Shit that annoys you

[frorider]

What’s Hotmail?

Anyway here’s something that annoys me: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ssibility.html

[rideit]

Gonna start a new thread, "Things That Infuriate You"

[frorider]

Yeah, this is just a quick vent thread IMO. Polyass is for the infuriating shit.

[old goat]

Maybe our real lawyers can weigh in. I learned in google law school that the idea of whether a federal district court ruling applies outside the district is a hot topic in legal circles. The SB 8 ruling only applied to Texas law. It was only after Dobbs that Roe v Wade was overturned for the whole country.

[anotherVTskibum]

People who still use Hotmail annoy me.

Sent using TGR Forums mobile app

[~mikey b]

people who have a signature that says “Sent using TGR Forums mobile app” annoy me.

[Core Shot]

people who have a signature that says “Sent using TGR Forums mobile app” annoy me.

Finally I agree with Mikey


Fact

[Meadow Skipper]

people who have a signature that says “Sent using TGR Forums mobile app” annoy me.

As usual I agree with mikey.

[~mikey b]

Finally I agree with Mikey


Fact

yee haw

[Core Shot]

yee haw

Fuckkk

That annoys me. I need a hug

[Brock Landers]

people who have a signature that says “Sent using TGR Forums mobile app” annoy me.

The. Fuckin. Worst.

[gregorys]

Maybe our real lawyers can weigh in. I learned in google law school that the idea of whether a federal district court ruling applies outside the district is a hot topic in legal circles. The SB 8 ruling only applied to Texas law. It was only after Dobbs that Roe v Wade was overturned for the whole country.

SB8 didn't really have anything to do with applying it outside the district.
However, SB8 made it impossible to exercise a federal constitutional right (the right to an abortion before the line of viability in Texas where Federal law should override state law) and so the SC should have stayed SB8 (at minimum) while it decided the case, or while lower courts were deciding.

But the SC didn't stay the law. So, effectively they allowed a state to strip away constitutional rights (which it had recognized for, what 40-50 years?) while hiding behind the unusual nature of the law.

However the pending Texas decision on Mifepristone may well be a nation-wide ban, even in states where abortion is fully legal. (I suspect this is the issue you're bringing up, because it's getting discussion recently) The worry is that the SC will again allow rogue federal judges to skirt what were once solid principles - standing, forum-shopping, nationwide-injunctions, etc. (IMO, because it agrees with their Christian-Taliban civil proclivities.)

Thus the general principle of skirting the law, using the shadow-docket, and all manner of previously unacceptable ruses is the same, IMO, in both cases. But the legal details/issues are quite different.

That's my super condensed/abridged/mangled version that, I'm sure does great injustice to the legal issues involved. But I think it does summarize things reasonably well in two paras.

[Brock Landers]

^^ are you a real lawyer

[gregorys]

^^ are you a real lawyer

Nope. But I didn't see anyone who was taking a swing at it. (Answering legal questions on TGR won't help you make partner.) So I thought I'd address what seemed like relevant issues.

[Brock Landers]

You use less legalese. I like it.

[~mikey b]

Fuckkk

That annoys me. I need a hug

[old goat]

SB8 didn't really have anything to do with applying it outside the district.
However, SB8 made it impossible to exercise a federal constitutional right (the right to an abortion before the line of viability in Texas where Federal law should override state law) and so the SC should have stayed SB8 (at minimum) while it decided the case, or while lower courts were deciding.

But the SC didn't stay the law. So, effectively they allowed a state to strip away constitutional rights (which it had recognized for, what 40-50 years?) while hiding behind the unusual nature of the law.

However the pending Texas decision on Mifepristone may well be a nation-wide ban, even in states where abortion is fully legal. (I suspect this is the issue you're bringing up, because it's getting discussion recently) The worry is that the SC will again allow rogue federal judges to skirt what were once solid principles - standing, forum-shopping, nationwide-injunctions, etc. (IMO, because it agrees with their Christian-Taliban civil proclivities.)

Thus the general principle of skirting the law, using the shadow-docket, and all manner of previously unacceptable ruses is the same, IMO, in both cases. But the legal details/issues are quite different.

That's my super condensed/abridged/mangled version that, I'm sure does great injustice to the legal issues involved. But I think it does summarize things reasonably well in two paras.

So given that the district court is a trial court, who decides if there is a jury, and if there is a jury what vote is required to find for the plaintiff and for the defense. Because it seems that if there is a jury it might be hard to find a jury that would overrule the FDA.
+

[dunfree]

SB8 didn't really have anything to do with applying it outside the district.
However, SB8 made it impossible to exercise a federal constitutional right (the right to an abortion before the line of viability in Texas where Federal law should override state law) and so the SC should have stayed SB8 (at minimum) while it decided the case, or while lower courts were deciding.

But the SC didn't stay the law. So, effectively they allowed a state to strip away constitutional rights (which it had recognized for, what 40-50 years?) while hiding behind the unusual nature of the law.

However the pending Texas decision on Mifepristone may well be a nation-wide ban, even in states where abortion is fully legal. (I suspect this is the issue you're bringing up, because it's getting discussion recently) The worry is that the SC will again allow rogue federal judges to skirt what were once solid principles - standing, forum-shopping, nationwide-injunctions, etc. (IMO, because it agrees with their Christian-Taliban civil proclivities.)

Thus the general principle of skirting the law, using the shadow-docket, and all manner of previously unacceptable ruses is the same, IMO, in both cases. But the legal details/issues are quite different.

That's my super condensed/abridged/mangled version that, I'm sure does great injustice to the legal issues involved. But I think it does summarize things reasonably well in two paras.

not judges, judge. They venue shop for a crank

[Djongo Unchained]

Thanks for the 6am laugh.
That is hilariously creepy.

[~mikey b]

when a man needs a hug you give him a hug

[JayPowHound]

People who still use Hotmail annoy me.

Sent using TGR Forums mobile app

I definitely judge people based on their email server of choice. Yahoo, Hotmail. AOL.. seriously people?!? It's 2023..

/Sent from mobile without auto signature

[~mikey b]

I remember getting an invite from a friend for gmail in 2000 and thinking it was pretty cool that I could move around and keep the same email even if I changed internet providers

I’ve got a few friends still using hotmail and it still works for them

[old goat]

I definitely judge people based on their email server of choice. Yahoo, Hotmail. AOL.. seriously people?!? It's 2023..

/Sent from mobile without auto signature

How do you feel about prodigy?
(Based on our experience with prodigy/yahoo---I'm nervous about corresponding with anyone who still uses. I'm certain to be told they've been arrested in some foreign country and need me to send money.)

[jm2e]

I definitely judge people based on their email server of choice. Yahoo, Hotmail. AOL.. seriously people?!? It's 2023..

/Sent from mobile without auto signature

I’ve got an aol address. I’ve never found a compelling reason to go through the hassle of changing my email address.
Judge away.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[babybear]

How about the 40+ yo's that still use their alma mater email address
I notice it particularly with the Harvard people, go figs