The thing about a second lightsaber is that it doesn't disrupt the opponent's lightsaber--only blocks it. I can see the benefit to putting it in an armor layer (or a bracer on the arm at least).
Ask and ye shall receive. :)
Makes me think that dual wielding lightsaber and cortosis shield could also be really effective. Disrupt their saber, then kill.
Vance is definitely the kind of guy who has already thought deeply about the fact that he could murder Trump and then pardon himself as his first official act.
My colleagues & I have studied the social media aftermath of mass shooting events for a decade. We’re still processing the horrifying, abhorrent, and tragic event yesterday, which appears to be an assassination attempt on former President Trump. In case they're useful, here are some first thoughts:
Among the things I would love to see that the MCU would never touch with a ten-foot pole: how the Snap, the reverse Snap, and the consequent massive disruptions affected US politics in the MCU. Even trying to ponder the political economy of the Snap is hard, but fascinating.
In addition to the trauma of the Snap, there's both a massive surge in wealth (half the people sharing the same amount of stuff) but a consequent huge collapse in demand for new goods (why buy a new car when the ratio of vehicles to drivers suddenly went from 1:1 to 2:1?)
So presumably there are massive sectoral shifts (service industries still need workers, production of durable goods plunges)... and then the Unsnap reverses all of that. But if major firms have closed in the meantime, resetting is still challenging.
And on top of that, there's all of the navigating how you unwind/move forward from the effects of changes caused by inheritance, changes in relationship status, etc. Many people who aren't polyamorous find themselves in complicated polycules and have to figure out what to do!
And how do you handle a situation where half of the population has had all of their property transferred to heirs/legatees 5 years ago, but are now back? Sometimes that unwinds easily (your joint mutual fund account had a single owner, now it's joint again), but sometimes very much not.
All of those societal and economic disruptions will have huge political impacts. (Not to mention the religious consequences of an apocalyptic event happening... on top of the religious consequences of bona fide Norse gods showing up...)
I'm sure the earnest answer is true, and it is definitely a very useful service. Of course, as I'm sure you're aware, it's also a great way to promote your legal practice. (Nothing wrong with that--it's a necessary part of the job--just pointing it for anyone for whom that's not obvious.
Plus, while I really like Popehat, he is acerbic, opinionated, and throws sharp and occasionally vulgar elbows. (I don’t think he’d disagree with that assessment.). While I think he adds a lot, I can see how others might feel differently.
California inherently creates a problem. It can't be split between circuits; most people who have thought about it have an intuitive dislike of a circuit containing only one state; but even currently, any circuit containing CA+anything will be oversized.
For a many circuit plan like this one, I think you have to bite the bullet and accept a "US Court of Appeals for the California Circuit" and accept that it will be oversized, but the problems are real.
If I were the defense attorney, I’d also put on evidence about recoil. My theory of the case: of course Baldwin wouldn’t point a gun at someone, even if unloaded. Gun both fired without trigger pull and kicked into hitting victim—tragic, but not even negligent on his part.
I've always viewed the GOP direct mail as an additional benefit when I've voted in Republican primaries in circumstances like that: every piece of mail they send me costs them money and gains them absolutely nothing in return.
Many people say “champ” in the phrase “champ at the bit” to rhyme with “swamp,” but I think that’s more a word error (thinking it’s “chomp”) than an actual pronunciation of “champ.”
There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence.
/1
The first step to good election punditry and academic election research, which must be accepted at the outset or else good work is impossible, is that the median voting block is nothing like you.
Your personal intuitions do not offer good guidance.
I assume a co-signer has recourse against the original signer; is that not right? (Obviously doesn't matter if the original signer CAN'T pay, versus could but for whatever reason hasn't.)
