Washington Supreme Court stays ruling on Pac-12 control — ESPN
The Washington Supreme Court stayed a lower court's ruling from earlier this month that granted control of the Pac-12 to Oregon State and Washington State.
Just starting?I'm starting to get a not so great feeling about how this will end...
I can assure you, this is not trueA bunch of progressive tards that think Inslee was right to fire workers in the state for not adhering to the mandate. On a side note, state workers received a $1k bonus just for getting the booster. Great use of our tax dollars. I sure hope the people in this state outside of King County finally band together and vote in someone competent.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...kely-to-get-bonuses-raises-for-covid-booster/I can assure you, this is not true
This is exactly why so many people hate attorneys. You have the snakes arguing that the meaning of a bylaw is exactly the opposite of what it says, then you have some left side liberal going along with it and second guessing what might have been intended when originally written. And if it WAS poorly written, so what? It means what it says!“In my view the provision is poorly written and possibly ambiguous,” Washington Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston wrote in his ruling about the Pac-12 bylaws at the heart of the case. “
Poorly written? OMG, it's "poorly written" in his opinion! You can make that statement about all kinds of written documents the court has seen in the past and has not objected to. Shakespeare didn't write it, so it's "poorly written!" Coward.
Possibly ambiguous? Well, is it or is it not ambiguous? What a load of crap. This is just a sellout to make sure they didn't get crossways with the powers that be. That's all.
This will not turn out well for the Pac-2. The writing is on the wall with our corrupt Supreme Court.
It says “likely” and “would” not “will.”
Just curious: are you a member of that union?It says “likely” and “would” not “will.”
Some state employees got 4% on July 1, others got 2.5% on October 1. There weren’t covid bonuses or retention bonuses.
Geezus christ. Has anyone besides me actually worked in Higher Ed or government in general? I f-ing hated it. Guaranteed COLA raises for life. Keep your head down and nose clean aside from sticking your snout in the bosses' ass frequently. Just don't bone any females on your floor - oops. Won't list them all for sweet pristine Julie's sakeJust curious: are you a member of that union?
Never been a member of any union myself (and never will), but I know people who are, and I am a state employee.Just curious: are you a member of that union?
Yes.Geezus christ. Has anyone besides me actually worked in Higher Ed or government in general? I f-ing hated it. Guaranteed COLA raises for life. Keep your head down and nose clean aside from sticking your snout in the bosses' ass frequently. Just don't bone any females on your floor - oops. Won't list them all for sweet pristine Julie's sake. I think I only need one hand to count them. Oh wait - 2 hands. That was just WSU. Would need to take my shoes off to count the others. Off to bed. It is late.
And I promised to not tell sex stories anymore. Just sooo many.......
I haven't read the opinion, but it seems odd to me the Commissioner focused on that on a motion for a stay.“In my view the provision is poorly written and possibly ambiguous,” Washington Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston wrote in his ruling about the Pac-12 bylaws at the heart of the case. “
Poorly written? OMG, it's "poorly written" in his opinion! You can make that statement about all kinds of written documents the court has seen in the past and has not objected to. Shakespeare didn't write it, so it's "poorly written!" Coward.
Possibly ambiguous? Well, is it or is it not ambiguous? What a load of crap. This is just a sellout to make sure they didn't get crossways with the powers that be. That's all.
This will not turn out well for the Pac-2. The writing is on the wall with our corrupt Supreme Court.
That’s a ridiculous statement. A plain language reading of the clause is pretty clear. You need to stand on your head, squint, and read it backwards to get UW’s interpretation out of it.“In my view the provision is poorly written and possibly ambiguous,” Washington Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston wrote in his ruling about the Pac-12 bylaws at the heart of the case. “
Poorly written? OMG, it's "poorly written" in his opinion! You can make that statement about all kinds of written documents the court has seen in the past and has not objected to. Shakespeare didn't write it, so it's "poorly written!" Coward.
Possibly ambiguous? Well, is it or is it not ambiguous? What a load of crap. This is just a sellout to make sure they didn't get crossways with the powers that be. That's all.
This will not turn out well for the Pac-2. The writing is on the wall with our corrupt Supreme Court.
Liberal courts think they are the super-stars of the judicial system and must legislate to prove their worth instead of using precedent. Like I said earlier in the thread, my confidence in the P2 prevailing in this thing is waning.Past precedent is a strong argument under most circumstances, but with this court who knows.
I see you're back on your meds.Geezus christ. Has anyone besides me actually worked in Higher Ed or government in general? I f-ing hated it. Guaranteed COLA raises for life. Keep your head down and nose clean aside from sticking your snout in the bosses' ass frequently. Just don't bone any females on your floor - oops. Won't list them all for sweet pristine Julie's sake. I think I only need one hand to count them. Oh wait - 2 hands. That was just WSU. Would need to take my shoes off to count the others. Off to bed. It is late.
And I promised to not tell sex stories anymore. Just sooo many.......
Well, they have the SCOTUS as a model for ignoring precedent. Also the text of the Constitution means what they want it to mean.Liberal courts think they are the super-stars of the judicial system and must legislate to prove their worth instead of using precedent. Like I said earlier in the thread, my confidence in the P2 prevailing in this thing is waning.
My prediction - the court legislates that the P2 give all the traitors most of the money in the name of "equity" and then leave the P2 holding the empty bag with full control of basically nothing for the next two years.
I can assure you, it actually is. I've seen paystubs and a really close friend of mine works for the state. He verified that.I can assure you, this is not true
I can assure you, this is not true
She was allowed to keep getting a paycheck.![]()
State employees likely to get 1K bonuses for COVID booster
SEATTLE (AP) — Under a tentative deal Washington state employees would get $1,000 bonuses for receiving a COVID-19 booster shot.apnews.com
Admittedly this doesn't say it's final.
My wife is a teacher. I believe she got something.
With an extra $1,000 in it for taking the booster, which was required for a trip we took to Italy anyway.She was allowed to keep getting a paycheck.
Yes. What a weasel.That’s a ridiculous statement. A plain language reading of the clause is pretty clear. You need to stand on your head, squint, and read it backwards to get UW’s interpretation out of it.
Besides, there’s supporting documentation to show that the 10 either interpreted it the way WSU does or that they accepted that interpretation.
Case closed.
Found the problem. It was funded. You had to apply for it, it wasn't automatic. And it doesn't apply to higher ed employees.I can assure you, it actually is. I've seen paystubs and a really close friend of mine works for the state. He verified that.
Ok, well…it wasn’t all state workers. Its wasn’t even all of the WSFE members. If they worked in higher ed, they got nothingFTFY