1 /facepalm

What rule of law?

2 What's the difference anyway. This is going to the Supreme Court right?

3
That word, "random". I don't think it means what you think it means.

4 O/t:  but somewhat related in a twisted sort of way:  "Obama's 'Gangster Politics'  The president is about to order companies that do business with the federal government to disclose their political donations."

So, does this mean that you are expected to donate to the dems if you want to continue doing business with the federal government?  Well, there go any donations to the republicans.

5 Is anyone surprised? 

6 What I'd like to see is anyone proving that this monstrosity can be funded, with or without coercion, especially after waivers were granted.

7 Just goes back to my point that Judges should be ELECTED, not APPOINTED.

8 Chope and Hange.

9 Re-post from the previous thread:

Fucking A. We lost the 4th circuit obamacare suit. Thr judges hearing are 3 dem appointees

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 10, 2011 01:22 PM (qEwOs)

Those assignments are supposed to be made randomly but we know they're not.

Any body remember Mary Jo White being assigned to hear 99% of the Clinton lawsuits?

The GOP actually found evidence proving the assignments weren't random. Good thing W took Rove's advice and didn't do anything about it.

10 Having "Three Democrats Will Hear Fourth Circuit Appeal" isn't necessarily a bad thing.  As a matter of fact, if they end up making the disagreement with Judge Vinson in the Eleventh that much more distinct, it will force the issue to the SCOTUS.

11 you know what would be funny, if someone in the printing office published the opinion before the hearing.   Good times, good times....

12 Did McCain support these leftist judges too?

13

Transparency. I can smell the transparency. It smells like....victory

14 So we lost before it started?  Is a quick loss better because it goes to USSC faster.

15

The hour is later than you think. 

...The Nine have left Minas Morgul...

16 3 Don't worry.  Romney is introducing his plan on Thursday to Repeal and REPLACE Obamacare.

I'm waiting with bated breath...

/got it right this time!

(Here are the fruits of RomneyCare - 48 day doctor waits). 

17
James A. Wynn, Jr - Confirmed (voice vote)
Andre M. Davis - Confirmed (72-16)
Diana Gribbon Motz - Confirmed (voice vote)



The Republicans^tm seem quite comfortable with them.  Who are we to argue with our political betters...

18 A majority of the court was appointed by Democratic presidents.  This isn't that suspicious - when you only have 13 (i think that's the number on CA4) balls in the jar, you're going to get all-red or all-black trios fairly often.

19 When will the 11th circuit start hearing? Will these three on the 4th rule on it? Or will it be all of the 4th?

20 Now watch this easy layup...........

21 As shocking as this may seem... I do not believe that our Founding Fathers could have ever imagined, even vaguely, the monstrosity that has grown into the judicialstein monster. That is one of the areas that the republicans in congress need to push for every law to be definable only by the law with no judicial or executive interpretation.

22 when you only have 13 (i think that's the number on CA4) balls in the jar, you're going to get all-red or all-black trios fairly often.

Posted by: Knemon

 

Your balls are racist. I think. Damn this is confusing.

23 And people wonder why I'm such a bitter cynic...

24

"When will the 11th circuit start hearing? Will these three on the 4th rule on it? Or will it be all of the 4th?"

11th is scheduled for June 8th I think.

Just these 3 will rule.  Assuming (fair assumption - the district judges have ruled straight party-line so far) that they reverse Hudson and declare the law entirely constitutional, there is almost no chance for an en banc (whole court) rehearing at the 4th, since you need a majority of active-status judges to rehear and Democrats have at least a 1-vote majority.

25

Bin Laden Sons Say U.S. Violated International Law

 

No follow up on the son's opinions on international law and acts of terrorism. Maybe the 4th Circus can randomly appoint some judges to figure this one out?

26 We don't have a judiciary anymore. We have unelected despots, largely liberal, who have been appointed mostly by Democrats.

The wonder of that last part is that Republicans have held the office of President more than Dems in the past 50 years but we still have more liberal judges.

Why is that?

27

"That is one of the areas that the republicans in congress need to push for every law to be definable only by the law with no judicial or executive interpretation."

But this is just impossible.  You can't write any law in a way that eliminates ALL need for interpretation.  It's like trying to make a 1:1 map of the world.

I totally agree that judicial activism is a problem and that Democratic appointees tend to be much more blatant about it -- but there's always going to be SOME room for interpretation.

