I'd say this is pretty strong evidence he does. This should be both unconstitutional and illegal by all publicly known laws. If it's legal by secret laws that's pretty much the definition of ruling by fiat.
It doesn't even remotely show it. This is NSA business as usual. If the president ruled by Fiat, you'd be seeing the kind of shit that goes on in Libya, Syria, or Somalia.
It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.
I disagree. The decision says it is "identification, like fingerprints." Why is additional identification required when fingerprints are adequate?
It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.
For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.
So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?
~Loyal
Since you quote 2nd place instead of first, your attempt to turn this into a left/right thing is obvious. Your numbers may be the case for the current term. Thomas and Scalia have way more years of history of lockstep. The fact that Thomas never says anything is what adds to this "lockstep" idea. Here is some history from wikipedia:
Voting alignment
On average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had an 86.7% voting alignment, the highest on the Court, followed by Ginsburg and Souter (85.6%).[100] Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate peaked in 1996, at 97.7%.[100] By 2004, however, other pairs of justices were observed to be more closely aligned than Scalia and Thomas.[101]
The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[102] Jan Crawford Greenburg asserts that to some extent, this is true in the other direction as well, that Scalia often joins Thomas instead of Thomas joining Scalia.[103] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[104] Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[105]
Legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote in her book on the Supreme Court that Thomas's forceful views moved "moderates like [Sandra Day O'Connor] further to the left",[106] but frequently attracted votes from Rehnquist and Scalia.[107] Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Toobin both observe that Rehnquist rarely assigned important majority opinions to Thomas, because the latter's views made it difficult for him to persuade a majority of justices to join him.[108]
not according to the dictionary:
: the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound
Since they do no sound the same, and there is no second meaning of the word that is the same as wait, it is not by definition a pun, dipshit
Your own quote says similar in sound, not identical in sound. If you can't hear the similarity of wheat and wait, then you either have a fucked up brain, accent, or just no sense of humor.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals.
There's more than up and down on this issue. Within both up and down there are various types. I apologize for only referring to one specific type.
The point you claim is obvious is in great dispute. And not just among those who are "clueless, emotional, never-took-history."
"Locks" like what is being suggested here is simply another point of failure on a system that is optimized to have as few failure points as possible. No one that knows anything about guns will willingly buy this.
Nice a "no true Scotsman" argument you've got there. Yes, it is another point of failure, but is not "simply another point of failure" - it is also a safety feature, whether you want it or not.
I was well aware as a child that if I touched my father's guns (without his immediate supervision & permission), any injury the guns might cause would pale in comparison with what awaited me when my father found out.
So if you killed yourself, how would he punish you?
The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.
Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.
I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?
Though I gave up watching any sports years ago, football actually has things going on before the ball is snapped: man in motion actually does change play. But Aussie rules football kicks ass on all other sports.
dont you know? unions are only on this earth to promote the obama socialist muslim communist agenda to abort our children and fill our cheese with unhealthy dragon feces.
I'd gladly refuse all Federal Aid and earmarks for my state, as long as I could refuse the taxes as well.
Then the blood sucking parasites of society would pack it off to your state to find a new host.
Oh really? So you don't want any interstate highways there, or help from FEMA, or education funds, or protection from the military?
Slashdot Mirror
+200, Insightful.
Plus the US president doesn't rule by fiat.
I'd say this is pretty strong evidence he does. This should be both unconstitutional and illegal by all publicly known laws. If it's legal by secret laws that's pretty much the definition of ruling by fiat.
It doesn't even remotely show it. This is NSA business as usual. If the president ruled by Fiat, you'd be seeing the kind of shit that goes on in Libya, Syria, or Somalia.
Glad we finally solved that! Can we move on now?
Sure, now that we've solved the easy bits, we can try to figure out what women are really thinking.
Women don't even know what women are really thinking.
And billions of years is still millions of years (just more of them).
Samsung buys Qualcomm and breaks all contracts to supply with Apple.
Hey, dumbass, Samsung hasn't stopped supplying displays to Apple, so why would they break supply contracts from Qualcomm?
Really, we're to the point of whale porn now?
It's a shame that your comment got voted up as informative when it contains so much mis-information.
It was modded informative because the Apple-Bashing Club likes to celebrate anything that makes Apple or Apple products look bad.
It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.
I disagree. The decision says it is "identification, like fingerprints." Why is additional identification required when fingerprints are adequate?
It also means a rare moment where Thomas didn't vote in lockstep with Scalia.
