ozimoron

Don't be ridiculous. This topic is about covid. 99.9999% of modern mask wearing is to prevent covid and you claim that studies which precede covid are somehow relevant.Your claim that the discussion of mask wearing to prevent covid is politicized is ridiculous. Politicizing covid is an issue. The politicization of the issue has come about only because the right need to run interference for Trump's failure to get the problem under control early.

It is what the vast majority of the world's population believe, that's the point. Gender diversity is not a new concept and there is a plethora of research material out there to educate yourself.

I disagree, I think they were given the Mafia choice. The Saudis are desperate to normalize US relations.

They don't need to. How do you disprove tests that show they do work? More tests? Yes, they have done them too. Your ship has sailed.

What really is mentally ill is intolerance of others whose lives have nothing to do with you. There are any number of medical professionals who don't agree with you and yet you either choose to ignore them or remain ignorant. Bigotry is mentally ill.

My understanding is that Iranian oil production has been largely curtailed by sanctions preventing them from buying parts. I may be wrong on this point.

There's millions of articles on the net stating that masks are effective. The rules of this forum only require a link to evidence that is credible and not widely contested by other credible evidence. I challenge you to find me a single credible link to evidence which says masks don't work.

"Stacking" is an emotionally loaded word which in this context implies appointing the judges to achieve a political end. My arguments in favour were broader than that. Doubling is more precise term which would be my choice. If one were to be accused of "stacking" the the obvious solution would be to have even more judges. Another reform would be to have the American Bar Association give the president the list, instead of the Federalist Society. Australia has 7 justices in our High Court and only 25 million people so 17 for 300 million isn't over the top. It would also allow greater throughput in the court.

You may not be able to if Thomas stated intention is fulfilled. Travel from one state to another for purposes of abortion or assisting in abortion may soon be illegal in many states. So he's really right. There should be term limits for the SCOTUS and the number of justices should be doubled. That would provide much greater consensus, less ability to stack the court against the popular will and reduce the influence of any single President in stacking the court.

CNN cable TV are reporting that 70% of Russian military attacks on Ukraine are against civilian targets. This is not a military campaign, it's a war crimes campaign. It's time a "coalition of the willing" decided to move to stop Russia from waging this war. Destroying our own economies and allowing millions to starve doesn't make sense now in favour of taking on Russia militarily. Waiting for Ukraine to get it done will be too little too late. Russia can continue to wage a war of attrition and blockade shipping as long as it likes. The more it does so, the more money it makes from it's own exports. The west is going to get sick of this real soon.

They were, the doctors were focused on masks being medically efficacious. The immoral part is people's refusal to take the welfare of others into account based on that medical data and recommendation.

The condemn bit is appropriate because of the ten year old girl aspect. and the slurring of a medical professional who should now sue him.

I didn't mistype, I quoted. The quote isn't suggesting that surgical masks are the best, rather that they are the most practical way to wear a mask and still achieve a respectable reduction in risk, both from infection and transmission. I wear surgical masks because K95's are too hot in the tropics and much more expensive.

Why not? If it walks like a duck... Did you read the decision? It certainly reads like religious activism to me. What about those judges who dissented? "In a concurring opinion that raised concerns the justices might roll back other rights, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to reconsider past rulings protecting the right to contraception, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, and invalidating state laws banning gay sex." Would the above sound like religious activism to an ordinary person? No doubt! "On Friday, ABC News senior national correspondent Terry Moran claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade marks a new era in which a "strongly activist conservative court" refuses to rule for the "center" of the political spectrum. The reporter listed several, including, "the right to travel across state lines, the right to bodily integrity – you cannot be forced to take medicine or undergo medical procedures – that’s a right not found in the Constitution." He added, "the right to choose contraceptives, the right to marry someone of the same sex," declaring, "all of these rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, neither was abortion." https://www.foxnews.com/media/roe-v-wade-ruling-new-era-activist-supreme-court-abcs-terry-moran

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest they shouldn't rent motorcycles to tourists but there should be strict controls. I remember being in Angeles City, Philippines, about 20 years ago and a young guy had rented a 750 Kawasaki. He was doing wheelies up and down the street until he eventually fell off and broke his leg. Next morning I saw him having breakfast in the hotel restaurant in good spirits. The next day he was dead, from an embolism apparently.

Should Jordan apologize? Nobody listens to BKK Brian (well, except me maybe) but lots of people hear Jordan's rants from his bully pulpit.

I noticed some of them on Beach Road yesterday. They were pulled over and talking on 2 way radios. They only caught my attention because they were Asians and riding Harleys. I initially figured they must have been Thai but were not.

explantion of hyperlinks deleted, this issue is off topic.

Skeptical or not, decent people apologise when they are wrong, especially when they have used their elevated position of authority to make the accusation and when the accusations caused damage.

Stare Decisis isn't some third party doctrine limiting the supreme court, is is the invention of the courts themselves. It indeed limits their ability to overturn decisions. In this case the supreme court did not challenge the imperative of Stare Decisis, they attacked the previous decisions themselves, hence the radical activist religious court.

Then you explain what stare decisis is and what regard should be given to it in deciding cases. Please ensure you provide links to your argument. Stare Decisis does in fact limit legal decisions despite your unqualified and unresearched personal opinion. Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision. The previous deciding-court must have binding authority over the court; otherwise, the previous decision is merely persuasive authority. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court described the rationale behind stare decisis as “promot[ing] the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, foster[ing] reliance on judicial decisions, and contribut[ing] to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

Biden is caught between a rock and a hard place. The only countries with a surplus in oil reserves are Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia. There is a national security imperative to convince one of them to increase production to reduce the price of oil.

not if one respects stare decisis as a concept in law which is well established by SCOTUS. This is why this court is described as being an activist court.

it wasn't one decision was it? Roe v Wade was reaffirmed in 1992.

This visual cue has been used in web sites since their inception.