28

But remember, what happens at the circuit level -- and the 11th circuit could easily reverse Judge Vinson, depending on the red/black balance of the jar-drawn balls -- the real game is SCOTUS.

If Kennedy eats his Wheaties on the relevant morning, it won't matter whether both CA11 and CA4 have reversed Vinson and Hudson.  And if he doesn't, it won't matter whether they haven't.  Shit rolls downhill.

29 The wonder of that last part is that Republicans have held the office of President more than Dems in the past 50 years but we still have more liberal judges.

Why is that?

Because the vast majority of judges are dirty lawyers!  Close down all law schools and kill the humanities!

*half-assed attempt to channel AmishDude*

30 Remember, if the GOP presidential nominee isn't Conservative Enough you should all send a message to the Ruling Class by staying home and giving Obama four more years to pack the courts.

31 We don't have a judiciary anymore. We have unelected despots, largely liberal, who have been appointed mostly by Democrats.

The wonder of that last part is that Republicans have held the office of President more than Dems in the past 50 years but we still have more liberal judges.

Why is that?

Posted by: Vic

 

Note Ginsberg (ACLU activist). She was appointed by a Dem and received an overwhelming majority confirmation vote in a Republican Majority Senate. This is why. Our side does not do to their nomiees what Dems rotuinely do to theirs. Thus, the President isn't the chief determinant. Dems always select Dems/leftists. Republicans rarely select conservatives, and they, and all Republican nominations receive a fight.

32 Thank God we don't elect judges, right?

33
A majority of the court was appointed by Democratic presidents.  This isn't that suspicious - when you only have 13 (i think that's the number on CA4) balls in the jar, you're going to get all-red or all-black trios fairly often.

Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 01:56 PM (Da+uN)

Wrong.

The Fourth Circuit is composed of 14 judges, seven appointed by Democrat, seven by Republican Presidents.

If you do the math the odds against this "random" decision are 7 - 1, or 87.5% against it.

34 Is a quick loss better because it goes to USSC faster.

Fuck no.

There's only one principled vote against the Commerce reading that enables Obamacare (and whatever worse shit is waiting to follow it).

If I were betting, I'd bet on a 7-1-1 win for "not-commerce is commerce," as part of a complexly split decision that conservatives will mistake for a victory, until it gets applied. Sort of like Heller.

But I'm a pessimist. So, 7-2.

35 While we have gotten some solid crowbars into leftist media complex from what I know we have lost even more ground on courts.

Reality is the left are the professional wrecking crews.  If only we could find a way to turn the left against even their own activist judges.  After we have solved that easy peasy problem we can use the same magic wand to have Russia aims its nukes at itself.

36 Witch-ers!

37 The wonder of that last part is that Republicans have held the office of President more than Dems in the past 50 years but we still have more liberal judges.

Why is that?

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2011 02:00 PM (M9Ie6)

 Republicans allow judges appointed by democrats to come up for a confirmation vote, the reverse is not true.

38 On a similar note, two ants and a cockroach will be voting on whether I can put pesticide on my tomatoes.

39 Hey, look at the bright side. Pretty soon you'll be able to free medical coverage for your gay husband.

40

"The Fourth Circuit is composed of 14 judges, seven appointed by Democrat, seven by Republican Presidents.

If you do the math the odds against this "random" decision are 7 - 1, or 87.5% against it."

OK, and it's 12.5% in favor of it, meaning it'll happen 1/8 times, which I'd define as "fairly often."  Normally courts will ask for a showing of 95% significance (when the judges/lawyers involved have any understanding of statistics, that is).

41 @40 uh, "get free medical coverage" I'm keeping my day job ...as long as Obama permits me

42 I hear the Navy has been conducting same-sex SEAL training for years.

43 Start welding armor plates on the station wagon. No flat tires will help too.

44 I really wish their was a way to compile all of this type of creepy borderline fascist behavior of democrats and force feed to the leftists to make them have to openly admit just what a monster they have become.

45 I hear the Navy has been conducting same-sex SEAL training for years. Hello sailor!

46

"The Fourth Circuit is composed of 14 judges, seven appointed by Democrat, seven by Republican Presidents."

No, Ed, it's composed of 13 judges, 5 appointed by Republican Presidents, 7 by Democrats, and 1 by both (a Clinton nominee renominated by Dubya, as with Barrington Parker on the Second Circuit).  At least according to Wikipedia.

