- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
LawTalkingGuy
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 117 |
| Registered on: | 3/19/2025 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Forum
Message
re: Should the status of Warnock and Ossoff be in question?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/23/25 at 1:43 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
Decision makers familiar with the voting and counting process anticipated fraud was highly possible, unless procedures were put in place to prevent it.
The procedures for signing yhe tapes are just to ensure the electronic vote tallies accurate, not to prevent fraud. Since there were multiple hand recounts of the paper ballots, the electronic tallies are kind of moot. If there had been some huge discrepancy between the original electronic totals and the hand recount totals, then there would be an issue.
1
re: Should the status of Warnock and Ossoff be in question?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/23/25 at 1:38 pm to bbvdd
quote:
GA Code § 21-2-386 A-1-c
That statute is for absentee votes. The recent admission from Fulton County relates to early in person voting, so that statute clearly does not apply.
I realize there are also issues with mail in ballots, but try to keep the issues straight.
re: Fulton County admits they did not follow the rules.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/22/25 at 1:11 pm to loogaroo
quote:
What about this:
What you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with the hand recount of the paper record.
The daily tabulations for early in person voting were not properly authenticated. But the totals all matched up and were verified in multiple hand recounts.
re: Fulton County admits they did not follow the rules.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/22/25 at 12:29 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Right. It’s just a “clerical error”
Call it whatever you want. The error here involved the tabulation of the ballots, not the ballots themselves.
This current story is about early, in person voting. No one is claiming the votes themselves were improper. The tabulation of the votes were not properly authenticated.
Fortunately, in Georgia, the electronic voting machines produce a paper record that the voter double checks before putting that record in a secure box. Multiple hand recounts of the paper records have confirmed the Fulton County vote tabulation was accurate.
Potentially fraudulent mail in votes or whatever are not part of this current story.
No laws were broken, but the poll workers failed to follow proper procedure, and Fulton County is likely to face substantial fines.
But this particular story is not the election fraud bombshell people are hoping for.
re: Fulton County admits they did not follow the rules.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/22/25 at 12:12 pm to Placekicker
quote:
Counting 315k illegal ballots that were counted the first time, and subsequently recounting and recounting the same fraudulent ballots doesn’t change anything.
You really don't understand what this is about. This story does not involve fraudulent ballots
re: Why hasn’t anyone been arrested for the 2020 rigged election?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/19/25 at 2:01 pm to Errerrerrwere
(No Message)
re: Why hasn’t anyone been arrested for the 2020 rigged election?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/19/25 at 10:47 am to monsterballads
quote:
There were definitely some shady actors involved in the 2020 election that had agendas and manipulated the system
I think there was mostly simple incompetence. Our election system has been sloppy and haphazard forever, but elections usually are not close enough for the incompetence to matter. Most of the highly contentious, razor thin margin elections are local, and dont result in massive changes to the system.
The 2000 election revealed the flaws in our system, along with the surprising revelation that it is virtually impossible to accurately count a couple million votes, even using computers.
While Florida was being embarrassed nationally, other states were looking at their own voting systems and realizing changes needed to be made. We still haven't eliminated the flaws, though.
The 2000 election caused Georgia to make massive election changes, including the shift to computerized voting machines. Bush won Georgia easily in 2000, but they realized the statistics in their voting results looked way worse than Florida's.
re: Trump knows he cannot run for reelection
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/19/25 at 9:17 am to Tiger1242
quote:
They’ve got a word for someone seizing power without an election and that word is not President
I was talking about succession. So, if a two term President was serving as, say, Speaker of the House, and some series of events caused the Presidency and Vice Presidency to be vacant, then the 22nd Amendment would not prevent the Speaker from taking the seat.
I wasn't advocating for a two term President to just declare an emergency or anything like that.
re: Why hasn’t anyone been arrested for the 2020 rigged election?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/19/25 at 8:00 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
I just provided statistical evidence and I'm not going to listen to a video explaining your point for you.
