No, it wasn't. December 11th was when Obama announced that he would be nominating Daschle, that wasn't when the nomination was submitted. It was submitted on the 20th of January and the official records back me up. From: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html
Nomination: PN64-03-111
Date Received: January 20, 2009 (111st Congress)
Nominee: Thomas Andrew Daschle, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Referred to: Senate Finance
Legislative Actions
Committee Action: January 08, 2009 - Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral.
Floor Action: January 20, 2009 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Organization: Department of Health and Human Services
Control Number: 111PN0006403
Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid.
Actually the US case law is inconsistent and have only ruled on the validity specific EULAs not about them in general. There have been cases where EULAs have been ruled enforceable and valid and others to the contrary. So your statement is actually misleading.
I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding.
Also Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17)
So, there you go. And, yes, there are cases where particular EULA has been held up by a court, but contrary to your claim there has been no case law that has ever ruled on EULAs in general in such a definitive manner as you have claim.
But his nomination was submitted to the Senate on the 20th of last month which was AFTER both of those nominees had their scandals come up. Don't you think they would have been smart enough to do some double checking after that point so as to avoid another huge embarrassment? It would seem that if two tax cheats make it through the original vetting process, that I'd be mulling back over the ones I'm about to send out no matter how well I thought they were the first time around.
Well of course not as his official nomination was only submitted to the Senate back on the 20th of January, but that was not what I was talking about when I said "last week".
Obama picked him in Dec. That would be BEFORE Geither's and richardson's debacle.
And his tax scandal just came out 6 days ago on the 30th of last month which would be LAST WEEK just as I said... I know you think you got some big gotcha on me, but you really didn't.
1. After Richardson and Geither were caught with pant's down, Obama's ppl started hard core vetting EVERYONE. The other 2 were suggested before either Richardson or Geither debacles.
You said this before but it's false. See recent and speedy withdrawal of the appointment of Tom Daschle for not paying all of his taxes. That was only last week.
Slashdot Mirror
No. He was sent to the senate on Dec 11th.
No, it wasn't. December 11th was when Obama announced that he would be nominating Daschle, that wasn't when the nomination was submitted. It was submitted on the 20th of January and the official records back me up. From: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html
Nomination: PN64-03-111 Date Received: January 20, 2009 (111st Congress) Nominee: Thomas Andrew Daschle, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Referred to: Senate Finance Legislative Actions Committee Action: January 08, 2009 - Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral. Floor Action: January 20, 2009 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance. Organization: Department of Health and Human Services Control Number: 111PN0006403
Make sure to read the bolded sections.
Yes. The US Legal system believes that they are valid.
Actually the US case law is inconsistent and have only ruled on the validity specific EULAs not about them in general. There have been cases where EULAs have been ruled enforceable and valid and others to the contrary. So your statement is actually misleading.
I know its "common knowledge" on slashdot that they aren't valid, but find one US case that says they aren't valid. There are many that say they are...
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a EULA disclaimer waiving all express and implied warranties, printed on the outside of the box, was not binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology
Also Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17)
So, there you go. And, yes, there are cases where particular EULA has been held up by a court, but contrary to your claim there has been no case law that has ever ruled on EULAs in general in such a definitive manner as you have claim.
Blackjack and hookers.
But his nomination was submitted to the Senate on the 20th of last month which was AFTER both of those nominees had their scandals come up. Don't you think they would have been smart enough to do some double checking after that point so as to avoid another huge embarrassment? It would seem that if two tax cheats make it through the original vetting process, that I'd be mulling back over the ones I'm about to send out no matter how well I thought they were the first time around.
Daschle was not appointed last week.
Well of course not as his official nomination was only submitted to the Senate back on the 20th of January, but that was not what I was talking about when I said "last week".
Obama picked him in Dec. That would be BEFORE Geither's and richardson's debacle.
And his tax scandal just came out 6 days ago on the 30th of last month which would be LAST WEEK just as I said... I know you think you got some big gotcha on me, but you really didn't.
1. After Richardson and Geither were caught with pant's down, Obama's ppl started hard core vetting EVERYONE. The other 2 were suggested before either Richardson or Geither debacles.
You said this before but it's false. See recent and speedy withdrawal of the appointment of Tom Daschle for not paying all of his taxes. That was only last week.
You mean like Tom Daschle?