But there's also a whole history of women being believed when they falsely accuse Black men of misconduct that also exists, and needs to be reckoned with as well. Bottom line - let the process play out. But it does not look good for him.
When the first accusation came out, I suggested people ought to hold their opinions for more info. With the sheer number of accusations, in similar situations, and with at least some corroborating details of him actually communicating with them ... I lean toward "it's true"
I mean, it's either that or Watson has the remarkable bad luck of having randomly selected evil people willing to lie about him for money as his non-team-provided masseurs. Which would be weird. So my #Jets should stay away. But ...
He was invited to give a talk in a lecture series typically sponsored by the local Jewish federation and other strong supporters of the 2 state solution. Without notice to those entities, VCU simply listed them as sponsors. Of a talk whose views they oppose. 2
Unsurprisingly, they reached out to VCU and said "we don't support this person's views and don't want to be associated with them. We won't be sponsoring his speech unless a contrary view is presented. Take us off the list." 3
1) there are competing historical injustices betting evoked here - women's accusations betting dismissed out of hand, and women's accusations against Black men being accepted without question. Don't fall into either of those categories
2) If true, this would be VASTLY out of Watson's publicly known character. So what? Pretty sure almost none of you following me know him personally, and even if we did, too many people have secrets for that to mean anything beyond "it would be really disappointing if true"
3) none of us have any obligation at all to have an opinion on this, especially not until the details are known. Not one way or the other. If you're leaping to crucify him, what's wrong with you? To absolve him, same deal.
Republican legislatures are passing doomed and unconstitutional "anti-censorship" legislation aimed at banning social media companies from prohibiting Nazis or advocates for lowering the age of consent to 7 from posting on their sites. Idaho is the latest
And yes, anything anyone is willing to pay for has the value people are willing to pay for it. Gold isn't expensive for any reason other than "lots of people want it"
But that's the thing. There's a limited supply of gold and lots of people want access to it. Here, why are people expecting that lots of people will continue to want access to the Top Shot version of this highlight, or any other?
And on this note, just going to share an idea on the societal/institutional treatment of women that we can see from the megillah, if we pay attention to the text. Particularly, around Ahashverosh, Vashti, and Esther... and Mordechai.
So here's the question: What was it that Vashti did that triggered what looks like an inexplicable overreaction from Ahashverosh, and completely wild advice about societal breakdown from his advisor (Memuchan/Haman, same guy btw)?
I mean, sure, she said no to the King, and that's not really a thing you get to do in a monarchical state. But why in the world does Memuchan suggest that if the king lets this go, it'll have trickle-down effects on every subordinate government official? How does that make sense?
Some of this stuff is really noxious. But not all of it. The idea that state officials can't enter into consent decrees that change state law without consent from the legislature is, frankly, a good one.
That's separate and apart from the fact that the consent decrees that had Trump up in arms were obviously reasonable and would have been approved. The legislature, not governors, attorneys general, or secretaries of state, is the state body that has authority to write law
In the normal course, the legislature is the only state body that can amend the laws they pass.
That the state is being sued over the law shouldn't change that by conferring authority on non-legislative officials to rewrite the law in the form of a settlement agreement
All, I am humbly asking you to please support this important charity, which protects Jewish women from abuse and helps them through it. If my election suit coverage made your days better, and you can give or signal boost, I'd very much appreciate it jgive.com/new/en/usd/don…
For those who don't know, in Jewish law, a religious divorce is accomplished by means of a "Get", which is a religious document that must be given by the husband (personally or through an agent) to the wife to have any validity
Without the Get, the parties are still religiously married, with all the consequences that entails.
This should not be an issue. In 99% of cases, it's not. Not giving a Get is abusive - it leaves the wife locked in, unable to move on - and most of us aren't abusers
1) The Oslo Accords provide that the PA is responsible for medical care in Gaza/WB 2) The PA did not ask Israel to procure vaccine for it and insisted it would procure it independently 3) Israel has not hindered them from doing so
The same folks who insist that Palestine is a state that should be a member of the UN and the ICC has jurisdiction over also seem to think Israel should be ignoring the PA's treaty-given rights and responsibilities. Because why not
Israel is rapidly vaccinating its ENTIRE population, Jews and non-Jews alike. It is not responsible for the vaccination of the population in Gaza or the West Bank, legally or morally. It *is* good epidemiology, given how intertwined the polities are, to help anyway
Aside from trying and again failing to legislate around 230 - which protects social media companies from any liability at all for "viewpoint discrimination," they've now added an "aiding and abetting" claim against users for reporting content to moderators
OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.
Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break
Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept
This is the rare occasion where I disagree with Ken on defamation policy. True defamation involving a public figure is vanishingly rare, and everyone should err on the side of not chilling core political speech.
That means you put on your grown-up pants and suck it up a lot. BUT
A political culture that embraces anyone saying anything at all at any time, completely without regard for truth and despite knowing it was false, is toxic and damaging to the country. And without consequences, it will continue to proliferate
Everything in that first tweet is still true, and that means that if there's any rational defense at all, you should err on the side of not suing folks like Rudy for being political hacks.
But insane conspiracy theories even they don't believe, deployed to rally the gullible?
The Constitution unequivocally allowed to the house to impeach president Trump. Nobody disputes that.
The Constitution also unequivocally provides that the Senate SHALL try all impeachments
It's not discretionary.
Also, impeachment is a POLITICAL solution to a POLITICAL problem. There are some subtle signs of that in the Constitution, like, I don't know, the power to impeach being handed to one political body (the house, not a prosecutor), the trial to another (the Senate not the courts),
This is NOT something you ever want to see as a litigator. It means that the judge chose to read your pleadings and thought that they were so jacked up, somehow that she wants you in her courtroom, right goddamn now, to explain what the hell you were thinking
That's one way to describe the Plaintiffs' blind, repeated, flailing attempts at submitting a motion for a TRO, I guess. Seriously, if you haven't followed these filings, they're SPECTACULAR
If sex for purposes of this rule is based on "reproductive biology and genetics at birth" no "genital exam" conducting on someone in school could ever be relevant, because it wouldn't shed light on "reproductive biology AT BIRTH"
I get that there's a "how would you know to enforce this" issue, here, but the only conceivable way would be based on the birth certificate. No school-age exam could ever have relevance
I mean he's got every right to do that; nobody is entitled to use his replies as a vehicle for speech he doesn't want to hear or help promote.
I just wish he had the intellectual honesty to recognize that rule *doesn't only apply to him, or to speech he disfavors*
BTW, I consider a lack of intellectual honesty a disabling, insurmountable vice in public discourse, and I wish more people did. I can have a meaningful discussion with, and learn a lot from, people I strongly disagree with, if they're intellectually honest.
OK. I promised you a thread on this batshit insane "Keep Trump as President for Life" lawsuit so here it is. The short summary is: "We think there may have been election law violations, so obviously there is no government" courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
To the surprise of none of you
Let's deal with some background. First, you may remember the "Purcell principle" from earlier election law threads. It's the one that says "look, even if there's some law that an election procedure is in violation of, courts won't step in if it's too close to the election"
It's amazing - and deeply sad - how much of Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail remains true and relevant today. Read the whole thing, not just the easy parts. Some highlights that still speak to me below africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/L…
While confined here ... I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." ... since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement ... #MLK
you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." ... I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. ... I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. #MLK