Would you give up a second Obama term to avoid a Trump presidency?

[derspiess]

As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

But remember how terrible Mitt was?  I mean, "binders full of women"??  Dog on top of the car??  Monstrous.

[garbon]

Here's an example.

I actually wondered whether you'd reference that post in your response to my question in the other thread. but you called me a dick before the post existed.

Dick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label.

[DGuller]

Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience. 

[Valmy]

As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

But remember how terrible Mitt was?  I mean, "binders full of women"??  Dog on top of the car??  Monstrous.

That was just shit for Seedy to troll you with.

[katmai]

Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience. 

Are we talking about lacroix or trump?

[mongers]

This late in the day, I'd happily see Patton leading a cavalry charge down Pennsylvania avenue on his way to staging a military coup.

[The Brain]

Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience. 

[LaCroix]

Dick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label.

it was a dickish post, sure. I was wondering why you called me dick earlier. I figured it was a flippant remark, but I thought I'd ask to see if maybe it wasn't

[LaCroix]

Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience. 

I wasn't trying to be clever...

[DGuller]

I was actually talking about desrpiess.  To give credit where credit is due, you never come off as someone trying to be clever.

[derspiess]

My stalker is back

[garbon]

Dick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label.

it was a dickish post, sure. I was wondering why you called me dick earlier. I figured it was a flippant remark, but I thought I'd ask to see if maybe it wasn't

It wasn't.

[LaCroix]

I was actually talking about desrpiess.  To give credit where credit is due, you never come off as someone trying to be clever.

ah, appreciate the clarification. 

[The Minsky Moment]

our citizens united discussion. that was an instance where two (or more) legit interpretations existed, but you said the legit interpretation the court took was wrong.

My view on Citizens United is and always been that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate law.  It's not a political disagreement.  I do also happen to think that the political result has been negative but that's not my beef with the legal reasoning.  There are lots of properly reached Supreme Court rulings with crappy consequences.  Eg. I think AEDPA is pretty terrible but the court's rulings on it can be defended as proper application of a badly conceived law.

here, I'm assuming the opinion was heard before a panel. it's unlikely the panel straight up got it wrong

Not sure why that is unlikely.  Not unknown for panels to get things wrong.  Every year, the Supreme Court reverses panel decisions, sometimes 9-0.
In this case there was a 3 judge panel.  1 signed on, the other dissented.  The dissenter was Diane Wood, also a former Supreme Court shortlister.  Wood's dissent is polite but among other things points out that the majority assumed and relied on facts that were not in the record below.  Suggesting that if there was political motivation here it may lie on the other side of the panel.

[The Minsky Moment]

It might involve cash.  The details were not clear that it did for CLS.

Part of the problem with the case was that the factual record was highly undeveloped . . .

In any case, my beef was Sykes is not the argument that the university policy was unconstitutional.  Its her factual conclusion that CLS was not violating the university policy in the first place.