Jump to content

'stache

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 'stache

  1. This was my first inclination but I see the merit of playing for the first sudden death possession if the first two drives are even. The kicking team risks losing overtime having only one possession while the receiving team gets two. But last night shows the risk, giving Mahomes and Reid a full drive with four down playcalling. I think it’ll be pretty rare for two possessions to take 15 full minutes so just a bizarre overtime.
  2. The Kelly thing is really weird. I think UCLA was done with him (bruin seems to confirm this) but he was still the HC. They should have just fired him. The optics are really bad for UCLA.
  3. Not you. I still don't understand what the point of Statmans post was. Seems like the BIG and SEC would be content having all the money, all the recruiting, all the prime TV spots, and 75% of the playoff spots. His point is that Liberty/OKST/ISU are all the same, that’s been the theme for months. Most years the ACC/BXII/G5 will get one spot each. Some years ACC/BXII will get an extra spot. That’s 8-9 spots for BIG/SEC. He’s still pretending that “Irate 8” fans are upset by this despite the fact that everyone from that group that posts here thinks it makes perfect sense.
  4. Odd that a billionaire lives by the fucking airport.
  5. Newsmax will set them straight, the RINO's and Leftists and Antifa smuggled them in somewhere else once the caravan started heading their way, because they skeret. Also, wasn't there like 50 idiots who showed up? Not much of a dent either way.
  6. Yup. And lol at the idea that not supporting the border deal will be held against him or other republicans. They voted it down precisely because they know their voters give zero shits. They like crying about border chaos regardless of legitimacy or any rationality about who is actually proposing solutions.
  7. No commentary on him or his music, just dark humor.
  8. Since a lot of the handwringing (including from Justice Jackson) was that the clause does not refer to the President or Vice-President, but the electors of those offices, and if CO loses solely on that ground, couldn't this issue come back after the election? If Colorado votes for trump, couldn't the electors appointed then be disqualified? I guess then the issue becomes if the electors themselves have to have committed insurrection. It would seem that submitting an elector vote for an insurrection is "aiding and abetting" an insurrectionist ant that would become the closer question. I think the electors also don't act of their own volition, they are only doing a ministerial act of conveying the result of the state's vote. I ask this solely as a thought experiment. CO is pretty solidly blue, and if the voters of that state (or any state) are majority for trump, it's a bad look to overturn that result using this clause, even if legal. And of course I'll just fall back on it doesn't matter, if the majority of voters in this country elect that insurrectionist piece of shit, we're done anyway as a democracy.
  9. In 1868, black people could no longer be enslaved, but were still inferior under the law, therefore, members of today's Democratic party are all disqualified.
  10. SCOTUS has held a number of times that the 14th Amendment, although enacted as a part of Reconstruction, is not limited to post-war matters. As far as should there be a conviction, that's a closer policy issue in my opinion. There wouldn't have been much fact or legal dispute after the civil war that anyone who fought for the Confederacy by definition committed rebellion and insurrection. This question (in a legal vacuum at least) is much closer. He encouraged the mob but was in his bunker so didn't participate in storming the capital. He also can argue (again in a vacuum) that his pressuring of officials to not certify the vote isn't the same as rebellion or insurrection. This issue would be cleaner if brought after he is found guilty in the Georgia case for election interference and for trying to overturn a free and fair election and preclude a peaceful transition of power (he can also argue that he ultimately did leave and Biden took office). I'm trying to be clear here that the above is considered in a legal vacuum because we all know he committed these acts, but I would be more comfortable if a lower court or jury do fact finding and find him guilty of election interference, which leads to a cleaner determination that he is disqualified. My policy concern is that if a court can just determine that insurrection occurred outside the original obviousness of "if you fought for the Confederacy you committed insurrection" the continued packing of right wing loons to the court will result in democrats being disqualified for bullshit reasons. The loons in the House literally just tried to impeach Mayorkas arguing that policy disagreements on border security constitues a "high crime or misdemeanor." They could just as easily say that Biden or anyone in his administration has committed "treason" or "insurrection" based on their bullshit talking points about immigration and the border. And if enough Uncle Clarences hit the bench, that absurd argument could prevail. Ultimately, however, I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Citizens of this country should be loathe to elect an insurrectionist. If he wins the presidency after everything we know about him and his actions on Jan. 6 and beyond, the constitution is meaningless anyways, and we don't deserve to be a civil society anymore. The United States will implode like Rome or the French Empire.
