tty much, not a hundred percent but pretty much, determines what they're going to decide before they even get a case.

Right, so I can't believe that you would even get Democrats who are actual scholars, right, real scholars — I'm not sure you can get a Democrat scholar to buy into this.

Now I was thinking the other day and I'm going to modify a suggestion I had a long time ago. I was thinking once, wouldn't we be better off if you always made the court balanced so they actually have the same amount of conservative leaning and right leaning people? And that was my first thought. It's like well that would be perfect because then they wouldn't make any decisions unless you could get at least one person to kind of go over to the other side. Otherwise it would just be tie, tie, tie, tie. But if it was something important and the court really thought they need to move on it somebody could go over to the other side. That's what I was thinking.

I feel now that was a terrible idea. Here's why. If it's even your incentive to start trading gets really high. As in well we can't get anything done on anything but you'd like to get this thing done you conservatives and we liberals would like to get this other thing passed. Why don't we make a deal? We just need one of you to come over on this issue and then we'll have one of us go over on that other issue.

Now I don't believe that the justices have ever had a conversation like that. I mean I would like to believe that these are serious people who would never come close to any kind of horse trading. But right now they don't have to. What happens if they had to? It would be just like Congress. It would just be horse trading. And then what happens if you get that situation? Are they more susceptible to bribery? If you take nine justices and expand it to any larger number have you increased or decreased or kept the same the risk of bribery or blackmail? It's more. It's more because there are more people to bribe. So there are all kinds of things wrong with court packing.

And I think and I predict that Joe Biden is using the bureaucracy and the system basically to kill it. But he might do some court reforms that you might like. Who knows?

South Korea reportedly — and I don't believe any news that comes out of — I'm sorry, North Korea. I don't believe any news that comes out of North Korea. But the news is that there was some guy who was an official in education who had been tasked with fixing education in some way in North Korea but given no resources to do it. And I guess he made the mistake of complaining that he wasn't getting enough resources to do his job. And the way Kim Jong-un decided to fix this was by executing him. Which is not funny. Just the fact that I laughed, that's just because I'm a terrible person. It's not because it's funny. Let's just get that clear. It's not funny. I'm a terrible person.

So this is what the guy said before they killed him allegedly. The chairman reportedly said I don't understand why the authorities would choose to implement the act, create this commission and call busy professors away from their university jobs if they were not going to give the commission any resources. Park said even if we make suggestions they just tell us to keep our mouths shut so let's go through the motions of gathering and then go home. He reportedly told his commission members.

Now doesn't that sound like every employee of a big company? You gave me this assignment but you didn't give me enough resources. And then the pointy-haired boss just executes them. So this is a case of the simulation and code reuse. Kim Jong-un has just become the pointy-haired boss. Have you seen the picture of Kim Jong-un? He is getting closer and closer to the little pointy hair thing. Sort of like flatter in the middle, a little bit pointy-haired. Code reuse. Simulation.

All right, let's talk about the big news of the day. The Floyd trial. And before I give you my legal analysis here's the thing you need to know and hear this clearly. Number one you should never get medical advice from a cartoonist. Number two don't take your financial advice from cartoonists. Number three don't take legal advice from cartoonists. All right, we're going to do this just for fun. Most of us are not lawyers. Although weirdly I have a very large percentage of lawyers who watch this based on the messages I get. So you people who are really lawyers can you please keep me honest? I'll be watching the comments as I make my ignorant and ill-informed analysis.

All right, are we all on the same page that what we'll follow will be ignorant and uninformed but fun? But fun, right?

So I think one of the things I would like to do is do my analysis from a citizen perspective not a lawyer's perspective. Because there really are two things happening. There's the lawyers doing lawyer things and they understand that world and they know what they're doing and that will create some kind of result. But then there's this other thing which is unfortunately bigger and more important which is how the public is viewing it. The public are for the most part not lawyers just like us. Most of us, right? So I'm going to be talking in a way that I don't think is too far off from what this big batch of non-lawyers will be thinking and feeling. In other words very approximate and inaccurate and not really understanding the law. So I'm in that group.

So let's talk about that. In my opinion after watching both the prosecution and the defense do their job yesterday I would say that the cause of death is established. That the cause of death is established now in my opinion. So this is my opinion as just a person watching it like a non-lawyer. And in my opinion homicide has been established by both the prosecution and the defense. So right now the defense witness — I believe has, and I get the names confused of who's the which doctor is saying what — but I believe that even the defense has said that it was the police action that was the cause. And that means homicide, right?

So here's the first part I want to assert. That homicide, that question is now answered. And I believe that even the jury will say to themselves okay homicide has now been proven. And what I mean by that is that the evidence for a drug overdose I think has been eliminated because there's nobody who testified he had pills in the stomach or that he had immediately ingested it right before. You know we had all heard that right? Hadn't we all heard that it looked like he had taken some pills during the arrest or something? But there was no indication that it was in his stomach. So we don't have evidence that he did anything that is likely in any realistic way to have coincidentally caus