Many American men were trying to avoid serving the U.S. military in the 1960s and 1970s, but at least one American man was trying anything to get in—and it wasn’t Steve Rogers. Captain Richard Flaherty had to get a waiver to join the Army during the Vietnam War. He wasn’t flat-footed, he had no debilitating conditions, and he was an otherwise perfectly healthy young man. His only problem was that he stood four feet, nine inches tall.Also Read: How US soldiers transformed cargo vehicles into fighting machines in VietnamSome 385,000 American troops were sent to Vietnam in 1966, the year Flaherty graduated from high school. U.S. involvement in the Southeast Asian country had more than doubled since 1965. Meanwhile, network television news was filled with the stories of young men dying in combat to stem the spread of communism to South Vietnam. That didn’t deter Flaherty from trying to serve. With the draft in full swing, many American males of a certain age did what they could to avoid being drafted or otherwise qualifying for military service. Some even fled to Canada to escape conscription. The young man from Stamford, Connecticut, was not one of them.This would-be Captain America was just three inches too short for Army service, a condition resulting from his mother’s rare blood type that left him vulnerable to oxygen deprivation as an infant. It stunted his growth as a teen, so when it came time to weigh in, Flaherty barely tipped the scale at 100 pounds.  The original Short King. Though there was nothing he could do to grow three inches in less than a year (or any other time frame, likely), what he could do was gain weight. So he began to eat and stay in fighting shape, as he was an avid sportsman in high school, and was especially good at martial arts. When he finally got past the 100-pound mark, he petitioned his congressman to obtain a waiver for the Army’s height restrictions.There is, it turns out, a waiver for everything. Even during wartime. In September of 1966, Rep. Donald J. Irwin of Connecticut got in touch with the U.S. Army Surgeon General, who recommended a waiver for Flaherty’s height. Flaherty enlisted that same year, finishing basic training, qualifying for Officer Candidate School, and deploying to South Vietnam as a fresh-faced second lieutenant. He first deployed to Southeast Asia in 1968 as a member of the 101st Airborne Division. But 1968 was a tumultuous year for service members in Vietnam. It was the year of the Tet Offensive, when U.S. troop numbers peaked at more than half a million. It was also the most expensive and deadliest year of the war.  Flaherty on a patrol. (From “The Giant Killer”) Flaherty on a patrol. Flaherty and his men did not escape that violence. His unit in the 101st was ambushed as it passed a hidden North Vietnamese bunker, hitting the Americans hard with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. But Flaherty soon located the bunker, rallied his soldiers, and led a charge under heavy fire that cleared the area of enemy troops. For his leadership and heroism, he was awarded the Silver Star.  He returned to the U.S. that same year to attend the Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, where he earned the coveted green beret. Flaherty would return to Vietnam in 1969 and was stationed there until 1971. During this deployment, he was promoted to captain, earned two Bronze Stars, and was wounded in combat twice, receiving a Purple Heart for each time. Flaherty left the Army in 1971 and attended the University of Miami in Florida. After his girlfriend died in a tragic car accident, his life also took a sharp turn. He had a few run-ins with the law before becoming a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. By 1990, he was homeless and living on the streets of Aventura, Florida. Sadly, Richard Flaherty was killed in a hit-and-run accident in 2015. The only reason anything is known about his past is that he shared it with an Aventura cop before he died, and the two maintained a long, if unexpected friendship. Today, Flaherty is buried in an unmarked grave in Milton, West Virginia. Flaherty’s close friend, David Yuzuk, used his own money to launch a crowdfunding campaign to produce a documentary about his complicated but fascinating life. That film, “The Giant Killer,” is available on Amazon Prime and iTunes. Yuzuk told the West Virginia Gazette that he hopes the documentary will make people think twice about judging the homeless. Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty • The real story of Jane Fonda and the Vietnam vets who hate her• 17 wild facts about the Vietnam War• Here’s how much Captain America would have made in back pay Vietnam War Vietnam War The shortest soldier in American history was a Green Beret who fought in Vietnam Richard Flaherty received the Silver Star in 1968. By Blake Stilwell Vietnam War This was the only mutiny on an American ship in the past 100 years By Blake Stilwell Vietnam War The Vietnam tank driver who ran into a burning tank to pull his friends out By Stephen Ruiz Vietnam War 5 terrifying things US troops faced in Vietnam’s jungles By Blake Stilwell Vietnam War ‘The Few. The Proud’: The moments that made the Marines the Marines By Jos Joseph The post The shortest soldier in American history was a Green Beret who fought in Vietnam appeared first on We Are The Mighty.

