Areas like meeting physical fitness standards, complying with training requirements, obeying orders, etc. would merit more deference. But taking seriously the idea that the 2nd Amendment creates real rights involves trade-offs--just as the current misguided regime accepts huge costs. [3/3]

Excluding people because "we don't like these citizens" (i.e. transgender soldiers, historically gay soldiers and African-American soldiers) based on "good order and discipline" arguments directly infringes the right to bear arms AND is in an area where deference is less due the executive. [2/3]

I think that, in a hypothetical world where that right was recognized that way, we would need the development of doctrine about how to balance the interests created by recognizing that right and deference to Congress and the executive branch on national defense. [1/3]

This is relevant to eg transgender service.

That’s always been my position—the 2d Amendment protects an affirmative right to participate in the trained militia (I.e. either state or National Guard).

What if you’ve had an oophorectomy?

Even more so than the inherent exterminationist logic of “replacement” threats. If a majority non-white nation is perilous, what about a majority non-white world? The logical endpoint is Nazi style genocide.

I was agreeing and noting that this is not a unique example of this, but rather part of a pattern of conduct by Cato.

Cato does some good work, but they’re overly willing to cooperate with illiberal (ie anti-liberty) conservatives and overly unwilling to make common cause with liberal groups pursuing libertarian goals Cato supports/ought to support.

A lot of carols get really doctrinal around verse 4. It’s like:

v1 Jesus was born in winter

v2 Which makes us happy

v3 Because he reconciles us to God

v4 By uniting the divine and human natures in his person, without division and without confusion

Some of them need to win 4 games, while others only need to win 3. (This is still not analysis worth reading because a picture of the bracket makes it obvious.

I'm not sure that's fair to FIFA. Are you sure they come in behind the mob?

But also, Hegseth is doing exactly what Trump wants—killing civilians illegally to make Trump feel tough. A core part of why some senators want him to go is to stop exactly what Trump wants.

Sometimes when the Court appears to be acting in an unprincipled way it is in fact acting in an unprincipled way. Not always, but a great deal of the time recently.

Are there ever reasons you would switch them mid-day (e.g. wearing one set that's meaningful for a morning activity but another set that's meaningful for a late afternoon or evening activity)?