Ctrl+V

[Zarquon]

http://www.scienceduck.com/2010/07/08/the-huffington-post-has-a-soft-spot-for-pseudoscience/

[Lily]

http://foundfootagefest.com/videos/how-seduce-women-through-hypnosis

Where... is... my... rabbit...............


Huh? Wha..?

[tazreview]

TAZ sratchpad

[The Drunk Guy]

Cvfp-4466-1088

[drgoodtrips]

10052010020134

[Michael]

10052010020134

Looks like the date.

[Zarquon]

Everything is subject to change, everything is subject to decay

[Greendruid]

This will involve the additional skill set of preparing human tooth samples as well as bone.

[Michael]

This will involve the additional skill set of preparing human tooth samples as well as bone.

This is perhaps part of the punishment inflicted upon those who interrupt the lecture with their texting?

[Americano]

This is perhaps part of the punishment inflicted upon those who interrupt the lecture with their texting?

Let the punishment fit the crime. Finger bones.

[Zarquon]

1. What is your major?
2.Why do you want to become a lawyer?
3.Which law school do you want to go to?
4.What is your opinion of the current members of Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)? If none, what, according to you, is the proper role of a judge?
5. What is your political persuasion (social and fiscal separately)?
6.What is your religious affiliation?
7. Do you intend to vote in the Mid-Term Congressional Elections? If not eligible, are you abreast with the politics of your country?
8.Which law do you seek to specialize in?
9.In your opinion, what is the best thing about UB?
10.What is your life’s ambition?

[Michael]

4.What is your opinion of the current members of Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)?

What kind of troll question is this?

Legally speaking, SCOTUS must be considered as a single unit. Obsessing over individual personalities is a self-referential game of facile partisan politics and emotional subjectivity (pure drivel), which is the categorical opposite of the principle of law.

So you might think that Roberts or Scalia is a stupid poopy-head. What the fuck does that have to do with SCOTUS or the law?

[Zarquon]

What kind of troll question is this?

Legally speaking, SCOTUS must be considered as a single unit. Obsessing over individual personalities is a self-referential game of facile partisan politics and emotional subjectivity (pure drivel), which is the categorical opposite of the principle of law.

So you might think that Roberts or Scalia is a stupid poopy-head. What the fuck does that have to do with SCOTUS or the law?
Just a questionnaire for fellow Phi Alpha Delta pledgees, wtf is with your reaction?

[Michael]

Just a questionnaire for fellow Phi Alpha Delta pledgees, wtf is with your reaction?

I don't like the US political/celebrity obsession with personalities. To see that carried over to the law is bad news. That question is all about 'tribalism', not law.

[Margot]

What kind of troll question is this?

Legally speaking, SCOTUS must be considered as a single unit. Obsessing over individual personalities is a self-referential game of facile partisan politics and emotional subjectivity (pure drivel), which is the categorical opposite of the principle of law.

So you might think that Roberts or Scalia is a stupid poopy-head. What the fuck does that have to do with SCOTUS or the law?

Oh, I think you're missing the nuances of this question. It's looking to weed out the "poopy-head" callers. Look at the second half of the question! "If none, what, according to you, is the proper role of a judge?" It's not asking you to say "oh, I think X is a douche and Y is a fox" it's looking for the views of the questioned on the role of the supreme court.

If you think "X is prone to legislate from the bench" say it. It's a valid opinion.

More importantly, if we're just going to say "oh, well, they're one branch of the government and should be viewed as a single unit" then why aren't we saying that about the senate? I may not be able to vote for supreme court judges, but I sure as hell can form a valid opinion.

Chastising a question for inquiring about a person's views is downright authoritarian and anti-democratic.

[Non Sequitur]

Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (Mat*3:1*BGT)

[drgoodtrips]

Looks like the date.

I think it was some kind of confirmation number for some bill payment. So, stands to reason the date would be in there :)

[Michael]

Oh, I think you're missing the nuances of this question. It's looking to weed out the "poopy-head" callers. Look at the second half of the question! "If none, what, according to you, is the proper role of a judge?" It's not asking you to say "oh, I think X is a douche and Y is a fox" it's looking for the views of the questioned on the role of the supreme court.

If you think "X is prone to legislate from the bench" say it. It's a valid opinion.
All judges are prone to legislate from the bench by definition. Any accusation that doesn't apply to all is just partisan bullshit. Ergo, moot point.

More importantly, if we're just going to say "oh, well, they're one branch of the government and should be viewed as a single unit" then why aren't we saying that about the senate? I may not be able to vote for supreme court judges, but I sure as hell can form a valid opinion.
SCOTUS and Senate are enormously different bodies.

Senate is individually elected and states are individually represented. Senate also has arcane rules that allow individual Senators to block/stop ALL Senate activity. Senate decisions have no limits save the Constitution (and even then, that seems like a weak limit in practice).

This is categorically different from SCOTUS where justices are not elected and do not represent anything or anyone. In addition, individual justices cannot derail a decision or cause SCOTUS to stop functioning in anyway. Decisions from SCOTUS must always be predicated upon statutory and case law - and the Constitution provides a strong limit on any independence for SCOTUS.

