By the way, some of left-leaning Twitter has a weird* idea of criminal law and the justice system. They want justice to be swift and brutal.
The problem: That can backfire. Right?
*authoritarian
2/
For someone to be prosecuted, there has to be a specific statute on the books, and the prosecutor has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard.
One question is whether Trump has violated Georgia Code § 21-2-604.
The latest attacks are in the Calfornia recall with a chorus of voices, including TFG, insisting that if Newsom wins, it will be because the election was rigged (CA went for Biden 63.5% to Trump 34.3)
The problem: A swatch of angry and militant Californians think it’s true.
3/
. . . for government actions that are (1) needed to protect public health and are (2) reasonable and limited in scope.
He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.
2/
I can't imagine such a debate. If Trump wants the nomination (and is in a position to be the nominee -- I am skeptical) I suspect everyone will step back.
Speaking of women as "host bodies" (we were speaking about that, weren't we?) this is from a 1908 Supreme Cort case on why legislatures were justified in passing laws that "protected" women.
In fact, I'm stumbling on these because I'm reading my Ruth Bader Ginsburg book aloud for my YouTube channel. I'm up to chapter 9, but I haven't gotten around to posting them yet.
This one stands alone if you're interested in the history of women's legal rights without all personal RBG story.
Women's legal status was a bit shocking in the 19th century.
I'll thread some highlights. Not much time now, but I'll add to it later.
1/
When Myra Bradwell tried to become a lawyer in the 1870s, she passed the Illinois bar, but the United States Supreme Court upheld the Illinois decision to refuse to allow her to practice law because (basically) a woman belongs in the home.
This is from the Supreme Court:
2/
When Virginia Minor tried to vote in 1872, she (like others) argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all persons, she was a person, the law preventing her from voting denied her equal protection of the law, therefore, she should be able to vote.
3/