Dante Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) If they are reaching a decision today what is the reason for waiting until June to announce? I'm glad that rule so quickly though. I was worried that two or three month delay in ruling would open them up to political pressure, coercion or bribery of some sort. Just read the reason. It's not really a final decision. They can still go back and forth about it. This explains it. Edited March 30, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 If they are reaching a decision today what is the reason for waiting until June to announce? I'm glad that rule so quickly though. I was worried that two or three month delay in ruling would open them up to political pressure, coercion or bribery of some sort. Just read the reason. It's not really a final decision. They can still go back and forth about it. This explains it. It'll probably take them that long to cool off after realizing that they're hogtied by Wickard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm lost on this thread. Is the SC hearing a case involving something owned by female deer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I think this is just the way that decisions are made now. The Supreme Court will probably launch a ten part mini-series that will air in the weeks leading up to the Decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm lost on this thread. Is the SC hearing a case involving something owned by female deer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 It'll probably take them that long to cool off after realizing that they're hogtied by Wickard. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 How so? Based on the questioning you would think that this court would have opposed income tax, social security, etc. I'm sure if they want to they'll ignore Wickard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The Washington connected need some time to trade on this information before the riff raff finds out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm lost on this thread. Is the SC hearing a case involving something owned by female deer? Sorry. Corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The Washington connected need some time to trade on this information before the riff raff finds out. Yup. Just like with pretty much like everything else. But don't worry, Hope & Change is on the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barack Obama Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yup. Just like with pretty much like everything else. But don't worry, Hope & Change is on the way! The Rainbow Farting Unicorns are being gassed up as we speak. The Unicorns should have been ready long ago but we tried to replace the gasoline with Sunshine from Solyndra solar panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The Washington connected need some time to trade on this information before the riff raff finds out. Well, apparently the market is expecting SCOTUS to overturn Obamacare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well, apparently the market is expecting SCOTUS to overturn Obamacare... Which gives them 2 months to buy low and say "Psych! Suckas!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The USC is like: Sam Sheepdog are the conservatives now and Ralph Wolf are the liberals... Yet, while off the clock... They are best of friends. Sometimes even "punching each other in." They don't !@#$ing care in their ivory tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The USC is like: Sam Sheepdog are the conservatives now and Ralph Wolf are the liberals... Yet, while off the clock... They are best of friends. Sometimes even "punching each other in." They don't !@#$ing care in their ivory tower. Get some help. If you can't afford it, I know some social services agencies that can provide some assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Get some help. If you can't afford it, I know some social services agencies that can provide some assistance. He actually seems to be getting worse, if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 He actually seems to be getting worse, if possible. Stand by. If he's not ready for the "one step solution" he may be ready for the final relocation (formerly known as the JiA drop off). Regardless, I'll keep track of things here and expect my usual fee. BTW, do you work in Arizona? Furthermore, do you have a problem with making dense, whiny pussies "sleep with the fishes"? The whining is getting to be a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) I am clowning around people! But the SC justices are still best of buds in their ivory tower... You really think they give a flying !@#$ at a rolling donut how polarized the court has become. Okay, maybe Chief Roberts does... But it is self-serving. He cares about how he will be viewed by historians in the future. This falls 5-4, big worries on Roberts'. Better for Roberts if it falls in a landslide EITHER way. Edited April 1, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I am clowning around people! But the SC justices are still best of buds in their ivory tower... You really think they give a flying !@#$ at a rolling donut how polarized the court has become. Okay, maybe Chief Roberts does... But it is self-serving. He cares about how he will be viewed by historians in the future. This falls 5-4, big worries on Roberts'. Better for Roberts if it falls in a landslide EITHER way. I'm paying your salary? Why? I never saw some agreement between me and the government that made me responsible for paying for the underacheivers to get a federal job and be protected for life. Edit: I could be a little harsh on you but you know I'm speaking the truth in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm paying your salary? Why? I never saw some agreement between me and the government that made me responsible for paying for the underacheivers to get a federal job and be protected for life. Edit: I could be a little harsh on you but you know I'm speaking the truth in general No you pay into something else. I "subsidize" my own salary... Same with the other employees. If you want to think you pay my salary, your 1/1,000 of a cent that you MAY pay towards my job doesn't give you power. Sure it gives you stake in the "company" but, NOT controlling interest/majority control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts