Besides a non-story about Brendan Johnson’s law
голова болит ÑÐµÐºÑ firm getting a measley $100,000 for losing him and another non-story about the American Cancer Society being able to argue in court against the bar owner smokey-smokey pants crybabies, there isn’t much going on.
However, I have been writing some new bar humor toons for a possible project, here is a sample;
“The bartender just made me the perfect martini.”
“Gin? Vodka? Straight up? Extra dry?”
“FREE.”
Looks like a double-whammy to me, a cologne bottle shaped like a pipe
Sometimes I read letters to the editor, scratch my head (and my balls) and go . . . WTF?
I don’t like cigarettes, but perfumes and colognes bother me more, so do we outlaw the use of them in public for those with allergies or asthma’s convenience?
Hey, jackass, did cologne kill 400,000 people last year?
What bothers me is that they failed in their petition drive. Why reward that failure? I have said they have a right to challenge the outcome, but until they can prove the petitions are legal (which they are not as of right now) the law should go into affect. Once again, South Dakota has proved once again – Business first, citizens second.
When SB2 was passed in 2007,great debate raged about who should determine if a petition was substantially complete. It was decided by the legislature that the decision on substantial compliance should be left with the court. Secretary Nelson cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. The Attorney General cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. What is it about this relatively simlple concept that you fail to grasp?
Larry Mann
Well, Larry, I’m no Secretary of State or a judge for that matter, but I do know one thing about petitions, since I was involved in a drive. They must be notarized by a registered notary, not someone who ‘once was’ a notary. It’s kind of like any legal position, you must keep up with your registrations, or you lose them. Like a driver’s license, for example. Seems pretty simple to me. And BTW, that is the ‘LAW’ not a “TECHNICALITY’. Nice try at trying to spin the truth.
Really? Are their caseloads so f’ing deep they cannot rule on a simple case? If you are not a registered notary, your notarization does not count. Is that something that needs months of review and speculation? I find this delay to be a sick and pathetic joke, and it pains me that my taxdollars go towards these judges salaries (KELO TV):
The trial has been delayed in the fight over whether South Dakota’s smoking ban should be put to a statewide
public vote next year.The trial originally was scheduled for August 24, but has been moved to October 26 in Fort Pierre. Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl also will hold a hearing on September 11 to deal with some issues in the lawsuit.
After the Legislature passed a law expanding the smoking ban to bars and casinos, opponents submitted petition signatures to put the issue on next year’s election ballot. Secretary of State Chris Nelson eventually ruled that the issue could not go onto the ballot because more than 8,000 signatures were invalid.
Opponents of the ban want the judge to order Nelson to put the issue on the ballot.
Go figure, Mark Barnett awarded a stay;
In a lawsuit regarding an attempt to put the ban up to a public vote, Circuit Judge Mark Barnett today granted a motion to stay the ban.
A coalition opposing the legislation asked for the stay, and the state did not oppose it.
What bothers me is that they failed in their petition drive. Why reward that failure? I have said they have a right to challenge the outcome, but until they can prove the petitions are legal (which they are not as of right now) the law should go into affect. Once again, South Dakota has proved once again – Business first, citizens second.