With healthcare systems and churches as some of the biggest offenders.

Mainly the intense drive for sexual stimulation on meth combined with disinhibition and just general bad decision making.

Yeah, I regret adding the “free” part because I didn’t intend my comment to be about cost. But in terms of convenience, is it really so much more inconvenient to bring a reusable water bottle with you to the store? Why add to a landfill by getting a disposable cup every time you go?

Since we’re on the topic of cost though, do you know how much 16oz of water from your tap at home costs on average? 3 one hundredths of a cent. Thats about a penny and a half a year if you go to the grocery store once a week.

It’s a good thing you have a free water dispenser at your house and reusable water bottles are a thing.

I work in a ER and can assure you people high on meth put all sorts of crazy shit in their butt.

Except Sabro for me. Tastes like gin, which I hate.

Worth a double take for sure. I think it has more to do with the transition from young adulthood to being a grown woman, with access to one of the best athletic training programs in the world, and probably an image/style consultant with an eye towards parlaying the Olympics participation into a lucrative career.

Yes?

I wouldn’t be so certain.

No need to make the internet a worse place.

More Reddit-y here by the day…

Not a gun owner myself, so curious, is your carry gun not always locked up when not on your person?

Except a pardon is a core function within the president’s constitutional authority, not just an official act, thus based on the opinion entitled to absolute immunity. The footnote exchange is only referencing official acts (which are entitled to presumptive immunity) not core constitutional functions (like a pardon).

I have a different take and I think the Chief Justice is being intentionally vague here. He references a bribery prosecution but never specifically mentions in the footnote whether he is referring to the issuance of a pardon, which is a core function, and thus entitled to absolute immunity based on the rest of the opinion. It’s also not clear whether he is referring to a prosecution of the briber or the person being bribed.

(on standing)

The irony here, is this is the kind of vague and obtuse fuckery online casinos and sportsbooks pull with their customers all the time.

Is unequivocally content neutral to initiate a new place restriction before any content is expressed in that place. If they subsequently allow other protests in that place, but continue to restrict Gaza protests in that place, then it is not content neutral.

Your second question is either disingenuous or involved zero actual effort on your end, or both. Obviously this is an emotional subject, but it doesn’t absolve from using critical thinking.

I’m not sure it’s helpful to continue, take care.

That’s a pretty shitty Wikipedia article, honestly.

Try: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/time-place-and-manner-restrictions/

They are allowed to express their first amendment rights, but first amendment rights are not unlimited. See Ward v Rock Against Racism (1989) where the Supreme Court developed a test for time-place-manner restrictions.

You can disagree with the law and very well established Supreme Court precedent, but you can’t generally argue that the universities are violating the law by creating time, place and manner restrictions for free speech (unless they are failing the time-place-manner test).

With reasonable restrictions on time, place and matter decided by the university.

Even first amendment rights are not unlimited. Regardless of how you feel, it’s just a simple constitutional matter. This is like middle school civics stuff.