Bari Weiss' defense of Carano depends on intent. She says because no anti-semitic intent, Carano should not have been fired. But in the process, she compares Carano's piece to this, from Pedro Pascal: /1
But she doesn't take the next step. What was Pedro Pascal's intent? How do we know what his intent was? What's the context of his statement? These are all things we use to look at intent, past simply asking a person what their intent was. /2
To give an example, the Proud Boys have filed lawsuits to prevent anyone from calling them racist. Should that, alone, insulate them from charges of racism? Or do you have to look at the context of what is said and figure it out? /3
I can't "unknow" what I know. So to me, this looks anti-semitic because it references a lot of illuminati/new world order imagery that anti-semites commonly employ.
And if I put something like this up, and people pointed it out, I'd probably apologize. /4
All this to say, I totally get why, as a business decision, Disney was more comfortable having someone get a little performative on behalf of children seeking asylum from gang violence than on behalf of folks who think there's an evil cabal keeping conservatives down. /5
Bari Weiss argues that it's more plausible for Gino Carano not to understand an anti-semitic meme than Jeremy Corbyn, because she's an actress and he's a politician.
Georgia takes its new "good faith" exception out for a spin in Lofton, where it refuses to rule on whether a 4 day CLSI search violates the 4th Amendment, saying instead that the officers relied in good faith on existence law:
This ruling is contrary to the Ga Constitution, which has never protected the "good faith" mistakes of officials who violate the law. in Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97, 1853, SCOG ruled that a governor could not raise good faith as a defense to a technical deficiency in a warrant.
It is also, as @OrinKerr often points out, deeply pernicious to the development of 4th Amendment caselaw. Now there is no Georgia ruling on whether a 4 day CLSI search is constitutional.
It would certainly be a better deterrent if officers knew whether or not that was allowed.
Nydia Tisdale is a journalist who was arrested for filming a Republican political rally. This week, the Supreme Court of Georgia denied her petition for certiorari. I want to briefly discuss the issues in the case. /1
An officer, Tony Wooten, asked her to stop filming. But because she had gotten permission from the owner of the property beforehand, she shushed him.
He grabbed her, dragged her to a barn, and arrested her. /2
Tisdale was charged with felony obstruction of the officer, because he claimed she kicked and hit him while he was dragging her, criminal trespass, and misdemeanor obstruction for hindering him in his duties.
She was acquitted of everything but misdemeanor obstruction. /3
And, this argument sucks. There were 29 votes that the Senate lacked authority to convict Belknap after he resigned (with the specific intent to avoid impeachment).
But there's no mention of the fact that there were 37 votes that the Senate did have that authority.
Weird.
Turley's a renowned scholar who's done great work in the past. But great work is work.
Before January 2021, is anyone aware of Turley ever forming a strong opinion anywhere about whether only sitting officials could be impeached?
I'm thrilled to see Josh Hawley shunned. If you see him in the streets, I urge you to ask for a selfie, and then ostentatiously delete it in front of him, making a farting sound with your mouth.