Numark3

An idiot in the sense he says a lot of demonstrably false things in tweets. A lot of really smart people seem to be idiots lately.

Yes, but James woods is an idiot who constantly tweets false information.

Dont knock it till you knock it.

Yea because damages are measured by the depth of the pockets.

This sounds like something generally true, doesn’t it? I could be wrong. I just imagine in a great economy with rising wages, jobs with lower wages would reflect higher growth percentage wise. Heck, A two dollar raise would reflect a 20 something percent increase for me when I worked retail. But now, a much larger raise wouldn’t be near that.

No no no, I want a Gov. Fairfax for Virginia.

It is a free for all!!!!!

I don't know anything about Tran (haven't looked into it or really followed it), but agreed on the governor. What a bozo

My only point was hate it for allowing late-term abortions. Don't hate it for pushing a secret agenda of pro-infantacide beliefs.

It's one of those things you can't even have a conversation about without being deemed a racist.

Lol you are an arm of the other uninformed biased media.

Nailed it.

Or its just a politician saying something wrong? They do that a lot. I fully get where you are coming from, but someone putting forth a different interpretation doesn't make it ambiguous. My opinion is that the bill was very clear and I would have tough time seeing an argument that it permits infanticide. You all can, and do, disagree. I wouldn't. Just weighing in as someone who did that for a living. And, to some extent, still do.

Suing journalist for reporting on a video clip is just a ridiculous uphill clime. Not saying they can’t win or that it’s impossible, but they aren’t going to win. In the same sense as the bills aren’t winning the Super Bowl next year. Yea ok. I don’t care if they win or not, Iv been on the side that the media was a joke and in the wrong on this. just pointing out the chances of them winning are loowwwww.

I wasnt clear. I meant the lawyers on the case. You cannot have experts, lawyers or non lawyers, for the purposes of interpreting a statute. This is the way it works. We look to what the legislature said in cases of ambiguous statutes because they were the ones who drafted it. They shouldnt. Discretion and broadness, sure. Ambiguity should not be there. Im agreeing with you. I think there was a miscommunication. What the legislature said can be important, unless the statute is clear, then there is no need to figure out what they meant. Im not giving the governor a pass, he is an idiot. But he isn’t part of the legislature...

I said gotcha as I understand what you are saying. As in, “gotcha.” and who said anything about ignoring her comments? You love to make stuff up. On the spectrum of reasonable posters, you are on one end of the spectrum for sure. Trust me. I know it won’t for some of you. It will obviously allow after-birth abortion no matter what in your mind I could have woken up earlier and gotten to work, but I’m lazy on the weekend. I’ll have the game on in the background though.

Why, I have already put my thoughts down on this. Of the list of things that matter when interpreting the statute, his comments are near the bottom of a long list. It's just a fact. haha yea okay buddy. lies lies lies lies.

Gotcha Right, and I already said that his comments were troubling for lots of reasons. Agreed. Just lawyers! You can't get an expert to interpret a statute. If the statute is ambiguous, you look to what the legislature has said, not the executive branch. Though, I could see a court using a governor's statement as further reasoning to support their interpretation. It just would be beyond rare. The law! And I don't want to mispeak. Its not that you can't look to what a governor says to interpret a statute. In some circumstances, you might get there. It is just far down the list and is very rare, and wouldn't happen here.

Oh boy! This isn't even constitutional law!!!! And I am actually busy today, which is always sucky for a sunday.

Ok great. So like you said, this is discussing what to do after an abortion has already occurred. This is not talking about the decision to, for the first time like many people are saying, kill a baby. And two, this says shall. And I have already explained why shall is mandatory here. The easiest of which to understand is that "shall" is used constantly in the statute in the mandatory sense, and its not going to take a different meaning here. And also, interpreting it as may is silly, why would there be a provision saying you may use life support on a product of abortion if it has clearly visible evidence of viability? They already have that ability, and the whole sentence reads funny in different ways if you see it as may. Edit, I see what you are saying. You are saying the measures of life support are for the purpose of deciding whether or not to kill a viable living baby (instead of for purposes of keeping it alive no matter what). And my response is, there is nothing in the bill that says that. Literally nothing.

I'll gladly discuss this with you if you want to learn something about interpreting statutes

Sorry, that’s not how interpreting laws work. An expert on abortion bills can’t weigh in either. It’s not about his qualifications, it’s that there are more important things to consider. And again, the bill isn’t ambiguous with timing so it doesn’t matter. It speaks for itself.

Yea, politicians mistating what laws can and cannot do really isn’t relevant. I know that’s dumb, but that’s the way it is. And politicians say a lot of dumb and wrong things about laws. even if there was something ambiguous about the timing portion in the bill, which there is not (which can’t be said enough...seriously quote any ambiguity about timing.), you look to a million other things to figure out the ambiguity, not what the governor said on the radio.

Bad idea. Something you won’t win and you better hope the students have a perfect recent past that won’t get dug up.