cajunrevenge
Well-known member
It's just semantics. I don't know of anywhere that has ever used a pure Democracy without representatives.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
It's just semantics. I don't know of anywhere that has ever used a pure Democracy without representatives.
https://apnews.com/article/boneless...upreme-court-231002ea50d8157aeadf093223d539f8
This does not rock. Thankfully only for Ohio, which already is the worst state in the Union.
This does not rock. Thankfully only for Ohio, which already is the worst state in the Union.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Interesting distinction. Frogs legs better be frogs legs. But people should be smart enough to know chicken don't have fingers.
I suppose it comes down to whether boneless chicken are closer to frogs legs or to chicken fingers from a descriptive perspective.
I've always experienced boneless chickens without bones, so yes this is a new discovery for me.
Last edited:
Yeah, I’m aware some of the legal distinctions might be more complex. But I think we’ve all had the same experience with boneless wings, and it seems absurd on its face to expect consumers to be watching for bones.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Yeah. I've only had boneless wings once or twice. Just because regular wings are so much better. But I see boneless wings on the menu often. So there must be a market for them. Maybe from effete liberal men?!? Or folks missing teeth?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I'll splain you why they're there. Because they have so much less waste. Move it from freezer to fryer. As opposed to regular wings where you need to fry from fridge temp and if you want them good they should have been dryed properly.
sturg33
I
If you predicted political ideology purely based on bone in vs boneless, you'd be right 80% of the time. The challenge will be the married women
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I guess the price must be lower. So if restaurants called them cheap wings instead of boneless wings there wouldn't be any confusion or legal issues.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/30/justice-neil-gorsuch-new-book/
In “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,” Gorsuch, with his co-author, Janie Nitze, notes that the Roman emperor Caligula posted new laws on columns so high, and written in a hand so small, that people could not read them, and hence lived in dread of committing criminal infractions. Gorsuch is too judicious to say so, but an ideological tendency is primarily responsible for the resemblance between Caligula’s Rome and this Republic. That tendency is progressivism.
Less than a century ago, Gorsuch notes, a single volume contained all federal statutes. By 2018, they filled 54 volumes — about 60,000 pages. In the past 10 years, Congress has enacted about 2 million to 3 million words of law each year. The average length of a bill is nine times what it was in the 1950s. Agencies publish their proposals and final rules in the Federal Register, which began at 16 pages in 1936, and now expands by an average of more than 70,000 pages annually. By 2021, the Code of Federal Regulations filled about 200 volumes. And in a recent 10-year span, federal agencies churned out approximately 13,000 guidance documents.
…
Progressives think progress depends upon (that is, they sometimes define progress as) the concentration of power as high as possible in government’s regulatory apparatus. Hence, between 1960 and 2019, the 900 percent increase in federal grants to states — from $70 billion (adjusted for inflation) to $700 billion — came with strings, resembling chains, attached.
James Madison foresaw our current condition, in which laws are “so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” and “undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.” Hence, Madison’s paradox: The multiplication of laws undermines the rule of law. “Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
In “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,” Gorsuch, with his co-author, Janie Nitze, notes that the Roman emperor Caligula posted new laws on columns so high, and written in a hand so small, that people could not read them, and hence lived in dread of committing criminal infractions. Gorsuch is too judicious to say so, but an ideological tendency is primarily responsible for the resemblance between Caligula’s Rome and this Republic. That tendency is progressivism.
Less than a century ago, Gorsuch notes, a single volume contained all federal statutes. By 2018, they filled 54 volumes — about 60,000 pages. In the past 10 years, Congress has enacted about 2 million to 3 million words of law each year. The average length of a bill is nine times what it was in the 1950s. Agencies publish their proposals and final rules in the Federal Register, which began at 16 pages in 1936, and now expands by an average of more than 70,000 pages annually. By 2021, the Code of Federal Regulations filled about 200 volumes. And in a recent 10-year span, federal agencies churned out approximately 13,000 guidance documents.
…
Progressives think progress depends upon (that is, they sometimes define progress as) the concentration of power as high as possible in government’s regulatory apparatus. Hence, between 1960 and 2019, the 900 percent increase in federal grants to states — from $70 billion (adjusted for inflation) to $700 billion — came with strings, resembling chains, attached.
James Madison foresaw our current condition, in which laws are “so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” and “undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.” Hence, Madison’s paradox: The multiplication of laws undermines the rule of law. “Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We do have a lot of laws that address imaginary or trivial problems. And proposals for new ones all the time for equally imaginary and trivial problems. Some self-restraint would be a good thang. Or at least some willingness to produce evidence when making the case that a problem exists. Rather that bald assertion.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Any law that doesnt have a victim should have a 20 year sunset clause requiring it to pass again. Theres plenty of laws that dont have the support to pass Congress right now but a bill repealing the law wont come up for various stupid reasons.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.newsweek.com/releasing-trump-suspects-letter-could-call-arms-legal-analyst-1958288
I don't know if this was covered in another thread but the DoJ is out of line releasing Rouths letter including the promise of 150k to whoever kills Trump. They could have edited that part out and released the rest. It's not important to the context and some crazy person out there with the god given right to own a gun might act upon it.
I don't know if this was covered in another thread but the DoJ is out of line releasing Rouths letter including the promise of 150k to whoever kills Trump. They could have edited that part out and released the rest. It's not important to the context and some crazy person out there with the god given right to own a gun might act upon it.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...in-arresting-staunch-trump-supporter-lawsuit/
I havent seen anything here about this whole ordeal. The Trump tard arrested on gun charges is suing the Sherriff claiming he made knowingly false statements about him because the Sherriff wanted to be seen as a hero who saved Trump. I dont really have a dog in this fight but I am gonna side with the Trump tard on this one if his facts are correct. He was entering a parking lot a half mile from where Trump was. Told Deputies there he had 2 loaded firearms in his vehicle that he intended to leave there. Thats far from what the Sherriff has claimed.
I havent seen anything here about this whole ordeal. The Trump tard arrested on gun charges is suing the Sherriff claiming he made knowingly false statements about him because the Sherriff wanted to be seen as a hero who saved Trump. I dont really have a dog in this fight but I am gonna side with the Trump tard on this one if his facts are correct. He was entering a parking lot a half mile from where Trump was. Told Deputies there he had 2 loaded firearms in his vehicle that he intended to leave there. Thats far from what the Sherriff has claimed.
[tw]1864377304903807405[/tw]
I’m actually not sure why this is being picked apart the way it is from a purely legal standpoint. If the state of Tennessee is specifically using gender to determine if a medical doctor’s prescribed treatment for a patient is legal, how is that not unconstitutional? Justice Jackson isn’t claiming there is no medical difference in the outcomes. But legally, this seems like a pretty strong argument actually.
I’m actually not sure why this is being picked apart the way it is from a purely legal standpoint. If the state of Tennessee is specifically using gender to determine if a medical doctor’s prescribed treatment for a patient is legal, how is that not unconstitutional? Justice Jackson isn’t claiming there is no medical difference in the outcomes. But legally, this seems like a pretty strong argument actually.