![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Nope, no ruling there.
__________________
don't run out of ammo. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
No, it was not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether the law was constitutional or not) it was a ruling on that he would not give an injunction right now against implementation. Will you give us an injunction temporarily halting implementation, Judge? No, Judge says. But the law is still being appealed immediately to the higher court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the actual law. The law has not been ruled "legal".
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Before the trial, Pennsylvania conceded that it was not aware of any instances of voter impersonation fraud in the state. While Simpson acknowledged that political interests may have motivated the legislators who voted for the law, that did not make the law unconstitutional, he said." You sure?
__________________
don't run out of ammo. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Try this, it's pretty detailed: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...-supreme-court Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
This is more detailed. And not a blog.
__________________
don't run out of ammo. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The judge did not rule on the constitutionality, he was not asked to rule on the constitutionality, he was asked, and he ruled only not to give an injunction while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed. You can't possibly still be disputing that, are you? You are saying you think the judge ruled the law unconstitutional? No, he didn't. The judge only ruled against a temporary injunction. He only ruled the law can go into effect (no injunction) while the constitutionality goes to the higher court to be addressed before November.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |