ReconfigBehSci. (2022, February 18). RT @chrischirp: Speaking of which, latest COG UK data shows that BA.2 is dominant already in NI & likely dominant within Scotland & Eng wit… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1494711071839592450

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 28). RT @chrischirp: BA.2 & BA.1.1 (Omicron variants) are growing in many countries. Quite what this means in terms of cases, hospitalisation… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1487066966363934720

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, March 5). RT @theAliceRoberts: A new study predicts the effect of fully reopening schools—Pushing R up from 0.8 to between 1.1-1.5. R is very abst… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1369569328920727553

Amy Maxmen, PhD. (2020, August 26). 🙄The CDC’s only substantial communication with the public in the pandemic is through its MMW Reports. But the irrelevant & erroneous 1st line of this latest report suggests political meddling to me. (The WHO doesn’t declare pandemics. They declare PHEICs, which they did Jan 30) https://t.co/Y1NlHbQIYQ [Tweet]. @amymaxmen. https://twitter.com/amymaxmen/status/1298660729080356864

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, February 9). RT @ChristoPhraser: Our paper on evaluating the first three months of the NHS COVID-19 app is out now as a pre-print. A 🧵 1/n https://t.co/… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1359132102927798275

NetScience on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 15 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/net_science/status/1360990028168503297

ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 3). As debate on ‘saving the economy versus saving lives’ marches on, it’s worth noting that this type of contrast actually has a name in fallacy research: Https://t.co/N8U4ABWTuh it’s also worth noting that there is now a substantial number of research articles on the topic. 1/n [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1323603017179013130

Miguel Hernán. (2021, February 15). To all who claim that there’s no evidence that #SARSCoV2 is transmitted in bars: If the risk of transmitting #SARSCoV2 is provenly greater in crowded indoor places, why should bars be magically protected? Burden of the proof is on bar’s owners, not on scientists @BillHanage [Tweet]. @_MiguelHernan. https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1361463022187864066

(1) ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @ahandvanish: New paper on 10,024 breakthrough infections shows that vaccination does not prevent #LongCovid. Https://t.co/8WurrqXRwy…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 29 October 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1453638123624226822

Moritz Gerstung. (2021, November 1). An update on currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants in England beyond AY.4.2. Based on data released weekly to http://covid19.sanger.ac.uk we’ve been monitoring the speed of spread of currently 232 lineages. It’s a very dynamic situation and at times hard to stay on top. 🧵 [Tweet]. @MoritzGerstung. https://twitter.com/MoritzGerstung/status/1455136551407689734

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @MOUGK: @AineToole and @viralverity built this incredible tool to visualise, integrate and track VOCs https://t.co/MRPJqdAkJ9 more updat…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 16 August 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1395144412741603329

Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD. (2022, February 7). 1: BA.2 some evidence that it’s even more transmissible than the original omicron which is more transmissible than delta, and so forth. If it takes hold like it did in Denmark it will slow the descent of original omicron here [Tweet]. @PeterHotez. https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1490669166176702466

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 8). RT @PeterHotez: Two US COVID trends I’m following: 1) Make sure the decline in new cases continues, 2) Screenshot from http://Outbreak.Info… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1501193920058961924

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 18). RT @KamranAbbasi: The rapid rise in cases of Omicron BA.2 only underlines that airborne transmission is real and dominant. This is a respir… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1505207686169862147

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @theosanderson: Introducing 🌳https://t.co/m8MusGFkpI: a new tool that lets you dive into a tree of more than a million public SARS-CoV-2…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 16 August 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1412418927871864835

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 8). RT @DrEricDing: ⚠️UPDATE—#BA2 is now 11.6% in US, up from 8.3% last week. It’s definitely increasing, as warned. #COVID19 still dropping, b… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1501248333876240385

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 31). RT @fascinatorfun: Interesting as 🇩🇰 Omicron BA2 wave started sooner than 🇬🇧 “We conclude that Omicron BA.2 is inherently substantially m… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1488152457012297736

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 19). RT @Kit_Yates_Maths: I know this tweet is aimed at the US, but it would be great if the message about BA.2 would sink in in the UK too! [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1505210192287481857

John Roberts. (2022, January 28). Some (very) early evidence that secondary attack rates of BA.2 are higher in household settings than those of its older sibling. From the latest Variant TB 35. Https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050999/Technical-Briefing-35-28January2022.pdf 1/ https://t.co/AFTril1jF1 [Tweet]. @john_actuary. https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1487086733149749251