For the October 2010 to June 2011 term the Justices most often agreeing in whole or part were Roberts and Alito at 96%. In second place were Sotomayor and Kagan at 94%. In third and fourth place were Scalia and Roberts, and Kennedy and Roberts at 90%. In fifth and sixth place were Roberts and Thomas, and Thomas and Alito at 89%. In seventh place was Kennedy and Alito at 88%. In eighth and ninth places were Breyer and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan at 87%. In tenth, eleventh and twelfth places were Scalia and Thomas, Scalia and Alito, and Kennedy and Thomas.
So, if voting in lockstep like Thomas and Scalia is bad at 86%, what is it when Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 94% of the time? Is that also lockstep?
~Loyal
Since you quote 2nd place instead of first, your attempt to turn this into a left/right thing is obvious. Your numbers may be the case for the current term. Thomas and Scalia have way more years of history of lockstep. The fact that Thomas never says anything is what adds to this "lockstep" idea. Here is some history from wikipedia:
Voting alignment
On average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had an 86.7% voting alignment, the highest on the Court, followed by Ginsburg and Souter (85.6%).[100] Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate peaked in 1996, at 97.7%.[100] By 2004, however, other pairs of justices were observed to be more closely aligned than Scalia and Thomas.[101]
The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[102] Jan Crawford Greenburg asserts that to some extent, this is true in the other direction as well, that Scalia often joins Thomas instead of Thomas joining Scalia.[103] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[104] Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[105]
Legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote in her book on the Supreme Court that Thomas's forceful views moved "moderates like [Sandra Day O'Connor] further to the left",[106] but frequently attracted votes from Rehnquist and Scalia.[107] Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Toobin both observe that Rehnquist rarely assigned important majority opinions to Thomas, because the latter's views made it difficult for him to persuade a majority of justices to join him.[108]
You are aware that taxes are also used for economic activity, aren't you? Such as building roads and schools?
not according to the dictionary: : the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound Since they do no sound the same, and there is no second meaning of the word that is the same as wait, it is not by definition a pun, dipshit
Your own quote says similar in sound, not identical in sound. If you can't hear the similarity of wheat and wait, then you either have a fucked up brain, accent, or just no sense of humor.
we've got churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses donating and going there with people and supplies without the government.
And yet, you're not turning down the government money?
Way to avoid the point. He attacked your comment "paying taxes is destroying the economy." Instead of defending that, you distract with questions.
0/10. Wheat and wait do not remotely rhyme. Go away, karma whore.
It's called a pun, dipshit.
Whooosh!
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals.
There's more than up and down on this issue. Within both up and down there are various types. I apologize for only referring to one specific type.
The point you claim is obvious is in great dispute. And not just among those who are "clueless, emotional, never-took-history."
Then you haven't thought things through.
"Locks" like what is being suggested here is simply another point of failure on a system that is optimized to have as few failure points as possible. No one that knows anything about guns will willingly buy this.
Nice a "no true Scotsman" argument you've got there. Yes, it is another point of failure, but is not "simply another point of failure" - it is also a safety feature, whether you want it or not.
I was well aware as a child that if I touched my father's guns (without his immediate supervision & permission), any injury the guns might cause would pale in comparison with what awaited me when my father found out.
So if you killed yourself, how would he punish you?
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
So you don't think linebackers running toward the line of scrimmage, timing the snap counts as game play?
The World Series starts after 9PM because much earlier than that and you leave out the west coast TV market. 9PM EST = 6 PM Pacific.
Perhaps I am an oddity, but I find basketball much more annoying to watch than baseball, and football really isn't any better. In terms of continuous action, I would put forth that the NHL is actually the most "gameplay" for the length of a game.
I'm not saying Football and baseball are "equal" in downtime, but if you start adding up the time between a play being declared dead and the actual start of the next play (not men lining up, but when the ball is snapped), I think that the amount of time that is spent not "playing" the game becomes more comparable. Yeah, there's a clock counting down, but what is the actual run-time of a typical football game at this point? 3.5, 4 hours?
Though I gave up watching any sports years ago, football actually has things going on before the ball is snapped: man in motion actually does change play. But Aussie rules football kicks ass on all other sports.
dont you know? unions are only on this earth to promote the obama socialist muslim communist agenda to abort our children and fill our cheese with unhealthy dragon feces.
...and force us to gay marry.
Why not link to their answer as well?
Because that wouldn't help bait the Apple-haters.
I'd gladly refuse all Federal Aid and earmarks for my state, as long as I could refuse the taxes as well. Then the blood sucking parasites of society would pack it off to your state to find a new host.
Oh really? So you don't want any interstate highways there, or help from FEMA, or education funds, or protection from the military?
Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope all turns out okay.