The law of the land for in state tuition is vlandis, which is an older case and doesn’t go into as much detail to positively prescribe what limits are acceptable (rather, it states an irrebuttable presumption against residency is forbidden).

The more recent Saenz (concerning welfare benefits) and less recent Memorial Hospital (regarding healthcare) are probably more on this point here. In these cases, the court noted that welfare and emergency health services were critical to the life and wellbeing of an individual, and thus the residency restrictions in those cases infringed on the constitutional right of the claimants to free movement between the states. And thus, the states would need a compelling state interest to put on these statutes, and their reasons of avoiding fraud, safeguarding taxpayer money, etc. were insufficient.

So there’s a higher standard set by the law with respect to state’s residency restrictions on welfare/access to emergency health as opposed to tuition (where the standard is just there cannot be an irrebuttable presumption)

For which purpose were you trying to establish residency? There are various federal cases about different purposes (welfare, in state tuition, healthcare benefits, voting), and the requirements are not the same.

I would think the ruling of Memorial hospital (and more recently Saenz) rather than Vlandis would apply to this sort of benefit. But it’s a good point that it could always be tested, and who knows how a court would rule (although memorial hospital and Saenz do seem very on point)

Well, it wouldn’t really be moving. It would be an extremely temporary relocation for a procedure (which is increasingly common in the US as our costs get absurd. Except here it would be to CA for free care instead of Mexico or Thailand or Turkey for cheaper care). Under Saenz vs Roe, it would be quite difficult for a state to stop this.

Edit: though I suppose for something longer term, like cancer treatment, it could be properly characterized as moving.

In the US, there are constitutional restrictions preventing a state from denying state benefits to new “residents.” The issue this raises for a state-specific healthcare program is apparent.

Does Canada have similar prohibitions, or are provinces generally more free to deny benefits to new residents? I’m curious how Saskatchewan dealt with this or if the underlying law was just different.

I was talking to a fourth grade teacher a few years ago, right as her students were coming back in person from Covid. She expressed some very alarming things to me (e.g., several students appeared to literally not learn to read or write during the COVID years. One student who was adamant that he would be “a firetruck” when he grew up, and when asked “oh you mean a fireman” he insisted, no, the truck).

Icebergs are blue near their bottom

Ummm actually nickels have over 1.5x the volume of pennies, so while it would cost more, it would be less than 5x as expensive to fill your ass with pennies.

Depends on the case before the Court. The Court has the power to invalidate any law passed by Congress on the grounds that such law is unconstitutional. So one could imagine a ruling which rules both that the respect for marriage act is unconstitutional (first amendment or no congress authority due to not covered by commerce clause) and that Obergefell was wrongly decided (general overrule of SDP)

Has anybody ever been asked “Coffee or donut?”

deleted by creator

Isn’t it the same theory as Mormons going on missions? The Mormons know that they aren’t going to convert anybody, but the act of doing it solidifies their faith and builds camaraderie with others who also are on the mission.

Same too here I would think - by participating in the protest, the protestor solidifies his political convictions (as it were) and feels like he is part of a larger whole when he looks around and sees the other protestors. One would hope that they understand their protests aren’t going to accomplish anything politically tangible - that they aren’t saying “just one more protest, trust me bro, one more protest.”

What a disingenuous question - was he about to deflect into talking about gang violence or something? Obviously the answer is “not counting gang violence” and then when comparing the 5 transgender mass shootings to the amount of (non-gang) mass shootings, it would show how small of a number it is.

But I guess we’ll never know

Morty, I turned my ship into a testicle!

Thanks, interesting stuff. And yeah that France name is hilarious.

It is interesting how the name for a country is a description rather than just a proper noun. Very different than English where the most descriptive you get is adding one word (Ivory Coast, Greenland) or a description of the government (the people’s republic of).

I wonder if in day to day life they had some pronoun usage to shorten it. Imagine you’re two Navajo bros talking to about Japan and China. Like surely using that long ass phrase - which is only differentiated by noting that one of them is the big country, would be unwieldy?

Yeah it’s wild. It seems to me that the window dressing a “x, y, z reboot sucks because it is woke” proponent falls back to is that making it woke harms the source material in some way.

But here, as you point out, the source material is vigilante eco terrorists.

Worse yet - the planeteers are diverse, both ethnically/nationality and some of them are the political gender (w*men).

So any argument that making it woke is harming the source material is immediately short circuited

Not on judges to care - but ye, would need cops to actually look into this and then a prosecutor to actually go after it. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.

It is interesting to think about. What, actually, would happen if they did this? Would there be an uptick in protestors? Or would people be cowed? This isn’t France, part of me thinks people would just roll over.

Excited to see the woke or not game decider weigh in on this.