From what I read elsewhere, the Republican Vice Chair, John Katko, voted for impeaching Trump. Maybe a bit more reasonable. A bit.
My Cruz-fu is failing. How is this Biden’s fault? I read the article, which says at the end, “The supply chain shortages at Chick-fil-A come as certain areas of the country face gasoline shortages due to the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline,” but
- How is Ted blaming this on Biden, and
- How does this constitute (as it were) destruction of America?
One can only hope that stretching a point like that will ultimately cause Ted’s head to explode like an overfilled balloon.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this was a self-aware joke. It’s kind of funny to blame the most trivial annoyances on the President of the United States.
Unfortunately, I do know better.
Then how on earth did McCarthy allow him to become vice chair? Why isn’t he suffering Liz Cheney’s fate?
But yes, that is a somewhat positive sign.
Exactly. I misidentified a former boss in conversation with others a week or so ago. When one of them messaged me that her last name was X, not Y, my response was “You are correct. I blame Biden.”
Ted doesn’t have that degree of self-awareness.
So, you’re hypothesizing that this could be a variation of, “My dog has fleas – thanks, Obama!”
Yeah… too sub-tile for Ted Lucifer Cruz.
The right wing organization Heritage Action claims they’ve been writing all of the anti-voting laws that states are passing all around the country. The Iowa House Speaker says that they’re lying.
The Governor of Texas is about to sign a law that will allow anybody in Texas to file a lawsuit against anyone receiving or performing an abortion.
IANAL but … how would anyone have standing to file a suit like this? How am I injured by your seeking an abortion?
If the law says anyone has standing, then anyone has standing.
It is that easy? if that is so then congress can make anything impossible just by passing laws like that for anything.
Want to ban guns? just allow anyone to sue anyone for having one.
Want to criminalize homosexuality? same.
I think it must be more complicated than that.
It’s just pandering to the religious nutjobs. Not a typo, I said “religious nutjobs”.
I think it is that easy. But with just one catch: There could be complexity over the interplay of Federal law passed by Congress (or in the Constitution) vs. local law. Okay, Roe v Wade is established in Federal law on Constitutional grounds, so a state law like this could conflict with that.
It’s illegal to discriminate in housing (sales or rentals), AND illegal to discriminate in advertising for same. In California at least, last I looked, anybody can sue anybody for discriminatory language in housing advertising. There has evolved an entire cottage industry of scanning advertisements for even the most far-fetched hint of discrimination, and suing for that.
Similarly for ADA violations.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t that’s right
Clearly, a tenant in the middle of her lease term would have standing to sue her landlord for alleged discrimination under the FHA. But consider the situation of a stranger who sits next to this tenant on a plane, hears her story, and sympathizes. Would this stranger be able to sue the landlord for what the tenant claims the landlord did to her?
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the answer is no. After all, the stranger has nothing to do with the case.
So, a tenant under a written lease may sue her landlord, but someone who has no connection to an alleged discriminatory act cannot.
To establish standing under Article III, an ADA plaintiff must show actual or imminent injury.
Now with something like the ADA its pretty easy for a lawyer who comes across an establishment that isn’t in compliance to find a disabled person who can visit the establishment and report that the lack of accommodation, made it difficult for them.
Similarly its probably pretty easy to find someone of the discriminated subclass who is looking for housing and so can claim injury, but finding someone who is injured by another woman’s abortion at 46 days is going to be hard.
The sidebar to the above-linked article links to other related articles. Note this one (emphasis added):
(The rest of the article is paywalled, sorry. Looks like maybe you can view one full article without registering.)
The San Diego Humane Society is investigation the John Cox gubernatorial campaign for bringing their bear mascot into the city in violation of the city’s laws about use of animals
About time. I reported him to the state Fish and Wildlife agency but they haven’t responded.
But that bear has a First Amendment right to be heard!
And a 2nd Amendment right to be armed!
Which Amendment allows him to eat Cox?
He’s in California. It was made legal circa 1972, IIRC.