I so look forward to someone coming in here telling us that we can’t trust those numbers because they come from Hamas, as if Israel hasn’t been bombing the ever-loving fuck out of Gaza.
They’re magic bombs which only kill terrorists. And, if children die, those children are terrorists. And, if hospitals are destroyed, those hospitals were terrorists.
Ten months into Israel’s war on Gaza, the death toll has passed 40,000, according to health authorities there. Most of the dead are civilians and the total represents nearly 2% of Gaza’s prewar population, or one in every 50 residents.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Those left behind by each attack have to deal not only with their grief, but the trauma of living on in the shadow of death and the constant threat of another attack.
In November an airstrike destroyed Ali Abbas’s apartment building, killing two of his children, Fatima, 17, and Omar, five, his brother and two nieces, one of them just 20 days old. There was no evacuation order or warning.
Abbas was so badly injured he spent two weeks in intensive care, initially shielded from news about his children’s deaths. When he was told, he tried to disconnect all the tubes keeping him alive. What is left of their family now lives in a tent.
“I always say we should go to stay in my mother’s house. But my son refuses because he has developed a phobia of buildings and walls, and he is afraid of the dark because the building collapsed on top of us when it was bombed, and people had to pull him out from under the rubble.
“I wake up to his screaming. He usually has nightmares that he is still under the rubble and he begs: ‘Help me, help get me out, please!’”
Rent seeking on housings is revolting. I wouldn’t call myself hardcore communist but damn how I wish housing is not something someone can make rent(as in economics) off of.
One morning you’ll wake up and every bone in your body will pop simultaneously. Then while you lay there aching you’ll let out a 6 mimutes and 20 second fart that doesn’t have a happy ending.
It seems, though, that the molecular changes you are undergoing do not immediately translate into increased mortality, so you’re going to have several more years of - presumably - feeling well until the big drop-off starts for all of us at about 60.
BTW, because of its wide range of topics, its solid scientific underpinnings and its excellent intellectual accessibility, this is one of two books I positively think should be taught at any school, the other one being Solé’s “Phase Transitions.”
I am not American, so my opinion doesn’t matter anyway, but if I were, then Harris would probably be the first time I would be voting for a major party candidate. She has her flaws too I am sure, but no one better seems to be running this time.
Bleeping Computer - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Bleeping Computer:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
CBS News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CBS News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
NPR - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for NPR:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
The article says the state supreme court ruled it violated the state constitution. SCOTUS has no business interpreting state constitutions, only the federal constitution.
I think the federal constitution supersedes state constitutions, though.
Ah - it does! I had to look it up. It’s called the Supremacy Clause (Wikipedia). It’s not uniformly applied because many states aren’t going to bother with enforcing federal laws they disagree with. (States with legal weed, for instance.) But the federal government does have the right to poke holes in state constitutions if they deem it necessary and want to.
Edit: While I could still see SCOTUS being malevolent using a thin pretext, it appears this case cannot be taken by SCOTUS, because (as far as I can tell), it doesn’t meet the requirements for SCOTUS to take it.
I could see SCOTUS taking the case, ruling horribly, the rest of the federal government not taking up enforcement, but Montana lawmakers running amok with their newfound ability to step on desperate teenagers, because SCOTUS said they could.
Yeah but state constitutions can grant additional rights (versus state law and state institutions) in addition to those guaranteed by the federal constitution. That is what is going on here to my understanding, hard for SCOTUS to rule that the state constitution cannot do that.
That’s a valid point for ‘normal’ times. But I don’t think these are normal times. I also don’t think the SCOTUS would approach their rulings in a manner that respects anything other than the agenda of the majority. I earnestly believe that they would dispense with any sort of legal precedent or sense of decorum to enforce their will.
A fine reasoning, if that were in any way the discussion at hand.
The legality or illegality of abortion is immaterial here. The case in question is about privacy, but specifically we’re talking about whether the Federal government can interpret the Montana state constitution (they can).
My “I could see…” was a reference to a reinterpretation of laws/precedent/whatever by the SCOTUS to overrule the state Supreme Court decision. We’ve seen a number of questionable rulings from this SCOTUS, and I would not doubt they would find any justification to legislate from the bench on what seems to be a pet cause of the majority.
SCOTUS doesn’t interpret the state constitution. The state courts do that. SCOTUS then takes the state interpretation as fact and judges if it violates the supremacy clause of the US constitution.
Ah, you’re right. I did a bit more digging, and in it appears that unless the case involved contradictory interpretations of the state vs U.S. constitution at each level of it’s trial progression, the case cannot be appealed to SCOTUS.
My supposition at the end of my previous comment wouldn’t come to fruition - at least not as the result of an appeal to this case.
I’ll amend my comment.
If SCOTUS did that without a direct conflict in the state and federal documents then they would be ruling that state constitutions and courts are now moot.
I wouldn’t put it past them to pull something like that, but the bit about conflict between the constitutions (plus another commenter’s input) caused me to question on what grounds a case can be appealed from a state Supreme Court to SCOTUS, and it looks like there isn’t a path for that here.
SCOTUS still can overrule a state constitution, but they can’t pick up this case, as far as I can tell. There just doesn’t seem to be a path that leads to them. I’ll amend my comment.
The Supremacy Clause won’t apply in this case. Repealing Roe means the federal government doesn’t protect medical privacy in the case of abortions. It doesn’t mean they restrict it.
I was editing my comment as you were typing yours. But - yeah.
The supremacy clause wouldn’t even have the chance to be applied, because the case wouldn’t ever leave the state.
Purely hypothetically now, I was not so much thinking of Roe or the reasons used to undo that decision being applied here, but just any spurious legal justification they could come up with.
Well, this was the state supreme Court, so to do that a federally ruling would have to have pretty broad implications, like “states cannot legally guarantee a right to privacy to their citizens” and would be pretty contentious
The Montana State constitution has a guaranteed right to privacy, which is what Row v Wade used to guarantee abortion access. It would take a Montana constitutional amendment to change it in Montana. Scotus has no authority over the matter.
Right wing randos from the middle of nowhere, I get why they get pulled down the rabbit hole.
Elon Musk, is a hyper online nerd and he is constantly surrounded by yes men. I get why he got pulled down the rabbit hole.
Donald Trump is a Fox News grandpa who surrounds himself with the hard right because they support him unconditionally. I get why he got pulled down the rabbit hole.
But JD Vance is arguably the furthest down the rabbit hole of all of them, and I don’t get why.
Theoretically he’s the senator for a whole state who voted for Obama twice. His day job is in the Democrat-controlled Senate, if he wants to get anything done he needs to work with Democrats. How is he such a true believer in this stuff?!?
Vance used to be more of a center left guy until he got into politics to grift his way to VP. Read anything about him and you can easily see who he is pandering to.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.