bleedorange

I doubt that's the cover. It's probably just an image from the sale sheet or something.

I'm hoping the new one doesn't sound too much like either Funeral or Neon Bible. I'm getting burned out on the band. And I wouldn't put either of those albums in my top 50 of the last decade.

That was a good read. Thanks.

You're reading way too much into his reaction. If anything, we should be lamenting the childish, unpresidential manner of Barack standing up there and admonishing a separate branch of government to serve his political whims.

Yes.

Good piece on this case Writer is executive director of Institute for Justice, which submitted a cited brief.

Are those fairly new? I switched to glasses full-time a few years ago because my eyes would start to bother me late in the day and I hated dealing with drops. Plus, my night vision while driving seemed better with glasses.

Sure it has. So condemn the action in one instance, but defend it in another?

No, Obama is politicizing the decision. Big difference.

President makes a false, self-serving statement about a recent Supreme Court decision: Check. Justice shakes his head at the ridiculous showing: Unprofessional. Got it.

So corporations are going to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to back a single candidate? Since corporations are only interested in their bottom line and their responsibility to shareholders, that seems like a foolish expenditure, especially if said candidate loses. As it stands now, corporations pretty much contribute equally to both parties. It doesn't make any sense for them not to.

How does corporate involvement erode this process any more than it already has with 527 groups, trade associations, etc.?

If pressed, I would name this as my favorite of all-time. A friend of mine and I tested a theory where we would randomly open to a page and blindly point to a line, and damn if we didn't find something important to take away from whatever sentence we pointed at.

It isn't true. What's the big deal?

Looks like there is a case that will flip open to stand the iPad up for viewing. Also has a keyboard with an attached stand.

I saw The Hold Steady at a really small venue in Denton that couldn't have been a quarter full. Especially since everyone was up on stage with them during Killer Parties.

It's just the easy thing to do. I have a buddy who compares everything to Counting Crows or Pearl Jam, basically because that's all he knows. I agree about the album. I like it better than the debut, actually.

Oh well, different strokes, I guess. I think their '90s output far outpaces their 2000s output.

I've always been leery of it. Although, everyone I know that has had it has had zero problems. I just never wanted to take any chances with my eyesight. Too valuable.

I would love another Zooropa. Their last great album, IMO.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It comes down to a chicken or the egg argument. I think being an originalist frames Scalia's policy, ideology, and a lot of his personal beliefs, etc. Of course, you only need to look at his voting in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman as one example of him not voting on his whims and preferences. You like to think poorly of the man, so you believe otherwise.

I'm not sure you live in any sort of reality

Has anyone mentioned Phases and Stages yet?

Again, though, strict constructionism is not originalism. I remember Scalia addressing this point in a book and I found this on Wikipedia: Justice Scalia differentiates the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that "he uses a cane" means "he walks with a cane" (because, strictly speaking, this is not what "he uses a cane" means).[9] Scalia has averred that he is "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be;" he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into

You're still misusing the term "activist." An activist judge isn't just someone who overturns precedent. An activist judge sees the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document (such a bogus term) and essentially creates law out of nothing. The best examples off the top of my head are Griswold and Roe v. Wade. Finding a right to privacy somewhere in the penumbras of the Constitution, when there is no mention of a right to privacy anywhere. To reach that kind of decision, years and years of precedent had to have been overturned because all the cases leading up to it were decided on what