Stevens Dissents
Scott v Harris...
And...
"Had they [the younger majority of Justices] learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhigh-ways-when split-second judgments about the risk of passing a slow-poke in the face of oncoming traffic were routine-they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately."
And...
"...like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say.Compare and contrast.
"Now where were we? Oh yeah -- the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."
or...
"Big deal! When I was a pup, we got spanked by presidents 'til the cows came home! Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions!"
I'm very proud that my blog is good written.
Let me guess... the mentions of the Raich medical marijuana case in previous posts attracted this spam bot to me?
Posted by
Steve |
1:22 AM
Maybe Omar's comment is sincere.
Congratulations on surviving finals.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:15 PM
Thank you. And I guess I shouldn't have so quickly dismissed Omar. Maybe he was so impressed with my blog that he wanted to repay me with reasonably priced drug paraphernalia. International drug paraphernalia at that.
Posted by
Steve |
11:24 PM
Um, Counselor? The remark completely removed from its context and reproduced by you is the second half of a footnoted aside, mocking the majority's somewhat grandiose characterization of a portion of the video.
It's what we old-timers understand as a "joke," and, better yet, a joke at the expense of Justice Scalia.
Surely you can do gooder than that.
Posted by
illusory tenant |
6:09 PM
The post, comparing a distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court to a cartoon character, is what we youngsters understand as a "joke," or at the very least, "humorous." It was not meant to be taken as serious legal analysis.
While I am in no way destined for a career in comedy, I like to have a little fun here and there on my blog. I will try gooder in the future to make it clear when I'm trying (and apparently failing) to be funny.
Posted by
Steve |
8:12 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Posted by
illusory tenant |
10:15 PM
Don't get me wrong, I appreciated and enjoyed your whimsical jape - notwithstanding its lack of candor before the tribunal.
In fact my own reaction to Justice Stevens's chiding of the majority was similar, until I apprehended its sly Nino-mockery.
Posted by
illusory tenant |
10:16 PM
The real issue in this case concerns how, sportsbook not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the bet nfl Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante , at 1.
http://www.enterbet.com
Posted by
pedro velasquez |
4:57 PM
Federalking tours law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n,540 U.S. 93, 203-209, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce,494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.
http://www.kingtourscom
Posted by
Unknown |
7:06 PM