|
mastershakeman posted:It's kind of weird to see the catharsis people in D&D are getting out of 'winning' a SCOTUS opinion. I can see it if that person was receiving subsidies, but it's really just kind of strange. It's almost like the reaction to winning an election, but instead about a document they haven't read or understand. The healthcare stuff has been a huge (and partisan) deal for so long that it makes sense. Also, a lot of people probably know people who benefit from PPACA generally if not the subsidies specifically.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
I'm late on this one but loving lol at the Blarzgh troll thread on Dnd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Warsawaza saving me from myself over in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Warsawaza saving me from myself over in D&D. "And what about where there is only one set of footprints?" "That, my son, is where I carried water for you." But seriously if you do a Ronson thread it will be a hilarious shitshow. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I really want to go argue that racism isn't bad in that thread but I'll just get probated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Well, as far as the subsidies are concerned, this decision certainly makes my job easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:"And what about where there is only one set of footprints?" I ordered "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I ordered "So You've Been Publicly Shamed." Can't wait. This poo poo. That ice cold. Michelle Pffeifer. That white gold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
A judge just blatantly misinterpreted a recent case in a way that's entirely in my favor, to a degree I wasn't even arguing since she's so wrong. But winning feels great
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:This poo poo. That ice cold. You're out of control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I don't understand this thread at all lately
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:A judge just blatantly misinterpreted a recent case in a way that's entirely in my favor, to a degree I wasn't even arguing since she's so wrong. But winning feels great Julio! Get the sheriff! We going to evict some minorities!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm late on this one but loving lol at the Blarzgh troll thread on Dnd. Link?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
blogging enthusiast posted:That seems weird to me (Australia). If trial dates are allocated before the first hearing, what happens to all the cases that are resolved by a plea? What if new expert evidence needs to be obtained, or a complex legal question needs to be determined? Do trials fall over and get adjourned regularly? Our first "hearing" is a meeting between defense attorney and prosecutor. They confer and inform our scheduler if it needs to be set for plea or trial. If the parties reach an acceptable plea bargain during the course of the case, we take the plea. Then the trial can come off the docket. If there's some reason for delay -- say a lab takes a long time with the evidence -- parties are free to seek adjournment. From the court's perspective, having a firm trial date set helps keep the attorneys vaguely accountable for the case. We have a plea cutoff after which the judge won't accept any bargains. So there's a point at which defendants need to decide if they're going to trial or not. We have two things driving our cases that I don't know are necessarily pressures in Australia. We have a constitutional right to a speedy trial that imposes some deadlines on prosecution. We also have oversight from state-level administration, which gives us performance measures we have to satisfy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Link? Here it is. Be warned, it goes from a semi-serious discussion on race and identity in American civil society to a interracial gay porn fantasy pretty quickly. Although that might be the result of blargzh's avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:We have a plea cutoff after which the judge won't accept any bargains. Dang I've never heard of that before, it sounds sort of alarming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 11, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:A judge just blatantly misinterpreted a recent case in a way that's entirely in my favor, to a degree I wasn't even arguing since she's so wrong. But winning feels great Stand by for appellate loss. sullat posted:Although that might be the result of blargzh's avatar. Your welcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
sullat posted:Here it is. Be warned, it goes from a semi-serious discussion on race and identity in American civil society to a interracial gay porn fantasy pretty quickly. Although that might be the result of blargzh's avatar. Its really become this super-meta, mostly-unintentional troll, where I go, "Why can't we talk realistically about whether we should remove the confederate flag without defaulting to 'because it's racist and you're racist'?" and the entire thread in unison responds, "Because its racist and you're racist!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Stand by for appellate loss. Considering the case against me is a recent, horribly written one (overturns the mailbox rule and allows issues to be raised without waiver for the first time at summary judgment, even on a blank answer), I'd welcome it. But appeals don't really matter, as i'm always going to win in the end. The question is how long it takes. Otoh I just had a couple in court that have been in their former house for two years after the final order. No one knows how. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Otoh I just had a couple in court that have been in their former house for two years after the final order. No one knows how. Because "Property Managment" is code for "Pay me $1,200.00 a month to call some lawn guy."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
quote:If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Yeah, the prose was a little over the top. But how do you rule against gay marriage on equal protection grounds when a fuckton of cases say marriage is a fundamental right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Elotana posted:so loving tasty lol came here to post this and also this: Scalia posted:The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Scalia is apparently sleeping on the couch tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
I think the state court opinions that did it on equal protection grounds are probably better opinions overall, but who cares in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
What is this strange feeling I have about the Supreme Court. It's like the opposite of shame. Is there a word for this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
lol at Scalia saying gays shouldn't be able to get married because being married sucks. el oh el
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
lol at Scalia calling someone else pretentious and egotistic
mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Still more reasoned than Alito's dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
gently caress yes, client base gets bigger. I am already sponsoring a gay event to advertise. No loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Scalia used the term "tall-building lawyer" which is cool and funnier than "white shoe"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Seems like I need to read Alito's opinion too
mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Scalia used the term "tall-building lawyer" which is cool and funnier than "white shoe" Also makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Scalia used the term "tall-building lawyer" which is cool and funnier than "white shoe" I hope this starts a building dick measuring contest between big firms, assuming one doesn't already exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:I hope this starts a building dick measuring contest between big firms, assuming one doesn't already exist. It exists already for sure. When we do interviews with prospective summers the location, style and accommodations of the office compared to other firms comes up all the time. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yeah, the prose was a little over the top. But how do you rule against gay marriage on equal protection grounds when a fuckton of cases say marriage is a fundamental right. I thought it was decided on due process? And then I saw a Lochner reference and gave up trying to understand what's written because I'm pretty sure that no one, including the justices, knows how all that crap works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm pretty sure that no one, including the justices, knows how [Author'r note: or cares all that much] all that crap works. The fact that every opinion isn't 9-0 is basically proof of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Scalia used the term "tall-building lawyer" which is cool and funnier than "white shoe" It's my favorite phrase to gently caress with out of town attorneys. Always a good way to set the tone: "So, you one of them tall-building lawyers?" Way better than white shoe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Roberts makes a reasonable sounding appeal to judicial restraint that I happen to disagree with, but holy poo poo, Scalia. Preach it, you crazy bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:48
|
|
