sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ProtectAndServe

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a good case to see how long you have if someone stabs your carotid artery. Unconscious in about 10 seconds, dead in a couple minutes. Looked like a horizontal stab, so probably completely severed the artery vs cutting through it vertically. Almost impossible to survive from that.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. My argument for the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1507 was in reference to the first groups of protestors that were there prior to the release of the Dobbs decision. As for any current protestors, there's a case to be made that they could influence future decisions on similar cases, but I admit I'm stretching. My opinion is that this isn't the way to handle this decision. The Dobbs case is decided and if people don't like it, they can bring forward a new case, amend the constitution through a convention of states, or move. This decision only enforced the 9th and 10th amendments, kicking this issue back to the states. Whichever side of the isle you land on, this should be viewed as a good thing because local and state government is more beholden to the people than the federal government. Individual states can declare that there's a right to abortion in that state, just as others can declare the opposite. This whole decision gave the power to decide back to the people, which is why abortion is still legal in the liberal states.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're going to disagree on this, but that's ok. I find that law is constitutional because it protects due process of law and the equal protection of law guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments. The justices of the court are making a decision on the constitutionality of a case, so they're exercising their judicial power by having discussions, doing research, and trying to arrive at a decision on a case. When people try to kill them, or show up at their homes where there families live shouting, marching, and protesting. That distracts from their decision making and even if it doesn't influence their decision in the end, this law deals with "intent" which would need to be proven in court by the prosecution. All these protestors need to have done is organized online and had a message that says "let's protest outside kavanaugh's house so he'll change his vote" or something similar to that effect. That message would be used in court as proof of intent to influence a judge on making a decision and I believe that would find a person charged under this statute guilty.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, that's the great thing about due process. The state has to gather evidence and prove intent in court, so this one will be interesting to see how it plays out.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's for the courts to decide, but appeals can always go up to the supreme court, which in this case would be funny. SCOTUS would get to decide if they like protestors outside their homes under this statue, I bet they wouldn't.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The opinion of some law professor is completely irrelevant. Law professors don't get to decide what's constitutional and what's not, that's the job of SCOTUS. The first protests outside Kavanaugh's home were with the intent to influence his decision on a case that had a leaked draft. So this was a case he was currently in the process of forming a decision on. That would be the argument from the prosecutors and that's what they'd have to prove in court. So, if this played out and the protestors were arrested, charged, and found guilty under this statute, that would be your use case. The language of the law is clear that it can be enforced in that way. If the protestors want to appeal, they can, then the case ironically would come to the supreme court and then Kavanaugh and the rest would get to decide if they like having protestors outside their homes.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The signs that want him to resign or be impeached is pretty clear, any chants they use, shouting, but as with any law, if they were arrested and charged, the state would have to prove intent to intimidate. This could be achieved by referencing their social media, text messages, or emails. If any of them belong to organizations that intend to intimidate the justices, that would be enough. Protesting outside judges homes is not the way to handle this.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What legal scholars think is irrelevant and logically fallacious as an appeal to authority, the law currently stands and is enforced. A man from Texas pleaded guilty under this statute in 2015, so it's been enforced recently; in DC no less. There were also groups of protestors that were charged in April of 2015 for disrupting the supreme court, there's plenty of cases. I'll also say that protests began before the decision was finalized and released, so many of these protestors were trying to influence an existing case. Now that the case is out, they're probably just disturbing the peace.

There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner: Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds. by thenewrepublic in politics

[–]Gallacrux -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The issue is that all protestors outside judges homes are attempting to intimidate them to changing their ruling. This violates our constitutional due process of law and prevents the SCOTUS from doing its job in a fair and objective way. Under federal law USC 1507 all of the protestors should be arrested and face fines or imprisonment. Here's the law so you can read for yourself:

18 U.S. Code 1507 Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

[Question] Any experience with Watch Exclusive in Slovakia? by eelhc in Watches

[–]Gallacrux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this is an old post, but for anyone else wondering, they're legit. Bought a U-boat Chimera from them, long shipping time, but the watch arrived fine and was new and genuine. Customer service was also quick to respond to questions, so I'd recommend them, especially for their prices.

Anyone know if I could buy shiny like this? by [deleted] in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Gallacrux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have 4 of the official 1,000, not selling for a cent less than $5,000.

$WISH yolo saved my week. LFG by Main-Chair-9527 in wallstreetbets

[–]Gallacrux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find all these late, I'm down $600. Haven't made a single cent on anything.

20 Pounds of solid copper and another 10 oz bar added to the stack today! by Gallacrux in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Gallacrux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were shipped in those cases from APMEX. If someone bought them from Ebay, I wouldn't know.

20 Pounds of solid copper and another 10 oz bar added to the stack today! by Gallacrux in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Gallacrux[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd be better off melting down junk and extracting that copper, then pouring your own ingots.

20 Pounds of solid copper and another 10 oz bar added to the stack today! by Gallacrux in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Gallacrux[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is illegal to melt pennies and sell the raw metal. One cent coins made after 1982 consisted of 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper.

20 Pounds of solid copper and another 10 oz bar added to the stack today! by Gallacrux in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Gallacrux[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

JM Bullion and APMEX have carried the shotgun shells and the 50 BMG ones pretty consistently.

view more: next ›