Alastair Grant. (2022, March 9). Based on the spike gene target data from TaqPath, BA.2 made up 82% of COVID cases in England on 6th March—It has now almost taken over We know that BA.2 has higher transmission than Omicron and there are a number of examples from Denmark of BA.2 reinfection shortly after BA.1 https://t.co/rEyud8osY1 [Tweet]. @AlastairGrant4. https://twitter.com/AlastairGrant4/status/1501606060033028099

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, January 23). RT @LauraMiers: BA.2’s growth advantage over BA.1 is jarring. Meanwhile, we are operating under the assumption that “Omicron will end the p… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1485519516914302980

Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD. (2022, February 8). So it’s Groundhog Day for Covid, no BA.2 and we get an early Covid spring; if BA.2 accelerates we get 6 more weeks of Covid winter [Tweet]. @PeterHotez. https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1491144988738322433

Al Newman. (2022, March 8). @danaparish @jennybluebird2U To your point: Https://t.co/CsULpIACoI [Tweet]. @AlNewman_. https://twitter.com/AlNewman_/status/1501056062262333441

What do we know about Covid’s impact on the brain? (2022, March 9). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/09/covid-coronavirus-brain-study-eric-topol

Prof. Christina Pagel 🇺🇦. (2022, March 8). What could be causing it? Likely combo of: 1—Dominant BA.2 causing more infections (we await ONS!) 2—Reduction in masks, self-isolation & testing enabling more infections 3—Waning boosters in older people esp I worry that we will be stuck at high levels for long time. 2/2 https://t.co/xZ2SLFNVkS [Tweet]. @chrischirp. https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1501250081693048838

Eric Feigl-Ding. (2022, January 23). 6) here is BA2 in Netherlands 🇳🇱—Already at 5%. HT @LongDesertTrain https://t.co/AoE1jGto03 [Tweet]. @DrEricDing. https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1485317793855778823

Eric Feigl-Ding on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 21 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1501778936942010370

DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2022.03.009

Resource: (IMSR Cat# HAR_2,RRID:IMSR_HAR:2)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_HAR:2

What is this?

empowerment

.

disadvantage

collar-and-elbow, Irish wrestling, advantage

.

.

.

how the enslaved kept their honor, history, martial arts

.

.

Haseltine, W. A. (n.d.). Birth Of The Omicron Family: BA.1, BA.2, BA.3. Each As Different As Alpha Is From Delta. Forbes. Retrieved 30 March 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2022/01/26/birth-of-the-omicron-family-ba1-ba2-ba3-each-as-different-as-alpha-is-from-delta/

DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104042

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-060301-2,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-060301-2)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-060301-2

What is this?

CBC Podcasts. (2022, February 3). Today on #TheDoseCBC: a frank discussion about the new #Omicron sub-variant with virologist @angie_rasmussen, who says BA.2 isn’t necessarily more pathogenic—But we need to proceed with caution. Learn more: Http://bit.ly/3gnlPak https://t.co/NOp7MMwkwk [Tweet]. @cbcpodcasts. https://twitter.com/cbcpodcasts/status/1489315238822490118

Coronavirus infections remain high while Omicron ‘stealth variant’ rises—REACT | Imperial News | Imperial College London. (n.d.). Imperial News. Retrieved 22 March 2022, from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/234517/coronavirus-infections-remain-high-while-omicron/

Al Newman. (2022, March 8). @danaparish @jennybluebird2U To your point: Https://t.co/CsULpIACoI [Tweet]. @AlNewman_. https://twitter.com/AlNewman_/status/1501056062262333441

Mahase, E. (2022). Covid-19: Is the UK heading for another omicron wave? BMJ, 376, o738. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o738

Polytheism was the cultural norm during the First Temple period. It wasn't until the reforms of King Josiah described in 2 Kings in the second half of the 7th century BCE that other Semitic gods were actively removed from the Temple and parts of culture in favor of Yahweh.

Mot, one of the other sons of El, is described as a deity who has a son in Job 18:13 and as one who opens his mouth wide and swallows souls in Habakkuk 2:5.

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 11). RT @dgurdasani1: UKHSA tech report out—TL;DR: -BA.2 now represents >80% of omicron in England -Growth rate 80% greater relative to BA.1 p… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1502598815081275393

Unit, Corona Behavioural. ‘The Effect of Proximity of COVID-19 Test Facilities on Test Uptake: Two Quasi-Experimental Trials’. PsyArXiv, 17 February 2022. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rhvmc.

