Plenipotentiary Tom

A sailor with a family could buy a nice place on the water here and have plenty left over for a nice 4ksb to put at the dock on that kind of budget. No fixing needed. We do have brown water though...

The TeamD nominee might just squeak by in California with your support. Or maybe that's been a foregone conclusion for quite some time, with or without you and millions of others.

Trump's Continuing Commentary on Criminal Cases Reflects His Respect for the Rule of Law

Encryption has been a target of statists for a long time, but just like when the proposal was Al Gore's "Clipper Chip" the good news is that there will always be non-compliant cryptography. Because geeks. Phil Zimmerman made sure that the cat got out of the bag, had kittens, and the kittens shredded the bag. She's not going back in.

Well, OK. Hey Guy, how do you believe Meli thinks that people who are sexual predators look?

California Bill Would Require Occupational Licenses for Porn Actors, Strippers, Cam Girls This one calls for more comedy than I can muster on only one cup of coffee. This makes it confusing for a small handful of people like me, who look at legislation that a politician has introduced to determine what they support. How about: finish drafting it, do some proof reading to make SURE you're finished, then introduce it?

I grew up on the Gables Waterway and left. It took a bit to figure out that locked doors are annoying, not necessary.

Holy shit, that's precisely it. Thanks Tom. I got about halfway through the 11th Circuit opinion last night before lapsing into a peach pie-induced coma, but that was more than enough to see that the court treated court fees, punitive fines, and restitution payments collectively as LFO's. (Legal Financial Obligations.)

How do such people look anyway?

That's not how sponsors of Amendment 4 represented it prior to passage, which is why that's not how the FL Supreme Court interpreted it. This kind of post is why I pointed out that more info is available in the thread on this topic.

This quotation of another case in the 11th Circuit opinion: Has me thinking that Penological Tom would be a pretty good screen name.

The 11th circuit said in a footnote that they were not addressing the 24th amendment claim because it is not ripe.

Whether someone does something wrong is not dependent on their ability to pay. The argument is specious. I think Sol's right about that in a couple of different areas that come to mind. Rich guy speeds, poor guy speeds, both have to pay a fine. It doesn't affect (not effect) the rich guy as much but that's the fine for speeding. Rich guy causes the court system to incur expenses and poor guy does the same. It still probably cost more or less the same and the court fees that fund our courts are more about what it cost to run the court than what the person could pay. Also, income is a poor metric for ability to pay. A low wage worker with kids to support and a retiree with a sailboat in his back yard might have a pretty similar income because one is not working any more. The ability to pay can still be very different. Your last question goes to the thread topic. In the examples I mentioned, the financial consequences may be different but deprivation of a protected right goes beyond a financial consequence, especially if it lasts for life.

Well, OK. I think that they didn't ignore the plain language of it, they looked at it and said, "You Floridians can't have the amendment for which you voted because it has equal protection and 14th amendment problems." Our State Supreme Court looked at it and just said, "Yeah, that's what Floridians voted for." But the 11th circuit looked at whether it's an allowable amendment under federal law. There's at least one easily identifiable difference. In one case, the money goes to a victim and in the other case it goes to the state.