hi did you just quote FRCP 50 w/r/t personal injury/products liability tort? please learn about long arm statutes, jurisdiction and federal courts. most of these lawsuits happen in state courts, not federal courts. you're not learned hand, stop acting like it.
Just one comment: As the child of lower-middle class parents, I hope to be able to provide my children with a better life than I had. You could have just said "The base model only sells well in a luxury market." but instead took a swipe at "daddy" buying his "sorority daughter" a "toy."
Is the jealousy necessary? Your point is perfectly valid. Not every child of wealthy parents is a ditz, and not every wealthy family consists of spendthrifts; plenty of those "sorority girls" in conversation will freely admit, "Yes, I know i'm spoiled, and I'm thankful for it to the extent I can be."
I'm actually thinking that DNF will win *despite* being released -- and two or three successive years. It's too embedded in the culture at this point. How else can you describe the archetype of vaporware? [The obvious justification is that the/real/ DNF, i.e. the one promised since 97, will not have shipped. Even if DNF wins, the spirit of DNF can live on.]
I can see the meme already: "This is what DNF should have been" for new game demos....
yes. OP's point was that no "abstract federal issues" affect people's daily lives. by your logic, "gay marriage" is an abstract federal issue to any straight people -- which means that all the christian conservative/FRC style groups aren't "affected" by it, and therefore shouldn't care.
Actually, people call the 7th circuit "activist" all the time. "Activist" means "we didn't like the ruling."
Grumble. (Disclaimer: I HEART EVANS)
And for some REAL 7th circuit humor, please see:
US V MURPHY 406 F.3d 857 at footnote 1. Muahahhaa.
less fun, but cute: Crue v Aiken 370 F.3d 668;
What's your problem with Massachusetts? The SJC has a good head on its shoulders, the legislature is no group of dummies, and the general populace was smarter than to elect that homophobic, racist, spiteful bitch, instead opting for their first black man, who happens to have his shit together in a big way. Plus we have the first circuit. Oh bruce selya, love him or hate him, you respect him.
Many things are/blatantly/ unconstitutional. Like tasering a suspect on the ground in handcuffs. ["Pain as a compliance technique" is plainly unconstitutional. Lethal force is permitted only under limited circumstances, tennessee v garner. The only reasons you can be frisked during a Terry stop is so that the police can ensure their own safety. Even assuming arguendo that the pre-handcuffing tasering is constitutional, the rationale behind allowing law enforcement to use force -- to PROTECT themselves and others -- breaks down once the subject is HANDCUFFED. The force of additional tasering is in no way shape or form proportionate to any possible risk he could pose. Blatantly unconstitutional.] And now, like a prick, I will quote the man who taught me criminal law (a SCOTUS clerk in his time...) "But it's one of the strange features of the system that unconstitutional tactics often survive quite a long time after it's pretty clear they're unconstitutional." This law was blatantly unconstitutional. Read the goddamn text of it.
Two additional side notes: Did you just question judicial review and then expect anyone to continue reading and take you seriously? I think Marbury is pretty well accepted at this point.... And....The court has specifically noted that there can be manifestly unjust laws that courts may sometimes wrongly uphold. [That doesn't make them any less unjust; it just makes the ju[stic|dg]es a bunch of jerks] See e.g. Walker v. Birmingham.
</rant>
FYI: Legally what this judge did is "judicial activism" -- this is an activist judge, plain and simple. Does that change your impression of this judge? The reason lawyers try to get people off on a technicality is for *your* sake. Miranda, Terry, Apprendi and the like were not exactly good people....
quiet you! soon you'll be talking about the distinction between law and equity, citing neri v retail marine, and joining owen fiss in having an apoplectic fit over the RIAA's tactics. pfft. real legal knowledge on slashdot.;-)
You're talking about legislative voting? From your post, it made it look like you were talking about the franchise. Also, don't take a sassy tone with me about judicial review. You have no clue what my stance is on the matter, and as a matter of fact, you're arguing with the wrong person.
Hi. In the blue states gays have been getting "divorced" for almost two decades. You're confusing courts of law and courts of equity. That's the colossal joke. Marriage has been recognized in the breach, but never in the act.
Not quite sure what the fuck that has to do with voting....
No consent is needed for Terry stops. Legal border crossing requires consent. If you try to cross the border illegally you can be searched without a warrant since you've been apprehended in the midst of a crime. If you honestly care about this issue, go talk to someone that went to law school and have them explain why -- it's way above the level of a slashdot discussion. Either the program is unconstitutional or there will have to be a dramatic re-writing of 4th amendment jurisprudence.
The TSA's searches are consent searches. You consent to be searched. If you do not give consent, they cannot search you. (They may also not allowed you to board the plane.) Since you are in a situation with wiretaps where you don't have the option of NOT consenting (i.e. your only option is to just not use the phone) it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine. I know the distinction seems arcane and technical, but there is a very subtle line in search/seizure doctrine relating to consent searches. Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't withstand legal analysis -- but I understand where you are coming from.
Warrant exceptions are fact-based and intensive and can only be granted on a case-by-case basis after the fact. You cannot create a warrant exception en masse. Have you studied criminal law?
Either they throw Katz and Kylo out the window wholesale or this program is unconstitutional. This is no sui generis dog sniff. Many phone calls are taken from the home -- which has infinitely more privacy protection than a phone booth. It is absolutely impossible to square the constitutionality of this program with the court's 4th amendment jurisprudence. It fails the wal-mart test (kylo) and Katz as well. She doesn't ignore them at all -- I read the entire opinion. They gunned hard for state secrets because they *needed* it.
This is how I feel about the Macbook. I want my 12/13" MBP -- Apple left the 12" PBG4 crowd in the dust. I am a pro-sumer. I'm willing to pay for it, damnit. Here's to dreaming:\
I don't think you've read all my posts. You made EXACTLY my point. Which is why I take rail between NY and BOSTON. But for BOSTON to DC, the rail/bus option is ~8 hours....where the plane is 3. (1.5 in the air - so 3 is a tremendous amount of overhead on each side). Also a few years ago the CSM published amtrak stats, the Northeast corridor is amtrak's only profitable line -- and thus does not exist at the "public expense". It's already faster than driving....
The Acela Express travels at 150 MPH currently. While 200 mph and 300 mph are still "better" you need something substantially faster to be speed-competitive with air. And at what cost? Also in the northeast at least, the rail lines are not exactly conveniently situated for high-speed trains. (Cough Mamaroneck, cough LIRR, cough NJ Transit....and jesus christ metronorth!)
Slashdot Mirror
hi did you just quote FRCP 50 w/r/t personal injury/products liability tort? please learn about long arm statutes, jurisdiction and federal courts. most of these lawsuits happen in state courts, not federal courts. you're not learned hand, stop acting like it.
Just one comment: As the child of lower-middle class parents, I hope to be able to provide my children with a better life than I had. You could have just said "The base model only sells well in a luxury market." but instead took a swipe at "daddy" buying his "sorority daughter" a "toy."
Is the jealousy necessary? Your point is perfectly valid. Not every child of wealthy parents is a ditz, and not every wealthy family consists of spendthrifts; plenty of those "sorority girls" in conversation will freely admit, "Yes, I know i'm spoiled, and I'm thankful for it to the extent I can be."
I'm actually thinking that DNF will win *despite* being released -- and two or three successive years. It's too embedded in the culture at this point. How else can you describe the archetype of vaporware? [The obvious justification is that the /real/ DNF, i.e. the one promised since 97, will not have shipped. Even if DNF wins, the spirit of DNF can live on.]
I can see the meme already: "This is what DNF should have been" for new game demos....
libel and slander are also based in common law. there is a distinction between law and equity. nevermind, this is slashdot.
yes. OP's point was that no "abstract federal issues" affect people's daily lives. by your logic, "gay marriage" is an abstract federal issue to any straight people -- which means that all the christian conservative/FRC style groups aren't "affected" by it, and therefore shouldn't care.
gay marriage impacts my every day life. qed.
I see we've taken a play from the playbook discovered in Seldon's vault on Terminus....
Actually, people call the 7th circuit "activist" all the time. "Activist" means "we didn't like the ruling."
Grumble.
(Disclaimer: I HEART EVANS)
And for some REAL 7th circuit humor, please see: US V MURPHY 406 F.3d 857 at footnote 1. Muahahhaa.
less fun, but cute: Crue v Aiken 370 F.3d 668;
What's your problem with Massachusetts? The SJC has a good head on its shoulders, the legislature is no group of dummies, and the general populace was smarter than to elect that homophobic, racist, spiteful bitch, instead opting for their first black man, who happens to have his shit together in a big way. Plus we have the first circuit. Oh bruce selya, love him or hate him, you respect him.
[Funny you picked California -- oh Ahnuld.....]
