Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1553

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. scottsins
    Tuesday, obviously.
  2. scottsins
    Assuming Barrett doesn’t change her mind in the post sod contention she expresses with the majority, that “stuff” wouldn’t play going forward, right?
  3. scottsins
    So…we are just going to ignore the whole concept of previous Trump voters who will NOT come out for him now (new shit has come to light)? Also, I’m a previous Biden voter who now thinks neither of them should be POTUS. And I’ll pull the lever for Joe AGAINST TRUMP in November. I just wonder how many past Biden voters do NOT hate Trump with a burning passion, basically just ambivalent to the extent that they just don’t vote at all? Who are those people, and how many of them are there?
  4. scottsins
    My biggest point of concern is that Biden/DNC agreed to this debate with terms that included a prohibition of any contemporaneous fact checking by moderators. Why agree to that? If Trump refuses to participate…WIN because there’s no chance of looking bad AND the talking point is that Trump wouldn’t agree to tell the truth. If Trump does agree, at least there’s a little help when Dotard does Dotard things.
  5. scottsins
    Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?
  6. scottsins
    Maybe there is a comparison to draw between the two executive actions, when speaking generally to the use of executive orders as opposed to legislative solutions. Like I said, I was and am FOR DACA, so not sure where the “gripe is”.
  7. scottsins
    Where the FUCK did I say that Americans shouldn’t be foremost concerned about stripping the right to privacy? I compared it to DACA, because it’s another example of using executive order in place of a legislative solution. I’m IN FAVOR of the bump stock ban order and DACA. I was explained, from a legal perspective, why the opinion being discussed might not be the best example of “SCOTUS = Calvinball”.
  8. scottsins
    FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not. And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use. Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed. This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.
  9. scottsins
    FWIW, the other guy in that episode absolutely can’t stand Alex Jones. I was at his daughter’s wedding back in January. /csb
  10. scottsins
    Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.
  11. scottsins
    I’m not sure about that attack though. Example: In Texas, “intoxicated” can mean one of two things. Either a BAC of .08 or more OR loss of normal use of mental or physical…” Juries can render a guilty verdict even if the particular “type” of intoxication was not agreed upon. My question is whether the verdict form indicates how each juror voted on each of the three options in the Trump charge. It wouldn’t mean that the verdict wasn’t valid, but it could be error in that if one of those avenues was successfully attacked on appeal, there’s no way for an appellant to demonstrate harm, if that makes sense.
  12. scottsins
    I seriously doubt there is a law prohibiting that. There isn’t one in Texas. There MIGHT be a standard condition of probation that would include that restriction though. In Texas, the language refers to “persons of bad reputation of character.” I’ve never seen that enforced ever though, except MAYBE in a scenario where two felons are wanting to be roommates.
  13. scottsins
    It doesn’t matter, because: Once Dotard is sentenced, his team will immediately give notice of intent to file appeal and then they will file an appeal bond. Just to be clear (at least how it would be in Texas), the conviction is not final as long as there is an appeal pending. It would be highly unusual to not permit him to “be free” on an appeal bond as well.
  14. scottsins
    Yep, but that doesn’t mean that they are not doing that…even if they are telling themselves that they are not doing it. Cuts both ways sometimes. Best example in the other direction is that they are instructed not to consider a defendant’s failure to testify, but we know that they often do weigh it to some extent.
  15. scottsins
    Right. Of course, there’s no need to hint at all in that scenario because the potential punishments are thoroughly discussed during voire dire.
  16. scottsins
    Deleted.
  17. scottsins
    Link to Gator saying the WHOLE THING is working EXACTLY as it’s supposed to?
  18. scottsins
    David Chang’s cooking show is great.
  19. scottsins
    A lawyer can not stop his client from testifying if they really want to do so.
  20. scottsins
    I’ll see your example of trash weed policy and raise you this: Last week a judge told my PTSD Vet that if he tested hot for THC, he would have his probation revoked, even if he could provide a valid prescription for an approved registered physician under the Compassionate Use Program. Opioids? Benzos? No similar policy/stande.
  21. scottsins
    100%. Texas will it change their marijuana statute at all, regardless of how federal statutes change.
  22. scottsins
    How many times do people need to explain this to you? The question you ask is not none that is asked of the jury.
  23. scottsins
    Deleted.
  24. scottsins
    JFC, I hate this day and age of twitter legal eagle clickbait shit. Proving BRD that Trump explicitly directed Habba to make these statements would be required. One can, as this article does, easily draw that logical conclusion/inference, but that’s not how this shit works.
  25. scottsins
    Pecker already testified about a catch and kill story that was proven to be completely false. There was still a reason to pay to keep the allegation under wraps. The crime here is related to the way payments were disguised, in order to not look like campaign related. That crime can occur whether the underlying story is true. To be clear it is relevant. However, admissibility isn’t automatic because something is relevant. That relevance (probative value) has to be weighed against the danger of unfair prejudice.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...