To counter, there is a different reason to set up a base on the moon. Namely, testing the actual base technology. Mars will be a ton of problems in itself, and the moon acts as a good way to 'safely' test and refine the technology to be used.
because god told her to
Actually, no. The actual written materials occur after the deciding vote. While generally justices know the gist, their vote was not contingent on how its phrased and their reasoning can wildly differ.because god told her to
by signing on to the order thomas, alito, and barrett are basically saying we're cool with what gorsuch and kavanaugh said
maybe they're busy spending their time writing drafts on... other matters
I really enjoyed reading Gorsuch’s piece. It really brought home of how religious liberty has been infringed upon in some areas during the pandemic. From the salt I’ve seen on Twitter about this ruling, they are acting as though churches are getting special privileges as they imply that the churches won’t follow any restrictions (which is very much false if you read the court documents). That 10-25 person church capacity is ridiculous and I’m glad that SCOTUS ruled against those specific restrictions. By all means, it definitely is religious discrimination, especially when businesses and services are able to operate at higher capacities and churches not getting the same treatment. There comes a point where state does trample over religious liberty, and this was definitely the case. Also, I read the Sotomayor and others dissent, and it pretty much boiled down to “there’s too many cases in New York and 295,000 have already died”. Their maid defense was safety, but at this point, that rings hollow, especially since people like Cuomo have endorsed the rioters and protesters, which is many times more unsafe than Corona.
Its worth noting, SCOTUS didn't technically rule against the restrictions. They agreed to an injunction to prevent them being put into effect until such a time as the actual case can be presented and run through the lower courts.
i can think of one case where that wasn't the case. pretty big one
That actually is a fair point, though my inner pioneer says shoot for Mars anyway, if something goes terribly, terribly wrong, you'll be Roanoke 2.0 either way. (Actually, let's actually do that: name the first extraplenatary colony Roanoke, just in case.)
True, there are exceptions. Usually centered around major precedent setting cases where the justices want to be very, very precise.
I actually don't like the rhetorical style, though I am a supporter.
Embrace the shitposting. Let it be fuel for our journey.
Remember Hillary Clintom selling books at a Costco several months after her 2016 loss? She was a lot more popular than Biden and few actually gave a crap about her. Biden is likely only going to be some sort of media mirage who will receive Big Brother-esque praise while serving as an advertisement and avatar for the ever-shifting chimera of establishment bullshit.
I hate anime but I cannot deny the power of anime-enhanced autism. Gods peed, you weird fuckers.
Dedicated to the unquenchable curiosity on mankind.
I assume he means cure for cancer like his foundation, where he'll just funnel money to himself and his friends and pay the researchers in nickels and dimes.
Here is the thing... normally his writings are DRY, like "Make the Sahara look like an oasis" dry. That he is being THIS fiery says he is... well, kinda pissed.
I'm glad he's pissed, he should be incensed, it's just strange to me. If he were in an oral debate or posting on a forum site it would be witty and eloquent. In my opinion the Justices shouldn't be rhetoricians, in the sense of being extravagant with respect to their purposes, not in the sense of having an original style. Though I don't see logic and rhetoric as dichotomous at all, I like Zeno's anology of logic being the closed fist and rhetoric the open palm, in that rhetoric is a refined and solicitious invitation to see things a certain way, and is used genteely, and that logic is unwilling to cajole or coax: you're either persuaded by it or not and there is no negotiation.
Then let me provide a counter idea, the purpose of this decision -is- to persuade. Or more specifically, inform while noting purpose. He is clearly noting that the restrictions are arbitrary and often contradictory. He does so with rhetorical flair, both out of anger and to note to anyone who reads it that it IS arbitrary and he is making it clear that he will not stand for it.