Judge's NYC Stop-and-Frisk Reform Orders Blocked by Federal Court

NYPD can chalk up at least a temporary victory: They will not yet have to make the changes to their stop-and-frisk policies ordered by a judge while they appeal the ruling. Furthermore, the appeals court said the judge needed to be removed from the case. From the Associated Press:
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the decisions of Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.
The judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in the way it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and training program associated with it.
The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the requested stay.
The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed from the case because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality in part because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.
Her ruling didn't call for the end of the stop-and-frisk policy, it should be pointed out. She called for a federal monitor to help the department develop reforms to end the unconstitutional targeting of minorities, proper documenting of pat-downs, and the use of body cameras, among other things.
Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.
Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The exchange lumped all shoppers into two groups ? those under 49 and those over 50. The first group got quotes based on what a healthy 27-year-old would pay and the older group what a 50-year-old would pay.
The actual prices for specific policies obtained from the websites of insurance companies were much higher, prompting an expert interviewed by CBS, which broke the story, to call this feature "incredibly misleading."
LOL
The whole thing's a swindle.
Obama couldn't get people to agree to give up their health insurance, so he conned them out of it.
If American voters don't punish the Democrats over this, now that it's no longer happening theoretically, now that they're really losing their insurance? I really will start to lose sympathy for them.
For goodness' sake, it's getting embarrassing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ
Wrong thread?
There is no wrong thread for this shit. The schadenfreude is delicious.
in part because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.
So, when Roberts responded to Obama's criticism of the Court during that SOTU a few years back, he should have been removed?
Doing a quick google news search for judges running afoul of the code of conduct indicates that it's pretty damn rare - if not downright unprecedented - for this to happen. Interesting that it happened in this particular case. Any chance there's a particular bias within the appeals court or any chance that the appeals court justices aren't all former prosecutors?
This will be interesting. New York has been steadily gentrifying over the last decade. Might this ruling reverse that trend? I'm glad those assholes in New York will have to taste some of their own medicine in regards to the "diversity" they want to force on the rest of America. No city in Real America could have ever gotten away with that for that long.
Boring NY hater is boring. Or: refrain to fighting statist shit in NYC one day - and watch it spread to your town the next.
Hi 'Murkin.
I hope the NY judge writes an opinion that the federal judge should be removed from the case and impeached since he has no fucking respect for the constitution at all.
The capitalization of REAL AMERICA! in this sentence made me laugh unbelievably hard.
If American is a sock puppet, then whoever is running this fake account is a genius.
An idiot savant, perhaps?
He can configure complex rationalizations in a fraction of the time that a normal person could!
The degree to which the NYPD and Bloomberg absolutely do not want to give up this program seems excessive to me. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep it. So they can hassle minorities over small drug possession charges? Because I don't believe for a second that it has much of an effect on gun crime, even though that's what they claim. I wonder if there's something else they get out of it.
Their claims are credible. I doubt you would be capable of analyzing them in a sensible matter though.
Their claims are credible. I doubt you would be capable of analyzing them in a sensible matter though.
If you don't have something to say, may I suggest the Nothing to Say thread?
Bloomberg cares about his people.
The same way any master cares about his chattel.
If their streets were private rather than government... No, it is New York and it would still be the same issue.
Bloomberg's "people" are Manhattan billionaires, so yes, he does.
I think it's just a larger part of the push to normalize the police state and weaken civil rights protection that serve as a barrier to it.
Maybe. But NYC already exists as a de facto police state. Why fight so hard for this one program?
Normalizing the idea of cops being able to stop anyone at any time for no reason is a major corner to turn. After that, the next incremental step toward the police state will seem almost inconsequential.
Like forcing you to buy a product?
Like forcing me to buy a product with features that cover impossibilities... like a senior citizen man getting pregnant.
I posted a conversation a few days back that I had with the healthcare.gov chat support people. The guy I talked to told me that if I indicated I was a man, I would not have to buy pregnancy insurance and there was a way I could opt out of mental health insurance. He TOLD ME.
