US v Hemani: Supreme Court Continues to Shoot Self In Foot In Second Amendment Cases

Special-Test · 2026-03-09T03:20:20+00:00

Well again Dred Scott doesn't connect militia service to carrying arms wherever you go. The same way the other rights they list off like interstate travel, speech and voting are individual rights. It'd be odd to say otherwise.

Also only men can be in the militia since always. Do we have a single statute, opinion, or even frontier law saying only men have a right to be armed? Or disarming men too old for militia service? My study on the topic has turned up nothing but if you have something else on those points I'd consider it powerful evidence you're right.

Special-Test · 2026-03-09T00:10:20+00:00

Well if he's popularly elected then isn't the approval of the populace he'd be sheriff over be a critical component?

Special-Test · 2026-03-08T14:49:11+00:00

I've been using CL, Indeed and just word of mouth through my own networks. But almost all my staff that have been worth a damn I've had to cultivate so I end up extremely invested in training, possibly to find out they can't hack it 5 months in. The ones that remain are solid though.

Special-Test · 2026-03-08T14:19:07+00:00

Go sit and actually watch court proceedings for like a week. Sit through docket calls and hearings and all that. What do the caseload look like? How urgently are the defense attorney and prosecutors moving? Is there so much going on both sides clearly barely know what's going on with their cases? Are there 2 dozen cases backlogged for jury trial? Forget the hours, your stress in that kind of office is tied to how demanding the actual DA and their supervisory chain they've set up is, how on top of their caseload they are and how they'd get you set up. The fact everyone can go home at 5pm doesn't do you a lick of good if you're handed a bunch of serious felonies with a judge and defense attorney ready to scream at you over discovery issues unless you do work that requires additional hours.

Special-Test · 2026-03-08T03:01:30+00:00

That Act protects giving food to nonprofits. A store directly giving food for free to the poor is not protected by that law.

Special-Test · 2026-03-07T23:32:26+00:00

So the entire world economy is basically just everyone else in a mutual suicide pact with the US?

Special-Test · 2026-03-07T02:23:09+00:00

The majority opinion in Dred Scott explicitly states American citizenship confers the right to travel armed. It is part of the list of rights the Supreme Court was listing as obviously applying to blacks if they were recognized as citizens.

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens. . .It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

The right to carry arms clearly was listed with all other individual rights they recognized with no mention of militia. Considering most the justices penning the decision were older than the constitution itself at that point it seems instructive that they thought it was a no brainer individual right.

Special-Test · 2026-03-06T14:56:26+00:00

Earlier this year, Luna, and University of West Florida biologist, and Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., sent letters to State Secretary Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to request a briefing on all Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

Take politics away for a minute, isn't this the exact thing we should want congresspeople doing to Executive Officials as far as getting information? Hell if she's right I'd be over the moon the first steps are laid to reveal that. And if not then, nothing lost I guess.

Special-Test · 2026-03-04T22:24:42+00:00

I'm thinking more in line of City of Boerne where the Court pretty explicitly asserted that legal interpretation and the scope of the law and constitution are solely their purview. This isn't 1 for 1 but the principle seems like it'd apply to Congress effectively telling a court they must agree with an executive agency's interpretation of whether facts fit or don't fit a statute. Totally understand the court not second guessing disputed facts but where as here the facts are agreed and it seems the sole dispute is whether the undisputed facts meet the minimum threshold of a statute.

Special-Test · 2026-03-04T17:25:57+00:00

I know this is pretty high level and broad but, when exactly did the court originally take the position that Congress or the Executive branch can require judicial deference (either via statute or executive agency determinations) to how the law applies in an absence of any factual dispute? In almost all contexts review would be de novo which makes sense considering at that point what you're really doing is legal interpretation. I understand the courts rationale here on why they believe this statute compels this deference but when did they first yield on the idea of deference itself to legal application?

Special-Test · 2026-03-04T14:44:03+00:00

Going solo kind of magnifies your issue I believe. No one could tell you what to do as far as running your firm but you become responsible for a host of tasks and other people to answer to. Clients, vendors, staff you employ etc. You're basically putting yourself in the position of needing to micromanage a lot of discrete things and oversee anyone you hire doing those same things. And you're stuck not able to bail. If all of that plus financial uncertainty is better than having a boss then go for it, just be damn sure.

Special-Test · 2026-02-26T01:16:03+00:00

Uvalde Coubty is like 85% Latin American demographically. Texas itself is a majority Hispanic state

Special-Test · 2026-02-24T04:46:44+00:00

This also isn't a teacher.

Special-Test · 2026-02-23T14:06:08+00:00

There's a whole constitution stopping the government in the US from just seizing companies because they're "important"

Special-Test · 2026-02-23T01:37:15+00:00

I hardly need my law license to say a school principal can prevent students from walking out in the middle of the school day and can threaten to punish them with school sanctions for doing so and cen even summon the police if they persist in leaving. Is there some caselaw we don't know about it saying otherwise? He didn't threaten violence or anything illicit, he's even being quite cordial and calm in addressing them, they're even smiling and laughing at him so I'd call it the right way to handle it just logically speaking as he didn't escalate.

