|
Avenging_Mikon posted:You have a point, but you were bad at expressing it. I didn't realize that was your point for most of the argument and I think a recap or restatement of your points may help you in the future. I recapped and restated my point several times after green crayons initially misinterpreted it. I recognize that in my being flippant I might have assumed my point was more obvious then it was (especially since as I previously stated I misremembered the border search exception as being an exceptionally typical example of that concept). But at this point I've restated it enough I'm not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Oi. gently caress you, NC! On a 4-4 tie, the injunction against effing up voters was not stayed. Thank you for the lovely present, Justice Scalia. http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/294003-supreme-court-blocks-north-carolina-voter-id-law
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Oi. gently caress you, NC! On a 4-4 tie, the injunction against effing up voters was not stayed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Scalia died so that justice may live.  e: And in a move that will surely surprise everyone, Thomas was the only one of the 4 conservatives who would've allowed all and not just some of the blocked provisions to go forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Lets say Clinton wins. I don't know if there is an O/U for Garland's confirmation, but if it was 3.5 days after the election I would take the under.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Lets say Clinton wins. I don't know if there is an O/U for Garland's confirmation, but if it was 3.5 days after the election I would take the under. Grassley was laying the PR groundwork for a lame duck confirmation the other day
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
I figure November 8th for committee confirmation and a floor vote on the 9th that is almost unanimous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
No chance red-state senators will try to hold out for the next eight years?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
I guess the only real question is how much Reid rubs McConnell and Grassley's face in it when it happens. That's probably going to depend on if the Democrats take the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:No chance red-state senators will try to hold out for the next eight years? Zero. Literally zero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I guess the only real question is how much Reid rubs McConnell and Grassley's face in it when it happens. That's probably going to depend on if the Democrats take the Senate. Unfortunately we will no longer have Harry Reid mocking turtles in the Senate. He's retiring and we're stuck with Chuck Schumer as the leader of the Senate Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:No chance red-state senators will try to hold out for the next eight years? The reason they haven't even started the nomination process is because they know it would easily pass. It's not something one or only a few senators can stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
duz posted:The reason they haven't even started the nomination process is because they know it would easily pass. It's not something one or only a few senators can stop. Yeah if they actually had a floor vote today I would venture that Garland would get a majority easily. He's already been unanimously approved once before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
duz posted:The reason they haven't even started the nomination process is because they know it would easily pass. It's not something one or only a few senators can stop. If the GOP holds the senate Garland (or anybody else in the judicial branch) isn't getting confirmed for another 4 to 8 years, or a generation depending on how the chips fall. The only way that the GOP lets a liberal justice through is if the supreme court and federal judicial system dwindles down small enough to effect their donors, and even then they will find some way to turn it back around on the dems. Decorum in American politics is loving dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:If the GOP holds the senate Garland (or anybody else in the judicial branch) isn't getting confirmed for another 4 to 8 years, or a generation depending on how the chips fall. The only way that the GOP lets a liberal justice through is if the supreme court and federal judicial system dwindles down small enough to effect their donors, and even then they will find some way to turn it back around on the dems. Decorum in American politics is loving dead. If Hillary is elected but the GOP holds the Senate and it looks like they will seriously try to block all SCOTUS nominations for her entire term, then recess appointments will definitely happen, and I also wouldn't be surprised to see her administration try some sort of nuclear option. Or SCOTUS itself will start to pressure the Senate out of fear of becoming completely paralyzed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Zero. Literally zero. GOP has their current candidate. We're in a post-sanity world. I'd give it at least 1%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
