Firefly is certainly uniquely great. And it was definitely underexposed in its original run.

Just a thought. Hope @samreich.bsky.social and the rest of y’all over at @dropout.tv are maybe thinking about it already.

Animated Firefly reboot. That’s the show. That’s what you should consider.

Y’all just worked with Nathan Fillion for The Rookie, right? Surely it came up?

Is there some other way to get in touch about this?

Hey, @samreich.bsky.social? @dropout.tv? Any chance y’all might find a way to be the new home they’re seeking for the animated Firefly revival they just announced?

Any chance that might have something to do with Nathan Fillion being the lead on The Rookie?

No kidding. This fake is only obvious because Trump is way less coherent in real life.

Your “a)” here is an absolutely insane take. Literally anyone who didn’t vote for Harris is to blame, because anyone who didn’t vote for her helped convicted felon Donald Trump win. That’s just basic math.

Really? Who? I lived in Australia for a while, but I don’t think they’re related to that.

Anyway, you’re certainly right about the org-building issues in Texas. Folks are working on it, but there’s a long way to go.

Believe it or not, I do understand where you’re coming from. If I lived north of the Mason-Dixon Line, I’d probably feel very similarly.

That user sure bailed and blocked fast once I called the user out for using British English. Looks like a fake account.

And I loved when the account you originally responded to outed itself as not being in the U.S.

Blocking me after I called you out for it only proves my point. Thank you for making that easy.

Calling him “the evangelical” tells me you haven’t actually heard anything he’s said or seen anything he’s done. And complaining about it tells me you don’t understand Texas or its politics.

(That’s not really a criticism, just to be clear. You’re probably better off for it.)

Interesting of you to use the British version of the word. What country are you from?

The Democrat who might win the general election is always the right choice.

You’re neither qualified to, nor capable of, “enlightening” me.

You mean the one the NRSC wanted to run? Bless your heart.

Say sea lion goofy business on a Friday, get sea lion goofy business on a Friday.

That’s a fun code phrase for not having a good answer.

That’s objectively incorrect here. Amendment XV could not have been a basis for a ruling on this case because voting rights were not the rights at issue in this case. Amendment XIV and the EPC could have been, if alleged.

Are you also a lawyer? I don’t want to assume either way.

That’s why the dissent didn’t address that issue. It wasn’t an issue in the case and wasn’t before the Court.

I’m a lawyer, and I’ve probably read it more times than all Republicans combined.

What you missed: Failure to deliver ballots wasn’t alleged in the case, so it couldn’t have been the basis for the ruling. Amendment XIV and the Equal Protection Clause, under an as-applied analysis, could’ve been.

Example: If another statute specifically allows a recovery for “any loss,” and if the majority opinion today said that “loss” necessarily means unintentional, then that other statute allowing recovery for “any loss” would probably not allow recovery for intentionally caused losses.

14th Amendment. But neither the majority nor the dissent addressed that, which probably means that argument wasn’t made to the Court. I don’t know why (because that’s one of the arguments that should have been made), but the fact that the dissent didn’t address it at all is very telling.

Obviously. But using bad legal reasoning to reach a good result in one case tends to cause bad results over the long run.

For example, having to pretend that “loss” inherently assumes an unintentional loss would affect future cases based on other statutes using that word. Same for “miscarriage.”

Not to get all sentence-diagramy, but it’s the difference between:

(loss), (miscarriage), and (negligent transmission)

And:

Negligent (loss, miscarriage, and transmission)

As it’s written, it says “loss, miscarriage, and negligent transmission.”

So “negligent” only limits transmission. The exemption applies to “loss” or “miscarriage” that’s negligent OR intentional.

The solution is “negligent loss, miscarriage, and transmission,” so “negligent” limits all three.

Part of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of the word “miscarriage.” noun mis·​car·​riage | \ ˌmis-ˈker-ij , -ˈka-rij, ˈmis-ˌker-ij, -ˌka-rij \ Definition 1 : corrupt or incompetent management especially : a failure in the administration of justice

“Miscarriage” contemplates both corruption and incompetence. “Negligent miscarriage” would not.

Thomas gets stuff wrong all the time, but in this case, the easiest solution is to fix the statute by moving “negligent” in front of all three.

Unfortunately, that’s what the statute says. It should be changed to prevent that.

We talk about intentional miscarriages of justice all the time. Those aren’t accidental either.

I hate the outcome, but the main failure here is in the poor wording of the statute.

They don’t even have to change the words to fix it. They can just move “negligent” in front of all three nouns so it applies to them all.

Fully disagree. “Negligent” should be before all three nouns.

Loss and miscarriage can both be intentional. The first definition of “loss” is “destruction.” We talk about intentional miscarriages of justice all the time.

It’s a poorly written statute. They could, and should, change it immediately.

Congress passed a law preventing people from suing the USPS for money if an employee fails to deliver mail. So this plaintiff couldn’t sue the USPS for an employee’s failure to deliver mail.

The easy solution is a change to the law so intentional failure to deliver mail isn’t under that exception.