It just shows no one has any idea what is going on.
It probably helps to make the city more miserable for minorities and put pressure on them to move out and make gentrification cheaper.
I have a question. After Heller, how is NYC keeping handguns illegal?
Is it that they claim Heller said banning handguns was unconstitutional but never ruled on law that bans the carrying of handguns?
Handguns aren't illegal to own in NYC but are illegal to carry...is that correct?
You must have a NY State pistol permit to possess (technically, even touch, I believe) a pistol in NY State. Depending on the issuing judge, they will place "restrictions" on where you are allowed to carry. So, for instance, one common set of restrictions outside the city is that you are only allowed to carry going to and from the range, or while hunting or hiking, or while going to and from a pistol sporting event, and a few others. So what this means is you are actually allowed to conceal carry on the way to and from and during these things. I have known people who kept a fishing pole in their car at all times and then would just carry concealed all the time, and if ever caught, they intended to say they were on their way to fish. It would probably work.
However, when a judge issues an "unrestricted" permit, it means there are no limitations on where you can carry, and is essentially the equivalent of a concealed carry permit in other states.
continued:
Judges in NYC have the discretion to issue the permit any way they want, but they all have a culture of only issuing unrestricted permits to the most connected and powerful people, including people like themselves or their families, or Robert DeNiro, etc. For the peons, NYC pistol permits are usually restricted to going to and from the range, and I think they even add to that restriction that it must be "carried" in a locked case while unloaded. And that's it. No hiking and fishing (I mean, you are in NYC), no other stuff. As I understand it, in a city of however many millions of people, there are only just over about 3,000 unrestricted permits issued. Remember that cops don't need them, or prosecutors, or Federal LEOs, because they all have an inherent right to carry because of their job. So it's kept strictly for only the most connected people.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks.
Just wondering how they justify allowing people to keep (own) but not bear (carry) in light of Heller, it seems pretty obvious how this will go. Realizing Heller said you can keep handguns, it's not a stretch to assume the Nazgul will rule that you may also bear them.
I think I read that somewhere as well.
There are some other fun details. NYC (5 boroughs) residents have to have one permit to keep a firearm (hand gun or long gun) in our homes (stored, unloaded, in a locked container), another permit to transport firearms in our motor vehicles (stored, unloaded, in a locked container), and a third permit to posses a firearm in our place of business (only the business owner may posses a firearm). Each of these permits is issued at the discretion of the precinct commander of the relevant neighborhood and each permit requires the payment of a non-refundable application fee of $380.00 per firearm and an annual fee of $80.00 per firearm (along with the usual rigmarole of fingerprinting, photographing, and background checks). But at least this is the City That Never Sleeps or... something (shit, as a transplant from New Orleans, even that claim rings hollow; everything in NYC shuts down by 2am). Also, ALL of my firearms are happily living at the familial homestead in the Republic of Texas.
No. You can legally own and carry a pistol in NYC if you get a permit from the police dept. Which is essentially impossible to get unless you're politically connected, but Heller/McDonald only forbid absolute bans on ownership and possession in the home.
AFAIK there is a circuit split on whether the 2nd forbids bans on carry (Moore v Madigan says yes, several others say no). So we may see a SCOTUS case in the future.
NYC is under the 2nd Circuit, which ruled contra the 7th Circuit's decision in Moore, in the case linked to infra:
http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/a.....wesley.pdf
What did Bloomberg get out of the ban on trans fats and foie gras and big gulps? Statism becomes an impulse of its own if you wallow in it long enough.
Foie gras ban? Is not that another city and mayor?
There were actually multiple cities that did that; I'm surprised Bloomie wasn't one of them. So my case rests on trans fats and big gulps, still a firm fundament.
You forgot salt-shakers. He is probably a Foie gras fan. Since he likes it it is ok.
