Oh and the “who can abuse this” line of thinking is an important one, especially considering who stands to benefit from broad executive order powers. Live by the Obama sword, die by the Trump sword. I’m not trying to empower him one iota.

I just wanted to add that your first substantive paragraph about defanging protections based on sex is an excellent point that I’ve yet to hear from anyone. Thought that’s a very good point that should be considered.

I agree as to academically, disagree as to applied. Academically, #2 is a much better statutory interpretation analysis.

Agreed. Not entirely surprised that the Court went the status quo avenue. Pretty routine course of action, and a desirable one in cases that have the potential to be blockbusters (though, ironically, that is the exact same thing that drives people to go “wtf?!” even though it’s rather pedestrian procedure).

Fellow lawyer. I agree with your assessment but wanted to be clear about what the substance would be.

It’s going to come down to how much a court should defer to an agency interpreting a statute that is ambiguous (and it’s going to be a close question). Not whether trangender students should be free to use the restroom…

All is forgiven because you successfully linked back to the “Cardinals Lost Their 50th Game” piece.

Sigils, ranked:

I wanted Renly Baratheon, but now instead I’ll just drink wildfire.

Unpopular opinion: they’ve actually hit on a .0001% of a truth here.

+1 Quack

Your sports talk radio show is Buttercup and Sphincter on 730, The Sports Aneurysm.

So this would be one way to improve ratings for All Takes Matter.

I define it as as it’s usually used. I was going for a BENGHAZI joke, but I left off my /s at the end. My b.

Speeches by
Hillary
Really
Irritate everyone but
Loser
Liberals

I had a similar observation. The closest imperfect answer I’ve come up with is that the incessant, meritless complaining from the GOP along those lines has rendered any ability to make a critique along those lines (even meritorious ones) a non-starter.

Salon sort of touched on this awhile back:

So how can we acknowledge that there is a difference in oratory skill between the average* Secretary Clinton speech and the average Michelle Obama speech?

Asterisk because I disagree with Hume’s premise; last night’s speech did not contain Secretary Clinton’s usual cadence/voice/whatever, and thought that it was one of…

+1 here’s what I believe

The NBA Lottery is rigged every single year.

“After some brief research I noticed that in the past 17 seasons, the Jags have finished at the bottom of their division three times, while the Browns have NOT finished last in their division four time.”

This stat belongs in the stat HOF.

Any CA people want to explain the absence of battery? Is willful and wanton misconduct an umbrella cause of action covering battery?