Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Guys, should we update the dropout predictions rankings to include Jim Gilmore's inevitable nomination?

[smjjames]

Yeah, this undercard 'debate' is rather meh. As of at least two debates ago, it seems like the only purpose is to keep the irrelevant candidates happy.

[smjjames]

Santorum is freaking nuts, during the commercial break I saw this in the twitter sidebar on 538: "Santorus wants to eliminate controls like Mercury? Is he nuts?"

So, I went back to see what he said and he did indeed say he would cut stuff like mercury regulations and ozone regulations. Guy obviously has absolutely no clue what he is talking about, probably doesn't even know what mercury is.

[mainiac]

Still a planet despite what those eggheads at NASA say.

[Mephansteras]

Santorum is freaking nuts, during the commercial break I saw this in the twitter sidebar on 538: "Santorus wants to eliminate controls like Mercury? Is he nuts?"

So, I went back to see what he said and he did indeed say he would cut stuff like mercury regulations and ozone regulations. Guy obviously has absolutely no clue what he is talking about, probably doesn't even know what mercury is.

But mercury is a naturally occurring element! Clearly no harm can come from a naturally occurring element. That would imply that God doesn't have our welfare in mind! [/sarcasm]

[Jopax]

He should also suggest adding lead to gasoline to improve it too.

[Amperzand]

Making dinner plates with pretty yellow uranium ore?

[smjjames]

My version of closing statements:

Gilmore: I wasn't born rich, my parents are working ckass ctizens, bla blah (bell dings) Im not about to go (ding!) blah blah blah (DINGITY DING!) Gilmore: (seriously, he got dinged three times, after he went past 30 seconds.

Santorum: Thanks Iowa and various people for hospitality, please vote.

Huckabee: Hello!, please vote for me again, plzzzzzzz........ IOWA!.....

Carly: blah blah establishment blah blah, Iowa, I command you to vote and caucas for me.

[hector13]

Making glow in the dark paint with radium.

[smjjames]

Using absestos again...

Okay that's a mineral, not an element.

[Shadowlord]

lead lead wine?

We're still following the laws they wrote 240-ish years ago. The constitution and its amendments are the sole test by which an entire third of the government runs and keeps the other parts in check. Dump that document and we can dump the opinions of the people who wrote it. As long as it's there, though, we must keep their intent in mind.

That seems like a bit of an oversimplification to me. The courts can't ignore the laws and regulations from the executive and legislative branches of either the federal or state governments. They can't even directly challenge them unless someone files a lawsuit or appeals a conviction or what-have-you, and even then their rulings are generally constrained by common law (precedent), and successfully changing it generally requires getting a case to the supreme court and hoping they'll rule in some way that benefits your cause.

I did a quick google news search for 'supreme court precedent'. Here's a relevant article:

The U.S. Supreme Court says the Idaho Supreme Court erred when it didn't follow the precedent set by an earlier Supreme Court ruling.

In a written opinion issued Friday, the nation's highest court reversed the state court's decision on how to award attorney's fees in a civil rights lawsuit.

"The Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or federal court, is bound by this Court's interpretation of federal law," the nation's highest court wrote Friday. "The state court erred in concluding otherwise."

The issue arose in a lawsuit brought by a woman named Melene James, who sued the city of Boise after she was mistaken for a burglar and bitten by a police dog. A state district court dismissed her lawsuit, and the Idaho Supreme Court upheld that ruling and ordered her to pay the city of Boise's attorney's fees.

When making the award of attorney's fees, the Idaho Supreme Court relied on a federal law but disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings detailing what the law means. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that the state court failed to consider whether the lawsuit was frivolous or not when it awarded attorney's fees.

In the opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court said it is responsible for saying what a federal statute means, and other courts have the duty to respect that.

"And for good reason," the high court wrote in the opinion. "As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state courts were permitted to disregard this Court's rulings on federal law, 'the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps, never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or efficacy, in any two states.'"

[smjjames]

Anyway, main debate starting now.....

[RedKing]

Cruz trying to be funny as the fill-in for Trump, starting off by insulting everyone.

[RedKing]

Rubio: This campaign is not about Donald Trump. (But apparently this debate will be.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Jeb, meanwhile, is euphoric at not having to deal with Trump.