wanderer

This court has relied on several occasions on a historical tradition test for determining constitutionality. If they apply that here, historical examples of discriminating against trans people will only support keeping discriminatory laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

That's slightly different. New Mexico exists in that one, and a region name is changed between Mississauga and Odawa

A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator

That assumes a perfectly spherical earth. The earth is not perfectly spherical.

Right, and that's inconsistent with:

He’s been married a number of times and he’s cheated even more times.

Despite anti-miscegenation laws being banned as a result of Loving v Virginia in 1967, support for interracial marriages only passed 50% in the mid 90's.

That's not what an infidel is.

"Hang Mike Pence"

Did you forget?

You're making the assumption that they are triangles.

It has the bill of rights but not all constitutional amendments. Among other things, in Trumps bible, slavery is still legal and women can't vote, just the way they want it.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined in August 2006 that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body that:

1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet