Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1,432
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. The fast food workers are getting paid 2x or more hourly than the bartender/waiter handling to-go orders. Also, they are declaring 8% of that order for tax purposes.
  2. I get that, but “Jan 6 charges =/ “causing the violent riot/insurrection. It’s also about DOTARD knowing that he actually lost and (as evidenced in the documents) conspired to formally make himself President by unlawfully getting electors to cast votes for him.
  3. The actual legally relevant fact issue would be whether she made a wedding website after the new law went into effect. The “never ever made one” claim wasn’t only patently false, but not even needed to support her claim.
  4. …and referring to Roy Cohn as a “fixer”.
  5. Fucking autocorrect. “Recruiting efforts” was what I was trying to say.
  6. Strong was dogshit, but as far as the roster…did you not pay attention to what Mack’s last few texturing “efforts” actually brought us? I do agree with you though. we might have ended up better off though potentially, but only because we could have avoided the Strong era and possibly ended up with someone other than Herman.
  7. So, are we saying that we averted a mass shooting…to describe a scenario where said “aversion” was the potential mass shooter committing a shooting where he killed one, wounded a couple/few others? I think we have the formula for a solution now. Just have to hope more shooters do one shooting before their planned big one.
  8. What brand of warm beer? I bet it’s Otto Warm Beer.
  9. Fucking cunt. Calling him partisan, while pointing out his notable “L’s”…many of which were from when he prosecuted well known democrats.
  10. I’ve skimmed this entire season 2 portion of the thread… Has anyone mentioned that Luca was the kid that got a spider bite on his nutsack in We’re The Millers? Took me a while to recognize him.
  11. To clarify; This particular defendant would not be competent to stand trial, and the facilities that restore people to competency…so that they can actually be taken to court and punished…are full AF. Furthermore, there’s going to be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense asserted (not the same as competency). Garza SUCKS. I don’t disagree. But this particular incident speaks to this state’s ineptness and unwillingness to deal with the mental health crisis. *. I worked as a prosecutor in mental health specialty courts, and it’s frustrating AF. No CR but no one that matters wants to spend money on fixing the problem.
  12. A criminal prosecution under these facts is a losing proposition every time. He needs an involuntary commitment to a facility. No idea where that process has been for this guy, but it’s not usually the DA’s purview.
  13. Someone asked me today what it feels like to be a new dad with a newborn. “It feels like one of my arms is always asleep.”
  14. I get what you’re saying, but I have pushed court dates as far into the future as possible for many clients whom I believe to be innocent.
  15. Signing the ticket is a promise to appear, in lieu of arrest/bond, I believe. ETA: I don’t handle tickets/Class C stuff so I could be mistaken.
  16. Literally everyone understands your point. I think most agree with it. What many of us are pointing out is that your point is useless. IF THATS ALL THEY GOT…ITS NOT GOUNG TO BE ENOUGH!!! HOWEVER I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE COULD BE MORE EVIDENCE AND EVEN ENOUGH TO MAKE A CASE! Cool.
  17. Pause all of this. I was thinking of another case along these same lines, but Rahimi actually relates to interpreting the federal firearm statute in light of Bruen. I think that this will be another 6-3 shitshow with a result that I find ridiculous. The only way to avoid a terrible result would be to somehow throw out their brand new shiny bullshit Bruen test, which obviously ain’t going to happen.
  18. It will still be illegal in most, if not all 50 states with someone under a protective order to possess a firearm. The case in question is for the federal statute. That statute’s language requires a finding that MAY not be met merely by being subject to a protective order. If I have time tomorrow, I’ll dig in and lay out the actual legal issue, if anyone gives a shit about what is actually up for a ruling by SCOTUS on this. I won’t use any Latin and maybe I’ll even tweet it since that’s where all of the hot takes come from that get everyone frothed up these days. I do recall hearing a conclusory summary of what someone thought the Circuit Court decision was, and then reading the actual case and feeling much less upset about it though.
  19. Regarding “passing the buck on fact finding”… The alternative would be for SCOTUS to conduct evidentiary hearings, which would be, in essence a “de novo” trial. SCOTUS reviews and decides questions of law. To do otherwise would mean trials at the highest court with witnesses taking the stand, cross examinations, etc. No thanks. A shitty Court like the current one would be able to do 1000x the amount of fuckery if that were the case.
  20. Correct. Declaratory judgments work the same for both.
  21. The plaintiff in this case filed the original petition prior to the fake inquire being made. Lower courts decided that there was standing to seek an injunction against the statute. IOW, SCOTUS didn’t make this ruling based on reliance on a contrived made up event. They made it under the guise that such an actual injury need not have happened anyway. It’s weird procedural history, and I’m trying to piece it together from various articles.
  22. It’s utter bullshit that the underlying case was not even an actual thing happening. I’m not sure what SCOTUS is supposed to do about that though. You do NOT want your appellate courts becoming fact finders. That’s never been their role and it shouldn’t be.
×
×
  • Create New...