Comments by "possumverde" (@possumverde) on "LegalEagle" channel.

These riots have gone on far too long and are no longer about the original issue. These are just people who want to watch the world burn. Such people will not be satisfied until everything is in ruins. State rights' people understand that and thus aren't going to support states whose governors are too chicken to stand up to the thugs like the majority of their constituents want them to. These rioters are not supported by the majority of people in the states they are occurring in and need to be dealt with. The President's mistake is the same he always makes. Choosing the worst possible approach that still has a chance of working. He should have sent in the national guard not spooks. To be fair, the governors of the states should have sent in the guard long ago. They failed their duty so now it has to be the fed unfortunately.
27
The LAPD were there and asked Rock if he wanted to press charges. He said no. If the victim is willing to let it go, then all should let it go. I think he understood Smith's response once someone told him why Jada shaved her head and decided the misinderstanding wasn't worth further action.
24
Tell you higher ups to file suit claiming Tennessee's trigger law will violate the 13th amendment's prohibition on "involuntary servitude." The courts have consistently recognized carrying and giving birth as work in suits where a father tries to prevent abortion (the woman gets the final say because she has to do the work of carrying and giving birth.) If it's work, the government can't force women to do it against their will. I Iive in Tennessee myself and it sickens me to see how gleefully our Governor and AG are pursuing the implementation of unconstitutional involuntary servitude on the women of this state. Women are not beasts to be forced to have children by the whim of anyone other than themselves.
14
"Master of Puppets"
5
The 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" argument will work if someone will just make it... Everyone keeps making medical arguments etc. while the old farts in SCOTUS don't care about that. Just point out the the courts already recognize carrying and giving birth as work in suits where fathers try to block abortions. If it's work, the government can't force women to do it. That's the silly kind of argument the courts find interesting. There's no rebuttal to it to be found. Currently the states are allowed to force women to breed for them in a manner the state finds pleasing. That doesn't fly under the constitution.
3
@av088r No objective difference there. Until the brain of a fetus develops enough for consciousness/self awareness and it is viable outside the womb, it's at best in a vegetative state (that's being generous) and wholly dependent upon life support. The method used to terminate said support may not be identical but the significance of that difference is purely subjective.
3
I've never been much of an apple person but it's not unheard of in general for devices/software to include code that will automatically try and smooth out any pixilization that occurs when enlarging a digital image, alter contrast/brightness levels automatically for darker images, or otherwise enhance an image in an attempt to make it clearer. Technically, under many state's laws, something as simple as that would actually count as altering an image. As a rule of thumb, if you're going to use any kind of digital evidence, it's not a bad idea to have an expert available should any such evidence be challenged on technical grounds. Most law enforcement will have such technicians on the payroll or easily available so a prosecutor really doesn't have much of an excuse for not doing so.
2
Once he destroys the economy and food/housing prices rise much higher than they currently are, the people.may turn on him and give him the Mussolini treatment...
2
The sinister six of SCOTUS will likely back most of his orders whether they're technically constitutional or not.
2
They could use the prior unnecessary (and not very funny) jabs at Jada that Rock has made in the past along with the fact that there were plenty of other (more relevant) "targets" in attendance whom Rock could have aimed his jokes at as evidence that Rock intended it to be personal. Combine that with how televised the event was and they could argue that Smith saw it as a mean spirited and personal attempt to humiliate his wife before an international audience that he wished to prevent from going any further. I personally (and I assume most others) believe it was an honest mistake on Rock's part, but what I/others believe and what Will Smith believed at the time are not necessarily going to be the same. Not sure if such a defense would fly, but it would likely be the best possible direction to try.
2
I mostly agree but there is a bit of a flaw in that reasoning. It assumes that someone who didn't start out as an active shooter can't become one later on.
1
@Public.Enemy.Number1 The supporters of authoritarians who fail miserably on their promises and make things much worse don't tend to react well and things are going to get very bad if he goes through with his economic policies and mass deportation. Very bad.
1
It also opens the door for states to legally secede... The constitution doesn't directly address it and the argument in Texas v White (the only relevant precedent) is far weaker than that used in Roe v Wade. Considering that pro choice states account for the majority of the country's economy and tax revenues, maybe they should threaten to exercise their apparent right to leave and watch the rogue Justices of SCOTUS scramble to pull a legitimate argument against it out of their collective backside.
1
@EcoWarriorNB Given the tendency toward echo-chambers when it comes to social media, someone mentioning that one should include other sources is at worst being a bit presumptious. If you already include varied sources then you can simply ignore them. If you do tend to stick with sources of a similar viewpoint, then they might be doing you a favor.
1
Seeing as the federal legal code includes charges for insurrection/rebellion as well as for inciting such and former President Trump has yet to be convicted on said charges, applying the 14th amendment to prevent him being President would seemingly violate due process and definitely be a slap in the face to our concept of innocent until proven guilty. Also, we have three branches of the government for a reason. Seeking to invoke the 14th amendment without a conviction would essentially be giving the power to interpret the constitution to Congress rather than the court. The latter being the one the founding fathers intended to have such responsibility.
1
You can now add Gaza to the list, apparently...
