If mental illness is the problem, perhaps immediate treatment is in order.
Sounds like he's got a serious case of "cricket bat deficiency".
Rivalarrival
joined 2 years ago
lemmy tells me to go fuck myself.
Well, get on with it.
He's fitter and smarter than Donald, but neither LeBron nor Leonardo.
SCOTUS told Trump he needs an actual war in central or south America to invoke the Alien Enemies act. He needs that to justify internment camps and to allow the military to support ICE.
Venezuela is as good a target as any.
Judges are bound by the Separation of Powers. A judge who refuses to apply a legislated law against a particular defendant would (effectively) be exercising powers of the legislature. The judge cannot do this, nor can they advise a jury that this can be done, or otherwise enable the jury to do this.
However, a juror is not bound by the separation of powers. They are not an agent of the government. They are laypersons. Members of "We The People", who are the same authority that gives us the Constitution.
It is not illegal for a juror to determine that the legislature failed to consider a particular defendant's specific circumstances when they established a law, and exercise their constitutional authority in finding that defendant not guilty of having violated that law.
One of the first deals I did in real estate (~2006) was a sale at 115% loan-to-value, no money down, seller-paid closing costs. The buyers received $2500 at closing. Nobody batted an eye.
Need a "securities" tax, payable in shares of the security. An annual assessment of 1% of all shares owned, transferred directly to an IRS liquidation department. The liquidated shares will be sold off to the general public over time, such that no more than 1% of total traded volume of the security are liquidated shares.
Individual investors can exempt up to $10 million in value from the tax. Artificial persons (corporations, trusts, any "owner" that isn't human) are non-exempt.
Basically, stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments become more valuable assets to the working class, but carry more liabilities for the problem class.
I dunno, huck an old, unabridged dictionary at him hard enough, and he'd probably go down.
Guillotine museum.
AFAIK, when a law says something like "This section does not [do something]" It's usually because some other law explicitly prohibits [something]. Without such language, the two laws could be seen as conflicting.
I think excluding girls from boys teams violates Title IX.
The law in question doesn't actually mandate that school sports teams must be designated “based on the biological sex of the students who participate” in the sport. If you read the law, it only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit biological females from participating in male sports. Quite the contrary, it specifically acknowledges that all students, regardless of sex or gender, are allowed to participate in "boys" sports.
https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-15-education/az-rev-st-sect-15-120-02/
Fight club?
Wake me up when we get to #GuillotineParty.