![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2f932fb7-e322-4ce4-8ec9-2b69438cdd4e.jpeg)
No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.
No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.
No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.
I can’t see how option 3 happens. Different states have ruled in different ways; and this is a very important mattered. I can’t imagine any Supreme Court declining to hear this case; let alone a Supreme Court that is as obsessed with judicial supremecy as this one is.
Mythbustets do not meet the standards of professional science. The point is that not all science needs to be done at standard set by professionals.
In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.
Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel’s response, the immediate followup should be “how did the American response work out”?
I actually read the 7 page opinion, because normally there is at least some shred of reasonableness in these crazy opinions. But this one … those 7 pages have nothing.
I’ll just leave this little nugget from the end:
The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.
The really telling part of all of this is that there was no reason for this to be a thing. The state attorney general chose to fight this specific case. Then chose to send a letter to every hospital saying the injunction did not actually protect them, and chose to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
None of that had to happen. He could have let the extreme cases go through while fighting to remove women’s rights on the more “controversial” cases, but instead chose to make a test case out the most extreme interpretation of his extremist ideology.
Despite this, the court seems willfully blind to the fact that the reason for needing an injunction is that the state is acting in demonstorable bad faith.
Side note. Remember when the US SC ruled that this law could not be challenged because the state was not going to be the one enforcing it?
This is a civil case, not a criminal one. His 5th amendment protections are much weaker. If he says that his testimony may support criminal charges, then he is allowed to take the 5th. However, in a civil trial, the fact finder is allowed to draw a negative inference from that.
Having said that, none if this is relevent. He already testified during the State’s case, which is the only time he would need to invoke privilege. Since this is the defense case, they get to simply not call him.
Unless one of his co-defendants subpoenaed him, which is also not the case.
Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and OSX have all already switched to 64 bit time.
I want to see the ensuing trademark lawsuit from the owners of xvideo.com
Let me share a passage from the dissent in a Supreme court case known as Plessy v Furguson. The majority of the court had just ruled that it was OK to force blacks to use seperate railcars from whites. Not only that, but it was OK for for the government to force railway companies to have such a rule. With this backdrop Justice Harlan spoke in dissent, arguing for true equality under the law. In the screed for justice, he wrote:
Thats right folks. There was a period of us history where even your pro equality arguments were steeped in racism
More to the point. Even if you (for some reason) set asside the hole issue of slavery; there is still the whole Jim Crow era, where we litterally codified rasism into law.