for every class (save gym and the like) which were then graded. homework represented a not insignificant % o' our total grade for a course but considerable less than tests. however, keep in mind our high school years occurred in the 80s. @Hurlsnot would have a better idea o' how things work nowadays. HA! Good Fun!

is curious as the tweet appears designed to alienate a women voters, which don't sound like a particular effective approach for a politician, even in florida. if we had to guess at a strategy, we would assume this were part o' the curious new, own the libs bit which trump and his ilk popularized. no matter how stoopid a statement is, if the libs is "triggered" is somehow a win for the gop. ultimate payoff is managing an angry response from a "squad" member? am obvious not the target audience, so it makes it difficult to guess what is the payoff. HA! Good Fun!

dunno. am most assured not a supporter o' busywork; doesn't benefit student. however, in theory, a teacher who provides meaningful homework will receive useful feedback as they review homework, yes? an educator may look at homework as a way to gauge what lessons is successful and which is failing with a class before the students is compelled to take an exam and prove what they learned. also am suspecting the value o' homework as a basic survival skill might be misunderstood. unless things has changed much in the past few years, you don't get homework in university, grad school, med school, law school, etc. however, the study load at elite universities and post grad institutions o' learning increases substantial compared to even the most arduous high school homework regimen. am suspecting there is a shock to the system awaiting a student who had little homework in high school, and then sudden realize they need put in multiple hours o' work studying for every in-class hour if they wanna succeed at a decent university. am agreeing that almost none o' the homework we had to do in high school felt useful. even so, am not confident our feels represents what were useful 'bout homework. educators should be able to glean meaningful feedback from homework and homework is no doubt a basic life skill for anybody planning to go to a demanding school o' higher learning. am also guessing that if Gromnir anticipates less salient benefits o' homework, there is likely additional positives if is used appropriate as 'posed to mere busy work. HA! Good Fun!

we first saw this bit o' alt-right pith attributed to gaetz and considering his legal issues which allege the congressman's inappropriate involvement with millennial women, we thought the supposed tweet couldn't be legit, but we went to gaetz's twitter and sure enough it is bona-fide florida man. HA! Good Fun!

maybe belongs in the funny thread? moving on, susan collins is either the worst judge o' character evar, or she is a liar. is possible both is true, but am suspecting her success in politics ain't due to her being improbable gullible. and now HA! Good Fun!

if you believe republicans want a war against bodily autonomy, you ain't been paying attention to the past few years o' antivax nonsense coming from the right, and you are ignoring the not insignificant number o' republicans and independents who naïve embrace a view similar to @Guard Dog with their belief the government's role is to protect their property and their "rights," and nothing else; all that annoying democracy baggage is selective ignored. nationally, republicans have been avoiding just such a war for decades 'cause it were perceived as a political loser from the 70s onward. sure, in deep red states where evangelicals hold considerable clout, abortion (not bodily autonomy and privacy) is gonna be a hill worth dying 'pon, but the republican party as a whole has been dreading the overturn o' roe near as much as has democrats. is why on fox news the new alito opinion is hardly being discussed and instead they focus on the leak aspect. a legit complete apolitical Court woulda' killed roe decades past. again, roe were a shaky plurality opinion which satisfied nobody. as previous noted, rbg were the last Justice to sit on the Court who previous to appointment public criticized the legal basis o' roe. you kid yourself if you think none but rbg were equal critical o' roe until they became Justices, but precise 'cause criticism o' roe were deemed to be instant disqualifying a potential appointee, anybody with SCOTUS aspirations would suggest roe were established law but otherwise refuse to discuss their opinion o' the case. roe has always been political. btw, five o' the seven justices who voted with the majority in roe were old, white and male republican appointees. the problem for 2022 republicans is they most assured don't want a war on bodily autonomy and privacy which is gonna lose 'em numerous educated women voters, alienate libertarians/independents and galvanize democrats, but they can't have a roe "victory" without such a war. edit: CNN Poll: As Supreme Court ruling on Roe looms, most Americans oppose overturning it story is from january, 2022. a majority o' those ~30% who were invested in overturning roe is driven by sincere religious fervor. when national elections turn on less than 1% in battleground states, otherwise fringe constituencies become disproportionate meaningful. neither democrats or republicans want this. HA! Good Fun! ps is worth reflecting 'pon why obama and the democrats didn't hold out for real abortion protections when they pushed through the ACA. democrats didn't want this fight even when they could win it, and for good reason... good but highly political reason.

your proposed legislation is so opposite o' clean. if you cannot enumerate all the situations to which your new legislation would apply, then is gonna be deemed overbroad and unconstitutional. this never makes it outta committee... anywhere. gd no doubt also wants us to ignore how much unethical but not strict illegal dr. and patient interaction which would sudden be beyond the reach o' any governing body. keep in mind, there has been over one THOUSAND proposed bills to address abortion since 1973, ranging from limited to expansive. pretend as if nobody has ever suggested legislation is wrong. too "scared s-----ss to oppose it"? you funny. for a legislator is typical safer to do nothing than do the wrong thing. virtual every Congressional effort to deal with abortion has been a grandstanding effort. actual do something is hard, but historical it has been far safer to do not. again, the number o' legislative corpses where there were a majority o' members o' Congress finding a reason to be opposed to a solution is over a thousand. as a solution, a Constitutional amendment makes the most sense. if the Constitution is a bar to abortion as a right, then the obvious fix is to change the Constitution. number o' proposed amendments to date regarding abortion? not sure. is over 100. if gd 3/4 numbers were anything other than fantasy, this would be ez. no dice. am thinking many do not realize just how opposed is evangelicals and many other christians is to abortion. if you genuine believe abortion is murder, then is understandable impossible to support any legislation or Constitutional amendment which would legitimize mass murder, even if it means you got more privacy rights 'tween you and your doctor. as an aside, the southern gop and no compromise libertarians better hope we are genuine outta the pandemic stage for covid, 'cause The Court just knocked the stuffing outta the medical privacy argument for forgoing vaccines and other medical care. HA! Good Fun! ps am personal opposed to changing filibuster, particular given how recent changes has led to increased polarization o' american politics. HOWEVER, am also not ignorant o' the fact the filibuster has a tainted history. one reason we no longer have a talky filibuster is 'cause southern Congressmen used the procedural gambit to delay passage o' the Civil Rights Acts. in 1964, the senate were functional paralyzed for 60 working days while a group o' southerners plotted to kill the landmark legislation. the majority final managed to gather 70ish votes to invoke cloture, but that bit o' bigots bass agery is one o' the reasons why the talky filibuster were ended. yeah, looking at how harry reid and then mitch mcconnel used changes to the filibuster rules is the window through which Gromnir views the situation, but am also aware history goes back a bit further than most o' us easily recollect.

