There are 4 comments.

1. Coolidge
   OccupantCDN

   @OccupantCDN

   1:11 PM EST ⋅ Mar 8, 2018

   I think a star is someone who’s fame goes beyond their own natural fan base. For example Julia Roberts is a movie star, because even if you hadn’t seen her movies you still know of her. Same of Wayne Gretzky, at one time he was well known, even beyond hockey fans.

   So anyone in porn who breaks into main stream notoriety is a star. Jenna Jameson?

2. Coolidge
   Texmoor

   @Texmoor

   2:30 PM EST ⋅ Mar 8, 2018

   

3. Member
   Ambrianne

   @Ambrianne

   8:32 AM EST ⋅ Mar 9, 2018

   Boys, I canNOT hear Sohrab over my snow tires and they’re not coming off until April. I’m fairly certain I missed several important points concerning Trump’s germaphobia. Please put your mouths closer to the mike or something. My 2004 Chrysler Town & Country’s antique stereo system thanks you.

4. Inactive
   Cato Rand

   @CatoRand

   8:31 PM EST ⋅ Mar 9, 2018

   Either one of you should go to law school or you should stop doing legal commentary.

   1. You do win or lose an arbitration.  It’s very much like a trial, just in front of an agreed upon private judge(s) rather than a state employed one.  It is mediation you’re thinking of that you don’t “win” or “lose.”
   2. It is not that difficult to imagine that Trump could have gotten a brief restraining order.  In many jurisdictions, a brief restraining order known as a “temporary restraining order” for the purpose of “maintaining the status quo” in advance of an evidentiary hearing on the question of a longer term restraining order is relatively easy to obtain.  Sometimes even ex parte, i.e. in advance of giving notice to the adverse party and without their being present to oppose it.
   3. People will probably differ on this and it depends to some extent on the precise facts, but Jeff Sessions is not necessarily on strong legal ground vis-a-vis California.   Yes, immigration is a federal matter.  But the use to which the personnel and resources of the State of California are put is not.  States are not instrumentalities of the federal government and are generally not required to do its bidding.  So to the extent that “sanctuary city” or “sanctuary state” is just a way of saying “place where the local or state law enforcement won’t go out of their way to enforce federal immigration law” Jeff Sessions is probably over reaching.  That may change if California personnel are actively interfering with federal personnel enforcing federal law, but it is unlikely a court would find that California is required to put its resources and personnel at the disposal of the federal government for the purpose of helping to enforce immigration law.  (Of course whether California can be coerced into cooperation by the threat of withholding federal funds is a different question.  Courts have generally been willing to sanction the use of monetary carrots and sticks to induce state compliance with federal wishes.)