And if you actually read the case, the reason they refused to certify is that statistical evidence of disproportionate hiring and advancement is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore FRCP 23(b)(2) doesn't apply.
I can't tell if you're a troll or a retard. There are no criminal anti-discrimination statutes, and under no statutory scheme has statistical evidence ever been successfully used to prove discrimination. See, eg, the recent sex discrimination case against walmart, which the US Supreme Court shot down hard because a prima facie case for discrimination requires showing *intent*.
I'm a law student. This is exactly what we learn in first-year property law. Nobody actually owns any land, they own an *estate* in land. The distinction is crucial and GP is right that we eliminated the fee tail and now only have the fee simple and fee simple determinable (in its myriad forms).
The US government actually owns the land, which it received from the Crown at the conclusion of the revolutionary war. The Crown actually purchased most of this territory from the Indian tribes, and stole or conquered the rest from the French.
That memos shows the FBI lying on a probable cause affidavit, to a secret court, to get a warrant for nearly godlike power to spy on a member of an anti-establishment political campaign.
This undermines the credibility of any other evidence that may have been presented in the affidavit, and it's exactly the kind of behavior liberals were rightly screaming about during the Bush era, when conservatives were saying "you can't prove that the court's a rubber-stamp."
But now that it's Trump who's in the FBI's sights, suddenly this horrendous abuse of power is ok? Get the fuck outta here.
That's nice, except it doesn't work. A government that does that and *only* that fails pretty quickly, not least because *deciding the enforceability of contracts* is a much more important function than enforcing them. I don't agree with the way we shifted constitutional jurisprudence to save the country in the thirties, but you'd be daft to think the country didn't need saving, and the reason it needed saving is because our government rather more closely mirrored exactly what you would propose.
And you can shove your ad hominem up your ass, you fucking neckbeard.
Yes, absolutely I'd like the government to use its authority to collect a portion of the benefit from the capital class to support the working class they depend on. What the fuck good is government for if not ensuring that the cleverness of a few doesn't enable them to subjugate everyone else?
If you're going to advocate chucking a feature of the system, you should have a replacement for it, and be able to articulate why the replacement is better than what exists now. We have every indication that constant focus on the four-year circus distracts people from paying attention the people who do the *most* to affect their lives: state and local representatives. Having a direct popular vote for president will exacerbate that problem. We'd be far better off we went back to having the legislature select the president.
You do realize that none of these "babies" is viable and will die in the hospital, if not before, right? This literally just exposes doctors to liability for not wasting money on transporting a doomed organism.
But of course you and everyone who supports this bill knows that, because the point is not to improve or save lives, but to attack abortion rights.
I haven't smoked regularly for years but I've only just kicked my nicotine habit in August (knock on wood, hopefully for good). Quitting nicotine was the hardest thing I've ever done, full stop. It's addictive.
As another AC points out, you're both wrong and needlessly pedantic. Democracy literally means "rule by the people," and while voting, universal suffrage, and direct election are often features of a democratic form of government, they are not of themselves either necessary or sufficient conditions. A republic such as ours is, when functioning, a democracy.
There is however the law of nuisance. The fact that an activity you've engaged in hasn't been made criminal doesn't absolve you of liability for the damage it causes to the property of others. I thought all you libertarians understood this.
What GP meant, essentially, is that you have the natural right to listen to any music you want. We have created a *legal* right in the creators of artistic works to control distribution and enjoyment of those works for a limited time in order to promote their creation.
This is the view with which copyright was created and is how it's taught in first year property classes in law school. You've been around here long enough to have been exposed to this already; shame on you for trolling.
What Libertarians and other people like alvinrod generally fail to realize or accept is that their notion of "rights" as things exclusively based on non-interference with/from others is not founded in any legal, religious, or philosophical tradition, but was invented in American largely to support consumerism.
Even property is a set of rights that only describe the "relationship of people to one another with respect to things," and many of these are simply created by the government.
This. I moved to NYC in my mid-twenties and even with the cost-of-living increase I have more disposable money, more free time, and more amenities than I did living in the southwest.
Nothing you said is relevant to GP's point, which is that Russia is not his, or our, adversary. It might be a shitty place to live, in which case their government is an adversary of their people, but that doesn't make it *our* adversary. The only people who think Russia is a threat to the US are the people who think the US should be trying to control the whole damned world, and if you're one of them, then you're *my* adversary and I'm glad that you've been squirming since November.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you actually read the case, the reason they refused to certify is that statistical evidence of disproportionate hiring and advancement is insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore FRCP 23(b)(2) doesn't apply.
I can't tell if you're a troll or a retard. There are no criminal anti-discrimination statutes, and under no statutory scheme has statistical evidence ever been successfully used to prove discrimination. See, eg, the recent sex discrimination case against walmart, which the US Supreme Court shot down hard because a prima facie case for discrimination requires showing *intent*.
I'm a law student. This is exactly what we learn in first-year property law. Nobody actually owns any land, they own an *estate* in land. The distinction is crucial and GP is right that we eliminated the fee tail and now only have the fee simple and fee simple determinable (in its myriad forms).
The US government actually owns the land, which it received from the Crown at the conclusion of the revolutionary war. The Crown actually purchased most of this territory from the Indian tribes, and stole or conquered the rest from the French.
*Note that a material omission of fact is a lie.
That memos shows the FBI lying on a probable cause affidavit, to a secret court, to get a warrant for nearly godlike power to spy on a member of an anti-establishment political campaign.
This undermines the credibility of any other evidence that may have been presented in the affidavit, and it's exactly the kind of behavior liberals were rightly screaming about during the Bush era, when conservatives were saying "you can't prove that the court's a rubber-stamp."
But now that it's Trump who's in the FBI's sights, suddenly this horrendous abuse of power is ok? Get the fuck outta here.
Whoooooosh
Just nicotine. I chewed the gum for about a decade.
That's nice, except it doesn't work. A government that does that and *only* that fails pretty quickly, not least because *deciding the enforceability of contracts* is a much more important function than enforcing them. I don't agree with the way we shifted constitutional jurisprudence to save the country in the thirties, but you'd be daft to think the country didn't need saving, and the reason it needed saving is because our government rather more closely mirrored exactly what you would propose. And you can shove your ad hominem up your ass, you fucking neckbeard.
Yes, absolutely I'd like the government to use its authority to collect a portion of the benefit from the capital class to support the working class they depend on. What the fuck good is government for if not ensuring that the cleverness of a few doesn't enable them to subjugate everyone else?
If you're going to advocate chucking a feature of the system, you should have a replacement for it, and be able to articulate why the replacement is better than what exists now. We have every indication that constant focus on the four-year circus distracts people from paying attention the people who do the *most* to affect their lives: state and local representatives. Having a direct popular vote for president will exacerbate that problem. We'd be far better off we went back to having the legislature select the president.
You do realize that none of these "babies" is viable and will die in the hospital, if not before, right? This literally just exposes doctors to liability for not wasting money on transporting a doomed organism.
But of course you and everyone who supports this bill knows that, because the point is not to improve or save lives, but to attack abortion rights.
I haven't smoked regularly for years but I've only just kicked my nicotine habit in August (knock on wood, hopefully for good). Quitting nicotine was the hardest thing I've ever done, full stop. It's addictive.
Most of the country you can't smoke in bars any more, is my guess. Last time I was able to smoke indoors was about ten years ago, in New Mexico.
As another AC points out, you're both wrong and needlessly pedantic. Democracy literally means "rule by the people," and while voting, universal suffrage, and direct election are often features of a democratic form of government, they are not of themselves either necessary or sufficient conditions. A republic such as ours is, when functioning, a democracy.
If you've had your satellites taken out and you need to do recon to know what to do about it you've already lost.
There is however the law of nuisance. The fact that an activity you've engaged in hasn't been made criminal doesn't absolve you of liability for the damage it causes to the property of others. I thought all you libertarians understood this.
What GP meant, essentially, is that you have the natural right to listen to any music you want. We have created a *legal* right in the creators of artistic works to control distribution and enjoyment of those works for a limited time in order to promote their creation.
This is the view with which copyright was created and is how it's taught in first year property classes in law school. You've been around here long enough to have been exposed to this already; shame on you for trolling.
IANAL, but I am a law student, and parent is correct.
What Libertarians and other people like alvinrod generally fail to realize or accept is that their notion of "rights" as things exclusively based on non-interference with/from others is not founded in any legal, religious, or philosophical tradition, but was invented in American largely to support consumerism. Even property is a set of rights that only describe the "relationship of people to one another with respect to things," and many of these are simply created by the government.
parent is a star wars spoiler please mark troll
That's just straight-up not true. US corporate profits PER QUARTER have been about 2 Trillion dollars for the last four quarters.
Source: https://www.statista.com/stati...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP
Adjusting your math, that's $24,240 per person per year. This paints a fundamentally different picture than that on which you have premised your post.
Why don't you build one? A space that small should have a trivial tax burden, so your money would go even further.
This. I moved to NYC in my mid-twenties and even with the cost-of-living increase I have more disposable money, more free time, and more amenities than I did living in the southwest.
I take it you've never heard of Bollywood.
Nothing you said is relevant to GP's point, which is that Russia is not his, or our, adversary. It might be a shitty place to live, in which case their government is an adversary of their people, but that doesn't make it *our* adversary. The only people who think Russia is a threat to the US are the people who think the US should be trying to control the whole damned world, and if you're one of them, then you're *my* adversary and I'm glad that you've been squirming since November.