Folks, if you're not following a whole bunch of lawyers on here you're probably not seeing the way the collective legal community is in shock at how bad Trump's lawyers are. Even if you are, it's probably hard to grasp the detail of how truly bad it is.
So here's an analogy:
Imagine you moved to a new town and are going to see a new doctor for the first time. And when he walks in, he has his stethoscope dangling out of his ass. And then he pulls it out and says "OK, I want to take your temperature now" and moves to place it on your forehead.
That's the net effect of what we're watching the Giuliani clown crew do. Everything they are doing is wrong in literally every procedural and substantive way any of us could have imagined - and also in ways none of us could have invented if we'd tried to predict it in advance
They are inventing entire new categories of legal ineptitude. This is the worst lawyering I've ever seen, and folks, I've seen some shit. (For avoidance of doubt: Yes, "shit" literally means feces, but I am not using it in that sence, v'hamevin yavin)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Folks, the Trump campaign *is not appealing* Judge Brann's decision that none of the plaintiff's has standing. (for my non legal followers: no standing = you can't sue on those claims.)
Easy example: if I get hurt in a car accident, I can sue. You can't. I have standing to sue on my injuries. You don't, because you weren't the one harmed.
What does this all mean?
The Trump campaign is appealing & asking ONLY that the third circuit find that they didn't wait to long to add the claims they tried to bring in their second amended complaint.
Claims the court *already decided* they don't have standing to assert
Let's talk about the #Founders for a second, shall we? Yeah, this is sparked by Ben Shapiro's outrage that 39% of Black people would classify them as villains.
Me? I don't. The American system is a true blessing, and I'll talk about why. But that's also easy for me to say 1/19
And it's not beyond the realm of possibility that, because it's so easy, I'm actually wrong. At the end of the day, this is *at best* a close call. And there's nothing wrong with recognizing that. And everything wrong with failing to.
Start with the First Amendment. It's easy to focus on freedom of speech, and how much better off we are, here in America, than the rest of the world with its far weaker protections. Yeah, that means more hate speech, here. But it means more freedom on defamation and gov't control
OK. Time for a thread on masks. Anti-maskers (who should be as reviled as anti-vaxxers) keep citing research studies showing masks aren't that effective at protecting wearers from becoming infected. You need to know why the anti-maskers are wrong. It's a basic mistake
The anti-maskers are (sometimes deliberately, sometimes ignorantly) confusing SOURCE CONTROL with INFECTION CONTROL.
What does that mean?
"Infection control" means "protecting the wearer from being infected". When a hospital worker puts on PPE and a properly fitted N95 mask to go take care of a patient on airborne precautions - someone sick with an airborne respiratory virus - they're engaging in infection control.
What will #Bolton's respond to the injunction motion be? I'm no expert, but I'd bet: 1) mootness - he's already given the book to the publisher and it's already been distributed, so no injunction targeting him alone would be effective 2) failure to name a necessary party -
Due to point 1,the *real* target of the request for injunctive relief is the publisher and bookstores, who weren't named, on the government's "you can bind third parties" argument. But this isn't incidental, it's the whole point. They need to be named.
3} 1st Amendment...
The government argues it doesn't need to worry about the 1st Amendment cases on prior restraint because #Bolton signed an NDA. But none of the third parties they're *really* trying to enjoin did.
Since I keep seeing people arguing that the disparities highlighted in this piece are just correlation, not causation - particular shoutout to @groo_wonderer, who blocked me for explaining why that wasn't true - a brief thread on causation and mechanisms
Let's talk about wealth disparities. This one is super easy. Until the mid-20th century, there were strong *legal* barriers to black wealth development - like, y'know, slavery and segregation - to go along with racist social barriers (people who wouldn't hire or patronize blacks)
It shouldn't take a dissertation to see that this will have an intergenerational impact. If Black guy David and White guy David are both born into the same crushing poverty in 1871 Georgia, who will have a better chance of economic success?
@DiegoATLAW Okay, it's not a real recipe, it's more by feel, but I'm going to do what I can
@DiegoATLAW First, shred your zucchini. How much zucchini? How much do you got? There's really no set amount. For the two of us, we just rolled through 4 zucchini
@DiegoATLAW Next, squeeze the zucchini, to get as much of the water out of it as you possibly can. That means take fistfuls hold it over the sink and squeeze. My wife, listening to me dictate the Tweet, is yelling at me that you can use cheesecloth too