mokus

joined 1 year ago
[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 days ago

We’re setting up the “Mr Burns’ diseases” system. We’ll just have every constitutional crisis in existence all at once, and they’ll balance each other out! 🤦‍♀️

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don’t remember details but I feel like I read a while ago that there’s a pending amendment that some blue states want to de-ratify. If there’s open question about whether de-ratifying is a thing, then this might be a strategic move to get the courts to establish that it is.

Edit: looking up unratified amendments I see there aren’t that many and none seems to fit the description I was thinking of so I guess my memory is just wrong. But still I do wonder if it might just be a case of putting an old question to bed.

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Ligma grindset

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

My favorite ravioli is peanut butter filled pretzel bites

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Well his manifesto said it wasn’t terrorism after all. No reason to question such a fine upstanding citizen.

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

From the 1960s, it uses vacuum tubes and weighs 7 tons

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Clearly not, or you would know that Febreze and Snickers is far superior!

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Or he wants to go finish melting the rest of the ice faster

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago

Or cosmetic genital surgeries on intersex babies?

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

I’d vote for “unrelenting cunt but for the people”

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 month ago

Free speech is for nazis, as far as I can tell

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

It’s a consequence of how courts interpret this part of the US constitution. That provision was based on common law so i would imagine some other related legal systems might have something similar, at least historically.

In the context specifically of nullification, the CGP Grey video referenced by OP covers exactly this, but to summarize: the combination of that rule with another principle (that juries can’t be punished for their decisions) creates the concept of “nullification”. If the jury believes that a defendant is guilty but returns a “not guilty” verdict, the defendant walks and the jury can’t be held legally responsible either.

view more: next ›