In NYE I stayed in and fired up 24 tables at More What is it that you can expect from escorts in Atlanta? Thick, juicy booty. I am very se. Im here too please u call me i have a1 head n the wettest pussy nobb no catch no facials everything protected must bring a condom.
Good lawyers often have the mindset just described, which is useful to realize because it makes Stoicism more accessible. The relationship to emotion advocated by the Stoics can seem otherworldly when described in the abstract, but most of us have that relationship to emotion already in some corners of our lives.
We've earned it by experience. And that train of thought offers one way to think about much of Stoicism generally. If the Stoic says we are fettered to externals, or vice, or emotion, it may be as accurate to say we are fettered to our inexperience. Only the novice is inflated and grasping and fearful; but we are all novices when dealing with many of the challenges of life.
Stoic philosophy is a compensation—a substitute for time, or simulation of it. Stoicism means to offer the wisdom while skipping the repetition; it tries to get by contemplation some of the lessons, immunities, and other features of character we would acquire naturally if we lived long enough and had more experience.
Stoicism is the philosophy of a thousand trials. He takes a deep dive into all things blockchain and cryptocurrency discussing recent regulatory developments and best practices for users of exchanges. On August 23, , SEC announced that it would reconsider a decision to reject nine Bitcoin-based exchange traded funds. Earlier this month, SEC staff delayed a decision on the SolidX proposal, stating it needs more time to consider the proposal — the deadline for this decision is September 30, On August 9, , FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco delivered a speech on the agency's approach to cryptocurrency where he made a few unexpected remarks.
Evan states that this speech offered helpful clarifications and insights, but also left a number of important questions unanswered. In addition, Evan discusses the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's proposed charter for online lenders and other FinTech companies in the coming months. Finally, Maury Shenk covers the recent reports about the EU finance ministers' plan to discuss the possibility of cryptocurrency regulation at a meeting in early September.
As part of a leaked confidential note, it is expected that EU ministers will discuss anti-money laundering issues amongst other things. Alan and Maury note that while the EU takes a heavier regulatory approach than the US in this area, the process is slow moving but steadily developing.
In addition, Maury discusses the European Blockchain Partnership , describing it as an integrated effort for a great blockchain future. Bitfinex is a full-featured spot trading platform for major digital assets and cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many more. Bitfinex offers leveraged margin trading through a peer-to-peer funding market, allowing users to securely trade with up to 3.
Sarah took us through the best security practices for users of exchanges, particularly focusing on security settings that users can customize, such as Google Authenticator 2FA, Universal 2nd Factor U2F , and IP address whitelisting. Sarah provides listeners with three takeaways as she responds to Alan's questions regarding the future of exchanges, the Bitfinex platform, and potential challenges going forward.
Download the th Episode mp3. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with Stewart on social media: Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast steptoe. If your suggested interviewee appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
Earlier this summer, I posted about a pending cert. Milling that had prompted two interesting amicus briefs encouraging the Supreme Court to reevaluate its doctrine of qualified immunity -- one by a cross-ideological group of public interest organizations , the other by a group of scholars including me.
The petiton had been pending for this fall, but Monday the case was instead dismissed by consent of the parties. That would be quite disappointing, were it not for the reason the case was dismissed -- apparently after the cert.
Outcall Massage San DiegoIndeed, I am told that the state ended up settling for even more than the plaintiff had originally won at trial, so it was as much of a victory for the plaintiff as he could have hoped for.
That's extremely heartening for an individual claim to justice, even if it leaves the broader issue untouched for now. So while the settlement does mean that the Supreme Court won't have the option of granting the question presented in this case, if another good vehicle comes along, I suspect there will be new amicus briefs. Here's an interesting problem.
The California Legislature is trying to do something about what it calls "patient dumping. As far as I know the bill hasn't yet been signed by the Governor. The Business Journal described the bill this way:. Under SB , hospitals are required to include a written homeless patient discharge planning policy and process, and discharge them to a safe and appropriate location.
Hospitals are further required to develop a written plan for coordinating services and referrals for homeless patients with the county behavioral health agency, health care and social services agencies in the region, health care providers, and nonprofit social services providers to assist with ensuring the appropriate homeless patient discharge.
SB would also require the hospital to ensure that certain conditions are met as part of the discharge process of a homeless patient. These include offering the patient a meal, appropriate vaccinations and infectious disease screenings, weather-appropriate clothing, transportation to the discharge destination and providing necessary medication if the hospital has a retail pharmacy.
