Listen now | California sues to block the activation of the National Guard in Los Angeles; 'Don't talk to the cops' includes not yelling in their faces; do not order the 'Iced In Tea Fada'
Trump is setting the world on fire, and somehow you guys don’t cover reality show star defamation by implication case about reality star husband’s penis not working? What is happening to this podcast?
Name a more iconic duo than screwing up cases and Pam Bondi. I'll wait.
First, she accused Kilmar of a bunch of things that weren't in the indictment. Then she said/implied that the suit against the coffee shop was related to the drink names.
What a lot of people miss with this is, as Ken points out to some degree, as soon as POTUS federalizes the National Guard, for all intents and purposes they are no longer the National Guard. They are now effectively no different than someone in the Army or whatever. They are now a federal employee legally and are bound by all federal statutes and jurisprudence. Which means posse commitatus completely applies. They cannot legally function as law enforcement unless POTUS then takes the next step and activates the Insurrection Act
Hoping the judiciary will clean up these legal ambiguities is not how we are supposed to work. Courts rule on law. But if we want good definitions of things it’s supposed to be our legislature leading that charge. Ours just mostly sucks. It’s abrogated so much of its authority to POTUS over the years and that puts on more firmly on the path to authoritarianism. Putting too much power in the hands of one man is never a good idea, no matter if it’s a D or R behind their name.
Exercising civil disobedience? What on earth does that mean, and what legal privileges does "civil disobedience" enjoy? I think you're confusing a book title with a legal doctrine.
who said it enjoys any legal privileges? Ken described Huerta's recorded actions as "classic civil disobedience" (a verifiable statement regardless of any law) and immediately followed with the clarification that "often" the point of such is to "violate the law"...
unless your comment was a reply to someone I've muted - in which case, never mind.
I missed the part that the civil disobedience was "classic", meaning that there's a more modern kind of civil disobedience. My understanding is that "civil disobedience" is a moral argument, that the people sharing my jail cell are bad, bad people, but I'm good in spite of the charges that I'm facing because I broke the law for a good reason.
Ken and Josh,
Trump is setting the world on fire, and somehow you guys don’t cover reality show star defamation by implication case about reality star husband’s penis not working? What is happening to this podcast?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.336579/gov.uscourts.gand.336579.12.0.pdf
Name a more iconic duo than screwing up cases and Pam Bondi. I'll wait.
First, she accused Kilmar of a bunch of things that weren't in the indictment. Then she said/implied that the suit against the coffee shop was related to the drink names.
Defense attorneys must love to see her coming.
What a lot of people miss with this is, as Ken points out to some degree, as soon as POTUS federalizes the National Guard, for all intents and purposes they are no longer the National Guard. They are now effectively no different than someone in the Army or whatever. They are now a federal employee legally and are bound by all federal statutes and jurisprudence. Which means posse commitatus completely applies. They cannot legally function as law enforcement unless POTUS then takes the next step and activates the Insurrection Act
Hoping the judiciary will clean up these legal ambiguities is not how we are supposed to work. Courts rule on law. But if we want good definitions of things it’s supposed to be our legislature leading that charge. Ours just mostly sucks. It’s abrogated so much of its authority to POTUS over the years and that puts on more firmly on the path to authoritarianism. Putting too much power in the hands of one man is never a good idea, no matter if it’s a D or R behind their name.
C'mon man
You didn't get into the meat of much.
Chew the fat.. on that note , love ya
Exercising civil disobedience? What on earth does that mean, and what legal privileges does "civil disobedience" enjoy? I think you're confusing a book title with a legal doctrine.
who said it enjoys any legal privileges? Ken described Huerta's recorded actions as "classic civil disobedience" (a verifiable statement regardless of any law) and immediately followed with the clarification that "often" the point of such is to "violate the law"...
unless your comment was a reply to someone I've muted - in which case, never mind.
I missed the part that the civil disobedience was "classic", meaning that there's a more modern kind of civil disobedience. My understanding is that "civil disobedience" is a moral argument, that the people sharing my jail cell are bad, bad people, but I'm good in spite of the charges that I'm facing because I broke the law for a good reason.