While I also hate the two party system and feel that the dems are pretty f’d up, saying “there’s really very little actual difference” is dangerous and doing a massive disservice to the rule of law.

2017 Evora. Most have 3 pedals, all look good. Some look great;

Weird human nature about getting passed on the road. I normally drive on a two lane canyon road on the weekends, and you will occasionally get someone driving below the speed limit. Once you try to pass them legally, they speed up for some reason to try and stop you passing them.

There have been a handful of times I felt someone was following me after I honked at them for driving like an a-hole.  When I would get near my home I would turn down a DIFFERENT street and make a couple of other turns in my local neighborhood to determine if it was coincidence, or if they were really following me. …

Drive straight to the nearest police station if possible.

What you do is call 911, inform them you are being aggressively pursued, provide details of the pursuing vehicle and ask for them to direct you to the nearest police station.

Sounds far fetched, but women may have to vote with their feet and move to states not restricting their rights. The money and jobs will follow.

It’s not legal, but it’s the chilling effect that’s the point. Like you said, it’s holding people hostage...by the threat of massive inconvenience, loss of money, stress and anxiety, and precious time if you dare to disobey an unconstitutional law. (Put aside for the time that TX found a way to make the…

If you read the US Constitution, you’ll see why the “states’ rights” argument is so prevalent. I’m not supporting it. I’m just pointing out that it was set up that way from day 1 for a reason. Each “state” is effectively a “nation” within a loose union.

Yep.  States’ right to be facist, racist, and oppressive.

I find “states’ rights” seem to come up whenever someone wants to argue against individual civil rights and liberties.

Could be a few things, first the person’s final directive was to cremate and send to an address and it wasn’t updated (or the recipient simply died before the person could update).

Why would anyone who cares about a loved one mail their remains - and not deliver it personally? The strangest case was around Sacramento some years ago when a contractor who was supposed to dump the ashes over the ocean (or wherever the family wanted) just stacked the remains in a self-storage facility - over 400…

It still makes zero sense to me that there can be a law preventing someone from leaving the state to presumably do something illegal in your own state but not the destination state. Literally legalization of holding people hostage

Sort of. They’ve allowed the law to stand. They haven’t seen a case where a person is actually suing over the jurisdiction. It’s not a fantastic system, but we have to make SCOTUS eat their words to fix how stupid they are.

What will likely come from this is a federal dispute over jurisdiction. A state cannot punish their resident for going into another state and doing something there that is legal. The act happened where it is legal, not in the state where it is illegal. Otherwise, one state is essentially saying it has jurisdiction…

So are mine, but they weren't cremated

That’s not what’s happening.

ACAB.

“police of California follow the eight-year-old law protecting people’s privacy.” yep - there needs to be justification for the request, and both sides of the data sharing have to agree on the justification based on the law, not the personal preferences of the officers involved.