On January 23, 2017 five carriers, including Southwest Airlines,1 filed
applications for an allocation of slots at Mexico City International Airport (MEX)
pursuant to the Department’s Instituting Order in this proceeding (Order 2017-1-6,
January 6, 2017). The Instituting Order directed Delta and Aeromexico (the Joint
Applicants) to divest a total of 24 MEX slot pairs to eligible carriers - 14 slot pairs in
Phase One of the proceeding and up to 10 additional slot pairs in Phase Two.2
Southwest files this Consolidated Answer to the applications filed by the other eligible
carriers.
In total, three U.S. carriers requested 14 MEX slot pairs, while two Mexican
carriers requested 17 slot pairs. The U.S. carrier requests are modest and would
utilize little more than half of the available 24 slots (10 pairs in Phase One and 4 in
Phase Two). The two Mexican carriers requested over 70% of the total available slots
(8 pairs in Phase One and 9 in Phase Two).
Southwest urges the Department to grant all U.S. carrier requests in full before
allocating any MEX slots to Mexican carriers. Not only would this be consistent with
the Trump Administration’s clearly stated goal to put America’s interests first, but there
is no basis for depriving U.S. carriers of scarce MEX slots in order to increase the
holdings of Mexican carriers that already have vastly more slots than all eligible U.S.
carriers combined.

JFLNYC wrote:

thephan wrote:Gorsch book on euthanasia discussed. Given his bend on RvW there are no surprises.

“All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” he writes in the book, “and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Conservatives are always bullish on supporting each individual life at the cradle and at the grave; as for all the time in between, not so much.

WashPo wrote:But he specifically avoids discussing war and capital punishment, saying they “raise unique questions all their own.”

Like Scalia, Gorsuch does not welcome death penalty appeals but does often come down on the side of criminal defendants against the state, based on his strict adherence to rules of interpretation. This makes the conservative justice an unlikely ally of underdogs in criminal court, as his predecessor was.

He has issued few death penalty decisions but divulged no qualms about its constitutionality and will probably resist efforts to limit its application.

Gorsuch has joined decisions in the past upholding death sentences, including the case of Scott Eizember, who killed a couple in 2003. Gorsuch’s textual interpretation of the law also suggests he would consider few justifications for a review of any death row inmate’s sentence.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The death penalty is in the constitution

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The death penalty is in the constitution

No it's not.

wwry wrote:like i imagine JH sweating over a bottle of whiskey in a dark room with one dim light hanging over a single desk.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The death penalty is in the constitution

No it's not.

Its existence is expressly acknowledged in the 5th amendment.

Ultimately, Chaffetz said, chatter about potential conflicts of interest for Trump is mostly bluster from Democrats mired in the minority in both houses of Congress.

“I know the Democrats are flailing about this issue and they want to stir the pot. It's about the only thing they have to do at this point,” he said. “I think the president is required to do his financial disclosure. By all accounts he has done that. The president is exempt from most of all of the conflict of interest laws.”

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Someone asked me if Mattis would eat Bannon's soul yesterday - no, but Mattis will resign if it gets really out of hand, and he won't be shy about it.

...humble enough that I can accept being wrong and understanding why I am wrong.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Savior wrote:The fact that the SC has become so political in structure over past decade or so is sad. Never intended to be that way. Thx dems and repubs.

Over the past decade or so

Luzinski's Gut wrote:I've had the displeasure of working with this clown.

He's a pompous #$!&@.

Thinks he can solve the problem of radical Islam with a few minor policy tweaks.

Reductionist thinking personified.

thephan wrote:Because I'm not a big consumer of Fox News I did not know this as shat, Sebastian Gorka. Nothing like some Russian named British accented pampas tool describing what a republic looks like. Because he basically goes on to describe something between a monarchy and a dictatorship. he clearly stated that executive orders are from the highest level of government and they must be respected and they must be acted on. Someone here clearly does not know how a republic works. He also seems to disbelieve the protest, it's not that they're not real, it's just that the election happened this is what we voted for so this is what we get, and it would seem that somehow the vote meant that we were giving up all of our liberties.

drsmooth wrote:"I KNOW, right?"

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The death penalty is in the constitution

No it's not.

Its existence is expressly acknowledged in the 5th amendment.

yeah but it doesnt say the country must use it, especially when coupled with the 8th!

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The death penalty is in the constitution

No it's not.

Its existence is expressly acknowledged in the 5th amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.