Share this page!

Max Kennerly Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Nov, 7 tweets, 10 min read
Unfortunately, the bill to make parents give an "observed urine sample" based on anonymous reports passed the Pennsylvania House. Bizarrely, it's one of the fastest-moving bills in the General Assembly: in two weeks it passed two committees and the House floor.

/1
It's unclear who is even pushing for this bill, and no hearings have been held. Several organizations objected to it.

For the floor vote, at least some PA Dems did the right thing and voted no, like @jessicalbenham @AmenBrownPHL @RepDonnaBullock @RepBurgos @RepCephas
/2
Other PA Dems getting it right: @RepMJDaley @RepAustinDavis @RepDawkins @RepHillEvans @RepFiedler @RepIzzy @RepDanFrankel @gainey_ed @Manny_Guzman610 @JordanHarrisPA @RepHohenstein @Innamo @RepMaryIsaacson @RepKinkead @RepKinsey @RepKirkland @RepKrajewski @RepSummerLee
/3
Also voting the right way: @RepMadden @RepDanMiller @RepDarisha @RepRabb @BrianSimsPA @RepJaredSolomon @RepMikeSturla @GregVitali @RepWheatley @RepReginaYoung

/4
But some PA House Dems inexplicably voted in favor of forcing parents to pee in a cup based on anonymous reports.

I have no idea what @leanne4pa @RepNapoleon @malcolmkenyatta @RepHanbidge were thinking when they voted for more arbitrarily compelled drug screenings.

/5
@RepKevinBoyle voting for it is particularly ironic: this is more than enough to make him pee in a cup or lose his kids under the bill he just voted for.
/6
nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/…
It's no surprise Republicans @RepBryanCutler @RepBenninghoff @RepDelozier want the gov't to show up without probable cause and threaten to take your kids away unless they watch you pee.

But it's disappointing to see any Dems join them.

I hope @GovernorTomWolf vetoes it.

/end

• • •

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

Keep Current with Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly 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 @MaxKennerly

Max Kennerly Profile picture
12 Nov
I agree with the conclusion: the verdict probably won't be the product of rulings by Judge Schroeder, but rather [insert whatever you think drives the outcome here other than the judge].

Nonetheless, there have been some 'balls and strikes' issues here worth discussing.

/1
Despite what Justice Roberts says, SCOTUS isn't an umpire calling balls and strikes. They are MLB, deciding the rules of the game, who can own a team, and who can play.

But trial judges often are calling balls and strikes, and it can make a difference.

/2
For example, the video, filmed 2 weeks before Kenosha, in which Rittenhouse sees people leaving a CVS and says "Bro, I wish I had my (expletive) AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them."

That video is not obviously admissible or inadmissible.
/3
kenoshanews.com/news/local/sta…
Read 9 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
11 Nov
A couple notes:

1) The judge didn't have to entertain this. The defense lawyer obviously has no genuine basis—hence the "logarithm" and "AI"—he's just hoping to jam up the prosecutor's presentation. The judge could've said "do your homework and raise a real objection."

/1
2) We can dunk on all three for misunderstanding image scaling, but it shouldn't matter. As the prosecutor said, they've been zooming and cropping digital images the whole trial, and the defense has no genuine basis to suggest this is different. Judge could've denied on that.

/2
3) In this situation, the burden should be on the defense to call an expert. The prosecution has the burden of proving the crime; the prosecution doesn't have the burden of proving the absence of stealth Apple AI tech that performs LCD interpolation in a nonstandard way.

/3
Read 4 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
8 Oct
Odd how this "only thread" wasn't recognized by the founding generation, rarely occurred until the 1880s, almost always failed before the 1950s (because it required actual continuous filibustering), and today uses a procedure invented in 1972 and modified repeatedly up to 2017.
There's no honest way to look at the Constitution or the history of the Senate and say "the filibuster is the only thread we have in America to keep democracy alive and well." When Manchin was born, filibusters were a rare event limited to civil rights. getrevue.co/profile/maxken…
Senate votes on cloture, 1917–1970: 49

Senate votes on cloture, 2021 (so far): 100

"The filibuster is the only thread we have in America to keep democracy alive and well." — @Sen_JoeManchin 🙄

senate.gov/legislative/cl…
Read 5 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
13 Sep
Gah. Well, congrats to the headline-seeking researchers behind that VAERS / myocarditis study, they found the audience they were looking for!

But let's talk for a second about the study.

/1
VEARS is cool, just like FAERS is cool. It's a simple system for collecting adverse event reports from anywhere. Typically, these are used to flag events with disproportionate reporting frequency, which can then be analyzed with other methods that have validated medical data.

/2
I will grant the authors of the paper ( medrxiv.org/content/10.110… ) one thing, they set up a link to make it easy to comb through the VAERS reports included in their analysis: bit.ly/CAEmRNA

So let's take a look at some of them.
/3
Read 11 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
27 Aug
The first page says: "The case has been thoroughly briefed before us—twice." That is untrue. The merits of the case have never been before SCOTUS. What they've had instead were two emergency motions on the "shadow docket" with minimal briefing and no oral argument.

/1
One problem with this emergency / "shadow docket" mode of deciding cases is the high likelihood of factual error, such as this.

The orderly distribution of rental assistance did not happen. The 6 conservative Justices simply assert, erroneously, the issue has "diminished."

/2
The 6 conservatives Justices similarly do not address the changed circumstances. In dissent, Justice Breyer points out what we all know: COVID cases have been rising dramatically via the Delta variant, and the balance of equities now is even more in favor of the moratorium.

/3
Read 6 tweets
Max Kennerly Profile picture
2 Aug
Since you're having trouble @potus @CDCgov @PressSec:

The legal authority is 42 U.S.C. § 264(a).

See D.C. Circuit, No. 21-5093 (June 2, 2021)(affirming district court stay order); see also U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20A169 (June 29, 2021)(denying application to vacate stay).

/1
D.C. Circuit: cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/order…

SCOTUS: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

FYI, Kavanaugh's concurrence is not the law. We can make predictions what SCOTUS *might* do, but predictions aren't the law. The law is what the majority did: refuse to vacate the D.C. Circuit's order.

/2
Obviously, Congress could've and should've fixed this legislatively in light of the apparent legal threats. For the moment, however, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) can be used to extend the eviction moratorium. This may change with future court developments, but that is the law right now.
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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @MaxKennerly has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @MaxKennerly!

Read all threads by @MaxKennerly

:(