The Prince's admissions:
- He met Epstein c. 1999
- Epstein and Maxwell attended his 40th bday
- He's been on Epstein's plane, stayed at his island, and at three of his other residences.
- He did the 2019 Newsnight interview.
- He pledged to assist the US criminal investigation.
In order to understand the answer, you have to read it side by side with the complaint: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…. It's what you'd expect, but this sequence has me scratching my head a little. (Complaint / Answer)
The Prince demands a jury trial.
Interesting non-denial.
In a few places in his answer, Prince Andrew "denies that he ever engaged in sexual acts with Giuffre."
Accordingly, I'd have thought the paragraph 38 allegation would logically merit at least a partial denial.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Kennedy: I don’t know about this 15-part balancing test, Stephen. Is it statistically based?
O’Connor: Where do you see undue burden in this data?
Breyer: You need to look at the regressions I’ve done on tabs 4-19, summarized on 20.
Kennedy: Ahh
O’Connor: Oh this is beautiful
Pace Politico, no conservatives joined Breyer’s opinion in June Medical Services. The Chief Justice filed a concurrence, and every other conservative dissented.
Kennedy joined in WWH v. Hellerstedt, but he also wrote part of the decision in Casey before Breyer was on the Court.
Here’s the Supreme Court’s opinion shutting down Trump’s effort to block the 1/6 committee. Justice Thomas would’ve granted the application; Justice Kavanaugh filed a lengthy statement (which I’ve not yet read). supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
While granting the 1/6 committee what it needs, the Court has largely hollowed out the DC Circuit’s opinion in the case, criticizing it for reaching the question of the effect of Trump’s status as a former president when it had already held none of his privilege claims would fly.
Then Kavanaugh goes a step further and says if they had reached the question of Trump’s status he would’ve voted the other way, which takes some of the sting out of the criticism of the court below for writing a bunch of dicta.
Eric Trump, asked to explain valuations of the Seven Springs property that exceeded independent appraisals by 10x, repeatedly took the Fifth. ag.ny.gov/sites/default/…
Ivanka Trump kept getting options to purchase apartments in Trump Park Avenue that were around 1/3 the company’s estimate of their value.
If I understand the timing correctly, these were taken on Friday local time, well before the massive explosion that sent shockwaves around the globe, which happened shortly before sunset on Saturday in Tonga.
That Tongan news site, as best I can tell, hasn’t posted an update since the large explosion.
I don’t think it’s right to categorize this as executive unilateralism. Congress granted a clear authority to address grave dangers in the workplace to the agency in the OSH Act and Richard Nixon signed it. The conservative movement has never liked it but it’s a duly enacted law.
The extraordinary scope of the vaccine mandate arises from the pandemic itself being an extraordinary once-a-century sort of thing (knock on wood), not from it being a strained interpretation of the law.
But the court’s conservatives have jumped at the chance to entrench a fairly novel and, imo, deeply unwise principle (“major questions” doctrine) that it’s somehow wrong to adapt existing law to new and unforeseen circumstances and so you must go back to Congress.
Lots of occupational hazards are not solely encountered at work. People can cut themselves in their kitchens, perish in a fire at a music venue, or suffer eye damage in a high school chemistry class... does that mean OSHA can't regulate sharps, fire safety, and eye protection?
Does the Court's express reference to "air pollution" as a "universal risk" in that passage mean that OSHA's extensive indoor air quality regulations are about to be overruled?