That was basically either attitude. They said that we were adults, and they weren’t a law enforcement organization. And if we got in trouble with the cops, we were stuck with the consequences because, again, we were adults. We also had the same basic thing about don’t be stupid.
Bringing the beer truck onto the lawn I front of the North Campus dorms with profs refereeing drinking games ended after my freshman year, just as the drinking age was moving up. My class was the last group to drink legally at age 19.
The college insisted that IDs be checked at on-campus parties—but only to make sure everyone there was a college student. They didn’t care if we were underage. They didn’t care about drugs. They just didn’t want local high school students getting in.
(The college’s attitude towards alcohol was substantially looser then.)
My sophomore-year roommate at Grinnell College made beer in his closet and ran a still in the dorm kitchen. He hoped that the feds would come seize the dorm.
He probably would have graduated if he’d put half the time into his chem labs as he put into making rum.
But what if the other person is OLD and only agrees with me 80% of the time?
Very few people understand how exactly pardons work. I only know enough to know that I’m not one of them.
Perhaps the next president can tell service members, “I will respect any assertion of a pardon. But if you make assert your pardon in a court martial for war crimes, your next assignment is an airbase in Germany, and we won’t protect you from their war crimes tribunal.”
I do hope the next administration is aggressive about pushing the limits of pardons. They aren’t a complete memory hole for wrong doing. Can the next president refuse to promote any military service member who asserts a pardon from war crimes? What other collateral consequences survive a pardon? etc
I applaud the creativity, but just saying they won’t count won’t work.
That’s why the headline is misleading. She doesn’t want to give details to the Trump regime. She wants details on LaRose’s decision to give private details to the Trump regime.
The audio book is Six Frigates, a story about the early US & the Barbary Pirates, among other things, by an author someone I follow here recommended. The reading book is System Collapse. I’m finishing the Murderbot series again because Book 8 is coming out next month.
Do the current neighbors dislike laundromats or the possibility of having new neighbors who might use a laundromat?
I’m just jealous that you have enough bollards to have a preference. Pretty much the only bollards we have in my city are around government buildings.
To show this poster’s attitude toward British bollards:
It looks like it’s placed on the sidewalk to protect pedestrians from motor-vehicle drivers tempted to cut the corner, which seems particularly legitimate to me.
Bollards. Cities need more bollards. Not meaningless flex posts. Actual metal bollards embedded in concrete.
The biggest difference between poetry analysis and statutory analysis is that, at least for the quality of poems in college textbooks books, the answer is never, “the poet wasn’t paying attention.” Many of the hardest statutory issues come from careless legislating.
(Also, my partner made the quilt the floof is floofing on)
One coding-like challenge is deleting all the words from a statute that aren’t relevant to the case before you, and then working the definitions in where appropriate. Again, this is a first step, and it often doesn’t get you to the end.
That kind of “coding” is a necessary first step. It’s a first step law students need to learn, but it’s only a first step.
I find that poetry analysis is a helpful next step. Why is this word used here, but not there? Why is the sentences structured like this instead of that?
The article makes clear that she wants information on the current Republican secretary of state’s decision to turn over private information to the Trump regime. The headline can be read to mean she wanted the info turned over, which is incorrect.
Writing “secratary” is amateurish, comparing the downed pilot to Jesus rising from the dead is, well, very sadly typical of this regime.
The list of shame should include professors who both-sides’d this, treating dishonest scholarship as something that must be studied with respect to understand the issue. It’s like saying parents should steep themselves in anti-vax literature before vaccinating their kids.
Guaranteed to work? Hardly. Worth a try? Seems so.
The Pentagon is in Virginia. Perhaps now would be a good time for the D-controlled Virginia legislature to pass some presidential-pardon–proof laws against war crimes. Same with any D-controlled states with large military bases. Then their state RICO-like laws to extend to the entire military.
The standard for putting someone in prison is proof beyond a reasonable doubt using only admissible evidence as determined by a jury.
The standard for asking someone to step down from a race to be a state’s governor is substantially lower.
Decisions like these are part of why I think it should be hard to push judges to recuse. Not only does the replacement process create a new opportunity for a perception of gaming the system, the resulting decisions can have less weight. (Our CJ appears to me to be making fair assignment decisions.)
