Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture
Sep 21, 2020 5 tweets 1 min read Read on X
If your criticism about a potential Supreme Court nominee is her religion, can I kindly suggest that you look in the mirror and think about when you decided that religious discrimination is okay.
To all the folks in my mentions telling me that it’s just one *type* of Catholicism that you think makes someone unfit for office/likely to impose her religious views on others—-that’s still religious discrimination.
The replies to this are making my stomach churn. But I’ll give it one last shot for those who are insisting that Coney Barrett’s kingdom of god quote means she will force her religion on others.

Have you heard religious people talk about their faith before?
I mean, Obama said “I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work." Does anyone think he was trying to establish a theocracy or impose his religion on others? npr.org/templates/stor…
Of course people don’t think that about Obama.
So why does a similar statement make them think it about Coney Barrett?

My concern is that some people believe it because she is a Catholic. And that’s incredibly troubling.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Carissa Byrne Hessick

Carissa Byrne Hessick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CBHessick

Nov 14, 2023
This thread about the humanities seems to be getting some traction. It came to my attention because a high-profile academic reposted it.
Its message is not only based on false premises, but also deeply anti-intellectual. Let me explain. Image
Let's start with the first claim in the thread--the idea that the humanities "aren't empirical."
Anyone who has spent any time on an American university campus knows that this is nonsense.
It confuses methodology with subject matter. Image
Political science, sociology, criminology, linguistics, and other fields in the humanities have a ton of faculty and researchers engaged in empirical study.
Their findings are tested by others, and sometimes falsified.
So this is just 100% wrong as a matter of fact.
Read 11 tweets
Oct 28, 2023
I know a lot of folks in the academy will disagree with this thread. But we have to grapple with the fact that much of what happens on campus right now is about enforcing a certain view of the world, not pursuing knowledge or educating students.
Those who are pushing that worldview are doing so with the best of intentions. They see suffering and injustice in the world, and they want to use their position and limited power to change it.

But those good intentions have had some deeply unfortunate consequences.
For example, mainstream conservative views sometimes get short shrift in class discussions.
And some scholarship has abandoned analytical rigor and now looks indistinguishable from political advocacy.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 26, 2023
I keep getting a bunch of folks in my mentions insisting I'm wrong to criticize the Trump motion for selective & vindictive prosecution on its merits because the motion is just preserving the argument for appeal
It's apparently a popular argument on MAGA Twitter, so let's discuss


Image
Image
Image
Image
Let's start with the obvious point that, if you want the court of appeals or the Supreme Court to reverse an existing case or doctrine, then you have to file a motion on the issue in the trial court to preserve the issue

That's obviously true

But what should that motion say?
In this case, Trump's motion doesn't concede that the doctrine is against him. It does not provide a clear argument about how the doctrine should be changed or modified in a way so that he could win. And it doesn't provide much at all in terms of a substantive argument.
Read 14 tweets
Oct 25, 2023
I study prosecutorial power, so I was very interested to see what Trump's attorneys were going to say in the selective & vindictive prosecution motion they filed on Monday.
I've now read the motion and it is quite awful.
Let me explain why . . .
lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-…
First, let's start with the background idea that these motions almost always lose. Current case law gives prosecutors enormous amounts of discretion regarding criminal charging, and it basically tells judges not to review those decisions.
Unless you can show that the law has been enforced only against members of a disfavored group (e.g., a minority racial group, religion, etc) and that the enforcement patters was driven by discrimination, you will lose.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 28, 2023
Anyone who knows anything about prosecutorial power knows that Trump's motion to dismiss the J6 case on grounds of selective prosecution will fail.
And thanks to United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), there's basically a 0% chance he'll get an evidentiary hearing.
A retaliation claim will go nowhere because of Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019). There is no doubt that DOJ has probable cause to support its charges against Trump.
FWIW, I have no doubt that Trump's lawyers know that the law is 100% against them on the selective prosecution/retaliation claim
I imagine they are bringing this claim because a) Trump is insisting, b) to further delay the trial, and c) try and shape public opinion in their favor
Read 5 tweets
Sep 27, 2022
A few thoughts about this thread from Simon, who not only writes great fiction about crime, but also does an excellent job here showing how oversimplified the rhetoric about crime and punishment has become.
First, I'm glad to see him highlight clearance rates and crime rates.
For all of the public attention on crime & crime spikes, I don't understand why police don't get more criticism when it comes to how awful they are at actually solving crimes. Less than 1/3 of robberies, burglaries, and rapes are solved, and only about 60% of homicides.
I understand that police brutality has captured a lot of attention. But the fact that police aren't actually solving the crimes we care about should be talked about a lot more than it is.
And I wonder how that fact might change the divisions that we see in public discourse.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(