This is a catch-22. And yes, I see your "pay people more" answer, but nobody gets paid for this stuff directly and paying people for committee service (as a baseline) would quickly have real budgetary impact given the number of committees. There aren't always perfect solutions
This also seems to assume that everyone serving on any committee is in a better socioeconomic position than any female or POC colleague could be, which is obviously unlikely to be true. There are likely overworked white guys on any given committee who say yes anyway because
(pick 1) they think it's important; they think it's good for their career long term; they don't feel comfortable saying no.
That may be a real problem, but we can't solve all problems simultaneously. And sometimes dealing with one exacerbates another.
Anyway, castigating people for identifying and trying to address one real problem because they can't also fix other problems seems counterproductive. JMO, and I'm happy to hear other views.
OK. I promised you a thread on the Wisconsin dissents, so here it is. Tl;dr: They are bad and their authors should feel bad
First, a quick spin through the majority/concurrences
The majority opinion was written by Brian Hagedorn, who joined the Wisconsin Supreme Court after serving as Chief Legal Counsel to Republican Governor Scott Walker. He also wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion which ... um ... I've never seen before
In fact, let's ask some of the appellate specialists if this is just me not knowing enough. Hey, @RMFifthCircuit, @MatthewStiegler, @CecereCarl - you ever see a judge write a concurrence to his own majority opinion before yesterday?
This paragraph is amazing. Apparently, Jordanian control of Sheikh Jarrah in 1956 was natural and legitimate, and not at all the result of Jordan's illegal conquest of Jerusalem in 1948. So Jordan simply building a new neighborhood on captured territory wasn't "colonialism" or
"settlement" just, you know, completely fine. Unlike when Israel does the same exact thing, because... well, apparently, because "jews"
This paragraph, too, is absolute art. "people accuse me of antisemitism just because I say antisemitic things. This is unfair"
Note - "divine right" has NOTHING to do with these cases. The second screenshot is Peace Now's summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling today on its voting rules.
No, not the Trump case. The pre-existing case about absentee voting. Lets do a live-read. wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Dis…
First of all, it's going to be complicated. 4 judges in the majority - the Republicans, including Hagedorn. 2 of the Dem judges joined as to two parts of the opinion - meaning they agree with some but not all of the reasoning. 2 Dem judges wrote separate opinions ...
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - which basically means they agree with some but not all of the result reached by the majority, if not necessarily the reasoning. Of the Dems, Justice Walsh Bradley appears to be on her own on something. It will be interesting to see what
Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"
You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone
Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?
Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem
Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas