Here's the thing: There's not even the slightest smidgeon of doubt that SB-8 is unconstitutional. There isn't a scintilla of an argument that it can stand under current law. And nobody even tries to make one.
The only questions are procedural, because it is *expressly & intentionally* written to try to prevent courts from addressing the unconstitutionality of the law.
Texas' state government is expressly trying to trample people's constitutional rights. And the right is cheering
The right, which used to worry about "freedom" and "government overreach" is cheering "one neat trick that lets the state take away your freedom in a way the courts can't do anything about"
Because they don't like the right in question
And because they're fucking stupid enough not to realize that if this "one neat trick" works, it'll immediately be replicated by the left everywhere they can. Like your second amendment? Religious freedom? Bye-bye.
"We're not fining the nuns for not including abortion coverage in their health plans. We're just giving anyone negatively impacted a cause of action with $100,000,000 in statutory damages. Bake the cake or be sued." Etc. etc.
"Handguns are legal, but anyone who feels threatened by seeing you with one has a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, statutory damages, and attorneys fees ..."
You stupid, short-sighted, America-hating motherfuckers. Grow up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Huge news in Epic v. Apple, where the judge just ruled for Epic that Apple *must* allow app developers to provide users with non-AppStore purchasing options if they want them, under California unfair competition law - but also that Apple was not a monopolist under anti-trust law
The court also found Epic breached its contract with Apple and is required to pay them millions of dollars. Time for a live-read
The court starts with a recap of the case, and a discussion of the parties' views of the "relevant market." In an antitrust case, the definition of the market can be the ballgame, because whether a defendant has monopoly power may depend on how tightly or widely you zoom in
It's time to stop pretending that most Americans have a coherent view of foreign policy. 75% wanted troops to remain until all civilians could get out, and also wanted no danger to troops, and also wanted troops out as fast as possible, and also ...you can't do FoPo by poll
And btw, this isn't a shot at "ordinary Americans". This stuff is HARD. It's complex, it requires wide-ranging domain specific knowledge, and the domains are way more distinct than just "foreign policy" or "military" or "diplomacy"
What works in Afghanistan won't necessarily work in Botswana, and vice-versa. Hell, it won't necessarily work in Uzbekistan, right next door.
Conducting foreign policy by polling is like building an airplane by polling; the people you're asking just don't know enough to give ...
This is the correct legal decision on the facts and the law (gimme a sec) which should be enough to tell you that the law itself is the problem here, and has to change.
Also, with respect to Dilan, he's 100% wrong about what the Missippi Supreme Court found. See below.
Why is it the correct legal decision? Mississippi does not have no-fault divorce, so the abused spouse here had to prove "habitual cruel and inhuman treatment" to get out of her marriage. There was a trial, and the trial judge found she hadn't proven - without expressly saying if
That failure of proof was either because (1) the judge believed the wife's testimony about what happened in the marriage but didn't think it was sufficiently cruel; or (2) the judge believed the husband and didn't believe the wife
Terpsehore Maras is suing Dominion for defamation, because they said [IN A PLEADING] that the Arizona court called her affidavit for Sidney Powell "unreliable" ... when the court just said that Powell's experts were generally derived from unreliable sources.
There's just so much wrong here. But look, litigation privilege exists. That means you literally can't sue someone for defamation over things they say in a document filed with a court in a litigation.
"You are discriminating against us on the basis of race, in that some of us are black and some of us are white" might be the stupidest line in this godawful year of performative political litigation, and that's in a field fucking full of elite level contenders
Lest you think that stupid performative political litigation is limited to the Trumpist right, this is a suit filed by some of the Democrats who fled Texas to deny the legislature a quorum, against Texas' governor, house speaker, and - AFAICT - a random Black GOP house rep
The decision in the Laura Loomer fee application is out. She got tagged for 123K. Let's take a look
Reminder of how we got here. Twitter banned Loomer (because she's incredibly awful and an Islamophobe). Loomer, as one does, sued CAIR, alleging that they conspired with Twitter to have her banned.
Florida law lets parties make an "offer of judgment" - basically, "I'll stipulate to a judgment in the amount of [insert dollars] if you will" - and says "if the other party denies it, and you do better than that as an end result, they have to pay your fees"