Apparently, Hoskins was at the hearing, but it sounds like he might have escaped with some light ass chewing.
The court found that Hoskins was in contempt, but he managed to purge the contempt by hearing time. (i.e. he came into compliance with the court order by directing election officials to use the 2022 map.)
A few points here:
The Supreme Court of Missouri has ordered the Secretary of State of Missouri to appear in person at a contempt of court hearing today.
Now we're really putting the red in Red River.
The Equal Time Rule would require Kimmel to offer to air an equal-time interview to Ken Paxton as well as Talarico. Unless Kimmel's program is a bona fide news program, which would be exempt from the rule.
Previous administrations adopted a more broad interpretation of "bona fide news program" that included these late night shows that interview guests. Mainly because this rule and the exception are playing with legal fire regarding the first amendment and core political speech.
The Equal Time Rule applies only to over the air broadcasts. YouTube is unregulated on that point.
At 0.0, breathalysers can't be used as evidence. They're not accurate enough.
For what it's worth, in US aviation, the standard is 0.00 BAC and 8 hours "from bottle to throttle." But breathalyser evidence is treated with a 0.02 threshold for measurement tolerance.
There're a bunch of legal shenanigans that happened this afternoon on this topic. I'll try to summarize.
Bottom line: Despite the Kavanaugh ruling, the Republican-leaning map is still the current map right now.
Why is this federal district judge probably wrong? In the Alabama and Texas cases, the Supreme Court pretty well established that the Purcell Principle restrains the federal court system, but not state legislatures or state governments. Other court precedent says that the supreme court of Missouri is the ultimate decider of the meaning of the Missouri constitution and the Missouri laws. Federal courts are supposed to defer to state supreme courts if they need to know what a state law means. Here we have a federal judge telling Missouri that their supreme court is wrong on the laws of Missouri, and he's incorrectly applying Purcell to the state supreme court.
You know Iceland sent one guy to Afghanistan when the United States was attacked.
At one time I researched hiking the Pacific Crest Trail. It was recommended to plan for a 4000-5000 calorie / day diet. But most thru-hikers found it was physically impossible to carry enough food and they lost 30-40 pounds on average over the course of the hike.
Appalachian trail is a little bit easier in terms of access to civilization.
Their lawyer is trying to get lower bail for them. That's why he's saying this stuff.
I believe the government is still trying to get remand with no bail.
While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).
Transcript:
Q Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, Arby's --
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A Arby's sells roast beef.
Q Right. Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q What is the expression trying to convey?
A It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A Yeah.
Q She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there? You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous. I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants. Yes.
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q You're not making a slur about her?
A No.
Q You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A Yes. That's correct. That's correct.
Q Why are you laughing?
A Because I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I just think it's so funny. I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.
This is still a big deal result with a lot of physical significance if it holds up.
Full Navier-Stokes are / were understood to model all of the important physics associated with continuous domain fluids. (Continuous domain here means we approximate the many, many particles of the fluid as a smooth, continuous substance).
In particular, Navier-Stokes are supposed to fully model fluids with turbulence. Turbulence is an everyday phenomenon that you can reproduce for yourself in your kitchen sink, and yet it is extremely difficult to formulate a mathematical function for it. Turbulence appears to be random if you look at it, and yet if it is produced by NS, then it is not random. Solving even the numeric approximations of NS for turbulent flows is difficult because the flows exhibit severe variation in velocity over wide ranges of time and distance scales.
Anyhow, if NS is a good physical theory it has to have a physically realistic solution to every physically-possible set of initial conditions and environmental forcing functions. In math terms this mainly means that all of the velocities, pressures, and forces have to be finite and smooth at all times. Step discontinuities don't really occur in the real physical world (although they do approximately occur).
This result would mean that NS is not the end all final theory for classical continuum fluids. The scenario constructed by OpenAI is claimed to be one that can (at least theoretically) be setup and run in the real world. But if we did that, the real world is certain to do something else besides the infinite flow velocity vortex that OpenAI claims NS predicts. What would really happen in that experiment? Who knows. We're gonna need to find some new physics to find out.