Teh Squeaky Wheel
“Maaaaan…pretty sure I could eat a whole box of Milk Bones right now.”
Happy Thursday, GN!
I guess it was a plus you didn’t have to be in the office for your meeting yesterday; nonetheless, sorry it was teh suck.
BK’s sleeping-in again; she was probably up late last night. Yesterday was a “not terrific” day for her; hope today will be better.
No response yet from HH-A HOA to our most recent letter; we’re kinda hoping that casually mentioning we have documentation which disputes their assertion about the phony-baloney current leak has caused some concern.
But nah…probably not. They’re bound and determined to fabricate some sort of malfeasance on JimCo’s part and I doubt they’re gonna give up now.
Keep digging, bishes.
That’s really obscene and disgusting -- it’s a joke, right?
Hi, Sven --
It does indeed appear to be a prank.
But, AFAIC, actual gefilte fish is also a joke; gaaaaaaah!
Have you ever eaten gefilte fish or known anyone that has? And liked it? I always thought it was decorative and the Jewish version of a water-filed Christmas globe.
I’ve eaten it a couple of times as a very young child. My paternal grandma always served it as part of any meal I can remember having at her apartment.
It’s vile, IMO. The function of the chrain (horseradish) which is served with it is to help mask the taste. 😉
Good morning, Fatwa -- I hope that Brenda is having an OK day.
Taking the day off -- needed to burn some vacation hours or lose them -- and the last two months have just worn me out. Watching SCOTUS Blog this morning.
Last Supreme Court opinion today: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen Thomas for the Court. 6-3. New York’s law violates the 14th A. by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
Thomas says in the intro that the court is holding “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
Sure Happy It’s Thursday, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning, Fatwa, and Sven!
Fatwa -- I’m sorry to hear that Brenda had a “not terrific” day. Prayers that today will be much better.
Sven -- that is good news on the SCOTUS front. I wonder if that ruling will have any impact on California’s restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home?
It should, but it might take another legal challenge out here -- when was the last time a state or local govt all on their own did some self-reflection, came to the conclusion that their law was wrong based on SCOTUS or other factors, and removed it from the books? Even when CA has to move from “may issue” to “shall issue,” they’ll just add a new wrinkle.
Of course you can carry a firearm outside your residence -- SCOTUS says so -- but in order to do so you must have a billion dollar liability insurance policy.
There is much somber-tearful-angry expressions today coming from the left -- much rending of garments and “blood in the streets” hyperbole. It’s sweet. What’s telling is how dumb they are misrepresenting what this ruling means, but that’s what they do. I keep seeing the question: “how will this affect the other five states that have similar laws” while failing to note that 44 states don’t have them and they seem to be doing fine.
And then there’s the “states rights” issue which leftists trot out when convenient, but that will be totally ignored if Roe gets tossed.
What does this mean for California? Paredes said the California Legislature will need to draft legislation by the end of the year to comply with the new ruling, or the state will be sued again. “Los Angeles and San Francisco will go the way of New York,” Paredes said. “We are anxious to carry on the fight, and now we are coming from a position of strength.”
Our governor weighs in:
A dark day in America. This is a dangerous decision from a court hell bent on pushing a radical ideological agenda and infringing on the rights of states to protect our citizens from being gunned down in our streets, schools, and churches. Shameful.
Reading the analysis at SCOTUSBlog, I note that Justice Breyer’s dissent is focused not on Constitutional rights, but on the government’s role in shaping and protecting society.
Arguing that the question before the court was “the extent to which the Second Amendment restricts different States (and the Federal Government) from working out solutions to” gun violence “through democratic processes,” Breyer faulted his colleagues for striking down the New York law without an evidentiary record that would allow it to determine how the New York scheme actually works in practice, “without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
I’m sorry, but as someone who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, you aren’t supposed to consider what you think are “good reasons” for eviscerating Constitutional protections.