Winter

This guy: Nigel Tufnel: You know, just simple lines intertwining, you know, very much like - I'm really influenced by Mozart and Bach, and it's sort of in between those, really. It's like a Mach piece, really. It's sort of... Marty DiBergi: What do you call this? Nigel Tufnel: Well, this piece is called "Lick My Love Pump".

I believe Ingalls and the Bugaboos.

Shameless self-promotion of the SO.

Who wants to kiss the wookie?

Or maybe Choss

Nice work fellas.

Peter, you first presuppose that the 9th issues bad opinions and then find a single example that allegedly supports your politically-motivated hypothesis. You could easily find several cases in which the Supreme Court has overturned every single Circuit in the country. Based on your reasoning, one could persuasively argue that all of our federal appeals courts are equally flawed. You have, once again, proven nothing apart from the facts: 1) that you don't like the 9th Circuit because of your political predisposiiton, and 2) that you are willing to stretch the bondaries of logic to support your position. You imply that the Supreme Court shares your view of the 9th Circuit as a biased judicial body simply because the Supreme Court disagreed with the 9th and overruled its reasoning in a single case - nothing more than empty political rhetoric. The Supreme Court has never even come close to making such a general condemning statement on the 9th Circuit and the second hand opinion of some USC law professor taken out of context doesn't change that fact. Come back and play when you acually have a colorable argument that the 9th Circuit is biased in its decisionmaking.

This fuckin sux - but what would posses him to leave his computer and all his climbing gear in his car at the airport? Shouldn't his car insurance cover it?

Chickenwire comin out yer arse in the parking lot for the Bugs.

Ryland, as you suggest, insults and ridicule aren't as helpful as simple suggestions and carefully measured encouragement as others have offered. You could even offer to take him out and teach him a thing or two instead of just harshing on him. Easy to sit back from the keyboard and lay into him but taking time to teach one on one will have a much better impact in keeping the scene safe for all of us. Just my .02. I appreciate your contributions to the board.

brrrrrrr! nice work fellas.

Hey Jon, maye you can spin this into an Ellen Degeneris appearance!

WTF is this a friggin pile on? The guy does enough damage to his own rep and has been scolded by many a poster. Give it a rest already.

Holy shit...that is funny. Funny thing about that is in a way he is admitting Portland is a land of trailers just cheaper in Vancouver. I meant as compared to Gresham dumnb ass.

Well obviously she thought Washington fit her personality better. Prolly cheaper trailers up there.

Tonya lives in Vancouver, WA, so technically she's Washignton's best and not Portland's best buddy. Welcome to Tonya land. She may hang out in dive sports bars on SE Division on 45th and drink lots of cheap beer, but in the end she always ends up on the other side of the Columbia. Ya can't push your cheap Washington riff raff off on this fine city. Chump.

Peter - First, you have no factual basis for asserting that the Ninth Circuit is composed of "activist judges." That's nothing more than political rhetoric and you have offered no data or facts to support your position whatsoever. Second, if you don't like the law, the solution is not to ask a court to waive that law but to go to Congress and ask them to rewrite the law. That's how the democratic process of checks and balances is supposed to function. I'm sure many of us agree that the medical use of marijuana should not be punished or outlawed as a policy matter. Congress, however, does not agree. Get your politicians to change the law. Third, if you read the opinion you will learn that she basically made your "inconscionable injustice" argument - the legal term is the doctrine of necessity - she had to break the law in order to survive. Necessity is a defense to criminal liability in the context of a criminal prosecution (ie you lose and you go to jail). This case was not raised in the context of a criminal prosecution. The DEA agents seized and destroyed her pot, but the federal government did not bring criminal charges against her or attempt to throw her in jail. After DEA seized her pot, she then filed a civil suit in federal court seeking an order against any further enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (ie please tell the DEA not to break down the door and burn my pot in the future). The Ninth Circuit essentially followed the opinion of the Supreme Court that the federal government has the authority to enforce the controlled substances act despite CA's medical marijuana law. The court also held that the necessity argument doesn't apply unless she is actually charged with criminal conduct. She cannot rely on the necessity argument to seek an injunction against all future enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act - she has to wait until she is actually charged with a crime before relying on an extraordinary legal argument that was created by courts specifically in the context of criminal liability or the threat of going to jail. She has to wait until charged with a crime, because between now and then, the facts that underlie her necessity defense could change. Her medical condition could improve, there could be a new alternative drug on the market, etc etc - perhaps the federal government will never charge her with a crime (which still hasn't happened yet). So until she is actually charged with a crime, she can't use the necessity argument as a means to get a court to do something that the law does not otherwise sanction. The Ninth Circuit was being quite restrained and refrained from taking action that directly contradicts the Supreme Court's declaration of the law of the land. Furthermore, she is free to continue smoking pot until the federal government tries to incarcerate her, at which time she can raise her necessity defense or your inconscionable justice argument. Blah blah blah. There will be a quiz tomorrow morning. Now please go write a 2000 word essay on marijuana and pursuit of happiness and the American dream. BTW, yeah what Madcap said.

Exciting wasn't it? I thought it looked more intimidating than the moves were hard.

Peter - So I take it you have not read the opinion and/or do not understand the rule of law. Courts do not issue rulings based on your sense of right and wrong. They issue rulings based on the law. Read the opinion and let me know if they got the law wrong, and if they did get the law wrong how the political predisposition of the judges interfered with their legal reasoning. Perhaps they should have ignored the law? I would expect in that case you would label them acitivist judges ... unless you didn't like the law that they ignored. You make a bunch of unsupported conclusory generalizations about the Ninth Circuit and its jurisprudence. Those unsupported generalizations are the same that have been made by political conservatives for years. Quit sparying political bullshit, read the opinion and put forth a reasoned justification for alleging that the judge's liberal political views interfered in their duty to interpret and apply the rule of law. In the absence of that analysis, you are no better than the judge's you criticize, because you base your analysis of their work on nothing more than the rehtoric that has been used to advance the poitical agenda of the conservative right.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement Peter, there's the link to the opinion. Read it and then let me know which part you disagree with. I jumped in, because I take issue with your rash characterization of the Ninth Circuit as "stupid." I practice in front of the 9th on a semi-regular basis and have yet to come before a stupid judge. There MAY be some that are ideologically or politically motivated (on both sides of the issues), but none of them are stupid to say the least. Your accusations are based on nothing more than your own political predispositions, and I think you should show a bit more respect to the judges and the judicial system. 'Nuff said.

Peter, what's your point? Help me understand what your issue is. Your reference to a quotation doesn't help. Arch - an "opinion" is the decision that a court issues. Courts issue decisions or opinions on all sorts of issues - legality of statutes, constitutionality of criminal prosecutions, etc etc. The decisions or opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can be overruled (aka reversed) by the Supreme Court.

Peter, you are confused here. The 9th originally ruled in favor of medical marijuana users and ruled that the feds can't enforce against those users. The Supremes overruled the 9th on that legal issue, claiming the feds were within their discretion to consider marijuana a controlled substance despite the states' decision to consider it medication. The 9th appears, in this opinion, to be conforming to the opinion that the Supreme Court issued. How exactly is that stupid by the Ninth Circuit? The decision sucks, but it appears the Ninth is doing exactly what you want it to do - issue opinions that will not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Well it ain't Heart and Sole, but that climb rocks!!

I don't know. I read the bill and think these guys are seriously overreacting. It basically requires a muffler and spark arrester and prohibits causing erosion on lands not owned by the operator. Can't see this brining "riding days to an end." Maybe they just don't like any regulation at all.