Jump to content

Gatorubet

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    15911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Gatorubet

  1. Dammit seven, all those other people aren’t you. And RD here! Everybody thought RD was brain damaged. I appreciate your confidence in your doctor, but why not order a “I fuck for stem cells” T-shirt, and start calling up the MDA’s and Sloan Kettering and such and see if there’s anything else. I’m sure your doc is great, but the last thing you gotta worry about is whether your doctor is offended by you getting a second or third opinion. You seem to keep head shaking off that pitch, but it’s just as likely that you’ve investigated it to granular dust. If so, please forgive my ignorant butt. Still, you’ll never know if there is a study targeting that rare genetic condition with the side effect of increasing penis size unless you really beat the bushes. Might not be one this month. Might be one next month You are not in this alone, Buddy
  2. Bear cub tartare out front shoulda told ya…
  3. i’m not sure how many storm shadow and flamingo missiles they have, but now would be a good time to fire 75% of them at every energy producing facility Russia has. Russians don’t care how many troops die. They only care about their own needs. Let’s fuck with their needs.
  4. Alito and Justice Gorsuch going after Neal as best they can. Basically, who gives a shit - they were never gonna side with him anyway. They are dredging up conservative think tank amicus brief points that the government never adopted in any of their briefs. In sum, Katyal essentially agrees that Congress could have given specific tariff power to presidents in limited circumstances for limited periods of time. This statute was not that: no president has used it in 50 years before orange man, the statute doesn’t use the word tariffs, and under the current legislative rules, the power to Trump, if approved by Scotus, could only be taken away from Trump by a supermajority in Congress. If the Supreme Court grants Trump‘s theory of unilateral tariff power - and he’s the only one with the power, he is essentially king. Several justices have no problem with that. I know nothing about nothing, but maybe it will boil down to horse trading that allows some of the tariffs to remain while rejecting the rest. I don’t think that would be a bad idea entirely, as it would allow the narcissist baby to declare victory, and then start levying tariffs under different statutes with different language. The longer the tariff question is unsettled the more pain the country will feel. I have no problem with that, especially if the Supreme Court said you screwed up and your unconstitutional actions created this. We will have another year of uncertainty which is always bad for business. The Cleti will blame dems, but only one president and party champions this tariff insanity. Alito brings up the difficulty of refunding the tariffs already collected. That pissed me off because the fact that it would be expensive if you found something unconstitutional does not seem (to me) to be a factor in SCOTUS considering constitutionality of using a statute to steal legislative power and giving it to the executive. That makes me ragey. Katyal reminded him that the government opposed requests to enjoin the collection of fees until the constitutionality was determined. Yet another example of “this problem that I caused is a problem, so you should side with me because it’s a problem” i’ve been stopping and catnapping, and I can’t listen anymore. I’m going to bed. I don’t 100% guarantee I got the justice attribution correct. If some of you have the time to sit on the porch with a cigar and a double scotch and listen to it, I’d love to hear what you have to say. I encourage everyone to skip over my posts and read the damn transcript. Thank you chopper
  5. at 101 if I took a shot every time that jack hole said “ going back to the time of the founders” I’d be drunk right now. I don’t fault him, as the Scotus wing of original intent is his best shot. if only the founders wouldn’t have clearly stated Article one versus Article 2 stuff. The statute in question where in the Congress granted some authority to the executive says, “the president may use instructions licenses or otherwise” Barrett point out that they did not use the word “tariff”, essentially the power that they claim the statute authorized. He responds that everyone knows it would be redundant to say tariffs in the statute, because everyone knows Congress meant tariffs when they said instructions or licenses. Obviously, “or otherwise” was meant to say the president can raise tariffs - a particular enumerated article to grant to Congress (like - on neighboring countries because a province made fun of him in a TV ad. )
  6. at 25 Justice Thomas comes to the rescue and asks him to explain why the opposing side is wrong in saying Congress did not delegate the power to raise taxes via tariffs. “Can you walk me through the history supporting your argument?” at 44, the government doubles down on the proposition that tariffs have nothing to do with creating taxes, but is solely dealing with the regulation of foreign trade. And yet the orange man engages in multiple bloviation opportunities stating the exact opposite of his counsel’s legal position in Oral argument.
  7. At 17. Justice Barrett ripping him. He is not doing himself any favors, as Barrett wants him to admit some facts that are self evident, but against his position, and rather than admit those facts and discuss why they aren’t important to the correct interpretation in the case, he ducks and evades and has the same question asked multiple times. As a general proposition, you lose credibility when you refuse to acknowledge case cites or facts not positive to your position. His refusal to answer the justice in a non-weasel way is not a good look. Even if you have a weak case and will likely get your butt whipped, you have to be honest with the court.
  8. ?????? Did you mean minute?
  9. four minutes in and the government is being roasted. I’m not sure who is arguing for the administration’s side, but he sounds like RFK Junior who did a couple lines of Coke before the argument. He sounds really nervous, like he knows he has a dog shit argument, and he knows that they know. He starts off by making reference to a case that is his bedrock justification, and the justices quote from that case where the decision says it is unique to those facts and a decision containing language, saying that the decision is limited in its scope and not applicable to most situations. Needless to say, the facts in that cited case are not present here.
