Andy9o8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,279

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Andy9o8

  1. Andy9o8
    I keep telling all you tools - my wife hates my military-short haircut. But I am a hippie at heart.
  2. Andy9o8
    Well, it does have A bit of a history.
  3. Andy9o8
    he he he, skydekker called u half-pregnant.
  4. Andy9o8
    Dudette, yer killin our buzz. Tomorrow we tell jokes about the victims of the Bengladesh factory collapse. I already have a crush on one of them.
  5. Andy9o8
    Please - bush league. You sure are a sensitive guy. Next time, before you assume someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, try to understand that maybe it's a real valid question and not a personal attack aimed at you. You said: "Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption." So I'll ask again, does this mean that the state of Kansas is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever it wants regardless of state law? No. Per the US Constitution, whatever powers the federal government does not reserve to itself are presumed accorded to the states. But federal preemption means that if the federal government decides it will legislate on and/or regulate a particular subject, then federal constitution and laws trump state laws. That's also per the US Constitutions, which says, at Article VI, clause 2 (a/k/a the Supremacy Clause):
  6. Andy9o8
    Democracy. It doesn't mean what you think it does. No you're confused, thats the American interpretation of democracy. Psst... hate to break it to you, but political corruption and Gerrymandering are hardly restricted to the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#National_examples_of_gerrymandering
  7. Andy9o8
    Please - bush league.
  8. Andy9o8
    stick with me kid & I'll learn ya stuff. u can thank me later.
  9. Andy9o8
    It's arguably constitutional because it simply allows the states to collect the tax, it doesn't require it. Without the legislation, the states wouldn't have been authorized to collect the tax because the transaction usually wouldn't have been deemed to have taken place inside the collecting state.
  10. Andy9o8
    Pipe down, Don Quixote - RonD & I have something special. The military should concern itself with the thousands of its members who GW Bush essentially murdered in Iraq so he could show his father that he has a bigger penis. ...nor when Clinton lied about his blow jobs. God, I love that man.
  11. Andy9o8
    My God. Seems Canucks can't catch a break.
  12. Andy9o8
    Yep, that's the feeling they want you to get. Mmmm, soft and sweet, like cotton candy. It's so, so easy to swallow, and it tastes so good going down. Hey, guess what its nutritional value is?
  13. Andy9o8
    so we're saying Kansas is kinda like the U.N.? well, they are making their opinion known anyway... And if the Kansans are happy with their state taxes being spent that way, that's their choice. They certainly not going to spend the money on science textbooks.
  14. Andy9o8
    Since the article is published in Bloomberg, my starting presumption is that the article has strong pro-business bias. The corporations' vested economic interest is to keep consumers buying their products, and forestall them from boycotting the products. So I urge people to recognize this as being part of the companies' intense public relations campaign that it is. It's slick damage control, people. Oh, BTW, I read this morning that the death toll in that collapse has risen to over 700 souls. Remember that the next time you look at the label on a shirt for sale at Target. And look real hard at the fabric to see if they managed to get all the blood out.
  15. Andy9o8
    The the juror passes a question in writing to the bailiff in the jury room. The bailiff gives the question to the judge. The judge tells the attorneys that the jurors have a question and tell us the question. If we find it objectionable we argue it there. If not, then it's up to one of us to either ask it or flesh out the issue. I was still doing the examination, so I asked it. We never know which juror asked it. Seems reasonable. Yeah, I think I'd be ok w/that.
  16. Andy9o8
    There have already been 1 or 2 other threads about this, i.e., conservative states that have passed this type of legislation. Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption*. (* Federal laws covering a specific subject trump any state's laws that cover the same subject.) Short version: dog & pony show; legally meaningless.
  17. Andy9o8
    Same here. She's got to be guilty. All the signs are there. I think you forgot The Most Important Sign.
  18. Andy9o8
    Truthfully I really didn't follow it. Avoided it, actually, as per my usual habit: except for when I'm wanking around in here, when I'm off duty, I just push away.
  19. Andy9o8
    Thank you, Chicken Little. On the bright side, since we no longer have the commies as an enemy to obsess about and enrich the military-industrial complex, thank god we now have AQ to fill that role. Bread and circuses, you realize. Oxymoron.
  20. Andy9o8
    Fuck you. I've been waiting for that one.
  21. Andy9o8
    I just heard a clip of the NRA's new Prez speaking today. A real piece o' work - waxed philosophic about the "War of Northern Aggression" and all. He was having the time of his life. Anyhow, let's test out our new domestic killer drones on them. Fort Sumter, eh? Take that, Johnny Reb!
  22. Andy9o8
    My concern is that the jury/juror might indeed ask a question that is objectionable - lack of relevance, whatever. That being said (and I don't know how it's done in CA), I suppose if the juror submitted the question in writing, and the judge & counsel first privately conferred about whether to answer the question, and if so, how... I suppose that might meet my concerns.
  23. Andy9o8
    Fuck you.
  24. Andy9o8
    No. Appeals can only be filed by a party. A trial court may never "appeal" a trial verdict on its own, AFAIK. Also, in the US, in a criminal case, the prosecution may never appeal a not guilty verdict, due to the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
  25. Andy9o8
    Agreed. Hard to speculate as to his specific motivation. Maybe it's more a matter of personal posterity and legacy - he wants to distance himself from, and not be tarnished by, what he recognizes is publicly perceived as a stinky verdict. But in any event, I don't think it should make a difference. Professional ethics, IMO, trumps personal agenda. As you said, maybe years from now once in retirement, but now? - no; simply improper.