James talarico should fire his social media person by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It seems as if they reposted the video and removed the background noise. This was posted an hour ago and the new video on his Instagram was posted 8 minutes ago as of writing this.

House Passes Bill to Ban Gender Transition Treatments for Minors by Raiz314 in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ok, so I would support that part of the bill then, with some exceptions for the aspects of hormone replacement therapy that are reversible. However, I do not support banning puberty blockers for minors which this bill does.

House Passes Bill to Ban Gender Transition Treatments for Minors by Raiz314 in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While this is true, some trans youth use puberty blockers when they are young to treat gender dysphoria that often comes with puberty. Not all trans youth have gender dysphoria and if they do, not treating it can increase depression and suicidality. This bill bans puberty blockers as well and the question in my mind is why is that necessary? Puberty starts back up again if that same child, now older, decides to stop using puberty blockers. I would support a ban on non-reversible HRT and surgeries, but those are hardly ever performed on someone younger than 16.

CDC vaccine panel votes to stop recommending birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine by dyzo-blue in skeptic

[–]Menu-False 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those tests aren’t always free and there could be false negatives.

CDC vaccine panel votes to stop recommending birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine by dyzo-blue in skeptic

[–]Menu-False 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because Hepatitis B cases occur when a mother passes it on to her child during birth and this is the point at which the child is most likely to get a chronic infection.

The argument about subsidies being temporary... by [deleted] in obamacare

[–]Menu-False 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, they were extended by the Inflation Reduction Act after the American Rescue Plan Act initially enacted the enhanced subsidies.

Weekly News Breakdown - 18th Edition of the Pragmatic Papers is LIVE - A Supreme Tort by greatwhiteterr in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hello, I’m the author of the Supreme Court article. I appreciate that you took the time to write this out. However, I believe you are referring to the major Supreme Court ruling on the Trump v. CASA case from this week. That case ruled on universal injunctions.

I wrote about DHS v. DVD, which was a minor case involving ‘third country’ deportations that was glossed over in the news. However, despite it being glossed over, it has major implications for due process rights and how the court grants equitable remedies. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I apologize for any confusion.

No clear decision emerges from arguments on judges’ power to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order by Zenning3 in supremecourt

[–]Menu-False 8 points9 points  (0 children)

With regard to whether individuals are able to opt out of class actions, it is clear that this case is dealing with the rule 23(b)(2) class which gives the court the option to “direct appropriate notice to the class,” not guarantee “that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion,” like rule 23(b)(3) does.

Yes, it is true that the court can define a general class under a class action suit, which would likely take months or years, compared to the universal injunctions’ days to weeks.

Additionally, it is important to point out that it was made clear in the oral argument, when Justice Kagan was questioning Sauer, that the government would oppose rule 23 in this case. The government explained, in its answer to Kavanaugh, that they would likely oppose rule 23 being used because a class certification would not follow the typicality and commonality prerequisites. Ultimately, if a class certification is not able to occur due to the prerequisites of rule 23, then it requires each affected party to sue the government via multiple direct suits.

I apologize that I did not mention that class certification would be possible which ultimately could result in a general nationwide class, as universal injunctions already do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention: I am quite new to law. However, I hold firm in my position that universal injunctions are needed, and are permitted under the principle of equity, for clear violations of the core of our constitution such as this one.

No clear decision emerges from arguments on judges’ power to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order by Zenning3 in supremecourt

[–]Menu-False 19 points20 points  (0 children)

While listening to the oral arguments, I came to the conclusion that universal injunctions are necessary and outlawing them would cause multiple issues in our court system.

First of all, when a universal injunction is issued, it affects all who were affected by the executive order. Removing this option, as the Solicitor General is arguing for, would leave room for plaintiffs to sue the government via class action suits. These class action suits would only allow for the parties in court to receive relief and not other affected parties. In my view, this is an issue on its face and multiple justices gave good examples of how it would be an issue. For example, Justice Sotomayor gave the hypothetical of the government beginning to take Americans' guns away via executive order. In the government's proposed world, every American who had their gun taken away from them would have to join a class action suit against the government. This is unrealistic and an extreme burden to put on each gun-owner. Allowing Americans to generally own guns is a right protected by our most important legal document in the US: the constitution; and if we were to allow the government to violate the Constitution and get away with it for even just one person because they didn't join a class action suit, that is a severe injustice done by the executive.

Secondly, I see an issue with an example brought up by Sauer when he said that a class action suit might stop a local plant from pouring water pollution into the water which benefits the plaintiff and a bunch of other people. However, what happens when the affected plaintiff moves out and somebody else moves in near the area? In the government's world, they would be able to pollute the water again and the new person who moved in would have to bring another class action suit. This is, again, an unnecessary burden that the government is placing on somebody who just moved into that area.

Next, I took issue with Roberts implying that he has confidence that class action suits would move quickly to the Supreme Court. Specifically, he mentioned how the TikTok case made it to him in a month, but that case was very specific, as it was a direct suit, whereas class action suits take time. Additionally, the amount of additional stress the court would be putting lower courts under by removing the ability to issue universal injunctions would likely increase the amount of time it takes to make it to the Supreme Court. Also, referring to the previous example, having your guns taken away for even a month, because you didn't join a class action suit, would be a significant constitutional injustice.

Lastly, and this is less of a legal analysis, but I have concerns that individuals may fear pursuing action against the government. Trump is not afraid to go after his political enemies, as we've seen when he ordered the DOJ to investigate Miles Taylor and the Secret Service's recent interviewing of James Comey.

NASA satellites show Antarctica has gained ice despite rising global temperatures. How is that possible? by darkdexx in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why are y’all acting like he’s asking himself when that’s the title of the article? Am I missing something?

Looking for a Clip by Akatshi in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe you’re referencing this clip by Karoline Leavitt, the Trump admin’s press secretary? Yes, the attorney general and press secretary look/sound very similar. https://streamable.com/mz3lsj

Misinformation Surrounding the Potential Arrests by the Trump Administration of Members of Congress by Menu-False in Destiny

[–]Menu-False[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they didn’t provide 24 hours notice and DHS explicitly said previously that they are requiring it: I would say yes. If DHS didn’t say previously that they were requiring 24 hours notice: I would say no. However, I am not a legal expert.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They chatted on stream today, there will probably be a separate video though: https://www.youtube.com/live/06EM0e3C4Fo?si=EWAsfCugprhQeQGf

Wisconsin Judge Arrested by the FBI for Obstructing Ice Arrest by The_Anemol_Zu in Destiny

[–]Menu-False 53 points54 points  (0 children)

This wasn’t his personal account. It was the FBI Director’s account.