Thanks treefrog!

Appreciate the recognition, Flying Squid. And I’ll try to make it easier for people who skim.

The rescue’s reason:

“LDCRF does not re-home an owner-surrendered dog with its former adopter/owner,” Floyd said in her written statement. “Our mission is to save adoptable and safe-to-the-community dogs from euthanasia.”

From an earlier article referenced by this article:

Drugmakers and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which regulates controlled substances, are pointing fingers at one another for the problem, said Erin Fox, senior pharmacy director at the University of Utah Health.

Makers of ADHD drugs say they don’t have enough ingredients to make the drugs and need permission from the DEA to make more. The DEA is insisting that drugmakers have not met their quota for production and could make more of the drugs if they wanted. Adderall is a controlled substance regulated by DEA, which sets limits on how much of the active ingredient drugmakers are allowed to produce in a given time frame. Drugmakers must get approval from the DEA before they go over their quotas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/adhd-drug-shortage-adderall-ritalin-focalin-vyvanse-rcna137356

Can confirm that Chichén Itzá is now roped off. And Yucatán is now the safest state in Mexico:

Mexico’s lowest-crime region is strengthening its reputation as an oasis of calm in a country roiled by drug killings. Yucatán, the southeastern state known for its Mayan ruins, has a homicide rate more than 90% lower than the national average.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-10/how-did-yucatan-become-mexico-s-safest-state

What you’re saying tracks with the article as well:

Charlene Harrington, a professor emeritus at the nursing school of the University of California-San Francisco, said: “In their unchecked quest for profits, the nursing home industry has created its own problems by not paying adequate wages and benefits and setting heavy nursing workloads that cause neglect and harm to residents and create an unsatisfactory and stressful work environment.”

I don’t think so. There are other important parts in the article:

For the first time, the annual event will also involve troops from the Australian and French military. Fourteen other countries in Asia and Europe will attend as observers. The exercises will run until May 10.

…

The 2024 exercises are also the first to take place outside of Philippine territorial waters.

“Some of the exercises will take place in the South China Sea in an area outside of the Philippines’ territorial sea. It’s a direct challenge to China’s expansive claims” in the region, Philippine political analyst Richard Heydarian told DW.

He added that some of the exercises this year will also be close to Taiwan.

This year’s exercises have a “dual orientation pushing against China’s aggressive intentions both in the South China Sea but also in Taiwan,” he added.

According to ProPublica, it’s commonly done using Leahy Laws:

The recommendations came from a special committee of State Department officials known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum. The panel, made up of Middle East and human rights experts, is named for former Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chief author of 1997 laws that requires the U.S. to cut off assistance to any foreign military or law enforcement units — from battalions of soldiers to police stations — that are credibly accused of flagrant human rights violations.

…

Over the years, hundreds of foreign units, including from Mexico, Colombia and Cambodia, have been blocked from receiving any new aid. Officials say enforcing the Leahy Laws can be a strong deterrent against human rights abuses.

https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations

Oh you mean the post summary. Yeah, that’s the article’s verbatim linked URL. Check the article’s source and see for yourself.

In any case, thanks for pointing that out. I’ve stripped the tracker link and updated the post summary portion.

Huh? That’s the exact same link as the post’s.

Wow the ads. I assumed everyone was already using some sort of ad blocker.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/7mQ8M

FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the “major questions doctrine” is more concerning:

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.

…

I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/courts-new-chevron-analysis-likely-to-follow-one-of-these-paths

No, the case is still pending: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451

So cool!

Good call. Thanks for letting me know.

It wasn’t me!

Standing is a specific legal term that defines whether a party is allowed to sue, and injury is also a legal term in this case. Cornell Law School has a great intro on the legal requirements to establish standing using a 3-part test:

• The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
• There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
• It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

In this case, seems to be the Supreme Court is skeptical that these doctors have satisfied this 3-part standing test, especially the injury in fact one. If SCOTUS decides that these doctors don’t have standing, then the lawsuit is dismissed.

Just pointing out the headline seems to imply it’s from WaPo when in fact it was written by RT.

This is a repost of an RT article. https://www.rt.com/news/594456-biden-israel-indiscriminate-bombing/