For those that want to denigrate private security screening should show up any morning at a Harris County court's building. We're talking close to a 100 courts each setting dozens or more hearings at 8 and 9 a.m. It's a s**t ton of people at the same time every day. The screenings back people out the doors of the huge lobbies. The screeners perform professionally and efficiently. You usually don't spend more than about 15 20 minutes in line. It's all supervised by LE.

Privatization can work, the question is whether it's done rationally and locally or by a buffoons somewhere else.

A government employee union publication complains about "privatization" i.e. a dues payor may loose a job. Color me surprised. Here's the article's description of what's up:

It's also not the only attempt by TSA to expand the privatization of airport security. The administration's fiscal 2027 budget proposes to eliminate 8,400 TSO positions " roughly 14% of TSA's screening workforce. About 4,500 of those positions would be replaced by private contractors through a proposed mandatory expansion of the Screening Partnership Program to include all small and non-hub airports, known as Categories III and IV, respectively. Currently about 20 of the nation's 440 commercial airports have opted to use private screening, but the administration's proposal would expand that number more than tenfold to about 220 airports. (emphasis added)

#8

I haven't had to change hand usage because of RTSA but I have pretty much lost all fine motor skills. My handwriting went from decent to horrible.

I write right, bat right, shoot right, throw left, tennis left, eat left, saw left, screwdriver and wrench mostly right. It really helps when painting in wall corners, I can use either hand.

Only my Dad gave a crap about being right handed. Nobody else in my life gave a s**t. So I just did and still do whatever feels comfortable.

Fortunately, in this case, the judge was ready for him.

It wasn't the judge but the law. In every jurisdiction I'm aware of, to appeal a final judgment one must either secure payment to the judgment creditor in case you lose or suffer the tools available to the judgment creditor to collect the judgment during the appeal.

In Texas a supersedeas bond suspends the judgement pending appeal. Here the Buffoon deposited cash with the court rather than incur a bond fee, typically about 10-15 percent of the principal per year.

The judge only adjudicated the parties agreement regarding distribution of the deposit. Just another agreement the Buffoon attempted to renege and, again, lost.

Ever seen someone in an iron lung? I have. A county fair exhibition in the 60's. How macarbe yet facinating.

So, do we still need to pack the court?

Yes, but not for reasons you're probably thinking. The Court should be increased to 15 Justices. The Court should initially here cases in three Justice panels like Circuit Courts. Then parties either accept the panel decision or seek further review with the full court. The reason is because the Supreme Court receives tens of thousands of requests for help a year. It only grants less than a hundred a year. The Court needs to expand its docket. Congress can help with that.

The recent SCOTUS decision has apparently turned our elections over to moneyed interests.

This one?

Issacharoff: "A Welcome Correction: NRSC v. FEC and the Need to Empower Parties"

The Supreme Court's decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, striking down FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures and overruling Colorado II, is a welcome and overdue correction. For a quarter century, campaign finance doctrine maintained an artificial constitutional distinction between parties and the candidates they exist to elect"treating a party's spending in cooperation with its own nominees as a species of suspect, regulable activity, even while the party's independent spending on the very same candidates went unregulated. Justice Kavanaugh's opinion is right to recognize that this line never made much sense. Parties and candidates are not adversaries who happen to share an interest; they are, as Justice Thomas put it in his Colorado II dissent, engaged in the ordinary, expected work of a party system"choosing standard-bearers, building platforms, and pooling resources to get them elected.

Birthright citizenship is not the problem. Birthright tourism and similar activities are the problem. Focus on the problem. Legislate accordingly. An amendment has zero chance.

C'mon, practically, rank insignia determines who salutes who. As long as enlisted know clergy are officers, problem solved. Among the clergy, their numbers are so few, they probably know who's who and if not will figure it out real quick.

I can't stand the Buffoon administration but this has nothing to do with religion.

#91

I acknowledge the disparity. I question the reasons. To my knowledge there are studies that identify many. Race is but one.

Back to Colin County, I'm just guessing but I suspect 35 is low for straight up murder. I would expect life w/possible parole.

I'm not seeing the hard race questions. I'm seeing the wtf taught this kid he could occupy a sporting opponent's space and refuse to leave when asked hard question. Being a -------- ain't self defense.

#14 Absolute BS. Anybody stab anybody in Colin County Texas, you're going to jail. I think 35 is harsh. I could see the sudden passion max 20 but not the sudden passion finding. This wasn't sudden passion. It was f**k you I do what I want and you can't stop me.

Congrats to the Knicks. As a Texan I wanted a different result but Knicks did it, Congrats.

That said, last month my youngest son was married in SA. We stayed at a property on Lake Medina designed to be waterfront. The ATV trails busted that. Yet I learned something I didn't know, SA is in the hill country! The backroad was about 7 miles of left curve, right curve, 30mph, 20mph, 40mph. A blast.

Yeah well, patting yourself on the back about your voting history hardly addresses a statement about "harassment, hassled or discouraged" from voting. In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

I don't know without knowing the basis for the DOJ's opinion.

#10 | Posted by jpw

Their motive is not a basis. What is the legal rationale according to the article I can't read?