  10. odd. That’s what all the women I date say about me.
  11. You have to get through the host intro screeching about CLE credit, but the oral argument itself is on this YouTube link for whoever wants to listen to the damn thing and make their own opinions about oral argument. I’m home with the flu, so I’ll be listening to this thing and trying to stay awake. Twice is entirely correct that you can’t always tell the decision from the oral argument (remember VAPA roosterIng around claiming victory after the fifth circuit oral argument, only to be served his crow). judges/justices will often toss softballs to the side they don’t favor in order to see if they come up with anything else to change their mind, even though at first blush they favor the opposing side. OTOH, some statements or admissions on legal doctrine during oral argument are so seemingly conclusive that it won’t be walked back during the opinion writing process. For example, in a statute of limitations case discussing whether you filed your lawsuit on time, an appellate judge might ask you a question that seems to support that you were not aware of the need to sue yet, only to find that judge later ruling against you. But if that same judge states in oral argument that “it looks clear that the statute of limitation had passed three months before you filed”, you can probably take that judge’s opinion to the bank as ultimately being against your client. tl:dr. I’m currently testing the theory that cannabis will cure the flu, and will be listening to the argument. Feel free to add your tea leaves thoughts
  12. NP, RD. it was just something a dead cat told me in a dream.
  13. Looking to do something different the summer of my freshman year (and make some money) I agreed to work with a buddy of mine selling books door-to-door. Which proves I’m an idiot, but let’s move on. We wound up getting sent to North Carolina and I was in a rural area knocking on doors to sell a Webster’s dictionary that I had an addendum with basic math, science social studies, history, etc. It was geared toward parents with school age children… you know, to help with the “new math”. Anyway, rather than drive to the next farmhouse I decided to stretch my legs and take a walk because it was a nice day. I walked down the dirt road toward the other house, and the cicadas noise was rising and falling as I neared a large oak tree with a white cat sitting in front of it. As I walked by the cat looked at me and made a meow. Now this was not the meow sound that cats make. It sounded exactly like a calm, clearly human voice going slowly “meow… meow” as its eyes tracked me moving past It freaked me out enough that I sort of jogged toward the other house to get away from the cat. I went to the porch and knocked on the door, but no one was home. As I walked toward the bend in the dirt road where the oak tree stood, the cicada noise suddenly stopped completely. Ten seconds later I saw the white cat - laying on its side with its eyes open, dead. Not sleeping, I’m talking not breathing dead. And I really can’t explain it. The hair on my neck stood up and everything in my gut and soul said danger, get away from there fast. I literally ran all the way to my car and drove away. I completely understand intellectually that the cicadas have to stop at some point. And I completely understand intellectually that a cat can drop dead at any given moment. But all I can tell you is at that exact moment I was completely overwhelmed by a tidal wave of fear and uncertainty of a dangerous unknown threat i’m not frightened at the possibility that energy or souls or a negative of our being somehow lasts after our death. My late mother told me that my late father had appeared to her a couple months after he died and told her everything was going to be fine. She asked him why he waited a couple months, and he told her that she needed to move past her grief before he delivered the news. To her dying day she insisted it was real. But none of that “scares” me. I’ve been to the Myrtle’s plantation and spent nights without being scared. That goddamn cat was the one thing that has terrified me most in 70 years
  14. 3 of 7 over 65 currently. I honestly can’t remember what year that became the rule - or the age demographic of that particular court on that year. But you’re probably not wrong.
  15. This does track more than I’d like to admit. I bought a three year old I28 convertible for 24k back in 2016. It is fun to drive because it weighs nothing and has a V6. What clinched the deal is I have a friend who has an import auto mechanic shop which enables me to completely avoid the BMW dealership. Excluding tires, maintenance and repairs has averaged about $300 a year. But you are correct in that many of these assholes have all this bmw paraphernalia - like shirts and coffee mugs and leather bmw insignia key covers. Who in the ever loving fuck bases his or her identity on the type of car they drive?
  16. in Louisiana, you don’t need to take continuing legal education credits if you are over 65. Which seems to me to be the exact opposite of what should be happening, with the olds (myself included) being required to take even more CLE - much of it focused on technology stuff. Tl:dr the Louisiana Supreme Court is run by wankers
  17. Maybe, maybe not.
  18. You have to believe that the Ukrainians are monitoring every negative thing said about Trump and America - and immediately passing the quotes onto the White House (like they did on a visit a couple months ago). I truly hope they are continuing to do that, as I think it is one of their more effective arguments to get mote kit and intelligence from the US. They need to get some secret poll of world leaders to view Trump as weak, unlike Putin. You have to believe that Russian state TV will pounce on that and reinforce it. While Trump will be pissed, he’ll probably start dumping stuff into Ukraine.
  19. Shadow fleet tankers actually being destroyed is new. At some point, you have to think that the owners don’t want to risk losing the ships (since the ships are probably uninsurable), rather than take Putin‘s generous payments for running that risk. Black market entrepreneurs are greedy, but I’d imagine that they aren’t so greedy that they will risk losing their main assets once that situation turns from a possible to a probable scenario.
  20. imagine that - meeting the ghost of your grandfather’s British side piece.
×
×
  • Create New...