tvc184

......... and if anyone cares, TX laws says the actor (parent or guardian) can use any force other than "deadly force" against a child for discipline to the degree the actor believes it is necessary. 

  You are trying to make a straw man argument by comparing small government to a possible Fourth Amendment violation. What does one have to do with the other?    If the NSA metadata collecting is legal and can keep us safe, what does small or large government have to do with it? That is like saying we should get rid of our nuclear deterrent or our super carriers because they are expensive or it constitutes big government.    On the other hand if metadata collection is illegal, what if its cost was minuscule? Would it be okay to violate our rights because it is really small government?    I see the big/small government argument as a non-issue on whether we should spy to protect the country whether any collecting data in the USA is illegal or not.    Most people consider big government the myriad of agencies that have too much control over our lives in both prohibitions and giveaways, not the cost or size of protection. 

I read both decisions (not the news media's version or opinion) and "IF" the DC court ruling is allowed to stand, it will be the final nail.   Of course that is a big IF.    Strangely in the dissent from the DC court, the dissenting judge gets political which usually does not come out in the rulings. He starts out his ruling that is supposed to be based on law and not political leanings with "This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".   To me that sounds political by complaining that they are trying to undo a law. Hmmm..... isn't that what constitutional challenges always do.... attempt to undo a law?    From the Fourth Circuit  I am not saying that they are wrong but I didn't notice where they went against the DC Court's opinion. They seemed to answer a different question in the law. Assuming that the DC Court ruling from one part of the law is valid that it is unconstitutional and the Fourth Circuit's ruling from another part is also true, the DC decision still stands because even if one part of the law stands (Fourth Circuit), the other decision still dismantles the law. In effect, both could be correct but it only takes on to disqualify the law.     

Silly NY laws that have no bearing in TX anyway. 

  Corruption is interesting and when many people see what they feel is corruption, it is great to see the monster fall.    Why were so many people hung up on a jury trial with millions of people being ecstatic at the outcome for a local crime that didn't happen in 49 states? Many felt that Zimmerman was being railroaded and it was great to see the verdict. On the opposite side, many felt that he was guilty of murder and would have jumped with joy with a conviction..... and again, for something that had nothing to do with this most places in this country.    When we see corrupt public officials (or anyone we think is corrupt) being held accountable, it is awesome. Look at the councilman being arrested in Kountze for felony theft a couple of days ago. There were plenty of comments on the various news sites and Facebook and none seemed favorable to the councilman and said how great it was that he was caught. Most of those comments came from communities that are bigger than Kountze and not even in the same county, so why should we even care?   What all of these have in common is a vindication of people's feelings. It has nothing to do with Beaumont (as much as many Beaumont people want it to be) but the feeling that corrupt people are actually about to pay the piper.    In my opinion.

You have been hung up on this TX dream act for days. It has nothing to do with federal control of immigration. The. TXDA allows people living in this state to pay in state tuition. Stunning right? If you live in the state, you get to claim that you live in the state. It has nothing to do with the proposed Dream Act where it grants citizenship to illegals based solely on attending college. It also does the same for illegals that join the military and I agree with that. If you serve 4 years minimum in the US military and get an honorable discharge, you get a permanent resident card/status (which my wife has) and can then apply for citizenship. All of which (again) has nothing to do with Texas allowing people living in the state to claim they are a resident of the state. Great attempt at a smoke screen though.........

Sounds like a federal government problem, not a state which us trying to enforce federal law.

  It might not be a true indication of actually "making up lies". Maybe it comes from getting opinions that a person takes as facts from sources such as MSNBC.    I am sure that all knowledgeable people knew that there was no requirement for a birth certificate and they weren't deporting people. In fact the detention of a suspected illegal alien is still legal under the contested AZ law and the SCOTUS upheld the right of local officers to detain and check for immigration status with the feds. Of course that is a meaningless point at the moment with Obama and Eric Holder running the show as they refuse to uphold the law but the law was allowed to stand. The part of the law that was thrown out was the making of a federal crime, a state crime also. In fact federal law requires aliens to carry documentation to this day. I have arrested aliens for not doing so but was required to call ICE and letting them confirm what I already knew and approving the arrest, which I made.    Of course that will again fall on deaf ears for those ignoring the truth and it is currently a moot point as the current administration will not even enforce immigration laws even after the local police make a lawful arrest such as for DWI, assault, etc. 

