I think this is analogous to the famous, "Facts on the ground" used by Israel and others to justify no right of return for the Palestinians. You load up the facts on the ground and nothing else fits.
supreme court decisions of late
- Thread starter huisache
- Start date
I think this is analogous to the famous, "Facts on the ground" used by Israel and others to justify no right of return for the Palestinians. You load up the facts on the ground and nothing else fits.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Because we're lazy and careless. Yes, those are the reasons.
The same way they would with any other politician. They would find out what that politician supports and then pay attention to what he does.
The list is too long to get into that here, and that isn't the point.
Who cares what they'll "allow?" Elect politicians who will say "No" to them and write the laws not to favor them. They have no power to allow or disallow anything.
Yes. Pass the laws that do the opposite of what they want, and the administrators won't have a choice.
Yes I do. I'm married to one.
You don't have to be certified to be a school board member. Plenty of school board members are local business owners. They aren't certified in anything.
I agree, but we've chosen to have public schools. We're 1 percenters.
Vote for politicians endorsed by Empower Texas.
.
This is insanity.
No, it isn't. Congress ultimately has the power to set monetary and banking policy. It delegated that power to the Fed, which does its bidding. If the Fed went away, Congress would do what the Fed currently does because we (the public) would want it to.
That's because your fellow citizens don't want them to.
I agree. However, we're a tiny minority. We don't decide elections.
"We" is the people who elect the politicians who pass the laws and appropriate the money to create and operate public schools.
Almost every Republican congressional leader in the 1990s. They even tried to do it but failed. Why? Because the public rejected that effort at the ballot box. See the 1996 election.
Yes, they can. Until the '60s they basically did. Even now, the federal government only pitches in about 9 percent of the money. If we really wanted to get out from under the federal mandates, we could do it. A small hike in the sales tax would cover it even if we didn't want to cut spending. But we don't want to do that. It's our choice.
No, it was never forced on them and still isn't. They can turn down the money. And no, the states didn't have much of a problem with it when the federal programs were created (which didn't come with the DoE but with the ESEA passed earlier). State legislatures generally don't turn down money. Besides, it gives them an easy boogie man as you're illustrating.
It's a type of man-kini stereotypically worn by well-built men (especially but not always gay men). Basically it's just a waistband and a small pouch to hold the equipment.
I'd be ok with that. We've had one UT alumnus. It was Justice Tom Clark (the father of the wingnut former AG Ramsey Clark). He wasn't a particularly respected Justice by either side.
And I have no special love for UT Law School. I didn't go there. I was the wrong color, so I got wait-listed. By the time they got to me, I had already gotten into Baylor, so **** 'em. I don't have any special love for Baylor either. All they did was give me what I paid for just like Walmart does.
Since I'm in the middle of a move, I haven't had a chance to read the decisions, but any case that screws with Oklahoma is pretty much ok with me.
As for the Trump case, I haven't read it. However, I think his tax returns should be treated the same as anyone else's tax returns. They should be just as hard and just as easy to get them.
Oh, you mean a banana hammock. Like Barry, I don't think I had ever heard the term freedom pouch.
My brother called it a freedom pouch, and he was in the Navy, so I defer to him on pretty much anything that's lewd.
It's a religious thing for them. If you look at it that way, it makes a lot more sense.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
LOL. I'm in your head.
As long as they don't mess with Shortcakes Diner, I am good.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Supreme Court denies NCAA request on athlete benefits
"Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday denied the NCAA’s request for a stay of an injunction that will end association-wide limits on education-related benefits that college athletes can receive.
Barring the NCAA’s ability to convince U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to change the injunction’s effective date, Kagan’s ruling sets the stage for at least one recruiting cycle in which schools will be able to decide on a conference-level basis whether to allow offers to football, men’s basketball and/or women’s basketball players that go beyond covering the full cost of attending school.
Wilken issued the injunction in March 2019, when she ruled that that the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men's and women’s basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws. The case was brought on behalf of plaintiffs led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston...."
Barring the NCAA’s ability to convince U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to change the injunction’s effective date, Kagan’s ruling sets the stage for at least one recruiting cycle in which schools will be able to decide on a conference-level basis whether to allow offers to football, men’s basketball and/or women’s basketball players that go beyond covering the full cost of attending school.
