🧵Yesterday I was in a position where I could overhear three women, all in their early to mid 20s, discussing the assassination attempt against Trump. I was trying to ignore it out of simple politeness. Then they started trying to remember which President won like all the states.
They couldn't remember and one said Kennedy and that's when I snapped and said excuse me I don't mean to interrupt but I have a history background and you're causing me pain from that and from my teenage years being your history: it was Reagan in 1984 and well after he was shot.
They were really nice about my interruption and we started talking and it was fascinating to hear what they thought about the current state of the world. Here are the things I found most interesting from that conversation.
1. They were all convinced that the Secret Service was absolutely hiding something because there was no possible way that some 20 year old kid was able to crawl up on the roof without anyone doing anything about it.
They were all fairly decently up to date on what few facts had been confirmed and they were all clearly keeping up with it closely. And they all agreed that the official story could not be true because it flew in the face of common sense.
We then had an interesting discussion about conspiracy theories in general and I brought up that it was far more comforting to think it was a conspiracy then that the Secret Service was so incompetent and they agreed. All of them said they didn't trust any investigation at all.
One of them said she knew an ass covering when she saw it and the other two nodded. Another brought up the cocaine in the White House and said c'mon, everyone knows it was Hunter's, stop lying about it.
All of them scoffed at the loser boy being a registered Republican. They kept saying he was 20, he didn't know anything, he probably did what his parents did. One of them brought up the ActBlue donation and they all thought that was meaningless as well.
They weren't sure what the conspiracy was, just that they felt insulted to their faces that the Secret Service was acting like that roof wasn't an obvious security flaw. They all agreed the government was going to lie about everything about the investigation.
II. They all think Trump is going to win and going to win in a landslide. That's how the who won like all the states even came up in the first place. They think it will be that level of victory. What's more interesting is they didn't appear to feel any particular way about it.
This is especially noteworthy given the demographic and that I live in a battleground state. To them, it was simply the way the world was going to be. Notably, they all thought he was going to win even before the attempt, it was just that now it was certain.
Trois. They were all fascinated by how their children would be learning about this in history class. We got talking about The Picture and all of them said that picture would be taught forever. I explained that's how I felt about them not remembering Reagan won 49 states.
It was really interesting watching them realize that the history that they were taught all neat and dry was messy when it was happening. (Aside: all three of them clearly wanted and planned to have kids)
Vier. All of them had absolutely no use for either political party. They all planned to vote, since they all agreed that voting was important, but they thought all the people in DC cared about was the people in DC, no matter the party.
We very specifically did not discuss any political issues directly so it wasn't a policy based discussion. It was more that the parties care more about staying in power then trying to solve any problems and that there was a lot of money in making us all mad at each other.
It was very interesting to see how all of this is playing out to people significantly (sigh) younger than I am. If anything, I came away slightly hopeful about The Children. Anyway, here's a red panda. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵
Let me clamp down as hard as possible on the third rail. Let me monologue, because this is in no possible way a conversation, about the fact that there are, in fact, currently enacted immigration laws and regulations. Grab caffeine conveyance of choice and a snack. Let's go.
This is a link to the Immigration and Nationality Act - these are the duly enacted immigration statutes.
These are the duly promulgated regulations pertaining to immigration.
INA was first enacted in 1952. That is 72 years ago. This was significantly revised in the 1965 amendments spearheaded by Ted Kennedy. The amendments were so extensive, in fact, that when most people discuss INA, they mean the 1965 version. That passed 59 years ago.
Here is the statute in question. Note that this was passed in July, 2010. Screenshot of text also included. codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-c…
Reality. That is a duly enacted state law that has existed since July, 2010. That is nearly 14 years. This is not obscure. This is not unknown. It is, literally, the state law of Ohio. It is not something that those dastardly Republicans dreamt up just now to screw Biden.
🧵 The idiocy with the Appeal to Heaven flag and Alito made me look to see what happened with Emmaneul Cafferty. He's the man fired by SDG&E in 2020 because some idiot posted a picture of Cafferty's hand hanging out of his truck window and claimed he was a white supremacist.
The claim was that Cafferty was flashing the okay symbol, which 4chan managed to hoax idiots into thinking was a white supremacy symbol, in the vicinity of a BLM march. Cafferty was in his work truck and the cretin who posted the picture called and got others to call to complain.
SDG&E claimed it did an investigation and then fired Cafferty. Needless to say, it was all a stupid stupid stupid lie. Cafferty was cracking his knuckles, had no idea he was even doing that, and had no idea about the BLM march which was blocks away.
🧵 So. Here's the story about how I got thrown out of a pro life group because people did not want to hear what I had to say. This was in the late 2000's. I was asked to assist a group with drafting legislation designed to test Roe/Casey and secondarily to be the trigger law.
I agreed, though I had some hesitance since I knew a couple of people running it and let us just say that their passion for the pro-life movement, which has high and admirable, was not matched by being overly fussed with the practical details of implementing such restrictions.
Still, I agreed and we started work on the legislation. The initial dispute was over wanting there to be a 100% ban. There was no way, none, not a chance that this would pass the legislature. Not only that, pushing for it would lead to loss of support by several state reps.
Good afternooon and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is judgments, execution on judgments, appeals, stay of execution pending appeal, statutory interest, and just how all of this works. Grab a snack and beverage of choice and let's get it.
It's an old not remotely a joke in the legal profession that I can get you a judgment but what you want is money and those are not the same thing. This is absolutely true. Getting a judgment is just the first step of getting money. So why is that the case?
A judgment is a final determination that party A (usually the plaintiff) is legally obligated to party B (usually the defendant) to do something. The something is generally pay money. A judgment can be a jury verdict, a ruling on summary judgment motion, a bench trial verdict.
🧵On media literacy, media reliance, and why people should be justifiably enraged at having their good will and faith abused. Everyone have their beverage of choice and a snack? Let's get it.
Another round of headline having one sentence from a longer statement, people flipping out about the sentence, the sentence in context being the opposite of the implication of the headline, and the media entity going we linked the whole thing, we didn't lie is happening.
This happens with such frequency that it is, more or less, now the rule than the exception. Basic media literacy now demands that when a piece has a pull quote, it is incumbent on the reader to hunt down the original source material to make sure that the quote is accurate.