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, March 6). RT @JPWeiland: BA.2 projections in the US: Coming off of the massive omicron wave (Rt=0.64) will provide a lot of immunity to restrict B… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1500489703472222208

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.74821

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-GENO-070830-2,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-GENO-070830-2)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-GENO-070830-2

What is this?

§ 122 Bekanntgabe des Verwaltungsakts

(1) Ein Verwaltungsakt ist demjenigen Beteiligten bekannt zu geben, für den er bestimmt ist oder der von ihm betroffen wird. § 34 Abs. 2 ist entsprechend anzuwenden. Der Verwaltungsakt kann auch gegenüber einem Bevollmächtigten bekannt gegeben werden. Er soll dem Bevollmächtigten bekannt gegeben werden, wenn der Finanzbehörde eine schriftliche oder eine nach amtlich vorgeschriebenem Datensatz elektronisch übermittelte Empfangsvollmacht vorliegt, solange dem Bevollmächtigten nicht eine Zurückweisung nach § 80 Absatz 7 bekannt gegeben worden ist.

ReconfigBehSci. (2022, February 1). RT @thehowie: NYC update Cases down 40%; positive rate 4.0% Hospital census back to levels of December 27 and declining. New hospitali… [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1488786082254700553

Typography is not about how it should look but rather how it can convey the message.

I like this statement because when it comes to typography it is meant to reveal the beauty behind the design.

It's true that if you can transfer your thought and ideas in your design, your audience would be able to understand your message.

self-pityingly or tearfully sentimental, often through drunkenness.

Not showing due respect for another person or being impertinent

The writer seems to to talking about the reader of a design becoming overwelmed by the text in a design when they look at it if there is to much causing the message of the design to be lost or not focused on in the design.

Su, Y., Yuan, D., Chen, D. G., Ng, R. H., Wang, K., Choi, J., Li, S., Hong, S., Zhang, R., Xie, J., Kornilov, S. A., Scherler, K., Pavlovitch-Bedzyk, A. J., Dong, S., Lausted, C., Lee, I., Fallen, S., Dai, C. L., Baloni, P., … Heath, J. R. (2022). Multiple Early Factors Anticipate Post-Acute COVID-19 Sequelae. Cell, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.014

I will be coming to class EVERYDAY

Arg2: Le réchauffement climatique est une menace pour les EM

• La pollution plastique Consommation = 8M tonnes déchets / an => Formation d'une "soupe de plastique" / "continent de plastique" Risque pour biodiversité marine, espèces ingèrent le plastique

• Les marées noires constituent un risque pour les EM 2010: Explosion de la plateforme "Deepwater" = marée noire sur les côtes de la Louisiane = EU conflits d'usage entre compagnies pétrolière, pêcheurs et employés du tourisme .

Arg2: les EM sont confrontés à de la piraterie maritime à laquelle les Etats tentent de faire face

• Opération de lutte contre la piraterie 2008: Eunavfor = Opération ATALANTE / Golfe d'Aden : Somalie. Soutient bases militaires = Djibouti => Dissuasion => Répression

Arg 2: Les frontières maritimes ne sont pas figées

• ZEE = modèle théorique difficilement applicable contentieux entre pays cotiers: Cour Internationale de Justice (1945), Cour permanente d'arbitrage (1899) EX: Fixation ZEE, Ghana - Côte d'Ivoire (2013)

• ZEE : demande prolongation Demande extension du plateau continental

Arg2: les ressources halieutiques constituent un enjeu économique majeur

• La pêche et l'aquaculture subviennent aux besoins énergétiques et protéiniques de la population 1950 - auj = production halieutique*8 1950 - 2016 = 19M tonnes - 170M tonnes (dont 150M pour conso° humaine directe) 1980 - 2016 = 4,5M - 80M de tonnes prod° aquaculture

• les ressources halieutiques sont exportées 27% prod° halieutique = int 143 Milliards $ = CA

• des intérêts économiques vitaux pour les Etats 60M travailleurs = secteur de la pêche situations précaire = 95% des pêcheurs vivent en Afrique ou en Asie

Arg2: Maritimisation = littoralissation + importance facades maritimes littoralisation: 60% pop in moins 60km côtes (3,6 Milliards hab) 14/16 aires urbaines

**Secteurs économiques 1st = pêche 2nd = ZIP (Port de Pirée, Port de Marsaxlokk à Malte), accesibilité, entreprises de raffinages et sidérurgiques = matières premières Services = tourisme, aménités, héliotropisme, haliotropisme => stations balnéaires

Rôle des ports: HUB dans le processus de M°

• grande capacité portes conteneurs (1st = Shanghai Yangshan, St Expuéry par CMA CGM) MAIS nécessitent port adaptés (ports en eaux profondes de Kribi, espaces de stockage, portd de transbordement, plateformes intermodales: Port de Rotterdam)

Rôle façades maritimes = lieu de concentration CMM Northern Range: Have - Hambourg Cote Est des EU: Nord de Boston - Miami Cote ouest des EU: Puget Sound - Californie Asie de l'Est et Japon: Tokyo - Singapour

Week 2 Reading

filmstarts.de 4,5/5 moviepilot.de 7,2/10 + diverse Kritiken im Kommentarbereich

Eric Topol. (2021, October 27). 'The benefit of a third [booster] dose in reducing transmission is sizeable and increases with vaccine coverage and contact rates among individuals." https://medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.25.21265500v1 by @billygardner and @DiseaseEcology https://t.co/zAZcJgF1nJ [Tweet]. @EricTopol. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1453153076165021696

1. Formicola, Vincenzo. 2007. ‘From the Sungir children to the Romito dwarf: aspects of the Upper Palaeolithic funerary landscape.’ Current Anthropology 48: 446–53.

It will require some investigation, but on it's face this reference to Formicola seems to be about a small number of cases and doesn't point to or back up their claim about high frequencies of societal care and support. Where is their evidence within the archaeological record.

1. Tilley, Lorna. 2015. ‘Accommodating difference in the prehistoric past: revisiting the case of Romito 2 from a bioarchaeology of care perspective.’ International Journal of Paleopathology 8: 64–74.

In a case like this what might have been the reasons for keeping and helping such an individual?

In an oral society, it's possible that despite his potential physical disabilities for hunting that he may have been an above-average store of knowledge from a memory perspective, thus making him potentially even more valuable to his society.

Keep in mind here that these are only singular examples they're talking about amongst millions of data points that we don't have.

case does not regard Arthur smith, its Gregory Lee Johnson

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is not on page 194, its on 395

«Todo acto de violencia sexista que tiene como resultado posible o real un daño físico, sexual o psíquico, incluidas las amenazas, la coerción o la privación arbitraria de libertad, ya sea que ocurra en la vida pública o en la privada».

Korean War

incorrect- protestor in question is Lee Johnson

También depende del factor de cuanto uso se le ha dado a ese motor, no solo por el incremento de desgaste significa que va a bajar su calidad.

It was over the fact that there was a burning of the Flag not a painting on his chest

Eliminating SARS-CoV-2 was deemed plausible, because SARS-CoV-1 had been eliminated.

This is only a citation from our textbook (which is still wrong, the brief can be found on p. 394). The proper legal citation is 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

citation incorrect - pg 394

It starts on page 394 and ends on 399

What is meant by "most important designs"? Is it meant that the state governments are supposed to depend on the federal government and not vice versa? If so, that seems to go against the core contractual aspect of federalism.

Is this relationship between State, banks, and General Government rooted in reciprocity or mutual responsiblity?

Is this something that is actively being said? If so, is this something that was yelled a little but louder? Or was this only written and capitalized for effect.

How exactly is the necessity of resorting to mean which it cannot control not compatible with the language outlined in the Constitution?

When assembling in their states, did they form permanent locations to meet or was it a random?

A lot of what we've read up to this point make it seem like the Supreme Court acts as a kind of voice for the Constitution, that it would interpret and enforce the objectives of it. It's never felt like a branch that was representative of the people. Does the Supreme Court ever act or treat itself as representative of the people, or does it more view itself as a representation of the Constitution?

Does Marshall regularly define the scope of the case like this at the start of his decisions? I don't recall anything similar in Marbury v Madison.

What does this mean? so the bank of the united states is inherently also the supreme law of the land?

I am lost here. Is this referring to the idea that if the constitution had every subdivision of rules stated that it would not be embraced by human kind and that it would never be understood by the public? Because wouldn't a constitution with accurate details be the most accepted to the public?

Is here referring to the jealousies of the states to the federal government or the federal government to the states? Who in this scenario is the jealous party leading to the creation of the 10th amendment?

