If she had acknowledged that she was changing her view that punishing people for being white could only be done where there exists a compelling governmental interest and with the least restrictive means, ie "strict scrutiny" (Adarand), then you might be able to excuse her.
Instead, in Bollinger, she states that she's applying strict scrutiny, then she applies an ordinary scrutiny test.
It's just bad jurisprudence. As I said, good riddance.
The Internets are a strategic resource of the United States. As an American, it would be swell if France just gave away its wine, South Africa its diamonds, or Saudi Arabia its oil. However, the Internets are ours. If you don't like it, compete with us and create your own, but don't whine that we won't just give it away.
We are in the midst of converting from Exchange to Outlook and I would suggest that the reason for the varying opinions lies in the different email servers. Exchange/Outlook with BB worked pretty smoothly, Domino/Notes with BB has been a pain.
First, since this company isn't an actual customer my guess is that their suit will be thrown out for lack of standing.
However, there is a valid issue here. I would guess that Google is responsible for two things. 1 Notifying customers when they detected a non-trivial amount of fraud. 2 To make a good faith effort to combat this fraud.
Failure to perform either of these could open up Google to some amount of liability.
What you are really complaining about is that she is not a rigid ideological zealot
No. I am not complaining about anything. I am merely pointing out that on at least one major issue, affirmative action, she has made completely contradictory arguments just a few years apart. I think that justifies the moniker "waffler".
Come on. I was trying to provide a handy reference for those who don't follow the opinions of the Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, O'Connor is without a doubt a waffler. Look at her language in the affirmative action cases. She has no problem with making totally contradictory arguments just a few years apart. But I'm sure you're aware of this.
Clinton took away the saftey (sic) net that many people relied on for food.
If your statement was true then people would be starving to death. I challenge you to produce a single news account of someone who has starved to death because of poverty.
Furthermore your post reeks of self-contradiction. You condemn Clinton for reducing Welfare, and then you state that your ideal system would be an armed survival of the fittest contest. You come off as a terribly unbalanced person.
Slashdot Mirror
She's the Boss applesauce!
Another Sore Loserman.
Perhaps you should try reading the opinions?
If she had acknowledged that she was changing her view that punishing people for being white could only be done where there exists a compelling governmental interest and with the least restrictive means, ie "strict scrutiny" (Adarand), then you might be able to excuse her.
Instead, in Bollinger, she states that she's applying strict scrutiny, then she applies an ordinary scrutiny test.
It's just bad jurisprudence. As I said, good riddance.
The woman was senile. Read her opinions on the affirmative action cases and see her do a total flip-flop within a few years.
The Internets are a strategic resource of the United States. As an American, it would be swell if France just gave away its wine, South Africa its diamonds, or Saudi Arabia its oil. However, the Internets are ours. If you don't like it, compete with us and create your own, but don't whine that we won't just give it away.
I'm sure if OBL regularly seeded jihad material it would be much easier to find him.
At least until the new Swedish law goes into effect tomorrow.
We are in the midst of converting from Exchange to Outlook and I would suggest that the reason for the varying opinions lies in the different email servers. Exchange/Outlook with BB worked pretty smoothly, Domino/Notes with BB has been a pain.
First, since this company isn't an actual customer my guess is that their suit will be thrown out for lack of standing.
However, there is a valid issue here. I would guess that Google is responsible for two things. 1 Notifying customers when they detected a non-trivial amount of fraud. 2 To make a good faith effort to combat this fraud.
Failure to perform either of these could open up Google to some amount of liability.
Other than a few Europeons and the fruits and nuts of California, does anyone take this group of Luddites seriously?
The most important one is what was it like to kiss Ensign Robin Leffler, aka Ashley Judd?
I'd say keep the firewall software off of your Server. Get a decent hardware one from Checkpoint.
What you are really complaining about is that she is not a rigid ideological zealot
No. I am not complaining about anything. I am merely pointing out that on at least one major issue, affirmative action, she has made completely contradictory arguments just a few years apart. I think that justifies the moniker "waffler".
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
That would be much cooler.
Boobies!
your myopic and simplistic world
Come on. I was trying to provide a handy reference for those who don't follow the opinions of the Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, O'Connor is without a doubt a waffler. Look at her language in the affirmative action cases. She has no problem with making totally contradictory arguments just a few years apart. But I'm sure you're aware of this.
Clinton took away the saftey (sic) net that many people relied on for food.
If your statement was true then people would be starving to death. I challenge you to produce a single news account of someone who has starved to death because of poverty.
Furthermore your post reeks of self-contradiction. You condemn Clinton for reducing Welfare, and then you state that your ideal system would be an armed survival of the fittest contest. You come off as a terribly unbalanced person.
Stevens - Liberal
Ginsburg - Liberal
Breyer - Liberal
Souter - Liberal
O'Connor - Waffler
Kennedy - Waffler
Rehnquist - Conservative
Thomas - Conservative
Scalia - Conservative
Generally speaking, of course. YMMV on particular issues.
All of the momentum and best coders are behind OpenOffice. Does the market really need a KO?
Does anyone else see the problem with this basis for comparison?
It's a discussion of political leanings, so a usefull reference point would be the average politician.
As opposed to: Run to campsite, wait for X to spaw, kill X, take X's weapon, clothing, head to Y. Get experience?
I'm a KS resident so I called Brownback. His intern said they were getting flooded. Good news.
I'd like to contact my Senator with something more personal than a form letter and I'd like to know who is introducing it.
Might I suggest All About Radiation
by L. Ron Hubbard