Greatoneshere

I heard there are good people, nice people, on both sides.

Sorry, I didn't fully understand that. What do you mean? This is the loophole I'm sure would be used when and if possible. But you can't pin like-for-like crimes in every instance, or even similar ones to force a re-litigation. It's something though.

Eh, I don't think so. We already have appellate review, I don't think it's hard to imagine allowing a state court to re-open a case using an appellate review process to re-litigate a case where something extreme happened that can't be re-litigated at the federal level (for whatever reason). I think it's dangerous to make the argument you're making because the need for re-litigation at different judicial levels has happened before and I like at least a window to remain open for that possibility. I doubt it could be abused, if legislated correctly. Highly suspect judicial cases do exist.

Think he's more paranoid now?

THE BEST FUCKING PEOPLE BRUH.

I bet you hate Dinesh D'Souza more than his whitey equivalents too!

No, I agree. I think extreme miscarriages of justice is a highly unique exception though. And with any rule, you have to account for exceptions. Nothing is 100% anything. With that being said, yes, for 99% of the time, the law should be changed for that to be the case.

While it is actually statistically rare (comparatively) in legal cases that the women falsely accused a man of sexual misconduct (usually they are found to be right), of course it does happen. And here's an instance.

Hey, I granted we've never achieved those ideals, but we had them. People believed in them. As I said, I've always been critical of the US. But there was a bent towards something resembling a positive direction. Now, we're actively in a negative direction. That is a big change, even if it seems small when written out.

To be clear, my issue isn't with double jeopardy. I actually agree with TwinIon and SFLUFAN that on its face, it shouldn't be possible (except in cases where an extreme misappropriation of the law or justice has occurred). But it's the timing. That's what gets me. Like with approving the Muslim Ban, it's like saying it should be legal "normally" so we'll make it legal "in this case" even though "in this case" IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. Meh. Fuggit I guess.

I am 100% sure that I am 0% proud to be an American. I used to be when I thought that to some degree we were the liberal, progressive ideal in the world. The "shining city on a hill". The "bring your meek, your poor, your huddled masses". Not overly proud, I've always been critical of America and its policies. But since Trump? This is next level. Nope. We're an actively "shithole country" now.

THE question every sane American has been asking themselves since other Americans have been taking Trump seriously (so, since 2015?). I never knew a portion of America was this dumb. It's been quite the wake up call for me these past 2+ years. I should have known after we elected Bush again in 2004 that, yep, Americans are this dumb.

I've been arguing this whole time that even if you don't care about undocumented immigrants, asylum seeking is a legal process and that is being denied undocumented immigrants as well, ripping families seeking asylum legally as well as actual "illegal" immigrants. Meanwhile, American citizens continue shooting and killing each other en masse.

Trust me, I'm not forcibly ignoring it. I've simply been trained well in the force to block things out that need blocking out.

As a Philadelphia native who lives here who loved The Fresh Prince (and Will Smith, but not so much anymore) growing up, this is cool.

Word.

Wow. Even I hadn't considered that possible. Welp, jig's up. After the shitty news of the last few weeks, it's clear. We lose. We lost. We never won. Let's get drunk.

More of this, please.

I am in agreement with all of that.

Movies like this are so unique but niche, I love it. Beyond the Black Rainbow was more film experience than me just watching a movie. It's great when you are in the right mood and mind set.

That's a hell of a showrunner/writer in Kyle Killen. Awake was incredibly good (never saw the other two shows he created, Lone Star or Mind Games). He also wrote the films The Beaver and Scenic Route, for what that's worth. Rupert Wyatt as pilot director is pretty great too (The Escapist, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Gambler). I'm tired of Halo games and that convoluted backstory/mythology it's created since Halo 4, but this has a lot of potential. I'm intrigued.

Beyond the Black Rainbow is one of my personal favorite trippy movies of all time. I am absolutely all fucking in for this. I hope it has the same composer and cinematographer of that film too.

Literally been saying this since my first post. Sanders, and people like her, are unique and thus completely different than any other example. It's our only way to shame our politicians into moral behavior, which is important in a democracy, which is why they are uniquely not protected, to indicate that: "hey, you can't eat here because you rip parents from kids" whereas in totalitarian states, people like Hitler and Goebbels and whoever else could walk into any restaurant and eat wherever they wanted. That's why it's allowed here, to keep them scared, in a way. It's the entire point of non-violent political protest. It's the same reason that you can yell shame at Kristjen Nielsen too. It's totally legal, and it should remain that way, for the above reasons. The cake one, totally different, and should be illegal, for reasons everyone previously outlined. Like I said, there's a reason the law separates private and public figures when it comes to libel and slander laws (there's even further breakdowns from there within those groups in the law, because it is important to have exceptions like Sanders, where you can refuse them service).

Precisely why it should (and basically is) illegal in the case of gay people, but isn't in the case of Sanders, exactly.

It doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a pattern of behavior for it to be bigotry, it's bigotry based on its type-ifying even if it is in one instance, that is, basing the refusal of service on the couples' grouping rather than their specific person that is in a uniquely protected way (as in, if they were public figures, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, and it was based on the politics they push, like Sanders does). One instance is enough for it to be illegal. Sanders is a unique case of political protest in which service refusal is protected.