Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "LegalEagle"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So I turn on my PC, go to youtube, see the recommendations a and am like "What'd I Miss"? I know it's been a while since we had "Hillary Defeated", and Obama gave us his "One Last Time". We saw some serious mismanagement on behalf of "The Trump Administration", especially durring the "Hurricane", leaving thousands of people "Helpless". Since Trump took office, we learned that he "Can't Say No To This", has rather poor judgement, when it comes to choosing his "Right Hand Man" and the guy sure like's campaigning "Non-Stop".
I didn't expect anyone to take "His Shot" like this. Why do I think Bolton really write the book? Well, I'd say he realised, that "History Has It's Eyes on Him". I therefore must ask myself, "What Comes Next"? Now that we are steaming towards "The Election of 2020" to choose "Our Obedient Servant", we should set aside some time to think, perheaps ask ourselves the question: What would "Alexander Hamilton" do right now? Going with his younger self, he would likely remind us of the "Ten Duel Commandments", his older self would rather recommend us to tell the White House "That Would Be Enough". Ultimately we have to "Wait for it" and hope that comming days won't "Blow Us All Away". The year has already shown us it has teeth to the point that, we already have "Guns and Ships" on the agenda, it is getting increasingly frustrating to "Stay Alive" to the point, that some of us, the ones with poorer health inmsurrance, can only be sure, that "Tomorrow There'll Be More of Us" and I'm quite sure, that the main question on their minds these days is "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Their Story".
And what the future holds? I beleive it to be grim. Trump definitely isn't "Satisfied" with his performance so far and will seek reelection. Fortunately, now that "We Know" what he's like, some of the other side might "Take a Break" from voting or outright vote the other way. I sincerely believe that for some republicans, "The World Turned Upside Down". It will be for naught however, until both democrats and republicans realise that "The Wrold Is Wide Enough" for both of them and begin to actually work together, even if only on dealing with fallout of "Cabinet Battle #1". Let us hope, that all of this mess becomes just "The Story of Tonight" one day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@idontgetthejoke4813 And that is the treshold for you? By how much? One vote, two? And even if by a thousand, does that mean, that rights of those, who didn't vote for the winner should be ignored, or worse, removed? There is a difference between democracy and dictatorship of the masses and it follow's one old quote.
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
And frankly, what have we been seeing in the US for at very least past twenty years? Republicans attempting to overturn Roe vs Wade. Democrats besieging the second ammendment. And both? Gerrymandering voting districts to the point elections can be considered candidates selecting their voters.
In a democracy, you have to respect other side's rights and the fact, that different rights have different weight for them. If you don't, you're not living in a democracy, rather in a dictatorship. You can't have democracy without that kind of respect and frankly. I don't see that respect on either side of the aisle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This might rub the anti-gun people the wrong way, but I always disliked use of props... The reason is, that it leads you down the "this ain't a gun" path of thinking, most importantly when planning, how to do the stuff, in this case a scene. Gun owners say "Always treat it, as if it were loaded!" for a reason.
How would the scene be made, with this mindset? Well, there would have been nobody in the direction of the "gun" to be aimed, there would have been a drone or crane used to capture the scene, and the worst, which could have happened, would have been destroyed piece of equipment.
All in all, this reminds me of an episode, of Mayday, also know as Air Crash Investigations, of all things... S1E5. Alaska Airlines were struggling for a while, so, they created a plan, to keep their planes in the air, generating money. The problem was, that this created environment, where non-technical person could override a tech, when that tech called for maintenance and send the plane off to the sky. This practice had two effects, thanks to increased air time, Alaska went from bust to bang. Unfortunately, the other effect was one of their planes jackscrew broke mid-air and the plane dive-bombed an ocean, only because the captain recognized the mess he got in to and took the plane away from urban areas... The guy who called this out months earlier was fired weeks before the crash (or months, my memory is hazy on this). Simply to increase profit... I am convinced, if what was discussed here was as it were, something similar must have been happening on that set. And it should be those, who were pressuring or overriding those responsible, who need to go to jail. Not an actor, who thought his gun/prop was safe to use.
1
-
1
-
In Czech Republic, when there is a drought, all open fire use is actually banned by the authorities throughout the country. You can't even smoke in forests! So why the hell was this gender reveal paty carried out is beyond me. When I make a fireplace in such conditions, I make it on the river. Not next to it, on the river itself, precisely because of quick extinguishing!
But with all seriousness, there are serious questions regarding damage compensations. There have to be limits on what people are liable in terms of their income lost to these compensations.
