Especially the presenters of the medals.
And as ever, we will be transfixed by the women's and men's sprints and hurdles.
Smiling -- ear to ear. Seems it was just yesterday, in Barcelona. Wow.
नमस्ते
. . .Engineering teams with NASA and Boeing recently completed ground hot fire testing of a Starliner reaction control system thruster at White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico. The test series involved firing the engine through similar in-flight conditions the spacecraft experienced during its approach to the space station, as well as various stress-case firings for what is expected during Starliner’s undocking and the deorbit burn that will position the spacecraft for a landing in the southwestern United States. Teams are analyzing the data from these tests, and leadership plans to discuss initial findings during the briefing. . . .
NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams arrived at the orbiting laboratory on June 6, after lifting off aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on June 5. Since their arrival, the duo has been integrated with the Expedition 71 crew, performing scientific research and maintenance activities as needed.
As part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, the mission is an end-to-end test of the Starliner system. . . .
We told you this was coming, as we approach trial on the merits in the floating Rio Grande razor wire barrier case in USDC Judge Ezra's courtroom in West Texas. And it arrived, with a vengeance, this very afternoon. Heh -- like a derecho.
Mr. Paxton is shown in this order to be a complete buffoon, when it comes to understanding very simple principles of federal law, and how the same interacts with his state's exceedingly limited rights -- to interfere in matters left exclusively to the US government, under our shared federal Constitution. Do read it all -- the snark almost drips off the page. Flawless:
. . .Texas. . . argues that the United States’ demand for an injunction pursuant to the RHA is akin to an ejection action at common law, transforming a suit in equity to a legal action. . . .
[T]he United States is not trying its title to the Rio Grande River, attempting to recover possession of real property, or bringing a claim as a wrongfully ejected lessee. Nor is Texas positioned as a party claiming ownership of the Rio Grande River. A common law ejectment action bears no resemblance to the current suit, except that the equitable remedy requested would see Texas’s buoy barrier removed from the Rio Grande River, but on entirely different grounds: a Congressional mandate to keep navigable waterways accessible to all, not a right to possession of real property. . . . Finding the current suit is not analogous to common law ejectment, the Court denies Texas’s request for a jury trial.
[Footnote:] Texas would not need to introduce evidence on a question this Court cannot constitutionally answer, making the State’s dual argument that the question of an invasion is non-justiciable, and that the State can overcome prior rulings with evidence of paramilitary invasions. . . [quite perplexingly-] interesting [/snark]. . . .
. . .The severed leg of a surfer who was attacked by a shark has washed up on an Australian beach, with doctors now racing to see if it can be reattached.
Kai McKenzie, 23, was surfing near Port Macquarie in New South Wales (NSW) on Tuesday, when a 3m (9.8ft) great white shark bit him.
He managed to catch a wave into shore, where an off-duty police officer used a makeshift tourniquet to stem his bleeding, according to authorities.
His leg washed up a short time later and was put on ice by locals before being taken to hospital, where a medical team is now assessing surgery options.
Mr. McKenzie -- who is a sponsored surfer -- remains in a serious but stable condition, according to emergency services, who have thanked the off-duty officer for his rapid response to the incident. . . .
. . .In 2011, seven months after Merck bought back the plant it sold just a few years earlier, company officials announced plans to sell off one product line and outsource others by the end of 2013 in an attempt to cut costs.
Merck’s 433 employees at the time were informed of the pending sale of its fermentation operations and decision to outsource the manufacturing of two products.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Co. reacquired the plant in September 2010 when the new owner, PRWT Services Inc., determined it could not meet the “challenging business environment in the pharmaceutical industry.”
Merck sold the Cherokee Plant to PRWT 2 1/2 years earlier.
The number of employees decreased to the current total of about 300 by 2013, according to newspaper archives. . . .
. . .Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper because Plaintiffs lack standing to sue. The Complaint contains insufficient, conclusory allegations of injury. For example, Plaintiffs assert they are “able and ready” to apply to participate in Evanston’s Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program (the “Program”), but they did not apply to participate in the Program and the application period closed in November 2021. Plaintiffs also do not allege they have property in Evanston. As a result, they are not eligible to participate. This means the Plaintiffs have not suffered a concrete and particularized injury and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. . . .
As established above, the Court can resolve this case through dismissal based on jurisdictional and timeliness issues alone before the Court gets to the constitutional merits of the Program. And, if there are constitutional and non-constitutional grounds to resolve a case, a court should resolve the case on non-constitutional grounds. See Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1342 (7th Cir. 1977) (taking note of the “well-established rule that the federal courts ‘will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.’”) (quoting Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936)).
However, the Program is an appropriate remedy to address the past racial discrimination that Evanston acknowledges it perpetuated against its Black residents. See ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10. And, Evanston stands ready to support the Program if the case moves past the jurisdictional and timeliness hurdles here. Indeed, remedying past intentional discrimination is a recognized compelling state interest. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 720 (2007) (stating that “our prior cases . . . have recognized . . . . the compelling interest of remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination”). Furthermore, the Program is narrowly tailored to provide modest relief to those who (1) directly suffered from this acknowledged intentional discrimination, (2) are the direct descendants thereof, or (3) have evidence they suffered other housing discrimination after 1969.