good luck with that. roe were decided 7:2, but there were three concurrences, which meant there were effective four different justifications for roe. ... some ineffable alchemy o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments, in addition to griswold v. connecticut privacy notions plus a possible nod to substantive due process results in abortions being granted the status o' a fundamental right, but a fundamental right which nevertheless must be considered in light o' a state's desire to protect the lives o' unborn children. at conception, 'ccording to roe, a mother's privacy rights 'tween her and her doctor as she seeks medical treatment is paramount, but with each passing day, the state's interest in protecting unborn children grows. is why otherwise arbitrary trimesters is so important when discussing abortion law in the US. if any o' that clarified the situation, then you are likely taking high grade drugs and we applaud you and your doctor... or whomever might be the recreational chemist responsible for your altered and enlightened state. roe is a mess. the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created. another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019), held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw. the original right to abortion came about 'cause The Court saw some kinda fundamental right as having evolved from the ether. sure, the founders wouldn't have recognized a mother's right to abortion during the first trimester, but at some unspecified point, american society changed such that abortion became as fundamental and integral as any enumerated right. maybe such ill defined rights bother you. maybe they don't. however, J. alito takes a position which makes conservative approved values which is failing to be enumerated in The Constitution more likely to gain recognition as a right, 'cause by definition those conservative values is gonna have the weight o' tradition and history, yes? could be a history o' corruption, bigotry and ignominy, but most history is, right? so where does the present case leave a right to privacy or the recent created right to same-sex marriage? am not shocked this Court killed roe, 'cause roe were always suspect law. the thing is, Congress has known there were a problem for many decades and they were too cowardly to do anything 'bout the problem. republicans wanted to keep the abortion talking point w/o needing to actual fight the battle. democrats didn't wanna lose catholics, who btw in spite o' abortion issue split almost 50/50 on biden/trump. brown v. board of education also had legal shortcomings, but Congress, in their torpid way, managed to address those problems after a decade of strife. near fifty years has elapsed since roe and most washington politicians has been aware the decision were a corroded landmine which were eventual gonna need to be disposed. unfortunately, The Court has always been the least adept branch for disposing o' such dangers. is no SCOTUS authority to explore public policy issues or implement street level changes. The Court is only capable o' making extreme broad pronouncements and they all too frequent ignore practicalities. individual state and local governments is gonna need figure out how to navigate the new post roe landscape. innocents will suffer. we likely won't see apocalyptic scenarios play out, but there will be an unnecessary figurative and literal body count from this decision. HA! Good Fun! ps the ray walston (boothby) addition is 'cause we wanted to work in a star trek angle. after all, is our position every obsidian post is trek related whether you realize it or not.

am gonna suggest J. Roberts were not wrong in the way you believe him to be... maybe. he were still wrong. many people, particular the lawyers, get overinvested in the value o' laws. china and russia both have Constitutions and their Constitutions provide more enumerated protections o' speech and assembly than does the Constitution of the United States of America. is a specific provision in the russian Constitution that gathering for peaceful protests is protected. am wondering if you has checked the news regarding protests in russia, eh? what do you think o' the protections o' peaceful assembly granted by the russian constitution? J. Roberts recognized there were a flaw in the VRA 'cause it provided inequitable treatment based on the past misdeeds o' people many o' whom were long dead. at the same time, he believed discrimination in 1965 were not the same as it were in 2013 and he also understood the positive changes were less 'bout the civil rights and voting laws and more 'bout american's evolving notions o' acceptable social norms. Congress passing the Civil Rights Acts and the VRA were more important than the laws themselves 'cause pass such laws in a democratic republic represents changing attitudes regarding how human beings should be treated. ... am not gonna suggest J. Roberts were in 2013 some kinda naïve utopian, but am thinking he saw societal changes post 1965 as making the specific provisions o' the VRA unnecessary, particular given the arguable flawed implementation aspect o' the law. horrible mistake. citizens united v. fec exacerbated a problem which already existed: self interested politicians had a pecuniary motive for staying in office. gerrymandering were an effective tool for politicians to solidify power, particular with access to 21st century tools unavailable to the founders. so, even if J. Roberts were correct and the US south and voting districts across the nation were less bigoted than in 1965, the practical interest o' politicians in exploiting racial divisions had actual increased during the same period o' time. also, as Gromnir has observed more than once, evolution o' societal views regarding race is not unidirectional. regression and degeneration o' nation and community norms regarding race and gender is possible and the past decade o' polarization on issues o' race should make axiomatic that is just as possible for society to rot as to grow. laws is not near as important as most o' us believe 'em to be, a point we keep trying to make. J. Roberts understands that truth. unfortunately, in 2013, J. Roberts saw the evolution o' US society as inarguable and so he ignored the possibility self-interested politicians in the south and elsewhere would magnify old hatreds and grudges once the protections o' the VRA were eliminated. Roberts and the other Conservative Justices saw the VRA as flawed 'cause o' how the provisions o' the law were applied inequitable. as important, J. Roberts saw the VRA as no longer necessary 'cause americans were better than they were in 1965, which were just a horribly myopic pov. HA! Good Fun!

