tvashtarkatena

Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause. Enforcing sovereignty is fine, as long as its not done through racial profiling or other unconstitutional means.

And of the three cases that have been brought with this legislation one plead out and two were dismissed. Ex Post Facto is generally regarded as unconstitutional, but you knew that, right? I'd love to hear about the telecom legislation you mentioned, I'm unfamiliar with it but I'd bet its more of the same. I think the use of Ex Post Facto legislation against the BP will only result in an expensive legal battle assuming the proposed bill passes. In the end I think the legislation is just going to make a bad situation worse. Ex Post Facto imposition of penalties for crimes comitted (e.g., fines and imprisonment) is clearly prohibited by the Consitution, but this limitation does not apply to civil penalties (i.e., compensatory and punitive damages). However, legislated limitations to damages, which are a civil matter, are subject to change Ex Post Facto. Therefore, to whatever extent the BP offenses of topical concern are a civil matter, rather than being a violation of criminal code, the legislated cap on penalties for those offenses can be changed by the legislature now or later. Moreover, to whatever extent that damages can be shown to be a result of fraud on the part of BP, all bets are off for contractual obligations that would spare BP from related damages; that is, contractual protections that BP might otherwise enjoy are null and void to the extent that BP fraudulently claimed compliance with said contract(s). In this case, BP explicitly -- and fraudulently -- claimed a full preparedness to prevent the damage now underway. True dat. If their pants are on fire, they're gonna pay dearly to have that shit put out.

Add gambling and a 'compassionate cafe' and you've got a three-fer.

It's kind of like turds. You could be a dog turd, or a human turd, but, either way, you'd still taste as sweet.

BTW, states challenging federal law is a hallowed, time honored tradition. It's how much of the social reform in the country gets done. Medical marijuana laws are a direct challenge to federal law, for example. Arizona is not challenging federal law, however, it is stomping on the Constitution, our founding charter, through its racial profiling law. Arizona has decided to put its entire hispanic population under suspicion and harrassment by everyone one of its law enforcement officers. That's everyone's problem, and we all need to stamp that shit out in any way we can. It's just not who we are, and its certainly not who we should become.

There are many, many municipalities and counties that refuse to take on the burden of immigration enforcement, either in practice or by ordnance. I just talked to the San Juan County sheriff last week, who is solidly in that category. They've chosen, instead, to do the jobs they were chartered to do, not do Customs and Immigrations' job for them. In the case of the SJC sheriff, he sees his responsibility as one of holding the community together, not tearing it apart through deportations. He responds to criminal activity. He refuses to waste his non-existent free time sniffing out illegal immigrants who aren't involved in such shinanegans. The state could pass all the laws they want...and he'd keep doing his job the way he's been doing it all along.

Guess I'll find out. I bought a Dell with Win 7

I'll be SO FUCKING GLAD to lose this PC.

I need the space for when I have the Gores over for dinner.

Not into kiddie porn meself.

Ding Ding Ding! John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired on the crowd.

Equipment on order. Thanks guy(z?).

That's what my research indicated, although the googlz returned a particularly snarled knot of fuckedupedness in this case. I'll prolly just go for a cheapest Linksys single band Wireless N with 3 antenna I can find and call it good.

The effort to provide legal defense for the Gitmo detainees is called the John Adams project for that reason. I've heard Jeff Robinson, one of the two attorneys from Seattle who are members of the project (the rest of the defense team are in military officers) speak a couple of times. He's an amazing individual. He also speaks very highly of his co-counsel in uniform. It's little wonder why a whiny suburban nobody like TripKunts never misses an opportunity to trash folks like Robinson. He represents a level of principle, honor, and integrity that is completely out of the poor, dumb cubemonkey's reach.

Attention Geeks: I’m setting up home Wifi in a 1500sf 2 story hourse. Need to: Connect to an iPhone Stream video to a second PC Surf with a laptop. Would an Wireless N router work (iPhone requires Wireless G), or do I need to slum it with a Wireless G router, slowing all my other devices down? Router recommendations? Looking for under $100.

What I hate is that 10 seconds? I could be spraying. We can only imagine TripleKuntz grand mall reaction if anybody ever borrowed his stapler.

Cool, I can also blame the ACLU for allowing those a-holes to knock on my door and annoy me. Again, you can blame the Founding Fathers. You might also blame the Jehovahs. I share your pain, though. Having to politely decline a visit from the Jehovahs, which takes 10 seconds of your precious time every 5 years or so, is an ENORMOUS price to pay for free speech. I really don't know how you get through a traumatic sacrifice like that.

