TwiceHorn

Yeah from what I can tell, short of reading the order. in accordance with the auction rules, the Trustee took sealed bids, with an option to do overbidding the following day, which would have been an open-bid style auction. He declined to do that. There were two sealed bids, one from an entity associated with Jones' supplement sales for 3.5M cash and one from the Onion that was less cash and some credit from the plaintiffs. So, the judge needs to figure out why the overbidding round was blown off.

For the record, any of you degenerates comes to me about a shower head, I'm declining representation.

Yeah, it's a matter of institutional competence. Congress lacks the expertise and "agility" to respond to many of the pressures of modern nationhood. Yeah, it's kind of undemocratic, but so is the electoral college, so is the Senate. and so on and so forth.

Yeah, there's probably a good bit of malcontent among immigrants to the US, especially early ones.

I'm like bozo, I'm just laughing at all this shit. My give-a-fuck is now officially broken.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Who in the blue fuck in Texas elected that yankee speaking sumbitch as their congressional representative? Or sheriff or whatever. I demand your Texan cards.

One other thing relating to this whole semaglutide compounding deal. You see a lot about the FDA exempting from various regulations due to shortages, which lets compounders "off the hook" while the shortage exists. What you don't see is much in the way of patent Infringement suits. On the one hand, you might think compounding pharmacies are below pharma's infringement radar, on the other, pharma will basically stop at nothing to preserve exclusivity. And that puts another spin on this. I have been a patent practitioner for 30-plus years and I have never heard of employees "rebelling" because their employer is infringing a patent. Thus, I have never heard of an employee being fired or having a adverse employment action because of protesting patent infringement. Like the FDA stuff, it is illegal or unlawful, if proven, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of unethical.

Prompted by her Dad rhetorically asking "I don't know why I smoke these things."

Apparently a scene from the Tipper Gore era movie "Youth Suicide Fantasy."

Community bathrooms in a coed dorm? That's nasty. During orientation or the honors colloquium, while staying at Jester, I found myself having to take a growler in one of the community/not coed bathrooms. There was jizz running down the inside of the door. Like a lot. One of the fastest shits on record. And I understand girls' bathrooms can be worse.

Al Franken would like a word.

To be fair, if confusion about executive agencies was the only shortcoming of the electorate, we probably wouldn't be in this situation.

Interesting on the unethical. It's illegal or unlawful because of FDA rules and laws. The most fundamental of those is that the FDA must approve medications for safety and efficacy. And that's ok. Secondarily, it must approve most manufacturing facilities for approved drugs. Ok, but we're getting a little further a field here. Where it gets fucky is that FDA also grants periods of post-approval exclusivity independent of the patent laws. That's getting downright dubious. So, as long as you are making "quality" drugs that follow the "recipe" of approved drugs in all material ways, it may be unlawful, but I don't think it's actually unethical in any grand moral sense. Maybe as a violation of pharmacist ethics, of which I am ignorant. But back to your situation, I suspect the illegality is sufficiently unclear (and their position is supported by opinion of counsel), that the whole situation is unfortunately easily characterized in a lawsuit as insubordinate/disgruntled employees rather than retaliatory action.

That's where DoE functions were before 1979. Well, HEW.

Well, the criminal case is not ripe for appeal and will not be until Trump is sentenced. Only then will there be a final judgment subject to appeal. I don't believe there were any interlocutory appeals.

Well, if after granting POTUS, or this POTUS very strong immunity, it will at least be laughably ironic if they start cutting back everyone else's.

Well, the AG normally isn't involved in prosecution, either for or against, other than to approve or disapprove certain prosecutorial decisions. The worry really is that the DOJ is the enforcement arm, mostly civil, for most of the agencies and things like civil and voting rights, etc. and it will therefore do a big fat nothing. Of course, if he runs off all the good "street level" lawyers, we'll have a problem.

Prosecutors (and judges) have very strong (bigly, huuuge) immunity from civil and criminal action. Some of the shit that drove us nuts with Trump is about to prove its worth in the general case. Basically, the fact that the indictment was not dismissed, and the jury convicted, completely isolates them from civil and criminal liability.

In a more rational timeline, those functions of DoE could be reassigned elsewhere in the bureaucracy, as they were prior to 1979. But not in this timeline, I'm afraid.

I'm as depressed about the whole thing as anyone, but the whole mess seems so fucking inevitable in hindsight. I don't care what things you want to try to alter, the result was always going to be this, provided he was reelected. I am particularly disturbed that he won't be forced to take action to terminate the prosecutions.

Sorry that's happening to you and your colleague. The first thing to look at for wrongful termination is any contract of employment, which could include an "employee handbook" or other employment terms that may not constitute or appear to be a contract in the traditional sense. You'd be looking for conditions that curtail their ability to terminate at will or without cause. The other avenue may be that this is a "retaliatory discharge" for bringing to the attention of management that they are engaged in illegal activity. But, usually those require (practically if not strictly legally), the reporting of the activity to authorities, otherwise it can be characterized as an "internal disagreement" and insubordination. In any event, you can be assured that it will be a long, agonizing process to pursue a wrongful termination claim. For more than generalized answers, you'd need to gather the materials you reference and consult with an employment discrimination lawyer.

Popehat is so good.

The only federal crime in the "Cohen prosecution" was an election law violation. Ain't no one getting pretrial detention for that.

In a grotesque way, you are correct. It would be funny as fuck if we weren't talking bout the government of our country. We might hope we're going to find out how little department heads really matter in the grand scheme of things because civil servants do all the real work. But then there's that Schedule F/P2025 thing.