This is one of the dumber laws I've ever seen.

Of course it's facially unconstitutional.

But God, line by line it's farcical.
I need a document perusing break. Let's laugh at this for a bit.
Somebody's 18 yr old dingbat nepotism intern hire google strict scrutiny and felt real proud of this section, I bet. Because holy effing cow.

Compelling interest to obliterate the 1A, huh? Yikes.
Good legislation concisely and compellingly casts law to address or redress.

This is way too specific to be general.

I wonder which friend of the legislator has this extremely specific gripe.
What a groaningly gas-bag way to say absolutely nothing.

Freedom comes from truth, does it? Is that where it comes from?
Again, eyebrow-raisingly specific screed for legislation that brazenly opens about a dozen unconstitutional cans of worms.

Also a sterling example of that beloved right-wing party game "Let's Invent Civil Liberties Out of Whole Cloth".
Oh, hello, name of act that has oddly little to do with the prior screed.

"Stop Guilt by Association Act."

...If the association is with a lawsuit wouldn't this be "The Innocent Until Proven Guilty in Civil Court As Well" act or something?

Newt Gingrich would be disappoint.
So these guys want to define "abuse of process" as...uh...well...
Creating causes of action that call for mind-reading and inference drawing. Off to a great start. This will work *wonderfully* in practice. Psychic Plaintiff's lawyers, your time has *come*.
Oh, god, seriously?
Oh hey, let's compel speech.

This is both a great idea and totally legal. /s
Not only does this compel speech, but it also seems to compel a point of view.

The final verdict being less than the complaint originally alleged means...what? You want the news to report on that in the exonerative tense? You want them to be ORDERED by defendants to do so?
This isn't funny.

It's not a joke when lawmakers fire a broadside at your Constitutional rights. Not even to protect rights that you *checks act* do not in fact have. You don't have the right to a good reputation. You do not have the right to be viewed the way you want to be.
You do have the right to think what you will and speak your mind absent defamation.

The state wants to *take* that from you. And once you let them, you'll find it VERY hard to claw back. See history writ large.
You don't have the right to not be news. You don't have the right to dictate to the press by *force of law* that you paid fewer damages than you were originally sued for.

Your right to due process doesn't extend to the "court of public opinion". How risible. How sad.
I have to get back to work.

But I'm doing so with a frown on my face.

Millions of citizens stroll around electing legislators who put out crap like this. Freedom-loving lawyers and introspective learned judges should be the *last* line of defense. Some places, they're *it*.
If that doesn't make you think some alarming thoughts, well...

Join us in reality. We need you.
Really quick, because it is currently lying heavy on my soul.

I have people dear to me out there fighting important fights through the courts. Enduring considerable strain trying to see justice done. To advance important causes and protect vulnerable groups.
These people are my heroes. They live their principles and put it on the line to do the right thing.

The legal system can't always deliver total victory to a party, even where it is richly deserved. For a million reasons.

A law like this would see them punished for *trying*.
Who does that protect? 🤔

Could it be powerful, entrenched white men across industry, commerce, and cause, who frequently heap abuse and discrimination on women and minorities?
Their money is their armor. Their social advantages. Their privilege.

They already own the levers of public opinion and use them to silence anyone who would speak out against their misdeeds. Look *around*.

Compelling interest, huh?


• • •

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

Keep Current with D.M. Schmeyer

D.M. Schmeyer 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!


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 @dmschmeyer

7 Apr
That they only attempt to address the number of voters, never this mythical "quality", gives up the Right's game.

Let's be clear- all citizens are stakeholders in our nation and voting is a right.

Let's be clear- MAGAts are the low quality voters they claim to desire excluded.
Who is civically illiterate?
Who is detached from reality?
Who is more dependent in the federal government and our tax dollars?
Who offers greater shelter to ideals hostile to democracy?

That the Right can't and won't answer these questions, just dance around them, speaks loud.
We need to make voting *harder*. Just not for us.

We need to restrict early voting. Just not in states our guy won.

There was *fraud*. Just not in states our guy won. And nevermind that most fraud we catch comes from our voters.
Read 6 tweets
28 Dec 20
He's right y'all. Seriously.

If it comes from Parler? Laugh at it. Nobody over there is a legal thinker.

If it comes from the law professor op ed crowd? Decode it. It's trading on your panic for clout.

I say again: foreseeability, people. Everything is happening as it should.
Common sense can get you through a lot of this stuff. Seriously.

If electors can be appointed because the state party simply decides to send them, and if certification is unnecessary in the face of the whims of the VP playing master of ceremonies, what does that mean?
Common sense can get you through a lot of the psycho litigation, too.

If thousands of votes can be dumped and states can be switched on briefs with no credible evidence, and grammar, spelling, and argumentation so bad an 8th grader would be ashamed, what would that mean?
Read 9 tweets
26 Dec 20
Litigation isn't sedition, y'all.

If you wish it were, check yourself for your authoritarian instincts.
"I want the government to punish attorneys who challenge it via its own courts and procedures" is a take so gross, in fact, that the understandable indignation at the bullshit some lawyers get up to doesn't really excuse it.
Our profession is regulated civilly by people who know our profession, how it works, and how it needs to work.

Is it regulated fairly or aggressively enough? Certainly not. I'd rather err towards laissez-faire than criminalize advocacy based on obsequious devotion to the state.
Read 4 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!