I suspect California is going to run into the same problems the federal government discovered with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of EMTALA , a well-meaning but not very well thought out statute requiring federally funded hospitals with emergency rooms to take in uninsured patients with medical emergencies and treat them until they become "stable.
It is an unfunded mandate, so hospitals have every incentive to "dump" these patients at their earliest opportunity. When the government imposed this unfunded mandate on a the healthcare industry, a work around was likely evolve. The number of hospital emergency rooms that have been closed since EMTALA's passage is quite alarming and I am not the first person to use the term "alarming" in this context.
This is from p. From to , the number of hospital emergency rooms outside rural areas declined from to , with emergency rooms closing their doors including some closing along with their hospitals and hospitals opening emergency rooms. Hospitals that provided a much higher than average level of medical care to uninsured, Medicaid, and other vulnerable patients were more likely to close their emergency rooms than those that did not.
Similarly, hospitals with lower than average profit margins were more likely to close their emergency rooms. And for-profit status as opposed to not-for-profit or government status was also positively correlated with emergency room closure. All three of these factors are consistent with the conclusion that EMTALA has contributed substantially to the problem of emergency room closure, perhaps even being the predominant factor.
The rise of urgent care centers which allows medical providers to sidestep EMTALA parallels the decline of emergency rooms. The problem is that they are equipped for small emergencies, not big ones. They are thus a poor substitute for emergency rooms. I don't pretend to have the answer to the country's healthcare issues.
Patient dumping is a genune issue. But might the California law simply accelerate the decline of emergency rooms? And might it cause hospitals to resist admitting homeless patients in the first place? Filed by 20 state attorneys general, the suit claims that Congress's decision to zero out the tax penalty owed by those who fail to obtain qualifying helath insurance requires courts to invalidate the entire ACA.
According to the states' argument, this is because when Congress zeroed out the tax penalty, it eliminated the factual predicate upon which Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in NFIB v. If there is nothing to be paid, the mandate does not operate as a tax, the states argue, so the mandate is no longer subject to a "saving construction" under which the mandate can be upheld as an exercise of the federal taxing power.
Further, they maintain, because the mandate was a central part of the ACA, invalidating the mandate requires invalidation of the entire law. It's a clever argument, but it's also wrong, for reasons I explained in this post and in this podcast debate. See also Ilya's post here. Azar has attracted concern because the Trump Administration has conceded large parts of the states' arguments.
In particular, the Justice Department has accepted that a mandate without an accompanying tax levy is unconstitutional, and that invalidating the mandate would require invalidating the ACA's core insurance regulations requiring guaranteed issue without regard for pre-existing conditions and community rating. It also prompted me to file this amicus brief with several other legal scholars representing a range of views on the ACA, as I noted in this post.
According to the news reports linked above, Judge Reed O'Connor seemed somewhat sympathetic to the Texas argument, and pressed the blue states' attorney on why he should disregard the findings. The answer to Judge O'Connor's query is quite simple. First, the findings are just findings, not operative provisions. Second, and more important, the finding are about the law passed in , not the changes Congress has made subsequently.
It has been revised by Congress and by the Court. It is no longer the law the findings addressed. Finally, Congress chose to zero out the mandate penalty without making other changes. Whether this was because the Congress intended for the ACA to operate differently than the Congress, or because the simply lacked the votes to do more is immaterial.
It did what it did. It took a tax penalty and reduced it to zero. These aren't the only problems with the states' suit. As I explained here , there are also serious standing problems in Texas v. Inexplicably, the Justice Department did not raise standing and according to the press reports above it does not appear Judge O'Connor was particularly interested in them.
This is a shame, as it could prolong a lawsuit that really has no legs on which to stand. After all, if the mandate is unenfroced and unenforceable -- because it imposes no penalty or consequence on anyone -- how do the states or anyone else have standing to complain about it?
Some activist groups have tried to suggest the Kavanaugh nomination creates a risk that the states could prevail. Such concerns are groundless. First, whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed, there are at least five votes to reject the states' claims. In order to rule in favor of the plaintiff states or to accept the DOJ's concessions , the Chief Justice would have to reject his longstanding views of standing as expressed most recently in Gill v.
