There is so much actual news happening, you guys. We are filled to the gills with actual news and it is killing us. We need some breathing room to find new ways to snark and we really really need some time to develop more swear-y synonyms to describe people who are assholes. So -- time to take a step away from Serious News and make fun of this what-the-fuck law professor John Eastman from Orange County, California, that is going to explain to us all that the Supremes decision yesterday means
You might want to write Tom Campbell, who inherited the Dean job from this turd, and ask him to either have the guy stfu, or maybe post a countervailing opinion.
I used to know Campbell a little bit, and he was one of those semi-mythical "moderate Republicans".
I was interested to learn from this article that Tom Campbell has landed as the Dean of the law school at Chapman. Tennish years ago I knew him slightly (his then COS was a social friend), and he was a pretty unassuming, even funny, fellow. Republican because extreme fiscal conservative (which made the demon sheep ad even funnier because it was such a fucking lie), but fairly moderate to almost liberal on social issues.
My main problem with him was that he talked a good game, but inevitably succumbed to <i>Realpolitik</i> when push came to shove. That is, when he was a Representative, he would vote his avowed principles when the legislation in question was either certain to pass or certain to fail; but if it was at all in question, he would <b>always</b> default to the party line, even if it contradicted his prior public stance.
I actually think the hypocrisy bothered him. During his Senate primary campaign, he did keep trying to go more right to keep up with iCarly, but you could tell his heart wasn&#039;t in it.
It would be nice if he would smack down this Eastman fuck, but on second thought I doubt that he will. One other fact about the guy is that he wasn&#039;t particularly corrupt, and being a &quot;moderate&quot; got pretty much no support from the plutocracy. He probably needs his job.
Apparently some cherry picked words from a separate, easily distinguishable case is more important than the last sentence of his own case before <em>It is so ordered.</em>
Poor Justice Thomas. No wonder he hardly ever writes an opinion or risks opening his mouth: his law clerks are drooling morons who have never seen the inside of a law school. I wonder how that happened?
<i>Hollingsworth Struck down the Ninth Circuit&#039;s opinion because the defenders had no standing.</i>
Aha! That&#039;s where he jumps the tracks. SCOTUS didn&#039;t say defenders didn&#039;t have standing in original District Court law suit since anyone can pretty much sue anyone. It was the appeal process where they didn&#039;t have standing since they didn&#039;t have the authority to represent the people of California.
Wingnut reading comprehension. How does that work?
Sumaratra.
Alioto. (Bit of a Freud there, eh?)
You might want to write Tom Campbell, who inherited the Dean job from this turd, and ask him to either have the guy stfu, or maybe post a countervailing opinion.
I used to know Campbell a little bit, and he was one of those semi-mythical &quot;moderate Republicans&quot;.
I was interested to learn from this article that Tom Campbell has landed as the Dean of the law school at Chapman. Tennish years ago I knew him slightly (his then COS was a social friend), and he was a pretty unassuming, even funny, fellow. Republican because extreme fiscal conservative (which made the demon sheep ad even funnier because it was such a fucking lie), but fairly moderate to almost liberal on social issues.
My main problem with him was that he talked a good game, but inevitably succumbed to <i>Realpolitik</i> when push came to shove. That is, when he was a Representative, he would vote his avowed principles when the legislation in question was either certain to pass or certain to fail; but if it was at all in question, he would <b>always</b> default to the party line, even if it contradicted his prior public stance.
I actually think the hypocrisy bothered him. During his Senate primary campaign, he did keep trying to go more right to keep up with iCarly, but you could tell his heart wasn&#039;t in it.
It would be nice if he would smack down this Eastman fuck, but on second thought I doubt that he will. One other fact about the guy is that he wasn&#039;t particularly corrupt, and being a &quot;moderate&quot; got pretty much no support from the plutocracy. He probably needs his job.
I&rsquo;ve got to admire a person who can live so far outside of reality without being committed to a sanitarium.
OT but Paula Deen fans lash out at Walmart <a href="http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2013\/06\/27\/technology\/social\/paula-deen-walmart\/index.html\?iid=EL" target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/27/technology/social...">http://money.cnn.com/2013/0...
After lashing out they experienced shortness of breath and had to go sit in the cafe with a large soda.
This guy was involved in the defense of Prop 8? No wonder they lost so emphatically.
Apparently some cherry picked words from a separate, easily distinguishable case is more important than the last sentence of his own case before <em>It is so ordered.</em>
Just one? Then you&#039;re thinking of Heather Mills.
Poor Justice Thomas. No wonder he hardly ever writes an opinion or risks opening his mouth: his law clerks are drooling morons who have never seen the inside of a law school. I wonder how that happened?
<i>Hollingsworth Struck down the Ninth Circuit&#039;s opinion because the defenders had no standing.</i>
Aha! That&#039;s where he jumps the tracks. SCOTUS didn&#039;t say defenders didn&#039;t have standing in original District Court law suit since anyone can pretty much sue anyone. It was the appeal process where they didn&#039;t have standing since they didn&#039;t have the authority to represent the people of California.
Wingnut reading comprehension. How does that work?
Depends.
This is why I never trust anyone who claims to be speaking for God or Jesus.
Technically speaking.
There is a Federal District Judge, whose order still stands due to the lack of standing of Appellants, who would beg to differ.
<i>because ipso facto QED res ipsa loquitur also too??</i>
What about <i>Force Majeure</i>? I like me some <i>Force Majeure</i>.