dayman

I would argue Gonk and Hernandez have both already justified their draft picks. Obviously you don't want to sell a maniac who murders people in the regular course of his business...but from a football perspective the Gronk/Hernandez draft was a success already.

Baldwin is a known scumbag. So nobody cares. Some people are known scumbags and people don't care. He is one of them. Liberal or conservative...doesn't really matter...usually just means you are likable or entertaining or talented or randomly lucky...nothing more.

yes...yes...eat each other...yes...yes

There is only so much anybody can do regarding an idiot witness. At some point you have to go with what you have got.

Honestly this is as big if not bigger for the NFL b/c this is an active player, in his prime, on a high profile team, who scores a lot and has a big contract, name recognition, etc....OJ was a huge deal but he had some space between himself and the NFL....Hernandez is in thick of it.

Perry ordered a special session for Monday to vote again.

The 5th applies to the Feds...14th to the states...that's why the 5th...and as I said above there is an implicit equal protection right under the fifth that is roughly equivalent to the 14ths...it has quite a bit of case law and history on it so if you wanted to know how to analyze those questions all you have to do is read up

Do some wiki on the 5th amendment and the 14 amendment and the interplay if you are actually curious. The short of it is that life, liberty, and property w/ out due process of law carries with it an implicit equal protection guarantee.

This was an enormous day for legal standing. DOMA went off on standing (honstly I think a lot of people on this board, based on what I've seen, would love Scalia's dissent on Standing...starts quoting Madison and give lots of grandiose rhetoric on separation of powers) and prop 8 case had none! haha

Oh I guess this video should go in here...check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpiU2_Y6YY

Check out this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPpiU2_Y6YY

I also know nothing about this. ... but if I had to give an answer I would point to the number and routine nature of us Senate filibusters as the difference.

I agree that I don't think it will happen. But trials are trials and crazy things have happened than this...

Well just think about it, defendant bears the burden (preponderance of the evidence) at a pretrial evidentiary hearing. Elements: 1) no unlawful activity 2) in a place you have a right to be 3) reasonably believe necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to self or another or to prevent commission of forcible felony. Prove that up and no jury, no trial, you are immune. That's it. And there are open questions, unresolved between courts of different jurisdiction about how this applies to various situations...

The law abrogates longstanding common law duties. IMO....it was the legislatures intent to make people more protected in situations where they may be subject to random violence. As written, and as applied in some cases, the effects of this law have not been confined to such circumstances. IMO, when the two people are acquaintances, and when other evidence goes to factors like initial aggressor and the like...the law needs to do more than remain silent...and as such should be amended. There was a body of case law that addressed this type of issue...this provision change that...and it is unclear how this should be applied in certain circumstances ... many people (including law makers in Florida) do not agree that the person seeking immunity under this statute should be unquestionably protected by irrefutable presumptions in all circumstances...most notably when evidence can prove up who was the initial aggressor...but also when it is a factual question for the jury or when other circumstances such as relationship and the like are present.

It needs tweaking. Comments by Florida lawmakers suggested as such...although inaction in the latest session did not.

The emboldened portion is interesting, given that your entire post is geared towards Snowden and the worthless nature of his oaths. If you are really so concerned about the substance of the reveal, articulate it more fully so I can know where you are coming from. Conclusory statements of unconstitutionality don't do it.

That was clumsy and a stupid risk but all in all I liked what I saw from his opening (they did not show the knock-knock joke lol). Obviously if he wanted to make the point that after all that jury selection business they just wanted a fair jury that doesn't think they know Zimmerman from the media....he could have done it better. But all in all...to me his style is the perfect counter to what the prosecution will bring.

A quick wiki shows that if you don't fill it out they are more likely to do in person follow ups...and that nobody has ever been charged with a crime or fined. Wiki...but backs up BPA's story. Fill it out 3rd...or become victim of government jehovah witnessing

Just heard a clip of Carney being very strong on China regarding letting him leave.

Saw some clips of opening arguments on the news just now. George's lawyer has a good approach/demeanor. Looked good for him imo...based on what very little I just saw.

Ok we still need to bring unemployment down more. Go. Lets hear what we should be doing that has any realistic shot at passing. Oh wait, nothing about that in the article? Oh that's right...it's another mindless whiny "opinion article" from B-man...of course it isn't in there.

Be honest in your responses 3rd. Don't let shame keep from disclosing your lack of flush toilet.

In Russia the rock punks you

It's called reality. They've covered America's priorities...and can't agree to do anything about it. What ideas does this author expect they take up at this point? Was he asleep for the last 4 years? As for the secure the border debate...I would say most Americans agree it should be done...I think the problem comes from certain people wanting to basically put a standing army and invest a fortune in it when statistic show that at the moment net immigration is not a problem...it's not an issue of "secure or not" it's an issue of "what is secure?" More security is something both sides agree on. How much more is something they don't. And when it comes to this issue money and size of government is not so important anymore for some reason...