It isn't about who is deserving. It's about whether civilized societies permit the the government to carry out premeditated killings (they do not), and whether the government is capable of doing so fairly, justly, and under equal protection of the law (there is zero evidence that it is).
It perversely reminds me of a thought I had when we were waiting for the ruling in NFIB v. Sibelius: the challengers took the position that the government could not require people to buy health insurance, but it could tax everyone and use the proceeds to buy everyone health insurance directly
Weather update: ooooof
This is mostly a product of how few live sports events I've been to but it's obviously Steph Curry
The underlying legal landscape around court reform is so weird because the more radical solutions are actually much easier to pass than the more moderate ones
I'm just saying, we might need another round of '48ers soon
(I went to undergrad with him)
Plus the entire premise is suspect. Whether you feel comfortable talking is subjective. AND a feeling of safety is famously unreliable — like how people perceive crime is up even when it‘s down. Plus FIRE is in the business of TELLING them they’re not free to speak, then polling them aboit it.
and just to make this explicit: it's because Bill Pulte is being pushed to use America's intelligence services against the opposition party.
it must be fundamentally absurd and on some level unreconcilable to be both,
1. A devout Catholic
2. The brother of the current Pope