1988 was 34 years ago. This is not my usual both 2000 and 1980 where 20 years ago whittering (though I am correct about that), this is a discussion about age and the Eternal Now and how the simple passage of time affects political analysis.
I am going to use 18 as a baseline age here because that is US voting age. For anyone 52 years and younger, 1988 was the first Presidential election in which they could vote. That was when GHWB was elected President. You have to be 60 now to have voted for Reagan in 1980
GHWB is the last Republican President to be elected without Democrats claiming his election was illegitimate. 2000 was 22 years ago. For anyone 40 and younger, every Republican President since they were eligible to vote has been considered illegitimate by both Dems and the press.
For those of us upper end Gen X and older, it is difficult to internalize that Bill Clinton being President is as remote to Millennials and younger as, say, Nixon being President is to upper end Gen X. Sure, it happened but that's history. Ancient history.
2008 is 14 years ago. You would have to be at least 32 and then 28 to have voted for Obama. For younger Millennials and upper end Gen Z, that's the President when they were kids and they maybe sorta remember that being a big thing.
2016 is six years ago. You have to be at least 24 to have voted for Trump. The point of going through this chronology is to stress, as many others, that for the last 22 years, every Republican President has been considered illegitimate by large swathes of the press and public.
If you are under 40, you grew up in a world in which a Republican being President was deemed per se illegitimate. You grew up in a world where what those illegitimate Presidents did was per se illegitimate. It is the air you breathed and the water you drank. This is what you know
This is simply the truth. Bush was installed by the Supreme Court and then did *handwave* something wrong to be re-elected, after all, he shouldn't have been President in the first place. Republicans play a game with the Electoral College, which is anti-democratic, to win.
Every Republican President is wrong and everything they do is wrong, and Trump let Russians change votes to make him President so what he did was extra super wrong. Since everything they did is wrong, then every action they took is wrong and SCOTUS is illegitimate. It's logic.
It is irrelevant whether this is true. It is what two generations of people have been told. People believe this because why would those people who are the experts in politics say this if it wasn't true? That's what they are paid to do, that's what they know, they wouldn't lie.
I comprehend the urge to eyeroll when the wailing starts about how SCOTUS is illegitimate because the justices were appointed by Presidents who did not win the popular vote and thus are illegitimate. It is eyeroll worthy. However. Enormous numbers of people who vote believe this.
Many a pixel has been slain, and that's just by me, decrying the total lack of knowledge of how the American electoral system works. Many more have been slain noting how destructive this is to public discourse. I am here to tell you that it will only get worse.
Another part of my internet life is very Left indeed. I keep my mouth shut over there because that's where I go to try to escape politics. I am here to tell you that the Kids These Days do not understand what Dobbs did. They believe, utterly, that abortion was just banned.
They believe that Republicans are an existential threat to democracy and that Republicans should be banned from all manner of things, practicing medicine, practicing law, going to college at all, holding jobs, partaking in society at large. Because Republicans are evil and cheat.
A very few people there know that I have a JD and I was asked privately to explain what Dobbs meant. When I told those people that Dobbs meant states decided abortion laws and that CA and NY now have some of the most permissive laws in the world, I was met with shock.
Why? Because all the news sources they consume told them otherwise. I was accused of lying. I was accused of making it up. And when they went and checked and found out I was correct, the utter cognitive dissonance was painful to behold. Because these sources they trust lied.
The response was not to question worldview and whether those sources were lying to them about other matters. The response was ego defense. Okay well this is wrong but TX banned and that's what the rest of the country will do and they weren't lying, they were just upset!
That is the mental barrier with which messaging that's not fully of the Left, let alone being of the Right, is up against. Two generations of being told that Republicans are evil cheaters who aren't a legitimate political party. Two generations of no civics education, not really.
People don't like to question priors because doing so means admitting you did not interpret the world correctly and the ego will defend against that. It's been +/- 18 years since I've had to admit my view of Middle Eastern geopolitics was absolutely wrong. I'm still bitter.