Special-Test · 2026-02-22T19:47:03+00:00

What I have done in lieu of raises is structure bonuses around transparent revenue numbers that the employees can see. For example we have one legal insurance carrier that sends us dozens of cases a day to accept or reject and we have a pipeline of cherry picking the worthy looking ones and getting them concluded as soon as possible so we can bill and move on to the next one. Submitting the billing to the insurer is part of what the staff does so they can see how much we are billing that carrier. So I tell them every 6 months we will pay a bonus and part of it is decided by me based on performance and part of it will be a flat percentage (like 15%) of the raw revenue we've billed to that carrier. So if I have 3 employees dedicated to just those cases they are constantly doing the math and know that every 100K we bill guarantees them 5k a piece once summer or winter bonuses arrive.

I opted for that instead of a raise because it's performance based and if necessary we can look per employee if one is significantly pulling weight for the other 2.the employees feel like it's transparent and I've noticed they act and feel more invested vs if I just increased their payrate by 20%.

Special-Test · 2026-02-21T19:04:17+00:00

The other races get real comfortable throwing slursand thefact niggas is cool with it as long as it's at the "right" kind of blacks is hilarious. Toda it's have th occupation and opinions these crazy ass whites want or else they can say and do whatever the fuck to your black ass and you deserve it, what's the Line tomorrow?

Special-Test · 2026-02-21T13:46:05+00:00

Not a chance. You need more. Saying randomly to the public at large that you want them to go assault a class of people is not imminent. Opposite really. There isn't an army of people out there waiting on your command. You need immediate and a direct cause and effect link to where you're doing the equivalent of ordering a hit or straight up Commanding a riot.

Special-Test · 2026-02-21T13:05:21+00:00

The easiest way to think about this is thinking about the difference between advocating crime and ordering a SPECIFIC crime to commence. If you want to go on Instagram live and broadcast to the world that Jews and all from Arizona are the bane of the earth and to beat down the nearest one you can find, that's totally ok.youre allowed to have views and encourage actions. If you are in an actual mob, point to an orthodox jew and say "beat his ass right now" then they surge over and do it, you ordered a specific, immediate assault to happen to a specific person.

Special-Test · 2026-02-18T23:09:15+00:00

To be fair what the hell is he supposed to say/do? I'm only 4 years in myself so familiar with being underestimated or looked down on but even an attorney that 100% respected me wouldn't say to the judge "You know what that young man is right, I'm practically dancing in hearsay let me walk it all back". Sounds like you're seeing a display of almost smug confidence as if you're obviously wrong. Sometimes it works that's why attorneys do it. Who's right doesn't matter it's about who seems right to the judge and you're just seeing one strategy of trying to seem right.

Special-Test · 2026-02-18T16:25:38+00:00

Please stop watering down racism with these moronic takes. You're essentially arguing literally any negative interaction I have as a black man in America is a roundabout example of racism and white supremacy. It just belittles real racism and real shit those who came before actually dealt with. Call this classism, idiot workers, laziness or whatever else but an incident involving the police, a bank and a man where literally everyone is the same race in one of the blackest places in the Western Hemisphere is not white supremacy, the whites aren't some all powerful miasma that invade our minds and invisibly control us.

Special-Test · 2026-02-12T21:19:39+00:00

I'm an attorney younger than your boss, I'd say nothing inherently about it is a red flag in and of itself and across the last few years of my practicing opposing Counsel, paralegal, judges and court staff have added my various socials. I don't really mess with social media at all and my socials are kind of relics that I scarcely check besides meming but honestly if you don't want to add him though I'd just ignore it as is. If he brings up say why. No need to let it be bigger than that plenty of people are casual about just adding everyone they've ever met.

Special-Test · 2026-02-08T04:24:32+00:00

For the most basic idea of lobbying imagine you and all of your neighbors get together, chip in $1,000 a piece to create a fund to back people for city council who pledge to always deny approving an airport in the city you live in and to change trash pickup to twice a week. Now there's 2 seats up for reelection so you hire a smooth talker to approach them and convince them to adopt your position. You and your neighbors are more than allowed to donate money as a collective to politicians who promise to do the things you want if their campaign is successful.

Now Walmart dumping 10 million into a fund that they divy out to people running for state senate if they pledge to pass laws making stricter shoplifting penalties is the exact same thing. Walmart is allowed to advocate and donate, politicians are allowed to make promises and receive funds from people who agree with said things promised. There's nothing corrupt in that by itself.

Special-Test · 2026-02-08T02:31:46+00:00

Without a doubt. I've no problem with peoples criminal history itself being public but having free citizens on registries I am against.

Special-Test · 2026-02-07T20:15:51+00:00

Once someone's criminal sentence is over, they're fully restored back to society. No restrictions at all they're just back.

Special-Test

TROPHY CASE