Many things are /blatantly/ unconstitutional. Like tasering a suspect on the ground in handcuffs. ["Pain as a compliance technique" is plainly unconstitutional. Lethal force is permitted only under limited circumstances, tennessee v garner. The only reasons you can be frisked during a Terry stop is so that the police can ensure their own safety. Even assuming arguendo that the pre-handcuffing tasering is constitutional, the rationale behind allowing law enforcement to use force -- to PROTECT themselves and others -- breaks down once the subject is HANDCUFFED. The force of additional tasering is in no way shape or form proportionate to any possible risk he could pose. Blatantly unconstitutional.] And now, like a prick, I will quote the man who taught me criminal law (a SCOTUS clerk in his time...) "But it's one of the strange features of the system that unconstitutional tactics often survive quite a long time after it's pretty clear they're unconstitutional." This law was blatantly unconstitutional. Read the goddamn text of it.
Two additional side notes: Did you just question judicial review and then expect anyone to continue reading and take you seriously? I think Marbury is pretty well accepted at this point....
And....The court has specifically noted that there can be manifestly unjust laws that courts may sometimes wrongly uphold. [That doesn't make them any less unjust; it just makes the ju[stic|dg]es a bunch of jerks] See e.g. Walker v. Birmingham. </rant>
FYI: Legally what this judge did is "judicial activism" -- this is an activist judge, plain and simple. Does that change your impression of this judge? The reason lawyers try to get people off on a technicality is for *your* sake. Miranda, Terry, Apprendi and the like were not exactly good people....
Hello Contract of Adhesion.
quiet you! soon you'll be talking about the distinction between law and equity, citing neri v retail marine, and joining owen fiss in having an apoplectic fit over the RIAA's tactics. pfft. real legal knowledge on slashdot. ;-)
-b
Relevant, applicable and correct legal knowledge on slashdot! HE'S A WITCH!!!! BURN HIM!!! HE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT!!!...
...
I got better.
-br
take your thinly veiled mysoginist homophobia and shove it.
go back to battle.net forums where you belong. kthxbye.
Way to forget to use minimal matching. You just obliterated the entire body text. Your first replacement will remove everything from the first/html>
You're talking about legislative voting? From your post, it made it look like you were talking about the franchise. Also, don't take a sassy tone with me about judicial review. You have no clue what my stance is on the matter, and as a matter of fact, you're arguing with the wrong person.
Hi. In the blue states gays have been getting "divorced" for almost two decades. You're confusing courts of law and courts of equity. That's the colossal joke. Marriage has been recognized in the breach, but never in the act.
Not quite sure what the fuck that has to do with voting....
No consent is needed for Terry stops. Legal border crossing requires consent. If you try to cross the border illegally you can be searched without a warrant since you've been apprehended in the midst of a crime. If you honestly care about this issue, go talk to someone that went to law school and have them explain why -- it's way above the level of a slashdot discussion. Either the program is unconstitutional or there will have to be a dramatic re-writing of 4th amendment jurisprudence.
The TSA's searches are consent searches. You consent to be searched. If you do not give consent, they cannot search you. (They may also not allowed you to board the plane.) Since you are in a situation with wiretaps where you don't have the option of NOT consenting (i.e. your only option is to just not use the phone) it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine. I know the distinction seems arcane and technical, but there is a very subtle line in search/seizure doctrine relating to consent searches. Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't withstand legal analysis -- but I understand where you are coming from.
Warrant exceptions are fact-based and intensive and can only be granted on a case-by-case basis after the fact. You cannot create a warrant exception en masse. Have you studied criminal law?
Either they throw Katz and Kylo out the window wholesale or this program is unconstitutional. This is no sui generis dog sniff. Many phone calls are taken from the home -- which has infinitely more privacy protection than a phone booth. It is absolutely impossible to square the constitutionality of this program with the court's 4th amendment jurisprudence. It fails the wal-mart test (kylo) and Katz as well. She doesn't ignore them at all -- I read the entire opinion. They gunned hard for state secrets because they *needed* it.
This is how I feel about the Macbook. I want my 12/13" MBP -- Apple left the 12" PBG4 crowd in the dust. I am a pro-sumer. I'm willing to pay for it, damnit. Here's to dreaming :\
I don't think you've read all my posts. You made EXACTLY my point. Which is why I take rail between NY and BOSTON. But for BOSTON to DC, the rail/bus option is ~8 hours....where the plane is 3. (1.5 in the air - so 3 is a tremendous amount of overhead on each side).
Also a few years ago the CSM published amtrak stats, the Northeast corridor is amtrak's only profitable line -- and thus does not exist at the "public expense". It's already faster than driving....
The Acela Express travels at 150 MPH currently. While 200 mph and 300 mph are still "better" you need something substantially faster to be speed-competitive with air. And at what cost? Also in the northeast at least, the rail lines are not exactly conveniently situated for high-speed trains. (Cough Mamaroneck, cough LIRR, cough NJ Transit....and jesus christ metronorth!)