Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42373
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Gzus, Burke with the tackle in the backfield. Taaffe deked and whiffed.
  2. There was some . . . but it was . . . lumbering.
  3. The good news is Akina's zone thing is less vulnerable in the red zone. So, if we can keep them from scoring on explosives, we trade field goals for touchdowns.
  4. That was Akina's fault.
  5. We seem to start a lil slow on D, always have under PK.
  6. Well, that probably wasn't Akina's fault.
  7. https://thetvapp.link/cfb/arkansas-razorbacks-texas-longhorns/30655886856
  8. It's been a minute, but I don't think the White House was open the day/night before games. They were degenerates, but they performed, and for the most part avoided Bobby Layne pre and mid game antics, I think.
  9. Anyone who's spent much time around hourly workers knows they'll do whatever to increase the size of their paycheck. Diddle withholding, skip insurance, skip 401k. And that probably extends into some salaried workers at the lower end as well.
  10. Maybe Dwight wants to fuck her.
  11. Fun thing about the SECrant thread. They're less credulous of the rumors and basically laughing at us for a) indulging all the rumors and b) wanting to shitcan a coach that took us to the Final Four the last two years. Think about that for a minute. SECrant.
  12. They're going to appeal and string this out. It's gonna cost Candy baby a shitload.
  13. Also, taking it out of the rubric of legal analysis, and putting it purely in terms of politics or even political philosophy, SCOTUS in its shadow docket decisions is valuing the "rights" or power of the executive/government over the rights of the people. Specifically the executive. The legalistic excuse is that stays (or unstaying in some cases) are only temporary, pending a full decision on the merits. But, again in the real world, these stays last months or years before a more permanent solution is reached by a full decision on the merits. And it may well be that they ultimately rule against the executive/government, but the harm is mostly done by then. Which tells you that their harm analyses are wrong, ab initio.
  14. So, on the lawsuit. Candy-baby has filed a motion to dismiss, but not on the public figure/actual malice standard that is typical in a defamation lawsuit. The first ground is procedural in that the lawsuit is in Delaware and is against her, her LLC and her husbands (or their) LLC. Both the LLCs are Delaware, so that's proper, but she's in Nashville. So it seems the court may lack personal jurisdiction over her. Worst case, the Macrons have to maintain one suit in Delaware and one in Nashville. But the potentially dispositive aspect of the motion is much more troubling. France has a three-month statute of limitations on defamation cases. That's three months from publication of the defamatory statement. A period long past. This is a US lawsuit against a US defendant, but by French plaintiffs. Pretty arguably, French law applies, including limitations, so this whole suit is probably going bye-bye. God dammit.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Well, kinda depends on which hole is doing the spewing, for starts.
  20. 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.
  21. Govern yourself accordingly, sir.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...