Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "The Humanist Report" channel.

He's still has a lot of influence, so it's not impossible for him to redeem himself, but this was an audience in San Francisco. Everyone have their different opinions of him, but Nancy Pelosi and her husband got zero sympathy from Musk after the hammer attack. He decided to insert himself into national politics. He might get a more friendly reception from the Bill Maher audience, conservative media, or some of his genuine fanboys.
4
It might only have a symbolic impact, but "The Black Seat" vacated by Thurgood Marshall, and kept warm by Sotomayor, has finally been filled by K. Brown Jackson.
2
I have no doubt that, as a law professor, she'd be a better jurist than Thomas, but she's not a judge and doesn't have the trial experience. Being a federal judge and/or litigator before the Supreme Court is important. Thomas didn't have enough experience either. His most important qualification was being a controllable Black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshall.
2
Literally, everyone should find out why he's getting the negative response and not just assuming it has something to do with Free Speech. The First Amendment starts with, "Congress shall make no laws..." What's happening with Elon has nothing to do with protected political speech and the US Constitution. It hard for the partisans to comprehend, but Elon Musk, Twitter, and privately owned social media platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. That basic civics.
2
@ultimatedab743 I only keep up with law. Free speech is a legal right. It's got nothing to do with Elon, so why are you mentioning it? You could be mistaking it with being a monopoly or regulated public utility. If it were a Free Speech matter, you or anyone else could to any court and sue Twitter for depriving you of your Free Speech.
2
@ultimatedab743 I'm not trying to sounding condescending at all, but are you able to distinguish issues from different topics such as law, politics, business, and culture? You might think I'm ignoring your point and argument, and and willfully ignorant of the nuances, but if you were to categorize this topic regarding Elon Musk, Twitter, and the emergency alerts, where would it belong?
2
It's from the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The judges on the Supreme Court aren't subjected to the same ethical rules as lower courts. It's considered English common law and post-1776 judge-made law, but the only checks the Executive and Legislative can have on the Judiciary Branch are the ones included in the constitution. If a Supreme Court judge commits a crime, the DOJ or a state can prosecute them. If a judge commits an impeachable offense, Congress can hold them accountable.
1
I was shocked watching this video and seeing her publicly condemn anti-Semitism, racism, and Nick Fuentes. I could barely recognize her. I'm not part of her fascist-adjacent voting base, but I can see how they'd feel betrayed by her "180." MTG's supporters voted for a QAnon-White nationalist politician, and not a "moderate Republican." There aren't many conditions they impose on MAGA politicians, but having complete loyalty and reverence to Donald Trump (i.e., rather than the US Constitution) and the faithful adherence to the Big Lie and Deep State conspiracy theories are nonnegotiable. It's bizarre watching her flip-flop from being an ultra-nationalist troll and promoter of the Great Replacement to doing whatever it is she's doing now. I don't even know what to call it, other than "unpatriotic confusion and insanity."
1
Were you asking about Dobbs v. Jackson specifically? That's the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. The summary judgments phase happens during a trial court. The court has only sat as a trial court once in its history.
1
@julianbryantjb You're noticing the same thing as the rest of country about this court. They are supposed to wait until there's a legitimate court case or legal controversy and not act unilaterally like the political branches. It's only my opinion, but I think the conservative special-interest groups lobbied state legislatures to intentionally pass abortion restrictions that violated Roe v. Wade, so that the legal question can return back to the Supreme Court so that it could be weakened. I doubt there were many politicians who expected the court to completely overturn Roe this session, but the court is being subjected to more scrutiny and losing credibility.
1
@julianbryantjb Justice Thomas has indicted that he wants to look at the case that legalized gay marriage nationwide, so it wouldn't surprise me if state's begin rewriting marriage laws or enforcing unconstitutional provisions. That would potentially bring the gay marriage question back before the court.
1
Are you saying there wasn't a Tweet from Samuel L Jackson?
1
@ultimatedab743 It might be better if I asked, if this was a dispute or a question, how would be resolved, settled, and/or corrected?
1
@ultimatedab743 If that's true, go to plead that in a court. If you really think that a legitimate Constitutional Claim, then don't rant about it on the internet. You have to right to seek relief in a court of law. That's where you'll get your school on how the US Constitution works. This has nothing to do with law. This is not that complicated because The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Const. amend. I. If you, and other people confused about how Free Speech works, tried to petition the government or a court for a redress of your grievances regarding Twitter and politics, and were immediately censored and arrested by the state law enforcement or federal agents not wanting government leaders to be embarrassed, then I'd agree with you. Elon Musk isn't a lawyer or an expert on Free Speech. He's been sanctioned in the past by the US Securities and Exchanges Commission ("SEC") for violating securities laws via his Tweets. He's a talented businessman, but as soon as he starts talking about a topics he's uneducated on, he sounds like a fool. He's free to run Twitter, a private company, as long as it's consistent with the law, and the contracts and government ("FTC" and "SEC") settlements that are still binding him and Twitter. Where he doesn't have influence is over the administration of law. If he wants to make public policy, then he should run for office. The audience is upset with his decision to insert himself into national politics, and his business decisions regarding Twitter. None of that is related to Free Speech.
1
@ultimatedab743 Would you rather I just lie to you? If you had an actual Free Speech claim against the government, I'd consider it. You position would be like making a Second Amendments infringement claim against the TSA, airports, and airlines for not letting you carry a weapon inside an airport.
1
That's got nothing to do with the legally flawed and inconsistent theories Thomas includes in his rulings, so the political scapegoats won't apply. If it were solely based on White Liberal identify politics, they would have addressed the conservative majority, not just Thomas. Thomas and his insurrectionist wife are the ones who brought negative attention to the court. He hasn't been part of the Black Community since he left the South, so Loving v. Virginia is relevant because he had no ethical concerns about ruling on a the case that exposed his wife's connection with rejecting the 2020 Election.
1
@reynaldolunajr.6909 I'm not an insurrectionist like you are and am a genuine patriot, who supports the law. We don't even speak the same language, and it sounds like you've become unreasonable, unrelatable, and 🦇💩crazy. As far as the rebellion talk and stance against the government, you are definitely free to become another Ashlee Babbit and commit suicide by cop. You're too far-Reich even for Uncle Clarence Thomas. I don't agree with all of Thomas's legal opinions, but compared to you and the other MAGA fascists (e.g., his wife), he suddenly seems moderate and sane. I might have been too hard on him. No offense, but I can't do crazy. Good luck.
1
You're obviously clueless about politics if you think the country is dumb enough even consider a third party. It's good that you're engaged, but that's a dumb and naive stance that no one serious about politics will even take seriously.
1
@grapentine739 You already know that novel is completely unreadable for a video comment. I'll take it that you have an opinion on politics and respond with, "No comment."
1