Leftie shitposters and #resistance accounts have done a much better job of predicting the behavior of the GOP over the past six years than supposedly levelheaded centrist journalists.
I don't know how much of that is self-deception on the part of the pro-complacency crowd, but its effect is to facilitate GOP radicalism.
In order to stop them we need to convince a non-fascist majority that the GOP in it's current form is incredibly dangerous, but these dickheads are allergic to that reality
All of this is especially true for the supreme court, where even ostensibly liberal court watchers are deeply invested in believing that the process is legitimate and the federalist society is honorable and reasonable
I mean just read the whole thread. She has learned absolutely nothing
I've been working my way through Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. As I finish up with the Spanish American wars of independence, I was hoping the Twitter hive can answer my nagging questions, or at least point me in the right direction.
#1: Why was federalism so much stronger in South America than in North America? It isn't clear to me why Pennsylvanians and Virginians would want to be in a unified state together but Venezuelans and Colombians would not.
#2: why was Spain able/willing to keep fighting so much longer than Britain? Britain was a stronger power than in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and nobody successfully invaded the metropole in 1776. Yet Spain kept fighting for over twenty years
I think this one is finally going to drive everyone on public defender Twitter insane
Prosecutors historically have been more than happy to turn tragedies into crimes and then prosecute grieving families to the fullest extent of the law.
Even in misdemeanor court I have seen parents charged with misdemeanor death by motor vehicle when their slightly negligent driving caused auto accidents in which their own children were killed.
We need to be specific about what overturning Roe will mean in deep red states. First and foremost, it means you'll see women being criminally prosecuted for getting an abortion after being raped.
It will mean women, abortion providers, and friends or family that help arrange illegal abortions will be charged with murder.
It will mean women who miscarry will be charged with homicide
There was a stretch of time after Obama was elected but before Obergefell where it was obvious how threadbare the legal arguments against same sex marriage were but the conservative legal movement kept trying to find something that made sense.
It's wild to look back on it, but those arguments got made by all of the leading lights in the movement. Just embarrassing hack stuff
And of course it happened because the equal protection problem of letting some people get but not others was very, very obvious, so you had a bunch of intelligent lawyers flailing around for some government interest other than bigotry to justify discrimination.
#1: standalone drug paraphernalia. It's a crime here to possess drug paraphernalia, which a very broad category of everyday objects that become contraband if you intend to use then to ingest/package/distribute/etc illegal drugs.
So if the cops search somebody and hope to find actual drugs but instead find some rolling papers/plastic baggies/a digital scale/a glass pipe/etc they will generally still charge paraphernalia possession
It is not a recent trend; it's just that opponents of reform like to pretend that it is. Every prosecutor everywhere declines to prosecute most of the crimes that take place in their jurisdiction
Yglesias is right that we should change some of the statutes that criminalize harmless behavior or give cops discretion to harass certain classes of people, but there's nothing wrong with elected DA's declining to prosecute bad laws.
And even if we fixed those bad statutes, some non-prosecution decisions make sense in a particular context that's more complex than whether the conduct should be a crime or not