  11. Strict liability is largely a civil standard, most prominently in product liability cases, and even that has defenses, like if the user modified or misused the product. The only widely applicable strict liability crime that I’m aware of is statutory rape. Some states I think have strict liability for dog bites although that again is often limited to civil liability. Either way, it doesn’t matter, in 1789, no laws precluded parents from giving muskets to kids or requiring that they be kept safely, so SCOTUS wouldn’t allow any of that nonsense. These parents’ liability wasn’t based on the gun but their gross negligence in telling the school to fuck off when they were told of the warning signs. If he had killed someone with a knife or a rock or his bare hands the same standards would apply. Conviction probably would’ve been easier in those situations because they wouldn’t have to dance around judicial interpretations of “muh guns.” So everyone “just asking questions” about strict liability gun laws have nothing to worry about.
  12. If I didn't already know he was a UT grad, my guess would have been Oral Roberts.
  13. This, he's a piece of shit in general, and yet one of the more "reasonable" republicans in office today. I was in a conversation about him recently and we all just had to agree that he's at least better than a plumber who threatens to fight mob bosses in the middle of important hearings. Thats our other senator. What a fucking country we've created for ourselves.
  14. I'm pretty sure per curiam still is technically limited to the three judges that heard and decided the case, just no one judge is taking credit for authorship, and it sends a message that the result wasn't close. They may have consulted the other judges before sending that message. He can still seek rehearing en banc but as you note, it won't stay the mandate, unless rehearing is granted, in which case the mandate is recalled, as specifically stated in the judgment. But the point of the per curiam opinion, shortened timelines, and order that the mandate won't be withheld unless granted, is clearly intended to tell his lawyers that the question wasn't close and that rehearing ain't happening, go straight to SCOTUS to get your next loss, we're done with this shit.
  15. Kelvin Sampson is still a bitch. Fuck him.
  16. Strict liability has nothing to do with this case, so I guess we're "just asking questions"?
  17. Gross negligence has been a standard for criminal culpability forever and is described as it's own standard of mens rea. I heard about this a little on the radio and not only did they give him the gun and knew he had free access to it, they told the school to fuck off when they reported that he was drawing or writing violent things and they felt he was a serious threat to himself and/or others, including not telling the school that he had open access to the gun they gave him, just basically said "we need to get back to work, you deal with it." It's extraordinary negligence and well beyond bad parenting, they could have directly intervened, or at least attempted to intervene, but doing literally nothing while telling the school to screw themselves, it forms a well supported basis for criminal liability.
  18. Come on now, common sense isn't what any of this is about, plus academics, can't have Stanford playing football against Texas Tech, because reasons.
  19. I like how nobody says anything about the clips all over the internet of Biden speaking clearly on important issues, but a few where his age/fatigue/stutter feature prominently "ehrmagerd I can't believe we have to vote for an senile guy." Listen to him more often, he knows his shit, and conveys it fine the vast majority of the time. He also has appointed smart competent people to do the hard work as any good leader would do, especially one that is older. If this was an open primary I'd probably lean towards a younger person, but the guy is the incumbent, he's done a good job by pretty much every metric, and he speaks clearly enough most of the time that I'm convinced he's fine mentally. But if there's any doubt whatsoever, he's not trump, who has was already a complete moron, he's now showing legit signs of dementia and total disconnect from reality. It's a pretty fucking easy choice.
  20. That would be the biggest coward move of all time considering they are taking all of the other trump cases. This presents a novel issue and concerns the head of the executive branch, it would be absurd to deny cert under those circumstances. I honestly also don't see even Alito or Clarence providing god king immunity. I predict that it will be affirmed per curiam, meaning unanimously, without a written opinion, and issued faster than ordinary appeals.
  21. 'stache

    Toby Keith RIP

    We replaced it with Garth Brooks "Good Ride Cowboy" a long time ago, way more appropriate.
×
×
  • Create New...