eight killings from raylen in season one, covering multiple events. eight. the hand wave approach to some kinda review o' his actions is what you find noteworthy? okie dokie. and US cops, by and large, non-heroic prevent crime all the time. is mostly gonna be extreme mundane stuff. be visible in a neighborhood is an effective crime deterrent, but is hardly episodic tv material. real cop thursdays is gonna be other than dramatic, which we suspect most folks would not need explained 'cause is reality and not a tv show. duh. again, ain't seen the show you reference, but recall you focused on the shootings in your post. am gonna guess have a cop show where few people is shot is probable one o' the few things accurate 'bout the show, 'cause is freaking tv and we expect unrealistic drama. in a tv show 'bout cops there is gonna be police doing either heroic or villain if you want drama, but absence o' wild west shootings and frequent lethal encounters is not a reason to experience dissonance. confusing tv and reality. HA! Good Fun! ps again, you focused on shootings, which is why Gromnir did so. we has mentioned many times how we see as a flaw that cop training all too often involves casual violence which translates to many cop encounters turning unnecessarily adversarial and brutal. if you fail attitude test or engage in contempt of cop, is a good chance you suffer. shouldn't be that way. however, the shootings is actually exceptions as 'posed to a norm or commonplace. people is too focused on the shootings, so they ignore the bigger problems.

am not sure what is the point from lexx regarding raylen. marshal givens represents a cartoony old western notion o' US law enforcement and is nothing 'bout his portrayal which we would use as an example to explain dissonance with a show wherein people is not being killed frequent. tim gutterson, rachel brooks (multiple killings each) and at least a couple unnamed marshals shot and killed suspects in justified, but that is kinda a distraction as they ain't protagonists. speaking o' cartoony westerns, that subject has also been addressed previous on these boards. old western towns, with a small handful o' exceptions, enforced draconian gun control regulations which kept towns relative safe even by modern standards. however, there were a couple o' examples which lived up to the lawless western town mythology, but those were notable exceptions and their existence were fleeting, their names forgotten by all but the most serious history geek. regardless, the not so free and wild west is far removed from the reality in part 'cause o' folks not being able to separate reality from fiction. HA! Good Fun!

is not what you wanted, but is relevant even so. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-29/table-29.xls in excess o' 10 million reported police arrests made in the US in 2019. ~500k o' those were suspects of violent crimes. is not shown in the chart, but according to other sources such as wapo which attempts to track, the number of lethal police shootings o' unarmed suspects is a relative consistent ~300 per year over the past pre-covid decade. is not a statistic to be proud of, but considering the number o' armed cops making arrests every year, the number o' lethal shootings is in fact representing an extreme rarity. have also not watched the show in question, but whatever dissonance lexx and others suffer is in part 'cause o' largely misleading portrayals in other tv shows and 'cause o' media distortions. an inability o' many to separate fact from fiction is a problem. also, speaking more direct to your query: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/ "In fact, only about a quarter (27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job, according to a separate Pew Research Center survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform." am admitted surprised the urban v. rural aspect were less less dramatic skewed towards urban police weapon discharges. HA! Good Fun! ps please note the fbi stats need be taken with a potential heart stopping quantity of salt. state and local law enforcement report at their discretion and 'ccording to their own standards. the numbers the fbi releases regarding national crime stats and the like is valuable and is a decent starting point but it is always important to keep in mind the voluntary and inconsistent quality o' the reporting by state and local authorities. @Lexxthinking justified is more in line with his expectations is part o' the real disconnect. the entire marshal service averages 22 lethal shooting per year, which is actual quite high for law enforcement given marshal service numbers and as such has been the subject o' fed review on multiple occasions. raylen givens, in season one, killed eight people. am gonna guess givens averaged +4 lethal shootings per year, but is only a guess.