We discuss Othering and that is also a problem. But there are two generations of Americans for whom a baseline worldview is that if the Republicans win, that can be ignored because it's not legitimate. And that I don't see changing. It's only going to get uglier from here. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Do you have your caffeine conveyance method of choice to hand? Because I'm going to discuss preemption and boy howdy is this field confusing and an utter mess. So much so that I'm going to assign some homework. COME BACK HERE!
There's a chart on p. 2 (p. 4 of the pdf) that will be useful for those of you who process information more visually. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/…
The rest of that is fairly decent and mainly written in English, not Legal. Okay. Here. We. Go.
What is preemption? Preemption is the doctrine that federal law preempts state laws. This is based on the Supremacy Clause Art. VI, Clause 2 which makes the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof the law of the land. But wait! Doesn't that destroy state's rights?
Legal analysis, at heart, involves two things: identification of classification and pattern matching. Let's step through that. Identification of classification means into what classification do my client's facts fall? Let's take a person entering onto another's property.
There are three primary types of those entering onto property: trespasser, licensee, and invitee. Invitee has two subclasses: business invitee and personal invitee. Into what class a person falls determines what duty the property holder has to that person.
Trespassers? You can't set tiger traps. Business invitee? You must take active steps to insure that there is nothing that may harm the person you invited onto the property. These are distinctions with very significant differences.
I'm getting this out there so I can later engage in my favorite past time of I Told You So. This is speculation on my part based on decades of observation & what I would do in that situation. I shouldn't have to type this but since people are dim: explanation is not endorsement.
Should Casey/Roe be overturned and abortion restrictions be returned to the states, in those states where abortion is strictly restricted, if not outright prohibited, abortion providers will refuse to comply with those laws. Rather, the abortion clinics will remain open.
There are many reasons for this: to force the state to expend resources on investigating each abortion provider to gather evidence that the provider is in violation of the law; to force prosecutions of individual doctors who perform abortions; to tie up state AGs in litigation.
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is immunity, the three types and the two variants. Mops and buckets will be provided at the end of class to clean up after the eye exsanguination that may ensue. Everyone have their note taking devices and caffeine?
What is immunity? What is says on the tin. If an entity/person is immune, they cannot be sued for their actions. There are three basic types of immunity: sovereign, prosecutorial, and qualified. Technically, there's also legislative grant of immunity which is a separate matter
The two variants of immunity are absolute and qualified. Absolute is just that. Absolute. If the type of immunity is absolute, then the entity/person cannot be sued no matter how egregious the actions. It does not matter if the actions were purposeful. Absolute is absolute.
The conflation of politics and morality leads to the utterly corrosive refusal to admit that positions do not have only positive benefits with no negative costs. Pointing out the negative is treated as an attack on dogma rather than an adult attempt to weigh benefits and costs.
Let me attack one of my own deeply held positions. I find police use of public DNA databases to compare DNA samples to find familial connections to a suspect to be skin crawling dystopian. That police were able to get a court order for a woman's pap smear sample horrifies me.
I'm not making that up - npr.org/templates/stor…
Police had a suspect but not enough evidence to obtain an order for DNA testing of him directly. So they went sideways and got one for DNA from a sample scraped from his daughter's cervix. Without her knowledge by the by.
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's lesson is how exhibits are authenticated, the importance of citing to sources, and COME BACK HERE! This is the stuff that helps explain why trials take so long and are so expensive. Also this is all for civil, not criminal.
Let's start with the super basic: what is an exhibit? An exhibit is a document (be it a photo or a report or an email or a text) that is being introduced to support the claim or defense of a party. An exhibit may also be an expert report or a reconstruction.
Obviously, there are many other matters that can be used as exhibits but that's enough for an overview. Now, I'm only going to be talking about authentication, not issues with hearsay, because no one understands the hearsay rules except maybe God and that's still a maybe.