Whitford , the individual mandate itself which he said imposes no obligation on anyone beyond any tax payment imposed , and severability which is decidedly minimalist across the board, including in NFIB. This is not going to happen. Even if the Chief Justice's vote were in play, there's no reason to think a Justice Kavanaugh would find the states' arguments any more appealing.
First and foremost, Judge Kavanaugh has an established track record of applying the same narrow approach to severability as the Chief. He also tends to pay attention to standing and other justiciability concerns. Writing in The New Yorker , Jeffrey Toobin claimed "there is every reason to believe that Kavanaugh" would accept the states' claims.
When I asked Toobin to substantiate this claim , he came up empty both on Twitter and in an e-mail. He failed to offer any citation to any judicial opinon, any speech, or anything else from Judge Kavanugh suggesting anything that remotely aligns with the state's claims.
There's a good reason for this, as Kavanaugh's approach to statutory interpretation actually suggests the opposite. Not only did he believe the constitutional challenge to the individaul mandate was premature due to the anti-injunction act , he has rejected other anti-ACA suits, including a constitutional challenge based upon the Origination Clause , a challenge to the the ACA's effect on Medicare , and a lawsuit brought by state AGs to challenge the Obama Adminstration's implementation of the law.
In each of these cases, Kavanaugh applied or accepted fairly standard legal arguments and interpretations. Thus there is nothing in Kavanaugh's record to suggest would be at all sympathetic to the states' outlandish claims in Texas v. I am on record saying this lawsuit will ultimately fail, and may never reach the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- and then the states would be lucky to get two votes.
The suit is clever, but is ultiamtely too clever by half. Given all of the problems in the states' case, there's little reason to believe their claims can prevail, and little reason to believe the confirmation of Kavanaugh would have any effect on the outcome of the case. The immediate quesiton is whether the states can obtain a temporary victory in district court.
On that we'll have to see. Cory Booker D- New Jersey. Booker leaked the e-mails even though they were marked "committee confidential," and therefore not supposed to be released to the public. He stated that he would release the e-mails despite the potential risk of punishment, including even potential exclusion from the Senate. I think Booker was right to suggest that this e-mail chain should never have been withheld from the public in the first place.
There is no classified national security information there, or anything else that, as far as I can tell, needs to be kept secret. More generally, Booker and other Democrats have good reason to suggest that the decisions on which documents to release should have been handled by a neutral body, not by former Bush Administration official Bill Burck , who is also a lawyer for several prominent figures associated with the Trump administration.
Substantively, however, the e-mails don't seem to be a major damaging revelation. If anything the contents should be reassuring to critics of racial profiling, myself included. In the most notable e-mail in the sequence , Kavanaugh wrote the following:.
But the people such as you and I who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple -- and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented. Kavanaugh quite clearly includes himself in the latter camp.
He did, potentially, leave open the possibility that there might be racial profiling in a temporary "interim" policy. Few mainstream judges and legal scholars contend that the government should abjure racial classifications in every conceivable situation, no matter what. A tightly limited, short-term "interim" policy might pass even the rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard the Supreme Court imposes on governmnt policies that discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity.
What is most notable here is that Kavanaugh did not favor the routine, institutionalized use of racial profiling, which was apparently supported by some others in the administration. Had the e-mails revealed that Kavanaugh was an advocate of routine racial profiling, I think that would have been a serious strike against him as a Supreme Court nominee.
But the messages revealed by Booker actually suggest the exact opposite. I have long argued that racial profiling in law enforcement is both unjust and unconstitutional e. The policy is also counterproductive in that it predictably poisons the relationship between law enforcement agencies and minority communities - the very people whose coooperation is often essential to effectively combat criminals and terrorists.
See also this critique of racial profiling by my George Mason University colleague and prominent conservative legal scholar Nelson Lund. I take the issue of racial profiling very seriously, and I would not want a Supreme Court justice who gives law enforcement agencies a blank check in this field. The e-mails revealed by Booker provide only a partial window into Judge Kavanaugh's thinking on this subject.
But what we do have indicates that he strongly prefers "race-neutral" law enforcement policies. If Booker and other senators have material showing that Kavanaugh actually does support racial profiling, I hope they reveal it. But what has been released so far strikes me as far more reassuring than not.