curious, mtg owes her seat in large part to eric holder and barack obama, though admitted, J. Roberts subsequent made mtgs possible everywhere in the US. shelby v. holder (2013) were a preclearance case decided by SCOTUS. the voting rights act o' 1965 (VRA) among other things observed how endemic systematic racism in the south had been responsible for overt prejudicial redistricting in multiple southern states and counties across the US, leading to minorities being deprived o' the one person, one vote principle which were fundamental to the furtherance o' an american democratic republic. as such, under the VRA, the feds (doj) were to review state redistricting efforts to ensure there were no funny business being attempted which would disenfranchise voters. the law problem with the statute were it applied selective to six states and a number o' additional counties as 'posed to the US entire. am suspecting you do not need a law degree to see why whenever a statute carves out exceptions, there is gonna be questions as to why such selective applicability would be equitable, yes? need a good reason to treat different. the fed review o' state redistricting is known as preclearance. in 2013, J. Roberts did a hand wave recognition o' the continued need for the VRA's preclearance provision: "Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation." SCOTUS scrapped preclearance and surprising to nobody save J. Roberts, southern states almost overnight redrew district voting maps to disenfranchise minority voters. ... the thing is, georgia republicans got the chance to redraw voting maps in 2010, and they submitted their plan under existing preclearance in 2011, two years previous to shelby. georgia's 14th district became noteworthy older and whiter. curious, eric holder and the obama administration approved georgia's redistricting plan w/o any request for adjustment, which were an unprecedented move at the time. 14th district o' georgia has been landslide red since the republican redistricting. is gonna be more mtgs in the coming years thanks to J. Roberts, but curious, mtg were made possible 'cause o' eric holder and obama. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

didn't use parentheticals, so am wondering if the person responsible for the fox news chyrons were aware o' repeating greene's spelling error. either way, is kinda amusing. Christians Aid Migrants Because Church Is Run By Satan, Marjorie Taylor Greene Says "In a clip from the interview released by the group Right Wing Watch, Voris asked Greene about Catholic organizations in the U.S. that use federal funding to help resettle undocumented immigrants and refugees. "“I thought we had a separation of church and state,” Greene said in response. "“What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church,” she continued. “The church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live.” "She added that Christian groups that say you should take care of migrants are “destroying our laws” and taking advantage of Americans." ... the sad part is am betting a few boardies agree with greene. so it goes. HA! Good Fun!

for national parks, we got those majestic redwood forests here in ca ... silly Gromnir, is another picture from our backyard. can see brick in bottom left corner which is our chimney. for walks we typical go to a nearby lake, but for the next month or so we gotta keep our dogs leashed at all times even if is no other people anywhere nearby. main reason for leashes is the abundance o' water fowl which is hatching and one o' our dogs will attack and swallow whole the fledglings if he gets the chance. is not a pretty sight when the dog gets ahold o' a bird. also, perhaps 'cause o' enduring drought conditions, rattlesnakes is extra prevalent this year, and our dogs is curious blind to snakes; will literal walk right over top o' 'em. doesn't make sense to us as the snakes (rattlesnakes, kingsnakes and others common in the area) is typical apparent to our non canine senses. even if the dogs can't see the snakes, you would assume they could smell 'em. have gotten lucky so far as has been a couple close calls. seeing as our dogs is preternatural snake dumb, am keeping 'em leashed. the dog who eats birds can seeming sense a silent and unmoving fledgling from fifty meters but will walk over a snake in his path seeming oblivious to the reptile. is weird. curious aside, rattlesnake hatchlings is as lethal as full grown snakes 'cause while they inject less venom than adult snakes, the dose is more concentrated. HA! Good Fun!