1
Another odd ball casualty of SCOTUS's "if it isn't directly addressed in the constitution, then it's automatically a state matter" viewpoint is the prohibition of secession. There's nothing in the constitution directly prohibiting it so under their infinite wisdom, that makes it a state matter. Pro choice states should threaten to secede (and take the majority of the country's economy and tax revenues they're responsible for with them.) It'd be fun to watch the rogue Justices of SCOTUS desperately try to find an argument to prevent it that wouldn't also set precedent to overturn their overturn of Roe v Wade.
1
@highlighted_reply Actually, "Justice" Thomas, in his quest to make being a SCOTUS justice even less work than it already is, has gone on record stating that he wants to overturn the ruling that prohibits states from banning contraceptives as well. That would include birth control if a state wanted it to. Give those rogue "justices" an inch and they'll try to take a few hundred miles...
1
Having 50 states helps mitigate that a bit. In this particular situation, SCOTUS hasn't criminalized abortion, they've simply given the ability to do so to the states. Their decision is wrong but, thanks to our system of states, it will at least be possible for those seeking an abortion to get one by doing so in a state that still allows them while we work to remedy their mistake. Also, this decision isn't final as there are multiple arguments to challenge it with in states that issue bans and such challenges will eventually make their way back to SCOTUS. Also, Congress can still codify abortion rights and if done, SCOTUS will most likely uphold them. If worse comes to worse and SCOTUS justices do go fully rogue, Congress can impose term limits etc. with enough public outcry to do so and/or...we do have a lot of civilian firearms out there to help...usher such justices into early retirement... should absolutely all other failsafes prove ineffective. I'll take our legal system, flawed as it is, over alternatives employed in other countries. Also, technically we do have some say in who our judges etc. will be. At some point in the mechanism, we do vote for those who will eventually appoint our judges. Unfortunately, most people don't bother thinking that far ahead and thus don't question candidates as to what they will look for when considering such appointments. That's a fault of our own laziness though, not necessarilly of the system itself.
1
It was legal when the southern states did it and the only thing saying otherwise now is Texas v White. A ruling made under a Chief Justice who had been a high ranking member of Lincoln's administration and at least two other justices who held lesser positions in said administration. There was definitely a conflict of interest as were they to make the correct ruling that it was legal, that would have made them war criminals. On top of that, the arguments made in majority opinion were mostly ludicrous and had little to do with the Constitution. Were the current SCOTUS to review it, they would be forced to overturn it and without it, there really isn't anything preventing states from handling it as a state matter.
1
While it's no excuse, there's history involved. Rock has taken a few...unnecessary/not really funny jabs at her in the past. It likely wasn't just the joke at the Oscars that tipped Smith's scales. That said, personally, if Rock wants to sue the Academy for poor security, that's fine. However, the issue between he and Smith is something best worked out between them. It's one thing to joke about a medical condition at a celebrity roast where everything can be expected to be fair game and thus not a surprise to those attending (though even then it's taboo as no one felt the need to joke about Mohamad Ali's Parkinson's at his roast for example.) It's another to go there at something as televised as the Oscars with plenty of other "targets" to aim at with more appropriate "ammo." There's enough litigation over every little thing these days.
1
Justified legally... no. However, Rock has taken some... unnecessary/unfunny jabs at her in the past as well and there were plenty of other "targets" present he could have chosen and more appropriate "ammo" to use against them. I could see how it may have seemed a bit personal and mean spirited from Smith's point of view. I would say he should have handled it backstage if he felt it necessary but being emotionally induced, such behavior comes with a lack of control by default... In my view, the Oscars aren't a celebrity roast where everyone in attendance know they're fair game for pretty much anything. They are also far more viewed and not rated for age appropriateness like roasts etc. Comedians involved should know enough to avoid certain subjects (out of professional courtesy if nothing else.) It's supposed to be enjoyable for all attending. While also inappropriate, sometimes a good whack upside the head can be a effective reminder to think before one speaks. Personally I feel that If Rock wants to sue the Academy for poor security, that's fine. The actual incident however would be better handled between the two men. Litigation there would solve nothing and only further any existing bad blood.
1
If nothing else, any state that feels like doing so can now legally secede from the union. Nothing in the Constitution directly addresses the issue so, under the infinite wisdom of SCOTUS in their Roe v Wade overturn, that means it's a state matter. What's more, the arguments behind the only precedent concerning the matter (Texas v White) are far weaker than those in Roe v Wade were and likely wouldn't survive review anyway. Pro choice states should all threaten to secede if only for the entertainment value of watching the rogue Justices of SCOTUS desperately scramble to pull some bs argument against it out of their collective backside without setting a precedent that could be used to overturn their overturn of Roe v Wade...
1
What, no DeSantis among the villians?
1
Interestingly, the argument the rogue Justices of SCOTUS used to toss Roe v Wade would also make secession legal (edit: more accurately make it a state matter.) The constitution doesn't directly address it and the only relevant precedent (Texas v White) already has a weaker argument behind it than Roe v Wade did. In a way, SCOTUS may have handed us the weapon needed to to fix this entire mess already. Just let the pro choice states threaten to secede (and take the majority of the country's economy and tax revenues with them) then sit back with some popcorn and watch said Justices scramble to find a legitimate argument against it that couldn't be used to overturn their overturn of Roe v Wade.
1