Bill Burck has issued a statement condemning Booker's "histrionics" and claiming that the revelation by Booker does not violate Senate rules because the e-mails in question were cleared for public release by Burck's staff last night at Booker's request. If so, there was no violation of Senate rules here despite Booker's own statement that he was "knowingly" violating the rules by releasing the e-mails , though it is still the case that this material should never have been classified "committee confidential" in the first place.
I've written a book about the philosophy of the ancient Stoics you can see reviews here and buy it here ; a Kindle version will be available in October. Eugene has kindly invited me to talk about it here this week. Yesterday's post summarized the most practical teachings of Stoicism.
Today I want to mention some of the many common misconceptions about the philosophy and counter them with things the ancient Stoics actually said. Stoics only fuss about what they can control; does that mean they ignore the larger demands of their times? Two of the most important ancient Stoics were Marcus Aurelius and Seneca the Younger, both of whom gave their lives to public affairs.
Marcus Aurelius, of course, was one of the good Roman emperors. As Thomas de Quincey later described him:. It must be remembered that Marcus Aurelius was by profession a Stoic; and that generally, as a theoretical philosopher, but still more as a Stoic philosopher, he might be supposed incapable of descending from these airy altitudes of speculation to the true needs, infirmities, and capacities of human nature.
Yet strange it is, that he, of all the good emperors, was the most thoroughly human and practical. Someone who rightly understands Stoicism shouldn't find that observation strange at all. Stoicism isn't just compatible with public life; the philosophy calls for it:.
Zeno of Citium was the founder of Stoic philosophy. As for Seneca, he was an advisor to Nero, and has been much criticized for serving an emperor of odious reputation—an early version, perhaps, of a story that remains familiar now. This was another claim of the Stoics: Seneca's role in the court of Nero was once the subject of a picturesque account by Plutarch:.
Anyone who is quick to anger should abstain from rare and curiously wrought things, like drinking-cups and seal-rings and precious stones; for their loss drives their owner out of his senses more than do objects which are common and easily procured. This is the reason why, when Nero had an octagonal tent built, an enormous thing and a sight to be seen for its beauty and costliness, Seneca remarked, "You have proved yourself a poor man, for if you ever lose this you will not have the means to procure another like it.
But Nero remembered Seneca's saying and bore his loss with greater moderation. Nero was a prolific executioner—of his rivals, of his first wife, of his mother, and of various others finally including Seneca, who was said to be part of a conspiracy to assassinate Nero, and whose suicide Nero therefore directed; the incident is the subject of a fine allusion in The Godfather Part II.
So one may wonder if Plutarch wrote that passage with some irony. But what the "greater moderation" of Nero looked like in this case is not recorded. Again, not at all; Stoics are more likely to be distinguished by mild humor in the face of things regarded as grim by others. What Stoics do favor is moderation, not because they don't believe in pleasure but because moderation makes lasting and natural pleasures possible.
Stoics generally are supposed to be of good cheer, and Seneca said that some of them need to lighten up:. Games will also be beneficial; for pleasure in moderation relaxes the mind and gives it balance. The more damp and the drier natures, and also the cold, are in no danger from anger, but they must beware the more sluggish faults—fear, moroseness, discouragement, and suspicion.
And so such natures have need of encouragement and indulgence and the summons to cheerfulness. We must be indulgent to the mind, and regularly grant it the leisure that serves as its food and strength. Stoics especially value good humor as an alternative to anger in response to a provocation. Seneca recounts a political example from Cato, a Stoic hero:.
As Cato was arguing a case, Lentulus—that violent partisan, remembered by our fathers—gathered as much thick saliva as he could and spat right in the middle of Cato's forehead. Cato wiped off his face and said, "I'll assure everyone, Lentulus, that they're wrong when they say that you're not worth spit. This last passage involves a pun that does not translate well literally.
Cato really told Lentulus that they were wrong to say he had no mouth; it was a play on words in Latin. I've sought to suggest something equivalent in English. In any event, it's too bad for our political culture that the spirit of Cato is in such short supply. Further characteristics of the reasoning soul are love of its neighbors, truth, compassion. This is the first promise that philosophy holds out to us: I should not be unfeeling like a statue; I should care for my relationships both natural and acquired—as a pious man, a son, a brother, a father, a citizen.
As I mentioned a couple of days ago, many Stoic teachings overlap with the central teachings of other philosophical or religious traditions, and these are examples. But the Stoics tend to get there by a route that involves reason rather than faith, and that many people find more appealing on that ground. It is true, though, that Stoics often describe emotions such as anger as mistakes.