Statism becomes an impulse of its own if you wallow in it long enough.
Pot, meet kettle
Yes, how statist of me to oppose stop and frisk.
In today's episode of Stupid, or Mendacious?
Starring you? Congrats on your new career.
Wouldn't that make me the host?
haven't you read 1984 yet? Its painfully obvious that this stuff is for the sheer exercise of power. After all, how can you know that you have power over someone unless you can force them to do unpleasant things.
Power for its own sake is a real phenomenon, though I think this instance is less malicious and akin to "the urge to plan" discussed in The Road to Serfdom. Unlike Oceania's government, Bloomberg knows he can't force anyone to do jack shit; they can buy trans fats and salt and big gulps in the surrounding areas. His gamble is that people won't bother and will change behavior for the sake of convenience.
Stop & frisk is immensely popular across the political spectrum. Seems the only NYers against it are radical libertarians and those who've been stopped & frisked. Not even their families are against it; as typical NYers, they like having their relatives humiliated.
Semi OT:
Cop who casually pepper sprays Occupy protesters gets $38,000 in compensation because of anxiety suffered from video that went viral.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1495265
Old news
Some of us don't spend all day at reason. Some of us just spend most of the day here.
Well if you need a place to spend the rest of your day, there's always grylliade.
Only cosmo-fags go there.
Cop who, several times, warned the people who were imprisoning him and his fellows that he would use force against those people unless they let him go, you mean?
Dishonestly edited video that went viral, you mean?
I disagree with compensating him for anxiety, but if you're still laboring under the presumption that the cops were in the wrong there.... wow. True believer.
Imprisoning him?
LMFAO!
There really is nothing that authority can do that doesn't give you wood!
Unreal!
Talk about a True Believer...
Tulpa's "imprisonment" statement got me to look at this story again. OK, I get most of my news while driving between appointments, so maybe I got misled. But 6 articles (NY Daily News, HuffPo, SF Chronicle, LA Times, TIME and Slate) agree with the local (rather conservative) news radio stations here?
Nobody took the "surrounded" statement seriously, much less "imprisonment."
So you're letting the MSM filter the allowable perspectives for you, rather than watching the unedited video for yourself? I guess if the liberals and conservatives agree then they must be right. Just like the Drug War, right?
The Occupiers were expressly telling the police that they were not allowed to leave with the arrestees. If SEIU thugs did something similar to libertarian protesters, Reason would be jumping up to the ceiling. (well, unless there was a good cocktail party coming up).
The Occupiers were expressly telling the police that they were not allowed to leave with the arrestees.
Try again. The video you linked has the students expressly telling the police, "Don't shoot students" and "Shame on you."
Wow, those cops looked really imprisoned in that video.
They were sitting in a line blocking a sidewalk. He was not surrounded, nor were they acting against him physically in any way.
His claim of imprisonment is as credible as 'furtive movements' bullshit.
There were "students" encircling the entire area. The pepper-sprayed ones were one part of the circle. Would you please watch the full video for god's sake?
Yes, pepper spray v simply stepping over sitting protesters.
Please! You're a joke. Suck your cop dick somewhere else.
So you'd be OK with being forced to step over a bunch of hostile SEIU thugs while dragging a 150 pound weight? Hope you wear a cup.
So you'd be OK with being forced to step over a bunch of [unarmed] hostile SEIU thugs while dragging a 150 pound weight [and carrying pepper spray, body armor and loaded guns backed up by 200 of my heavily armed, be-pepper sprayed and armed friends?] Hope you wear a cup.
No problem, show me the SEIU thugs.
Oh noooooooooos the roided out prick dick muthafuckin statist cunt flap would've had to slightly shove his way past two underweight students. Fuck him and FUCK YOU, you statist asshole cum-covered dingleberry
And of course , the "students" EXPRESSLY STATED that they were preventing the officers from leaving. It's not like they were just sitting on a sidewalk minding their own business and a cop came by and sprayed them.
