ChiGoose

It’s actually misspelled in the article itself. Tells you quite a bit about the legal scholarship going on at that site.

Past SCOTUS(es): The Constitution includes a Substantive Due Process right that supports unenumerated rights. We find such rights exist to protect the rights to contraception, abortion, s*domy, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages. Current SCOTUS: Unenumerated rights are BS and therefore we overturn Roe and Casey. Pundits: well this is probably as far as it goes. Clarence Thomas: We should go after the rights to contraception, s*domy, and gay marriage. But not mixed race marriages, for some reason… Anyone following the logic of the opinion: if there are no unenumerated rights, then someone just needs to bring cases to SCOTUS challenging Griswold, Lawrence, Loving, and Obergefell and SCOTUS will be sympathetic to them.

I’m sure they’ll start calling Ken Buck a RINO soon despite the claim being obviously preposterous.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Here’s a hypo that might help with the underlying crime confusion: Let’s say you and I decide to rob a bunch of banks. We draw up some plans, pack up our supplies in the car and head out to the first bank. On the way, we get pulled over for a taillight being out. The officer notices a bunch of duffle bags, ropes and other things in the back seat, so he has us get out of the car while he searches it. We are then arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit robbery. In the motions leading up to the trial, the prosecution files a motion stating that they plan to introduce evidence that we planned to rob Bank A, Bank B, and Bank C. But they were not charging us with a specific charge for robbery against any of the banks, just the conspiracy charge. Do you think it’s unfair that we were not charged with actual robbery in addition to the conspiracy? If all 12 jurors agreed that we conspired to rob a bank, but 3 thought we were only going to rob Bank A, 2 thought we were only going to rob Bank B, 1 thought we were only going to rob Bank C, while 6 thought we were going to rob all three banks, are we still guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery?

The idea that people would be *more* likely to vote for someone if they are locked up for fraudulent business records tells you a lot about those people. If only there was a word for such people who were slavishly devoted to a single leader…

On the one hand: he’s a first time offender, it’s a non-violent crime, people rarely go to jail for this, he’s old. On the other hand: it was 34 counts, the intent behind them was very serious, he was held in contempt 10 times, he hasn’t exactly been contrite since being convicted, and a non-custodial sentence may not be a deterrent to a guy like Trump. It could go either way, but if I had to bet, I’d bet against prison as the sentence.

Aside from the obvious Bills winning it all, I’d like to watch the Super Bowl while in Hawaii. Beaches, tropical cocktails, and a noon Super Bowl kickoff.

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control Conservative attacks on birth control could threaten access People are already targeting contraceptives and Clarence Thomas, correctly following the logic used to decide Dobbs, suggested the court should revisit its decision to allow a right to contraception (as well as gay marriage and sxdomy). (Concurrence at page 119)

Senate Republicans block consideration of bill to create a ‘right to contraception’ "Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked consideration of legislation that would create a federal right to birth control, after Republicans argued the bill was unnecessary and overly broad. The vote failed 51-39. It needed 60 votes to proceed to a vote on the underlying legislation. " *** "The bill would guarantee the legal right for individuals to get and use contraception and for health care providers to provide contraception, information, referrals and services related to contraception. It would apply to hormonal birth control pills, the “morning after” pill, intrauterine devices (IUDs) and other methods. It would also prohibit the federal government and any state from administering or enforcing any law, rule or regulation to prohibit or restrict the sale or use of contraception. "

Maybe. The stories written about the contents of laptop seemed to mostly been written based on copies of the laptop, not the laptop itself (since it was in possession of the Feds). Not all of the data on the copies could be verified and they changed hands. My concern was that someone could manipulate them and claim there were things on there that weren't on the original laptop. But that'll all be irrelevant once we have the analysis from the Feds on the actual laptop itself.

I would expect so. And since most of the analysis I'd seen about the data on the laptop were from copies of it and not the actual laptop itself, the Feds should have a better shot at authenticating the data on it than journalists and independent analysts had with the copies.

A whole thread of people who doth protest too much, methinks…

Mostly Republicans though

Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign "Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company. The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee. These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified. Significant changes to a staffer’s work situation, such as bonuses, pay raises, firings or promotions, can be evidence of a crime if they come outside the normal course of business. To prove witness tampering, prosecutors would need to show that perks or punishments were intended to influence testimony. White-collar defense lawyers say the situation Trump finds himself in — in the dual role of defendant and boss of many of the people who are the primary witnesses to his alleged crimes — is not uncommon. Their standard advice is not to provide any unusual benefits or penalties to such employees. Ideally, decisions about employees slated to give evidence should be made by an independent body such as a board, not the boss who is under investigation."

Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul charges former Trump associates in fake elector scheme "MADISON - Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has filed felony forgery charges against an aide and two attorneys who worked for former President Donald Trump in 2020 for their part in designing and executing a plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by submitting false slates of electors for Trump. The charges are filed in Dane County Circuit Court against Kenneth Chesebro, a Wisconsin native and lead architect of the 2020 fake elector plan; former Dane County Judge Jim Troupis, who represented Trump in Wisconsin during the 2020 election; and Mike Roman, a former Trump aide who allegedly delivered Wisconsin's slate of false elector paperwork to a Pennsylvania congressman's staffer in order to get them to Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021. Court records show the three are due in court on Sept. 19."

Mostly because they're too drunk to put the words together

Yeah, the headline says he said it. I was looking for the full quote and expected that the message included in the post would show the entire quote but it didn’t. It would be weird to have a headline that says “Biden said this” and then not have Biden’s actual quote in the article so I figured it would be there.

Yeah man, that makes sense. There’s definitely a large anti-Irish movement in the US today. Banning books about being Irish. Telling people they are wrong to be Irish. Kicking people out of their house for being Irish. No wonder the Irish have such a high suicide rate compared to the general population.

Yeah, that makes sense. Famously, St. Patrick’s Day comes and goes with no fanfare. No marketing, no advertising, no promotion whatsoever. If you blink, you miss it. Also, I’ve seen Homer vs. The 18th Amendment and it literally starts with Bart Simpson, a CHILD, having Irish culture shoved down his throat. So, checkmate.

How dare the Irish shove their disgusting culture in our faces? I’ve seen The Quiet Man. The way John Wayne treats that woman is abhorrent! March is Irish Heritage Month.

I wonder if people consider romance movies, pictures of a guy and a girl kissing, and other heterosexual images as “shoving heterosexuality in our faces”

Didn’t agree to surrender his law license to end the investigation? I feel like I read that somewhere. Trump absolutely could have plead this down to a misdemeanor and taken the win. But he is suffering from NPD so I don’t think he’s fundamentally capable of admitting to fault like that. Which seemed evident in some of the questionable defense strategy.

Some more lawyers and problems added to the original post: Alina Habba Michael Cohen Rudy Giuliani defamation case

We're talking about $35, right? A donation that was investigated by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct which dismissed the complaint with a warning to Merchan? (Reuters) It was certainly inadvisable to do it, but remember that the New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics also looked into this to determine if Merchan should recuse and they found that "Merchan's impartiality "cannot reasonably be questioned" based on his daughter's activities, or on the "modest" political contributions he made more than two years ago." (Reuters) So it looks like you have a judge who made a dumb decision to make a small political contribution several years ago. He was cautioned against doing so again an the committee that advises on ethics and recusal found there was no need for him to recuse from Trump's case. If they were all wrong, then maybe the case gets overturned and remanded to be tried by a different judge. But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.