Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1651
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. A criminal prosecution under these facts is a losing proposition every time. He needs an involuntary commitment to a facility. No idea where that process has been for this guy, but it’s not usually the DA’s purview.
  2. Deleted.
  3. Someone asked me today what it feels like to be a new dad with a newborn. “It feels like one of my arms is always asleep.”
  4. Signing the ticket is a promise to appear, in lieu of arrest/bond, I believe. ETA: I don’t handle tickets/Class C stuff so I could be mistaken.
  5. Literally everyone understands your point. I think most agree with it. What many of us are pointing out is that your point is useless. IF THATS ALL THEY GOT…ITS NOT GOUNG TO BE ENOUGH!!! HOWEVER I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE COULD BE MORE EVIDENCE AND EVEN ENOUGH TO MAKE A CASE! Cool.
  6. Pause all of this. I was thinking of another case along these same lines, but Rahimi actually relates to interpreting the federal firearm statute in light of Bruen. I think that this will be another 6-3 shitshow with a result that I find ridiculous. The only way to avoid a terrible result would be to somehow throw out their brand new shiny bullshit Bruen test, which obviously ain’t going to happen.
  7. It will still be illegal in most, if not all 50 states with someone under a protective order to possess a firearm. The case in question is for the federal statute. That statute’s language requires a finding that MAY not be met merely by being subject to a protective order. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll dig in and lay out the actual legal issue, if anyone gives a shit about what is actually up for a ruling by SCOTUS on this. I won’t use any Latin and maybe I’ll even tweet it since that’s where all of the hot takes come from that get everyone frothed up these days. I do recall hearing a conclusory summary of what someone thought the Circuit Court decision was, and then reading the actual case and feeling much less upset about it though.
  8. Regarding “passing the buck on fact finding”… The alternative would be for SCOTUS to conduct evidentiary hearings, which would be, in essence a “de novo” trial. SCOTUS reviews and decides questions of law. To do otherwise would mean trials at the highest court with witnesses taking the stand, cross examinations, etc. No thanks. A shitty Court like the current one would be able to do 1000x the amount of fuckery if that were the case.
  9. Correct. Declaratory judgments work the same for both.
  10. The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.
  11. It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening. I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.
  12. What statute do you think is most applicable here and what evidence is currently lacking, in your opinion. You might be correct, but none of have any idea what the evidence is/isn’t in some hypothetical unfolded case. Maybe the AZ stuff is useful/relevant to a more general overarching charge that includes the AZ conduct lumped in with other acts.
  13. I really enjoyed Treme.
  14. Cool. Of course, before this decision, it has always been legal to refuse business to someone based on being a trump supporter. Glad to see that the recent events have made it obvious to them.
  15. They can’t, because they would be doing so based on the race of the prospective customer.
  16. I THINK there, according to this ruling, be a line drawn regarding whether the business activity = “speech”. It was a giant stretch to call cake decorating “speech”, but jiffy lube wouldn’t be able to meet even this new standard. * I’m fully aware that nothing matters and SCOTUS could just invent new ways to rule for those business. My only point is that this specific ruling, legally, does no authorize what you’re talking about.
  17. Ted Lieu isn’t eligible to run, unfortunately.
  18. I meant “why would they need to pretend and preserve image”?
  19. Why would they need to do that? They have lifetime appointments and a shit ton or perks. ETA: By “perks”, I mean corrupt grift.
×
×
  • Create New...