The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I apologize for hurting your feelings by forgetting what was surely a lucid, timely, and informative post. But your "under this law" caveat is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks to Burger, we know that the law says:

• Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

A prosecutor would argue that a woman charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting is not being "subjected" to criminal conviction or penalty under "this Act" -- she's being charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting, which are distinct crimes.

Dude, check out the bold italicized above. It doesn't limit it to under "this Act." It says any at all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is beeg, beeg state. More than 77,000 square miles. Very beeg.



Lame flag, though.

I think he was talking about population. Not a lot of people in the Dakotas.

At what point does the population of the Dakotas become so small that we turn them back into a federal territory?

As far as the flag is concerned there seemed to be this lazy trend in the middle to late nineteenth century where a bunch of states just slapped their state seal on a piece of cloth and called it their flag. No creativity at all.

Luckily this trend ended in the twentieth century so Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska all have pretty cool flags.

My favorite flag is Maryland's. There is a flag with some character.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Dude, check out the bold italicized above. It doesn't limit it to under "this Act." It says any at all.

Tht's how I read it too.

S_A_M

P.S. Have I missed the big discussion on Carla Martin, the TSA lawyer whose misconduct has just ensured that Moussaoui will _not_receive the death penalty? (Tough case anyway, but . . . .) Fucking incredible.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Dude, check out the bold italicized above. It doesn't limit it to under "this Act." It says any at all.

2. And I think Fringe already made the point that "conspiracy" is not itself a crime (nor is "attempt"). It's a conspiracy to commit a crime, in this case performing an abortion. Inchoate offenses are not themselves offenses, only in conjunction with something otherwise unlawful.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And fuck South Dakota with that lameass flag.

BTW, did Texas rip of Chile?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Tht's how I read it too.

S_A_M

P.S. Have I missed the big discussion on Carla Martin, the TSA lawyer whose misconduct has just ensured that Moussaoui will _not_receive the death penalty? (Tough case anyway, but . . . .) Fucking incredible.

Sort of.

The exclusionary rule is apparently bad.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Tht's how I read it too.

S_A_M

P.S. Have I missed the big discussion on Carla Martin, the TSA lawyer whose misconduct has just ensured that Moussaoui will _not_receive the death penalty? (Tough case anyway, but . . . .) Fucking incredible.

What's to discuss, other than it's a massive fucking bungle. Then again, the basis on which they were trying to get him was pretty thin.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. And I think Fringe already made the point that "conspiracy" is not itself a crime (nor is "attempt"). It's a conspiracy to commit a crime, in this case performing an abortion. Inchoate offenses are not themselves offenses, only in conjunction with something otherwise unlawful.

Yes. Fringe didn't think she needed to bold and italicize the "any" the first time around. It seemed pretty obvious.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. Have I missed the big discussion on Carla Martin, the TSA lawyer whose misconduct has just ensured that Moussaoui will _not_receive the death penalty? (Tough case anyway, but . . . .) Fucking incredible.

Is that set, that he won't get the death penalty? Was there another ruling, or is it that the case falls apart without the testimony of the witnesses who were coached and given info they weren't supposed to have and otherwise mishandled?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes. Fringe didn't think she needed to bold and italicize the "any" the first time around. It seemed pretty obvious.

And I don't see how it really matters, anyway. I suppose there's some chance that SD could claim it's not putting an undue burden on women by forcing them to go out of state (where they could not be subject to prosecution by SD, but could if it were a crime to procure an abortion or attempt to get one, even out of state). But I don't think they're looking to split those hairs with this one.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is that set, that he won't get the death penalty? Was there another ruling, or is it that the case falls apart without the testimony of the witnesses who were coached and given info they weren't supposed to have and otherwise mishandled?

Government is weighing its options.

Are there only three people at TSA who could so testify, or are they barred from adding witnesses at this point? In other words, surely there are untainted witnesses.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is that set, that he won't get the death penalty? Was there another ruling, or is it that the case falls apart without the testimony of the witnesses who were coached and given info they weren't supposed to have and otherwise mishandled?

Apparently even the prosecutors candidly say that he's not going to get the death penalty unless the excluded witnesses can testify. They're asking the judge to reconsider her ruling tomorrow. I can't possibly see how he'd get a fair hearing if that were to happen, and is there an appeal process for the prosecutorial side on a hearing like this one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And I don't see how it really matters, anyway. I suppose there's some chance that SD could claim it's not putting an undue burden on women by forcing them to go out of state (where they could not be subject to prosecution by SD, but could if it were a crime to procure an abortion or attempt to get one, even out of state). But I don't think they're looking to split those hairs with this one.

Yeah, it seems like it's possibly important on a political level, but probably not from the constitutionality standpoint, since I don't think they are trying to meet any kind of "no undue burden" standard here. I would presume they are hoping to get Roe dumped, so that there no longer is any burden test to impose.

BURGER!!! Its. Its. Its.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Government is weighing its options.

Are there only three people at TSA who could so testify, or are they barred from adding witnesses at this point? In other words, surely there are untainted witnesses.

Maybe these are the only three people who would have made the decision to change security procedures if they'd known about the plot? I wonder how many false alarms those guys followed up upon prior to 9/11. I wonder how many false alarms they follow up upon now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Dude, check out the bold italicized above. It doesn't limit it to under "this Act." It says any at all.

I see that. But read it again:

"Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother ... to any criminal conviction and penalty. What if some other law, on its face, may be construed to subject the pregnant mother to criminal conviction and penalty?