John Dough posted:If Hillary is elected but the GOP holds the Senate and it looks like they will seriously try to block all SCOTUS nominations for her entire term, then recess appointments will definitely happen, and I also wouldn't be surprised to see her administration try some sort of nuclear option. I look forward to another 4-8 years of, "We're not technically in recess!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:I look forward to another 4-8 years of, "We're not technically in recess!" Other than the part where it continues collapsing the government's ability to function, I would get some giggles out of Ted Cruz living in a sleeping bag on the Senate floor for eight years. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
She can recess appoint people every two years at the beginning of the Senate's new term though? At least that's what I heard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:I look forward to another 4-8 years of, "We're not technically in recess!" SCOTUS hears this argument, says “yes you are”. Torrannor posted:She can recess appoint people every two years at the beginning of the Senate's new term though? At least that's what I heard. They only last till the end of the Senate’s current session, though, which is generally the calendar year (but of course the Senate could try to say “hurr durr we had a one‐day session, appointment over”).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:If the GOP holds the senate Garland (or anybody else in the judicial branch) isn't getting confirmed for another 4 to 8 years, or a generation depending on how the chips fall. The only way that the GOP lets a liberal justice through is if the supreme court and federal judicial system dwindles down small enough to effect their donors, and even then they will find some way to turn it back around on the dems. Decorum in American politics is loving dead. That would be the end of the Supreme Court - and a potentially unprecedented constitutional crisis. In eight years half the current Court could very well be dead or retired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Scalia died so that justice may live. Dude stands by his completely insane principles. I love him as long as he's on a liberal court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That would be the end of the Supreme Court - and a potentially unprecedented constitutional crisis. In eight years half the current Court could very well be dead or retired. Except didn't congress pass a law saying there has to be at least six sitting members? Wonder how that'd work out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:If the GOP holds the senate Garland (or anybody else in the judicial branch) isn't getting confirmed for another 4 to 8 years, or a generation depending on how the chips fall. The only way that the GOP lets a liberal justice through is if the supreme court and federal judicial system dwindles down small enough to effect their donors, and even then they will find some way to turn it back around on the dems. Decorum in American politics is loving dead. Hilary can and will make annual recess appointments if that happens. Alternately, she could try to go the "the GOP has decided to do nothing therefore they have no objection to these appointments" route and make them pick a fight in front of the SCOTUS itself. Platystemon posted:SCOTUS hears this argument, says “yes you are”. She would say that she immediately re-appoints the person. It's a slapfight they'd have a hard time winning because if they're officially recessed, even with single day sessions, the SCOTUS would still rule in Clinton's favor. Obama only lost his challenge because he was basically claiming authority to decide when Congress is in recess. If the GOP were to gently caress around to this extent in the Senate they'd risk Roberts (and probably others) throwing up their hands in disgust and publicly admonish the GOP, though whether Roberts would be willing to rule in Clinton's favor just to ensure the country doesn't collapse when he had a chance to prevent catastrophe is another matter. duz posted:Except didn't congress pass a law saying there has to be at least six sitting members? Wonder how that'd work out. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine. The limit of 6 was an earlier act and considering the GOP gives no fucks about the most recent Judiciary Act I'm going to go out on a limb and say they won't care about the first one either. What's happening with Garland is an insanely nake power grab by the GOP and the kind of thing their beloved Founding Fathers would've, if they're lucky, demanded pistols at dawn in response to. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
duz posted:Except didn't congress pass a law saying there has to be at least six sitting members? Wonder how that'd work out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Other than the part where it continues collapsing the government's ability to function, I would get some giggles out of Ted Cruz living in a sleeping bag on the Senate floor for eight years. It would be funny until you realize the sleeping bag is made of flesh and has a digestive tract.