Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42505
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. That was a hell of play by the DB on Jaggy.
  2. Got a hold on Wingo. Whew.
  3. Aggy is probably going to fuck us up good. Starting to think about not watching that game.
  4. Goddamn Roberson.
  5. Arch gonna have 500 yards.
  6. Always a gap in our zone and always a receiver in it.
  7. OL has gone from complete asswater to serviceable.
  8. Gzus, Burke with the tackle in the backfield. Taaffe deked and whiffed.
  9. There was some . . . but it was . . . lumbering.
  10. 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.
  11. That was Akina's fault.
  12. We seem to start a lil slow on D, always have under PK.
  13. Well, that probably wasn't Akina's fault.
  14. https://thetvapp.link/cfb/arkansas-razorbacks-texas-longhorns/30655886856
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Maybe Dwight wants to fuck her.
  18. 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.
  19. They're going to appeal and string this out. It's gonna cost Candy baby a shitload.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...