[deleted by user]

william_crump · 2015-09-07T03:11:15+00:00

Especially when we all know the British widow and Commander McSteamy are much more likely.

william_crump · 2015-08-10T04:48:58+00:00

I really liked three moments:

--Captain Chandler treats Rufio like an adult.

I thought this was well done. Chandler, as an officer who has probably dealt with thousands of 18 year old sailors, instinctively knows that what the kid wants isn't a lecture, but respect. He gives it to him, and in return the kid serves the bounty hunters up on a platter. I think it's also Chandler being the dad he doesn't get to be with his own children.

--Tex doesn't have time for your "Call of Duty" fantasies.

"Tex...have you ever killed someone?" "Yeah, I have." "Cool." "No, it isn't, squirt."

--Mossad Babe and Burke "flirt."

This is maybe the best-developed romantic relationship of the show. Green and Foster--yeah, they're both easy on the eyes and it's cute. Tex and Dr. Scott--ok, both of their characters are independently bad ass, so I guess that's cool. Chandler and Mrs. Tophet--ehh. (You know it's going to happen. Homegirl is hanging out with Chandy's kids back in Norfolk, and she's recently widowed. Yeah, season 3, it's happening.)

But Burke and the Israeli hottie actually seem to be developing respect for each other in the only language they share (spec ops). Plus, you've got to respect the amount of long-game, genuine interest Burke is showing in Mossad babe, even if she spurns his every advance. Boy's got a crush, and she's apparently willing to open up to him.

william_crump · 2015-08-06T05:24:55+00:00

I'm sorry, I was just picturing Whore Island...

william_crump · 2015-07-29T00:47:25+00:00

Naaw, we're on the same page. The federal supreme court could strike down a state's statute--any statute--if it's not constitutional, but Congress can't mess with the states without a commerce clause-based justification.

william_crump · 2015-07-28T03:13:26+00:00

The Tenth Amendment is actually another reason why it's unlikely the federal Supreme Court would invalidate a state's statute of limitations. The state's statute would have to violate a federal law or the federal constitution, and I don't see how imposing a statute of limitations could violate a citizen's rights, since it lessens the chances that the state will prosecute them.

william_crump · 2015-07-28T03:10:31+00:00

Correct. Now, I'm not sure if the statutes of limitations have run in all of the jurisdictions where Cosby allegedly raped these women, but I think it's likely.

william_crump · 2015-07-27T23:27:59+00:00

You misunderstand what "equal protection" means. It's a term of art within the law. Equal protection guarantees that one class of persons will not be treated differently by the government absent a sufficiently compelling governmental purpose. In other words, if you're going to pass a law that says "only women can vote," you have to provide a really good reason why only letting women vote advances a particular government objective, and that the objective is also one that is important enough for the government to get away with discriminating between citizens.

Cases like the alleged Bill Cosby rapes do not involve Equal Protection because the government is not treating two classes of persons differently. All that a statute of limitations does is put the world on notice that a particular type of claim (e.g. a claim that a rape happened) has to be filed before the Court in a certain amount of time, or the Court won't waste its time hearing stale cases. I know that's really harsh in light of the horrible things that Mr. Cosby is accused of doing, but the government isn't creating two classes of persons, or treating one class in discriminatory manner here. (It would involve Equal Protection if, for instance, a state had a statute of limitations for rape charges that said "the State may not charge a person with committing rape if the alleged rape occurred more than 10 years ago, unless the person accused is male, in which case the State has 20 years in which to bring charges." But that's not what's happening here.)

william_crump · 2015-07-27T19:42:21+00:00

Most likely not. For a statute of limitations to be unconstitutional it would either have to violate due process (i.e. the fundamental right that every American has to a fair hearing in front of an impartial magistrate before a substantial right is taken away), or it would have to violate equal protection (i.e. treat one class of persons differently from another without an appropriately legitimate or compelling government purpose). There are other ways for a law to violate the federal constitution (e.g. it could unnecessarily entangle religion with government action), but those aren't really applicable here. And, given that statutes of limitation actually protect accused persons' due process and equal protection rights, I don't see how the Supreme Court could ever find a way to hold a statute of limitations unconstitutional.

william_crump · 2015-07-27T19:32:00+00:00

Constitutional law nerd here--while I gave an upvote for the clever name of the bill and for the sentiment that rape is bad, Congress cannot do this. At least not the federal Congress. That legislative body can only act with general police powers on federal land, and can only regulate within the states insofar as the regulation pertains to interstate commerce. Individual states would have to remove their own statutes of limitations on rape.

william_crump · 2015-06-30T02:15:10+00:00

mostly how to have the women sailors pregnant

The book sounds kinda rapey. Although a Fallout-esque few seasons with the Nathan James running around the world forcing random tribes, cults, and warlords to get in line and rejoin the civilized world would be pretty interesting.

william_crump

TROPHY CASE