Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34555
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Probably worth pointing out that while Paxton's answer to the petition purports not to contest the allegations thereof, that is only really relevant perhaps at summary judgment or trial. Until then, it's business as usual. If a party wants to conduct discovery before moving for summary judgment or taking the victory at trial they presumably can do so. There is a separate rule/procedure for "confessing judgment" in Rule 314.
  2. Reminds me of Chris Collins. https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/12/21/chris-collins We call Gundy a lot of shit, but rape enabler tends not to be one of them. He gave Collins a second chance that we wouldn't and when events conspired to take that away, Collins' life went to shit.
  3. Maybe already posted but https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/credit-card-statements-show-trump-special-prosecutor-appointed-georgia-rcna134791 Good Lord, Fani. Between this and hosting the fundraiser against the investigation target what are you doing? To quote the grand jury judge, the Optics are terrible.
  4. Not a great look. But, bringing on a player like that, with a juvenile record (that's important to me), differs a bit from fostering an existing rape culture like Briles. I am very much for giving people a second chance and, although that conduct is reprehensible, is/was a juvenile offense and we treat juveniles differently for valid reasons, both that they are not fully mentally mature and don't deserve to have their lives permanently ruined. The kid better be given a short leash, conduct-wise.
  5. That article aint right. He didn't play any pro ball until completing his college career that included a first stop right here for those with memory problems.
  6. It's because of sovereign immunity. In a normal application of sovereign immunity, the lawsuit doesn't even go forward. But because this cause of action (whistleblower act) specifically "targets" government employees and agents and agencies in their official capacity, there is an implied waiver that lets the suit go forward. I think it also permits recovery of those damages specified by the Act without legislative approval.** Those remedies being primarily reinstatement and back pay. But, the plaintiffs here are alleging other things, where the Act might not support those damages. So, to be extra clear about it, they sought legislative approval/appropriation for the settlement, whether strictly necessary or not. **ETA: the Act, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.554.htm, places damage limitations of 250k per claim for other than past lost wages and damages. That is, anything much beyond back pay.
  7. Based on what? Comparison to other outrageously long sentences? Evidence shows that people age out of crime. That's two adult lifetimes. The shitheads will all be 55 plus. Another 10 years is an effective life sentence, another 20 assuredly so. Is it retribution? Incapacitation? What?
  8. I was unaware that the emoluments cases reached SCOTUS prior to being dismissed as moot. I can also not think of a single ruling in favor of Trump in his personal capacity from SCOTUS. And you missed my point about Chevron. Everyone talks about Chevron like it's going to destroy Congress. There's some small truth to that. But what it will really do is disable varying rulemakings based on executive policy leanings and thus weaken executive policymaking while strengthening judicial policymaking. The point being, carrying out conservative policies is limited by their unwillingness to weaken the judicial branch. They want in on the fascism too.
  9. Yeah, I think imma is struggling with trying to make the place more hospitable and relevant to more people. But, the political world these days boils down to rationals and irrationals and I'll let you guess which is which. And, unlike the rational/irrational "debate" during the Brown era, the underlying facts are neither agreed upon, nor are they subject to rational disagreement.
  10. Oh yeah, I get it. Just kind of interesting that other cattle-raising states don't seem to have much of a bootmaking tradition. Or one that survived for very long. Also kind of interesting, you dig around on the Hyer site and there's some indication that in the past they were known as Olathe. The current Olathe I believe is part of the RIos/Anderson Bean family.
  11. And, of course, the question arises, if TMD/TNG is doing such a great job patrolling that area, why in the blue fuck didn't they offer assistance or save the distressed? It doesn't appear that TMD/TNG made a single move toward assisting those in distress, including those that did not drown. And this would seem to underscore that they are there to obstruct and not to do a better job than CBP.
  12. I mean you are aware that it is probably an inherited predisposition? It's not just a bad choice. Where he is a bit of an asshole is not getting/accepting help with those kind of resources.
  13. Total surly sidetrack. I, too, find Guns of August to be a bit of a slog. But I thoroughly enjoyed the somewhat similar Dreadnought. What it is, I think, is that she refers to things of which I have at least peripheral knowledge in ways that don't immediately make sense. Things like if not specifically the Zimmerman Telegram. And then I find myself digging around on wikipedia and other sources and lose track of the book.
  14. Well, let's face it, he never would have paid any money personally unless that was part of a settlement. And it doesn't look like the lege would authorize any payment, no matter how the judgment was obtained.
  15. Got ta get it I got got ta get it.
  16. I'm not so sure about the "in power" thing. They were ok supporting most of Trump's legal policies because they basically align with what they believe and were appointed to implement. Trump's personal bs doesn't really align with any of that. And, again, I will reiterate that I think that the notion of creating an executive that is not criminally responsible to their branch is not something they want to do, even if they favored propping up a "conservative" president or candidate. They generally like elevating the executive over the legislative, the executive over the judicial, not so much. For example, their assault on Chevron deference hurts the executive to their benefit as much or more than Congress (these are executive agencies, after all, and it is usually an executive-prompted rulemaking over which they intend to exert more control).
  17. Why would you have to buy and pay for them? This is what they believe. Which was my initial point. At any rate, none of them were bought and paid for to support Donald Trump personally.
  18. Of course that only works because GOP voters in Texas give zero fucks that he retaliated against good conservative boiz that bucked his corrupt abuse of the office and he won't have to explain himself.
  19. I am thinking more in terms of the recent appointees, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh who are more explicitly products of the FedSoc/Leo machine and, although less vocal than the old fucktards Alito and Thomas, probably more actually responsible for the turn of the court. There's also minimal evidence that they are "bought and paid for." So, you have Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and they only need two other rationals, one of which is likely Roberts, to turn Trump away, so that just leaves one. Sure, it's not going to be Alito or Thomas, but that leaves three others.
  20. The thread was also pretty devoid of personal attacks on LL. I'm not a huge fan of that, either, deserved though they may be.
  21. I think the problem there is that the military will avoid involvement in domestic affairs, either as Trump's minions or, most likely, against pro-Trump "forces."
  22. I have never said it's unreasonable to expect that. I have just said that there are a lot of things at play and other things may explain what appears to those lacking perspective to be her favoritism or bias. Or it could be favoritism or bias. Here's the thing. Those "bought and paid for" justices aren't "bought and paid for." What they are is specifically selected for their judicial and personal views on conservative issues like abortion. No one paid for those views, they came to them naturally or through some other mechanism than being bought and paid for. What they were not selected for is loyalty or obeisance to Donald J. Trump. They have lifetime appointments, so they don't need Trump anymore, if they ever did (probably any GOP POTUS would have nominated these people, nothing special about Trump). Moreover, even if they were to personally believe in a strong executive, to the point of authoritarianism, I imagine that belief stops a good deal short of sacrificing the power of their own branch, the judiciary, in bringing the executive to heel. For these, or other reasons unknown, the Supremes have been quite unsympathetic thus far to Trump's efforts to insulate himself from consequences post-Presidency.
  23. This isn't completely irrational. But Texas has always borne the brunt and benefit of Latin immigration, that is nothing new. Aaaand, this right now has little or nothing to do with immigration or labor policy or any of the big issues, it's lightly varnished racism purely to appeal to the Trumpers. Like many of these trumpy issues, it has the barest connection to something substantial (immigration policy), but that's not what it's really about.
×
×
  • Create New...