Contempt rulings are interlocutory and wouldn’t delay the progression of the trial itself. They could not be appealed until a final judgment in the trial.
I’d love to see any of the internet goblins frothing at the mouth over this to actually point out any objectively untrue material that Musk tweeted regarding the Brazilian Supreme Court lol.
the narrator states that life begins at fertilization; that "Olivia's" heartbeat can be detected 22 days after fertilization; and that brain activity can be recorded at 6 weeks.
When life begins is pretty subjective, but neither of the following statements are inaccurate. The heart starts beating between 21 and 23 days after conception, and some studies have suggested it can start even as early as 16 days after. Brain activity has been recorded after 43 days (6.1 weeks) of gestation.
The transgender sanctuary city policy will restrict staff from using time or money on efforts from outside states' legal action against people seeking gender-affirming care.
Has this even happened? Sounds like it would be pretty quickly ruled unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
ITT: Liberals yelling for the government to lock up their political opponent because he posted a mean comment about someone who wasn’t included in the gag order to begin with.
you seem to be missing the whole "missing a leg" part
Damn — maybe stop blowing the legs off your foreign national hostages (or, better yet, stop taking hostages altogether).
maybe try reading the stuff I wrote about how it's not just the univeristy, yeah?
Oh you’re finally abandoning your university argument? I’m glad you could finally see the lack of logic. If you want to provide an objective, unbiased source for something else, go ahead. You haven’t.
your repeated failure to use your own specific definition
See a few threads above. It’s cited right there.
the bit about how the article is rendered null and void by a later ruling which your other source mentions?
You heard it here first folks, the international definition of genocide set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is now null and void. Genius argument.
the act itself wasn't intended to destroy, in whole or in part, israel
Slaughtering thousands of women and children on account of their nationality isn’t intended to partly destroy that nationality? Weird argument my guy.
the source that disagrees with you is the wikipedia article you pulled the un definition
Oh geez, you think that’s from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so lost lol.
the source that's rendered irrelevant is "the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted" i even clarified for you and you still tripped over your shoelaces 😞
Given how you thought the literal definition of genocide was from Wikipedia, it looks like you’re, ironically, the one that has been using some incorrect definition of genocide. I mean, feel free to cite something that supports what you’re talking about — I’d love to see what you think trumps the international Office on Genocide Prevention, lmfao. I wouldn’t be surprised in the Hamas internet system is being unreliable for you lol.
your entire position was built on a misunderstanding of the word
Guy thought the definition of genocide was from Wikipedia.
Yeah, that’s kinda what happens when you politically prosecute someone for a victimless crime on a fact set that has historically never been prosecuted for this crime before.
Yeah, you seem to be missing the whole “being taken hostage in a hospital” part. You lose your international protection. Sorry bro, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe don’t take hostages — weird concept, I know.
the point is that literally the only scenario in which it makes sense for the idf to blow up that university is if they're attempting to destroy infrastructure. i don't know how you're not seeing that?
Because it doesn’t matter. Blowing up an empty university building cannot be genocide. Your logic would mean genocide occurs if a small bush is blown up, so long as they wanted to destroy infrastructure. That’s not even remotely the definition of genocide.
Because genocide has a specific definition
another comedy quote
Imagine thinking genocide, expressly defined by the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, doesn’t have a specific meaning lmfao.
maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension, because i was pretty obviously referring to the un definition you've been citing until now not the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted
Weird, looks like the academic article I cited also cites the UN definition of genocide — which, by the way, you just said is “comedy” (weird take my guy).
Hamas has expressly stated that they want to eliminate the whole of Israel.
"whole or in part" is not satisfied.
That’s some mental gymnastics if I’ve ever seen it.
because what you've cited so far is: a source that disagrees with you
“Indeed, all of the elements for these crimes are satisfied in the September 11 attacks.” Pretty sure that’s my position sweetie.
a source that is rendered invalid by additional information in the first source
Hm, looks like both the first source and the “additional information” have the same definition of genocide.
Thanks for the laughs here I guess. It’s always a good time to find some thinly disguised Hamas simp trying to apply international law, lol.