Wilken issued the injunction in March 2019, when she ruled that that the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men's and women’s basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws. The case was brought on behalf of plaintiffs led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston...."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I am just noticing this one - a nice surprise
Kavanaugh/SCOTUS just dropped a big turd on George Soros. Organizations affiliated with Soros’ Open Society lack protection under the 1st Amendment. And they can be treated as international threats as this impacts supporters in the US and abroad. So typical of Soros isnt it? He hates the US but loves to hide behind the Constitution to do his dirty work.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Kavanaugh/SCOTUS just dropped a big turd on George Soros. Organizations affiliated with Soros’ Open Society lack protection under the 1st Amendment. And they can be treated as international threats as this impacts supporters in the US and abroad. So typical of Soros isnt it? He hates the US but loves to hide behind the Constitution to do his dirty work.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I don’t know where you get your ****, @Joe Fan, but it sure is creative!! Thanks for the good laugh.
This case had absolutely nothing to do with whether the US Government can treat Soros’s organization, AOSI, as an “international threat”. It was a free-speech case, and your “dropped a big turd on Soros” analysis is silly.
For starters, AOSI was just one of several plaintiffs in the case. Another plaintiff was World Vision International, an evangelical-Christian relief organization. Are they also anti-American and an international threat? Did the Supreme Court also drop a turd on them?
For those curious about the case itself, as opposed to @Joe Fan's partisan spin -- The issue was whether the US Government can require US charities’ foreign affiliates to make certain public statements as a precondition to receiving AIDS-relief funding. Most notably, the law required relief agencies to make a public statement against prostitution, and to take no action inconsistent with that statement. The plaintiff agencies, liberal and conservative alike, were concerned that this requirement would undermine their ability to fight the spread of AIDS within the prostitution industry.
AOSI’s position was supported by amicus briefs from numerous conservative organizations, including the Adventist Development and Relief Agency International; the Cato Institute; and the Washington Legal Foundation. I find it really hard to believe that those organizations would support Soros in a position that was anti-American.
Indeed, to the contrary, the amici raised very valid concerns about other mandatory-speech requirements that could be imposed in the future. For example, a future law could condition Federal funding for overseas charitable work on issuance of a statement supporting abortion rights. Under the decision @Joe Fan is praising, that requirement would be permissible.
This case had absolutely nothing to do with whether the US Government can treat Soros’s organization, AOSI, as an “international threat”. It was a free-speech case, and your “dropped a big turd on Soros” analysis is silly.
For starters, AOSI was just one of several plaintiffs in the case. Another plaintiff was World Vision International, an evangelical-Christian relief organization. Are they also anti-American and an international threat? Did the Supreme Court also drop a turd on them?
For those curious about the case itself, as opposed to @Joe Fan's partisan spin -- The issue was whether the US Government can require US charities’ foreign affiliates to make certain public statements as a precondition to receiving AIDS-relief funding. Most notably, the law required relief agencies to make a public statement against prostitution, and to take no action inconsistent with that statement. The plaintiff agencies, liberal and conservative alike, were concerned that this requirement would undermine their ability to fight the spread of AIDS within the prostitution industry.
AOSI’s position was supported by amicus briefs from numerous conservative organizations, including the Adventist Development and Relief Agency International; the Cato Institute; and the Washington Legal Foundation. I find it really hard to believe that those organizations would support Soros in a position that was anti-American.
Indeed, to the contrary, the amici raised very valid concerns about other mandatory-speech requirements that could be imposed in the future. For example, a future law could condition Federal funding for overseas charitable work on issuance of a statement supporting abortion rights. Under the decision @Joe Fan is praising, that requirement would be permissible.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Anyone who receives money from Soros or a Soros group should register under FARA
And, if they dont, there is now precedent for them to be charged
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Charged with what? And what precedent?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Grinning ruins the concealer
During the time of the implementation of the Patriot Act, Liberals were fond of this quote:
"Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither."
Times have changed...
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
They want what they want and they want it now
They lack foresight and dont really seem to care what their actions today might mean in the future. The blueprint is simple, get power immediately (by any means), worry about everything else later
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