  I figured it would go over your head but at least I tried. 

Trolling only makes the troll look bad. 

  ..... besides, as a person that claims to have medical knowledge, you don't see the difference between a mental illness and a person having sex and wanting someone else to pay for it or an abortion drug at their discretion?    It is not even apples and oranges. It would be like asking the government to pay for tattoos or piercings since they penetrate the skin and you have to have a license based on knowledge of prophylaxis in order to legally perform them on someone else. 

  ........... with good reason.

I think that hinging the constitutionality of a birthright on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a losing argument.

  Assuming that is what he said, therein lies the problem. The SCOTUS is not supposed to rule on women's health. They are for make rulings on the law. It is not supposed to be a body performing think tank debates or social engineering but a legal device to rule on constitutionality of a law.    But, that would not fit the mantra of the left. 

    I am not sure why many many on one side of the bar because he consistently rules on that side. I am assuming that those lawyers think their own opinion is wrong? 

  ............. and the next week after the settlement 85,635 people will fall asleep in stadiums across the country. 

  Not according to WebMD and several other sites that I viewed like plannedparenthood.org, www.planbonestep.com (actual manufacturer of the pill), etc.    They all say that it "may" prevent fertilization but can stop implantation of an already fertilized egg and can be taken up to five days later and be effective but it is suggested no more than 72 hours. I am guessing that the egg is usually fertilized before and sometimes way before the five days pass. Therefore the suggesting that it does not stop implantation of the already fertilized egg is nonsense. Again, it could stop fertilization but if doesn't or it is too late, it will still stop implantation and allow a fertilized egg to die which just happens to why Hobby Lobby objected.    Of course, I am just looking at doctor websites and the people that actually make and push the pill so what do they know? They probably did not consult Big girl before publishing their information............. 

    Did you ever try reading the decision or just the headlines? The decision states that it only covers 4 out of 20 birth control possibilities that abort or stop a fertilized egg from attaching. Stopping conception was not an issue. Stopping a life after conception was the problem.    You might be interested (but probably not) in this quote from the opinion....   "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-  dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it  provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

  They get birth control pills or one of the other 15 paid for methods. 

  I have no clue about the BBQ but I liked the looks of almost anything at Florida's. The problem is that their portions are too big. Don't get the large whatever...........   I ordered the catfish dinner. They had large and small and I figured the small was a fillet or at the most, two. Then the large would have three full size fillets. Hmmmm......    The large was five that covered the platter. I asked a friend that lived there and he said all of their meals were like that. The people that I was with had likewise large portions of their various entree's. It is rare that I can sit at a restaurant meal and not finish but Florida's did me in.   

    I don't think Clinton would do quite as bad as Mondale but I agree it won't be pretty. 

  Actually race does matter but not like you are portraying it. In 2008 13% of the vote came from African Americans. Obviously most supported Obama. Going back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 (as far back as I could find stats), they usually voted in the total vote at 8%-10%. That means that Obama go an additional 3% of his votes (5% more than Clinton) from African Americans to support a black president.    The questions seems to me will be whether that same enthusiasm will remain to vote for a white person as it was with Obama. Even going to the most recent election in 2008 where Obama got 51% of the popular vote, can the next candidate for the Dems take a 3-5% hit and still win?    We can somewhat toss all the Tea Party, conservative enough and other stuff aside if Hillary or whoever can't keep up that 13% show up at the polls. 

    I was going to bring up in the other thread that the ruling was in favor of federal law and not a constitutional issue per se but figured it would fall on deaf ears. 

Wait... rich people getting richer and there will be no trickle down.... Go Obama???