At the end of this where it states 'deduced from the nature of the objects themselves' - the objects themselves are the individual states and people in those states, correct? So if there was no mention of the laws regarding bank taxes of states in the constitution, but the grand power of the law is saved for the people, which influence the government, makes me wonder- was this creation of Maryland's bank and bank tax, at all ever voted on by the people? Or was it 'secretly' created and decided by the government of the state alone?

This section confuses me. Is Marshall saying here that not only can the government create a national bank, but they can delegate powers to this bank for it to exercise? Or is it saying that the State of Maryland, where the bank will be established, is to delegate powers to this national bank?

Definitely seems like a major quote. Is he basically saying that this would give state governments the power to destroy the federal government?

This word choice seems dangerous in how vague it is. A lot of actions that a state might take could be defined as "burdening" a law enacted by Congress. Who decides what is a burden? I wonder if there have been cases that have happened since that argue over whether a state action is a "burden" to a national government function? Or if this part of Marshall's argument has ever been used as precedent for the federal government to stifle state power?

I feel like I've been lost in this paragraph. I'm not entirely sure what is trying to be said here?

incorrect: the book version states: "President Harry S. Truman was not about to let a strike hit the steel industry. The nation was engaged in a war in Korea, and steel production was necessary to produce weapons and other military equipment."

Korean.

Gurdasani, Deepti. ‘Vaccinating Adolescents in England: A Risk-Benefit Analysis’. OSF Preprints, 4 August 2021. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/grzma.

Barros-Martins, J., Hammerschmidt, S. I., Cossmann, A., Odak, I., Stankov, M. V., Morillas Ramos, G., Dopfer-Jablonka, A., Heidemann, A., Ritter, C., Friedrichsen, M., Schultze-Florey, C., Ravens, I., Willenzon, S., Bubke, A., Ristenpart, J., Janssen, A., Ssebyatika, G., Bernhardt, G., Münch, J., … Behrens, G. M. N. (2021). Immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants after heterologous and homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination. Nature Medicine, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01449-9

When deciding a case, how is being able to disregard the constitution part of judicial duty? Isn't that the backbone for making laws in this country? It the court's duty to determine if the laws are constitutional or not.

I am a little lost in this area. Why is Madison the name on this case and not Jefferson? Is this sentence explaining that? I don't quite understand they way this is phrased.

What does that mean appellate can be exercised in a variety of forms? Is this referring to the different types of lower courts that hears under this type of jurisdiction?

As a Federalist, Marshall knows that many of the people reading this opinion will be Anti-Federalists. I'd love if my classmates would weigh in: Do you think he is using the exaggerated language of "omnipotence" to appeal to the Anti-Federalist fear of concentrated power? Do we think Marshall is speaking from a totally neutral judicial stance here, or do aggrandized depictions like these hint that he is letting his political bias shine through?

What would make the constitution not superior if put in the situation of conflict? From my understanding the Constitution is going to be more superior or hold more weight

What exactly is this stating? I this suggesting that the courts don't have any jurisdiction over foreign powers, and only take cases that are related to their branch?

I know that the peaceful transfer of power between one administration to another is a big deal in the United States and a coveted tradition. Does this case have anything to do with that precedent? Obviously this has to do with judgeship and not the presidency, but refusing to deliver the commissions in the last days of office certainly screams sore loser. So other than establishing judicial review within the courts maybe this case had other effects on the tradition of American politics?

This whole phrase is just completely in one ear and out the other for me. Would anybody be able to explain what this means? It is just a fancy way for getting into the opinion on the case?

When mentioning Mr. Marbury's commission, they state that he is given a five year term. Were judicial appointments not lifetime appointments within the early years of the court system? Was the term five years for each appointee?

I am confused on what affirmative words are. What do they have to do with this case? If anything, shouldn't there need to be positive affirmation words towards the case? If it is only negative, then wouldn't that be the opposite of having no operation at all?

At this point, Marshall has invoked the idea of and principle behind written constitutions generally about 5 times. I don't take issue with his argument, but is there a reason he acts as if the principle behind a constitution is so well understood but does not invoke specific examples from somewhere else? Did he think this was not helpful for a young United States in defining the scope of its own laws? Or did he not have a useful example of a written constitution from another nation to cite?

I think I'm lost at this point? I'm not entirely sure what point they are trying to make, and there are far too many large words in the previous paragraph for me to be able to make sense of what is happening in this section. I certainly feel lost.

