|
jetz0r posted:Making things hot drains batteries like crazy, though. And a hub generator will use up your precious watts. So, clearly the answer is to put bars of Plutonium 238 in the handlebars, to keep them warm for decades. two bike riders crash creating a fizzle reaction. all bystanders are dead within 10 days
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:two bike riders crash creating a fizzle reaction. all bystanders are dead within 10 days but are there any downsides?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
duz posted:but are there any downsides? Roads closed for an hour while they clean up
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
duz posted:but are there any downsides? The farmer's market loses part of its clientele and a few shop owners due to the incident. So, nah
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
jetz0r posted:Making things hot drains batteries like crazy, though. And a hub generator will use up your precious watts. So, clearly the answer is to put bars of Plutonium 238 in the handlebars, to keep them warm for decades. It's safe because a screwdriver is holding up the plutonium's cover
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Expand the hand cover to cover the entire body. Of course, with that much added weight you'll need a small engine to help propel along the....
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Expand the hand cover to cover the entire body. Of course, with that much added weight you'll need a small engine to help propel along the.... make it out of a lightweight metal, like aluminium, and add space for 4 people, and room for storage in the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:"Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands because the receiver failed to demonstrate standing"? Why do you think cases are "punted" for standing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I feel that this product would benefit from cloud integration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Why do you think cases are "punted" for standing? As he said the case was going to the ground. It's ridiculous how hard it is to determine what is or isn't standing in this national judiciary branch. ...what were we talking about again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Expand the hand cover to cover the entire body. Of course, with that much added weight you'll need a small engine to help propel along the.... I've noticed those lithium-battery powered jackets and vests are getting more and more popular with construction workers in the winter. I've wondered how these would work for normal folks, since being able to wear what looks like a light jacket during below-freezing weather and just carrying around a battery would be significantly more appealing to me than dealing with a huge winter jacket. V-- I get the joke, but I seriously wonder about these things. Chuu fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Chuu posted:I've noticed those lithium-battery powered jackets and vests are getting more and more popular with construction workers in the winter. I've wondered how these would work for normal folks, since being able to wear what looks like a light jacket during below-freezing weather and just carrying around a battery would be significantly more appealing to me than dealing with a huge winter jacket. My joke was that we were designing a car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I feel that this product would benefit from cloud integration. I assume you mean that it should be able to fly. We'll work that into the design specs and budget accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I feel that this product would benefit from cloud integration. I there was ever a time for a cloud-to-butt word filter script to earn it's keep, it's right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Speaking of standing, is that generally thought to be the way the Court rules on this immigration thing, especially at 4-4? I've read a couple of things suggesting that, but don't know how likely that is or isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Beforehand posted:Speaking of standing, is that generally thought to be the way the Court rules on this immigration thing, especially at 4-4? I've read a couple of things suggesting that, but don't know how likely that is or isn't. IANAL, but the Scalia himself at least claimed to be a fan of seperation of powers. See his opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which (to me, a non-lawyer) seems to invalidate a statute that tried to give a cause of action to citizens to compel the executive to act. Obviously this is a somewhat different situation, but the same separation of powers idea might be involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:IANAL, but the Scalia himself at least claimed to be a fan of seperation of powers. See his opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which (to me, a non-lawyer) seems to invalidate a statute that tried to give a cause of action to citizens to compel the executive to act. Obviously this is a somewhat different situation, but the same separation of powers idea might be involved. Calling dibs on "Desperation of Powers" for a book title. Goddamnit you edited too fast!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:My joke was that we were designing a car. I thought you were referencing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTygajaWaR0&t=140s
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:I assume you mean that it should be able to fly. We'll work that into the design specs and budget accordingly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM Okay, done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I'd like to preface this post and say that a comedy forum may not be the best place to ask for help understanding a case and that my personal view of the decision is probably different than most of you. I also want to point out that if you check my posting history, you'll see very little. However I'm a daily lurker in uspol and ycs and I know that sometimes posters have keen insight. A number of years ago a family member was murdered in Louisiana. The perpetrator was a 16 year old juvenile. He was convicted and sentenced to life without parole. A later appeal on mental state was denied. I think it was considered premeditated. I don't want to dox myself and don't have PM's. Can anyone explain in layman's terms miller v Alabama and Montgomery v Louisiana and reconcile the differences? The rest of my family has no idea about the cases and I'd like to know about the killer's chance of resentencing or parole before I begin to burden them with that information. I've read the scotusblog stuff, but don't really understand it. It seems Miller focused on giving younger non-murderers parole, but Montgomery seems to compell resentencing for all. Can anyone help out? I have near zero legal knowledge. I'm also a busy middle aged man who only gets online once or twice a day, so please be patient with me. I'm aware this post sounds desperate and douchey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