47 AZGON

Is this the new state?

48

OK, and it's 12.5% in favor of it, meaning it'll happen 1/8 times, which I'd define as "fairly often."  Normally courts will ask for a showing of 95% significance (when the judges/lawyers involved have any understanding of statistics, that is).

Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 02:07 PM (Da+uN)

"Occasionally" is the word that would be used by anyone having any understanding of english.

49 (There *is* one other judge, but he;'s on senior status, which means (a) he hears fewer cases -- which means the chance is a bit higher than your 12/5% -- and (b) he can't vote in polls for en banc rehearing.)

50 AZGON

Is this the new state?

Posted by: Cherry ð

 

No, that's the lion from that movie.

51

""Occasionally" is the word that would be used by anyone having any understanding of english."

And "go fuck yourself" is the phrase used by someone not wanting to get into a fight over phrasing.

52
"Occasionally" is the word that would be used by anyone having any understanding of english.

And "infrequently" would be better.

53 By the time this gets to the SCOTUS, the fear is that enough Lindsay Grahams will tell everyone there is nothing to fear from Obamacare that our case will be laughed out.

54 Guess we need to bank on the 11th. I believe it is majority conservative. And they will probably give a ruling in mid to late june, right? The thing is, though we all hate how Kennedy runs things, he is smart. He probably wants to see what the rulings are in the circuit but he will see if it is political or not based on the circuit makeup. Two jef appointees? Please.

55

And "go fuck yourself" is the phrase used by someone not wanting to get into a fight over phrasing.

 

Hell I thought that was the written opinion.

56 AZGON Is this the new state? Posted by: Cherry ð --- No, that's the lion from that movie. It was called "The Lion, The Bitch and Webelos."

57
Start welding armor plates on the station wagon. No flat tires will help too.





Don't forget to update your apocalypse wardrobe. Every well-dressed road warrior needs a good set of assless chaps.

58

And "go fuck yourself" is the phrase used by someone not wanting to get into a fight over phrasing.

Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 02:12 PM (Da+uN)

Which are you ignorant of: 1) english, 2) statistics, 3) both?

59 The thing is, though we all hate how Kennedy runs things, he is smart. He probably wants to see what the rulings are in the circuit but he will see if it is political or not based on the circuit makeup. Two jef appointees? Please.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka

A pity that he can't do what he was appointed to do, and rule on the legality of the damned thing. If we wanted handicappers doing that job, we could have gone to the race track and gotten people cheaper.

60 The problem is that Dems ALWAYS appoint a liberal activist judge and the Repubs rubber stamp it.

The Repubs nominate liberal activist judges about half the time and the Dems fight any conservative appointment tooth and nail. Largely blocking them from ever coming to the floor for a vote.

This is why the courts are so boned.

What we really need is an Article V convention to redefine the court system. The founders left too much for grabs because they considered it the weakest branch.

Unfortunately they didn't take into account the desire by the federalists to subvert the Constitution.

61 Why is that?

Posted by: Vic at May 10, 2011 02:00 PM (M9Ie6)

I'll give it a crack.

Because we have inbred life time establishment RINO's  such as, cocksuckers McCain,Lugar and Graham. That's why.

62

And "go fuck yourself" is the phrase used by someone not wanting to get into a fight over phrasing.

Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 02:12 PM (Da+uN)

Which are you ignorant of: 1) english, 2) statistics, 3) both?

Posted by: Ed Anger

 

Grammer rumble! Everyone make a circle and throw erasers!

63

"Guess we need to bank on the 11th. I believe it is majority conservative. And they will probably give a ruling in mid to late june, right?"

Sadly, no.  Active status judges are an even D/R split.  (Normally I wouldn't be so cynical about this -- there are plenty of "liberal" R-appointed federal judges, and yes, there are some "conservative" D-appointed ones, although fewer.  But on THIS issue in particular, it seems to be down-the-line.)

Again, it doesn't matter.  Or maybe it does, but only marginally.  "oblig" could be right, this could be one in which only Scalia and Thomas, or maybe even only Thomas, sees the light.  But I think 5-4 is more likely, though if you want to know which side has the 5 ... Only Kennedy's Hairdresser Knows For Sure.

64 OT:

From Yahoo News:

Liberals in Southern Arizona are attempting to create a new state in an attempt to be the first state to officially surrender to Mexico.
The surrender ceremony will be conducted during a hacky-sac game and the treaty will be signed on the hood of a Subaru.

