This is just plain funny.

Back in June, workers in one of their stores voted to unionize. Fast forward to yesterday, and Apple decided to increase benefits for all of its employees - except for that one store.

Legally, Apple had no choice, since the presence of the union means they have to negotiate a new contract with the union every time they change anything. And it doesn't change the fact that virtually every aspect of Apple's products and business models and politics are garbage. But, it's still quite amusing on how the union employees are now doing worse than all other Apple employees.

Slightly hyperbolic title, but not by much.

When the Roe draft was leaked a couple weeks ago, most of the politicians here in NY have been engaged in mass virtue signaling about how people need more abortion, including looking to make abortions more available, and even some discussion about using tax money to pay for basically abortion tourism (come to NY, get an abortion, then go home).

Yet, earlier this week, we had this ludicrous "gem", with the NY State court of appeals hearing arguments about how Happy the Elephant

has an interest in exercising her choices and deciding who she wants to be with, and where to go, and what to do, and what to eat, and the zoo is prohibiting her from making any of those choices herself.

This is beyond Clownworld. We must allow people to murder babies however and whenever they want to, but this elephant over here needs human rights!

Candace Owens pointed out on Twitter that the majority of violence committed against both blacks and asians are done by blacks.

A democratic congressional candidate literally sent her a picture of a Klan hood as a reply

And, when reported to Twitter's health and safety team, they said "Nah, it's fine"

Apparently she's bringing in the cops on the grounds that this may constitute a hate crime, but even if that does pan out, Jack has now said:

"Misgender someone, and you're banned. Send Klan memorabilia to black conservatives, and you're fine!"

I seriously hope that guy just lost his website, because this has to be the most explicit evidence of bias yet.

So, a story on this is here, and the full opinions are here. There's been a long-running series of lawsuits coming out of NY (and probably other places too, I'm just more focused on NY cause I live there) over the fact that Cuomo decided to limit the number of people who could attend religious services due to the virus. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court shut down the rule yesterday.

But, the reason I'm posting this here is not so much the ruling itself (though I think its a huge win for freedom overall), but because of the rationales. I can't help but think that only one of them is actually caring about the law.

For the majority opinion, written by Gorsech, had the following opening and closing lines.

Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.... It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques

From Breyer's minority opinion

The Nation is now experiencing a second surge of infections....The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges.

I'm sorry, what? Since when does the Supreme Court rule on health arguments? The text is very clear, "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law unless there's a virus which has a <2% fatality rate across the whole population." This is an attempt at an insane new level of judicial activism. This isn't twisting the law to fit, this is saying "well, the law is nice and all but doesn't matter here"