Oh, I thought it might be a screening of one of his good films. I'll pass
xyzzy
He's already made statements well before this that he basically hates his job. This allows him to go out self-righteously
Jump Bug (late 1981) is the earliest. It has an entirely underwater level, and the car moves more slowly in it. It was also one of the earliest platformers, beaten only by Donkey Kong (mid 1981) and a couple others.
Super Mario Bros. (1985) introduced a significantly different mechanic for its water levels from the rest of the game, specifically swimming, and it was about a bajillion times more popular than Jump Bug. But it wasn't the first.
Maybe it can be a Murder on the Orient Express situation
I've worked in startups most of my career and co-founded two companies. This is dumb. Most startups fail and it ain't because people aren't working hard enough.
I love how outspoken and defiant Brown is
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the court to record a dissent. She said President Donald Trump is unleashing a “wrecking ball” on the federal government, and she slammed the court’s majority for its “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”
Jackson, a Biden appointee, said her colleagues were inappropriately reinterpreting Illston’s findings, noting that appeals courts are supposed to adhere to a lower court’s conclusions about disputed facts. Lower courts have better command of the facts at this early stage in the litigation, she wrote in a 15-page dissent.
Now churches will move the line and announce their endorsements publicly ("That announcement was intended for our congregations only!") and dare the IRS to do something about it.
Yeah, of course he's guilty. I'm saying the accusation should be enough and they shouldn't have to wait for him to be convicted. But either way they should establish a policy around it.
The Nobel committee should maybe not accept nominations from an accused ICC war criminal
It's OK, they won't
Birthright citizenship was not struck down. Universal injunctions were struck down, which means the Constitution will be applied in any cases where a state has a law on the books or a class action suit has been brought and a statewide injunction has been declared. These suits will wind their way through the courts and may possibly be heard by the Supreme Court.
I'd like to predict the USSC would decline to hear the case because there would be no discrepancies in prior rulings and the legal question would be so obvious, but I've given up trying to predict this court. In any event, I do think it's unlikely they would rule against birthright citizenship, since it would be plainly unconstitutional and there's no real wiggle room to reinterpret it differently.
Besides the fact that this guy is a fascist, I'm tired of judicial nominees refusing to answer any questions whatsoever by saying how inappropriate it would be to answer. It's gotten to the point where every nominee responds to every question like this:
Of course, apparently it doesn't actually matter if they lie directly, since multiple Supreme Court nominees have without consequence.