Jump to content

Bookman

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bookman

  1. 10 hours ago, gmr548 said:

    there is going to be an extremely strong anti gun backlash in this county. I don't know that I am confident in that, but the 2A Cult is actively creating an equally intransigent and committed bloc on the other end of the spectrum, and it's going to end up being bigger in numbers.

    I think it's inevitable. I don't understand the Republican strategy of doing nothing. They should be playing defense and trying to find a compromise.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

    Fucking exactly. No one is capable of articulating why it’s a supposed problem 

    When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

    • Rage+1 1
  3. On 4/27/2023 at 9:25 AM, AUS-97HORN said:

    totally fair... there is a reason I am playing 1/2.     I am not even remotely good enough to play anything higher... I try to stay in my lane and let the drunks pay me off when I have a big hand.   

     

    My general strategy is to play with people who are worse than I am.

    • Like 1
  4. On 3/15/2023 at 12:06 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    they're creating a shitload of anti-gun kids, that's for sure. if they think this gun freedom will last in perpetuity I think they have some hard lessons coming

    I have been saying this ever since Sandy Hook. I think it's inevitable at this point. The Republican strategy should be to minimize the effects, yet they aren't doing that at all.

  5. 1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

    It can be.  It depends on if someone was reckless or criminally negligent.  At least that's the rule in Texas, and I'd imagine similar in CA.

    So if either of those things can't be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, you walk.

    Not to split hairs, but if it gets to the point that it's reckless or criminal negligence, then it's no longer an accident.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

    Can one of many legendary lawyers on this site explain to me how Baldwin got the charges dropped?

    In his police interview, Baldwin fully admits that he didn't actually check the gun because, "he didn't want to offend the armorer." You can watch him say so on YouTube. 

    That pretty much seems like an admission of guilt. 

    Please help. 

     

    It's not a crime to accidentally kill someone.

    • Haha 1
  7. 2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    If he’s on your castle you can shoot him. Or dump boiling tar from your turret.

    *I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

    **But seriously if you live in Texas you can blast that motherfucker.

    Even if it's illegal, I'm pretty sure our honorable governor would give me a pardon.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Interesting issue.  This article addresses that. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-131/the-certiorari-process-and-state-court-decisions/

    First,

    On average, state court petitions represented about 22% of the certiorari petitions filed during the period 
    (21.8% to be precise). Yet state court opinions made up 14.4% of the 
    Court’s merits docket in that period.

    The article also notes that there is a distinct trend away from reviewing cases from state courts over the period 2002 to 2014.

    I might guess that that isn't a trend resulting so much from the court's preferences, but the fact that state legislation is increasingly challenged directly in federal court (e.g. Dobbs and related bortion decisions) rather than waiting for a case to wend its way through the state courts (e.g. Roe).  

    And those "strategic" federal court cases of which we see so many are designed to tee up constitutional questions cleanly, which often doesn't happen with state court decisions.

    Yes and off the top of my head I would think that, had the jury made a factual finding that Fox had acted with malice, the U.S. Supreme Court would not be able to review the sufficiency of that determination. It's a moot point now with the settlement, but it would have been something Fox should have considered before going to trial.

  9. 6 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Now that I think about it- You’re right. I’m sure there’s an issue that would let SCOTUS grant cert based on a first amendment issue. It’s *just* like this case you learned about in law school 

    Happy to help. U.S. Supreme Court reviews of State Supreme Court decisions are rare but they happen.

  10. 7 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    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.

    For the life of me, I can't understand why you think any of this is relevant.

  11. Thank you for letting me know I am free to research it. I am not sure how Fox could have a First Amendment claim based on the verdict until there’s actually been a verdict, but if so I’m pretty sure they can appeal that to the U.S. Supreme Court like NYT v. Sullivan. I don’t know if the U.S. Supreme Court would have any basis or jurisdiction to overturn a finding of malice though. Half of us are lawyers here so I was hoping someone knowledgeable would respond.

×
×
  • Create New...