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.

@MaybellRomero?

• • •

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

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen 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 @AkivaMCohen

18 Dec
LOLOL. They just keep finding new ways to screw up
Here's the motion to expedite, my disaster-tourist #Squidigation fan friends

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
Sid and Lin finally noticed that the briefing schedule wasn't going to work. Of course, the Court won't act on their idiocy anyway.

I also love the suggestion that maybe Congress will just pass on confirming the election of President Biden (or anyone) Image
Read 24 tweets
15 Dec
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

*pauses for breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *ad infinitum*.

Y'all.

Y'all ...

I cannot. I just cannot
"Debate me" hero of free speech, Dan Ravicher, has blocked me.
For *checks notes* saying his election tweet aged like milk and *offering to take him up on his challenge to debate him for 20K to charity*
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec
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?
Read 96 tweets
15 Dec
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
Read 5 tweets
14 Dec
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
Read 26 tweets
11 Dec
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
Read 14 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!