LawTalkers
Page 31 of 175 « First 212930 31 32334181131 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Fashionable (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=877)

Tyrone Slothrop 06-27-2015 04:59 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 496806)
May God forgive me, but I've been reading Obergefell on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. Am I reading this right, and is Scalia essentially arguing that not even a rational basis standard should apply, and judges should just defer the shit to the legislature?
Jack Balkin said it well:

Quote:
The arguments of the dissenters in Obergefell for judicial restraint and respect for democratic deliberation would sound a lot more convincing if they hadn't all joined the opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. Shelby County is truly made up out of whole cloth, and it strikes down key parts of an important civil rights statute passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress. Indeed, at oral argument in Shelby County Justice Scalia suggested that the very fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed by such overwhelming margins is a reason that the courts needed to strike it down. Talk about five lawyers undermining democracy and imposing their ideological convictions on the rest of the country. . .
You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-27-2015 07:12 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496807)
Jack Balkin said it well:



You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.
Glad you're here for my latest constitutional conundrum:

If corporations are people, and people have a fundamental right to marry, can Ted Cruz marry Exxon Mobil, and, if so, is it a gay marriage? And since Exxon and Mobil already got married, is it polygamous, too?

This may need Venn Diagrams.

Hank Chinaski 06-27-2015 08:24 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496807)
Jack Balkin said it well:



You could also point to campaign finance reform and the way they have used the First Amendment to limit legislative action.
wrong board.

Adder 06-29-2015 10:33 AM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496799)
There used to be a little bar/cafe on the hill run by a nice woman from Dusseldorf that served organic German beer.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2015 12:50 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 496810)
There used to be a little bar/cafe on the hill run by a nice woman from Dusseldorf that served organic German beer.
We stayed at the Orkos/Mikri Vigla end of Plaka, but I was good with drinking Mythos. The food was really, really good -- not the most interesting cuisine, but terrific ingredients.

greatwhitenorthchick 06-29-2015 12:57 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 496806)
May God forgive me, but I've been reading Obergefell on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. Am I reading this right, and is Scalia essentially arguing that not even a rational basis standard should apply, and judges should just defer the shit to the legislature?
His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had. California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?

My favorite person of the weekend was the Buttplug/Dildo/ISIS flag Londoner. The reporting was like Les Nessman in real life.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2015 12:59 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496812)
His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had.
What do you have against emojis? :mad: :P

greatwhitenorthchick 06-29-2015 01:16 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496813)
What do you have against emojis? :mad: :P
Jeez Burger, they're clearly an assault on my religious liberties. A threat to freedom and democracy! :eek::eek::eek: Anyone can see that.

ThurgreedMarshall 06-29-2015 01:59 PM
Top 20
 
http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3398

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3399

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3400

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=3401

TM

Did you just call me Coltrane? 06-29-2015 02:48 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496814)
Jeez Burger, they're clearly an assault on my religious liberties. A threat to freedom and democracy! :eek::eek::eek: Anyone can see that.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/951f832c6...r2pho1_500.jpg

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2015 03:22 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496812)
California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?
There are plenty of parts of California that are every bit as Western as anywhere else, but I would bet that Scalia just said that as a personal shot against Kennedy.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2015 03:54 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Soccer experts question - Based on some whistles in the WC it appears that a player can be offsides even if they do not receive the ball until after the ball has hit the goalkeeper or the goalpost. Is that correct? And why is that the rule?

Put aside the debate on offsides, if another player takes a shot on goal and it happens to go to an offside player only on the rebound, it doesn't seem particularly consistent with the purpose of the rule to keep applying it to them.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-29-2015 04:20 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 496812)
His dissent may as well have been written in emojis, for all the credibility it had. California doesn't count? What on earth does that mean?

My favorite person of the weekend was the Buttplug/Dildo/ISIS flag Londoner. The reporting was like Les Nessman in real life.
Someone needs to do an emoji version of Scalia's dissent. It would probably make more sense.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-29-2015 04:24 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 496821)
There are plenty of parts of California that are every bit as Western as anywhere else, but I would bet that Scalia just said that as a personal shot against Kennedy.
Since the whole premise is based on the majority not being "real 'mercins", it wouldn't really work if the author of the opinion were realler and more 'mercin than Scalia, would it?

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2015 04:41 PM
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 496822)
Soccer experts question - Based on some whistles in the WC it appears that a player can be offsides even if they do not receive the ball until after the ball has hit the goalkeeper or the goalpost. Is that correct? And why is that the rule?

Put aside the debate on offsides, if another player takes a shot on goal and it happens to go to an offside player only on the rebound, it doesn't seem particularly consistent with the purpose of the rule to keep applying it to them.
The question is whether a player is in an offside position when the ball is played (passed or shot). So if someone takes a shot and a rebound falls to a player who was in an offside position, she is just as offside as she would have been if the ball had been passed to her. The reason is the same, really.

This is from FIFA's Laws of the Game (Law 11):

Quote:
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
What I don't understand, conceptually, is why there is no offsides on a throw-in.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 AM.
Page 31 of 175 « First 212930 31 32334181131 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com