Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by RugbyMuffin, Jan 12, 2018.
They're probably still trying to wrap their little flat discs around the problem.
When I was thirteen, I was in a rockin' band with a few of my classmates. The older brother of our rhythm guitarist told us that if we smeared Crest toothpaste on a cigarette and dried it in front of a space heater, it would be just like smoking a joint -- an experience none of us had had at that point.
Yeah, not so much. I guess we should have taken into account the fact that he was a high school dropout and a well-known liar... but hey, we were rebels.
Must be the same guy who told me I could make hard cider by putting yeast in it and letting it ferment. So... of course I stole some of my moms yeast, put it in the cider and hid it in the basement for a couple weeks. All it did was make me sick.
Dude, everybody knows that if you want to make hard cider, you put it in the freezer.
wth is with people??? Having LL Bean clothing for years and then returning it.. rilly, bruh, rilly???
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Can a sister get a tampon???
This has been a big story at the legislature. A big story that makes the majority party look like misogynist morons.
Perhaps "shows them as the mysogynistic morons that they are" is more accurate....
Maybe one of the female senators needs to present a slideshow in the legislature on how a woman's reproductive cycle works. Or maybe the male senators are just misogynistic.
The commercialization of the death industry is moving away from morbidity and guilt to being cool.
Since I turned 70 I've finally begun to realize I'm not the 22 year old we all think we still are. I've recently re-done my will.
I now need a volunteer to come help me clean my garage... Anyone?? A Cards fan for 1/2 of my ashes at UofP and a golfer from Oregon to help my wife spread the other 1/2 at Bandon Dunes Golf Course when I'm totally out ..
Quite a long article but a good read.
Would you please give me an explanation of what this actually means in layman's terms?
I’m following this case for different reasons. I don’t give a rat’s butt about public sector unions, but I do care about stare decisis.
The law currently states that if there is a union that must bargain for all people in a particular public sector, then everyone employed in that sector must contribute the costs for negotiation and administration of that union, regardless of whether the individual belongs to the union or not.
This was previously upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS. The reason is that if the union must negotiate on behalf of everyone, then everyone has to chip in for the costs associated with that negotiation because everyone gets the benefit. Note that the union can not assess fees for non-members for political speech: commercials, lobbying, etc.
The challenger is asserting that being required to pay these negotiation fees is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Given SCOTUS’s ruling in Citizen’s United, where it held that cash was speech, and given that the Court evenly split 4-4 a year ago when this exact same issue was before it, it is likely SCOTUS will strike down the contribution law as infringing on the 1st Amendment.
The effect to public unions is expected to be catastrophic: if a person can receive the benefit for free, then they will do so and not pay into the shouted.
I care about this issue because it was a scant 40 years (or so) since the Court originally ruled that this was constitutional. Thus, the Court will upend stare decisis. This doctrine essentially means “what has been decided let it stay decided.” There have been only a few notable exceptions to stare decisis, and usually for a very good reason.
The reasons behind stare decisis are simple and common sense. First, it gives stability to the law. The laws do not change simply because a judge or justice retires. Instead, you have a foundational principal that everyone can look to and count on for generations to come. Generally, this is a good thing; it makes the law stable. Once in a while, it’s bad, such as in the cases of Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, and the court needs to reverse itself.
I’m concerned for what this case will do for stare decisis.
Hope this helps.
Separate names with a comma.