BAYBAY!

Do you face the wall?

Asking the real questions.

My impulse would be to say something like, “excuse me, but the gentleman behind me is still waiting in line!” in a loud enough voice to draw a bit of attention. Gives the cashier space to pretend they didn’t notice him while letting him know you noticed that shit and you’re not OK with it. Also gives other cashiers and patrons nearby the opportunity to be cool and let him jump in line or help him on another lane. As long as it’s focused on the rude behavior of closing a lane without ringing up everyone in the queue, hopefully not too embarrassing for the poor dude behind you.

That cashier was a fucking dickhead. Not your fault you didn’t react in the heat of the moment, that would catch me off guard too!

They said 90%, your mom was just part of the lucky 10%!

Spinosaurus!

Gigantic crocodile-faced sail-finned bitey boy supreme.

City vacations: restaurant hunting

Nature vacations: grueling 6am deathmarch #87

Beach vacations: binge drinking and washing sand out of things

What trial court? He’s immune from prosecution.

Look, I recommend reading the decision, especially the first few pages, instead of basing your opinions on what you think makes sense. I’m done trying to convince you about what’s in the document, it’s there for you to read if you actually care and aren’t just arguing in bad faith.

So how do they prosecute then? If the president commits a crime, let’s say he accepts a bribe for a pardon, you aren’t allowed to bring a prosecution unless a court deems the act unofficial. And the court isn’t permitted to find that the act was unofficial because the bribery is merely an allegation and hasn’t been proved. And you can’t prove the allegation because you can’t prosecute a president for official acts.

It’s all over the Syllabus section, but here’s a specific quote:

Unfortunately I think you’re missing something here. The court ruled that the president has immunity. Like the kind of immunity diplomats get in foreign countries that enables them to run over people in their cars. Immunity as a concept only makes sense if the action performed is actually illegal. Nobody can be prosecuted for legal actions. The president is now unprosecutable for both legal AND illegal actions.

It’s a nonsensical and horrifying ruling. The fact that the president would be violating his oath of office doesn’t cancel out the immunity, it just makes the crime that much more disgusting, and the impossibility of justice that much more galling.

Theses is the plural of thesis. Kinda looks stupid out of context but there you go.