Tweet
and now, you're really only left with quibbling over what sort of number would be appropriate for a snowing in hell metaphor
-
and now, you're really only left with quibbling over what sort of number would be appropriate for a snowing in hell metaphor
To us, it is the BEAST. -
A better way to think about it is that this happens around once in every ten supreme court cases. There's what, dozens of cases a year? It's not an earth shattering event.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
I wanted Imran to be the one to quibble over what constitutes "a lot".
You're already my bitch in the chimp thread.
Quick question. If you got kicked in the balls 90% of the time you talked to a person, would you think that is a lot?To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
If I got kicked in the balls 10% of the time I'd think it was a lot.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
Okay. Now we're making progress. So your idea of "a lot" is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
A lot of supreme court decisions are unanimous or close to unanimous. You might be surprised with how often Thomas agrees with Ginsburg.Comment
-
66% of the time from 2010-14.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Yes. They agree a lot. That's the point.
Keep making my argument for me.
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
you guys are getting warm thoughTo us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
If it's snowing in hell 10% of the time, hell doesn't seem like that hot a place.Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La RochefoucauldComment
-
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
My evaluation of the frequency with which Scalia and Thomas agree is clearly precisely correct, even though I am intentionally exaggerating.
Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
"We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La RochefoucauldComment
-
YES, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH A STATE ALLOWING COPS TO ARREST AND JAIL PEOPLE FOR MINOR TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, WHICH IS WHY THE DAGO IS WRONG AND THE NIG-NOG IS RIGHT ON THIS ONEDid the traffic violation create probable cause to arrest the driver?
Comment
-
both sides agree on thatOriginally posted by Wiglaf View Post
“Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, using the majority’s argument.To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
IF BY 'USING' YOU MEAN 'DRUGGING IT AND TAKING OUT BACK AND RAPING IT' THEN YES
THE 4TH AMENDMENT IS ABOUT REASONABILITY, REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES :nagry:
HOW IS IT REASONABLE TO ARREST THEN DOG SNIFF, AND NOT REASONABLE TO NOT ARREST AND DOG SNIFF?Comment
Comment