What if Trump turns out to be a Lizard Alien from the planet Plumpto. Does he have any constitutional rights?
Naw, you see the “SDSAB” under his name? As our resident lawyer, he was asked to be the Board’s legal expert, to give his opinion/knowledge regarding the legal issues of the day. And, given the initials, he accepted.
All I am asking is why our resident legal expert avoids the numerous threads regarding the legal problems of our (R) President. If he didn’t have the title of being on our advisory board (I think that’s what the “AB” means… close enough, anyhow), I wouldn’t have posed the question.
After all, there was little the Obama administration could do w/o Bricker speaking of it. Elections, GD, the Pit… all of it covered. Nowadays, I wonder why his diligence seems to have wavered so that he has little to do except talk Colin K and various, minor, social issues cases.
That’s not remotely what the SDSAB is.
The Straight Dope Science Advisory Board consists of writers who authored columns answering various questions that Cecil punted for being too easy, too crazy, or too boring. There is no other nexus between the SDMB and the SDSAB other than the Straight Dope thematic connection.
AGAIN: what’s a question you believe I should weigh in on? How hard can it be to answer this?
Is it because most of the so-called “legal” questions are things that are so monumentally far-fetched that it doesn’t take an actual lawyer to answer them? Or maybe when someone such as Bricker does answer them, he gets met with a chorus of “It doesn’t matter what the law is, Trump is evil and Hitler incarnate!”?
I don’t agree with a lot of what he posts, but I’ve never had a problem with any legal analysis that he posts that I could actually understand. But if it were me, if my legal analysis was met every time with “You are monster who wants kids to die!”, I’d probably quit offering it as much as well.
What? No. “SDSAB” means he wrote a guest column for Cecil once. He is in no wise the “board’s legal expert,” and has zero responsibilities or duties to answer any question on the law, the legal process, or any given ongoing litigation in the public eye.
He is, however, required to answer all question related to Broadway musicals, or Ed has his house burned down.
We’ve had approximately a million resident lawyers. Honestly we may have had more lawyers than any other single profession on this board. Bricker is longer-tenured than many and more prolific than most, but we have had a billion lawyers. Possibly a trillion.
And as noted he is not our officially designated resident legal expert. He’s presumably just here to enjoy himself, same as the rest of us.
That is true. Ed’s a harsh taskmaster.
Are you kidding me? I’ve been begging Ed for some Broadway Musical questions, and all I get are vacuums and laundry!
Another piece of the waller.
Many of those threads are just “beat up on Trump” threads, with a side of dumping on Republicans. Bricker is no fan of Trump (from what I can tell), but the dumping on Republicans would get old, plus when he explained that, for example, collusion is not an actual crime, he would get dumped on as supporting Trump.
We have his attention – do you have a legal question regarding Trump for him?
Gotcha. I had thought, for years, that “SDASB” was reserved for those who had specialized knowledge re: a subject and, because of their participation here on those topics, gave them some sort of quasi-official status. Mea culpa.
And, no, there is no expectation that anyone is required to post in a thread. I just noted how odd it was how our resident legal eagle kept avoiding the topic of the biggest criminal investigation since Watergate. That’s all.
So, again – again again, actually – do you have some question about the Mueller investigation, or any other topic, that you wish to pose to me?
It will probably remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of our time.
Perhaps is because even Bricker can see that like John Oliver reports, this is Stupid Watergate, not because the scandal is dumb, but because Trump and his administration are weapon’s grade stupid.
Better to stand clear.How weird is it that Michael Cohen looks so much like Henry Winkler in Arrested Development?
Well I have some questions.
-
A train is barreling down on 3 illegal immigrants tied to the tracks. You are standing by a switch, which will divert the train to a second track with West Virginian coal miner attached. If you pull the switch, would that violate the Uniform Commercial Code?
-
A 2014 written contract between Trump and Putin emerges, where Putin agrees to provide secret support for Trump’s Presidential bid in exchange for the US engaging in trade wars with its allies, suspension of additional economic sanctions on Russia, and acquisance to closer ties with North Korea. Since it was written before Trump took office, would that violate the emoluments clause?
-
Trump orders a military parade, complete with rolling tanks carrying 40 foot portraits of himself and George Washington giving the thumbs up. Under such circumstances, what’s the best way to segue into a discussion of constitutional law?
shrugs
They’re both assholes.
I’m not a supporter of Bricker or the Orange Turd, and I see no reason to compare the two. No matter what you think of Bricker, pick any sentence. They all make some sense. None of the sentences tweeted by the Pumpkin Candle make any sense.
Bricker’s opinions may differ from the majority of Dopers, but his legal sense is something I actually look forward to in some cases. (No pun intended.) 
Fits with my favourite explanation for all that is happening.
An advanced alien race has watched our TV for years. There was some discussion among the group of aliens, who show an interest in our shenanigans, how much of what they see is human imagination and how much is our mode of dealing with (potential) reality.
And so, one day, one of them said: “Why don’t we find out?”
I’ve heard that the ratings have soured since then and a new pastime was created: reality director. Expect more to arrive soon.
Except for a personal habit and a couple issues, he’s pretty reasonable. Sometimes it gets tedious about his hanging on to matters of whether things are legal instead of whether they are right. Many things that aren’t right are legal. I chalk that one up to his profession. The issues on which he seems less receptive to other viewpoints are on immigration and abortion. One of course is a religious issue, the other seems to arise from how his family entered the US. Other than these sorts of things, he’ll generally argue reasonably and in good faith. He has changed his mind on gay marriage and did not vote for his party’s nominee in 2016, So on these merits I find him infinitely better than T***p or his supporters.