The new state will be called New CordobaFrance.

65 This is where the GOP sucks.  We know that the conservative point of view is better for the country as a whole, but those dumb bastards do not.  When is the last time they looked at a SCJ and asked if they were the best FOR THE COUNTRY during the hearings.  NOT ONE TIME.  You're telling me that an R looked at Elena Kagan and said, Yes....she's good for the country.

FUCK no.  Politicians in general do NOT have the betterment of the country in mind....only their own fucking power and they ALLLLLL need to be thrown out.  Even some of the fucks we just elected.  Sorry, one strike and you're out on your ass, bucko.

66 What...me worry?

67 The last time I crossed the aisle, Lindsey was already there to greet me, IYKWIM.

68

Ed: "Occasionally" is fine.  The point is, is this so unlikely to have happened by random chance that it's worth whining like little bitches about OMG CONSPIRACY???  I'd say no.  Maybe I'm a pussy, maybe I'm just not a paranoid whining bitch, or maybe I understand that, if it IS somehow rigged, whining isn't going to get us anywhere.

Forget about it, Ed.  It's Justicetown.

69 Gotta love the Norks.

70

Because the Dems block as many Pub appointees as they can while the Pubs continue to "not sink to the Dems' level" and allow almost 99 percent of Dem appointees to proceed.

71

Grammer Grammar rumble! Everyone make a circle and throw erasers!

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2011 02:16 PM (326rv)

I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

But you are from Delaware, so you have an excuse.

72 The established GOP bluebloods are giving a lot of weight to the "politicians are all the same" argument.

73

Grammer Grammar rumble! Everyone make a circle and throw erasers!

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2011 02:16 PM (326rv)

I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

But you are from Delaware, so you have an excuse.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)

 

True. Please note that this screw-up had no sales tax.

74 As random as the homo judge getting the gay marriage case in CA.

75 Posted by: Blue Hen at May 10, 2011 02:22 PM (326rv)

Really? I didn't know that. Still not a good enough reason to stop in Delaware on the way to anywhere else. ;-)

76 3 Don't worry.  Romney is introducing his plan on Thursday to Repeal and REPLACE Obamacare>>>>>>>>> That's cool. One thing Americans want more than anything else is to make the wait time for a doctor visit 43 days in all 50 states. Go for it, Mitt!!!

77 It doesn't matter if the people want it repealed if their reps in Congress won't LISTEN.  These asshats will not vote to de-fund, deflate or decommission that piece of shit, so we're going to be stuck with it.  Nothing that becomes law is ever repealed, like there's no tax that ever goes away when instituted.

78 I'm tired today, we all know how these black robed ( I denounce myself) are going to rule.
Nothing to see here folks, move along....

79

What do you call a nation that defers the most important and controversial questions to a group of unelected political hacks who hold their positions for life?

F*cked.

80 81

What do you call a nation that defers the most important and controversial questions to a group of unelected political hacks who hold their positions for life?

F*cked.

 

Land of the cowed and nuetered?

81 @ Sponge, Not true! The telephone tax levied to finance the Spanish-American War was repealed. After 108 years.

82 Because the vast majority of judges are dirty lawyers!  Close down all law schools and kill the humanities!

*half-assed attempt to channel AmishDude*

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 10, 2011 02:03 PM (9hSKh)

It is amazing how much of our system depends on honest judges, considering that judges are lawyers and lawyers are trained to be dishonest.

Who do you want trying your case, someone who's honest or someone who will try to win the case? (If the impossible happens and your lawyer actually *giggle* gets *snort* disbarred *guffaw*, what does that matter to you?)

There are plenty of reforms that one can make (fixed terms for judges, permanent disbarment for any elected official, all lawyers are registered lobbyists, passing the bar is sufficient for licensure -- no corrupt accreditation system required) but the main point should be to wrest power from this corrupt oligarchy.

Oh, and please kill the humanities. We don't need to have middle-school curricula at universities.

83 Grammar? I'm available to referee.

84 "...the third judge was appointed by the husband of Obama's Secretary of State." What a gutsy call that is...

85 Grammar? I'm available to referee. You ain't no referee.

86 Not true! The telephone tax levied to finance the Spanish-American War was repealed. After 108 years. Harry Reid phoned to say we could use that additional revenue now, so the tax is back in.

