Cut him some slack. Up till now everything been OK !
Why would he bother paying attention? He already knows that heâs going to vote for whichever side the RNC tells him to.
I donât think thatâs whatâs meant by âcompass and straight edge constructionâ 
4 Likes
A comedian would often say âWhy have both Scalia and Thomas on the Court? Why not just give Scalia 2 votes?â
Whatâs now actually happening here is fascinating: with Scaliaâs body decaying, his lich-form is gradually loosening its steely grip over Thomasâ will. Soon, he will be waking up, as if from a slumber of 30 years, and reveal himself to be the liberal lion of the SCOTUS.
5 Likes
This isnât a fight that Iâd have pushed forward beyond other gun rights arguments, but the point stands: is there another misdemeanor that results in a lifetime suspension of an enumerated civil right?
As I understand it misdemeanor domestic violence can be shouting at someone you live with. And the some states prosecute it regardless of the wishes and testimony of the injured party.
If the crime is heinous enough to be a felony, so be it. And with the Justice system under charging domestic violence offenders, I donât have a problem with this law. But is is an unusual punishment compared to other misdemeanors.
1 Like
Justice Clarence finally found the internet Google search of his name appealingâŚ
Hard to say unless youâre a legal scholar. Unfortunately, since 2008 we now have a freshly minted enumerated individual civil right, so this kind of mess is a result.
âScholarâ is overused these days, especially by tea party nuts.
1 Like
There are sentencing guidelines that have allowed Class A misdemeanors to result in a life sentence, I suppose. Not the same thing since the sentence would be dependent on previous convictions. A life sentence is effectively a lifetime suspension of a host of enumerated civil rights.
1 Like
Indeed, here are some citations to back you up.
Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding a sentence of fifty years to life under Californiaâs three-strikes law for stealing nine videotapes); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of twenty-five years to life under Californiaâs three-strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (per curiam) (upholding a forty-year sentence for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding a life sentence under Texasâs recidivist statute for obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses). And we and other courts have done the same. See, e.g., United States v. Tolliver, 730 F.3d 1216, 1230â32 (10th Cir. 2013) (upholding a 430-month sentence for using arson in the commission of a felony); United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a 750-year sentence for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 280; United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212â13 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding a fifteen-year sentence for advertising child pornography); United States v. Uphoff, 232 F.3d 624, 625â26 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding a five-year sentence for arson of a building).
2 Likes
Itâs not as onerous as all that anyway. I donât know of any misdemeanor anywhere that is excluded from offences that are pardonable, and a pardon restores gun-totin unless it specifically doesnât.
These guys in this case are effectively like:
âOh shit, I didnât realize that conviction from back then years ago meant I couldnât have all these guns, and here you cops have found all my guns!â
When what they shoulda been was like:
âI was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence equivalent charge, and was explicitly told that I could no longer possess firearms. I should consult an attorney, or a reference library or that new-fangled internet, to learn how I can have that right restored before I purchase a bunch of guns!â
These guys are tempesting all over the teacup cause Murica in my opinion. You lose a right via criminal conviction, itâs your responsibility to get it back, and since it can be done I find their complaints just admissions of ignorance or sloth.
5 Likes
If youâre caught riding your bicycle on the sidewalk, the Army can put up soldiers in your guest room.
4 Likes
The being teased for his dialect sounds like bullshit to me. He was probably being teased for what he was saying, not how he said it.
After all, the legal profession has a storied history of drawling Southerners.
8 Likes
I was fiddling with an erasable pen one day in English class, rolling the cap around the back of the pen. I noticed the plug was wiggling out of the back so I kept pushing it back in and rolling the cap around until it started to come out. After awhile it let out a loud pop, threw the cap out of my hand and the plug went flying around the room. I guess erasable ink is pressurized? I almost got sent to the office, but I think the teacher could tell I was totally surprised, and I didnât have a history of being disruptive.
3 Likes
Itâs a bit more complicated. Apparently if you can have your conviction vacated or expunged as if it never happened, not just pardoned, you can petition for your right to be restored. A really high bar that limits restoration to the rich.
Again, Iâm not terribly upset at this law. But from a Constitutional law point of view itâs unusual. The question asked was cogent and informative to the case.
Dang, that must have been weird to witness. Even Silent Bob usually gets at least one line in per movie.
2 Likes
Naw, a pardon will suffice. Expungement/vacated are higher bars, but a pardon will suffice. As well these rights can be automatically restored dependent on the state.
Yeah his question was on topic, but letâs be real, the law isnât one that specifies a lifetime ban, thatâs merely something that can happen dependent on the state where the offence occurs and/or the inaction of the convicted.
Lifetime ban isnât something Thomas mentioned, or anyone else involved, you got that in there friend.
Also the law specifies physical force or threat thereof, just shouting wouldnât cut it. Threats arenât just shouting by any measure, and physical force is just what it would seem to be, physical+force. Both the examples fromâŚMaine? was it? used force, for instance.
As for his question, the lawyer responded with examples relating to 1st amendment rights, you donât even need a misdemeanor conviction to have those suspended. Court orders, restraining orders, protective orders, thereâs plenty of ways to have those curtailed temporarily. The same instruments can suspend your right to gun totin too, hell a 72 hour letter can put you in restraints and drugged to oblivion, with no access to free speech, guns, and no way to know for sure if the Army hasnât taken up residence in your guest room as @L_Mariachi suggests can occur.
4 Likes
Oh and since lifetime is dispensed with, letâs not forget that the right to vote is for many groups in the US wrapped up in some 6 different amendments or more that, and that can be suspended on the basis of a misdemeanor conviction in some states.
So, for instance, a young would-be voter at being sentenced for a hot check might want to shout âThis is bullshit Judge, I didnât mean for it to bounce! It was just for 80 bucks! Iâm 18 tomorrow! Imma go vote for Gerald Ford and send him a letter saying what a fuckin asswipe you are!â
but the judge might respond âNot this time Champ, try maybe the next election, cause kiting a check is a crime of moral turpitude, so no voting for you for awhile, because of this Class C misdemeanor!â
Personally I think Thomas read that article the New Yorker had on him lately, and maybe was pining a bit for his pal Scalia, so he asked something Scalia might have. It wasnât all that, really
3 Likes
We actually (finally) managed to get my ADHD daughter accommodation to have Silly Putty or some sort of little fidget toy in class, so that she can pay attention.
6 Likes
Fred and Bill were shooting the breeze in his den when they hear a voice addressing them : âI need foodâ.Confused, they
look around to see no one but the dog. When they finally realize it was the dog they freak out and exclaim their disbelief while stating the obvious. âYou can talk? Why didnât you say anything before?â ⌠âYouâve never forgotten to feed me before.â
1 Like
