• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    20 hours ago

    To wit: there’s a NY state law that makes it illegal for state officials to help shit-ass states like Texas follow through on legal threats like this within the context of the NY legal system. This is that law working as intended.

    Or more succinctly: lick my taint, Ken Paxton, you fucking imbecilic psychopath.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      it’s only a matter of time before the supreme court forces new york to comply; i hope that the doctor is prepared for this and finds another way to help with protecting themself.

      when slavery was a thing, the shitty laws from shitty states to reclaim escaped slaves took primacy over laws from abolitionist states that would have protected them due to the supreme court and it took a war to overcome it.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        15 hours ago

        i hope that the doctor is prepared for this and finds another way to help with protecting themself.

        The airport code is YYZ but driving up from Buffalo is cool too.

      • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The US Supreme Court can’t currently do what you say without a law change at the federal level.

        Also, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery (mostly) was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865 after the end of the US Civil War.

          • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I didn’t think about what matters to SCOTUS at all.

            The law still matters to people and that’s what’s important. Only after we, abandon the rule of law will there be a complete breakdown of society and a descent into chaos and anarchy.

            I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don’t, but I still have hope.

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              We’ve been literally dismantling the first amendment (Establishment clause particularly). And the fourteenth (the whole fucking thing by EO).

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      You’d think a world-class corporate news organiztion like Associated Press would be able to shoehorn that into the title somehow. And yet.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That’s a lot of information the shoe horn into the title when it seems perfectly reasonable just put it in the article itself. That’s what articles are for after all, the context.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        What are you talking about???

        In journalism, headlines have always been used to try to entice people into reading the article. Not to give the entire story so that people won’t need to read the article.

      • Floodedwomb@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        It’s literally the second paragraph of the article. You’d think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          16 hours ago

          We’re gonna do this again?

          Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!

          • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are part of the same body of work. If you want all the context, read all of the work.

            If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!

              The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.

              The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.

              Etc, Etc.

              If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

              The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone. And here’s the thing: most people don’t see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)

              • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.

                People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I’ve already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn’t put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.

                Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.

                • Optional@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  FFS I’m not talking about the article for a reason. How (or why) you refuse to understand that is beyond me.

                  Yeah yeah hooked on phonics, ace repartee. Anyway.

                  • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    33 minutes ago

                    If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?