Accordingly, the Program is constitutionally sound. Should this case proceed beyond the issues raised in this Motion, Evanston will address the constitutionality of its Program in future motion practice. . . .
. . .Moderna recently became the latest biopharma to score an approval to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but Merck & Co. hopes to be the next in line with new data showing a monoclonal antibody reduced the incidence of RSV-related infections in infants. . . .
“We are encouraged by these findings and look forward to working with regulators to provide a new option to help address the impact of RSV on infants and their families,” Paula Annunziato, senior vice president of infectious diseases and vaccines, Global Clinical Development, Merck Research Laboratories, said in the release.
Merck once had an RSV vaccine for adults in early-stage development, but passed it over to long-time partner Moderna in 2020 to focus on what would become clesrovimab. For its part, Moderna has powered ahead in the RSV space, scoring FDA approval for an adult RSV vaccine in May. . . .
. . .A fight to form the first union at an Amazon warehouse in Britain came to an end this week, as organizers of the effort fell short by just 28 votes.
About 2,600 employees at the warehouse in Coventry, in the Midlands of England, took part in a ballot for union recognition, which would have forced Amazon to negotiate collectively with the bulk of workers there over working conditions, as well as pay, holiday and other benefits. More than 3,000 Amazon workers were eligible to vote.
But in the end, the effort failed, with only 49.5 percent voting in favor in a poll approved by the Central Arbitration Committee, a government body. It is the closest any Amazon center in Britain has come to being unionized.
The results come amid accusations by GMB, a nationwide union, lawyers and some workers that the American tech giant had been heavy-handed in its efforts to discourage unionization. Amazon has a history of pushing back against union movements. In the United States, only one warehouse, on Staten Island, has a formally recognized union. A labor union in Germany has been trying to get collective bargaining powers for more than a decade.
The vote fell “agonizingly short” of a majority, said GMB, which counts Amazon employees among its 500,000 members from various occupations. “Amazon bosses have created a culture of fear for low-paid workers trying to improve their pay, terms and conditions,” said Stuart Richards, an organizer at GMB.
GMB cannot make another bid for formal recognition for three years, but workers are continuing a legal claim that accuses Amazon of illegally trying to induce employees to quit the union. Workers claimed the company pressured them to attend several seminars that suggested the union would jeopardize employees’ pay and benefits. They also said the company liberally displayed QR codes to make it easy to cancel union membership, which lawyers said was a breach of British law that prohibited companies from making offers to employees to not be in a union. Amazon said that attending the meetings was voluntary and that GMB also held meetings in the warehouse. . . .
. . .Roche shares jumped 5.8% in Wednesday’s trade. Meanwhile, shares of Wegovy-maker Novo Nordisk fell 4% by the European close, while Zepbound producer Eli Lilly was around 3% lower in U.S. late-morning trade.
Shares of Danish biotech company Zealand Pharma, which is also developing its own obesity treatment, fell 8.4%. . . .
. . .MATHIS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. A bedrock principle of our democratic republic is the protection of unorthodox expression. The freedom to convey one’s ideas -- no matter how unpopular -- was seen as inalienable to the human experience, and the Framers of our Federal Constitution believed such freedom was “essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance.” Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943). It is altogether fitting that they chose to enshrine it atop our Bill of Rights as a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation”: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” See 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (quotation omitted); U.S. Const. amend. I.
Of course, these protections are not absolute. The Supreme Court has “long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with” the First Amendment. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003). But the Constitution does not avert its eyes merely because a law mentions such a category. . . .
The majority finds that FOG lacks standing to sue Mulroy. Because Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent dictate a different result, and because the part of the AEA that FOG has standing to challenge is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech, I respectfully dissent. . . .
The district court erred in enjoining Mulroy from enforcing the public-property provision of the AEA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1407(c)(1)(A), because FOG lacked standing to challenge that provision. But the district court did not err in enjoining Mulroy from enforcing Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1407(c)(1)(B) because that provision is a content-based restriction on speech that fails strict scrutiny. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Mulroy from enforcing that unconstitutional law in Shelby County.
FOG had standing to bring this action against Mulroy. And the AEA is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech. Therefore, I would affirm the district court’s decision to enjoin Mulroy from enforcing Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-51-1407(c)(1)(B) in Shelby County.
I respectfully dissent.
. . .Peter Buxtun, a whistleblower who exposed and helped end the Tuskegee syphilis study, a four-decade experiment in which the U.S. Public Health Service used hundreds of Black men as human guinea pigs, died May 18 at a memory-care center in Rocklin, Calif. He was 86.
The cause was complications from Alzheimer’s disease, said his friend John Seidts, who helped look after Mr. Buxtun in recent years. His death, near Sacramento, was first reported Monday by the Associated Press, which in 1972 published the first news story prompted by Mr. Buxtun’s disclosures.
