Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
"Hot?" "Not hot?" Roberts asked Meade."Oh, most definitely the most hottest, like white hot, your honor" Meade replied.
Who the hell does he think he is?Andrew Sullivan?
That's your job Professor. Don't let that Government Worker usurpt your power.
What? where, where is Andrew?Oh. False alarm.
Chief Justice Roberts is Althouse's father??Or have I misidentified the context here? ;) :D
No good will come out of this case.In addition to the usual ice water filled pitcher on the table, I envision a huge bottle of aspirin
Mr. Chief Justice Roberts is very thorough about his landscape planning before installation begins. He thought palm trees might not thrive in Alexandria.
Wait a secon. What if the Chief Justice is really Maxine?You know that would explain a lot.
Let's have Scalia marry these two off!
No good will come out of this case.I'm assuming that if they didn't release the audio, it means that they dont think its that important.
Mr. Coleman: Racial classifications are inherently pernicious...That pretty much nails it. Quite a minuet of obfuscation Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens will have to dance to get around it. But I'm sure they will. The only question is whether Kennedy will join them.
CHRISTOPHER J. Meade, Esq.Whew! For a second there, I was afraid I was in trouble with the law again.
Or worse - in trouble with Maxine (aka, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.) again.
Chief Justice Robert's staff called today and said, "Chip, animate rhhardin's dog. Pronto." So I go, "How do I know you're who you say you are?" And the guy goes,"Because my boss questioned Meade skeptically today. Now stop being so skeptical!" So I go, "Um, OK, with reasoning cogent as that fine, rhhardin, here's your dog."
I hope the professor gets back soon and explains this to us commoners. I read:"JUSTICE SCALIA: What -- one of the briefs said that, and maybe it wasn't done below, but one of the briefs said part of the claim is that some of the things that this test tested for were not -- were not qualities or abilities that were needed in New Haven, although they might be needed in other fire departments."and all I can figure is that they're talking about someone wearing racist underpants. Does it have something to do with Justice Breyer hiding things in his racist underpants?Were the racist underpants on fire?
i am not a lawyer and i tried to read the entire argument but could only get half way through it. several things struck me as i tried to wade through the arguments of souter and ginsburg. the language and the reasoning is so tortured and absent of any mention of merit,ability, and qualification that the lie of affirmative action and racial politics is laid bare. I assume these qualities are absent from the argument because they have no bearing on disparate impact. It is racial outcome which is most important not determining who would make the best firefighters. ginsburg obviously feels that any type of physical requirement for a job is a disqualifying bias against women. reading this i now know why one commentator mentioned a bottle of aspirin and said that no good will come from this case.
You might be in trouble with she who makes the law and must be obeyed, but if so, please do not share that info. We only want to hear about sunshine and rainbows.
Nothing about sticking things in anyone's underwear, I hope?No, that was Breyer.
"Whew! For a second there, I was afraid I was in trouble with the law again."How did you finally make out with that plant molestation charge?
Kennedy's "hypothetical," which got so much attention from the slow Justice Mr. Souter, is such a perfect example of muddled disputation by the Court (because of its preposterous self-contradictions) that I am surprised Justice Scalia didn't get up and just coldcock the turkey right there on the spot.
Post a Comment