rdancer

12 ms·

151.
by rdancer 11y ago
Do you think the specific e-mail providers were willing to agree on binding service-level agreements?
152.
by rdancer 11y ago
JFK got done in because Lyndon Johnson was a much more palatable president. If the vice president is not on their side, they'd have to keep killing people down the line of succession until they got to somebody who was. After the vice p
153.
by rdancer 11y ago
It took one executive order to start this, it will take one executive order to stop it. The election is in a year's time. Make your vote count!
154.
by rdancer 11y ago
You are right. I haven't considered that. They only care about the standoff with India, so it makes sense that their range only about covers her.
155.
by rdancer 11y ago
Full-res infographic, with actually-readable text: http://workplaceinsight.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MostE...
156.
by rdancer 11y ago
They have nukes. They could easily institute a defense doctrine of nuclear retaliation tomorrow, and the terror would stop. But the reason they don't is that they are bought and paid for, both as a country via foreign aid and as indivi
157.
by rdancer 11y ago
> (... now if only I could get rid of the ads...) uBlock Origin
158.
by rdancer 11y ago
I have found that unfriending/muting people whose contributions to my feed I don't value makes all the difference. Facebook is what you make of it.
159.
by rdancer 11y ago
> I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. The certiorari was granted, and I'm a terrible person for writing it was refused; see further up-thread.
160.
by rdancer 11y ago
> If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. The quote is from a concurrence on a certiorari Herrera v. Collins[1], and Justice Scalia was indeed "just writing"
161.
by rdancer 11y ago
No, that doesn't follow at all. Loving was a criminal case. The poll is about "disapproval". Again, I disapprove of your lack of logic at this small hour, but I would never want you to go to jail over it ;-)
162.
by rdancer 11y ago
It was closer to 80%, and on a question of disapproval of[1], not illegality. I may disapprove of your misquoting stats, but that doesn't mean I want you to go to jail for it. Also the majority of population lived in a state where in
163.
by rdancer 11y ago
Split decision means the lower court decision is affirmed. Simple majority is required for a reversal, or any change to status quo. Think about the Supreme Court as a very small Senate. The individual justices do not make decisions. The who
164.
by rdancer 11y ago
Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen caprici
165.
by rdancer 11y ago
... but it wouldn't prevent setting time to 2014. Again, how does this help?
166.
by rdancer 11y ago
It is counter-intuitive, but smoking is more effective a mechanism of delivery than intravenous injection. It gives you the biggest hit the fastest. And everything else is way, way slower and mellower.
167.
by rdancer 11y ago
How could it possibly be a serious comment, what's wrong with you, people?
168.
by rdancer 11y ago
The problem with that line of argument is that it is trivially hypocritical. As someone else has pointed out, the constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" would have been sufficient grounds. It is also more com
169.
by rdancer 11y ago
If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case. If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who denies these people justic
170.
by rdancer 11y ago
...or they just refrained from interpreting and contextualizing...
171.
by rdancer 11y ago
No. There are eight justices left. The quorum is six. Source: 28 U.S. Code § 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
172.
by rdancer 11y ago
I would hazard the explanation was to the benefit of the less educated readers, such as is yours truly.
173.
by rdancer 11y ago
There are plenty of elections re-run every year, it is a possibility.
174.
by rdancer 11y ago
> there is much less predetermined ideology The outcomes are pre-determined. Then they have to work backwards to justify them. It is extremely obvious when you read e.g. the Dred Scott or Korematsu decisions that were decided a lon
175.
by rdancer 11y ago
The problem with Mrs Clinton is that she is an anti-feminist. She went viciously against the women who have been speaking against her husband, she supported legislation that disproportionately affected women when in Senate, and she never ga
176.
by rdancer 11y ago
"Disagreement" assumes a rational discourse. People who are not willing to subject themselves even to the most basic rules of logic and civility can only be opposed, and should be ridiculed.
177.
by rdancer 11y ago
Stop mansplaining!
178.
by rdancer 11y ago
Three equally important reasons: 1. Added complexity 2. No discernible benefits 3. Time travel
179.
by rdancer 11y ago
Even if the implementation hurdles raised by others would be overcome, as I am certain they could be, this would help how?
180.
by rdancer 11y ago
In a civil suit, the standard is "preponderance of evidence". In a he said, she said situation, circumstantial evidence becomes very important. If you've hired a hundred black lesbian octogenarians, and you're sued by a

More ›