You provided a drawing, based on no data or anything.
re: Trump knows he cannot run for reelection
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/19/25 at 7:37 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
"By two terms, does the 22nd mean limiting to two total terms, or limiting to two consecutive terms?"
You should probably read the 22nd Amenment before trying to comment on it. It doesn't say anything about serving "two terms".
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
The Amendment intentionally leaves room for a two term President to serve again in an emergency situation, they just can't be elected again.
However, there is no ambiguity regarding consecutive terms or whatever. One cannot be elected more than twice.
re: Serious question about Rob and Michelle Reiner on something they did
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/16/25 at 1:07 pm to 4LSU2
quote:
I know I damn sure could not and would not ever sit by and watch either of my children live homeless.
I can only assume you have never dealt with drug addiction in your family.
It sucks...it really, really sucks...but eventually the parents of drug addicts all figure out the best thing they can do for their addicted child is nothing at all. Let them live on the street, doing unthinkable things, until they realize they need help with their addiction.
You can send them for treatment all you want, but nothing works until they want help.
re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/7/25 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Illegals" didn't exist as a concept when the 14A was drafted.
We had open borders. The real restrictive immigration laws that created the concept of "illegals" didn't occur for decades.
This is the real issue to me. When the 14th was ratified, it clearly granted citizenship to anyone born on US soil, other than Indian reservations. The children of immigrants were intentionally included.
Decades later, immigration laws were enacted, and we began to see a new class of resident, the "illegal immigrant". The question, of course is whether the 14th grants citizenship to the children of this new class of resident?
Like it or not, I think it has to. Congress cannot change the meaning of the Constitution by passing new laws.
Prior to the immigration laws being enacted, if a Mexican couple wandered across the border and took up residence in the US, then the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to their children. So there shouldn't be any way for Congress to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants by passing immigration laws
re: Bessent says administration can replicate tariffs if they lose at the Supreme Court
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/4/25 at 12:31 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
Here's a crazy reality... You can't pass anything in Congress without some Democrat votes. AND the Senate is controlled by GOPe/uniparty/RINO never-Trumpers
Well, are tarrifs the answer or not? Use a little leadership and deal making to convince Dems and Never Trumpers to go along. Maybe Compromise here and there. That is how our government used to function. We have data points right now to judge whether these tarrifs are useful.
If tarrifs are some critical necessity, then nuke the filibuster to get them.
If Congress won't go along, then maybe our Country doesn't want these tarrifs. And that would be something to consider
Honestly, I think Trump should be doing both. Seek legislation, but also use existing legislation to do what he reasonably can.
But dont use the inefficiency of Congress to bypass the Constitution. Congressional inefficiency is a feature, not a bug.
re: Bessent says administration can replicate tariffs if they lose at the Supreme Court
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/3/25 at 11:02 am to bigjoe1
Here's a crazy idea: Just get your GOP majority Congress to pass the tarrifs, along with granting you the authority to adjust the Congressional tarrifs based on negotiations with foreign countries. Exactly what Our Constitution intended.
re: Trump announces autopen pardons are “null & void”
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 12/3/25 at 10:58 am to hawgfaninc
He can arrest people, I guess, but they can still choose to use their pardon as a defense. Then a judge will decide if they are valid.
re: What would stop a school with huge donors from having a 100,000,000 dollar NIL fund?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 2:26 pm to Alatgr
quote:
It’s gonna be cool when they impose a salary cap so we will basically just be watching the NFL in different uniforms.
We essentially are there. This revenue sharing nonsense is a salary cap, they just don't call it that because they refuse to admit it is pay for play.
The NIL Clearinghouse is supposed to prevent NIL deals from secretly being pay for play deals, which is the same thing the pro leagues do.
The difference in college, though, is these Collectives. They are basically allowing a fan club to pay athletes NIL money to endorse the fan club. Those are clearly pay for play deals, except that the athletes have to actually participate in marketing to get the money.
re: The Athletic posts an article on the history of Lane Kiffin's job changes
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 2:20 pm to atxfan
He got on Pat Hayden's last nerve.