87 I don't know, all of my liberal friends tell me that that Obama care isn't that bad and that I'm crazy for visiting this partisan site full of right-wingnut teabaggers.

88 86 Grammar? I'm available to referee.

Posted by: dagny at May 10, 2011 02:38 PM (23y25)

Take your grammar and put it in a sack.

89 I'm also available to sex train seals........that's what you said, right?

90 91 I'm thinking General Victor Davis Hanson Supreme Commander of the Armies of Northern California has a good ring to it.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at May 10, 2011 02:40 PM (cFF2m)

Not really.  Leather armor, sandals and lances would be the order of the day.

91 OT: Politico tries to invent another narrative

The first paragraph is a blatant lie*. A quick glance at the headline might also cause some to think that the freshmen are split on if entitlement reform ought to happen instead of how. But if you read the rest of the article, it's about how to best achieve entitlement reform.

* Quote for last link starts at "...Tough choices are necessary to save the program from bankruptcy".

92 I'm also available to sex train seals........that's what you said, right?

Posted by: dagny

 

Go on.

Somebody has to say it.

93

Oh, and please kill the humanities. We don't need to have middle-school curricula at universities.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 10, 2011 02:36 PM (T0NGe)

If by "humanities" you mean ethnic studies, film, sociology, African American studies, etc., then I agree. But history, English lit, and the other real humanities departments serve an important purpose.

94

No, Ed, it's composed of 13 judges, 5 appointed by Republican Presidents, 7 by Democrats, and 1 by both (a Clinton nominee renominated by Dubya, as with Barrington Parker on the Second Circuit).  At least according to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 02:09 PM (Da+uN)

You got me. I fucked up.

I trusted the Media.

95 I am tired of these m*therf*cking shibboleths in my m*therf*cking judiciary!

96 Fair enough.  And I'll concede that "fairly often" was a pretty slanted way to talk about a 1-in-8 chance.  Contrition all around!

97

Odds of three Democrats picked out of 50/50 14 total is 9.6%.  Odds of 2 of 4 Obama-appointed judges randomly picked out of 14 is 6.6%.  Odds of 2 of 4 Obama judges plus another Dem out of 14 is 2.7%. 

 

Not impossible odds, but certainly not even close to "likely."

98 Who is George C.? Old or a new random nonsensical tool? I won't even bother with Jeff. We know about him.

99

NSR - that's not good.  (Remember, though, that one of those 14 is senior and could be hearing as few as 25% of the cases -- fewer, actually, each circuit does things differently -- as the active judges, and that 1 of the R appointees is only technically so, having been re-nominated by Dubya but originally picked by Clinton; having him wouldn't be a good sign.  Generally, when the judge was picked by a D, you know you're in trouble; by an R, you're still often going to be in trouble.)

100 We know we lost at this level when the judges were announced.  The only question is how we lose.  If they deny standing and toss the whole thing out we stand to lose a lot of time we don't have.  So of course that is the way to bet.  Then we would have to appeal to the Supremes on that issue alone.  They then furiously masturbate for months and probably decide a state does have standing on the last day of the session's document dump and it goes back to these same biased douchnozzles to delay things as long as possible before ruling NO and sending it back yet again to the Supreme Wankers.  It would be a miracle to have a ruling before the '12 elections on that schedule.  Which is the point.

Really don't think the courts want to decide this one, they would much rather the election do it for them.  If The Won wins there will be no getting rid of Obamacare regardless what the courts rule and if the Rs get it together they just might be able to get over the fillibuster hump in the post election session.

101

arguing that the parties lack standing to sue, or dismissed on the grounds that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress broad regulatory authority allowing them to require the purchase of health insurance.

I believe they misspoke. The relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution in this case is the Non-commerce Clause.

102 Posted by: Knemon at May 10, 2011 02:52 PM (Da+uN)

Get a room.

103 Interesting....from Seattlepi...

Former GodfatherÂ’s Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain was a surprise victor in a straw poll of GOP presidential candidates held at State RepublicansÂ’ 29th Annual Spring Gala on Friday.

Cain took 54 votes of 357 votes cast.  He edged out former Massachusetts Gov. Willard “Mitt” Romney (52) and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (51).  Daniels has yet to decide whether he will run.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he will not run, took 39 votes.  Ex-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty had 28, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin 22, ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich 14, and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also 14.

