"Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives."
Jane West, The Loyalists (1812)
(the effect is the same, although the "less criminal" part could easily be debated here)
This seems to imply a very different meaning to "service contract" than what's common. Usually, it means that you pay one price for all and ANY service a machine needs to make it work. One price, the same every month, and if they can't make it work, they just haul in a replacement or at least credit you for the monthly cost until it does.
The McD/Taylor version seems to mean nothing like that.
(I wonder if any state's Lemon Law might apply... probably not but deserves a little thought.)
it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas
Which is both their right (as long as within the bounds of law) and also irrelevant.
Not if they colluded.
Koby, you seem hung up on the word "collusion" when the word "conspire" would do admirably; but then there needs to be a reason to conspire and at least two parties willing to do so.
They picked the fruit of the poisoned tree.
That legal metaphor applies to admission of evidence in court and relates to the 4th, not to news materials and the 1st.
"It's not that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it's that the left hand doesn't know there are other hands."
--attributed to a great many people
"Yes, sir. Please give me your contact information and I'll forward it to the Subpoena Compliance Officer. It may take a few days for them to respond since they haven't been hired yet."
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.
Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
SCOTUS is the biggest enemy of the BillofRights and still waffling even in this decision.
A unanimous decision with multiple concurrences doesn't sound like much of a waffle, here. Please point us to the waffles (page/section would be handy).
Unfortunately, IIRC a SCOTUS decision a couple of years ago ("broken tail light") said they don't (currently) need to know the laws they say they're enforcing. That also needs to change.
The original
"Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives." Jane West, The Loyalists (1812) (the effect is the same, although the "less criminal" part could easily be debated here)
Dear Senator Lankford, Someone in your office is sending idiotic letters to the media, probably to make you look bad. Yours, A faithful Constituent
And of course, the next time Hawley brings up anyone infringing on some of his friend's content, this will pop right up.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer person, I wonder what his cow thinks about it?
Service contract?
This seems to imply a very different meaning to "service contract" than what's common. Usually, it means that you pay one price for all and ANY service a machine needs to make it work. One price, the same every month, and if they can't make it work, they just haul in a replacement or at least credit you for the monthly cost until it does. The McD/Taylor version seems to mean nothing like that. (I wonder if any state's Lemon Law might apply... probably not but deserves a little thought.)
Encryption? We're using the well-understood double ROT13 algorithm.
Re: 'Look over there, a distraction!'
What publicity would the AG who's leaving office care about? They won't be there to enjoy the fun.
Re: Thank you
it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas
Which is both their right (as long as within the bounds of law) and also irrelevant.
Re: Crowd exceptionalism
Or shouting Theater at a crowded fire.
Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Not if they colluded.
Koby, you seem hung up on the word "collusion" when the word "conspire" would do admirably; but then there needs to be a reason to conspire and at least two parties willing to do so. They picked the fruit of the poisoned tree.
That legal metaphor applies to admission of evidence in court and relates to the 4th, not to news materials and the 1st.
"It's not that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, it's that the left hand doesn't know there are other hands."
--attributed to a great many people
Reminds me a bit of Jordache Enterprises Inc. v Hogg Wyld Ltd. (which made Lardashe designer jeans). It did not go well for the plaintiff.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-16-fi-5318-story.html
Re: Best news in years!
(more like mandarin-in-chief, not as big as a tangerine) Federal pardons won't help with the state bar and judiciary.
Re:
Beg to differ on that.
"Yes, sir. Please give me your contact information and I'll forward it to the Subpoena Compliance Officer. It may take a few days for them to respond since they haven't been hired yet."
Re:
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer. Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
Re: Re:
If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer. Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.
Conservatives cry-
Less government regulation (unless we thought of it)!
Let people do whatever they want (unless we don't like it)!
Re: Re: Well
SCOTUS is the biggest enemy of the BillofRights and still waffling even in this decision. A unanimous decision with multiple concurrences doesn't sound like much of a waffle, here. Please point us to the waffles (page/section would be handy).
Re:
Unfortunately, IIRC a SCOTUS decision a couple of years ago ("broken tail light") said they don't (currently) need to know the laws they say they're enforcing. That also needs to change.