Jump to content

scottsins

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1669
  • Joined

Everything posted by scottsins

  1. It’s just confusing because your friends HATE Trump, but will willingly help out him back in the WH. Assuming they aren’t dim AF, they understand what a disaster that proposition is for us and future generations. Like a 6-3 or 7-2 SCOTUS packed with Justices like Alito and Thomas are currently, but just don’t care? But they DO care enough if it’s Kamala Harris on the ballot? I would vote for Stoops/Switzer over Trump if they were Dems.
  2. Why do you hang out with so many dipshits?
  3. Who gives a shit. That report is fake and honestly, needs to be nuked from this thread.
  4. An automatic rifle would have resulted in a much different outcome, casualty/fatality wise. Guess a gun law actually did some good in this scenario…not that anyone on Trump’s “side” will admit it though.
  5. But the quote in that article did not actually say that was the rule.
  6. Her quote doesn’t actually say what her assertion about it does, but whatever.
  7. It will continue to run as long as a bunch of people are actually willing to believe that SS protocol would be to let a would-be assassin get a round off before neutralizing him.
  8. You just did that thing again that you keep doing on this thread.
  9. Yes. Because the bloody fist pump isn’t some next level gladiator shit.
  10. Casualty /= fatality
  11. I was just stating that if Barrett’s concurrence did not include certain holdings of the majority, then future cases would be decided the same way on that particular issue, meaning 5-4 with Barrett agreeing with the three dissenters here.
  12. Assuming Barrett doesn’t change her mind in the post sod contention she expresses with the majority, that “stuff” wouldn’t play going forward, right?
  13. So…we are just going to ignore the whole concept of previous Trump voters who will NOT come out for him now (new shit has come to light)? Also, I’m a previous Biden voter who now thinks neither of them should be POTUS. And I’ll pull the lever for Joe AGAINST TRUMP in November. I just wonder how many past Biden voters do NOT hate Trump with a burning passion, basically just ambivalent to the extent that they just don’t vote at all? Who are those people, and how many of them are there?
  14. My biggest point of concern is that Biden/DNC agreed to this debate with terms that included a prohibition of any contemporaneous fact checking by moderators. Why agree to that? If Trump refuses to participate…WIN because there’s no chance of looking bad AND the talking point is that Trump wouldn’t agree to tell the truth. If Trump does agree, at least there’s a little help when Dotard does Dotard things.
  15. Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?
  16. Maybe there is a comparison to draw between the two executive actions, when speaking generally to the use of executive orders as opposed to legislative solutions. Like I said, I was and am FOR DACA, so not sure where the “gripe is”.
  17. Where the FUCK did I say that Americans shouldn’t be foremost concerned about stripping the right to privacy? I compared it to DACA, because it’s another example of using executive order in place of a legislative solution. I’m IN FAVOR of the bump stock ban order and DACA. I was explained, from a legal perspective, why the opinion being discussed might not be the best example of “SCOTUS = Calvinball”.
  18. FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not. And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use. Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed. This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.
  19. FWIW, the other guy in that episode absolutely can’t stand Alex Jones. I was at his daughter’s wedding back in January. /csb
  20. I’m not sure about that attack though. Example: In Texas, “intoxicated” can mean one of two things. Either a BAC of .08 or more OR loss of normal use of mental or physical…” Juries can render a guilty verdict even if the particular “type” of intoxication was not agreed upon. My question is whether the verdict form indicates how each juror voted on each of the three options in the Trump charge. It wouldn’t mean that the verdict wasn’t valid, but it could be error in that if one of those avenues was successfully attacked on appeal, there’s no way for an appellant to demonstrate harm, if that makes sense.
  21. I seriously doubt there is a law prohibiting that. There isn’t one in Texas. There MIGHT be a standard condition of probation that would include that restriction though. In Texas, the language refers to “persons of bad reputation of character.” I’ve never seen that enforced ever though, except MAYBE in a scenario where two felons are wanting to be roommates.
  22. It doesn’t matter, because: Once Dotard is sentenced, his team will immediately give notice of intent to file appeal and then they will file an appeal bond. Just to be clear (at least how it would be in Texas), the conviction is not final as long as there is an appeal pending. It would be highly unusual to not permit him to “be free” on an appeal bond as well.
×
×
  • Create New...