2
eagles_have_landed 2 points ago +2 / -0

Really? From what I’m hearing the districts have the final say as to what they’ll be honoring for medical and religious exemptions. Maybe it’s different for students but my uncle won’t get it either and he’s a middle school teacher and from what he’s hearing you report to your district about it.

2
eagles_have_landed 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty sure it’s true. Got family that are based teachers in WA and were told the same thing. Get fired because you won’t get the jab? No UI for you. The teachers unions are trying to work with Inslee to allow that to happen. In addition to that they’ve been asking about how those with an exemption can be accommodated. Quite honestly I’m shocked that I’m rooting for the unions at this point.

1
eagles_have_landed 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would be interested to see if that time on 11/5 correlated with Biden's "jump" in votes. Does anyone know where I can find that information?

5
eagles_have_landed 5 points ago +5 / -0

Please for the love of God Eastern Washington needs to leave this hell hole.

3
eagles_have_landed 3 points ago +3 / -0

Your response it totally spot on lol I get having beef with the Judge for whatever reason but don't make it because of this. Although I disagree with the Judge's ruling it wasn't out of line for him to deny the request. I think there were a LOT of things even before the trial that created impartiality. I think the jurors should have been sequestered - the Defense made a good point after the jury was dismissed, this case permeates every aspect of our lives now. In addition, the fact that the 27 million dollar civil suit was awarded (if you want to call it that) right before the trial is poisoning the well too which I am sure was another reason the Defense motioned for a change of venue (I think they did but not sure).

53
eagles_have_landed 53 points ago +54 / -1

The Judge denied the Defense's motion for mistrial at THIS trial. What the Judge indicated though was if Chauvin is found guilty here and the defense appeals that conviction, the actions from Waters may be good enough grounds for a mistrial.

10
eagles_have_landed 10 points ago +10 / -0

Essentially what the judge was saying is that if they convict Chauvin, the defense can appeal that decision and request a mistrial because of Mad Maxine's comments, jury intimidation. The judge denied the the defense's request for a mistrial right here and now but said that if the defense were to bring this up again at the appeal they may have a case for a mistrial.

4
eagles_have_landed 4 points ago +4 / -0

How much clearer does "get more confrontational and stay on the streets" have to be for the State holy shit.

1
eagles_have_landed 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is wild that he has been nattering on this long about whether or not the crowd was rowdy and how they felt, who the hell cares that's not why were here dude....

4
eagles_have_landed 4 points ago +4 / -0

After everything its Joe that's gonna "put y'all back in chains"

6
eagles_have_landed 6 points ago +6 / -0

If it were me I'd file suit against your employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination. Exempting from the vaccine under the reason of religious freedom may protect you from getting fired solely based on the fact you refuse to take the vaccine. Not sure if it would work though.

4
eagles_have_landed 4 points ago +4 / -0

Agreed. I also wonder when these lawsuits inevitably come how big a role the fact that these vaccines have been "authorized" under the Emergency Use Authorization and have not gone substantial (hell even the preliminary) trials that ALL vaccines are to be put through before mass vaccination. I know a lot of people here argue that there is precedent for a state having authority to mandate vaccines (Jacobson v. Mass comes to mind for me) but I think this situation is quite different.

2
eagles_have_landed 2 points ago +2 / -0

My guess actually is that he has no idea what he's supposed to say and his teleprompter glitched so he had to wait lol

1
eagles_have_landed 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s the biggest issue here with sect. 230. It was passed in 1996 and hasn’t been updated since then just think of how vastly different the internet was in 1996 than it is now. The legislative intent of S.230 was to make sure people were shielded from obtaining explicit materials like pornography, especially children but big tech has twisted that original legislative intent to allow them to be the judge of who can and cannot speak on their platform essentially curbing their first amendment rights. “BuT yOu DoNt gEt 1A pRotEctIoN fRoM PiVATe ComPaNiEs”. True, BUT when big tech has created essentially a monopoly on the public square, which I think everyone can agree the internet has become a virtual public square, there are some limitations to what they can and cannot regulate. (See the SC case Alabama v Marsh). I think revising section 230 is better than eliminating it altogether.

view more: Next ›