What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
It's a bit, let him have it. There's plenty of ugly to be found in Southern trailer parks and at Southern California plastic surgery clinics (and that's in the post-op room, btw).
Click to expand...
If holier than thou is a bit. Its a pretty consistent throughout his posts.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

North Dakota implemented voter id requirement.
Native Americans challenged it on the basis that some residences on the reservations lack street addresses, and that the requirement for an id was unduly burdensome.

Trial Court agreed with the Native Americans and issued a statewide injunction prohibiting implementation of the requirements before the last election.

8th Circuit agrees with the State and reverses. Primary problem is that the injunction was too broad and could have only been applied to those individual voters actually affected by the restrictions.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/07/181725P.pdf
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Is that really a good ruling? How on earth do you prove who it impacts? How do you check that at the ballot box? Do precincts that cover reservations not check ID but other ones do? Wouldn't that fail the 14th?
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

dxmnkd316 said:
Is that really a good ruling? How on earth do you prove who it impacts? How do you check that at the ballot box? Do precincts that cover reservations not check ID but other ones do? Wouldn't that fail the 14th?
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous ruling.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Pancreas.

The dude pounds coke and horrible food. His pancreas is shot. I’d be shocked if he wasn’t on insulin.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

dxmnkd316 said:
Pancreas.

The dude pounds coke and horrible food. His pancreas is shot. I’d be shocked if he wasn’t on insulin.
Click to expand...

Oops. I don't know why I read that as liver.

I have no idea what a pancreas does, to be honest.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Kepler said:
Oops. I don't know why I read that as liver.

I have no idea what a pancreas does, to be honest.
Click to expand...

It f cks you when it gets cancerous. Not very forgiving.

We need WW here for some bedside comforting.

That is one tough woman, though.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

On the Kim Davis note, the administration has filed legal briefs asking SCOTUS to discriminate on sexual orientation and being transgender.

October 8 will be a telling day. And my community waits and prepares for the worst.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

burd said:
It f cks you when it gets cancerous. Not very forgiving.

We need WW here for some bedside comforting.

That is one tough woman, though.
Click to expand...

It will not surprise me in the least if she is the first person in history to somehow kick pancreatic cancer's ***.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

burd said:
It f cks you when it gets cancerous. Not very forgiving.

We need WW here for some bedside comforting.

That is one tough woman, though.
Click to expand...

Not sure I have much to say on the comforting side of things. With the minimal details that are available and the caveat that my specialty is not oncology...

It really depends on the type of tumor. I do not think we know at this point if it is a primary pancreatic malignancy vs a metastasis. Generalizing a bit, a metastasis probably has a better outcome than a primary pancreatic tumor (the pancreas is that important). It worries me that they had to stent her bile duct, which indicates it was a large enough mass to cause local compression.

Then again she has beat pancreatic cancer before...so if it is a recurrence of that it is always harder to treat a second time but the fact she beat it once would indicate it might be less aggressive.

Overall, having **** wrong with your pancreas is a pretty rough time and I struggle to think of another organ I would want a tumor on less.

Make it to 2020...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top