People who care about civil rights and civil liberties would be demanding that Rusten Sheskey, the police officer who shot Jacob Blake six times in the back, be brought to justice.
People like Glenn are demanding that white boys get away with murder.
If you, like Glenn, find a whole lot of energy to try to free Rittenhouse, but can't find that same gear to hold cops accountable, I'm allowed to assume that you, like Glenn, are in it for the permissiveness of white violence, and not criminal justice reform.
Anyway, now Glenn can go get his shinebox and tell me how all he really cares about is defendant's rights.
These people defending Garland's inaction are like the LemonLyman club who would defend Josh Lyman's *secret plan* to fight inflation.
If Garland had empaneled a Grand Jury, we'd know it, just like we know when Cy Vance does.
If Garland or the FBI had interviewed key Congressional conspirators, we'd know it, because these people love complaining to Fox every time something bad happens to them.
If Garland were serious about holding everybody accountable for trying to overthrow the government, we wouldn't have ACTUALLY JUDGES complaining that the sentence recommendations FROM THE DOJ'S PROSECUTORS are too light.
ONE black juror in the trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, the judge literally says he sees INTENTIONAL discrimination in the selection process... but he lets the trial go forward ANYWAY.
In my upcoming book I have a whole chapter on jury selection, why the white Supreme Court continues to allow all white or mostly white juries, and how we can stop it if Dems took the courts seriously barnesandnoble.com/w/allow-me-to-…
26 percent of the county is Black... ONE Black juror.
I do not know any black people who are saying the GOP appeals to racism were ineffective. The question is what Dems should DO about that SELF-EVIDENT REALITY.
MY suggestion is "fight racism" as opposed to the centrist Dem strat of "don't talk about it and hope it goes away."
But I'm open to other suggestions, like "PASS LEGISLATION" or "SEND NON COLLEGE WHITES TO COLLGE FOR FREE" or even "JUST GIVE PEOPLE ENOUGH MONEY TO STOP CARING WHERE TRANS PEOPLE PEE"
But "Try to be more racist" seems like something we've tried that doesn't work.
That's for real a poll I want to see:
"You listed CRT as your top concern. How much cash money do you need to not care?" Tell me the PRICE POINT 10% of these assholes sell out for, and let's start CUTTING SOME GODDAMN CHECKS.
Roberts asking whether there is any place where guns can be restricted? Like places where they serve alcohol.
Clement is saying it's a case by case basis: says school and government buildings.... in bars "the government would have a tough case."
Kagan asks if you can restrict arms on the subway.
Clement can't say. "On behalf of my individual clients, I guess I could give away the subway, because they don't live in Manhattan."
THANKS, PAUL. HOW FUCKING MAGNANIMOUS
Now Barrett is jumping in. Clement is having real trouble here, b/c these justices are basically asking Clement if there's ANY END to his gun logic, and since there's not he can't really answer.
There was a problem at my polling place, the machine for my ED went down. And it created a backlog and a bit of a line.
Person in front of me and my mother gave up and walked out.
I felt bad... he made it all the way to the polling place but still didn't vote.
Like, not *too* bad because he was a white guy who rolled up in a Range Rover so, you know, not who I'm targeting with my mailer.
BUT STILL... it just drove the point home about how important *frictionless* voting is. Even *minor* hurdles can put some people off.
It also brings to mind that even with the best of intentions, things can break or go wrong. There can be delays.
Now imagine how much worse it is when people *don't* have the best of intentions. When they're actually trying to make people give up and walk away.