Political views have long been met with state sanctioned violence. The concern for me with the breakdown of the judicial system, we’re going to see an even wider disparity in equal application of the law, and larger backlogs.

Wat?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/global-hands-off-protests-donald-trump-elon-musk-rcna199847

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hands-off-protests-across-country-protest-second-trump-administration/vi-AA1CoMLe

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/05/hands-off-protests-locations-date-time/82854825007/

I think in cases of long speeches, Grassley’s desk is allowed to be used as a urinal.

If his ratings are underwater, what are the odds we can get him to dive in after them?

Who is this meant to target exactly? Of the vanishingly small number of trans athletes, there’s an even smaller number that would be traveling internationally.

Do you honestly think any of them have competing interests? The greedy ones stand to make money either way, and the ideologically driven ones are salivating at the idea of destroying the country if it means they could possibly steer a new government.

I personally, am dismayed that the democrats aren’t fistfighting in congress.

The Department of Education is under the executive branch and holds control over policy and guidance. As a permanent change, it takes about 90 days to go through the official “We want to change eligibility policy” process, but until then, a presidential memo can serve as a directive to the department.

Not even a month in and the amount of BS thrown into the public’s face has to exceed some sort of methane pollution limit.

It did, but they undid the limits on that too, probably.

It’s not the number of people in the center, it’s the number of people able to enter at one time. Basically, it allows them to ensure that everyone is being clearly identified on entry.

This can include invesigators’ findings and interviews.

I mean, I’m all for deporting the US military, but what country would take them?

They have more time and resources as many of the challenges are spun off and subcontracted to their cronies. And they don’t especially care if things grind to a halt, that’s also a win for them, they can play victim to the public with it and scream about how they really want to get on with running a government.

The truth is, they don’t care how poorly written it is, they’re just trying to flood the zone with stuff, and they win no matter the outcome. If it’s not challenged, they have policy, if it is challenged, it occupies time and resources and most importantly, if it’s challenged unsuccessfully, they have legal precident.

Years back, when I was working helpdesk and was on overtime, I traveled to visit my long-distance girlfriend. The first night, I was so tired that I quickly fell asleep. Apparently, in my sleep, I kept asking her for her username so that I could log the ticket.

While these laws are expressly exclusionary, the overall intent is to erode civil rights protections. It’s easier for them to argue against civil rights when they can present a legal justification for it.

Mozart invents headbanging.

To hire diversely, they need to gather statistics to quantify, at which point they have ready-made marketing for hiring.

Headline should just be “Boise State values discrimination more than the hard work of their athletes”.