I can only imagine the expressions on the judge's face when he realizes that this whole case just blew up in his face due to his indifference about ordering a party not part of a lawsuit to do something.
Not only did it not work, but now both his name and the plaintiff's have just been plastered everywhere for all to see, making the both of them look all sorts of bad for their respective reasons.
You need to make up your mind, which is more important, states rights or the rights of the people in the states?
First you say that it's not fair that a larger state(california in your example) could be able to 'negate the votes of multiple other states', and then you seem to say that it doesn't matter what the popular vote(that is what the majority wanted) was because... reasons?
It's just slightly absurd to claim on one hand that one larger state shouldn't be able to 'negate' several smaller states, while at the same time holding out that it doesn't/shouldn't matter what the majority of voters wanted because that's not important.
Of course, because as everyone knows political representatives always act in accordance with what their constituents want (you know, like they did with the recent killing of the FCC privacy rules), meaning if they voted him in it's because the american public wanted him to have the position.
In any case though at most they confirmed him to the position, a choice that wouldn't have even been on the table had Trump not nominated him for it.
Remind me again, who gave Kelly, the head of the DHS his current position? Who nominated Sessions, the head of the DOJ for his position? Who made the statement talking about how wrong the 'anti-police atmosphere' was and how he would end it?
If Trump doesn't agree with what they're doing then he's quite capable of speaking up and pointing out how they're not doing what he wants them to, but given he nominated them I don't see that happening any time soon, so yes, he most certainly shoulders a good chunk of the blame.
"The only thing you have to fear... is EVERYTHING! The world is terrifying, and only we can protect you!"
“We are under attack from people who hate us, hate our freedoms, hate our laws, hate our values, hate the way we simply live our lives. And we are under attack every single day,” he warned. “The threats are relentless.”
Well, he's half right there, there are most certainly 'relentless' threats to the american public, threats that hate our freedoms, the laws, and ability to live a fear-free life... but the vast majority of those 'threats' are very much internal, already in the country, and more often than not those 'threats' seem to have badges and significant positions in the government.
So NYPD cops should have access to camera footage whenever they want, yet if someone who's been filmed wants or needs the footage, say as evidence in a trial, they have to jump through hoops controlled by an agency that has been described as worse than the gorram NSA, CIA, and FBI when it comes to releasing information.
Oh yeah, that's not hypocritical and likely to result in massive conflict of interest in the slightest.
I'd say 'Stay classy NYPD', but I'm pretty sure a septic tank has more class than they do at this point.
Ah, I see. The 'innocent question' about when Mike will register as a lobbyist, implying that he's being paid to influence lawmakers/speak, on the article talking about AirBnB had nothing at all to do with AirBnB.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
If it wasn't in regards to AirBnB, pray tell, what were you referencing?
Comcast: Now this car is a real beauty. Gorgeous color, tinted windows, it's got everything you need.
Customer: ... there's no wheels.
Comcast: Now now, I understand your concern. 'But what if the paint gets scratched?' Well, I can assure you, with our service reputation, voted number #1 in the industry, we can fix that right up for a reasonable fee if it should occur.
Customer: (knocking on hood) ... this sounds empty.
Comcast: 'What if the window tinting is a little too dark' you ask? Excellent question. In that case simply bring it back and for a modest fee we'll switch it out for a much better window.
Customer: Also, this pricing sheet seems to have more asterisks than it does letters, so I have no idea what the actual price is. Not to mention that line at the bottom about how I am required to get the car serviced here for three years, and if I buy a replacement it must be from you.
Comcast: ... look, we both know you have to buy from us, since we made sure that no other dealers were allowed to sell in the city, so sign the damn contract already.
Customer: Actually, I don't. There's another dealer just a few blocks down that sells cars as well.
Comcast: But... what... management assured me that there were no other dealers!
Customer: Yeah, well while that might be true in most cities, they didn't quite manage it here. Best they could do was keep people from other towns buying from that other dealer. However, given I live here, I'm afraid I'll have to give your 'generous' offer a pass.
Comcast: But... Voted number one in the industry! Tinted windows! Amazing paintjob!
Customer: Yeah, have fun with that.
Comcast: (fists raised to the sky in fury) DAMN YOU COMPETITION! WE'LL BUY THE POLITICIANS RIGHT THE NEXT TIME, JUST YOU WATCH!
"A law preventing me from doing something I would never do will be highly detrimental to my ability to do my job!"
In a letter to the governor pleading the county’s case, Schoppmann wrote, “If HB 2477 is enacted, Mohave County will suffer because of an overreaction to the misdeeds of a very small percentage of others and the result will be a net loss to our community and a net gain for drug traffickers.”
And once again a defender of the 'It's not armed robbery if you have a badge' demographic puts forth an argument that shoots itself in the foot. If it's really only a 'small percentage' of officers stealing stuff they have no rights to, then the impact will be minimal and focused entirely on the 'problematic minority'.
The only way a higher bar being required before a seizure of property will be allowed will be a 'net loss' is if stealing stuff without that level of evidence, that is being able to show that the property in question is linked to a crime, is too high of a bar for the police to meet, in which case they have no justification to be stealing the property in the first place.
There's also the issue that if this is an 'overreaction' to the actions of a 'small percentage', that overreaction is likely based on the police doing nothing about that 'small percentage'. If it's really only a few abusing the law, and the police in generally don't support such activity, then the police could have easily solved the problem themselves by sacking the responsible individuals. That they didn't, allowing the problem to fester and get worse and leaving the state lawmakers to force the issue is entirely on them.
It's not perfect, and really should have gone the extra step to require a conviction, but it's better than nothing. Just a pity that it needs to be said at all.