DanRydell

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1542_ihdk.pdf

Same

I have no idea what discovery was ultimately permitted and what was not. But I do know that summary judgment was denied last fall. And under Article 17, Section 7 of the CBA, summary judgment can only be ruled upon after the conclusion of discovery.

To me it screams, “I don’t really want to play in your second-rate league but if you’ll pay me stupid money to do so, then sure.”

Discovery had already been completed

She couldn’t find a single colleague to introduce the bill for appearances sake?

The Cubs having the second most runs allowed in the NL is an interesting projection. They were 2nd behind the Dodgers in runs allowed last year despite the Darvish and Chatwood disasters. By comparison, Fangraphs predicts 9 NL teams to give up more runs.

Apples to oranges. Nola’s deal buys out arb years.

Unreal. This Duke team is hella fun.

I wonder many Big 12 championships Kansas would have if they didn’t get reffed like Jordan in his prime. Like 4?

Taunting someone by sending them a video of their rape is so many levels of fucked up.

IIRC, it's not actually modeled to predict against the spread but rather to predict win probabilities. I have no idea how well it performs at that (do teams predicted to win a game 70% of the time actually win roughly 70% of the time?) or how it compares to any other model at doing so.

I don't think his model actually knows what the final score is, or even if a team won or lost the game. The only relevance score has in his model is determining whether or not a game is in garbage time.

They shouldn't have put suggested donation prices on the menu. At that point it feels transactional for the customer. If I understand a restaurant is subsidizing free/discounted food for people who can't afford it, I may go in and toss $20 in the jar for a sandwich. But if I'm looking at a menu that says the sandwich is $6.95 and there's an asterisk or fine print saying it's a suggested donation, I'm gonna give you $6.95.

She's basically saying that the fingerprint is as revealing as a passcode in this scenario, which isn't necessarily untrue, but that's not the crux of Fifth Amendment analysis. The Fifth Amendment protects what's in your head. We've shorthanded it to a right against self-incrimination, but the actual text says that a person cannot "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The general concept is that a person should be not be forced into a position where he has only three options, 1) Lie, 2) Incriminate himself, or 3) be in contempt. Being compelled to tell the police your passcode is violative of the Fifth Amendment not because it gives the police access to your phone but because it requires you to reveal the contents of your mind, which, in the case of a phone, can be incriminating because it reveals your ability to access the phone. But if you had the passcode tattooed on your finger, there would be no Fifth Amendment problem with the police typing that passcode into the phone. Choosing to use a fingerprint passcode is effectively tattooing your passcode on your finger. The textbook example is a wall safe that can be opened by a combination lock or a key. The police cannot compel you to tell them the combination. They also cannot compel you to tell them the location of the key. But if the key is in your pocket, they can take the key and use it to open the safe. The first two reveal the contents of your mind; the last does not.

I think there are sound policy arguments to not discourage biometric security by treating them differently but the constitutional arguments are flimsy at best. There's simply nothing testimonial about your fingerprint.

Chief Justices Phillips and Jefferson also spoke out against partisan judicial elections over the last 25-30 years.

It’s a cap on revenues, not rates or appraisals. So if the total county/city/ISD property base increases more than 2.5% in value in a year (whether through new development or just appreciation), they would have to cut tax rates.

Yeah, if not a DL stint, at least requiring them to skip the nest 2-3 games I’d assume. That would be a huge upgrade in the game watching experience.

Texas charter schools are required by state law to do admissions by blind lottery.

Link?

Perhaps, but the topic of the thread is a civil deposition.

The individual player suspensions were already adjudicated by the NCAA. Each either left the school or was suspended for the length of time the NCAA mandated after being suspended pending the NCAA ruling on their eligibility. Now, as a university, I would hope they would expel each student involved. But from an NCAA perspective, the school certainly shouldn’t be punished for suspending the players for the amount of time the NCAA said they should be suspended.

Your principles are fucking idiotic.

Per the NCAA’s findings, the offending student-athletes were all suspended by the school immediately after she came forward. And of course comparisons to other sanctions matter. If 99 people are convicted of shoplifting and get sentenced to 12 months probation and the 100th gets sentenced to 5 years in prison, that’s cause for alarm, even if you think 5 years is an appropriate sentence.