Animal adulto, se torna ovelha no momento em que parir. Caso nunca pariu, se torna ovelha depois que trocar dentes, por volta de ansos.

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.66483

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-130108-2,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-130108-2)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-130108-2

What is this?

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.66483

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-061228-2,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-061228-2)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-061228-2

What is this?

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2021). The search for antivirals for covid-19. BMJ, 374, n2165. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2165

Do Masks Hurt Speech Development? It Depends on the Child. (2021, September 20). Undark Magazine. https://undark.org/2021/09/20/do-masks-hurt-speech-development-it-depends-on-the-kid/

I believe Justice Breyer is part of the majority. Similar to Justice Alito, he gives Layton several hypotheticals. Layton's argument toward these hypotheticals show discrimination by not giving benefits, such as policemen, to a church simply because it is religious. Justice Breyer also sounds annoyed and short with Layton.

I believe Justice Kagan is the second dissenter. She seems to side against Cortman as she argues that the States should have some flexibility in their choices. She questions what would happen if one church received benefits while a different church didn't. Cortman goes on to say that the program is religion blind, but its seemed to me that she was not agreeing with anything he said.

I am a little confused with Cortman's argument. If the court favors religion, then theres an Establishment Clause problem, but if the court attacks religion, then theres a Free Exercise Clause problem. How can these things be balanced out? When is it appropriate to accommodate religion? What are other examples of the court accommodating religion?

What is the World Vision Brief? Is this apart of the amicus brief? Im confused and already not familiar about what exactly an amicus brief is.

I think justice Gorsuch is another one of the majority voters here. He seems very secure on the basis of religious discrimination as opposed to the questions of sotomayor and kagan who seemed to recognize it as a possible issue with the inclusion of other religions. He already seems convinced that it was a case of discrimination against the church.

Layton is in majority rule for the church funding the playground by his statement of independent decision making. He specifically says its in the hands of the state.

I understand the idea that public benefit from the government and religious states should not mix. Are there other examples of government coercion to public benefit you could provide as examples?

I also read this as a sign of a dissenting justice. I believe Sotomayor is a dissenting justice because she strictly says the state does not fund places of worship. She goes on to say that if the state is free from places of worship, then funding it would affect free exercise.

I think this is a great point brought up by justice Kagan. It ties back to one of my questions I left earlier. She seems to think that there may be a risk of favoritism and a violation of that establishment clause that Cortman keeps talking about but going the other way. And again Cortman doesn't do a good job answering that question, in fact in this example he sidesteps it all together and simply says the system is set up to not discriminate and be "religion blind" Although that sounds great, the problem is discriminatory people wont be "religion blind" which is something she seems to realize.

I looked up the establishment clause and it is essentially a clause put within the fifth amendment that prohibits congress from establishing religion. To me it seems like funding a religion is a very good way to establish it so I'm not sure exactly what his point is here. Unless he is suggesting that all religious schools recieve the same public benefits/funding. And unfortunately I have a hard time believing that certain states would ever fund anything other than christianity if it was left to a state level decision.

Based on Justice Breyer's tone in this section, which seems to indicate annoyance with the respondant, I'm going to conclude that he was one of the Justices who voted with the majority. While it is possible that his tone is merely a tool to probe the strength of Layton's legal argument, it sounds more like he has already made up his mind and is growing impatient with having to hear Layton's case.

Do any of my fellow students know what Justice Kagan is referring to here? Is Cortman's "white light" perhaps a five-minute warning light, since we are reaching the 25-minute mark, and each party gets 30 minutes? Or perhaps it just means "it's time to wrap it up?"

Although I wasn't feeling sure beforehand, this moment from Justice Sotomayor fortified my notion that she was the second dissenting Justice in this case. Just as Ginsberg did, she chose to utilize the Stare Decisis method of decision making, and asserts here that the older a legal precedent that has been set is, the more firmly it holds as an establishment of proper interpretation of law. This solififies her argument that follows, that as a country we should not fund religious places of worship.

This is a very good point that I feel like is ignored. I have to wonder why this was not expanded on further - both by Layton himself or one of the justices.

This question by Justice Alito made me realize that each state may have its own definition of "church". If this is to be one of the deciding factors of this particular case, and a case of the same material opens up in a different state, would the Supreme Court use Trinity Lutheran v. Comer to decide in a similar manner? Or would they have to judge with no stare decisis because of the different terms within the different state constitutions?