Imprisoning him!
the people who were imprisoning him
And another bullshit meter goes up in a puff of smoke.
-jcr
Statist vs. statist, why should I care?
Shame they are fighting this on racial grounds.
How about...you can't frisk someone without a warrant based upon probable cause?
I think I read something to that effect somewhere. But it was a little hard to understand. And as some lawyer was telling me on a CNN blog today, only lawyers and the Nazgul have the training/ability to know what that old paper really means.
Shame they are fighting this on racial grounds.
It's the only way you get the attention of the MSM. It has to come from an identity politics angle. State power is only a problem if women and minorities are hardest hit. If it hits everyone equally, then nothing to see here, move along.
It has to come from an identity politics angle.
Redefining marriage only got traction when they started selling it as a civil rights issue.
If it hits everyone equally, then nothing to see here, move along.
Stop and frisk isn't the problem. The problem is that they aren't demanding papers from enough white people.
How about...you can't frisk someone without a warrant based upon probable cause?
Case law is against you there. Terry stops don't require PC or a warrant, just reasonable suspicion. NYC's s+f program doesn't even satisfy that level, of course.
Assuming you're referring to the 4th amendment, it forbids "unreasonable searches". Cutting and pasting the standard for warrants from the second clause into the meat of the amendment is not justifiable.
Shorter Tulpa:
"It doesn't mean what it says! It means what authority says it means!" *slurp* *gag*
You guys are the ones arguing against a literal interpretation.
I keep asking for you guys to point to the place where it says searches require a warrant based on probable cause, and keep getting the runaround.
It bans unreasonable searches of certain things, then goes on to say that warrants must be based on probable cause. You guys are cutting and pasting the two statements into each other, much like the grabbers cut and paste the line about the well-regulated militia into the right to keep and bear arms.
If you don't need a warrant based on probable cause, then what's the point of the 'Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation' clause?
These things modify the meaning of the paragraph you know.
You realize you're making an analogous argument to the gun grabbers' claim that the 2nd amendment only applies to well-regulated militias.
No.
He isn't, retard.
The prefatory clause in 2A was taken directly from Virginia's State Constitution, and refers to the fear of standing armies.
Very iffy speculation -- as it existed at the time there was no connection to RTKABA. Not seeing how that has anything to do with anything.
YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!
The wording is nearly identical. Where do you think the amendments came from, dumbass?
BECAUSE we need to raise militias AND BECAUSE standing armies are dangerous, the citizenry must be armed so we can call on them when needed.
You are really a flaming asshole.
Case Law- government officials granting other government officials more power.
Odd how searching my house requires a higher level of of suspicion than searching my person when the amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
Frisking is kind of a weird thing constitutionally. It's not equivalent to a search of a house or business; that would be more like a full body cavity search.
But because it is intended to reveal things that are hidden, it is definitely some kind of search.
The RS standard is sort of a compromise with reality. The police have to be able to question suspects in the investigation of a crime, and it's hard to expect them to do so while the suspect is armed. That's where the "unreasonable" part gives them wiggle room. Obviously, stop+frisk is not even reaching the level of RS.
One of the tenets of law and order libertarianism is that a free, densely populated society needs robust law enforcement, as private coercion is at least as bad as state coercion.
law and order libertarianism
Anyone else notice that L+O is basically just dramatizing supposed conservative scandals these days? The only time I see the previews is while watching Sunday night football, and it always seems to be a Todd Akin or Larry Craig or Mark Sanford adaptation.
Yep - I recall when it used to be worth watching too.
Because if I wanted politics, I would seek it out. When I watch law & order, I'm very explicitly NOT seeking out politics...
But as many here have stated under other threads - it's the new world, where all politics is personal and everything is personal, so everything is now political.
Why would it be hard to expect them to question an armed suspect? I must submit to their questioning while they are armed. Are these protectors and servers entitled to more than those they "protect?"
Only if you're a suspect.