They finished 2012 with a 7-6 record aftercstarting the seadon ranked #1 in both polls. They then opened the 2013 PAC season with ugly losses to Washington State and Arizona State. He was not allowed on the team bus after the ASU loss, but I'm not sure anyone ever explained why firing him became so urgent.
They finished 2012 with a 7-6 record aftercstarting the seadon ranked #1 in both polls. They then opened the 2013 PAC season with ugly losses to Washington State and Arizona State. He was not allowed on the team bus after the ASU loss, but I'm not sure anyone ever explained why firing him became so urgent.
re: What would stop a school with huge donors from having a 100,000,000 dollar NIL fund?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 2:06 pm to Cell of Awareness
quote:
They do not want Congress to start thinking about legislation,
"Start" thinking? The SCORE act is already working its way through committee. It essentially codifies the House settlement, and gives anti trust protection to the schools and conferences as long as they follow the rules.
I don't know if its a good idea to codify this system before we know if it works....but the anti trust exemption is a good thing.
re: Find it hard to believe OM can pay 30-40MM in NIL
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 1:55 pm to Billy Mays
quote:
Ole Miss had a $10-15M roster last year when there was no rev share.
And failed to make the playoffs
re: Is Sexton manipulating a deal to ger Kiffin to Alabama?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 1:50 pm to TigerGrad03
quote:
Sexton wants a client at all major football programs. He wouldn’t shite on his relationships at OM, LSU, and UF.
He already has.
And the big money guys in Tuscaloosa don't want Kiffin.
re: What would stop a school with huge donors from having a 100,000,000 dollar NIL fund?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 1:49 pm to extremelsu
quote:
NIL fund is kind of gone. Rev share now
Third party NIL is still the primary force. The Collectives were given the right to keep paying players to advertise for the Collectives. So, they can pay an athlete to, say, sign autographs at an alumni fund raiser, even though the funds are being raised for the Collective.
The limitation is the contracts have to be fair market value. I don't know what FMV for an autograph signing like above would be, but it probably isn't $500K. To spend the money on these athletes they have to organize a TON of marketing scenarios.
re: What would stop a school with huge donors from having a 100,000,000 dollar NIL fund?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 1:44 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
0 chance this holds up in court when challenged.
Its already been approved by a court. Its the result of a settlement of a class action lawsuit over restrictions on NIL payments.
The athletes opt in to the settlement agreement in order to get paid, and in doing so they waive any anti trust claims they may have relating to NIL payments.
Its not likely to be challenged until some attorney convinces a hot shot Freshman athlete to opt out of the settlement and bring a lawsuit.
Even then, if he is successful, he will just be paving the way for future athletes...the ones who have already opted in will be stuck.
re: Does LSU/OM/UF current rosters play into Lane’s decision?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/20/25 at 9:19 am to Demonbengal
quote:
Doubtful. With nil/portal you can bring in an all new roster. If it’s Kiffin he’s probably bringing on of his QB’s with him
This is what people seem to overlook. He can bring just about anyone he wants from UM with him.
re: Kiffin is under an extended contract already to OM.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/18/25 at 10:29 am to Crappieman
I've never read Kiffin's contract, but thevwaybI understand his automatic extension is that it doesn't kick in until Jan.1. He earned it with his seventh victory, but its not effective until Jan. 1, and either party can cancel the extension with notice.
Not really relevant, anyway. His buyout remains the same, and they need a whole new contract in order to give him a raise.
Not really relevant, anyway. His buyout remains the same, and they need a whole new contract in order to give him a raise.
re: Early Termination Clause Question for the Legal Minds of the TD.
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/18/25 at 9:33 am to Crappieman
If a coach, or university, wants to terminate a contract early, they can. If there is no provision for early termination then one party may be in breach of the contract. Breach of contract might sound bad, but legally anyone can choose to breach a contract.
If you do breach a contract, though, you have to make the other party financially whole. And the question becomes what is a fair value to pay when one party breaches an employment contract like this via early termination.
And that's where the buyout clauses come in. They are actually liquidated damages clauses. The parties are agreeing that the damages for early termination are hard to measure, and so they go ahead and state what each party has to pay.
