Bookman
-
Posts
3562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Bookman
-
-
9 hours ago, Teebox said:
He was wearing my Harvard tie!
Like oh sure, *he* went to Harvard!
- 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.
- 1
-
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.
- 1
-
Fuck yeah I love the heat.
-
-
Has it even been determined that they are illegal? I just looked it up and the property appears to be in her name. https://esearch.sjcad.org/Property/View/91933.
How many illegals buy real estate in their individual names?
- 2
-
This fuckface simply isn't fit to be Governor of Texas.
- 2
-
17 hours ago, shadow_operative said:
If you listen carefully, you can hear a scared kid say "I'm gonna die."
Jesus.
- 4
-
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.
- 1
-
On 4/18/2023 at 6:24 AM, SydneyCarton said:
Pretty sure in the old west shooting a man in the back would get you hung.
Well, maybe hanged.
- 1
-
These are all consequences of America electing a failed businessman President of the United States.
-
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.
-
27 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:
If it’s common knowledge there’s a vetted and trained person or two who’s willing to wander the halls continuously during the day it may well keep one of these cowards from showing up.
I'm not sure how many school shooters think they're going to get away with it.
- 4
- 2
-
This will never work. They will figure out who the "marshalls" are quickly and just go shoot up a classroom with no marshalls.
We need walls around our schools and at least three fully armed soldiers in every classroom. It's the only way to be sure.
-
5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:
But if the flag in the courtroom has a gold fringe, it’s an admiralty court and has no authority over me.
That depends. Is the name on your driver's license in all caps?
-
1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:
Well, it kinda is, if you do so in a negligent way. We call it manslaughter.
Manslaughter is more than negligence.
- 2
-
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.
- 1
-
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.
- 1
-
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.
- 1
-
HOLY SHIT I live in a nice neighborhood and just now there is a Hispanic male in his 50's who appears to be looking for something in my front yard. Should I fucking blow him away with my shotgun?
- 2
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3
in Movies and TV
Posted
Holy shit I almost cried.