Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42357
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

TwiceHorn last won the day on August 3

TwiceHorn had the most liked content!

Reputation

43668 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've seen stuff over the years that when Trump isn't antagonized or stressed, he can be quite personable. And, of course, Trump has no real political philosophy, so, D, R, L, DSA, Marxist, Communist, Anarchist, makes no damn difference to him at all. They're just labels that can be applied to increase or decrease popularity, which is about all Trump values, other than money, and I guess power, power to make money.
  2. For some background. To get an injunction, a court order to do or not do something, you generally have to prove the following: Likelihood of success on the merits, ie you're going to win at trial, most likely Irreparable harm, something that can't be fixed after the fact, as by an award of damages The public interest The harm of any injunction outweighs the harm of the action enjoined So, when considering a stay of an injunction, an appeals court reviews these things, often focusing mostly on the first two. The last two things tend to kind of merge, except in purely private lawsuits, like say a patent infringement case. When the party is the government, it tends to be rather assumed that what's at issue favors the public interest, that is, that what the government is doing is in the public interest and enjoining the government is not. But the last factor can undo that, as in the case of when the government is attempting something clearly or even marginally unconstitutional. The grant of injunctive relief by a trial court is usually "fact intensive," like Sara Ellis in Chicago finding Bovino and fICE to be full of shit, or in the redistricting case that Texas' motivation was more racial than political. Appeals courts and SCOTUS especially, should defer to the trial court's evaluation of factual issues, like credibility. Thus, the usual way to reverse (on full decision on the merits) or temporarily stay (shadow docket) is to find that the trial court applied the wrong law or misapplied correct law. The shadow docket is almost always reviewing an injunction and applying some form of the above analysis. Two places they have gone horrendously wrong in the pro-Trump orders are: when evaluating likelihood of success, they apply law they think they're going to make, not the law as it stands (and then they get mad at the lower courts for following the law as it stands without ever having given an opinion that changes the law or explains how the new law should be applied) their evaluation of the harm, like Kavanaugh's stops that ignore that people are imprisoned for days, weeks, or months on flimsy and unconstitutional premises From a sort of political science or governing perspective, changes in the law should come slowly or gradually especially when not made by the legislative branch. By doing the above, the Court is making abrupt changes in the law, or permitting the executive to do so, without due consideration for the status quo ante, the way things are, have mostly been, and in most cases should stay that way.
  3. This is an administrative stay, which at least in theory is not based on any evaluation of the decision below. But basically to preserve the status quo for a few days for briefing. But it's unnecessary. Nothing is going to change in three or four days. Motions like this are made to a single justice assigned to the circuit. Lucky us we have Alito. For a significant issue, usually referred to the entire court. A three judge panel for redistricting questions is provided by statute but it seems a party does have to ask for it. Appeal is or may be directly to the Supreme Court.
  4. But cui bono? They have to spend money to make money that is not guaranteed. VT looks to spend an additional $60M for each of the next four years. So they can get a more lucrative TV contract via the ACC? Will their share even exceed the $60M? Right now, the SEC distributes less than that annually to member schools (~$52M). And the money is going to people outside the usual sphere of university concern: coaches, players, building contractors, etc. This doesn't enhance their ability to be a university.
  5. Well, kinda depends on which hole is doing the spewing, for starts.
  6. Nice. I was wrong, sort of, about the holding in Gaither above. In that case, they found the defective indictment to be harmless after discussing prejudice to the defendant. But they also said the prejudice standard was unmanageable and going forward all actual indictments would need to be actually presented to and voted upon by the grand jury. And if they were not, they must be dismissed, regardless of prejudice. So, it looks like this indictment is going bye-bye on this alone. Then there's the question whether the government can bring another one in the six month period provided above.
  7. Govern yourself accordingly, sir.
  8. There was a time I wanted to be an architect, but spoke to a couple of successful ones and realized the prospects might not be that good and that there was both an "artistic" element to it, which I probably lack, and the fact that people have to "like" your work. It's not necessarily good enough to be technically competent and that might even be something of a disadvantage. They steered me toward engineering, correctly, I think.
  9. From UT? The B.Arch. is one of the toughest undergrads at UT. It has most of the technical stuff that engineers take in their first two years (producing a 2/3 attrition rate historically), plus essentially studio art classes where you have to produce drawings, with talent. Very time-consuming and rigorous. Can't speak to other schools. But regardless of school, there is licensure. Anyway, I could kind of maybe understand confining student loans to those degrees likely to enable repayment, but this doesn't seem to be that.
  10. Yeah, Newsweek is weird now. It's not an independent publication really, but more of an aggregator like MSN or Yahoo. Most stuff is "reprinted" from some other site, usually referenced. Somewhat surprisingly, though, I haven't seen it reprint much utter bullshit.
  11. To equate Sark today with UW Sark, you have to pretty uncritically accept all the rumors. Nicole cued me in on her source and info a while back (Loreal being a whore, basically) and I'll admit it's credible enough to be true, but is still unverified as is most of the other shit spewed on this thread.
  12. See, see, even the thread critics make reference to strippers, er, stripped threads. It's twue it's twue.
  13. Kinda with ya there. I ate the shit out of Oscar Meyer bologna as a kid, but also ate Vienna sausages and deviled ham. Now, bologna/mortadella sounds kind of gross to me. I know it's not quite the same and the smoke adds a dimension, but still . . . .
  14. Its pretty close. Closer than anything else you'll find. My jam was the 14 peppered beef. They now use some "ultra premium" variant that has a slight sweet/smoky taste that isn't the same and not as good, IMO. I also don't like the Italian dressing they use quite as much. It's also considerably more expensive. But peppered beef is a bitch to find, so. I really dig "enhanced" beef, corned, pastrami, etc. and NY Sub's original peppered beef, whatever it was, was one of the best I've ever had, to my taste. YMMV.
  15. It is rather astounding that actually somewhat accomplished men like Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick can be such fucking toadies. The Elmos and Bannons and Millers are no real surprise, and the accomplished men of Trump v.1 pretty much are all on record that he's an abject moron and unfit for office. I think this tells you something about billionaires.
×
×
  • Create New...