951
Good. Now imprison the fucking traitor.
crime involving moral turpitude
Moral turpitude laws are puritan christian bullshit that should not exist.
But since they do, me might as well use them to unleash the face eating leopards.
I mean, making dubious consequences apply to the "in group" is a vital step in getting rid of those consequences. Most conservatives were fine with treating addiction as a crime in the 80s when it was black folks getting arrested for crack, but when it was white, working class folks getting arrested for opiates, we were able to start talking about addiction as the medical condition it is. It's a shitty road towards progress, and I wish we could better... but changes in a democracy require convincing people of the need to change, and sometimes that just can't happen until they fall through the cracks in society personally.
It's the classic conservative condition: I didn't see it was a problem until it happened to me. So let's start making it happen to them.
Nancy Reagan was personally soft on abortion, but she knew it played to the base, so she was gung ho to overturn Roe V. Wade. That was until she found out stem cells might be able to help Ronnie's dementia, then she was all for using corpses to make medicine.
... the ABC entered "Miscellaneous Ad Interim Permits," which allow the facilities to continue serving alcohol until a hearing on the renewals is held.
So, still no consequences.
Anyone applying for or holding a liquor license is entitled to a hearing if they're denied. That doesn't change just because it's Trump. I do liquor licensing in a different state and you really can't just take it away without due process. He may well get to keep the licenses, because his conviction wasn't related to liquor laws, and for us, that's one of the only times we can revoke one. This is really not a case of him getting special treatment.
I'm sure he'll be treated like all other convicted felons
Lololol
In this instance? Probably. We just had a hearing for a guy charged with bigamy and DV, and he got to renew his license. We have another guy who owns a bar (thank god not in my city) that's known for being a dangerous shithole, and he keeps getting licensed somehow. Most liquor laws make it pretty hard to essentially take away someone's livelihood, regardless of what you or I think about it. I wish it was treated as more of a privilege than it is, but Trump is far from the only felon with a liquor license.
Maybe you're right but if so, this would be the one time he's treated like everyone else.
What is DV anyhow?
Domestic Violence
load more comments
(1 replies)
So if someone is convicted of like a gun crime or rape or murder as long as they were sober at the time they can keep their liquor license? What if they are in jail? Can a person own a bar, get convicted of homicide in the first degree, and keep with bar open with their license even if they are behind bars?
I'm not questioning this case, I'm just curious since if only liquor crimes can take a way a license that brought a lot of questions to my mind .
So the short answer is that it's complicated. Long answer is (with the caveat that I'm not an attorney and we have one that guides our licensing board) that those are crimes of moral turpitude, which are considered when evaluating a new application or renewal. Per state law, the existence of a conviction isn't enough on its own to deny the license - the board has to consider things like length of time since the crime and the applicant's conduct since then. I genuinely have no idea what would happen if someone was in jail. I mean, I'm sure their license would be denied, I'm just not sure if they'd even be allowed to renew or maintain ownership in the first place. It's never come up. More than likely, they'd sell it or transfer ownership before it ever came to me.
I don't know NJ liquor laws, but if they're similar, I can see them saying sorry, the conviction was too recent and you've shown zero remorse, no license for you. That said, I have no idea if Trump, individually is considered an owner, or if the license is under a subsidiary company where everyone knows it's ultimately his, but he's not involved in any of the day to day, so the establishment can remain licensed. Frankly, it's not going to hurt him as much as the people who will lose their jobs if the license goes, but I'll be interested to see what happens.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You're mistaking consequences for unilateral penalties absent of due process.
He's facing a whole ton of consequences, like 500 million of them.
An extremely rare Sunday Riker!
Rare and welcome!
I have been well Rikered and I’m happier because of it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now just cancel his citizenshipso he can run crying back to uncle vlad
Trump calls him daddy.
Vladdy?
He has Vladdy issues
You know he’s just pacing around scowling and muttering unable to talk about anything else but this for days - just the same complaint over and over - and all his servants are wondering what they did in a past life to be subjected to this
The subheading walks back the headline: “The golf clubs are temporarily allowed to continue to serve alcohol until a final hearing on the renewals is held in July.” Journalism in the 2020s. Could have been fixed by just changing the word “does” to “will.”
The New Jersey Attorney General has decided on Friday not to renew two liquor licenses at former President Donald Trump's New Jersey golf clubs following his conviction on all 34 felony counts in his criminal hush money trial.
"The New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has an obligation to maintain integrity in the alcoholic beverage industry in the state," said a spokesperson with the New Jersey Attorney General(NJAG).
There's nothing wrong with the headline and the subheadline does not walk anything back. The liquor licenses were not renewed, and a final hearing is scheduled for July. Turns out, the problem with journalism in the 2020s is that you just need to read the article. Go figure...
You'd think half of Lemmy used to be editors the way everyone obsesses over headlines here.
I saw someone earlier today berated for using the original headline for the article as the rules state because the headline was a little deceptive. It was clarified if you just read the little preview blurb at the top of the page, you didn't even need to read the article. Just incredible.
Whoa, whoa whoa whoa WHOA...reading the article explains the article???
Edit: Not a big fan of humour 'round these parts? That's fine, I get it, it's not for everyone. Take care, folks.
Yeah, during those reviews they are going to get their liquor license renewed. Why? Because those businesses have not abused their liquor licenses and have followed all appropriate laws.
The article sites a law that licenses cannot be issued to those convicted of 'a crime involving moral turpitude', but then does not follow up by demonstrating the license is being issued to Trump. It merely claims he would benefit from it being issued to the business. The law quoted does not state it can't be issued to person x if some other person would benefit who has been convicted of such a rime.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Boof bro will personally take up this case and see to it that a former president is immune from liquor license requirements. HE LIKES BEER!
Love it
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
951 points (98.3% liked)
News
22877 readers
2674 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS