I agree that the insurrectionists aren’t countercultural rebels, but the extreme ends of the new right have very much adopted tactics favored by the new left and countercultural movements, including claiming that status, however dubious. I argue against that when racists try to claim that space as punks.
The author is wrong about the BLM protests being riots, of course.
I’m generally opposed to giving people charged with trying to overthrow the election of a president permission to leave the country. Flight risk. There’s plenty of places they can visit within the US.
Same here. I’m more opposed to the blatant inequality and supremacist attitudes on display, though. A few judges have made a point if raising the issue and ruling accordingly. The rest are enablers who not only give the defendants and their supporters the idea that these folks weren’t really wrong, but also the opportunity to do it (or worse) again.
Although rebellion and insurrection charges are rare, they should be taken very seriously, as should any criminal charges you may be facing. You have a number of rights under the law, but some of these can be waived if not exercised properly. Contact a local criminal defense attorney today who can better explain your rights, your options, and the best defense strategy for your case.
Hmm. I like to view dictionary entries as gestalt entities-- each sense provides a clue to how the whole concept operates, and judges picking and choosing one sliver of a sense to justify their conclusion in law irritates me…
Antonin Scalia once wrote a law review article on using dictionaries in law.
Here, he quite sensibly advocates unabridged dictionaries.
The bigger problem with citing a 1954 case in which Puerto Ricans were convicted of sedition is that the courts (particularly the Warren Court) may have changed how such crimes were defined. Otherwise, the demonstrations against the Vietnam War would have generated a massive amount of “relevant” caselaw.
I’m not saying using Black’s is correct, particularly not by itself. But that is the go-to dictionary for legal definitions. Responsible judges usually do use several dictionaries.
As for Scalia’s take on dictionary use- he was undoubtedly a brilliant man. But he also had some very fundamental flaws in his legal reasoning and view of what the law is and what it is for. The law article you cite is interesting but I would take anything Scalia said with a couple pounds of salt.
The Alaska Court System fired the state’s longest-serving magistrate judge on Wednesday after he wrote a letter to the editor saying that the Republican Party “is actively trying to steer the U.S. into an authoritarian kleptocracy.”
Jail time for somebody? Anybody? …. Bueller?