• If you're having issues logging in, please email me at doczaius69@gmail.com

🔫Guns all new guns thread

SCOTUS has done a pretty good job, it just takes them a while. Does the Trump case even need an appeal? Can't SCOTUS just step in here and say the whole thing was clearly a farce, they violated his rights to a defense to prove his innocence, and dismiss charges?
 
Juggs said:
SCOTUS has done a pretty good job, it just takes them a while. Does the Trump case even need an appeal? Can't SCOTUS just step in here and say the whole thing was clearly a farce, they violated his rights to a defense to prove his innocence, and dismiss charges?
Click to expand...
In a word, no. The system doesn’t work like that.
 
DocZaius said:
In a word, no. The system doesn’t work like that.
Click to expand...
So SCOTUS can't do anything about a rogue Judge making up his own rules? Even if, say, SCOTUS has already ruled that a verdict must be unanimous? Yes, it was, but the judge previously said it didn't have to be. Shouldn't that alone be grounds for a mistrial when the judge is blatantly breaking the law?
 
Juggs said:
So SCOTUS can't do anything about a rogue Judge making up his own rules? Even if, say, SCOTUS has already ruled that a verdict must be unanimous? Yes, it was, but the judge previously said it didn't have to be. Shouldn't that alone be grounds for a mistrial when the judge is blatantly breaking the law?
Click to expand...

SCOTUS doesn't have instant direct oversight of a state trial court. In order to get to that level of review (assuming the Supreme Court would even take the case - they don't have to), Trump would likely have to exhaust his state court appeals first and he'd have to assert a Constitutional violation to get it before the Supreme Court.

What'll be really interesting is what happens at sentencing. Could Trump - as a Presidential candidate - enjoin the State of New York from imprisoning him, at least until the election is over (and if he wins, after his term is served)? That MIGHT be something the Supreme Court could take up fairly quickly - but it would probably have to go through the US District Courts first.
 
DocZaius said:
SCOTUS doesn't have instant direct oversight of a state trial court. In order to get to that level of review (assuming the Supreme Court would even take the case - they don't have to), Trump would likely have to exhaust his state court appeals first and he'd have to assert a Constitutional violation to get it before the Supreme Court.

What'll be really interesting is what happens at sentencing. Could Trump - as a Presidential candidate - enjoin the State of New York from imprisoning him, at least until the election is over (and if he wins, after his term is served)? That MIGHT be something the Supreme Court could take up fairly quickly - but it would probably have to go through the US District Courts first.
Click to expand...
Well that's fucked up. A misdemeanor corrupted into felonies without proof or a defense against a President should be right up the alley of SCOTUS to stop without fucking around with corrupt state courts or a district.

I don't think there will be prison time at any point. House arrest at Trump Tower? As TRL has pointed out, Secret Service can't be sent to prison, but they can't be separated from Trump, hence the Dems trying to get the Disgrace Act bill passed. Unless a lot of RINO's want to give up their seat come re-election time, that will never pass, so they can't imprison Trump.

I don't think they expect him to go to jail. They expect this entire process to take forever and not let him in the White House. They also expected people to believe this bullshit polls spread by NYT and others that no one would vote for a person found guilty of felonies, but their hail mary backfired horrendously.
 
Juggs said:
Well that's fucked up. A misdemeanor corrupted into felonies without proof or a defense against a President should be right up the alley of SCOTUS to stop without fucking around with corrupt state courts or a district.
Click to expand...

Well, it might be something they can weigh in on - but there's a process that needs to play out. Sometimes that process can be expedited, but I don't see it happening right now.

Juggs said:
I don't think there will be prison time at any point. House arrest at Trump Tower? As TRL has pointed out, Secret Service can't be sent to prison, but they can't be separated from Trump, hence the Dems trying to get the Disgrace Act bill passed. Unless a lot of RINO's want to give up their seat come re-election time, that will never pass, so they can't imprison Trump.

I don't think they expect him to go to jail. They expect this entire process to take forever and not let him in the White House. They also expected people to believe this bullshit polls spread by NYT and others that no one would vote for a person found guilty of felonies, but their hail mary backfired horrendously.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are saying it probably won't be a custodial sentence - more likely a hefty fine and probation. But probation to a guy like Trump, who doesn't seem to think before he acts, could be a real problem. The burden of proof on a violation of probation is really low and you don't get a jury trial. If Trump screws up the terms of his probation, he could find himself in jail.

I don't know of anyone who is changing their vote based on the conviction.
 
They still can't send him to jail as long as he has secret service, no matter what he does. So what can they do without the Disgrace Act? And you know damn well if it's probation, they'll probably do something unconstitutional like further limit his free speech. It'll be a shit show in every direction. Imagine a sitting President on probation....

No, no one is going to change their vote from Trump from the conviction, but if people on X are being genuine, he's getting new voters who were undecided before simply due to the corruption of the justice system. but I suspect many of them were already voting for Trump and just looking for views.
 
Not sure if this belongs in the RIP dildo or amuse thread, but I’m putting it here



Imagine a world where libs get funded to think about your wieners
 
Irish Mike said:
Is all that shit true? I don't know what to believe anymore.
Click to expand...
No way of knowing. No manifesto, no details ever really released. Eye witness is unreliable though. I've never seen that chick post/repost something that she hasn't 100% done her homework on before though.

About the spent brass, out of all the crime scene photos that show the rifles laying all over the room (far from the window in most cases, weirdly), this is the only one that shows any brass....50 killed, 400 wounded, so how many shots did he get off? More than this, a lot more

.15%20AM_1516388811519.png_76255820_ver1.0_640_480.webp
 
www.baltimoresun.com

4th Circuit upholds Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons

The 4th Circuit found Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons, such as the AR-15, constitutional.
www.baltimoresun.com www.baltimoresun.com

I haven't read the decision, but I am assuming on the excerpts that it's based on a faulty premise: that so-called "assault-style weapons" are somehow more dangerous than others. That makes zero sense, considering that crimes committed with all rifles make up a miniscule amount of all gun crime overall. Plus, it ignores the prohibition on bans of weapons "in common use" that was set in Heller. The reason the AR-15 is so often used in mass shooting events is because it's a popular platform, not because it's any more or less deadly than other guns.
 
DocZaius said:
www.baltimoresun.com

4th Circuit upholds Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons

The 4th Circuit found Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons, such as the AR-15, constitutional.
www.baltimoresun.com www.baltimoresun.com

I haven't read the decision, but I am assuming on the excerpts that it's based on a faulty premise: that so-called "assault-style weapons" are somehow more dangerous than others. That makes zero sense, considering that crimes committed with all rifles make up a miniscule amount of all gun crime overall. Plus, it ignores the prohibition on bans of weapons "in common use" that was set in Heller. The reason the AR-15 is so often used in mass shooting events is because it's a popular platform, not because it's any more or less deadly than other guns.
Click to expand...

This is what FPC has been waiting for. They’ll be taking this to the USSC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top