bwkemper.bsky.social
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
2,215 posts
169 followers
56 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
The stay was denied.
comment in response to
post
Nope, the law expressly gives that power to district courts and gives the government the ability to appeal. That has always been the law.
comment in response to
post
Or he’s saying the courts shouldn’t even try because of that.
comment in response to
post
You’re ignoring the fact that, in the hypo and in real life, the government is asserting the unconstitutional policy is constitutional.
That’s why they have been taken to court.
comment in response to
post
Ha!
Suddenly you change your opinion simply because that’s what Trump is arguing.
Completlely as expected.
comment in response to
post
Even if they weren’t they are still part of interstate commerce in several ways including that they are built and sold across state lines.
comment in response to
post
In this case, Trump is arguing it should only apply to the plaintiffs and no one else.
Further, we have four different appeals courts uphilding the nationwide injunctions issued by the district courts.
comment in response to
post
Apparently he didn’t like my questions because he blocked me.
comment in response to
post
“we were” not “wee we’re”
comment in response to
post
A) what terrorism statute are specificallly talking about?
B). it’s not 2332a which wee we’re discussing which did not have motive as an element.
comment in response to
post
I’m not looking to gatekeep as to who real Christians are and who are not.
Every group picks and chooses what parts they follow or not, or how to interpret passages.
I’m just pointing out that some Christians’ morals are in direct conflict with Christ’s more central teachings.
comment in response to
post
The other thing is that I don’t think any of the legal folks made a prediction what SCOTUS will do.
I think we all have beliefs about what they are likely to do and should do under the law, but not what they will do.
comment in response to
post
Good thing you added the part re views “similar to your own”, because I don’t think a ban on Christianity would actually impact the views he espouses.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Also the reason you’re not getting into the “niceties” of past opinions is because such opinions explain why the injunctions are used and needed.
You want to avoid that and instead rely on why you think is “common sense.”
comment in response to
post
FFS, he claimed a gag order on Trump was unconstitutional because you can’t stop a defendant talking about a witness. Such orders are routinely upheld as part of judiciary discretion to ensure the integrity of the legal system.
He just says outrageous shit so Fox will pay him to say them
on air.
comment in response to
post
Holding him up as a credible “legal scholar” is create laughs for those who actually have a grasp on the law.
comment in response to
post
And other legal scholars, SCOTUS, and both conservative and liberal justices disagree.
And Alan Dershowitz went off the deep end years ago.
comment in response to
post
No, you are not. Because such foundations are based on the “higher principles of law” you admit to have no interest in.
As well as no interest on in actual SCOTUS and lower court decisions that contradict your assertions.
You’re just spouting platitudes and think those are “the foundations.”
comment in response to
post
Yet, you claim to know what district courts can or can do with regard to gov’t actions.
And our point all along has been that your “predictions” and assertions about US law are worthless because you have no grasp on such law.
And it won’t be the “law of Christ” that SCOTUS will look at.
comment in response to
post
Bingo.
And 2332a doesn’t have that problem just like arson in interstate commerce doesn’t.
comment in response to
post
“destruction” not “discussion.”
comment in response to
post
I was going to screenshot the group of examples but the screenshot would have been too big.
Instead I linked to the start of the examples.
comment in response to
post
And my posting of that one skeet was about providing the first of several examples to make sure you saw ALL of the examples given.
comment in response to
post
Because your tweets clearly ignored points made and you admitted before that you missed the points.
That’s not childish, that’s pointing to admissions of mistakes in the past and making sure you’re not repeating them.
comment in response to
post
I was thinking similarly or about deference that does occur but is rebuttable.
His use would mean such deference is more like submission.
comment in response to
post
And you don’t realized that such admitted lack of interest in the law totally undermines your assertions about what SCOTUS will do or what conservatives judges have not done?
comment in response to
post
None of them are. They may make fun of your arguments since they have no legal
basis and you display mistaken confidence in your arguments.
But that is not “trolling or arguing in bad faith.”
comment in response to
post
And violation of 2332a is not for “domestic terrorism” or any kind of terrorism.
It punishes the action and not any “speech” that may be behind the action in the exact same
way that arson in interstate commerce does.
comment in response to
post
flag to protest the gov’t because the statute expressly criminalizes the speech involved.
comment in response to
post
In the a variation of the example you gave, if a person burns someone else’s American flag to start a fire with it to protest something, they can be charged with arson, theft, and property discussion.
1A is only implicated if he’s charged with under a statute criminalizing burning an american ..:
comment in response to
post
Like Trump and his supporters did with the NY charges, he’s conflating several different theories, including malicious prosecution, and not understanding any of them.
comment in response to
post
could use the same motive to bring the arson charge as well and it would still stick.
Also a # of people argued the J6 charges were brought with the same motive by Biden’s DOJ.
It didn’t matter b/c the charges still targeted the criminal actions and not the underlying motive for the actions.
comment in response to
post
His motive doesn’t matter if the underlying crime still fits.
Trump made the same argument against the NY falsification charges and lost. The fact that the prosecutor may have an improper motive is irrelevant if the charges are actually punishing the action, which this still does.
Trump’s DOJ …
comment in response to
post
A host of crimes that punished the actions but not the speech, including assault in police officers, unlawful entry, threats, weapons crimes, and others.
1A did not prohibit any of them.
comment in response to
post
A defendant having a motive of using a destructive device to protest something can still be charged under 1A for using the device.
You’re bringing up 1A when it’s irrelevant.
comment in response to
post
People protesting on J6 who committed violent crimes and were convicted of such actions and 1A was not implicated at all in the cases.
comment in response to
post
“Protests” are irrelevant. The action is still criminal
whether it takes place doing a protest or not.
And there was a domestic incident in there.
comment in response to
post
And no. it’s not treading on First Amend’t ground at all.
It’s idiotic to claim it.
Charging him with this crime does not violate 1A at all. It’s punishing the action, not the motive for the action.
comment in response to
post
But it’s not novel as shown by the numerous examples.
FFS, you thought that Tesla cars sold in state were not involved in interstate commerce and yet you think when usage is novel or not?
It’s not.
comment in response to
post
A) Yes, and your reply had no merit since as I stated, the statute by its terms is not limited to international terroism.
B) In you click on the sheet, you’ll find of other examples, including a domestic one.
comment in response to
post
And as a lawyer I know very well when distinctions are relevant and important and when they are “distinctions without a difference.”
The latter describes the “distinctions” you are making.
comment in response to
post
The “law” is the the statute itself and does not make the distinction you claim here.
“Distinctions” are only important legally when the law recognizes the distinction.
It doesn’t here.
Your First Amendment example is therefore a poor analogy.
comment in response to
post
Further, you claimed that its use is a “reach” but the statutes application isn’t theoretical.
It defines in part “destructive device” which molotov cocktails fall into by statute.
Putting the two together isn’t a reach legally by any means.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/dbee...
comment in response to
post
To rephrase a precious question, did you miss the examples given or are you skipping them?
comment in response to
post
The fact that the statute has been used against international terrorists doesn’t mean it can’t be used against domestic defendants when the statute makes no such distinction.
comment in response to
post
Why did you ignore his question?
You’ve been wrong twice now, regarding the interstate commerce angle and molotov cocktails being WMDs.
Do you really want the strike-out?
comment in response to
post
If the statute doesn’t require proof of such ties as an element of the crime, then such ties are legally irrelevant to a prosecution under the statute.
comment in response to
post
“How it is handled” doesn’t mean the statute doesn’t cover the incident in question.
When by its very terms it clearly does.