CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.

Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)

Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?

Kinda like that time the king of England took away Massachusetts’ legislatures. But I have a feeling the king here will fair better this go around.

Not sure on all the specifics of CA’s admittance structure, beyond they banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

But post Students for Fair Admissions DEI measures are still ok. Schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus but they may choose to favor those from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 1st generation college students, and even good essays that share someone’s experience being a race.

No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.

In other words:

it seems fairly dishonest, especially since

schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don’t groom children to sell them for them.

K-12 and colleges/universities are only the setting of ~12.8% of mass shootings.

Your just making speculative hyperbole about a nation a hemisphere away. Isolating any one factor as reducing crime is often near impossible. A downward trend following legislative can just as easily be attributed to other factors like a general decline in criminality over time or due to bettering economic conditions (among countless other factors).

Those other groups aren’t using blanks. If anything this case is an indictment of how poor the industry can be at times with safety.

It’s like comparing the injury rates of commercial flights and those from a parachuting company.

I’m shocked your work doesn’t have some for free. Kits are much cheaper in bulk orders and the benefit to an employer of not having sick people killing production is probably clear.

One job I had had a literal pallet of them. People would grab an entire family’s worth at a time.

That’s been protected as free speech specifically for decades.

Supporting “do more about climate change” and supporting specific policies are two different things.

use whatever his response was (even a 5a plead) as prima facie evidence

This would get you reprimanded in court at best disbarred at worst. Utilizing the right to remain silent can not be used against you in a court of law. If it could it’d defeat the entire purpose of it by making silence become an admittance of guilt.

Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.

The 320 had a recall earlier in its life for drop safety but they did a redesign of the interior since then. I think today it’s more of a poor excuse for negligence.

Respectfully submitted,

United Nations

It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.

The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.

No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.

Yeah I thought the same thing. With how much people reveal about themselves online these days with just OSINT pretty much anyone dedicated enough or facilitated by ai could create a similar effect.

The thing here that lent significant credibility is the shared phrases predated on the other site.

The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.

Thank you for sharing this clear and succinct comment. Looked through the article and didn’t see it formated so clearly.

Possibly a rule 2/6 (opinion) issue. Not sure if you guys care on an article by article basis or just by source. Headline alone is pretty charged language.

BoR are the first 10/27 amendments. They were all ratified in 1791. Federalists thought that the structural elements laid out in the main document would protect people’s rights but Antifederalists insisted on codifying specific rights and the BoR was a promise to get more people on board with the idea of the Constitution.