We’re kicking off “Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.” I’d abbreviate that to AfTFSCOTUSL, but I don’t find that helpful at all, and it’s not like I’m spending time on saying that, or even using up paper with it. I also feel compelled to make some jokes about Texas here, but I’m coming up blank. So, I’m going to move on to the helpful words.

We pick some US Supreme Court cases, you pick some outcomes, and we repeat that process every month. At the end of the term, we evaluate who guessed most accurately, and give the winner a pithy prize. If you win, we might send you some law books. Or, I don’t know, an alien femur from Area 51. If you win a couple of terms in a row, we can discuss naming rights.

Here’s the link to the november ballot.


According to the Independent, the British SAS opposes allowing women in combat because they would make the army less effective. He cites a US Marine Corps study to back this up, despite the fact that the US Marine Corps allows women in combat, as long as they meet the standard. And, while not many can, apparently some can. And that’s reason enough.

One test involved in joining the infantry is completing an eight-mile march in less than two hours, while carrying 25 kg. The army’s research suggests less than 5 per cent of 7,000 female recruits would currently pass the physical tests.


via Former British Army commander says having women in the army ‘will cost lives on the battlefield’ | Home News | News | The Independent