DISQUS

What does the text say? Too small to read.

It brought a tear to my eye.

It is, in a sense. But not having seen the brief, I don't know how well the argument was presented. Seems like a throwaway with the heavy reliance on Roper.

I'm just not sure this presented the proper opportunity to hold that LWOP violates 8th Amendment. Further, I do think that hands were tied with sole reliance on Fed Constitution.

Maybe if there was a claim under the State Constitution, more thought would have been given.

Oh come on. There's no reason for an eight year old to be playing with guns. The kid is still in elementary school. Would you let an eight year old play with sharp knives? Or work on an electrical circuit? Then why are guns different?

I'm all for people teaching their kids about guns, but eight is far too young.

Oh c'mon, the distinctions between your examples and this are obvious. Don't make me spell it out.

Hah! All right, I'll update the post.

Modesty becomes you.

Barely.

Someone has to stand up to the tyranny and say the word. If it wasn't going to be you, it had to be me.

Okay, so you're saying that an avenue, with a 2-3 foot grassy median separating the two directions of traffic, with no crosswalks does not constitute "separate roadways".

I don't agree with that, but I can see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. There's no definition of "separate roadway" in the statute. Maybe I'll look up some caselaw.

It is my understanding of a few towns, but obviously I'm pretty sure that different towns have different rules.

However, if that were the case - that any time a school bus stops there is a risk that children will come running from all directions - then why is there a statute that permits drivers on the opposite side of the road to keep driving? Perhaps the problem isn't the drivers of the cars, but the policies of the schools.

Actually, it is my understanding that students are not permitted to cross the street. The bus will come to their side of the street. So, yes, there was no danger that anyone would be crossing the street.

Also, the statute does not require one to stop. That's pretty clear.

So, no, I am not completely wrong. One may say it is common sense to stop, but that's not what I'm talking about.

F*ck if I know. Lol.

Sure you can - they'll just have to take personal responsibility. We'll see how that goes.

OH SNAP!

Hmm. I totally missed that. It's unfortunate that he chose to end that storyline in that fashion.

There you are! I was starting to get worried about you. I almost e-mailed you!

Lol. Yes, I'm aware. I was just trying to be funny in return. Guess it didn't work.

I'd be surprised if you weren't! We've got something similar coming up - a call for a Constitutional convention by the anti-gay marriage lobby.

You've got issues...

Huh?

You lost me at "happens"...

HAH!

Thanks for playing :)

Thanks for the comment!

Churches have no legal obligation - they are free to marry whomever they choose.