“The law is on the side of the criminals” because the law doesn’t make particular conduct illegal? Who are you, Richard Nixon running in ‘72? I thought we’d moved past this “fuck criminals, I want law and order mentality”

I’m not really sure what the defendants were thinking, but a lawyer can’t force a client to take a plea. Presumably, the lawyers were like “please god don’t take this to trial you idiot.” I guess some people might want to cling to the small chance of an acquittal

This is what I was thinking. There has to be some middle ground where you can make sure someone appears to testify while not throwing them in general population for a month

There’s no discrimination (as legally defined) taking place here, although I guess hostile environment would actually be his best argument. Probably not a winning argument, but not frivolous

Sue them for what? Hostile environment windows?

He’s giving an interview about a former client who is still involved in the legal proceedings for which he used to be counsel? Either this is gonna be the world’s most boring interview or he's committed a slew of ethical violations

So the first sentence makes this sound like evidence that gun laws are too lax/the second amendment is wrong/ordinary people shouldn’t have guns. But buried in the article is the CRUCIAL fact that the suspect stole a gun from a deputy just before he started shooting. Unless your argument is that law enforcement also…

I don’t know about Pennsylvania, but here in Arizona the defense has a right to interview all of the state’s witnesses under oath before trial. We passed a Victim’s Bill of Rights 25 years ago that allows the alleged victim to refuse a pre-trial interview. I assume Pennsylvania might have a similar procedure, and I…

I mean, the FBI director also said she was “extremely careless” and any competent person in her position wouldn’t have done what she did. His findings also plainly contradict the many defenses Clinton presented to the public. Shouldn't we talk about that when we decide if this person should be president?

I’d thought it was possible that Breyer would have upheld the law because he’s the justice most likely to defer to the legislature (seriously, that “breathtaking” 5th circuit reasoning sounds like Breyer in basically every case involving a regulation). My guess is that Kennedy might not like Roe v Wade/Planned…

I was hoping that Bill Cosby being charged with rape would make this defamation case (which I think could end up being one of the worst things to ever happen to the criminal justice system) go away. Guess not

People do, but only with certain types of crimes. There are two types of crimes, general intent and specific intent. Specific intent crimes require you to commit the crime for a specific purpose. For example, burglary is the unlawful entry into a dwelling with the intent to commit theft. Voluntary intoxication is a…

The problem wasn’t that the foreman had been sexually assaulted, it was that he had failed to disclose that fact (I think he might have affirmatively said he had never been sexually assaulted).

So the NRA supports not letting people on the terrorist watchlist buy guns? To get on the terrorist watchlist, you have to be a Muslim who looks “sketchy” to the FBI. Naturally, the NRA’s concession is “fine, we’ll take away guns from Muslims.”

Wait....is the suggestion that she is a hypocrite for not believing in gay marriage while also saying that gay people shouldn’t be murdered? Because that’s ridiculous. Seriously, that’s comically, ludicrously absurd, and it’s a good thing that people who don't believe that were around to convince people that gay…

Looking back to the article from when the mistrial was announced, it appears that the problem wasn't that there was a rape victim on the jury, but that the victim didn't disclose that he was (and might have directly lied when asked). That's a pretty big deal

Wait....are you arguing that the First Amendment requires the government to ensure the existence of the Internet and its accessibility to everybody? Because that’s a bold claim without support in current law or precedent, and would completely change the way we view Constitutional rights.

Clearly I don’t know enough about owning a website. But still, are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional for there to be no libraries with computers, and unconstitutional for there to be no free web-hosting services? Would people’s First Amendment rights be violated if they didn’t exist? If all the web-hosting…

That’s another one, although that’s a bit different because the right to vote is GRANTED by the Constitution, while the right to bear arms/free speech, etc. pre-exist the Constitution and are simply RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.

That’s not how constitutional rights work. They simply prevent the government from forbidding you from doing something (the only constitutional right that must be PROVIDED that I can think of is the right to a public defender). There is a right to freedom of the press; that doesn’t mean the government must subsidize…