Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1651
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. 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”.
  2. 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.
  3. FWIW, the other guy in that episode absolutely can’t stand Alex Jones. I was at his daughter’s wedding back in January. /csb
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. David Chang’s cooking show is great.
  9. 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.
  10. 100%. Texas will it change their marijuana statute at all, regardless of how federal statutes change.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Was he under oath? Did he actually speak in court on the issue or did his attorneys advance that argument? If so, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when he made the statement, he knew that the reason he was giving was not true at the time he stated it. So…no. Proceed to rant.
  14. He could get behind legalizing weed, and they would suddenly set aside Palestine issues, etc.
  15. They get on the jury because the State had other jurors that they felt more strongly about using peremptory strikes on.
  16. Sure, but counsel can ask questions that reference that information during selection. Jury selection, other than in death penalty cases generally is a proceeding conducted in open court with a court reporter. It’s part of a public trial, with Open Court provisions and such. Fun fact: In most Texas criminal trials, the State, after receiving the juror information the morning of trial…rushes a copy down to their office so that their investigators can run detailed background checks on everyone. I just now have found creative ways to casually relay that to jury panels during voire dire, just to give them negative feels about the prosecution.
  17. Israel purchases weapons from us, AFAIK.
×
×
  • Create New...