I’m completely unsurprised. The State will defend itself and its agents against all comers.

It’s a shame that the officer didn’t rob the plaintiff or in some way act for personal gain because that’s the only way the plaintiff could have won.

For the millionth time, if an officer of the State is acting in official capacity, not for personal gain, and does not commit a crime of obvious malice (determined by the State of course), then there will be no sanctions by the State of its agent.

Period.

End of story.

That’s the world in which you live.

OK, give me an example of a major pharmaceutical developed in the last 20 years whose basic research wasn’t funded by the government. And copy cat “me too” drugs don’t count.

Cystic fibrosis hasn’t received government funding because it’s considred an “orphan disease” – that is, there aren’t enough people suffering from the disease to warrent government funding. Through private donations and corporate giving the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has provided start-up funds for all the major pharmeceutical advances (including the DNA research that identified the defective gene responsible for CF in 1989) that have increased the average life expecatancy of a CF patient from about 3 in the 1950′s to about 37 today.

CFF Drug Discovery Pipeline

Just sayin’.

It’s not a Second Amendment ruling!

Turns out the lawyer neglected to make a 2nd Amendment claim in his original filing. It was brought up briefly in oral arguments, but with no case law to back it up:

Schubert did not assert a violation of his Second
Amendment right in his original complaint. Nor did he file an-14-
amended complaint to alert the court and the other parties to such
a claim. He also did not raise the claim in his written opposition
to summary judgment. The issue was first raised by Schubert at
oral argument on the motion for summary judgment. Having reviewed
the transcript, we conclude that his counsel’s references to a
Second Amendment issue were extremely brief and were unsupported by
citations to specific case law.

Since it wasn’t part of the original argument, it wasn’t addressed on appeal, so the 1st Circuit has nothing to say about the 2nd Amendment on this case.

#48 Mike

Let me make a wild prediction: Ireland’s blasphemy law will only be used when people bash islam. When people say bad things about Christianity, hey, no problem.

I seriously doubt that Christians have been leading the fight for free speech. According to this article the Christians have already been enjoying that protection for some time:

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

I suppose it never occurred to them that they could achieve equal protection by just eliminating the special treatment for Christians.

Ireland is a monument to peaceful religious coexistence on about the same level as Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan. While their antagonism might not be all about religion, religion certainly defines the teams.

Ideas that stand on their own merits don’t need laws to protect them.

We’ve seen a small handful of states put forth legislation that, on its face, would preclude any federal .gov involvement in the manufacture, sale or transportation of firearms (under very narrow conditions). Specifically, these states have said that any firearm manufactured and stamped for sale *only* in that state are exempt from any federal meddling; the thinking being that the interstate commerce clause is a nonissue if there’s no, ya know, interstate commerce involved. The BATFE has issued letters to those states’ AGs saying, in effect, “Nice try, folks. But we’re still going to act the ass and hassle your firearms manufacturers and owners at our pleasure.”

Paul DOESN’T stick to his principles. He inserts pork for his local constituents in federal spending bills just like anyone.

If money isn’t earmarked, then it goes to the federal government to waste, most likely for War On _____. By using earmarks, at least the money has a chance to be returned from the thief (federal government) and given to the lesser thief (state/local government).
It’s a tactic that also asserts a principal.

The cop from the first story and the interrogator from the last should both be strung up from a tree upside down with their throats slit.

#33, they should be Dexterized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_%28TV_series%29

since my replies were eaten, it also ate the sarcasm tags ;) Yes, it was based on government sponsored ground research which pfizer thought they could use for better angina medicine.

The fact that the pharma companies now have moved to a model where they rely on the government for most basic research is a strong indicator of who got the most results.

And yes, v–gra, was privately invented, however its structure was designed to bind phosphodiesterase, whose structure and role in vasodialation was discovered by government funded basic research. No government funding to lead the way, no v–gra.

As a homeschooling parent and an ex-teacher (and not a fan at all of modern education in general), I can attest that this is plainly false.

The truth, which is all we have to work with, is a complicated thing.

It took my breath away as well. I used to wonder how democracies became tyrannies. I know now.

Dude never heard of the Drug War?

Islam: Evil to the core. Hey Ireland: Sue me.