The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

June 27, 2013
Lesson of the day from the SF Chronicle: If you run a wraparound section featuring a big story, make sure you mention it on the front page or the internet will think you missed the story. The internet lives and breathes on PDFs of front pages, guys. (via Newseum)
EDIT: Via Luis Rendon, here’s what the ACTUAL front page, which was a wraparound spread, looked like.

Lesson of the day from the SF Chronicle: If you run a wraparound section featuring a big story, make sure you mention it on the front page or the internet will think you missed the story. The internet lives and breathes on PDFs of front pages, guys. (via Newseum)

EDIT: Via Luis Rendon, here’s what the ACTUAL front page, which was a wraparound spread, looked like.

10:36 // 9 months ago
June 26, 2013
They are all watching a network not to be named, George, and for whatever reason there is a delay, and so when they hear it they are going to, trust me, erupt and you and I won’t be able to hear each other.
California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom • Offering a comment to ABC News regarding the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision, which he learned about from the reporter who contacted him. Why’s that? Well, here’s the thing: CNN, which famously got burned by a Supreme Court ruling last year, has been playing it extra cautious this time around, so much so that all of the other networks had the decision long before CNN did. And Newsom’s staff was watching CNN for the news. Hear that? That’s what overcompensation sounds like. Classic Zucker.
21:50 // 9 months ago
18:00 // 9 months ago
washingtonpoststyle:

Plaintiff Edith Windsor after SCOTUS strikes down DOMA.
Image via Getty

EDIT: As imwithkanye points out, this image is not from this morning, but from March 27.

washingtonpoststyle:

Plaintiff Edith Windsor after SCOTUS strikes down DOMA.

Image via Getty

EDIT: As imwithkanye points out, this image is not from this morning, but from March 27.

(via perzadook)

10:45 // 9 months ago
evanfleischer:

Well played, Google.

Clever.

evanfleischer:

Well played, Google.

Clever.

10:43 // 9 months ago
10:42 // 9 months ago
DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.
The majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. SCOTUS has decided DOMA is unconstitutional. Read more at NPR’s The Two-Way. (via npr)

This seems like a pretty historic one right here.
10:14 // 9 months ago
nbcnightlynews:

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court strikes down #DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act

More forthcoming, but … a fairly big start to the day.

nbcnightlynews:

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court strikes down , the federal Defense of Marriage Act

More forthcoming, but … a fairly big start to the day.

10:06 // 9 months ago
June 25, 2013

Here’s what SCOTUS ruled on the Voting Rights Act, in lay terms

  • question The Voting Rights Act mandated that certain jurisdictions in the country with a history of voter disenfranchisement (all in the south) receive pre-clearance from the federal government before enacting any new voting laws. The case on which SCOTUS ruled today questioned whether or not this is constitutional. 
  • ruling The court did not strike down the concept of pre-clearance; rather, struck down the specific formula currently used to determine which states require pre-clearance. So, until Congress can agree on and pass a new formula for this determination, no states will require pre-clearance anymore.

It falls upon congress to decide on a new formula—essentially, to figure out which states should still require federal approval to change their voting laws. Given how congress is these days, we’re exceedingly doubtful that any agreement will be reached anytime soon. source

16:01 // 9 months ago
nbcnews:

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down a key part of 1965 Voting Rights Act
(Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters, file)
Live SCOTUSblog offers latest details.
Continue reading

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion on the case: "Nearly 50 years later, [the rules laid out by the Voting Rights Act] are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."
Thoughts?

nbcnews:

BREAKING: Supreme Court strikes down a key part of 1965 Voting Rights Act

(Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters, file)

Live SCOTUSblog offers latest details.

Continue reading

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion on the case: "Nearly 50 years later, [the rules laid out by the Voting Rights Act] are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions."


Thoughts?

10:27 // 9 months ago