Fuck you of you think trans rights should be sacrificed "for the good of democracy".

The anti democracy machine is the anti-trans machine. Get that through your skulls.

Imagine FIFA seeing these same activities as the US is engaged in committed in an African or Asian country. What would their Human Rights experts say? 🤷‍♀️

My partner is the director of Instructional Technology at a D1 school and they’re developing a bespoke chat that’s only trained on the course materials- then at least the quality can be controlled. But I have LSAT and Bar students asking ChatGPT to provide explanations and practice Qs and it’s bad!

There’s… you know there’s still pumpkin pie out there after thanksgiving, right?

I support of the “bring politics back to the dinner table” approach -my entire dissertation was a case study in how friends talk to one another about politics. The scene is set in the first sentence of their convo:’”I don’t talk politics with people I disagree with.”
Wow.

In yesterday’s politics chat, @hcrichardson.bsky.social brings a good explanation of how in a low-engagement and info society (as we have here) people who aren’t paying attention politically get dragged along by the few demanding power through fear and anger. The solution? START TALKING.

Just incredible chutzpah & disdain for one’s entire profession & professional colleagues. Not to mention all of us as citizens. Not to mention the law, the meaning of words, & the Constitution. They don’t deserve our respect, because they have none for us or anyone else or the country.

In 303 Creative and Kennedy vs Bremerton School District, SCOTUS does some impressive revisionist factual history. It’s stunning to look at the majority and dissent’s statements of fact and think it’s the same case.

The poster asked if double jeopardy applies for grand juries or if it’s only after trial is completed. It’s neither.

It’s not semantics, it’s specifics. And specifics matter in the law.

The Supreme Court majority has decided that they are the fact-finders, and the facts are what they want them to be, and quite frankly if District Courts disagree, they can pound sand because they're not the ones in charge.

They're right about the last part. But the damage they're doing is longterm.

Almost - it applies once the trial begins (jury is empaneled or in a bench trial the first witness is sworn in). If the (fed) gov drops or loses after that it’s done. Before (grand jury, preliminary hearings) don’t do it.