According to Oklahoma state law, the special election for the remainder of the term takes place during the next statewide primary and general election. However, if the vacancy occurs after March 1st during an even numbered year, the special election gets delayed until the next election cycle after that year.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-26/section-26-12-101/

So they won’t have to have the special election this year. Though I doubt it makes that much of a difference. If they were going to lose that seat, they were going to lose the senate no matter what.

According to the article, the names were in government documents which they were able to view. There’s no indication that the information was released or intended for release. It sounds more like someone with access leaked the information to them.

It’s possible that this is a lie, but I don’t see how it helps DHS or the administration. I think it’s a lot more likely that there’s a complete lack of standards and accountability at CBP and ICE and that the problem has festered for decades. Being a 10 year veteran doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t enforcing standards and weeding out anyone who falls short.

Not a lawyer and haven’t read the law, but it seems logical that “stalking” isn’t a separate crime from premeditated murder when it’s just determining the location of the target and traveling to reach the target.

From what little I have seen, right wing outlets were interpreting the video as proof the officer was hit by the car because of the way the phone gets jostled at the end. You also can’t see in this video exactly when he draws his gun, or how the shooter is positioned. It’s damning when combined with the other videos, but on its own it’s a lot less clear.

And they also see it as proof that these were “agitators” obstructing “law enforcement” based on the confrontational tone with the woman outside the vehicle. They want to frame the issue as law enforcement vs criminals, rioters and radical domestic terrorists. They want to blame the victim and undercut the narrative that this was an innocent bystander.

Obviously a sane person would recognize that it doesn’t matter if the victim was politically active or even obstructing police, it’s still murder. But these aren’t moral, rational people and they aren’t trying to persuade an audience with legal arguments, just feeding the US vs them mentality.

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

The feds will protect him, but that’s only guaranteed for as long as the current regime is in power. Even if the next administration (or the one after that, or the one after that, etc) isn’t inclined to make a federal case out of it, they could easily decide to just not obstruct justice and cooperate, handing everything over to the state.

She was clearly performing a Y turn to steer around him. You can see him pull his gun out as she’s switching from reverse to drive, and he fires the first shot while she’s barely moving. She continues to accelerate after getting shot and yet he doesn’t get hit, but he does continue firing.

Her intent was obviously to escape, not to inflict harm. His intent was obviously to inflict harm, not to escape.

I really hate how many people resent the idea of any kind of student loan forgiveness.

Billionaires set up vast financial systems for the sole purpose of dodging taxes. No bid contracts get handed out like candy to politically connected scumbags. An obscene amount of money gets dumped into insurance companies that only make your healthcare worse. Giant corporations violate laws and rob both workers and customers, and if anything is done at all it will be a tiny fine that’s smaller than the profit from their crimes.

All those things that actually harm the rest of us? No big deal. But you suggest that maybe it’s a bad idea to keep generations ensnared in crippling debt? THAT’S A FUCKING OUTRAGE!

I mean obviously it wouldn’t be fair to have a policy that directly benefits some people but not others. Why should student loan borrowers get special treatment? Sure, I’ll fucking riot if anyone touches my tax credits for having kids and a mortgage, but that’s different, that’s good for society… unlike education. Besides, it’s not my fault your generation don’t buy houses and start families. Oh don’t bitch to me about how you can’t afford it, maybe you shouldn’t have taken those loans out then…

I’m confused. I thought the hostile takeover was supposed to work by appealing to the shareholders directly, presumably through some mechanism that allows a vote. If it just went back to the same board that had rejected their previous offers and accepted the deal from Netflix, how was this “hostile takeover” any different from a normal bid?

On body-worn camera video played in court, Wasser was heard saying she wanted to check the bag for bombs before removing it from the McDonald’s. Despite that concern, she acknowledged in her testimony Monday that police never cleared the restaurant of customers or employees.

Unless they had probable cause to believe there was a bomb, that’s absolutely no excuse for a search. Might as well just get rid of the fourth amendment altogether if police can just imagine the possibility of a dangerous object and excuse searching anything at any time.

If she really thought there was a bomb, she is recklessly handling this herself instead of calling in a properly trained and equipped bomb squad. But far worse, she claims she needed to check it so as not bring a bomb to the station, but apparently has no problem potentially handling a bomb around a bunch of innocent bystanders.

That she is lying in order to justify what she knew to be an illegal search is actually the least damning interpretation. Either way though, the evidence should be thrown out along with her career.

The reasonable solution would have been to include a mechanism for quickly and efficiently overruling these decisions when needed. They have to report to congress about anything that is withheld, but as far as I know they didn’t include a provision that would allow them to reject the given justification and order the release.

They may not have felt that this was a good case for their purposes. Or enough of them may have felt that this was a bad time for it. Hell, maybe a couple of the conservative justices just don’t care enough to want to revisit the issue.

But respect for the law, the constitution, and the rights and wellbeing of the people hasn’t been evident in many of their recent opinions. Letting half the states pretend a fraction of marriages never happened wouldn’t even be the most disruptive thing they’ve done. They endorsed racial profiling, made racial gerrymandering presumptively legal, made prosecuting bribery essentially impossible, overturned abortion rights, and crowned Trump as king and gave him a license to kill. And that’s ignoring all the shenanigans happening on the shadow docket where they don’t even bother justifying their decisions. That they’ve at least drawn something of a line against the Trump administration trying to eliminate due process altogether makes sense only because letting go of due process would mean giving up some of their own influence.

I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn’t find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they’ve had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there’s basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can’t rationalize it.

If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.

My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what’s one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.

Ordering a lot for yourself doesn’t necessarily mean eating it all at once. Leftovers are good too.

That said, there was a time when I worked in a pizza place that sold by the slice. I had to predict what we’d sell 10 minutes in advance without creating too much waste or leaving customers waiting. Sometimes fat people would come in, order way too much, complain about needing to wait for more, and generally making my day worse. I realized I was starting to resent fat people and it was adding to my already miserable mental state working that shitty job. So whenever it came up I started playing baby elephant walk in my head, and I wasn’t so resentful anymore.

For deliveries, the only customers I judged were the ones who treated us like shit, lied to get free stuff, or who were terrible tippers despite clearly having the money.

As I understand it, the fine print allows the board to wave a lot of the requirements and award a large part of the pay package anyway. And since the board is entirely under Musk’s control, that’s pretty much guaranteed to happen.

I’m a little disappointed that I haven’t see an article point out this one:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name appears 11 times.

Grokipedia: https://grokipedia.com/page/Jeffrey_Epstein

Musk’s name doesn’t appear at all.

I would be curious to know how those polled would define capitalism and socialism. Even ignoring the ones that would boil down to cartoonishly good and evil, I would assume that there is a huge disconnect in what each side thinks those terms mean.

I suspect that if you had asked the same people how they felt about policies and priorities without explaining which are capitalist and which are socialist, and included a broad spectrum of ideas ranging from one extreme to the other, you’d see a very different picture emerge.

The Trump administration claims that the children of immigrants who are born here only inherit their parent’s legal status rather than becoming citizens. And they claim they can revoke legal status at any time, even for those who become citizens. Since everyone in the country has ancestors who weren’t citizens, the combination of these two ideas would mean that anyone could be deported.

Well, that and anything is possible when you can deny do process. The next administration could round up everyone from the previous administration and deport them to Atlantis. Hope they’re good swimmers.

Off the streets and into the Whitehouse.

At this point, there is no position so indefensible and abhorrent that I would bet against the Supreme Court ruling in favor of it.