This is the rare occasion where I disagree with Ken on defamation policy. True defamation involving a public figure is vanishingly rare, and everyone should err on the side of not chilling core political speech.
That means you put on your grown-up pants and suck it up a lot. BUT
A political culture that embraces anyone saying anything at all at any time, completely without regard for truth and despite knowing it was false, is toxic and damaging to the country. And without consequences, it will continue to proliferate
Everything in that first tweet is still true, and that means that if there's any rational defense at all, you should err on the side of not suing folks like Rudy for being political hacks.
But insane conspiracy theories even they don't believe, deployed to rally the gullible?
Go get those nominal damages. Because otherwise, it will proliferate, and we get Q all over the place.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Constitution unequivocally allowed to the house to impeach president Trump. Nobody disputes that.
The Constitution also unequivocally provides that the Senate SHALL try all impeachments
It's not discretionary.
Also, impeachment is a POLITICAL solution to a POLITICAL problem. There are some subtle signs of that in the Constitution, like, I don't know, the power to impeach being handed to one political body (the house, not a prosecutor), the trial to another (the Senate not the courts),
This is NOT something you ever want to see as a litigator. It means that the judge chose to read your pleadings and thought that they were so jacked up, somehow that she wants you in her courtroom, right goddamn now, to explain what the hell you were thinking
That's one way to describe the Plaintiffs' blind, repeated, flailing attempts at submitting a motion for a TRO, I guess. Seriously, if you haven't followed these filings, they're SPECTACULAR
If sex for purposes of this rule is based on "reproductive biology and genetics at birth" no "genital exam" conducting on someone in school could ever be relevant, because it wouldn't shed light on "reproductive biology AT BIRTH"
I get that there's a "how would you know to enforce this" issue, here, but the only conceivable way would be based on the birth certificate. No school-age exam could ever have relevance
I mean he's got every right to do that; nobody is entitled to use his replies as a vehicle for speech he doesn't want to hear or help promote.
I just wish he had the intellectual honesty to recognize that rule *doesn't only apply to him, or to speech he disfavors*
BTW, I consider a lack of intellectual honesty a disabling, insurmountable vice in public discourse, and I wish more people did. I can have a meaningful discussion with, and learn a lot from, people I strongly disagree with, if they're intellectually honest.
OK. I promised you a thread on this batshit insane "Keep Trump as President for Life" lawsuit so here it is. The short summary is: "We think there may have been election law violations, so obviously there is no government" courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
To the surprise of none of you
Let's deal with some background. First, you may remember the "Purcell principle" from earlier election law threads. It's the one that says "look, even if there's some law that an election procedure is in violation of, courts won't step in if it's too close to the election"