Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification
Are these cases required to go to a state court before they’re presented federally?
While it’s good to know, It feels like it’s not relevant whether an individual state’s courts argue it, since foreign policy has to be handled on a federal level.
edit: I’m actually confused. It’s a federal court in California? what sway does it have typically?
What is the formatting used to denote strikethrough on lemmy? On Kbin it looks like it’s ignoring it, but it has double tilde as a supported strikethrough formatter.
Pretty sure they’re trying to make “we need more control over the internet” into a national security issue, similar to during the cold war. So basically tie him in with a party people in the US really dislike.
Should’ve gotten Cotton Hill. He’d be an asshole but at least he’d get the nationality right.
Pretty sure Cali wants nothing to do with Texas
I feel like every time someone says this, a federal employee should be allowed to audit the schools that person went to on how the fuck they messed up so badly teaching this failure.
Didn’t the animal tests lead to pretty bad deaths? And wasn’t that less than a year ago? I can’t imagine this going well.
Plus there was the blind-tech that was revealed not too long ago where now that they’re bankrupt the group is slowly going blind and worse. I feel like none of this is going to end well.
To be fair in Epsteins case his testifying could’ve probably put some people behind bars. This guy won’t have anymore information now that he’s been pulled away from the system.
deserves the maximum punishment
I literally said the punishment didn’t fit though.
He really shouldn’t. What the guy did was still legally wrong, and he probably knew it and weighed he would rather take jail time and commit it. A less scrupulous person could do worse things, which is why those laws are in place.
If he could somehow reduce the sentence that would be great, and if that is on the table he should, but some punishment should still occur.
He’s a vigilante hero for what he did, but vigilantes are still criminals. The main issue here is that the punishment is clearly wrong, and the message is wrong, as the judge seems to think this is paramount to treason, which it isn’t.
So the judge is in with trump. Hope none of his cases go that guys way.
Like yeah, he broke the law and needed to be punished. But it wasn’t government secrets, which i’m pretty sure is already legally coded separately from this guys crimes, and also neither of which are treason, which would be the capital attack.
So the guy blatantly spoke against his own legal experience for a political swing.
I mean, I already did. You just didn’t respond, Mr. Intelligence.
Why would he even need to read the article, if his entire post is responding to your counter arguments? You’re already a step past the article.
It would look less embarrassing if you didn’t actually write it, that’s how bad it is.
should’ve just admitted to chatgpt. That paragraph makes you look old and disconnected. You made a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know, and clearly don’t know the current age you’re in. It’s not entitlement or some need for instant gratification. People are actually getting less than they got when you started working. And generally a lot of jobs are also expecting more, especially now that computers allow for deeper, more analytical, and less empathetic tracking of employee activity.
So really you’re only playing moderator because you’re for it, and don’t want people to vote against it.
I mean,
If it stops the war let him do it for the wrong reasons.
I don’t think this will actually stop it, but i’m just saying.
You’ve never been in a car accident, but car accidents do happen, and frequently enough that there’s still a very good chance it will one day effect you.
The same is not true for your election logic.
So…did they investigate uvalde yet or no?