Somehow, in my view, being a 'suspect' doesn't remove the government's requirement to respect my civil rights.
I mean, if that *is* the case, then why do we recognize a 'suspect's' 5th amendment rights, or his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights?
Of course being suspected doesn't remove your constitutional rights, and I never claimed as much. I never said suspects should have their houses searched or their property confiscated. But it does make you part of a small group which has an elevated likelihood of committing violence against investigators, so reasonable precautions to prevent that violence are reasonable.
But in S+F a suspect of what? Does case law really back scattergun searches based randomly or on profiling?
Well, I'm totally against S+F and believe it's clearly contravening existing case law (including Terry itself). That it's taken years to even get to this point in the courts is a disgrace.
But, I don't think the 4th is as obvious in its meaning as some others here. It's a mess of ill-defined words and unclear relationships between clauses.
" . . .and it's hard to expect them to do so while the suspect is armed. "
No, no its not. Its hard to do when you have this idea that
a) The 'suspect' you're questioning *must* have committed the crime even though, by definition, a Terry Stop questioning is just grabbing some vaguely suspicion guy to ask questions ABOUT A CRIME he may not even be involved with - only a potential witness.
b) Believe that you must always intimidate, dominate, and control the public in your every interaction with them.
Just reading the 4th, I have to disagree with you Tulpa. It seems pretty clear that there are two parts to the amendment: first being secure in our persons, papers, etc. and second that if there is probable cause to search any of those things in the first part, you must have a warrant to do so. The first sentence of the second part states that no warrant shall be issued unless there is probable cause.
That's not cutting and pasting, that's just good ol reading comprehension.
The lawsuit alleged, and the Court found, Fourth Amendment violations as well as, and independent of, Fourteenth Amendment violations.
The opinion can is here:
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Fl.....-12-13.pdf
The wsrren court upheld stop and frisk 8-1, iirc. Getting that overruled is a nonstarter. Either you need a discrimination angle or some evidence that the stops failed to meet the terry standards, which are fairly generous to the cops.
So - are we to assume from this that S+F was never actually stopped yet? Because the NY Post's breathless reporting of MOAR CRIMEZ! like 24 hours after the original ruling sure seemed like horseshit to me.
Of course it was horseshit. Not only is the Post a statist gun-phobic rag, Stop & Frisk is much more about petty hassling than it ever was about finding illegally carried guns. And even if the NYPD agreed to stop Stop & Frisk, you know it'll keep happening with a lot of the cops because they like doing and who is going to stop them?
I have noticed they have stepped up their bag search stations at subway entrances, they used to be only at the big touristy stops (Times Sq, Penn Station, Union Sq, ect.) I refused a search (and the ability to enter the train) this past Monday. The stop was on the small G line near the Marcy projects, prime real estate for easy pot bust. When these search request happen you can walk a stop down and most likely enter there unmolested, but I used this instance it as an excuse to walk home on a nice fall evening through the park (with a few cans of micro-brews, cops don't recognize beer in colorful cans).
Good for you.
PAPAHZ PLEEZ!
Christ, what is this country coming to?
I hate to be the one to point this out, but it aint coming to nothing. We are there.
"Ihre Papiere Bitte! Schnell, schnell.. macht schnell!"
It rolls off the statists' tongue much better that way...
No, no, no - according to Tulpa you should have submitted to the search. He won't be able to understand why you traded a few questions and a search of your stuff for having to walk home.
^____________^
I guess I missed the part where he was detained and fined, after pissing in the cornflakes of a person with warrantless search authority while carrying contraband.
Well these things are really can mess with your life, the subway in NYC is my (& millions others) car. One day I'll have to trade my forth in so I'm not late to work, I can blow them off after work no problem. Though I rarely see them at my home base stop, which is in Little Pakistan. I guess good old fashion warrantless spying on them is enough, daily bag searches would be overkill.
Every year it's the same. I buy candy for the little moochers. I turn on all the lights. No one comes. I eat candy myself.
