It is easy to dunk on this title and dismiss it to the land of headlines already adjudicated by Betteridge's Law, and I am not going to fight back against its undefeated winning streak, but I do think there is value in asking simple questions that you can answer with provable reality. A lot of people dunked on the Wall Street Journal's front-page story about how data revealed that-like
What came first, North or South Dakota? Thanks to the likes of former President Benjamin Harrison-who deliberately shuffled, reshuffled, and then shuffled again the two papers that would make the two territories into states in 1889- we will never know. But it appears that, as the old adage goes, history has repeated itself-and this time, North Dakota is following its sister state in kicking the First Amendment to the curb and throwing a litigative hissy fit over the abortion pill.
What I would've done, Jen, is I would've said No, we live in a country where we welcome dissent, we welcome the right to peaceably assemble. We welcome that. And so, we may not like it [because] it is uncomfortable. But that is what protest is about discomfort. So since you're here, please, please, calm down, let's try to talk. What would you like us to do?
Hegseth announced last Monday that he censured Kelly over the former Navy pilot's participation in a video that called on troops to resist unlawful orders. Hegseth said the censure by itself simply a formal letter with little practical consequence was a necessary process step to proceedings that could result in a demotion from Kelly's retired rank of captain and subsequent reduction in retirement pay.
But inside the courtroom, the argument barely touched speech or religion. Instead, the justices together gravitated toward something else entirely: a problem about time, causation, and whether constitutional authority can be temporally partitioned. Does the Constitution operate only forward? Can a law be unconstitutional tomorrow yet legally untouchable yesterday? And can a single conviction permanently close the courthouse doors to the people most harmed by an unconstitutional rule?