Trailing were Rudy Giuliani with 12 votes, Donald Trump and Rep. Ron Paul with 10, Rep. Michele Bachman at 9 votes, Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin at 8 votes apiece, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum with 7 vote

104 Who is George C.? Old or a new random nonsensical tool? I won't even bother with Jeff. We know about him.

Posted by: dagny at May 10, 2011 02:57 PM (23y25)

Given the text of the post, has to George Costanza.

105

If by "humanities" you mean ethnic studies, film, sociology, African American studies, etc., then I agree. But history, English lit, and the other real humanities departments serve an important purpose.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 10, 2011 02:47 PM (LH6ir)

In middle school.  Maybe high school.

But you don't need more high school after high school.

And, let's face it, the humanities killed themselves.  History, English lit and the other "real" humanities departments let themselves be corrupted and polluted.

So screw 'em. At the very least, there should be no breadth requirements that force people with triple-digit IQs to take humanities courses just to graduate.

106 And....my 108 is on the wrong thread.

107

"And, let's face it, the humanities killed themselves."

Victor Davis Hanson wrote the obituary in two early books: "Who Killed Homer?" and "Bonfire of the Humanities."  Good stuff, and they helped me in my journey from full-bore left-lunatic to the pussy-ass RINO squish I am today.

108 So who would like to file suit to get the program and its code that "randomly" picks judges?  I'd like to see a fully detailed audit.  Computers are deterministic and therefore will never fully approximate true randomness, but I'd like to see how far off the programmers are.  Did they do a Knuth shuffle?  Is there statistical entropy data?
  
Personally I'd rather see them use a D20 die.  Pull the thing out of its new packaging and roll three times.  Each number represents a judge.  If a number is rolled more than once, roll again.  If a number that doesn't correspond to a judge comes up, roll again.  Do the whole process in a town hall meeting with a camera and someone to verify the die is fair.

109 113 - bonhomme

If they have a decent/modern computer you really can get random numbers out of it.  Many even have hardware random number generators.  All e-commerce depends upon having random numbers as random as they can possibly be so enough attention has been put on the problem to get 128bit and larger random numbers in quantity.  Not that I believe for an instant that anything of the sort was used to pick the judges in this case or anything.

Remember the rule: the selection of random numbers is far too important to be left to chance.  Followed by an almost equally important rule to keep in mind: any cryptosystem that hasn't withstood rigorious peer review will have fatal flaws.

110 93 I'm also available to sex train seals........that's what you said, right?

Posted by: dagny at May 10, 2011 02:41 PM (23y25)

Orf! Orf! *clap* *clap* *clap* Orf!

111 Due to DjVu files is more and more, there are many friends who have to Convert DjVu to PDF to read the files more comfortable. Fortunately, the following great DjVu to PDF Converter will support you to Convert DjVu to PDF online without any troubles! DjVu to PDF Converter is 100% Free software, which will help you to convert djvu to pdf without and loss of the original quality. Once you owned professional DjVu to PDF Converter, you would not be boring at Converting DjVu to PDF.

112 Another bridesmaids dress trend we're seeing for this season is a return to the traditional go big, or go home idea. In other words, welcome back the heavy hitting designers.cocktail dresses From Calvin to Betsey, clean to crazy, the world's biggest designers are making an impact on weddings around the world. What could be holier than donning one of the world's most celebrated artists in a fabulously grand church? Take, for instance, Bagdley Miscka's 'Strapless Sweatheart Bridesmaids Dresses.' Absolutely heavenly, this option features an empire waist, a-line skirt, all at a tea length. The unique cross-over bust stitching is the height of femininity, while the deeper (think espressos and burgundies) keeps things simple, andprom dresses 2012 all eyes on the bride. Who says you can't feel absolutely beautiful in a bridesmaid's dress? Plus, with a price tag of $250, it looks like luxury can be affordable! The last of the latest moves in bridesmaids' dresses we'll be checking out is the funky neckline. One of the best ways to work with a bride who chooses an off-beat wedding dress is to support it with simple, classic shapes that showcase just a bit of a twist. In this case, we'll look to Betsy & Adam's Satin Dress for a fabulous example. This a-line shape shakes things up just a bit with a unique portrait collar and ruched detailing around the bodice. This fully lined, nylon, spandex, acetate blend holds a great, sturdy shape. Plusprom dresses, with traditional fall solids like brown, navy, and plum, this is a fabulous way to work with a one-of-a-kind wedding dress that may not follow the straight and narrow.