Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34452
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. They didn't have enough Alice the Goon in the first set. Not sure we have an answer.
  2. Swindle is going to be so good, as if she's not already.
  3. Felt like that was a really solid team effort. Nice serve receive good d and passing. Hope we keep it uo.
  4. Reference to the Stanford match where she had that long hug with Jerritt. Sounds like a switch flipped.
  5. Gratifying to stack up against Wisky in floor defense and serve receive.
  6. Pretty much all of their lawyers are pro bono, including some high dollar Winston and Strawn lawyers.
  7. Yes, which is why bankruptcy exists in part.
  8. El Oh El. Moms For Liberty founder is swinger and part-time carpet muncher NTTAWT and her hub is an abusive POS. A woman has accused Christian Ziegler of sexual battery after a planned threesome with Bridget, Christian and the victim fell through, according to police records. Bridget Ziegler confirmed in police interviews that the three of them had a sexual encounter in the past. "The victim and Christian Ziegler agreed to have a sexual encounter that included Christian's wife Bridget Ziegler," according to the affidavit. When Christian Ziegler told the victim he would be coming alone, she responded "'Sorry I was mostly in for her' referring to Bridget," according to the affidavit. Records show that he showed up at the victim's apartment anyways on Oct. 2. The victim said that once inside, he sexually assaulted her. No charges have been filed against Christian Ziegler. Moms for Libertines.
  9. Just a reminder, GD is out of the military aviation business and has been for 30 years now. Ships/subs, tanks, missiles, yes. Fighters and bombers, no.
  10. I mean, that's pretty much what I said. Not all 1/6 cases charged this offense, and I'm not sure all of the defendants raised this challenge.
  11. Speaking of which, the Bar's appeal of Powell's summary judgment is set for oral argument February 7. Neither party requested oral argument, which seems curious on the part of the Bar. Nevertheless, the court has ordered it.
  12. Which "court's"? The ones that dismissed all the specious cases? The ones that sanctioned his lawyers, when moved to do so? The Supreme Court that has denied every cert petiton from Trump after he left office and rejected his original jurisdiction case?
  13. It's impossible to know, but as mentioned, the Supreme Court, both before and after Trumpmaggedon, has been of a mind to narrowly construe criminal statutes. See, e.g. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ("Reading the statute to proscribe a wider range of offensive conduct, we acknowledge, would raise the due process concerns underlying the vagueness doctrine.[Footnote 43] To preserve the statute without transgressing constitutional limitations, we now hold that §1346 criminalizes only the bribe-and-kickback core of the pre-McNally case law.") (Ginsburg, J.) Jack Smith's prior losses have mostly been attributable to this type of thing. Also, it should be pointed out that this appeal is not filed by any Trump or GQP-aligned entity. It is being prosecuted by the Federal Public Defender on behalf of an indigent 1/6 defendant.
  14. The argument boils down to the broad construction, which the DC Circuit called "the most natural," is unconstitutionally vague.
  15. Something that possibly bodes ill for the good guys is that the Supreme Court has granted cert to decide the scope of the obstruction of an official proceeding statute. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-to-weigh-in-on-scope-of-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions/ The issue concerns this language: (c) Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. One judge in the 1/6 cases believed the statute was confined to records, documents, other objects and related physical items. The other judges and DC Circuit decided that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects. The Supreme Court has a recent history of narrowly construing criminal statutes, which, broadly speaking, is for the good. Maybe not so much in this case. If they do it here, it will knock out one charge against Trump and quite a few convictions of 1/6 defendants.
  16. I mean, how much have you really been paying attention? Every case involving Trump in his capacity as former president that has reached the Supreme Court has been a loser for him.
  17. What I meant was obvious is that the Supreme Court of Texas is mostly limited by the laws the lege drafts and passes. I am unaware that Cox raised a state constitutional question or an equitable question about non-statutory exceptions to the abortion ban, which might have given scotx a way around the statute, not that they would have taken it.
  18. Who's touting it? To a very large extent, scotx is bound by the laws that the lege passes. Within that context, there's nothing really bullshit pointing out that nothing about the statute requires a doctor to "preclear" an abortion decision with the courts. Which is not really a defense of scotx or that decision, it's just a statement of the obvious.
×
×
  • Create New...