A former venereal disease investigator with the Public Health Service, Mr. Buxtun spent seven years trying to draw attention to the Tuskegee study, meeting with journalists, doctors, public health officials and anyone who would listen.
His efforts, and the reporting that he inspired, brought widespread attention to one of the country’s most notorious medical scandals, revealing how 399 Black men in the segregated South were exploited for a study in which their syphilis would be monitored but not treated. . . .
. . .NOTICE OF APPEAL
The United States of America hereby gives notice that it appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order of the District Court entered on July 15, 2024, Docket Entry 672.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ JACK SMITH
Special Counsel. . . .
. . .For the last thirteen years, Ruben Gutierrez has been seeking DNA testing in both state and federal courts, seeking only access to the physical evidence so that he can test it at his own expense. In June 2019, the state district court initially granted Mr. Gutierrez’s motion for DNA testing, but then withdrew the order a few days later and denied the motion without explanation. In September 2019, Mr. Gutierrez filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of Texas postconviction DNA testing procedures.
The federal district court granted a declaratory judgment for Mr. Gutierrez on this issue, finding that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64 (“Chapter 64”) violates due process by improperly limiting a death-sentenced prisoner’s right to file a successive habeas petition:
“Texas grants the substantive right to file a second habeas petition with a clear and convincing showing of innocence of the death penalty in Article 11.071, and then Chapter 64 denies the petitioner access to DNA evidence by which a person can avail himself of that right.” Gutierrez v. Saenz, 565 F. Supp. 3d 892, 910 (S.D. Tex. 2021). . . .
. . .[Tangerine] has pivoted to embracing the crypto industry, saying "if we don’t do it, China is going to pick it up. . . ."
[Tangerine] said his previous collections were “very successful” and sold out in a day: “The whole thing sold out: 45,000 of the cards. And I did it three times [and] I’m going to do another one, because the people want me to do another one. It’s unbelievable spirit. Beautiful. . . .”
. . .On July 15, 2024, NASA’s logo turned 65. The iconic symbol, known affectionately as “the meatball,” was developed at NASA’s Lewis Research Center in Cleveland (now called NASA Glenn). Employee James Modarelli, who started his career at the center as an artist and technical illustrator, was its chief designer.
The red, white, and blue design, which includes elements representing NASA’s space and aeronautics missions, became the official logo of the United States’ new space agency in 1959. A simplified version of NASA’s formal seal, the symbol has launched on rockets, flown to the Moon and beyond, and even adorns the International Space Station.
Along with its importance as a timeless symbol of exploration and discovery, the logo is also one of the world’s most recognized brand symbols. It gained its nickname in 1975 to differentiate it from NASA’s “worm” logotype. The “meatball” and these other NASA designs have made waves in pop culture. . . .
“NASA’s brand elements are wildly popular,” said Aimee Crane, merchandising and branding clearance manager for the agency. “Every year, the agency receives requests to merchandise more than 10,000 NASA-inspired items. . . .”
[DISCLAIMER: Feel free to scroll on by, if this is not of interest -- it is a time waster.]
Okay, look. There are lots of VERY dumb conspiracy theories on both sides. [Here's a nutty far right one, for example.]
And this is likely one, as well. . . but what if the supposed- shooter/kid had already been captured and killed by forces sworn loyal to Tangerine as a person (not the Secret Service, per se)? He was dropped on the roof, at just the right time -- and a real sharp shooter, loyal to Tangerine, with the same AR-15, shoots to miss Trump (thus the NYT bullet photo), but (to ensure believability) he lets a few stray shots go into the crowd [and, deplorably so]?
Meanwhile, as Trump goes down, "the loyals" cover him, and use a small blade to cut his upper ear -- a great place for lots of blood, from a small incision. [All as he witnessed, in all star wrestling acts -- and (in part) participated in, for many years, over two decades, ago. . .?]
He rises, fists pumping. . . because he had scripted it all -- reality / non-reality TV.
[I offer this idiotic tangent, mostly because one Mr. Martin Shkreli is musing this morning about scenarios only slightly differing from this one, above -- on X-itter. Ugh.] Back to real legal substance, again, by Thursday.
Yes, I believe the tragedies -- of the two dead, two injured -- in the crowd. . . are all too real. And political violence has no place in our system of ordered liberty.
Out.
नमस्ते
. . .The constitutionality of special counsels has repeatedly been tested and upheld in other courts. Challenges to special prosecutors that have investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, have all been dismissed.
But Cannon took a novel approach to the former president’s legal argument, scheduling days of hearing and opening up the hearing to testimony from third parties to the case — a rarity in any federal trial court. . . .
. . .It might also mean looser regulation for hot-button topics ranging from climate change to cryptocurrency, especially if a so-called "Red Wave" materializes. . . .
Trump Media & Technology (NASDAQ:DJT), which is known for its meme qualities and can follow Trump-related developments, also soared 71.5% to $50.95/share. . . .