Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #BoomLawyered
Most recents (12)
so true.
Gorsuch was good on ICWA. He's crap on everything else.
the original public meaning of the Constitution changes and shifts depending upon what Republicans want. It's so disingenuous.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Moore v. Harper, which could decide whether Democrats will ever be permitted to win another election.
The case involves the independent state legislature theory—the crackpot notion that the Elections Clause of the Constitution permits state legislatures to wield unchecked power in the way states run their federal elections.
The Elections Clause reads, in part, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”
What's up nerds!
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.
Thomas: Is this case ripe?
Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.
She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.
(No they're not.)
Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.
She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.
(No they're not.)
Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are making the point that the wedding website is the invitation of the customer, not the invitation of the wedding website designer. So why is the website the speech of the website designer?
So why is it 303 Creative's message?
(It's not.)
So why is it 303 Creative's message?
(It's not.)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a challenge to a 44-year-old law that prioritizes placing Native American children in Native American homes. The case is called Brackeen v. Haaland and the law at issue is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
On this day in 1978, Congress enacted ICWA in response to abusive child welfare practices that resulted in large numbers of Native children being separated from their homes, families, and tribes.
The Brackeens and the state of Texas (where they reside) are asking the Supreme Court to overturn over 40 years of precedent authorizing Congress to pass laws like ICWA, which gives special treatment to Native Americans as a result of the long history of oppression and genocide.
*taps mic*
Oh hello. It's @AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting the beginning of the end of affirmative action.
What am I looking for?
Clarence Thomas, a beneficiary of affirmative action himself, talking about a color blind Constitution.
Alito being a small angry man.
Oh hello. It's @AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting the beginning of the end of affirmative action.
What am I looking for?
Clarence Thomas, a beneficiary of affirmative action himself, talking about a color blind Constitution.
Alito being a small angry man.
At least Scalia won't be on the bench talking about how maybe Black people should be satisfied with "lesser schools."
That's what he said in the Fisher case. Remember Becky with the Bad Grades?
x
That's what he said in the Fisher case. Remember Becky with the Bad Grades?
x
This case is one of the cases this term that promotes white dominance and supremacy.
Winnowing down the number of Black and brown kids in private and public institutions is the point.
Making it so Black and brown people have no upward mobility is the point.
Winnowing down the number of Black and brown kids in private and public institutions is the point.
Making it so Black and brown people have no upward mobility is the point.
When it comes to the no good truly terrible Supreme Court, I keep thinking the @FedSoc 6 have become an arm of the Christofascist project to basically erase marginalized people from society. It's a project that is inherently steeped in whiteness.
Think about the cases this term:
Think about the cases this term:
SFFA v. Harvard: The Court will kill affirmative action, destroying Black and brown access to higher education while preserving white legacy admissions, thus making it difficult for Black people to improve their economic circumstances & easier for white people to improve theirs.
Brackeen (Indian Child Welfare Act case): White grievance is going to lead to Native American children being removed from their homes & having their connections to their tribes and culture purposefully severed. It's an effort to erase indigenous people and culture from society.
One more week until the worst Supreme Court term in modern history. And you thought last term was bad. This term is when they cement white dominance into law so hang on to your butts especially if they are non-white.
The Supreme Court could decide this term that bigots have a religious right to refuse service to LGBTQ people.
THIS term.
So the neo-Lavender Scare that has been going on has a purpose. It’s to whip up public sentiment against LGBTQ folks so people will be more complacent.
THIS term.
So the neo-Lavender Scare that has been going on has a purpose. It’s to whip up public sentiment against LGBTQ folks so people will be more complacent.
If you’re straight, cis, white, and Christian, boy howdy you are good to go though.
Hello! @AngryBlackLady here for Day Two of SCOTUS confirmation hearing! What to expect:
✅ Overt racism
✅Whinging about critical race theory
✅intimations that Jackson loves child abuse
✅dry humping originalism and the Constitution
✅nonsense speechifying by Senators
✅ Overt racism
✅Whinging about critical race theory
✅intimations that Jackson loves child abuse
✅dry humping originalism and the Constitution
✅nonsense speechifying by Senators
Durbin is up and asks KBJ about her judicial philosophy. @Hegemommy made a great point yesterday that her answer in her statement yesterday was not different from what John Roberts said about calling balls and strikes. But the Senators will treat her differently; I wonder why.
KBJ has 3 steps:
1. She clears the decks of any preconception.
2. She evaluates all the facts from all perspectives: all the parties and amici.
3. interpretation and application of the law to the facts in the case. This is where she understand the constraints on her authority.
1. She clears the decks of any preconception.
2. She evaluates all the facts from all perspectives: all the parties and amici.
3. interpretation and application of the law to the facts in the case. This is where she understand the constraints on her authority.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has released decisions in #WholeWomansVJackson and #USVTexas. More to come.
NEW: In #WholeWomansVJackson, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion providers can move forward with their #SB8 challenge against some, but not all of the defendants.
What’s up nerds! @AngryBlackLady here. Before we begin the SCOTUS live-tweet, let’s talk about what this ACA case is all about.
SEVERABILITY.
SEVERABILITY.
I don’t know if you really, but back when the Court said the ACA was A-OK, it did so because it said that the individual mandate was a tax and that the ACA was a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
In 2017, when Congress passed the preposterously named Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it zeroed out the individual mandate which means no one had to pay a penalty for not getting insurance.
Oh hello!
It's @AngryBlacklady. Fancy meeting you here. I have a bit of news.
@PPFA, @ACLU, and @ReproRights filed a lawsuit in North Carolina today and it's a BIG DEAL.
I'm excited. Let me explain why.
It's @AngryBlacklady. Fancy meeting you here. I have a bit of news.
@PPFA, @ACLU, and @ReproRights filed a lawsuit in North Carolina today and it's a BIG DEAL.
I'm excited. Let me explain why.
But @AngryBlacklady, you may be thinking, you always say lawsuits are a big deal and all you ever do is talk about lawsuits and it makes me sleepy.
Look, I get it. I do. I'm a sucker for a good lawsuit.
But lawsuits are important!
Lawsuits determine what legal rights you have!
Look, I get it. I do. I'm a sucker for a good lawsuit.
But lawsuits are important!
Lawsuits determine what legal rights you have!
And if you’re tired of the same old abortion rights lawsuits that center the concerns of white women (or that don’t explicitly speak to the concerns of BIPOC) then get ready because boy howdy do I have the lawsuit for you.
It’s DAY FOUR of the Kavanaugh hearings how we doin friends?
The format for today's hearings is different with 5 panels of witnesses, some from the GOP and some from the Dems. Senators will likely shuffle in and out today
Some folks have asked what happens next. Well, the Judiciary Committee has to vote first. Dems have few procedural tools to block a committee vote but they could delay it. That would put it sometime around the 20th or so of September my my rough morning math