While it is just to demand those, who have caused something, to fix it, it must not put those responsible in poverty... Looking at campfires going out of control or plane catching fire after a crash kind of things. There need's to be a deeper look in to causes of fires. California is notoriously dry and loosing water fast, therefore, looking in to forest composition is neceseary. There is a liability question on states hands, because the state knows about the status of their forests, why did they not take action and begin to change forest composition? If it did take such action, why did it fail? Also, what about the status of infrastructure in the country? Sure, it might be private, however, the state should be able to evaluate the status of infrastructure and, if neceseary, take corrective action and then recoup the expences from the owner, which in our powerline case, would have been some logging, presumably of dead pine trees just waiting to light up, and a short lawsuit! Not to mention a fine addition to Legal Eagle's collection. From this angle, it would seem that the tax payer has some liability on his hands regardless of who started the fire. There should have been technological, agricultural and forestry based precautions in place to prevent forest fires. Sure, I am going fairly deep in to proximate cause teritory, but I believe, that if proximate cause is cascading towards these kinds of damages, they need to be exhaustingly explored and strictly scrutinized. Note that I don't deal with conduct of those, who started that fire. I don't take them in to consideration, because human stupidity is infinite. There will always be someone stupid, spiteful or greedy enough to disobey any directive or ban.
1
-
1
-
@Account.for.Comment Well, that would have to come from grass roots. Eg. the voters. If they wanted to work together and live next to each other, this wouldn't have happend, why? The other side wouldn't feel the need to create loopholes, or use undemocratic means to ensure, the other side can't take away rights, they deem uncrossable. Be it abortions, net neutrality, unrestricted access to guns, cars, alcohol or what ever come's to mind. We constantly see people's rights under siege, because the other group think's, those who exercise these rights, aren't really human and thus don't have rights... Untill this changes, stuff like this will be comming back to bite everybody. People must start respecting other people's rights, especially, if they disagree with them! Note, that I haven't mentioned either side of this mess, that is because they are both responsible for this.
1
-
1
-
Couldn't it be argued, that because, they took every action to get Kevin supervision, including, but not limited to, contacting their local police department, they are off the hook? Sure, they left him, however, this wasn't intentional, by the time, they realised, what happened, they literarly coudln't return and in less than 24 hours, they called surrounding residences and the police, to arrange supervision for Kevin. They also couldn't have known about the Wet bandits targeting their home.
1
-
This is a really bad idea. At best you've created third chamber of the parliment, as every law will go in front of the supreme court based on which party controlls the house, at worst, you've destabilised the court to the point it is not recognised as an institution by the people. Funny how Democrats are becoming undemocratic in this way. When I remember the commentary back at tailend of Obama administration, how much flack they gave about their nominee and now? It's the same, only parties have changed.
I do think that number of justices need's to be odd as to ensure a split is less likely to occour, it could be tied to the number court circuits, however, even that has it's problems, because he, who would get in to enough power due to political pendullum going from greater extreme to greater extreme, could simply increase the number of court circuits, thus diluting the supreme court.
I really don't like the ability for the supreme court to not always work en-block. Issues that get in front of supreme court are meant to be the most important and controversial decisions, with the greatest reprecautions for the nation from individual level all the way to society as a whole. This create's two requirements off the supreme court. One, that it's decisions should not be easily overturnable and it's decisions should be extraordinarily throughly reasoned. This aim's to provide as much stability in the legal system as possible. Therefore, strict scrutiny should be the only standard appliable in the court and justices need to know, that they can't be replaced, if they begin to rule in favour of controversial rights, because the more controversial the right, the greater wish for it to be remobed by the opposing party. The fact, that there are relatively few justices for life on the supreme court mean's that there is much lower potential for changes in the supreme court and thus greater stability and predictability in terms of court rulings.
Case and point, abortions and guns. The common denominator here is, that the side that seek's to deny these rights, is the party that doesn't lose anything, as they in vast majority don't exercise these rights. Guns for democrats, abortions for republicans. However, if democracy is to remain functional and if nation is to not get devided, one can't buy what he want's and pay for it with someone else's resources, eg. only gun owners should have final saying in gun rights and only women should have the final saying in abortin cases, as until the child is actually born, it doesn't have rights and I'd argue it can't have rights, as it biologically can't exercise them, therefore health questions stemming from right to life and pursuit of happines of the mother should be the bench for these qustions. What if in order to persue happines, guns are necessary? What if it's not happines, but life (eg. hunting as means of obtaining food)? The same thing can be said about abortions, only with limiting the number of mouths to feed being the argument there, if we stay on the practical side of the discussion.
