I'm going to try to take this seriously-ish, so let's discuss "what it takes to prove a conspiracy" for a quick second. A conspiracy doesn't just mean "did some stuff I don't like" or "acted in ways which support the same outcome and the outcome is bad".
2/
Conspiracy requires an agreement (not the inference of an agreement) to commit an illegal act and at least one affirmative step towards doing it. Just keep those elements in your back pocket and we'll see how close Gondor gets.
3/
Yes, it costs more money to abide by constitutional and statutory rights than to disregard them. The fact that the source of his belief comes from Wikipedia rather than the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant.
2/
The precedent that "the courts do not assess the legitimacy of a religious belief, just its sincerity" is long-standing.
People imprisoned by any government *should* take advantage of the right to religious accommodation.
First: deploy recognition of white supremacy not as a matter of real inquiry (analysis of what white supremacists advocate, align themselves with, or portray themselves as), but as akin to Potter Stewart on pornography: "we know it when we see it"
2/
This, then, frames the discussion: if "we" see white supremacy, it is there. The only question left is why *others* can't "see".
Eliding, not subtly, the questions of "why do we think this teacher knows what white supremacy looks like" or "how good is her class's judgment?"
3/
The one wrinkle to this I'd add is that there's evidence for a third group (separate from "people who follow rules" and "people who don't") who will follow rules conditionally.
Specifically if they don't see that other people *aren't* and getting away with it.
These are called "contingent cooperators", and the fastest way to lose their cooperation (e.g. free-riding in a tax game) is for them to see other people refusing to cooperate.
And that seems to be a spectrum, with different thresholds for cooperation loss.
2/
Most people feel like fools if they follow the rules and other people don't. Which is both a support for Lane's argument (don't make rules you won't/can't enforce) but also a support for rule-enforcement as a way to encourage cooperation.
3/
Typically one can sue a group of defendants together whey they acted in concert. It'd be a weird kind of joinder rule to be allowed to file one lawsuit against three different defendants under three different theories of wrongdoing solely because "it's all election stuff".
2/
Each of these is alleged at a different state. None are *true* of course, but even if true I'm not sure why Paxton thinks he can file one suit against all three on three different theories.
This is an interesting set of hot takes from the governor overseeing the highest positive testing rate of any state in the country.
I'm sure it won't come as a galloping shock that her "better" numbers are bullshit.
1/
This is already untrue. Cases in the last seven days/100,000 in South Dakota is 98.6. Illinois is 75.6.
If we include data since January 21st, South Dakota's per capita rate is almost twice as high.
But I'm sure we'll stick with "last seven days" throughout, right?
2/
Recent figures are probably the better measure, and Noem is correct to use them. Otherwise we're getting a lot of noise from the early going based on where the virus cropped up. At this point it's everywhere. So current numbers are more indicative of competence
3/