hazenhammel.bsky.social
Retired New Mexico lawyer
Now if we were saying "8647 by any means necessary" you might have cause for concern
1,649 posts
9,245 followers
12,735 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornbu...
comment in response to
post
No one can be surprised If Florida chooses not to enforce ethics rules. This is the State that elected Rick Scott to represent it in the Senate.
However, Congress has affirmed that government attorneys, including the Attorney General, should be subject to State ethics rules. 28 U.S.C. § 530B
comment in response to
post
If historians can do Lincoln's cabinet, they can handle this
comment in response to
post
Privilege is quite a drug.
comment in response to
post
Jerry was a hard workin', skeet drivin' man
Working on the net everyday
7 days a week and 16 hours a day
Hoping he would find a better way
He saw many of his friends fall to the ground
And die an ugly death on the net
Unmarked graves all along his way
Haunt Jerry in his mind everyday
comment in response to
post
We really should shut down National permanently. But a few hours is better than nothing.
comment in response to
post
Just like Memorial Day and Labor Day: totally ignore the reason for the holiday, grill stuff, drink beer and get sunburned.
Please no fireworks, though. That's a stupid tradition.
comment in response to
post
Yes, and unfortunately for Mr. Lindell, it's a civil trial.
While it's tough to prove defamation (because you have to show malice or recklessness) it's still much easier to prove than a felony.
comment in response to
post
heh
comment in response to
post
There have been many, but a recent one, by NRDC under the "Safe Drinking Water Act" is typical. EPA under Trump was supposed to issue regulations for perchlorate, but stonewalled. www.nrdc.org/court-battle....
comment in response to
post
Bingo.
Subjugation of others doesn't have a rational argument like "don't make a maxim for others that you wouldn't want applied to yourself" (the categorical imperative) or even the utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" (which implies someone loses).
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I think this is more a "shot while trying to escape" situation.
comment in response to
post
They're just trying to sell you their damn magazine and referral service. Don't fall for it
comment in response to
post
I took the bar a long time ago. For example, I remember when the Bar Review key word for Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause was "plenary"
In fact, Bar Review seems to have had predictive power for determining what rules of law the Supreme Court would abandon or abolish
comment in response to
post
They have to recruit analysts somehow. They don't just grow on trees you know
comment in response to
post
Chew up his shoes, Nyx.
You can cure that deplorable optimism!
comment in response to
post
He's fucked in the Dominion case, so he has to appeal to MAGA to send him money.
If a woman who used the N-word on a viral video can raise three-quarters of a million, I'm sure Mike could as well
(something for Dominion's lawyers to raise in closing argument, when asking for punitive damages?)
comment in response to
post
If they are DEA, I can hardly fault them for being afraid. If they are ICE agents, though, one wonders.
Who or what do they fear as much as they fear the notorious criminals who murder police, judges and prosecutors?
comment in response to
post
In the US, "populism" became associated with Prohibition and religious fundamentalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So when used here about Trump, "populist" implies that his supporters are gullible fools, easily misled. Which is true but considered rude to say.
comment in response to
post
Even pop-up books written in crayon have to be read. They need the Constitution in the form of a Fox News broadcast ...
www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...
comment in response to
post
You know the phrase de mortuis nil nisi bonum ("of the dead say nothing but good")?
We're dead to Jerry
comment in response to
post
Random dudes with mental issues, like Ted Kaczynski or Tim McVeigh or the Tsarnaev brothers, are why counterterrorism task forces exist.
If they aren't going to help here, they should be disbanded.
comment in response to
post
Most Americans know. Many prefer it that way. They want "those people" to get murdered by the police.
It makes presenting police misconduct cases to a jury very challenging.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for going ahead and having the conversation anyway.
I'm not getting any younger you know.
comment in response to
post
So they ARE on someone's side
(just not ours)
comment in response to
post
I have to try that
comment in response to
post
There are some negative connotations to the phrase "try harder". Consider: "Do or do not. There is no try."
And whatever you do, don't call your kids a "try hard". it doesn't mean what you think it does
Semantics aside, I agree you can't win if you don't play.
comment in response to
post
Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think you can get into Harvard by "trying harder"
If you have found a way, however, you could make boatloads of money with an effective "Try Harder" SAT prep and admission advice program
comment in response to
post
We have a think tank. It's called Think New Mexico. So, Bob? Here's my suggestion.
Donate to Think New Mexico and they will send you regular reports on what they are doing which will also have the salutary effect of helping you understand poverty in New Mexico.
www.thinknewmexico.org
comment in response to
post
Speaking up for No. 3 here.
We've elected Democrats to every Statewide office, and sent our electors to vote for Harris/Walz
So what's your point, Vivian?
comment in response to
post
Discrediting by imitation?
A bold strategy!