Scientists were so caught up with weather they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Sad thing is we knew before the election that he needled easily. Whoever decided to stop doing that during the campaign needs to be taken for some wall to wall counseling.

Interesting. Good to know.

Ah, interesting. Good to know.

Interesting.

Not the answer I’m looking for, but still interesting. Thanks for the information!

So, a moment of curiosity.

If my theoretical pistol did get pulled into am MRI machine, stuck against it by the magnet, and I, for the purpose of scientific inquiry, pulled the trigger, should I expect the bullet to fire more or less as normal, to fire, but the bullet be pulled back to the machine, or for the bullet to not move, or not move more than an inch or so from the barrel?

Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

If the president can ignore the court, the court can ignore the laws.

Of course, down that road lies. . . well, we passed Madness a while back. Not sure where this road leads, anymore.

Did any of the passengers on those 7,000 flights get any compensation? Or just a “so sorry, out of our control?”

Looks like delta tried to dismiss the passengers claims, but they are being sued for it.

Do none of you people have clothes pins? Or does that count as Neutral Good?

Also, CG and CN need to be switched. There is no way the bottle hack counts as “good.”

I’ve made up my mind already that if they try to take me or my wife, they are gonna have to kill me, and I’m gonna try as hard as I can not too die alone.

Of course, that’s big talk from me. I’m weak, overweight, and pasty.

I think you (and everyone else) have lost the thread, mate. He was replying directly to the question “why can’t they just stay in Europe.” The answer is “Europe had immigration laws.”

I don’t see anything wrong with this exchange.

I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.

“States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.

The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

“States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.

Huh. TIL. I had always thought that I could get in the deep shit for that.

if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase “states rights.”

I think it’s already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.

Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.

. . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?

Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”

Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.

I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

This is starts rights, unless I’m misunderstanding.