Jump to content

Pig Bellmont

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6997
  • Joined

Everything posted by Pig Bellmont

  1. This is probably true, but in I’m also willing to bet they’ve been working towards a deal since at least Friday- especially in light of yesterday’s delay. I think the timing of waiting until just before opening statements means Fox was scared of just those being blasted worldwide
  2. No, it shouldn’t be
  3. Settled?! lol Fox didn’t even allow for opening statements. I wonder how much they paid
  4. Yeah- my understanding is the question for the special master isn’t whether there will be sanctions, but rather what/how severe the sanctions will be.
  5. The longer the delay goes on, the more that seems likely to me. I can’t imagine a routine objection taking this long. Alternatively did the court go through with appointing a special master to recommend sanctions? I wonder if this break could be related to that
  6. I’m not being pedantic, sorry if the tone was weird. You’re not picking up the nuance. NYT v Sullivan was granted cert because the freedom of the press allows a news organization to report on what someone else said. For example if Fox could be sued under Delaware law for simply reporting “Trump said X”. That’s not what the Delaware law provides- instead the law is consistent with the first amendment and requires a finding of actual malice, where the Alabama case didn’t. Look I know this SCOTUS doesn’t respect precedent but there’s no first amendment claim here because Delaware’s defamation laws permitting suits against news organizations are not out of bounds. It’s not just because there’s a potential verdict for liability that could give grounds for SCOTUS review. Nothing is impossible but SCOTUS review of a verdict would be stunning. Just trying to help here but I/you got in the weeds. I’ve briefed/argued as lead attorney in federal circuit and district courts over a lot of years, so I’m not completely talking out of my ass.
  7. You’re welcome to Google it/do your own westlaw research but I think the question presented was related to the state’s libel law infringing on first amendment rights. the question about public figures and actual malice have long since been updated in state torts for defamation and this trial is exactly about that heightened standard. long story short Fox doesn’t have a first amendment claim here really (that the standard for liability violates the freedom of the press). Instead they’re just really arguing that they weren’t reckless or intentional in misleading
  8. No- the action has to arise under federal law or constitutional right. A defense invoking that won’t trigger federal jurisdiction Also, (if you have a removal right) time to remove is usually limited to 30 days after you receive notice of suit. You can’t just appeal to SCOTUS because you don’t like the result of your state trial
  9. Just wanted to clarify this usually would be something like a party is getting sued in state court for violations of a federal statute, like Title VII anti-discrimination laws. Those claims could be removed on federal question grounds and the federal court would have the option of taking on any related state claims. This case is a tort (defamation) and those are state claims (not federal). I don’t see how there’s a federal issue that would give any of those courts jurisdiction
  10. This is a Delaware state court case, I don’t see any way an appeal will get to any federal court, much less SCOTUS. Removal can be done typically by diversity jurisdiction (parties are from different states and amount in controversy exceeds $75k) or federal question. Choosing to remove can be a strategic decision. In Delaware state court they have sophisticated judges who often see complex commercial disputes- and in some ways a defamation case isn’t all that complicated. Also, you’re on a fast track, so the discovery process won’t last 2 years and cost millions. Plus they clearly thought the shortened timeline would allow them to obstruct with little consequence. So a lot of ins and outs and what have yous
  11. Speak for yourself- I don’t participate in that hellsite anymore
  12. Did they show the person who came home at the lady junky’s house? Is he the oil lady baron’s fixer? Trying to connect Drake’s detective work to the story
  13. I will say if that first legendary Mandalorian tamed a mythosaur then Bo Katan will also. I guess I thought before they went to the living waters that quote about the beast was that it was defeated or killed, but I haven’t gone back and watched.
  14. Abortion is gone and they’ve laid a threadbare judiciary legal theory allowing for challenges to any progressive legislation. So long as they have a majority, it won’t matter that they won’t rule against GOP administrations. I’d say Trump delivered their best wet dreams
  15. Pig Bellmont

    High

    That’s not a thing
  16. The spies had to be the guys on the boat. They just happened to survive the purge? Or maybe have been forced to work for the empire and then walk the Mandalorians into the ambush
  17. “Model” doesn’t seem appropriate but I guess “thot” isn’t approved by the AP Stylebook
  18. I’m sure he did, too, but that underlying ruling is a huge huge mess. I don’t see how there are more votes than just Alito and Thomas on the standing issue alone.
  19. Found them: https://youtu.be/sMlYezh0xEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUC3oizwQk
  20. Alito was hand picked by the Federalist society. I’m not sure that he hasn’t received dark money benefits. I mean does anyone know who paid Kavanaugh’s credit card debts?
  21. Judges also would have accepted Ginny Thomas (through her husband)
  22. Congress passing some fucking ethics rules would be a start and a minimum
  23. Honestly how confident are we in her cognitive abilities? I’ve been assuming “shingles” is cover for full blown dementia.
×
×
  • Create New...