I firmly believe, that the more controversial a right is, the more protection it need's and, if right is to be repealed, it need's to be universally or nearly universally supoorted and suitable recompense need's to be present as well. However, that doesn't end with only paying a monetary value in terms of money spent to purchase an item increased by inflation. As to return real value of the means to exercise the right. Future exercise of that right also has extraordinary value, that need's to be compensated, otherwise democracy becomes dictatorship of the masses against the minority on any specific issue, be it details like guns, abortions, drinking age or age of consent, or something greater, like the right to vote or hold public office. This then create's motivation to rebel and reduces legitimacy of any regime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maaan... this is mess. There needs to be ammendment for such scenarios. Sure, they are rare and not note worthy... until 2020 decide's it's not had enough fun and takes them both.
Ultimately I believe there is a problem with democratic principles if current rules as layed out before us were to be utilised. All of them! One rule would result in being elected simply by the virtue of being alive or atleast undead, others could get under fire from angry voters in courts or from angry house, which could even be poised to act against it's own will. Again, because of single surviving candidate in a two way election. I don't like, what I'm about to write, but... The only way forward is to set what siting vice president can and can't do in the interim and call for new elections with all their glory and all their horror to elect a new president in at most one year time. There has been so much campaigning, so many promises made... People, at least some of them, have been swayed by all of that mess and knowing these thigns they were going to vote, or perheaps even have already voted, in a particular way because of those campaigns. What about a situation, where the vice president would get chosen on the count of his proffesionality, but had completly different world view? That is not what the electorate voted for! Nobody would ever consider such unlikely scenario when deciding their vote. Again, I don't like it at all, but I feel this is the only way.
1
-
Man... Looking at this as Czech citizen, after witnessing pardon at the end of prsidency of Václav Klaus... I can only say... "hm... First time?".
Also, murder doesn't have to be necessarily state issue. Since federal jurisdiction requires for the item in question to be crossing state lines, something that would happen directly on the state line, would likely be federal jurisdiction, even if it were a murder... Another option might be, if such act happened on federal land.
I really don't see, how issuing a pardon could be a crime, atl least not ordinarily. That right is defined and, as long as the person issuing the pardon doesn't have tied hands, which you really REALLY don't want him/her to have... Really, the only way, that could happen, is if the president pardoned a spy, whose identity were confirmed by the hostile government. Otherwise, there is doubt and I feel that allegation like this would have to go through strict scrutiny (or whatever is equivalent in the institution, which would have jurisdiction)
1
-
Well, what can I say... I'm the kind of guy, who doesn't care about Nike, I wear work shoes. I had no reason to know about this, now I do. So I am actually more (all be it marginally) likely to buy a pair of Nikes. So no, I'm not confused. On the other hand, a lot of other stuff has surfaced about Nike, painting them (thanks to their own behavior) as talking from both sides of their mouths. If somebody doesn't pursue one infringement, why should they be allowed to pursue another? So, what can I say to Nike? Well, you're harming your public image through your own actions. So congratulations, you've played yourselves! Better hope, that our artists don't try to turn this around and countersue for SLAPP!
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, my legal friend, but I really don't think first ammendment beats the second. The way I see it, second protects the first, but that is their only relation. I appreciate the difficulty of the choice of taking or not taking the guns out yet, however, at the same time I ask myself, "if not now, when, after all we've seen so far?". "Where is the line, which must not be crossed?". I am very much worried, that days of Gandhi a forever past and that no civilised means will suffice in the current crisis, for the opposition has become hardened, nonresponsive, perhaps even ignorant of the facts. Which is worse, even on our side, there are such people in great numbers.
So, answer yourself this question, how far would this have to go for you to draw? I am very much worried, that in this case, with this person, a lot of people would to their horror discover they are way past this treshold. Would you act like this, if he ordered the army? would you take up arms when tanks will be rolling through DC, or would you take up arms only when the Air Force started bombing the Supreme court? While one certainly shouldn't act prematurely with this kind of action, acting too late will achieve nothing too. At that point, you went to bed in a free society and woke up in a totalitarian dictatorship. A line has to be drawn after which you step on to the next box and it must not move no matter what. If that box is to be of ammo... then there is no other way around. Words will only get you so far. When the other side can shut you up permanently, be it through non-lethal means, your words are useless. It is grim, but it is the truth none the less.
1
-
1