You've pretty much got it. Miller barred imposition of LWOP sentences on minor, period (a prior case, Graham v. Florida, had barred them for non-murder cases). However, the question of retroactivity was left open; as of Miller, all that were barred were new LWOP sentences for minors. Montgomery v. Louisiana addressed the retroactivity question and held that Miller does apply to past minor LWOP sentences, meaning people who were sentenced as minors can now petition for re-sentencing. This is how these things tend to go when the court finds a new right, or new interpretation of an existing right, etc. A series of questions are answered in order of increasing difficulty. These cases are contemporaries of juvenile and mentally disabled death penalty cases that found that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty in those groups. It is very likely that the perpetrator in your case will be re-sentenced. Note that this does not mean he will necessarily get out. Some states (Florida, in particular) have been very aggressive in re-sentencing and gotten LWOP sentences replaced with life with parole sentences. Miller and its line do not require that juveniles *get* parole, just that the opportunity not be completely foreclosed to them. I don't know Louisiana at all, but it's in the Deep South so I assume parole is difficult there. I would also guess that you will be contacted by prosecutors / victim advocates to inform you when these things start moving, because you may well have rights to submit new victim impact statements / oppose parole, etc. http://www.lsp.org/assistance.html That link may have some contact information for people who can give you more detailed information. Might also be worth contacting the DA in the county he was convicted in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:You've pretty much got it. Miller barred imposition of LWOP sentences on minor, period (a prior case, Graham v. Florida, had barred them for non-murder cases). However, the question of retroactivity was left open; as of Miller, all that were barred were new LWOP sentences for minors. Montgomery v. Louisiana addressed the retroactivity question and held that Miller does apply to past minor LWOP sentences, meaning people who were sentenced as minors can now petition for re-sentencing. Thank you for the quick and helpful reply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
So, there's a big immigration case coming up? The SCOTUS thread is on page 2? What's happening?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:So, there's a big immigration case coming up? The SCOTUS thread is on page 2? What's happening? Either it's going to get 4-4ed into the expanded DREAM deferrals being barred until the administration can get a plan reviewed by a friendly court, or Roberts will join with the liberals to punt the case on standing and rule Texas has no right to challenge the deferrals (which would permit the plan to go forward).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
There will be a lot of talk about what Scalia would have wanted on Republican Twitter. Clarence Thomas will ritually offer libations to appease his dark spirit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Either it's going to get 4-4ed into the expanded DREAM deferrals being barred until the administration can get a plan reviewed by a friendly court, or Roberts will join with the liberals to punt the case on standing and rule Texas has no right to challenge the deferrals (which would permit the plan to go forward).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:Thanks, that's actually 100x more concise than the stupid NYT article. For SCOTUS stuff just read SCOTUSblog. The major papers/NPR usually are quite as informative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:There will be a lot of talk about what Scalia would have wanted on Republican Twitter. Clarence Thomas will ritually offer libations to appease his dark spirit. Just watch out for pubes on the edge of those libations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:Thanks, that's actually 100x more concise than the stupid NYT article. Kennedy was pretty silent during arguments, I gather? All the noise is about Roberts and Alito going hard against the Solicitor General. Either way, its not filling with me confidence. As someone who has volunteered with DACA kids, this is a case that I've got a lot riding on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Hopefully he just punts it on standing
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Kennedy was pretty silent during arguments, I gather? All the noise is about Roberts and Alito going hard against the Solicitor General. Either way, its not filling with me confidence. As someone who has volunteered with DACA kids, this is a case that I've got a lot riding on. Supposedly Roberts changed his tune after Kagan handed the Texas SG his head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Supposedly Roberts changed his tune after Kagan handed the Texas SG his head. What'd she do? Scotusblog doesn't seem to mention it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
geegee posted:What'd she do? Scotusblog doesn't seem to mention it. I don't have details, but ThinkProgress's court report was in the courtroom and made it sound like she just took it to his argument, and the chief's tone and questioning was different afterwards
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:There will be a lot of talk about what Scalia would have wanted on Republican Twitter. Clarence Thomas will ritually offer libations to appease his dark spirit. Justice Scalia attempted to reincarnate on petitioners behalf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
I don't know slate's reading of it is pretty downbeat: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ation_plan.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I don't have details, but ThinkProgress's court report was in the courtroom and made it sound like she just took it to his argument, and the chief's tone and questioning was different afterwards http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-674_h3dj.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
After reading the arguments it seems like they'll probably be able to punt on standing since Kennedy could be convinced to join a decision based on that. I don't think he likes DACA/DAPA, but I also think he's not happy with the suit brought by Texas. It was really weird that Verilli couldn't articulate the limits of discretion by the executive branch until Sotomayor stepped in to prompt him with the answer. This case is a mess, though, because of the way immigration has traditionally been handled and Congress generally being incompetent in how it directs the executive to handle immigration. Every argument from the anti-DACA/DAPA side goes against precedent or is just inapplicable. I still don't understand how they even have standing. Even putting aside the argument that the executive would sue if they didn't give licenses, they haven't exhausted their administrative options. The audio isn't out yet, but I'll probably listen to it. It seems like some of the justices are a little exasperated by the mess they're being asked to clean up. There's been decades of haphazard immigration policy held together by actions made at the discretion of the executive under presidents from both sides. Now Texas wants SCOTUS to decide the case without regard for pesky things like "reality." ErIog fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Justice Scalia attempted to reincarnate on petitioners behalf. On a certain day, to uncertain parents, incarnate jowls and star reborn. Neither homosexuality nor age can harm him. The Curse-of-Flesh before him flies. In caverns dark Reagan's eye sees, and makes to shine the jowls and star. A stranger's voice unites the States. The NRA calls him Hortator. A stranger's hand unites the Convention. Focus on the Family calls him Nerevarine. He honors blood of the child unborn. He imprisons the abortionists, and is reborn. His justice punishes the cursed false gods, punishes the broken, punishes the mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
ErIog posted:The audio isn't out yet, but I'll probably listen to it. It seems like some of the justices are a little exasperated by the mess they're being asked to clean up. Really shows how much they dislike the implications of this particular question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 07:45
|
|
