Is that true? This case was Arizona v. Navajo Nation, which was consolidated with Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation. These cases were brought by the government, not by the Navajo, but if they were, this case would have still been Navajo Nation v. Arizona. Is the respondent/defendent not the same as who the case is “against?”
One small mammal is much like another small mammal to, say, a poison
Good news! All other small mammals (other than bats) are also invasive!
In that instance, I would say that they probably should have known the potential risks involved with putting themself in that situation.
No, they declared Colorado’s law is bad. This was a decision written by a liberal woman, joined by the other two liberal justices and four of the conservative ones. They do not have it out for women.
It depends on your definition of free speech
It’s one definition that is different than the definition that had been provided in the parent comment.
It actually is one of the strengths of the decentralized nature of the Fediverse. But there are still growing pains associated with it.
Was it really the world’s resources and not just the Coast Guards of the two closest countries, exactly the same as with these migrants?
196 is straight from reddit. 195 was far better given that I had the top post of all time.
Versus the past several years where people would just say “whatever its reddit” without recognizing the irony. Like saying “whatever its just a english convention, not a grammer convention” and then they don’t end the sentence with a period 😤
Shoulda deleted the subreddit altogether.