That is to say, there is just a whole lot less room for personality on SCOTUS than there is in the Senate or House or any political office.

Chastising a question for inquiring about a person's views is downright authoritarian and anti-democratic.
I did not chastise a question. I sought to chastise a particular insititution (UB) for encouraging a partisan-centric position on law and SCOTUS. As far as I'm concerned, that's like a 'cancer' in the legal-political system.

[Zarquon]

I did not chastise a question. I sought to chastise a particular insititution (UB) for encouraging a partisan-centric position on law and SCOTUS. As far as I'm concerned, that's like a 'cancer' in the legal-political system.
I wrote those questions and asked them as a pledgee for PAD (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPhi_Alp ha_Delta&rct=j&q=phi%20alpha%20delta&ei=hWK2TJ69LYH_8AbB3bywAQ&usg=AFQjCNHfJkY87jy5pnmyJAlnlJMEedMOWg&sig2=KToF5WwWoUAcBw_z2xMEyg&cad=rja) not UB or anything. Further, that question is a slightly indirect way of asking what do you think about the current supreme court? People don't seem to be able to understand and answer that one well, thus this question.

[Michael]

Further, that question is a slightly indirect way of asking what do you think about the current supreme court? People don't seem to be able to understand and answer that one well, thus this question.
If one can't discuss SCOTUS meaningfully in proper legal terms, then one's partisan opinion about the court merely defines their left/right tribal status. And for partisan tribalists, SCOTUS is wonderful when it supports their partisan political views and is a monstrosity when it doesn't.

In other words, if people can't discuss SCOTUS in proper terms, then I'd say their opinion of SCOTUS is essentially irrelevant - just ask which party they support and you will know their view of SCOTUS (and which Justice they HATE the most - that's what it is all about after all).

[dilettante]

If one can't discuss SCOTUS meaningfully in proper legal terms, then one's partisan opinion about the court merely defines their left/right tribal status. And for partisan tribalists, SCOTUS is wonderful when it supports their partisan political views and is a monstrosity when it doesn't.

In other words, if people can't discuss SCOTUS in proper terms, then I'd say their opinion of SCOTUS is essentially irrelevant - just ask which party they support and you will know their view of SCOTUS (and which Justice they HATE the most - that's what it is all about after all).

"Proper" terms?

What on earth is improper about commenting on the justices individually? We all know that they bring different views and philosophies to the court; it's silly to pretend that they represent some homogeneous entity. The range of political/legal positions of the supreme court justices gives people touch-stones with which to better describe their own positions. It seems like a fine question for that purpose.

[Michael]

"Proper" terms?

What on earth is improper about commenting on the justices individually? We all know that they bring different views and philosophies to the court; it's silly to pretend that they represent some homogeneous entity. The range of political/legal positions of the supreme court justices gives people touch-stones with which to better describe their own positions. It seems like a fine question for that purpose.

You can talk about anything you like. I commented on asking the question.

[JHC]

CCF12082010_00000.jpg
CCF13102010_00000.jpg
CCF13102010_00001.jpg
CCF13102010_00002.jpg
CCF13102010_00003.jpg

That was boring.

[Margot]

Ugh, I always think to come here after I've written a post somewhere else and all I ever have is stuff like this:

melaleuca


WHICH IS STILL MORE INTERESTING THAN YOUR CRAP, JHC. :)

[drgoodtrips]

[TestMethod]
public void ConstructorWithNullStringServiceThrowsException()
{
ExtendedAssert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>(delegate { AccessoryFactory myFactory = new AccessoryFactory(new Accessories(), null); });
}

[Zarquon]

Taare Zameen Par

[dilettante]

Week: # - [Title]


What should the students take away from this session?



What do I want to take away from this session?


What topics are covered?




What reading/preparation should they come in with?




Part I: Interaction/Response-to-Readings




Part 2: Lecture




Part 3: Activity




What assignments are they given to work on for the next session?

[Non Sequitur]

Kingdom of Jerusalem

[drgoodtrips]

// This assembly is the default dynamic assembly generated Castle DynamicProxy,
// used by Moq. Paste in a single line.
[assembly:InternalsVisibleTo("DynamicProxyGenAssembly2,PublicKey=002400000480000 0940000000602000000240000525341310004000001000100c 547cac37abd99c8db225ef2f6c8a3602f3b3606cc9891605d0 2baa56104f4cfc0734aa39b93bf7852f7d9266654753cc297e 7d2edfe0bac1cdcf9f717241550e0a7b191195b7667bb4f64b cb8e2121380fd1d9d46ad2d92d2d15605093924cceaf74c486 1eff62abf69b9291ed0a340e113be11e6a7d3113e92484cf70 45cc7")]

[dilettante]

Chapter one illustrates the role that education played in Drexel’s life as well as to provide the background in which she developed her awareness of social prejudices

[drgoodtrips]

http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot