StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Do you really think "candidates hanging out with billionaires writing checks for millions of dollars with no disclosure" wasn't exactly what the majority 5 wanted? Probably. Plus we get the added benefit of unions' political fund-raising abilities being likely crippled (again, in an overly broad ruling granting relief no one was asking for in last week's ruling against the SEIU)!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Or...they know fully well that assumption is wrong, but they have other priorities. well duh eta: or admitting that you were very, very wrong on a case that's been heavily criticized since you decided to massively expand its scope and then rule the way you did isn't exactly easy to do.

What's funny (sad) is that the overturned Montana law is a 100-year-old law enacted directly in response to a wealthy copper baron essentially buying his way to power. But the 5 justices don't even want to reconsider the possibility that their base assumption that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" is wrong.

Thursday, 10AM EDT.

Scalia is using his dissent to comment on Obama's new deportation policy. edit: Scalia may have done this in response to the opinion of the court, which begins by more or less laying out the authority under which Obama issued his policy without explicitly referring it.

awaiting announcement of what day that'll be, usually wednesdays or thursdays. I just follow this: http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/ but we know it isn't coming today

SB1070 ruling today, 9th circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. Most of the key provisions (3 of 4) are invalid. edit2: but not "check your papers," though the court isn't closing off any other challenges to that aspect in the future. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

The opinion is short and says little. The dissent is short and points out the stupidity of the original CU supposition that independent campaigning isn't corrupt or give the appearance of corruption, which is stupid on its face.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2012 -> 09:04 AM) They reversed Citizen's United?! No, the MT court decision. Reversed without briefings or argument. edit: short opinion and dissent, I'll post links once they're up. on a positive note, the court ruled 5-4 against life sentences for juveniles.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2012 -> 11:49 AM) The US Supreme Court has issued a stay of Montana's law. Based on the current court calendar, it is unlikely that the Supremes will hear the case before this year's election, and then they can rule it unconstitutional next year. summarily reversed 5-4, no new certs.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) The war on drugs puts so much money in so many different pockets. The biggest risk of marijuana is that you can grow it at home, so if they legalize it they may not see a windfall. Although most people are way to lazy to put the time and effort into growing good weed. Right, just like I can brew beer at home or make wine. Hell of a lot easier to run on down to the store.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) Except for those Fight Club videos he is in that YouTube keeps removing. The ones where a black kid, maybe Trayvon maybe not*, is standing around watching an unorganized amateur match? That shows he has a violent past and would believably "jump out of the shadows" and shout "you're gonna die tonight, motherf***er?" *it's not like there wasn't already a bunch of racists mistakenly identifying the wrong Trayvon in order to label him as a thug who deserved it, right?! **almost every website I can find with this video has a whole bunch of incredibly racist comments. awesome.

They had over 200 employees. He was burning through money trying to develop an MMO.

Yes. And he's blaming the government for the collapse. Their first game sold over a million copies and was well-reviewed. I don't know how they mismanaged things so much as to get something like $150m in debt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2012 -> 07:42 AM) Curt Schilling's video game studio is struggling Filed bankruptcy today. Schilling claims he lost his entire baseball fortune on this. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/base...y.ap/index.html

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Here is the map: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1133/bas...ritorialmap.jpg The biggest problem is when a team's blackout area does not coincide with the distribution of the channel carrying the team. For example, the Sox blackout area covers Indianapolis, yet the cable and satellite systems in Indy do not carry CSN, unless you buy the special sports package that is an extra $10/month or whatever and along with CSN includes 49 other channels that you'll never watch. So in Indy, you don't get to see Sox games on your regular TV lineup, but you also can't see them if you buy MLBEI or mlb.tv, because the Sox want to protect CSN's advertisers even though nobody in Indy gets CSN. bingo

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) http://videosift.com/video/Drugs-are-bad-mkay-Head-of-DEA When officials so blatantly dodge questions like this, it annoys the hell out of me. On a side note, Jared is a real life friend of mine, seeing him in congress on these sorts of panels is somewhat surreal to me. I was going to post the Wonkette version of that the other day, hilarious. Great job by him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 12:21 PM) With the anti-trust exemption that MLB has, I don't see how that lawsuit can win. Unfortunately, this is probably true. It's also why I don't give MLB $150 or whatever MLB.tv costs.

http://roothlawgroup.com/library/florida-a...nds-for-appeal/

but the state can't

Can cases be appealed due to jury instructions? Like a judge just plain making things up or seriously distorting the law?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) That would basically mean that as long as the person who committed the rape "thought they werent committing rape" they couldnt be convicted. I'm sure there's some sort of "reasonable person" standard here, otherwise anyone could self-delude into believing it's not rape and they'd be a-OK.

His narrative sounds like the plot from a bad western. Also, Martin's lungs collapses from the bullet wound and there was a sizable hole in his heart. I'm not sure how much talking and struggling he was capable of after that bullet entered his chest. Martin, a kid with no violent history, jumps out of the shadows and says "You're gonna die tonight!" When shot in the chest, he sits up and says "you got me!" That isn't really a believable scenario. But this does provide another example of why you shouldn't talk to the police without a lawyer! edit: listening to more of the tapes, Serrino (the detective) really does a professional job questioning Zimmerman. The Sanford PD doesn't deserve the blame for dropping this case in the first place, the local DA does.