Most people do not think this at all, in my experience. The reason for dumping is to 1) prevent engorgement which can be excruciating and 2) to make sure milk supply remains well-established by telling your body that you would usually be nursing at that time, so keep producing. No one I have ever spoken to in 10 years…

Exactly - this kind of argument is such sour grapes. It's like a losing high school debater's last ditch effort. And, I could be wrong, but in my recollection it’s one that’s just not used (or at least not overused) the left wing of the Court. Save that shit for Citizens United and Bush v Gore.

This made me laugh. Yes, because the general public will be simply HORRIFIED at the majority's (alleged) misapplication of res judicata and severability, two concepts most laypeople think about *all the time* and are deeply committed to.

Yes. Also, suicide rates decreased significantly in Australia after they instituted strict gun control measures following the Port Arthur massacre. Suicide is by-and-large an impulsive act. Limiting access to the most effective means (guns) reduces suicides, full stop.

They wouldn’t even let the public name a fucking boat by referendum. So this seems like a monumentally stupid idea.

Exactly.

They are, though interestingly, they are one of the biggest recipients of EU funds in the entire UK.

In this case, well prior to oral argument, which is the typical way. A recused justice generally even leaves the bench during argument.

After oral arguments, the vast majority of court watchers and legal experts expected this case to go the other way. On the SCOTUSBlog live feed this morning they pronounced themselves shocked it went this way. So it seems doubtful she would have felt that confident about the outcome at the time she recused.

I just divested from all my funds that included gun stocks. I was pleasantly surprised that there were gun-free funds from my major provider (Vanguard) that seem to be doing just as well if not better than the funds with gun stocks. Check it out, you might be surprised that you don’t have to choose good performance or…

Exactly. And even if you manage to make them, the bombs can fail to detonate, or fail to create the desired level of carnage. The terror bombings in Belgium, as horrible as they were, involved at least 5 attackers, likely more, and attacks in three separate sites — including a busy train station — and still did not…

Also a MacArthur Genius Award — MEGPOT?

He already won the Grammy for best musical theatre album. :)

I don’t think terrorists would disagree at all about the fastest and easiest way to kill lots of people, or at least, if they do, they keep using guns anyway — those two cases are outliers. The vast, vast majority of mass killings of civilians in the US are committed using firearms. And the Boston bombing is a weird…

I used to work with NDT at the AMNH yeeeeears ago before he was this famous, and he's just as cool in person as you would expect.

Is this a typo?

That stat is a little confusing because I think the report is using "jail time" differently from prison time, which is typical usage within the justice system. So the 8 months likely represents time spent in pre-trial detention ("jail"), and should be added to the prison time served. Elsewhere the report says that the…

Yes, I agree. I understand the point the article is making, and it’s an important one, but it’s disingenuous to say that this means the sentence isn’t lenient or that the judge didn’t engage in “coddling,” since that’s comparing apples and oranges.

These stats are old, but no reason to think they are not still pretty close. (From Wikipedia). So the sentence is ABSOLUTELY "lenient" compared to a usual sentence for a *convicted* rapist.

SAME at my son's school. Makes me hopeful for the future.