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It would be funny until you realize the sleeping bag is made of flesh and has a digestive tract. Also Ted Cruz wouldn't sleep in the bag, just his victims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Also Ted Cruz wouldn't sleep in the bag, just his victims. He burrows into his victims and then lays eggs. Pretty sure he sleeps elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:He burrows into his victims and then lays eggs. Pretty sure he sleeps elsewhere. That is impossible because he is a real live Human Being and all us Humans know you don't lay your eggs in your victims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Dameius posted:That is impossible because he is a real live Human Being and all us Humans know you don't lay your eggs in your victims. Every election that goes by without a revival of Smith Comma John, Human Being For President disappoints me that much more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:If the GOP holds the senate Garland (or anybody else in the judicial branch) isn't getting confirmed for another 4 to 8 years, or a generation depending on how the chips fall. The only way that the GOP lets a liberal justice through is if the supreme court and federal judicial system dwindles down small enough to effect their donors, and even then they will find some way to turn it back around on the dems. Decorum in American politics is loving dead. If he's not nominated in the next 4-8 years I think he probably isn't getting nominated period. He would be 71 years old, there would be very little point to appointing a justice who only has about a decade of statistical life expectancy left. Frankly he's somewhat on the old side even now. Not disqualifyingly so, but he's a fair bit older than Kagan and Sotomayor when they were nominated, as one aspect of the compromise Obama and Clinton are trying to make to get a nomination through. Not that that's working particularly well, but Clinton still thinks he's the pick to make, so... Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
I just got off the horn with Sen. Charles Grassley and I asked him about the SCOTUS vacancy. On August 30, Sen. Grassley answered a question at a Sioux City, IA Q&A regarding holding a confirmation hearing for Garland should Clinton win the Presidency thusly: Sen Chuck Grassley posted:I, myself, could not do that, based upon the letter that we sent, that the new president should make the appointment. And 52 senators, a majority of the Senate, right of that same position. If we have the election, and there was a majority of the Senate changed their mind about doing it in the lame duck, as opposed to January 20, I don’t feel that I could stand in the way of that. But I don’t think I can promote that idea. So I asked, "Late last month at a q&a in Sioux City, you mentioned the possibility of holding hearings for the Supreme Court vacancy prior to January if the Democratic nominee is elected and the majority of senators wanted to hold the hearings. Previously you cited Senate tradition that no vacancies should be filled during the final year of a president's term. Can you layout your rationale for" (and I got cut off here), and he says: Sen Chuck Grassley posted:You know what, I get myself into more trouble than I need to get myself into. I have not changed my view. We wrote a letter on February 23 and 11 members of the committee signed it that saying that people should have a voice and the new president should make a decision. My position hasn’t changed, but in the - your question is legitimate, because you could draw the conclusion your question implies. But what people in the audience asked me to do was speculate, so I started speculating and then in turn people drew conclusions, and those conclusions should not have been drawn, and I shouldn’t have been speculating in the first place, so I apologize. So there's where we are according to the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
That sure is a quote full of weaseling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:That sure is a quote full of weaseling. Honestly, it's a quote saying "I'm not answering that question because who actually answers questions these days".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if there's a better thread for this, but does anyone know if there is an established standard for what constitutes criminal insider trading, and if so, what cases it's based on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm not really sure if there's a better thread for this, but does anyone know if there is an established standard for what constitutes criminal insider trading, and if so, what cases it's based on? It's based on a lot of cases, many of which are summarized in the case SEC v. Cuban, 620 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2010), linked below. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=%22insider+trading%22+cuban&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003&case=16539993929379251651&scilh=0 To be clear, that looks like the civil flavor, but it gives the major theories and citations. EDIT: criminal flavor requires a wilful violation, summarized by the Second circuit here in U.S. v. Kaiser. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...9593847&scilh=0 ulmont fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:It's based on a lot of cases, many of which are summarized in the case SEC v. Cuban, 620 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2010), linked below. Thanks. Appreciate this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
A whole bunch of cases were granted cert today, including Lee v. Tam (The Slants) which will likely have a direct effect on the Redskins trademark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:A whole bunch of cases were granted cert today, including Lee v. Tam (The Slants) which will likely have a direct effect on the Redskins trademark. The WFT has asked for consolidation of their case with Lee v Tam and filed an amicus, so safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
What's the capsule summary there, whether Slants/Redskins is too common a word or is it about slurs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:19
|
|