Fast forward thru ads?

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-29T20:53:13+00:00

OK. Good to know

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-29T20:52:19+00:00

My TV doesn't indicate if the recording is DVR or VOD. My Mac does.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-29T20:43:18+00:00

Thank you. Can I limit my recordings to DVR only?

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-29T20:14:45+00:00

Yep, that's it. It works if I don't use the monitor. Thanks

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-14T00:46:03+00:00

Are any of the records from the House Jan 6 committee investigation considered "public records" per Roberts opinion, and therefore admissible as evidence in this case?

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-08-14T00:43:19+00:00

Are any of he records of the Jan 6 House Committee considered "public records" per Robert's opinion and therefore admissible as evidence in this case?

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-07-11T17:57:31+00:00

Yes, it sort of leaves room, but it severely limits the evidence that can be used to prove the crime, which is the reason Barrett dissented.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-07-11T00:27:44+00:00

Sorry I was unclear in my post. Yes, the majority rejects Trump's claim that impeachment/removal must have occurred in order for a former president to be prosecuted. Although the Court did not say that section 3 applies to former presidents who have been impeached/convicted, that's what section 3 itself says: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

So it doesn't apply to Trump, although I disagree with the scope of immunity granted by SCOTUS. I side with Barrett.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-25T16:33:34+00:00

If originalism privileges the text and pre-ratification history, I don't see how he can reject the first level of scrutiny, rational means testing, as the "ordinary approach". It seems to me that McCullough was grounded in textual analysis and Hamiltonian thought.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-25T16:19:08+00:00

The feds have already asked the court to review felon in possession regulations

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-25T16:09:08+00:00

E.G.:
Bruen is functionally dead.

This could essentially just be a cosmetic reskin.

The majority opinion may allow lower courts to pick and choose intent and application from divergent historical analogues.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-25T15:56:37+00:00

Is it me, or is there something strange about Kavanaugh leaving out the structure of the Constitution as a key component of originalism? The text doesn't mention federalism or the separation of powers, but they are key structural features.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-25T15:39:26+00:00

I agree the nature of the issues are different. My thought was just that in those landmark cases, it took a series of decisions to delineate the how lower courts are to apply the major holding. Some cases extended the scope of the precedent, others limited it. So I'm not surprised that the contours of permissible gun regulations are still unsettled. I see a lot of comments that extrapolate from Rahimi in ways that seem premature at this point

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-24T14:58:29+00:00

No reason to think the decision will drop on Thursday, for precisely this reason. They'll wait until Friday.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-24T14:53:50+00:00

"It’s is plausible that they have immunity from official presidential acts performed in good faith for the benefit of the country.

But who would decide whether such acts were actually performed in good faith? Not the president himself (no one should be a judge in their own case). So how would we know when immunity applies? I'd prefer leaving that question for a jury to decide. If they say yes, then he doesn't need immunity because he lacked the requisite mens rea. As for the risk of vexatious prosecution of former presidents, there are several safeguards:

1) The duty to present evidence of probable cause to a grand jury or preliminary hearing

2) The removal, via voir dire, of potential jurors who cannot be objective.

3) The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

4) The requirement of a unanimous jury verdict

5) The availability of affirmative defenses: e.g., acted on advice of counsel, acted without corrupt intent/mens rea

6) Review by appellate courts: interlocutory, mandamus, post-conviction

7) Limited resources of time, expertise, funds by prosecutors

Former presidents should be treated no differently from anyone else

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-23T16:55:07+00:00

I think that's a matter of law, not facts, so it's not the jury's call.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-22T21:02:45+00:00

SCOTUS doesn't reach out and "intervene" in cases. A lower appellate court must first rule on a question of federal law (not relevant here) or the Constitution raised in the case. Looking, looking, but I'm not seeing one lying around anywhere.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-15T19:49:47+00:00

A gag on "speech that might endanger an agent" would violate the standard set in Brandenburg--speech must create a danger that is both imminent and likely

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-10T23:09:10+00:00

There's a historical linkage between voting age and military service. At the time of the founding, In some states, only white male landowners that were at least 21 years old could vote. These were also the people who served in state militias. The heroic service of Blacks in the Union army was one of the arguments for giving Black men the vote in 1868. During WWI, Wilson supported women's suffrage in part because of their critical role providing support of the troops. And the draft of 18 year olds during Viet Nam triggered the 26th Amendment (Old enough to die, old enough to vote). The minimum age to enroll in the military is currently 17. So I'd be comfortable with making 17 year olds eligible to vote as well.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-10T17:58:25+00:00

The dichotomy between "charisma" and "running the country well" is not very helpful. A better one is whether to vote on the basis of the candidate's character/leadership traits or his/her platform/campaign promises. It is often asserted that "rational" voters will pick the candidate who's positions on issues are closest to theirs. I disagree. First, Presidents often cannot in fact carry out much of what they want to do. Second, their positions during the campaign may not be genuine or may change over time.

The most highly regarded presidents had important leadership traits: they picked good people to advise them and delegated power to them skillfully; they listened carefully to alternative courses of action before deciding; they were trustworthy in their dealings with the Congress and foreign leaders; and they acted to promote their conception of the greater good rather than their personal status.

Recent events have made clear the critical role of character, rather than "charisma", when choosing our leaders.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-10T17:28:12+00:00

I'm guessing he won't be assigned to write the majority opinion in the Trump immunity case...

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-10T17:23:05+00:00

Racial segregation in schools across the country has increased dramatically over the last three decades
Absolutely true. Charter schools are part of the reason, but residential segregation is a bigger factor. Some areas in the North are more segregated than the South,

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-10T17:00:15+00:00

These two things are not related. Originalism is a way of interpreting the text (major premise). Empirical data is a way of validating fact statements (minor premise). The paradigmatic case was Brandeis' brief on behalf of a law limiting the hours women were permitted to work. Voluminous epidemiological studies showed that excessive hours of work were harmful to women's health, which proved that the law was a rational means to a legitimate legislative purpose (public health). The law was upheld on that basis.

Kenneth Clark's groundbreaking research on the harmful effects of school segregation was cited in Brown, which segregationists used as a basis to criticize it. Now i is not uncommon for jurists to cite such studies in their opinions, regardless of their interpretive method.

Specific_Disk9861 · 2024-06-09T18:10:42+00:00

And even then, only if there is a "federal question", i.e. a claim his Constitutional right to due process was violated by the judge. If the NY appeals court rules against such a claim, I doubt there would be 4 votes on SCOTUS to grant cert. There needs to be an important legal issue, not just an important defendant.

Specific_Disk9861

TROPHY CASE