McDonalds has bowed to social media pressure, especially on Twitter and is closing all 600 restaurants in Mother Russia. Russia and Ukraine account for about 9% of all revenue, or about 2 Billion dollars (not rubles) a year.
Speaking about social media, if you're not following @justicebuilding on Twitter, you're missing what one expert said was "the most exhilarating social media experience since Kim K debuted a black two-piece bikini in St. Barts with Pete..."
So click follow and hop on board.
If you're following you would have seen this Gem:
Coca Cola, Pepsi Co (which owns Pizza Hut), Shell Oil, BP Oil, and Starbucks (ouch- no morning cup of coffee- talk about sanctions taking a bite) are also shutting down Russian operations.
Do NOT believe rumors that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered Ukraine $100,000.00 to throw the war... It's probably not true.
DOM beat us to the punch with his post on the excellent SCOTUS opinion in Wooden v. United States resurrecting the Rule of Lenity (or completing the task started by DOM's fav justice- Scalia) .
Here are some gems from OUR new fav justice- Gorsuch- in his concurrence on one of our favourite concepts- the Rule of Lenity:
Respectfully, all this suggests to me that the key to this case does not lie as much in a multiplicity of factors as it does in the rule of lenity. Under that rule, any reasonable doubt about the application of a penal law must be resolved in favor of liberty. Because reasonable minds could differ (as they have differed) on the question whether Mr. Wooden’s crimes took place on one occasion or many, the rule of lenity demands a judgment in his favor.
The “rule of lenity” is a new name for an old idea—the notion that “penal laws should be construed strictly.”
Lenity works to enforce the fair notice requirement by ensuring that an individual’s liberty always prevails over ambiguous laws
Of course, most ordinary people today don’t spend their leisure time reading statutes—and they probably didn’t in Justice Marshall’s and Justice Story’s time either. But lenity’s emphasis on fair notice isn’t about indulging a fantasy. It is about protecting an indispensable part of the rule of law—the promise that, whether or not individuals happen to read the law, they can suffer penalties only for violating standing rules announced in advance. As the framers understood, “subjecting . . . men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law . . . ha[s] been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrumen[t] of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 84, pp. 511–512 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton);