Share this page!

Teri Kanefield Profile picture
Twitter logo
18 Sep, 5 tweets, 2 min read
For all the people in my mentions saying this like this, please see the video I recorded last Sunday.

I think people are confusing "They're still fighting" with "they think they won."

I also find the "no consequences" peculiar. Trump lost. He's out of power . . .

1/
Dems hold both houses. (Slim majorities, but still)

Trump lawyers are being sanctions and disbarred.

Hundreds of insurrectionists are being criminally prosecuted.

Trump is facing countless lawsuits.

Criminal investigations are ongoing.

See:

2/
Okay, "We'd like to see all the people involved in jail," is quite different from, "There have been no consequences."

Right?


3/
I'll go out on a limb and say that Trump doesn't think he's winning right now.

If you mean, "We won't be satisfied or happy until Trump is in jail," by all means, say that.

But don't say there have been no consequences.

Accuracy, like truth, is important.

4/
Easily?

Also, what is the "political system?"

We have a very complex government with power spread out widely.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield 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!

PDF

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 @Teri_Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture
19 Sep
Criminal Law for Twitter 101

For this week's video/blog post, an analysis of Trump’s criminal liability in Georgia (As I promised yesterday)

Spoiler: The correct answer to every legal question is: "It's complicated." (Alternate answer: "It depends.”)

1/
For people who prefer to read, here's a transcript.
terikanefield.com/trumps-crimina…

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.

3/
Read 18 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
12 Sep
This week, I addressed this question about Republican attacks on democracy: “I honestly can’t take it anymore. When will it end?”

And this comment: “I’m really worried they’ll try again and next time they’ll succeed.”



I’ll have a transcript shortly.

1/
Scholars relied on: @dziblatt, Steven Levitsky, Max Weber, Lucan Way and, indirectly, @karen_stenner

After more ☕️ I'll come back and attempt a Twitter Summary.

The transcript is here: terikanefield.com/when-will-it-e…

2/
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/
Read 22 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
8 Sep
This means that DeSantis is likely to keep losing.

The interesting question, of course, is why he's pushing a losing and unpopular issue.

The judge held that while Florida law gives parents control over their children's health, there is a clear exception . . .

1/
. . . 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.

I think the contest is to be Trump II

Read 4 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
6 Sep
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.

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…
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.
There are so many ways to understand what is happening in Texas.


One is as extreme reactionary / regressive: A desire to take us back to the "good old days."

The "again" in MAGA signifies reactionist politics.
Read 6 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
5 Sep
This week, I resolved the contradiction between saying “Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomy” while passing draconian anti-abortion laws.

It makes sense within the context of Christian nationalism and Christian fundamentalism.


1/
When I published it, YouTube told me that it contains sensitive information and viewing may be limited.

No porn or foul language, I promise!

Maybe it dislikes "anti-abortion" and discussions of rape laws?

I’ll have a transcript (and perhaps a Twitter summary) shortly.

2/
In a nutshell: Christian fundamentalism envisions a patriarchal hierarchy with women in a subordinate position.

Pretty much what nineteenth-century American courts held. From Bradwell v. State, 1872⤵️

The full opinion is here: law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/t…

3/ Image
Read 17 tweets
Teri Kanefield Profile picture
4 Sep
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/
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Teri_Kanefield has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Teri_Kanefield!

Read all threads by @Teri_Kanefield

:(