The ACLU is not defending any priests charged with child molestation at present. Sorry to disappoint. We do, on occasion, help to defend the rights of some unsympathetic defendants, such as detainees at Guantanamo. We do that to preserve the rule of law and our most fundamental values of liberty: the right to a fair trial. If you do not believe in the right to a fair trial, I suggest you take it up with the Founding Fathers. We also defend litigate in behalf of some unsavory plaintiffs: the American NAZI party being perhaps our most infamous case. They exercised their constitutional right of assembly and speech. When that was threatened, we defended it. Again, if you disagree with those two basic principles of liberty, take it up with the Founding Fathers. The question is cases like this is: if you're going to limit non-criminal speech and assembly, who gets to decide what an individual can express, and by what criteria, backed by what rule of law? We've also successfully defended the privacy of Rush Limbaugh's medical records. Sometimes our plaintiffs hate us, too. We've often defended fundamntalist Christian sects freedom of assembly, speech, and religion, despite their well know opposition to our defending a woman's right to choose. I know matters of principle and the concept of the rule of law are invariably obscured by the media sensationalism and histrionics in your uncomplicated, single channel mind, TripleKunt, but surely someday you may be able to grasp that the preserving the ability to express opinions that may not be to your personal liking is a often more broad reaching issue with far reaching ramifications than the event that sparks the controversy.

"buggery?" You mean equal protection under the law for gays, right? Just want to clarify that for our viewing audience.

These types of offenders, while serving their sentences, are treated, evaluated, and observed for years. During this time and intense scrutiny, there is ample opportunity to decide if the offenders are likely to be a threat, should they be released. Under such a system, 'sentences', and therefore the rule of law, is meaningless. This system is analogous to conferring enemy combatant status (which also promised indefinite detention). Such a system seriously erodes the potential for a fair trial, and therefore attacks the due process clause. Here's why: After 911, several suspected terrorists were arrested in the U.S. and threatened with enemy combatant status (and the indefinite detention that would come with it). They wound up pleading guilty and getting fixed prison sentences rather that opting to go to trial and risk, somewhere along the way, that their status would be designated 'enemy combatant'. They claimed, initially, that they were not guilty, but their lawyers advised them to cop a plea as the lesser of two evils. Was justice served here? No. If the state feels some crimes are heinous enough to warrant life sentences, then charge the perps with crimes that may bring those life sentences. If a perp is deemed criminally insane, then commit them for as long as is needed to remove the threat from society. Do that up front, with a jury, using laws passed by a legislature that is voted into office, and both justice and democracy are served. Otherwise, you've given the state the power to arbitrarily increase awarded sentences, and threaten defendants (who, lets remember, are still considered innocent at that point) into copping pleas, guilty or not, under that threat. In addition, you've given the state the power the change the 'type' of crime they may apply this system to. Finally, the kind of voter oversight at work in sentencing by statute is either minimized or eliminated entirely with after-the-fact indefinite detention. I'm very uncomfortable giving the state that kind of power, particularly when there are other, less constitutionally questionable ways for the state to remove really bad people from society.

The little torture story is not a violation of the rule of law. It's a violation of the law. Not the same. The U.S. example is a violation of the rule of law, because it is applied retroactively. Again, not the same. Your law is essentially a paraphrased life sentence.

Gave a talk on Camano I and my host was complaining about how ugly the Wildhorse wind farm was. Watcha gonna do? I think those things look fucking cool. They're one of the few things modernity has produced that look like the future I imagined as a pup.

Whisperlite? Do you, like, rock out to Devo on the Walkman while your priming that thing?

Clear and convincing evidence? Convincing to who? Another jury? Do they even find out for how long they will be indefinitely held for? WTF? Due process???? We've been doing that up here for quite a while now. They're called "Dangerous Offenders" and can be held after their original sentence is served, up to and including "indefinitely". The "D.O." status has to be reviewed after 5 or 7(?) years, and then every 2 years after that. But if you're a Paul Bernardo, or a Clifford Olson, or a Robert Pickton, chances are the review panel is going to find that, well, you're still kinda "dangerous", you know? But then, we're a bunch of soft-on-crime, limp-wristed liberal pussies up here, so what else would you expect? If they're so dangerous, why don't you just give them long or even life sentences with a periodic parole review, just in case they turn over a new leaf? You don't fuck the rule of law in the ass that way. I realize a solution like the above is utterly beyond TripleKunt's comprehension, but still.

You can start with the Catholic priests molesting alter boys, you ACLU fucktard moron. To some, they'd be equivalent, I suppose. But then, that same group also eats its own poo.