I guess the word is out that I'll only enslave the little urchins in my diamond mines...
C'est la vie.
Same here. Except the one year I decided not buy any candy and turned my lights off every kid in the neighborhood came by.
Has it always been a think for trick-or-treaters to flow across socio-economic gradients in residential neighborhoods? I live two blocks from an enclave of upper-middle lower-upper class housing in El Paso and the streets were mobbed by parked cars this evening.
Huh, I *wish* they would here - only kids from my neighborhood come by, not very many, and never in groups. usually one or two kids with a parent either with them or standing on the street while they're knocking on doors.
its sad but I saw a parent *in a car* following their kids from door to door.
I was at a friends house and they let me give out candy to the kids while using my dracula accent. Some of the parents seemed mildly amused. Bla bla bla
ASU girl goes to Halloween party as 'Naked Human' [NSFW]
That's one boney bum.
I would say that was a "Lady Godiva" costume, but I doubt said girl would know the reference.
omg is she the one who sings alejandro lol xoxo
Nowadays the Lady looks more like a monster out of a Dr. Seuss book.
She claims to produce high art. Nah, still composition book poetry as lyrics for shitty dance music. All hail The Gaga.
Is she carrying a giant cauliflower?
Hehe, Fuck you Tulpa - making me laugh at your damn jokes two days in a row.
That would require a horse costume. I'd happily volunteer.
1 minute. Damn you. I shouldn't have taken the time to check my spelling.
Never check spelling.
YOLO
The code by which Marcotte and Yglesias live.
Bless her heart.
Streaker?
Porn star?
Lady Godiva?
Shes a peacenik protesting naked aggression.
Shes a law student arguing that her high heels make her in compliance with the no shirt no shoes no service sign.
You'd think they'd have gotten more than one pic.
Regardless...
I'll be in my bunk.
Here is a question....have the calls for repeal of the 22nt amendment ceased? I remember someone here predicting that they would come, and shortly after they did but never seemed to gain momentum. Did they give up on that or are they distracted now and will resume closer to 2016?
Why bother repealing it? Nobody has standing to sue if BO wins a 3rd term.
BO's made it clear that the only constraint he admits on his power is SCOTUS rulings, and that hasn't really been tested yet. Every ruling they've issued on federal law has gone his way (even, arguably, Citizens United, since it allowed buckets of union money into his war chest).
I can't think of a better way to start Civil War Episode II than blatantly violating fundamental constitutional election law.
Well, cutting off SNAP would make it happen faster.
I'm not sure the American people have a civil war in them anyway at this point, which is mostly a good thing.
Publix, Kroger, Walmart,Giant Eagle and tens of thousands of convenience store owners wouldn't be happy if the government cut off their huge cash subsidy but I doubt they'd start a civil war over it.
Nah, he's made it clear that he's going to ignore SC rulings that are not in his favor - the possible negative ruling regarding his 'out of session' appointments to the NLRB are an example of this.
Wait, is he actually doing this? I hadn't heard that.
Er, looking at it for myself, SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet. It was a CoA that ruled against BO, and only in one specific case that (I believe) hasn't been enforced yet.
The calls for a 22nd amendment repeal aren't really something that has much to do with Obama - the same guys keep pushing this issue *every* couple of years no matter who's in office.
I don't remember anyone doing it for Bush II.
These guys (and I wish I could remember the names - one is a representative or senator) aren't pushing this *for* any particular president. They just feel the 22nd amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and push for its repeal every couple of years.
99% of the time no one ever pays any attention to them - it came up last year because there was a small groundswell of *other* people who wanted BO to have the possibility of a third+ term. Thankfully they've dropped that as a workable idea.
There's a real website tho
repeal22.com
Kelly Ripa: Hotter Miley than Miley.
Evidence
Don't make me link to my home video of rather twerking.
Wait, what?
