HGR definitely didn’t do right here but a lot more went wrong. This was a perfect storm of negligence. Multiple people could have taken minor stands to have prevented this tragic tale. So many people spoke out and zero action was taken to address their concerns.

A layered safety approach is a great idea. But it only works when at least one person in a position to do so does what’s right.

Pretty solid summarization of the situation. I definitely think that Baldwin’s on site safety problems and the seemingly rushed nature of production are going to bite him.

I feel like the habitability requirement might be governing on issues of extreme heat.

I’d argue Steam is probably the among the most competitive digital marketplaces. No games are sold above their MSRP, there are frequent deals that drastically cut the prices, and the UI is clear & comprehensive.

From my understanding 30% was the industry standard rate for some time.

The subtext is Todd is too afraid to remake that porn studio in Fallout 2, that was there for some reason.

Nothing more valuable than shares in a company in such a poor financial state that it can’t pay its own settlements.

This case wasn’t about rights it was about administrative policy and legislation. They seemed to actually be subtlely nudging for Congress to act in the opinion.

Settlements are always necessarily dispositive of the truth. Sometimes it makes sense to just pay a settlement fee than to go through litigation if you expect your attorney fees to be greater than the settlement cost. Also it’s not uncommon for settlements agreements to not confirm allegations so as to not benefit future cases against the defendant.

a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing;

That suit wouldn’t work either as you can’t sue the government for not prohibiting a medicine even if it does actual harm.

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

Pg 3 of the opinion is pretty clear that launching a case against the government for not banning something will just result in your case being DOA. Yes its technically a standing issue, but they’ve essentially ruled that you can’t have standing to sue under this situation. Effectively ruling on the merits.

It didn’t protect access in the sense that it prevented legislation restricting it but it did prevent unmerited lawsuits seeking to prevent its national sale.

It’ll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.

Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

The court seems to feel that the events were bad but there are issues proving the plaintiff was directly harmed and the legal theory of nuisance here seem like a stretch.

But if they won, best case scenario they’d make out with cash damages and the vindication of having a judge saying the government was wrong.

He also had a lot of rulings that didn’t necessarily fit his personal opinions due to his originalist interpretation style. I know he had said that the death penalty is constitutional and stupid.

If your going off of a progressive-conservative scale rather than a living constitutionalist vs originalist one Id probably peg him more conservative than Roberts and Gorsuch, but less than Alito and Thomas.

That said most of the Scotus cases are over boring things that only lawyers care about, with questions like what a navigable river is or the validity of contracts. And ~30% of the time it’s a 9-0. There’s probably a few Thomas and Alito opinions you might find yourself getting behind, maybe not the hot button ones but the boring ones.

https://youtu.be/kMKvxJ-Js3A

Agreed. This story is essentially “Guy who was relevant years ago says ‘Ur Gay’ to someone on Internet”. Which while disagreeable isn’t something I’d expect people rushing to the presses about.

Because that money belongs to someone, presumably the party that was defrauded.

It’s about the context in which you wear it.

Tldr on the topic from another article I read:

Instead, the bill requires only the Department of Education, which is in charge of federal grants for financial aid and funding of schools, to consider the definition of antisemitism when investigating programs that receive federal funding. Essentially, it gives the Education Department the ability to pull funding if it finds discrimination “based on race, color, or national origin,” something known as a Title VI investigation.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/05/13/antisemitism-awareness-act-explain/

The definition used is an 11 point one explained in the above article. The gripes are basically that the definition is broad enough to include what many feel should be protected speech and this would curtail criticism of Israel.