Fine. I’m only going to go so far in defending him. For a lawyer, he’s remarkably bad at laying out a logical case if you ask me.
He was still subject to quite the pile on, considering he’s probably right on the facts.
Which facts?
His original stated “facts” that states “typically” get around extra-territory restrictions by defining the crime as that which happened in their own jurisdiction? Or his later stated facts that states have a constitutional right to pass any dumb law they choose?
Because on the first assertion, he is wholly wrong – and that’s the one I was asking him to support.
ETA: All he had to do was admit that states do not typically pass such laws. He didn’t. He tried to double down.
That thread is a gold mine for the Dunning–Kruger effect. Just because one got an engineering degree it doesn’t make them master of all domains (engineers are by far the worst offenders).
I’m happy to posit you were the flawless in your posts in that thread. Others just piled on. People kept bringing up the strawman that you can’t stop people from going from one state to another, others just expressed disbelief that such a law could even be possible.
I just get sick of his “can’t dazzle 'em with brilliance so baffle 'em with bullshit” approach.
It was pure bootstrapping for him to pretend he was arguing all along that states have a constitutional right to pass whatever laws they choose, and it’s disingenuous as hell. That was not what drove my request for a cite. It was his garbage pretense that states do this stuff all the time. They don’t. Martin_Hyde says the same in one of his more recent posts in that thread.
Here’s the thing: States have typically ceded interstate issues to the Feds. That’s why the only examples being presented are based in federal law. It is novel, as Martin_Hyde points out, for a state to attempt to assert jurisdiction over conduct occurring in another state. Among many other dangerous – and at the moment, likely unconstitutional (Roe) precedents – the Texas law seeks to abridge the power of the Feds to maintain this distinction.
I am always, always open to being shown I am wrong and I certainly don’t claim any superior expertise in law to most lawyers. But UV resorted to simple misdirection, and as is often the case with him, it works.
Ahhh yes.
“Strawman”? I, for one, brought up the fact that freedom of movement between states has long been enshrined as a fundamental right in the US Constitution, and even before that, in the original Articles of Confederation, and by decades of precedent in the Supreme Court. That’s not a “strawman”, it bears directly on whether a law infringing that right is constitutional.
Not trying to drag the debate over here, but just wanted to address that one point.
Good, me neither.
Agreed with @MrDibble that he’s run the mods out of patience, as they gave him more than enough rope, but not that he’s melting down. Yet.
Once they get to the point they start taking proactive action, like a cooling off suspension or a temporary topic/tactic ban, then he’ll start melting down.
Then again, back at #638 he’s gotten a lot worse, and IMHO more obvious, causing me to slap an ignore on him. And that such a pattern has lead to flame outs and bans before. May it come soon.
That right there is textbook concern trolling from UltraVile. The disingenuous line of arguments about how oh so sincerely worried he is that this reactionary candidate might win and oh those poor French liberals might not see it coming because they’re so meeeeeaaann to all the racists who would support a candidate like her that the racists just clam up and don’t respond honestly to polling. If only racists could air their views openly, we could totally dissuade them of their bigotry. But instead they’ve become a silent majority while relegated to the shadows…for now.
SMDH
Here’s what worries me.
UltraVile has an appalling legal mind. Unfortunately, so do lawmakers and judges in Texas, and so does most of the US Supreme Court as well now thanks to the depredations of the GOP and the systemic failure of the Democratic Party to effectively manipulate the levers of power where and when they can.
So while things shouldn’t work the way Texas is trying to make them work, I fear they will. And UltraVile and likeminded bigots will be bouncing up and down with glee.
This is not normal.
Which thread are you talking about?
(Sort of off-topic for Pit thread. Click to show/hide)
I remember, I think when learning about federalism in high school, something about states passing laws against conspiracy to commit crimes in other states, and some sort of court case involving the conspiracy taking place over the telephone and which state has jurisdiction. Or maybe it was rules of evidence as to a telephone recording in criminal proceedings. Some states let you use recordings without all the parties consent and some don’t, so that could be an important issue in a criminal case which involves an interstate telephone call. I don’t remember exactly but I’ll look into it and maybe post in the thread. I did find this, which bears on your point,
Summary (click to show/hide)
OCE Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Servs., Inc., 760 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2000)
Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1997), states: “Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.” Section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1997), states: “It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in this state.” In both sections, the phrase “in this state” is placed so as to modify the terms “trade” and “commerce.” Thus, it appears from the plain language of the Antitrust Act that it is aimed at regulating trade or commerce that occurs in Florida, regardless of where the contract, conspiracy, or monopoly occurs. It is the effect on trade that must occur in Florida, not the actions giving rise to the effect on trade.
This reading of the Antitrust Act is supported by both federal case law and the case law of other states with antitrust statutes identical to Florida’s. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 796, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1993) (holding that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that produces some substantial effect in the United States); Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., 23 F. Supp.2d 959, 970 (E.D.Wis. 1998) (dismissing a case by a Florida plaintiff under the Wisconsin antitrust statute because there was no evidence of any adverse effect within the state of Wisconsin); Destec Energy, Inc. v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 5 F. Supp.2d 433, 464 (S.D.Tex. 1997) (holding that the plaintiffs could not sustain a claim under the Texas antitrust statute because there was no showing that Texas consumers suffered any adverse effects from conduct at issue), aff’d, 172 F.3d 866 (5th Cir. 1999); Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc., 37 Misc.2d 172, 237 N.Y.S.2d 795, 796 (1962) (holding that the New York antitrust statute did not apply to the plaintiffs case because the only adverse effects occurred in New Jersey).
And though the above cite was a civil case, these are crimes, according to Fla. Stat. 542.21(2),
Any person who knowingly violates any of the provisions of s. 542.18 or s. 542.19, or who knowingly aids in or advises such violation, is guilty of a felony, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1 million if a corporation, or, if any other person, $100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or by both said punishments.
Notably though the Florida AG is prohibited from taking action if there’s already a federal antitrust suit going on.
At a federal level off the top of my head the U.S. claims extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to sex offenses against children. In contrast I think I read the Supreme Court rule that Title VII did not apply to U.S. companies operating in foreign lands.
~Max
He’s doing the same thing with the insurrection as he did with the Russian attack on the 2016 election. He’s focusing on one tiny aspect of an enormous undertaking, and pretending like that accurately describes the whole thing.
The insurrection is described as people trespassing and breaking shit. This ignores like 95% of the insurrectionist activity. He will post this repeatedly despite being corrected.
With the 2016 election it was, “My understanding was that the Russians just put out garbage on Facebook and other social media.” This ignores like 95% of the insurrectionist activity. He posted this repeatedly despite being corrected every time.
I note he’s also doing the faux-innocent “Why would Disney care if we don’t teach sex ed to K-3 kids?” question, which ignores both the rather larger issues with what the law will do and why a sizable percentage of the public don’t want Disney to support it.
Considering that sex ed in those grades is mostly about recognizing, avoiding, and reporting sexual abuse, my question is why does @UltraVires not want kids taught about that?
Kind of (not really) miss Bricker for this sort of narrow, technically correct but morally repugnant arguing over legal points. He was a lot better at it. Never really fooled anybody but you rarely caught him making outright false or logically inconsistent/incorrect statements, unlike our at least theoretically learned colleague from West Virginia.
Hey now, respect the original thread title. I can’t remember if it was “West Virginia’s Dumbest Attorney” or “West Virginia’s Dumbest Lawyer,” but either way I think your statement only holds if it reads “unlike our least theoretically learned colleague from West Virginia.”
Because (gasp) the teacher might also acknowledge that Heather has two mommies.
My son had a friend in k-3 who DID have two mothers. We went out to pizza with them a couple of times, and one of the moms recommended a dentist with a good hygienist, whom we went to for years. Personally, I think the teacher shouldn’t be fired if a kid asks a question about that, and the teacher answers it. But hey, who am I?
Of course the teacher shouldn’t be fired. As long as their answer is to contact CPS and have the children taken away from a household living in sin, anyway.
/s in case there is any confusion there.