How long until Abbott pardons her and says she was acting in self defense and had a reasonable fear for her life?

Good guy with a gun only works in Hollywood. In real life, the cops are going to shoot the good guy with a gun because he's at an active shooting scene and he's holding a gun. The math, like most cops, is really pretty simple.

“It was kissing and petting and not intercourse, but it was wrong,” Morris said of the relationship to the Christian Post.

Is it really an allegation still when you are quoting him in the article admitting to it?

Novembern? Is this Jesus' sneaky way of saying never?

To paraphrase Clarence Darrow, I would never wish a man dead, but there are some obituaries that I very much look forward to reading.

It's Texas. He was probably shooting at a liberal. It's de facto legal there. The Governor just pardoned a convicted murderer. This Uber driver had posted on line and in text messages that he wanted to kill racial justice protesters, then drove to a protest. He then found an armed protester (again, it's Texas so of course there was one there), and got in an argument with him. Eventually, he got tired of waiting for the protester to point a gun at him so he could claim self defense and just shot the protester to death anyway. He was convicted and sentenced to jail. Abbott however, decided that that was unfair. He said, and this is a quote, “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground' laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.”

So you see, in Texas, shooting at people, even killing them, isn't apparently against the law if the people you are shooting at are liberals.

Her… now former … husband was 22 when he hit on her, a 16 year old, working at McDonalds. That is how they met.

Hey, I think it's important that we stick to facts here. Particularly when the facts are so very... I'm not sure what the term is. Let's just say that the facts are very Boebert.

First of all, he was 24 at the time and she was 17, and it wasn't a McDonalds, it was a bowling alley. Most importantly, I'm not sure it counts as 'hitting on her' when he took his dick out and flashed her and two other girls. He did time for it too, a whopping four days plus two years probation. It was after he got out that they got together. I guess it was a nice dick.

Anyway, just wanted to correct the record.

Not to speak for the other person but I feel the same way. His win in 2016 was a fluke.

It won't be a fluke, this time. Republicans in Red states have spent the last couple years ramming through laws making it harder to vote. And they will certainly be claiming massive fraud again, sans evidence, and tying up certification in their states for as long as possible giving SCOTUS the chance to step in like they did in Florida 2000 when SCOTUS handed the states votes to Bush.

Worse still, republicans in swing states have been trying to use the theory of the independent sate legislature to enact legislation granting themselves the power to overrule the will of the voters and award the state's electoral votes to the candidate of their own choosing. Don't shake your head too quickly at that idea. At least three members of SCOTUS support the idea.

Even so, three justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—have spent two years campaigning for the independent-state-legislature doctrine in judicial statements and dissents. None of those writings carried the force of law, but together they served as invitations for a plaintiff to bring them a case suitable to their purpose. A fourth justice, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a concurrence in which he invited the North Carolina Republicans in the Moore case to return to the Supreme Court after losing an emergency motion. Where John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett stand on the doctrine is unclear.

You can be certain that there will be lawsuits filed within hours of the election claiming fraud and that the legislatures in those states can name their own electors. I wouldn't even be surprised to see right wing terrorists attacking polling stations, disguised as AFTIFA of course, in order to give the legislatures ammo to support those efforts.

This could be the ugliest election in the history of this nation. The forces of evil are doing all they can to hand Trump another term.

Might be a little salty for some people, but fuckem…

Which, amusingly, is an apt summary of the article.

If she did it, the judgement would immediately be appealed and she would get her pee pee slapped hard and the judgement would be overturned. Maybe, if the gods are good, she'll be removed from the case. It seems unlikely that she will take that chance though since she can cause more delay by staying where she it, but who knows, she doesn't seem to be the sharpest crayon in the box so maybe she will do it.

The whole point of this is just to delay until the election when Trump, should he be reelected, can undermine the whole thing. It's clear that the attorney general can appoint a special council when an investigation by DoJ directly could present a conflict of interest. Making a bad ruling here might work for her though. Having the ruling appealed would certainly delay things at least a few weeks or a month and that could take us to the end of July before it was overturned and/or sent back down to her court.

If the appeals court does finally decide to give her the boot, it would take quite a while to get a new judge appointed and a new trial underway. There would be no chance of a decision before the election and that is the whole goal. Plus, then she'd probably be free to go on the right wing talk circuit and make piles of money while still supporting Trump.

Imagine how much differently the pandemic would have played out with Bernie at the helm. He wouldn't have thrown away the existing pandemic response plan that the Obama administration had left behind. He wouldn't have delayed the response to the emerging pandemic because it was primarily hitting areas governed by a different political party. He wouldn't have had the federal government seizing PPE equipment from states and businesses in order to redistribute it where it would do him the most good politically.

Millions of people would be alive today if Trump hadn't been in charge when the pandemic hit.

Trump’s energy in the meeting was also noticeably subdued, according to two people who were in the room. At no time during his remarks was there any noticeable applause for Trump, two attendees told CNBC.

This was in contrast to Trump’s meeting earlier in the day with House Republicans on Capitol Hill. Attendees at that meeting told CNBC that the former president was animated and engaged and that Trump received several rounds of applause in separate meetings Thursday with both House and Senate Republicans.

Guess the Adderall wore off and they didn't want to give him any more so near bed time.

Chevron deference <------- Non-ELI5

Not a law-talker type here, but essentially, when the legislature creates an agency like the FDA, it delegates powers to them to make rulings on certain matters but does not specifically legislate every decision that agency has to make. It says that the FDA can make rulings about drug safety, but it doesn't say explicitly what drugs the FDA can make decisions about.

In this particular case, the FDA has said that a drug, mifepristone, is safe and doctors can prescribe it to patients. The law suit claimed that the FDA overstepped it's authority because the legislature never explicitly gave the FDA the power to do that. This is a flawed argument because SCOTUS already decided, in the linked case above, that it was inappropriate for the court to substitute its own interpretation of a rule on an issue like this where the legislature gave an agency an implicit power to make such a decision as long as the agency's decision is reasonable.

That is the Chevron Deference. It means that the courts should defer to agency rulings when those rulings are reasonable even if the power to make the ruling is only implicitly granted to the agency.

I may not be dead on the mark here, but I think I'm fairly close. If not, I'm sure some real law-talker type will be along to correct me.

Maybe, but only until a power failure turns them into embryo mass murderers and bankrupts them.

Of course you have a dog in this fight, or you will at some point. Sooner or later these people will go after some right that you value personally.

I assume because he's a drug user that owns a gun and is thus guilty of the same crime.

Well that's going to stick in the craw of certain state legislatures when they try to overrule the will of the voters in the upcoming election.

If it applied to President, it would include Trump, unless I'm reading it wrong. Trump just turned 78, he will turn 81 in 2027, the year prior to the end of the term for which he'd be running.

That's a given, as far as I'm concerned. When someone tells me they think sexual orientation is a choice, I ask them, "When did you decide to be straight? Because if you chose to be straight, then you must have felt some attraction to the opposite sex. If not, then there was never a choice to be made."

It's peak Poe's Law or a variant maybe. No Onion article is so outlandish that it can't be mistaken for a legitimate story.