Ohio has taken a major step forward for animal protection. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that harming any dog or cat is now a felony, making the state one of the strongest in the nation for safeguarding pets.

The decision ensures harsher penalties for animal cruelty and sends a clear message that violent acts against companion animals will not be tolerated, strengthening enforcement for both local authorities and prosecutors.

Animal rights advocates are hailing this as a landmark ruling that could influence similar legislation in other states.

Bow before Floof supreme!

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is doubling down on her hardline stance, arguing that those convicted of pedophilia should face the death penalty instead of plea deals — a position she has actively pushed through legislation.

In Florida, efforts aligned with this view have already taken shape, with laws expanding the death penalty to include certain child sexual abuse cases, even as they face serious constitutional challenges under longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Luna has been among those advocating for similar approaches more broadly, framing it as a necessary step to deliver justice for victims.

The push has sparked intense national debate — with supporters calling it overdue accountability.

Hurting a stray cat in Ohio is now treated the same as hurting a pet.

In a unanimous ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court confirmed that all cats and dogs — owned or stray — are protected under Goddard’s Law.

The decision came after a man harmed a stray kitten named Igor; his felony conviction was reinstated after being overturned.

Now, anyone who seriously harms a cat or dog in Ohio can face felony charges — no matter who the animal belongs to.

Trump's Birthright Citizenship Scheme implodes after lawyer's jaw-dropping courtroom blunder about Native Americans.

In a stunning exchange at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration's top lawyer, General D. John Sauer, was left grasping for answers when pressed on the logical consequences of the president's proposal to strip birthright citizenship. The courtroom erupted in laughter as the solicitor general struggled to confirm whether Native Americans would be considered citizens under the administration's own legal theory.

The debacle unfolded when Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, asked a simple question to Sauer: under the administration's test for birthright citizenship, are Native Americans born today automatically citizens? The solicitor general's fumbling response revealed the administration had failed to think through the sweeping implications of its radical proposal.

At one point, the government's lawyer conceded that under the administration's own constitutional framework, children of tribal Indians may not be considered birthright citizens - a jaw-dropping admission that sent shockwaves through the courtroom. Gorsuch was forced to essentially rescue the flustered solicitor general from drowning in his own legal quicksand.

The spectacle laid bare the chaos and constitutional crisis that Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship would invite. By unraveling the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for all persons born on U.S. soil, the administration opened a Pandora's Box with no clear stopping point - as evidenced by its own lawyer's inability to definitively state whether Native Americans would qualify.

This disastrous courtroom performance underscores why the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship for over 150 years. The Trump team's reckless theory proved incoherent and dangerously ill-conceived, even in the eyes of a Trump-appointed justice. The administration's humiliation is a powerful rebuke of the president's campaign to redefine who counts as a "real" American.