“We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent,” said Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp (R-Bend), another state senator who is ineligible for re-election.
You're still entitled to dissent. You're being fired for missing 40+ days of work.
Blackstone Inc. is an American alternative investment management company based in New York City. Blackstone's private equity business has been one of the largest investors in leveraged buyouts in the last three decades, while its real estate business has actively acquired commercial real estate. Blackstone is also active in credit, infrastructure, hedge funds, insurance, secondaries, and growth equity. As of June 2023, the company's total assets under management were approximately US$1 trillion, making it the largest alternative investment firm globally
Yeah, I'm going to suggest that this oligarch keep his mouth shut, ere the revolution eats him alive.
Hartley was essentially admitting that Satanists (and Muslims and other non-Christian groups) would theoretically have access to the funds. However, if the state had a really good reason not to give it to them, there was a way to restrict the funds from going to those groups. You don’t have to be a lawyer to realize that a group being considered a “fringe” religion would never pass strict scrutiny.
N.B. "Strict scrutiny" is a standard applied by courts, not legislatures, when reviewing a law for infringements of constitutional rights. It's the highest standard of scrutiny, and when applied almost always ends with the law being struck down.
In other words, she's saying that a law that excludes "fringe" religions would almost certainly be struck down.
Which one to shatter my delusions of an alien mental hospital?
The irony is that you're the one failing to bring anything of substance to the discussion. For example, comments consisting solely of insults.
I'll let you get in the last word.
The irony is almost palpable.
It’s amazing that you spent so much energy debating an entirely irrelevant point
Can you believe I even read the lawsuit?! Crazy, I know!
But "charged"? Come on. That's clearly trying to obfuscate that it's a private lawsuit.
What's obvious is that my assessment is probably correct. The lawsuit will fail because the "actual point being made" is not a legal point but a political one. And certainly not a criminal point.
But we're discussing your disagreement with my assessment that "charge" is willfully dishonest.
Just... wow.
"Che-kwe"