When a plaintiff files a lawsuit in state court asserting a claim that could be brought in federal court, federal law gives the defendant 30 days to remove the case to federal court. At issue in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel is whether the federal statute imposing this deadline, 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1), allows a district court to extend (or “equitably toll”) this time limit. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed this lawsuit in June 2019 in Michigan state court. The suit seeks to force Enbridge to shut down “Line 5,” an oil and natural-gas-liquids pipeline running beneath the Straits of Mackinac. (Line 5 supplies a huge portion of the crude oil and propane consumed in Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Quebec.) Enbridge did not initially seek to remove the case to federal court, but instead filed a motion for summary disposition. After a separate (but related) lawsuit brought against Enbridge by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was removed and then voluntarily dismissed, Enbridge filed a notice of removal in December 2021 – 30 months after this suit was originally filed. (In the meantime, Canada asserted that Michigan’s shutting down of Line 5 would put the U.S. in violation of the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty.) The district court permitted Enbridge’s late removal, concluding that Section 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline can be “overcome in exceptional circumstances.” But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed, holding that the deadline is mandatory when the plaintiff objects in a timely fashion. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether excusing a late notice of removal – as the district court did here – is permitted under Section 1446(b)(1). Representing Enbridge, John Bursch argued that the 30-day removal deadline functions as a statute of limitations “because it prescribes a period within which certain rights may be enforced.” And, explained Bursch, the Supreme Court has long held that statutes of limitations – including time limits on the assertion of various procedural rights, not just substantive rights – are presumptively subject to equitable tolling. Bursch thus argued that, given this presumption, district courts must retain “their traditional equitable authority” to toll the 30-day deadline “absent the clearest command” in the statute to the contrary. And in Bursch’s view, Section 1446(b)(1) lacks any such clear command. By contrast, Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman argued that the presumption in favor of equitable tolling does not apply to Section 1446(b)(1) because that presumption is specific to statutes setting “a deadline by which legal remedies must be pursued or are lost.” But the federal removal statute addresses the “allocation of judicial power,” contended Sherman, an area that has traditionally called for “strict enforcement” of statutory deadlines. This makes it quite unlike deadlines that entail “a harsh consequence of depriving defendants of their day in court,” where the presumption most logically applies. Sherman further argued that, even if a presumption in favor of tolling applies to Section 1446(b)(1), it is overcome. First, Sherman asserted that the presumption does not require the “clearest command” from Congress to be surmounted; the question is just whether Congress has expressed a contrary intent in the statutory scheme. Second, Sherman argued that everything about the removal statute – “the text, the structure, the history, and the purpose” – indicates “Congress would not have wanted tolling.” Most important, the scheme contains “six explicit exceptions to the 30-day deadline, many of which already reflect equitable concerns and some of which specifically authorize courts to extend the deadline for cause.” In essence, Congress has spoken to the question and “did not authorize courts to create their own exceptions.” Justice Clarence Thomas asked Bursch whether the Supreme Court had ever before applied the presumption in favor of tolling to a removal statute. Bursch conceded “this will be the first time,” but he explained that the court had applied the presumption in several instances in which the deadline did not extinguish any claims, illustrating that it extends to statutes prescribing “a period within which certain rights may be enforced.” Justice Elena Kagan observed that the removal statute contained several references “to equitable consideration[s] in different parts of the statute,” suggesting “that Congress did not have in mind … that equity would underlie the whole thing.” Bursch responded that these were weak indications of Congress’ intent, and thus fell well short of the “clearest command” necessary to overcome the presumption. Justice Samuel Alito asked Sherman whether “there are any grounds on which equity would allow a district court to excuse non-compliance with a 30-day removal deadline other than the exceptions that are set out in the statute?” Sherman said “there could be some estoppel” (meaning the defendant’s late removal was due to its reliance on the plaintiff’s representations). If that is so, Alito reasoned, isn’t the necessary implication “that we have to look beyond the statutory text and see whether what is alleged here might possibly qualify”? Sherman said no because “equitable tolling and estoppel are distinct doctrines,” such that the availability of one does not imply the other. Alito also expressed concern about the practical consequences of allowing this case to return to state court: if “the state court orders that operation of the … pipeline be terminated,” the impact on U.S.-Canada relations could be “pretty severe,” and it might be several years before the case could return to the Supreme Court, even if it presented important treaty claims. Sherman responded that the Constitution has always contemplated state courts’ exercising jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law – including quite important ones – especially when defendants miss the deadline for removal. It is for Congress to decide whether removal should work differently. The argument largely ignored whether, if the 30-day limit is subject to equitable tolling, the district court was correct to extend that deadline here. So if Enbridge prevails, that will likely be left for the lower courts to resolve on remand. Ultimately, the hour of discussion revealed little about where the justices stood. We must wait to find out until the court hands down its decision, likely by the end of June. The post Justices reveal little about whether the deadline for removing cases to federal court can be excused appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

First lady Melania Trump wore an anthracite [or dark charcoal grey], wide-leg suit from Dolce & Gabbana at President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address of his second term in office. Her State of the Union outfit was reported by the Wall Street Journal, among other news outlets. The first lady wears the Dolce & Gabbana brand frequently. She wore a Dolce & Gabbana black skirt suit to the premiere of her film, Melania. From left, Ivanka Trump, Barron Trump, and first lady Melania Trump attend President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) MELANIA TRUMP REUNITES RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN CHILDREN WITH THEIR FAMILIES Melania Trump, a former model, is well known for her outfits. The first lady’s documentary film, Melania, chronicled part of the story behind her inaugural gown, a structured floor-length black and white Herve Pierre. “Very my colors, black and white … very me,” she said. Earlier in February, Melania Trump donated her inaugural gown to the Smithsonian’s First Ladies Collection, saying the dress reflected “America’s destiny.” The gown will be displayed alongside her 2017 inaugural gown, making her the first first lady in more than a century to have two inaugural gowns represented at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. First lady Melania Trump presents her 2025 inaugural ball gown to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert) First lady Melania Trump arrives for the premiere of her movie “Melania” at The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center For The Performing Arts, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) First lady Melania Trump waves before President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) For Trump’s 2025 address to Congress, she wore a tailored gray suit by Dior. The businesslike look stood out for its polished, sophisticated style. The first lady’s Dolce & Gabbana suit can be purchased online through the retail brand or other high-end department stores like Neiman Marcus. Jackets similar to the one she was wearing begin at about $2,395. MELANIA TRUMP UNDERSTANDS THE ASSIGNMENT While her Dolce & Gabbana suits sell for a higher price tag, here are a few fashionable options that are similar but fetch a lower price. UNDER $100 Quince: Stretch Crepe Relaxed Double-Breasted Blazer for $80. Banana Republic Factory: Sculpted Stretch Blazer for $90. UNDER $300 Tuckernuck: Black Diana Blazer for $298. FULL SUIT The Essentials Brooks Brothers Stretch Wool Jacket for $498. The Essentials Brooks Brothers Stretch Wool Flare Leg Trousers for $298.

President Donald Trump‘s critics voiced their displeasure over his record-breaking State of the Union address, with longtime rival Jimmy Kimmel harping over the speech’s length. Trump spoke to Congress for 108 minutes, breaking the record of 100 minutes he set last year. He had warned previously that the address would be “a long speech because we have so much to talk about.” Kimmel, with newfound resistance laurels over his brief firing over a joke about assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, led the charge. “They do need to hire an orchestra to play him off like the Oscars. At the stroke of 90 minutes, go straight into ‘Y.M.C.A.’ and end it,” Kimmel joked. “The speech went on so long, Kristi Noem’s dog shot itself,” he said at another point. Kimmel also compared Trump’s immigration policies to the Holocaust. “Trump applauded the efforts of a World War II vet who liberated an internment camp, at the same time he is building new ones here in the United States,” he said. Most other criticisms focused on the speech’s length, driven in part by Trump’s repeated awarding of medals to military servicemen and heckling. “Oh yeah, I think we’re all expecting that. You’re incapable of being brief. Even if you were just going to read a haiku, I would expect two intermissions,” late-night host Seth Meyers said. ‘THESE PEOPLE ARE CRAZY’: SIX TAKEAWAYS FROM TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION “Trump told us in advance that the speech was going to be long and, for once, he was telling the truth,” Jimmy Fallon said. The wider reception of Trump’s speech was predictably divided along partisan lines, with Republicans hailing it as a great address that retook framing around messaging, while Democrats decried it as rambling and incoherent.

"third-trimester abortion care, ethics, and patient-centered medicine" The post Texas Tech Cancels Event Organized by Group Promoting Late-Term Abortions first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.