You can't force someone to work for you if they don't want to. If a coaching contract has no buyout or early termination provision, the coach can still walk out and go coach somewhere else. But the school would then have to sue them and prove how they are financially damaged.
Some contracts can require specific performance, forcing the breaching party to go ahead and comply, but employment contracts like this would not fall into that category.
Now, a school could try to slip in a non-compete clause, attempting to prevent a coach from working at a rival school for a year....but I don't think it would be enforceable, and no coach would sign it anyway.
If you do breach a contract, though, you have to make the other party financially whole. And the question becomes what is a fair value to pay when one party breaches an employment contract like this via early termination.
And that's where the buyout clauses come in. They are actually liquidated damages clauses. The parties are agreeing that the damages for early termination are hard to measure, and so they go ahead and state what each party has to pay.
You can't force someone to work for you if they don't want to. If a coaching contract has no buyout or early termination provision, the coach can still walk out and go coach somewhere else. But the school would then have to sue them and prove how they are financially damaged.
Some contracts can require specific performance, forcing the breaching party to go ahead and comply, but employment contracts like this would not fall into that category.
Now, a school could try to slip in a non-compete clause, attempting to prevent a coach from working at a rival school for a year....but I don't think it would be enforceable, and no coach would sign it anyway.
re: Germany to reintroduce military conscription today…
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/13/25 at 12:08 pm to RollTide1987
WTH is "voluntary conscription"? Seems oxymoronic.
re: No SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs Until Next Year?
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/12/25 at 9:13 am to ChatGPT of LA
[quote]if I were Trump, I'd get it shoved thru congress now, so all his tariffs stay in placedetails.
He should have been doing this since "Liberation Day" announce the tariffs while simultaneously getting Congress to make them statutory. The bill could even allow POTUS the power to raise and lower tariffs based on negotiations with other countries.
He should have been doing this since "Liberation Day" announce the tariffs while simultaneously getting Congress to make them statutory. The bill could even allow POTUS the power to raise and lower tariffs based on negotiations with other countries.
re: Check out this revisionist history propaganda in Netflix series Death by Lightning
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/10/25 at 11:27 am to Sassafrasology
I think its an entertaining series, although I have no idea how historically accurate it might be. He'll, the only thing I knew about James Garfield was that he loved lasagna and hated Mondays.
It may be fictional, but I don't think its "propoganda" because there isn't really a political message at all....other than New York politics being corrupt AF in the 19th century.
It may be fictional, but I don't think its "propoganda" because there isn't really a political message at all....other than New York politics being corrupt AF in the 19th century.
re: Socialism has to be stamped out
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/9/25 at 2:36 pm to DyeHardDylan
Maybe we start at the top, and not have the government take an ownership interest in large corporations, or give large subsidies to businesses that are not profitable on their own?
re: Trump is not happy about SCOTUS and tariffs
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/9/25 at 2:02 pm to CDawson
quote:
Wonder why no other lawsuits were filed against any other Presidents when tariffs were imposed.
Weird, right?
It might be weird, but there have been 100s of lawsuits filed against past presidents relating to tariffs. They just aren't interesting enough to warrant much historical study.
Plus, there is not usually such a broad swath of tariffs that affect so many people at once. Nobody really cares if a zipper importer is paying a little extra for zippers he imports from Viet Nam.
re: Trump is not happy about SCOTUS and tariffs
Posted by LawTalkingGuy on 11/9/25 at 1:03 pm to IMSA_Fan
quote:
I feel like IEEPA got really wonky when Congress got stripped of the legislative veto in 1983 which was the key to checking executive overreach
I'm pretty much a non-delegation guy, but all of these delegation statutes are now weird. Congress can delegate its power, but the only way to UNdelegate it is to pass a new statute, which has to be signed by POTUS.
If the issue became so.politically hot that you gotvs supermajority of Congress to agree, then they could override a veto, or even threaten impeachment, but that just seems unlikely in today's environment.
Popular
48