there is something wrong with the test syndrome? men have advantages when it comes to endurance. is exactly why lia thomas, a distance swimmer, is kicking the collective arses o' her competition in spite of taking performance inhibiting drugs. men got, on average, lower heart rate, increased heart size, more lung volume, and superior pulmonary function, not to mention advantageous body mass composition aspects. women are superior to men in numerous physical categories, but endurance ain't one o' 'em. is not a huge gap btw, but the study gd referenced by the marines revealed women's aerobic performance were 90% o' their male counterparts, which is not surprising given male physiological advantages. if the test is bad, fix it, but knee jerk to that solution might be telegraphing a bit. is numerous military roles and civilian jobs which require a degree and kind o' physical fitness which skews in favor o' male domination o' those occupations. so? doesn't make men better. makes men different, which as gd would note, should be obvious as 'posed to fodder for argument. is practical reasons to hire firepersons who is able to carry the average adult male outta a burning building. the weight o' the standard combat loadout is not subjective or gender based. if studies is showing that men in integrated units is needing to carry more 'cause women literal cannot pull their weight, change testing so that even more women get assigned to infantry roles is not the solution. hurl is correct that there is not many aspects o' modern society which demand a recognition o' gender differentiation, and am in complete agreement that pronouns is a non factor. in our experience if a colleague or student wanted to be referenced by a different pronoun than their birth and our enculturation would natural result, we made efforts to accommodate, 'cause were a non factor in our estimation. civilization were not gonna crumble 'cause a trans lawyer who were born phillip wanted to be addressed with feminine pronouns... though we did sometimes reflexive slip into reflexive "norms" w/o it being some kinda calculated insult. is tough to overcome five decades o' behaviour. regardless, if an individual put in the work and earned their seat at the firm's table or in the school's classroom, then the least we could do would be to speak to them in a way which made 'em more comfortable. but for those extreme limited set o' occupations and roles which men will dominate 'cause o' XY v. XX, fighting for equality has opposite of the desired result as such pointless battles convince many who is otherwise ambivalent that the defenders o' women equality is unreasonable. it's not always the test which is the problem. HA! Good Fun! ps btw, hurl's wife outlasting him could be less 'bout physical endurance and more 'bout mental toughness... 'cause counter-intuitive, women also do not benefit from an increased pain threshold many o' us assume exists and as already noted, men (on average) display superior aerobic qualities. "Epidemiologic and clinical findings clearly demonstrate that women are at increased risk for chronic pain and some evidence suggests that women may experience more severe clinical pain. Studies of experimentally induced pain have produced a very consistent pattern of results, with women exhibiting greater pain sensitivity, enhanced pain facilitation and reduced pain inhibition compared with men, though the magnitude of these sex differences varies across studies. In addition, some evidence suggests sex differences in responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain treatments, though the findings differ depending on the specific treatment and perhaps on characteristics of the pain. Also, gender biases in pain treatment appear to exist, which are influenced by characteristics of both the patient and the provider."

fake news. until the cyber ninjas do a forensic review, am not buying the results, and even then the libs will cheat. you gotta read this zerohedge link... HA! Good Fun!

we got more than a couple annoying bugs in the base game post patch/dlc, so yeah, am gonna wait for at least the next patch. HA! Good Fun! ps there was a small update today which fixed more than is listed. example: the covenant of the inheritor was most assured not fixed in our game, but is now working as described, albeit with a null value addition to the item description.

for gd, is one novel which is kinda screaming for recognition: the time it never rained. from the goodreads blurb: To the ranchers and farmers of 1950s Texas, man's biggest enemy is one he can't control. With their entire livelihood pegged on the chance of a wet year or a dry year, drought has the ability to crush their whole enterprise, to determine who stands and who falls, and to take food out of the mouths of the workers and their families. To Charlie Flagg, an honest, decent, and cantankerous rancher, the drought of the early 1950s is a foe that he must fight on his own grounds. Refusing the questionable "help" of federal aid programs, Charlie and his family struggle to make the ranch survive until the time it rains again-if it ever rains again. the events o' the novel is based on the actual prolonged drought conditions o' the time, but am not able to say how authentic it were. is not one o' our favorites, but that ain't 'cause it is a bad novel. if you are expecting a whole lotta action, you will be disappointed, and from our pov, as a dyed-in-the-wool minimalist, the novel woulda' worked better as a short story as 'posed to a novel with a bit too much o' the typical western hard men doing hard work in a hard land schtick. nevertheless, if any western protagonist were meant to resonate with gd... HA! Good Fun!