I'd imagine there's definitely a feeling of freedom to not being typecast, which is really nice! Plus, big franchises feel like committing a lot of time spent in the gym and eating chicken, which is never fun.

Whats Boy George like in real life?

It's a constant struggle.

G'day from Australia, mate.

Wondering what your wildest story is on set thus far in your career?

Also, how was it working with Bill Nighy in The Limehouse Golem? He comes across as a decent bloke.

The early mornings - although I've stayed in bed for this!

Yes, you can read about my history with the UNHCR here: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/douglas-booth.html

There are so many charities offering on the ground support, anyone can do some research choose a cause they believe in and do what they can within their means to support. Everyone has a contribution to make. As a celebrity you can help amplify, but the reason we do that is to connect to people like yourself wanting to make a difference.

What’s your least favourite thing about being an actor?

Wikipedia says I should not confuse you with Sir Douglas Allen Booth, 3rd Baronet or Australian footie player Doug Booth. Have you ever been mistaken for either? :-)

What's your most embarrassing showbiz moment?

Who would you most like to be directed by, written for or otherwise collaborate with? And why?

I've been lucky to have such a varied set of opportunities in my career so far. Feel lucky to not have been too typecast, or at least theres some variety within the casting I fit into. Haven't been part of any huge franchises yet, but maybe that's for the best. Not sure what you think!

😂 😂 😂 😂 Philodendron mainly.

Damn. I was hoping so much 😂 it's dark in Denmark this time of year

I remember you doing a lot of work for the UNHCR how do you think a regular person can help the global refugee crisis happening right now with places like Ukraine and some countries in the Middle east? Do you think its harder to be a politically active celebrity than one that isnt as engaged?

Feels unlikely that I'm going to. What sort of plants do you have?

Can you please send me some grow lights for my houseplants?

What would be your dream movie project to take part in?

Good morning, I'm in bed. Laptop on, slightly nervous and still a bit drunk from last night, but let's do this...

ASK ME ANYTHING.

Elections were called based off of current data. They were not 100% counted.

You're just telling a blatant lie.

What was the GOP for the railroad labor disagreement?

The court is not where this stuff should be fought out. Its the province of the legislature. That's precisely why Dobbs threw it back to the States.

The court is supposed to be brakes on the system, to stop the other branches from infringing on existing rights, not inventing new ones out of whole cloth, because they aren't the legislature.

The issue with arguing that the right to privacy extends to abortions is that where does it stop? What is the limit to the right to privacy. All rights have their limits somewhere, because the right to something means defining what encompasses that right. I could strawman it to death, and my point is, without a limit it would swallow up everything else. And should SCOTUS be the one creating and defining those limits? From what basis of constitutional text should they have that power?

Well, there you go.

Roe wasn’t made up, it just offends the reactionary way of thinking. Clearly, making up a bit of history is a smidge distasteful to you, but whatever it takes for the cause, right?

But here in the real world, it’s impossible to create a set of laws that covers every facet of human need an behavior. There is no choice but to infer judgement in cases where the law is not explicit. And I really doubt you want to start arguing that a right to privacy is a terrible thing that is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned across the board. But maybe you do, who knows. The fascists are everywhere these days.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are hacks, and Roberts is a pussy. They will enforce their personal preferences upon the law with the flimsiest justification, regardless of what the law says or means, and often in direct opposition to what is right. The deepest of irony is looking back at those decades of reactionaries whining about activist judges, and then coming to a full realization of how deeply they have fucked the country by installing these hacks for life.

Their whining was always projection. Because these people don’t give a shit about law, they just want the legitimacy that the “law” provides. Their way of thinking would be laughably childish if it weren’t hurting so many people.

Dobbs wasn't just made up from nothing. It legally made sense. The historical part is a bit wanting. But there were problems with it. But Roe was even more made up. Its legally suspect from day 1. The legal roots are nonexistant. Disregarding precedent made sense since what was an undue burden was never really established. It was constantly going back to the court on the same question presented.

I think Alito played a bit fast and loose with the history part particularly around his analysis on the quickening part. And yes I think it makes a difference how much is covered by the text of the law because that's kind of their job. Roe existed because there was nothing addressing abortions, thus they literally made up the law, not interpreting the law.

That’s not relevant to what I said man.

In the opinion in which they overturned Roe, they blatantly disregarded precedent, fabricated a history that doesn’t exist, and just plain made things up.

We’ve got 5 judges that are ok with doing these things. And you think it makes a single bit of difference how much a topic is covered by the text of a law?

What about people who aren't going to be in their electoral district when voting is done?

They just don't get a vote because they were on a business trip or visiting family?

As a potential future lawyer who has been paying attention to the law, what are the primary objections to ISLT? Personally, I think the strong variant is batshit crazy, but the weak variant is more logically sound to me. I think the textual support is quite strong. I've heard that the counterargument would be based on historical precedent, saying that goes against how things were done in the past, and I think you allude to it here, "More than 170 state constitutional provisions, 650 state laws, thousands of rules and regulations, and hundreds of state court decisions would be thrown into question."

Since the States and the federal government are both sovereign, that means both are operative. And the federal government gives the power to the State legislatures. But the State legislatures are still bound by their own constitutions. Therefore it seems to me, that regardless of what the ISLT says, the States are still bound by whatever restrictions are in their own constitution, as well as State court precedent interpreting said constitution. So there might be a conflict of law issue, in which case, judges attempt to reconcile both, which might be difficult. But I don't think the Supremacy Clause can be interpreted to override the State constitutional provisions at issue, since the whole point of the system is that the people from each State send representatives from their States and the States themselves send representatives to Congress.