Also, nothing Hillary says about anything will be as big a rewrite as this line:an amateur scriptwriter wrote:Too much work,
too many people,
blood, sweat, and tears.
Never going to let you down.
Basically Dennis Hopper in Mario Bros wrote:I've built an extraordinary business on relationships and deals that benefit all parties involved. Always. My goal is always, again, to bring people together.
Do the restrictions on abortion protesters that have passed muster have off-limit areas a bit larger than merely allowing free ingress?Green Habit wrote:I don't know if all those would survive a challenge in the courts. Certainly it could be regulated directly on the property of the polling place, and impeding ingress into the the polling place is obviously not allowed. But if the "within x feet/yards" encloses public places that aren't needed to be used by the polling stations, I think that's a real troublesome infringement of freedom of expression.Brett wrote:Well...:http://www.nass.org/component/docman/?t ... d&gid=1347Green Habit wrote:That would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment here.dimejinky99 wrote:On polling day here it's illegal to have any posters or campaign related staff within 100 yards of the polling station
I dunno, that guy is... uh... hmm. BUT, the idea that the judiciary is completely impartial and colourblind is [url="https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms"]pretty absurd[/url]. A person's racial, ethnic, gender, etc. all play into their worldview and their worldview plays into their decision making process. That is no excuse for Trump's repeated bigoted statements, and thank god Hillary finally no longer has to deal with Grandpa Simpson and can begin to dismantle Flopsy, but it's not like there wasn't an element of truth to what Trump (poorly) said.theplatypus wrote:He can't possibly believe the things he's saying.
http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=1278Alex wrote:i wonder what the supermassive jackhole broken iris would have thought about this
Well, there was a recent big SCOTUS case (McCullen v. Coakley) that struck down some of those restrictions. That's the case made me think that the courts could strike down some provisions of these laws if they were challenged.simple schoolboy wrote:Do the restrictions on abortion protesters that have passed muster have off-limit areas a bit larger than merely allowing free ingress?
The problem with acknowledging the relevance of human bias in the court system is that, once you start compiling the various types of bias involved, it becomes rapidly apparent just how thoroughly unrelated evidence is to assigned guilt, and how unrelated that guilt is to your eventual consequence. Impartiality is a fantasy, and professionalism or process as a protection against basic human error is worse. We are at the mercy of a system of perception that is, frankly, not up to the job. Not ever. So what looks like a can of worms is actually a rather powerful bomb.I dunno, that guy is... uh... hmm. BUT, the idea that the judiciary is completely impartial and colourblind is [url="https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms"]pretty absurd[/url]. A person's racial, ethnic, gender, etc. all play into their worldview and their worldview plays into their decision making process. That is no excuse for Trump's repeated bigoted statements
The Hispanics and The Mexicans love Trump, just ask him, he'll tell you!!b_i_revisited wrote:I dunno, that guy is... uh... hmm. BUT, the idea that the judiciary is completely impartial and colourblind is [url="https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms"]pretty absurd[/url]. A person's racial, ethnic, gender, etc. all play into their worldview and their worldview plays into their decision making process. That is no excuse for Trump's repeated bigoted statements, and thank god Hillary finally no longer has to deal with Grandpa Simpson and can begin to dismantle Flopsy, but it's not like there wasn't an element of truth to what Trump (poorly) said.theplatypus wrote:He can't possibly believe the things he's saying.
this precious nugget could make it's way into a Donald Trump speech right hereBammer wrote:Hillary's entire wardrobe looks like a bunch of decorative garbage bags.
Sotomayor did no favors by opening this up.b_i_revisited wrote:I dunno, that guy is... uh... hmm. BUT, the idea that the judiciary is completely impartial and colourblind is [url="https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms"]pretty absurd[/url]. A person's racial, ethnic, gender, etc. all play into their worldview and their worldview plays into their decision making process. That is no excuse for Trump's repeated bigoted statements, and thank god Hillary finally no longer has to deal with Grandpa Simpson and can begin to dismantle Flopsy, but it's not like there wasn't an element of truth to what Trump (poorly) said.theplatypus wrote:He can't possibly believe the things he's saying.
" My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." - Sonia Sotomayor
dimejinky99 wrote:Wowsers. Trump getting taken apart and rightly so.
damn, that woman needs to run for office.dimejinky99 wrote:Wowsers. Trump getting taken apart and rightly so.
She already has, it's called the Senate. Democrats would be mindful not to jeopardize any power they may have in that chamber.Stickman wrote:damn, that woman needs to run for office.
i know she's a Senator. I meant POTUSGreen Habit wrote:She already has, it's called the Senate. Democrats would be mindful not to jeopardize any power they may have in that chamber.Stickman wrote:damn, that woman needs to run for office.