|
I've always held that the biggest problem with standardized tests is the assumption that 100% of students give a single poo poo about it.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
From the way they're offering it on a city by city basis I would guess they're setting up facilities in individual cities and only serving people in those cities with those specific facilities precisely to avoid any out-of-market issues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The part where they tell him to keep them rather than taking them as evidence? It's like they wanted him to destroy them so they could nail him for that instead.Kalman posted:Because they generally have the burden of not destroying evidence in their possession. Isn't that traditionally used as "you are under investigation, don't destroy anything" and then they actually take the stuff they need when they find it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
The original fish size violation was just a red herring; they (maybe) just wanted to give him an opportunity and motivation to destroy evidence. If we want to get really  about prosecutors going for people and finding crimes later: If their original citation was enough to prove he kept undersized fish, why did they still need the fish afterwards? If it was NOT enough to prove it, how is it enough to prove he ever had more undersized fish than he did upon reaching short? Did they photograph the undersized fish at the time? Or did they just write a ticket for 72 undersized fish when there were only 69 and then claim he had to have tossed the others?Hell, could somebody have miscounted?  
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Considering the fisherman was hauling the rest of his catch into port at the same time, the cost should be negligible. Opportunity cost of cargo space that could've been filled with fish he could legally keep? Regardless, bleating about costs now is just rear end-covering for trying to toss evidence.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I feel like the solution to clinic protesters isn't buffer zones, it's axing all the other bullshit laws against them so they can more easily do things like own fenced parking lots, since excluding protesters from your own private property is way easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
One of my lottery fantasies is rolling up to a random clinic at a random time once a week and donating $largesum per protester to the clinic. Like the quarter guy from the other thread, but with many more digits.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
So would just adding the "this is exempt from RFRA" to the health care act render all this moot? Not that it'll happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
A single act can break multiple laws. The general idea of going for multiple charges is that if they couldn't get murder, they might still get manslaughter, which is easier to prove. Conversely a conviction of murder doesn't preclude a lesser conviction as well. There's also stacking as much poo poo as possible to gain leverage for a plea bargain and probably other reasons I don't even know about
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Having had vote by mail here since before I can remember, it amazes me that some/most states force you to physically go to a place to vote like it's 1862.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Why is Scalia using "pure applesauce" as a negative thing? Applesauce is awesome, and the more pure it is the better it is Probably because screaming THIS IS loving BULLSHIT in a dissent is frowned upon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I for one wouldn't mind all vital government services being federally required to be open 24/7/365 to accommodate every possible person's schedule. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
So are the drugs that companies are refusing to provide known to be actually painless, and the lovely stuff we're stuck with now just isn't? If that's the case, there should be legislative solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:No - anti-death penalty groups are not responsible for using cruel methods to kill somebody. Only the executions are. If they're actively blocking access to the not-cruel methods, then they are entirely responsible. Let's just require the companies to provide the drugs if they value their access to the US market.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Would any potential appointee even be considered if they weren't at least claiming to be some form of Christian? We're not quite there yet, I'm afraid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Same deity. I stand by my point. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Scalia has released opinions on the same day that interpret the same principles oppositely depending on his opinion on the case
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Maybe they can crib the plot of that one episode of West Wing where they offer the republicans an unopposed pick in exchange for their unopposed pick to take RBG's seat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Ban all advertising of any kind, problem solved.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Can we get a Latin legal concept that means "old rear end judges who can barely work a web browser shouldn't be setting legal precedent regarding computer programming"?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
I have a certain amount of trouble summoning much vitriol about this; if anyone who breaks ranks to confirm is gonna be out on their rear end in the next primary, they are indeed obeying the will of the people they represent, who don't want a democrat-appointed justice to replace a conservative one. It's rather my belief that the problem lies in that a single committee of a tiny fraction of the voting body can bottle up any issue and keep it from a straight up vote on a whim like this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Wasn't RBG originally going to retire in 2016 to make sure a democrat got to nominate her successor? Guessing that went out the window when Scalia died and they went full roadblock.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Interesting. Trump will probably replace her with Sarah Palin when she croaks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
I'm assuming the new head would care more about their own life than a judicial appointment
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
It's not like it went to the floor and the dude failed a straight up vote, it's being blocked by one dude who heads one committee. However, the Senate gets to make their own rules for this poo poo so that he is doing that isn't in violation of anything. The half~ish of the country that vote Republican don't want Scalia's seat shifting left, so nobody's getting voted out over this, and that's the big check on the power of these guys. So here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I still think the argument that "orders to detain 40 people without charge indefinitely are definitely legal orders soldiers will follow, but spending money to release those people from detention is super illegal, and soldiers definitely won't do that" is REALLY weird, but I suspect we won't reach agreement on that. If it's just a matter of spending money being the forbidden act, I bet he could find some nutty british big game hunters who'd foot the relocation expenses to get to hunt those 40 dudes for sport on a private island somewhere, and then everybody wins except the prisoners, but really, how nice are their prospects NOW?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
They were pretty clear that they (claim they) don't think an (almost) outgoing president should be picking a justice (a year away from being) on his way out the door. Everybody knows it's bullshit and they just don't want Scalia's seat shifting left but that's the feedback the president got: "Don't bother, we don't want anybody from you just now." It's a trick they had in their bag to get what they wanted, and it worked. I'm kinda curious if they would've done the same over RBG's seat. Replacing her with Garland would be a net gain for them, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:What're the odds the GOP gets Trump's SCOTUS pick and wait to confirm them on March 16th for a maximum gently caress You to Obama and the Democrats? I'll be amazed if his pick takes 30 days to be rubber stamped unless he puts up somebody unexpected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
It was stated in the conference today that we can expect a nominee within the next week or two, so that day will be here shortly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Of those three, I'd choose the Scalia clone. The others both seem worse, if only a little.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
I think the idea is that once it's done once, the dems will just nuke it again when they have the numbers, so it's effectively gone for good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
He's saving his sister for when rbg dies so he can replace a woman with a woman, duh. It'll be her or Sarah Palin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Holding off and doing it on a HUGE, attention-getting issue (rather than a random appointment) gives them more media and support for their one shot at it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
That's not a verified account and it only has one tweet so who knows.
Javid fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Daily mail.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
So what kind of a stick does a district court have to beat the president with over contempt? Like I get that they can order agencies to stop doing something, but it's not like they can have him arrested.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
It legit wouldn't surprise me if the GOP is just waiting for him to piss off their base good and hard to impeach him and install President Pence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
So if this makes it to the SC after Gorsuch gets confirmed, would he be expected to recuse? Like obviously he can't bail out on every single case that challenged an act of the current unified Republican government, but when the issue is a direct edict from the President who put him on the bench? Is there even precedent for an EO being so thoroughly challenged?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
How is someone found innocent not out of jail like, that day?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
So is Gorsuch in line behind all Trump's other appointees to get a confirmation hearing or is this a separate track?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:57
|
|