Obama 2008 voter and former H+R caudillo Tim Cavanaugh exposes a sinister FCC study at the Daily Caller:
I dont think 'sinister' really covers it.
I'm trying to be nice; it helps my ulcers.
The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have," acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a May announcement [pdf] of the survey. "The research design we announce today is an important next step in understanding what those needs are, how Americans obtain the information critical to their daily lives in a dynamic technological environment, and what barriers exist in our media ecologies to providing and accessing this information."
"At his nomination hearing in June, Mr. Wheeler dodged a question from Mr. Cruz about whether the F.C.C. had the authority to regulate political speech. "That's an issue that I look forward to learning more about," Mr. Wheeler said."
Looks like the FCC is chock full of ministry of truth types.
media ecologies
Rope makes a damn good "reconciliation committee".
It seems lately like federal appeals courts exist to quickly nullify any of the few positive checks on power some federal judges have managed to pull. Probably all ex-FBI prosecutors...
LEAVE THE GHOST OF PRINCESS DI ALONE!
Penis shaped bush is back in Windsor.
Penis.
Huh huh, you said "bush"
Ahhh, Windsor. "Less depressing than Sarnia"
PENIS.
Good thing beer and whiskey are plentiful.
Grape production is down. They say because of 'bad weather'. That must be the new code for 'there is no global warming, things are cooling instead.'
Not so much.
"This announcement is not meant as some sort of scare tactic to get people hoarding bourbon," said Comstock."
Really now? I think I will start hoarding bourbon.
"The website launched on a Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4.7 million unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say "six enrollments have occurred so far.""
Six! Six! Six!
Six enrollments! Six six six!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18.....ents-show/
Six!
Early enrollment figures are contained in notes from twice-a-day "war room" meetings convened within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website failed on Oct. 1.
Colour me shocked. Vacuous dipshits love excessive meetings. Anyone wanna take a guess how much productive time is pissed away preparing for the second meeting of the day?
I just know my output always peaks when I have Bill Lumbergh hovering over my shoulder for the next status .
Fitting that the head honcho overseeing everything from the top is the worst kind of empty suit with no shred of executive efficacy.
So the Fat-shaming letter story from Fargo is a hoax?
What gender pay gap?
Those women getting paid more is the only reason the pay cap isn't $.50. Check your privilege.
/feminist
Panic: The reservoir of molten rock underneath Yellowstone National Park in the United States is at least two and a half times larger than previously thought.
On the bright side, if she goes we won't need to worry about ACA.
Why are European leftwing radio shows giving monocles a bad name?
WILL COMET ISON HIT THE EARTH?
Uhm, no?
On the bright side, if it does we won't need to worry about ACA.
Move that right one tab.
So this is basically the worst thing I've read in several months.
6 Presidential-Campaign Themes Hillary Clinton Is Test-Driving
Barf.
Barfbarfbarfbarfbarfbarfbarf.
I keep hoping the ghost of Ambassador Stevens will wake her up every night by moaning and rattling chains and drive her to suicide. Same for that fucking asshat in the white house.
The thing about her running which interests me is that she knows she's going to have to handle questions about Stevens and Benghazi that will be so exposing of her complete psychopathy, I'm not entirely convinced her ego is willing to risk that possible exposure.
But hey, it's not just the fact that " having people stand up when you come into the room" that's important, ya know.
There's other stuff too.
There is a lot more than just Benghazi. It would seem out of the question to nominate her.
Still, I can see the republicans completely bungling a campaign against her and her winning.
Nah, that would never happen. It's not like they are going to nominate some Northeastern RINO governor from a liberal state again. I mean that would be suicide, right?
Right?
Right.
Never happen.
Game Winning Safety in OT.
WOW
"The Replay Assistant challenged the safety ruling, and the play was Upheld."
Ah, the Bungles. The NFL's most loltastic squad.
hey! East coast - wake up, I can't sleep.
lol, US POlitics, best POlitics money can buy!
http://www.PlanetAnon.tk