Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 1) 363

No, because it is not simply the opinion of Scalia, it is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on the most comprehensive examination of the second amendment in history and therefore the law of the land when it comes to the *individual* right to bear arms.

Yet you can't be bothered to even read it.

Comment Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 1) 363

Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.

You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it) then you should read the entirety of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

Comment Re:Attorney's fees (Score 1) 321

There is a similar procedure in California called a "998 Offer" (based on Code of Civil Procedure sec. 998) whereby one party can make a binding settlement offer to the other party. If the other party refuses the 998 offer but at trial fails to do better than the 998 offer, then even if they technically win the case the offering party will be awarded costs.

It's a very good procedure to induce parties to settle and avoid further litigation.

Comment Attorney's fees (Score 4, Informative) 321

I practice law in California in one of the few areas where the prevailing party as a practical matter is entitled to recover it's attorneys' fees and costs. It is the best possible method to discourage meritless litigation as people generally think very carefully before filing a lawsuit. This should absolutely be the norm for most civil cases.

Comment Re:Illegal (Score 2, Informative) 182

Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.

(What, thy spell checker hath not the finesse?)

Comment Re:If true. If. (Score 2) 200

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"