noobsalad
Noob Salad
noobsalad

FBI suspicion is a bit like the no-fly list: Are you a sketchy-looking Muslim? Congratulations, you’re a suspected terrorist!

....the fact that some people can't afford to exercise a right doesn't mean it's not a right. I have a right to post this comment on the Internet without being thrown in jail, but some people can't afford a computer, smartphone, or the Internet. Does that mean I don't really have that right?

Because it's a Constitutional right?

To which Obama was criticized by people who think that you need something more than an FBI investigation (or presence on an unaccountable no-fly list) to deny a person their Constitutional rights ( which private firearm ownership is legally considered to be). Because this is guns, the left and right have predictably

From the linked article:

To clarify, the article is misleading, and also wrong. While threats are included in the survey, it’s a low percentage. The majority of people who coerced their partners “insisted” that their partner have sex when they didn't want to. The numbers in the survey are 5% for threats, 5% for force (both are about double

I think we’re moving away from the force requirement (slowly), but it’s not just a red state thing; Massachussets, for example, also has the force requirement. I think it’s still more than half the states.

Further edit: Sexual battery is simply the intentional touching of intimate areas without the victim’s consent. It does not need to be done by force. That might be one reason why sexual battery is being charged instead of rape (it might also be they can't prove penetration)

But it’s not enough that a jury simply believe one side or the other. I don’t see how a jury can resolve all reasonable doubt based on nothing more than the accuser’s story. Physical evidence of struggle or injury helps, but doesn’t exist in many cases. A history of abuse also helps make the case.

Her statement is not nearly enough evidence for a court of law. Isn’t it better that a case be dropped early, rather than go all the way to trial and then fall apart because the prosecution can’t prove its case?

I mean...it was ok with 4 liberal justices and John Roberts. I don't think many conservatives were happy with his vote

It matters because the federal government is limited to certain enumerated powers, so it can only do things the Constitution authorizes it to do to. State governments have no such restriction. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the federal government couldn’t force you to buy health insurance under the interstate

Brophy grad here, and I can say that in my four years (2007-2011) I’m not sure they ever preached at us about the evils of abortion. They told us the Church’s view, but I think they were definitely aware that about half the student body wasn’t Catholic and just avoided the topic. I went through four years of theology

I think it's because she claimed that the producer and Sony committed a hate crime against her. That part is the judge explaining why Kesha hasn't alleged facts that would qualify as a hate crime (Kesha hasn't alleged that he raped her out of a hatred of woman, rather than as a hatred of her, or to gain power over

Bail and probation are two of the worst and most corrupt parts of our criminal justice system. Wanna lock up a poor black person for no good reason? Charge them with a crime, set the bail too high for them to pay, and wait a while for trial. After they’re released, set probation so that if they screw up the arduous

So the law allows religious organizations to refuse to perform gay marriages. Are Missouri churches currently penalized for performing gay marriages in their churches? Either the proposed bill is redundant, or current Missouri law is clearly unconstitutional. I don't think anybody argues that a catholic priest can be

When you make unfair and misleading criticisms (like this whole story), you weaken every legitimate criticism you make.

She didn’t have a gun, and her parents are dead. If she had a gun, maybe (possibly) they would still be alive. To say that it’s highly unlikely a gun would have made a difference is missing the point. It makes perfect sense to say it would have been better to have brought a gun even her parents only had a

The argument against banning guns in schools is strong, but not for the reason people say in cases like this. I think it is unquestionably true that if a gunman intent on murder is in the same room as you, you are safer with a gun. You still might not have a great chance of surviving, but if you’re unarmed and the

It’s comment sections like this that almost make me ashamed to be pro-choice.