The article has a paragraph later on that says:
In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims for damages, the court said, "It cannot be said that discussions at the Diet...regarding provisions not allowing same-sex marriage are clearly in violation of the Constitution."
I suspect the plaintiffs are only appealing that aspect of the judgment.
All dinosaurs are lesser to spinosaurus.
In our previous house, we discovered that a component of the roof guttering was a tomato sauce bottle with a hole it. It was doing the job, so we just laughed and left it where it was.
Stewart's line about how can another administration be more absurd than the Bush administration dated surprisingly badly.
Does it want the hose again?
There's plenty of good reasons to dislike Woolies, but them making a commercial decision to stop stocking products that people aren't buying is not big on the list.
This sounds like a good way to turn an ally against them.
Does Trump have any leverage on Kavanaugh? He played close to the line with the rules to get him appointed for life, but choosing a person likely to be ideologically symathetic is more of a mutually beneficial arrangement than a favour.
It feels like the best way to get someone who is in a secure position of power like that offside is to tell them they have to do what you say or that they owe you. Kavanaugh can just as easily say Trump is disqualified, and never be told he owes anyone again.
Have you also been forgetting to covert votes to metric before you send them?
For reference:
1 upvote = 2.2 nah yeahs
1 downvote = 2.2 yeah nahs
Are you a bot? Because that was a rambling word-salad with no discernible point.
A certain portion of the population seems to already deify anything Trump says.
It depends on what the author was actually trying to say. I've never pretended to know what their intention was, and they haven't added any further commentary to let us know.
Possibly he knows that, and is just trying to bleed his supporters for donations until the last moment.