Legale§e

Today we return to the kyle Rittenhouse case. I discuss why they dropped the misdemeanor gun  charge and we assess the incredibly weak closing argument made by Kyle's attorney Mark Richards. Where did he go wrong and what possible effects might it have on the outcome of the case?

Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:

How to support the channel:

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are going to be talking about the Biden  Vaccine Mandate in the form of OSHA ETS. The 5th Circuit recently stayed an injunction against the mandate's implementation until it can be assessed on the merits in the Circuit Court. We will discuss what the mandate actually purports to do, What the 5th Circuit had to say about the mandate, as well as the reason for their stay until the issue can be properly adjudicated and what comes next in the ultimate plan to get the court to issue a permanent injunction. We also talk about what the esoteric Circuit Court Lottery is, how it works and what it could mean in this case moving forward.  

Follow & Support

To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:

LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a

Odysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a

Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/

Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/

Substack - https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/

Libertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/

Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/

Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal

How to support the channel:

Patreon: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives

Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month as a Citizen Producer

PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ

All PayPal Donation Options - https://www.paypal.com/donate?business=4G3R7WQTR7T58¤cy_code=USD

Venmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made

E-mail the Show: [email protected]

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we are talking about updates in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The way the prosecution's star witness, appeared more like a star witness for the defense, the way ADA Thomas Binger manages to somehow fuck every day up more than the last and we discuss some of the trial commentary we have been hearing from other YouTube lawyers regarding the outcome of the trial and the quality of the defense. Plus we talk about why it's time to cancel the FBI  Babylon Bee Article - https://babylonbee.com/news/prosecutors-move-for-mistrial-as-jury-has-been-tainted-by-clear-video-evidence-of-kyle-rittenhouse-defending-himself/?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=telegramThanks to Blue North Wind for sending me that article!  Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:  LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:aOdysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:aYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperativesLibertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativVenmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: [email protected]  Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we return to discussing the unfolding trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. In my last video we looked at how the corporate media had beclowned themselves with their ridiculous coverage and analysis of the case.

Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:

The media and their legal analysts prove once again they are not in the journalism business. They are political activists LARPing as journalists. We discuss what the media got wrong about the pre-trial motions that were heard and considered in Court for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this last Friday.

This video is the first in a series I plan to do from time to time covering the particular issues during the ratification period between September 1787 and July 1788. That topic will be approached with the best, most influential, most commonly held beliefs that divided the Federalists from the Anti-Federalists.

Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:

The upcoming fall term for the Supreme Court has a number of important cases on the docket, including two very important Second Amendment cases. The first case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The case will decide whether the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" is an actual right. Or conversely, if law-abiding adults who pass a biometric background check and safety training can be denied a concealed carry permit simply because permitting officials only issue concealed carry permits when they feel that the applicant has a special need. Oral arguments for this case will be happening on November 3rd. Today I will be laying out the background on this case, we will go into detail about the question presented by the appellant as well as discussing why it is that no matter what the outcome of the case is, it will almost certainly be a true landmark case & is the first new case the court has granted cert on since McDonald v Chicago in 2010.  I will be making a couple more episodes about this case between now and when it is scheduled to start, so make sure you are subscribed to the channel and have that notification bell checked so you can follow along with me as this case progresses.  Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html   Follow & Support To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media: LBRY - https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:aOdysee - https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:aYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/Anchor.fm - https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperativesLibertarian Institute Contributor Page - https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/Substack-- https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page - https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/Twitter - https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberalBitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/ How to support the channel: Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativVenmo Donations - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made E-mail the Show: [email protected]  Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

Today on Categorical Imperatives we have part one of what will be a two part episode About the theoretical origins of Judicial Review. Most people are familiar with Marbury v Madison (1803) Which is widely understood to be the first time the Court articulated a meaning of judicial review in fact, and when talking Marbury, virtually everyone will point to Hamilton's writing under the pen name Publius in the Federalist Papers, Federalist #78 specifically as the first example of when the doctrine of judicial review was articulated in theory. Which is all well and good, except that neither of those two things are correct. Judicial review before Marbury is a topic we will get around to discussing at some point in the future, but for today we are going to focus on the first place in the ratification debated we actually find Judicial Review being described which starts with Brutus' 8th Essay.

This is the latest installment of my ongoing series, Today in Supreme Court History. Where we discuss a case brief of a landmark Supreme Court Decision to understand the basic history facts and law that are crucial to understand the Court's opinion and the case's significance.

Today we are looking at the controversial 1973 case of Roe v Wade in which the Supreme Court decided that under the14th amendment's due process clause, laws banning abortion were a deprivation of fundamental liberty and that the decision to have an abortion up until the point of "viability" is a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, not the government. Virtually overnight this invalidated laws in 46 states that, to one degree or another restricted or banned the ability to have an abortion.