Jump to content

Gatorubet

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    16021
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Gatorubet

  1. Not just Johnson, but Johnson’s son as well. They do sex stuff together in case one of them forgets the safe word. Like Jesus did.
  2. Not a single reference to baby beluga. Fake news.
  3. Oh, I encourage everyone to check out. Saint Claire, a relatively new restaurant in an old plantation house in Algiers about 15 minutes from the fridge quarter. I was only there once, and with my son who knew the chef, so it was a bit outside the normal dining experience because of all the delicious comped small plates. But everything was perfect.
  4. They’re cattlemen, not woke high school graduates, what with the fancy numbers ciphering and spelling and all..
  5. I was happy to see Saint Germain get a star. My youngest son was a line cook there until he moved to New York City in June to get different culinary experience. Eldest son is a manager with the Donald Link organization, and they had nice things to say about the entire restaurant group. I totally agree about Zemanick. The only problem I ever had with Gautraeau’s was the damn acoustics in the dining room. The food was pretty consistently great.
  6. 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
  7. Bear cub tartare out front shoulda told ya…
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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. )
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. ?????? Did you mean minute?
  14. 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.
  15. odd. That’s what all the women I date say about me.
  16. 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
  17. NP, RD. it was just something a dead cat told me in a dream.
×
×
  • Create New...