or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 142

post #2116 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Sexist bullshit. I'll bet she doesn't call me on Fathers Day.

Phone call? Communicating with Hillary requires an experienced exorcist.
post #2117 of 5129
I'm betting she calls collect.
post #2118 of 5129
Fine by me. If it were to happen, I'd be able to dine out on that story with female friends to an extent that would make it well worth it.
post #2119 of 5129
Quote:
A federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency program to collect information on billions of telephone calls made or received by Americans is illegal.
In an opinion issued Thursday, a three-judge panel from the New York-based 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that a law Congress passed allowing collection of information relevant to terrorism investigations does not authorize the so-called “bulk collection” of phone records on the scale of the NSA program. The judges did not address whether the program violated the Constitution.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Gerard Lynch said allowing the government to gather data in a blanket fashion was not consistent with the statute used to carry out the program: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/nsa-phone-data-collection-illegal-court-ruling-117725.html#ixzz3ZT5vYG7W

Spineless cowards. Of course it violates the constitution. Reaching the right result for the wrong reason.
post #2120 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Spineless cowards. Of course it violates the constitution. Reaching the right result for the wrong reason.

I don't fundamentally disagree, but (and I haven't read the opinion yet, so I'm just making shit up as I go) there may be an argument that it's not so much the "wrong" result as the result that's consistent with the notion that if the courts should avoid reaching to overturn statutes on Constitutional grounds if other valid reasons exist for reaching that same result. I'm f***ing up how that principle is summarized, but it's been a long-ass time since I took Con Law or Federal Courts.
post #2121 of 5129
Thread Starter 
So back to Alberta. For you people without a passport Alberta is the Texas of Canada. Oil money, cowboys, right wing provincial government for 40 years. This week the right wing vote, 60% of the popular vote, was split between to right wing parties and the left wing party, the NDP, got a majority government with just 40% of the popular vote. Lefties in Canada are so "proud" of Alberta now. I keep pointing out to them it's the same people that voted in a 40 year PC reign so it's not like the majority of people that live in Alberta are on the right side of history. They do not seem to understand my analysis so I figure I'm on the wrong side of history. Or maybe herstory?
post #2122 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I don't fundamentally disagree, but (and I haven't read the opinion yet, so I'm just making shit up as I go) there may be an argument that it's not so much the "wrong" result as the result that's consistent with the notion that if the courts should avoid reaching to overturn statutes on Constitutional grounds if other valid reasons exist for reaching that same result. I'm f***ing up how that principle is summarized, but it's been a long-ass time since I took Con Law or Federal Courts.


You are correct, once a court reaches a statutory analysis that an action is not authorized it doesn't have to go any further. But plenty of courts do, and they should have done it here.
post #2123 of 5129
Quote:
So you want to feel the presence of a double down sandwich, but it's mysteriously vanished from the KFC menu again. What a dilemma. Well good news Kentuckians, we've turned this elusive unicorn into a candle you can cradle year round. Layered with pure Kentucky goodness, this Double Down candle starts off with a layer of Kathy's real Fried Chicken candle mixed with bacon pieces, easing into a bacon-scented center, finishing off with another layer of bonafide fried chicken. Let's leave a candle in the window to show our friend the way home. #NeverForget #BringItBack #WhoNeedsBreadWhenYouHaveChicken.


post #2124 of 5129


Quote:
A Florida woman used the comments section of a Pizza Hut order made from her smartphone on Monday afternoon to alert authorities that she and her children were being held hostage. When police responded to her message, arriving at the location, she and her children were quickly released, unharmed, and the kidnapper was arrested.
post #2125 of 5129
Why would a hostage taker allow someone to use their phone?
post #2126 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Why would a hostage taker allow someone to use their phone?

Because they had stolen a Bud Lite from the fridge and "No" was no longer in their vocabulary.
post #2127 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Why would a hostage taker allow someone to use their phone?


It's bullshit. It was a domestic argument and the woman decided to become an attention whore by proxy of pizza hut.
post #2128 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I don't fundamentally disagree, but (and I haven't read the opinion yet, so I'm just making shit up as I go) there may be an argument that it's not so much the "wrong" result as the result that's consistent with the notion that if the courts should avoid reaching to overturn statutes on Constitutional grounds if other valid reasons exist for reaching that same result. I'm f***ing up how that principle is summarized, but it's been a long-ass time since I took Con Law or Federal Courts.

If I'm reading that three-sentence summary correctly, the holding is that the program is not authorized by the statute. So why would the courts bother deciding whether the program is unconstitutional?
post #2129 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If I'm reading that three-sentence summary correctly, the holding is that the program is not authorized by the statute. So why would the courts bother deciding whether the program is unconstitutional?


Yeah, courts have never done that before.
post #2130 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If I'm reading that three-sentence summary correctly, the holding is that the program is not authorized by the statute. So why would the courts bother deciding whether the program is unconstitutional?

I take it you're not actually directing that question to me? Because we actually agree on this . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob