kandoras t1_jbo2dbb wrote

>Republican Sen. Adam Lowe of Calhoun. ”... There’s a reason why we’re judged by 12 of our peers in a jury and there’s a reason, I think, why Christ walked with 12 of his disciples.”

The Tennessee state senate has 33 members.

I doubt we'll see this guy volunteering to quit his job so that state government is mor Christ-like.


kandoras t1_j9oieio wrote

There are precedenrs saying that satire is covered by the first amendment.

However, there are no court cases where the police have been told that satire is covered by the first amendment. And therefore they get qualified immunity.

And the real shit cherry in top of this feces pie? This case doesn't establish that precedent either.

These rulings merely say that the cops have immunity because they are ignorant, by doesn't actually say that they are not allowed to arrest someone for satirical facebook pages. So they're free to violate the exact same rights again and would have immunity that time too.

And as exact as qualified immunity exceptions have to be, even if it was rules that facebook satire isn't covered, that precedent wouldn't apply to a satirical Myspace page.


kandoras t1_j64jme0 wrote

I don't like the wording of the Supreme Courts ruling either, but it is what it is.

They decided that only punishments which were both cruel AND unusual were unconstitutional. A punishment which was only one and not the other is legally acceptable.

So yes, imprisonment is not unusual, so no matter how cruel it may be, the conservatives on the court have ruled that it is acceptable.


kandoras t1_j63dx6j wrote

> Cruelty in punishment is unconstitutional

Technically, per a Supreme Court ruling, the 8th Amendment treats the "and" in "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." as a boolean operator.

Punishments which are merely cruel but not unusual, or unusual but not cruel, are constitutional. It's only a problem when it's both cruel and at the same time unusual.


kandoras t1_j2yfnnj wrote

You don't need to understand crypto to be able to follow what he did.

He created two companies; FTX was a ponzi scheme and Alemeda siphoned the money people invested in FTX into their own accounts. Then, eventually and like happens with all ponzi schemes, the house of cards fell apart.

It's not really any more complicated than that.


kandoras t1_iy81sor wrote

>Randy Cox, 36, was being driven to a New Haven police station June 19 for processing on a weapons charge when the driver braked hard, apparently to avoid a collision,

According to the cops, who apparently did not have a dashcam on that vehicle and so the only evidence of that potential collision is a camera the driver was apparently wearing on his dick since the only thing it sees is the steering wheel.

And then a half dozen cops take a guy with neck injuries and throw him all over the place, insuring that if wasn't completely fucked before, he was now.