So what's the difference between feelings that the Stoics welcome and emotions that they don't? I will talk more about this tomorrow. The notes above are all condensed excerpts from The Practicing Stoic. If you like what you see here, you would probably enjoy the book.
The ban on "offensive" speech is clearly unconstitutionally vague and likely viewpoint-based; and, even setting that aside, the rule limiting leafletting to a narrow zone would be unconstitutional even if it were content-neutral. A university does have power to limit speech that is loud enough to cause a disruption, or to limit large demonstrations that can block pedestrian traffic; that is particularly so within university buildings.
But the policy here is much broader than that. A funny thing happens to constitutional law cases when they are taught in law schools. Don't even get me started on the criminal procedure cases, which get taught in their own specialized courses and then start feuds about whether criminal procedure is really just a subfield of constitutional law or not.
Of course there are a lot of good reasons for this approach, and as the co-author of a constitutional law casebook , there is a limit to how much I can rightly complain about this. But some important things can get lost in this slicing and dicing. There are certain important topics and institutions that come up in constitutional law repeatedly, but that usually get no specific constitutional law course of their own.
Yes, there are courses on family law or education law, for instance, but usually not specifically focused on constitutional family law or constitutional education law. If you read enough constitutional law cases, you may find yourself wondering -- what would happen if we thought about constitutional law from that institution's point of view, rather than following the standard law school organization?
Enter The Schoolhouse Gate: The Schoolhouse Gate systematically considers the constitutional law of American public schools, arguing that the Supreme Court deserves a great deal of credit for bringing civil rights such as free speech and racial equality to schoolchildren, and a great deal of criticism for its more recent cases beating a retreat.
This New York Times essay provides a great introduction to the themes of the book. To do this, it brings together aspects of constitutional law that might otherwise be broken up through The First Amendment the free speech rights of schoolchildren , antidiscrimination and equal protection race discrimination in schools , criminal procedure the privacy rights of schoolchildren , and some cases that would simply fall through the cracks.
Once Driver has put them all together for us, it becomes easier to see that these are really cases about schools, not just about the artificial doctrinal boxes. Finally, another noteworthy thing about the book is this: While The Schoolhouse Gate has a lot of tough criticism for the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, it is ultimately an optimistic one.
This menu's updates are based on your activity. The data is only saved locally on your computer and never transferred to us. You can click these links to clear your history or disable it. I'm in a public park and it excites me to rip my leggings all sweaty and then piss inside.
Like my big juicy ass? Would you fuck me? Ivy Lebelle gets tricked into fucking a fake production assistant! Sexy brunette pornstar with big tits has her hairy pussy penetrated. Hot young wife fucks BBC white hubby films and fucks her in the end. Karma Rx filled with big dick. Jayla sucks bbc and gets cum shower.
Antique Porn s - Shaving, Fisting, Fucking. Juicy Black pussy getting pumped by bbc. The girl is sitting in the school and think about fuck with the teacher -- he think the same Love Creampie Young cute skinny blonde amateur takes big cock in office. Big tits milf gets fucked by stranger. Milk from sweet teen girl tits. Mistress gets hers in the bed from son. Big tits blonde teen amateur gets fucked.
Originally Posted by danimal Man: Top 10 Massage Therapy Schools. They ask sex for money. Bitfinex offers leveraged margin trading through a peer-to-peer funding market, allowing users to securely trade with up to 3. What Stoics do favor is moderation, not because they don't believe in pleasure but because moderation makes lasting and natural pleasures possible. Fox stated that it was still committed to broadcasting a significant amount of coverage for the tournament. I believe that we served those two tours in the mms gun shop together Jake.
Plan Your Epic Bachelor Party In Atlantic City, New Jersey (2019 Guide):
- Al Sterling April 29, at 1:
- Es waren keine Unterschiede zu anderen guten Produkten fest zu stellen.
- Killing kittens manchester
- Juicy Black pussy getting pumped by bbc.
- Blow buddies san francisco, ca
- plis near san backpage massage diego guys
- Thai Air Force T 28, don't ever remember them doing much, buzz the flight line every now and then.
Two Blush Dancers Arrested For Prostitution, Drug Charges
Doch sobald wir es einmal vergessen, fallen die Haare wieder aus. A total of 64 matches were played in 12 venues across 11 cities.