I plan on doing the opposite and naming a son Iñigo Montoya as insurance.

By the time they commit patricide, it's too late for evolutionary purposes.

Every year is a bad year for boys named Jonael.

If they don't renew it, it's already had a perfect series finale.

I'm super shocked that Charlie Hunnam ends up being dull.

In 2018, the AV Club will start running articles about a new show streaming exclusively on Smalt.

But an FCC regulatory action isn't a defamation lawsuit, so Trump won't be arguing anything at all.

But an FCC regulatory violation wouldn't have anything to do with whether the first amendment protects Colbert's statements for defamation lawsuit purposes. The first amendment protects Hustler generally, but if you broadcast a Hustler slideshow on a broadcast station, you'd get in trouble.

But they do have natural and ordinary meanings in every court in America, as the words "natural and ordinary" are naturally and ordinarily used.

Is Trump suing Colbert for defamation? The Hustler case doesn't apply.

I understand being grated by it, but it's a bill that does literally nothing. It's two steps forward and then pretending to take a step back.

But Obergefell already settled that question. The statute doesn't change the definition of spouse, no matter how much representative Cletus would like it too.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-601(5) defines domestic abuse in Tennessee. Since in Tennessee, like in most states, domestic abuse statutes cover domestic violence between unmarried couples, I'm not too worried about whatever definition of "spouse" the cop imagines. You don't even have to be dating; in Tennessee you an…

The food writing actually ended up being pretty decent, at least on articles whose headlines I click on.

And it's awful that your friends' kid is having nightmares. Hopefully whatever lawyer worked on the adoption did his or her job right.

Then her wife should adopt her too, in order to protect both her rights and the kids'. The same would be true if your friend were a straight guy who had adopted a kid but whose wife hadn't.

And it's exactly what the status quo was before the bill.

Did she adopt the daughter? Then there's no conceivable way this bill affects her.

Words in statutes are already given their natural and ordinary meaning if they're not defined elsewhere in the statutes. What other meaning would they get? I don't really know what the Tennessee legislature, or even its critics, imagine this bill would do.

Imagine being a famous narcissist with a history of Twitter meltdowns and having the restrain to quit Twitter. I guess he isn't serious about running for president in the future.