zapatos

The Supreme Court seems to be going in two different directions as it simultaneously limits early term abortions while making very late term abortions available at local schools.

Does any legitimate court in the world make rulings based on public sentiment over the rule of law?

It is my understanding that things are not nearly that simple. Besides the various types of judicial interpretations you spoke of such as Originalism, or trying to understand the minds of the framers, SCOTUS often refuses to hear cases of relatively new types of legal issues (e.g. online bullying) for years, allowing the will of the people to be heard through local legislation. Only after the court sees which way the wind is blowing will they hear a case that allows them to put their stamp of approval via "interpretation" of the Constitution. In many ways it is not possible to simply interpret the Constitution wrt a particular law, as the Constitution could not foresee the types of issues that might come up. SCOTUS does do the will of the people to some extent.

As opposed to what?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I've heard good things about breathing techniques. Seemed strange at first but it really does seem like it can be effective. Here are a couple of quick links: https://explore.mindbodyonline.com/blog/wellness/top-breathing-exercises-anxiety-depression https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161122182357.htm Also may want to try Forest Bathing. https://time.com/5259602/japanese-forest-bathing/

Again, NO. That is incorrect. I guess I figured that after you "REFUSED" to discuss conflicting ideas with me you weren't really interested. LOL! You're killing me Smalls!

I have seen a lot of fawns up close over the years and never heard one make a sound. One day I let my dogs out at night to pee and they found a fawn. Fortunately they didn't do anything other than try to play with it, but the fawn was freaking out and ran into a corner on my deck. I picked up the fawn and was carrying it near some cover in my yard when it started letting out this loud kind of scream. About 20 seconds later the mother jumped over my fence about 10 feet from me and scared the crap out of me. I of course immediately set it down and it ran off with its mother. That is the only time I've heard one.

Everyone who knows it is not true that "Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang".

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/17/crying-babies-hard-ignore

Baby deer are also surprisingly loud.

Wrong on so many counts. Please do a little research before continuing to spout misinformation. Condescension is a bad look for anyone, but especially for those who speak from ignorance.

If you are going to continue to lecture to those here it would help if what you said was correct. The beginning of the BB was most certainly NOT an explosion.

Another sign you are blissfully unaware. The neg reps are not for having "a different opinion".

Disease, bullet holes in sensitive areas, rapid deceleration, religious zealots, political zealots, angry girlfriends, stupidity, etc.

The fact that you think the BB was an event that ended over 13 billion years ago shows a serious lack of understanding on your part. It would behoove you to cease dictating what is and is not up for discussion when you are missing so much basic information. It is making you look foolish.

https://news.yahoo.com/should-we-be-worried-about-ai-becoming-sentient-141300344.html

Please show me where in my link it says it is "pseudoscientific". Please show me in the link where the absolute statement "there will be no difference what soever once you stop taking puberty blockers" is. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly have no idea what the word "unscientific" means, or what it means to "provide evidence".

Do most satellites orbit in roughly the same direction? And if that is true, are the relative differences in velocity between dust grains and satellites significant for those that do follow similar orbits?

Who in the hell put you in charge? Of course it is. What exactly do you think the BB is? The BB does not go back to t=0.

I can't tell if you really think that saying something is pseudoscientific is the same as providing evidence that something is pseudoscientific, or if you are just trolling me. Either way you are wasting my time.

I told my tennis coach that I didn't really need to practice volleying balls, and could just swing where I imagine the ball is going to be. Using my method I rapidly became a professional tennis player!

What do you mean you can't "prove" the BB. We observe it happening. We named it the BB. It is happening right now.

You are the one saying it is pseudoscience and therefore the onus is on you to support your claim. If you think the claim is "the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data", then please show how the premise or experimental design is faulty, or the data is bad. You haven't proved your claim by asking me to prove the opposite.

If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.