#trump is an adjudicated sex offender | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aridara · 5 years

Text

I’ve seen that this list of bad-stuff-that-feminists-SUPPOSEDLY-did-to-harm-men is going around again recently.

So, I’ve decided to simply copy-and-paste my rebuttal here, with slight modifications. Now with added quotes!

Okay, I’m going to number each single link Takashi0 provides. If it’s something that I’ve already talked about, I’ll be very brief about them, because there are 138 (if I didn’t miscount) links, and I can’t repeat myself every fucking time.

Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.

1 No proof that it was feminists who threatened, in any way, Pizzey.

Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.

2 The meeting did happen. It wasn’t prevented from happening, nor did the protesters tried to via violent means.

Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.

3 No mainstream feminists defended them.

Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.

4 Solanas wasn’t “hailed a hero of feminism”, neither back then, nor now.

Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.

5 No proof that it was feminists; the forum continued.

Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.

6 Unsourced claim.

Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.

7 Feminists pointed out that protecting the names of those accused of rape while denying the same to those accused of crimes like murder or terrorism is patently unjust. This from Takashi0’s own source.

Try to shut down female prisons.

8 Becuse they don’t work - reconvictions and suicides were unusually high. Moreover, the release only involved convicts with light sentences that weren’t threats to society.

Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.

9 Suspicious source (see here); also, no word about whether those laws passed or not. Not to mention that, given the massive epidemic of rape on women in India, they really neded to sort out their priorities. (See also this thread.)

Make it impossible to charge women with rape.

10 Due to how Israel’s trials go, a man’s testimony trumps over a woman; if that law was in place and a woman can’t prove she has been raped (which is hard to prove), then the rapist could use this “non-conviction” as “proof” that she raped him and score a conviction. Also, the law only applies to a woman forcing the victim to penetrate her; if a woman penetrates a victim with a body part or object, even without this particular law she’d still be charged with rape.

Feminists against equal custody.

11 They’re against using 50/50 custody as the default; this is because it has repeatedly demonstrated that the most beneficial thing for the kid is to be able to stay with the parent that took care of them the most.

Female felons should serve home sentences.

12 Should read “Female felons should serve home sentences if they aren’t violent, but have parental duties, since we can’t just throw children in foster care”.

Told judges to be lenient on women.

13 Because they’re more likely to have parental duties or mental illnesses. It’s still a case-by-case procedure.

Feminists cover up female domestic violence.

14 Murray-Straus cites only ONE case where a publication was blocked, and offers no proof that it was feminists, nor the details of the case. The rest of his argument is basically “Feminists don’t talk about male victims of DV, this means that they are preventing everyone from helping them”. Sure. So is the World Wildlife Found. </sarcasm>

Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.

15 Feminists pointed out that there were various female-dominated jobfields in difficulty, too. And they didn’t ask for men to not be helped - they asked for women to be helped too.

Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.

16 There still is a wage gap, a pay gap, a hiring gap, and a promoting gap. That’s the reason for those pro-girls campaigns.

Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.

17 The most recent case is from 1996, all of those cases haven’t been picked by any newsource whatsoever, and male rapists can get child custody for the children born from those rapes in these days.

Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody.

18 The father in question didn’t have custody in the first place.

Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.

19 Penal cases are based on “innocent unless proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt”. Civil cases - what the article was about - are based around “preponderance of evidence” which, as the article’s author puts it, means “the relevant body looks at all the evidence and rules for the party it thinks has the stronger case”. So, basically, slagartehfox wants civil cases of rape - and only rape - to have the same restrictions to evidence as penal cases.

5 rights feminism ignores for men.

20 This is actually a 5-in-1 bullshit list. (Also: JudgyBitch? Really?)

Men already have the right to decide whether to keep or terminate their own pregnancies. Oh, wait, JB wants men to be able to decide for others’ pregnancies. What next, does she wants to stay at home on sick leave when a colleague has a broken leg but she’s perfectly fine?

Feminists ARE the ones taking male rape seriously. MRAs… not so much. (See point 4 of this post of mine.)

Feminists aren’t the ones shaming men for talking about their feelings or admitting that they have mental problems - misoginysts are the ones shaming other men for being “weak”, or rather, “feminine”. (See here and here.)

Again: feminists aren’t against 50/50 shared custody being the default because they assume that women are “naturally” better caregivers - they’re against it because favoring the kids’ “primary caregiver” is more beneficial for those kids.

Feminists HAVE spoken against forced circumcision, and they aren’t preventing anyone from trying and solve this issue. MRAs? Only speak about it in discussions about FGM, in order to paint feminists as penis-cutting monsters. THAT’S IT.

Feminists blame males for their abuse.

21 Tries to demonstrate that women commit the majority of DV act by referencing the study that uses the Conflict Tactics Scale, which, among other things, doesn’t differentiate single incidents from repeated behaviours, doesn’t differentiate acts in self-defense from acts of abuse, and doesn’t consider at all sexual assaults and rapes.

The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.

22 Unsourced claim. Also: no proof to disprove that the vast majority of DV offenders are men.

Shame men into going to war.

23 The White Feather Movement was created in the first place by far-right nationalists.

Feminists dismiss female child rapists.

24 The Honey Badge Brigade did, in fact, lie. The HBB stated “95% of abused boys in juvenile facilities reported being attacked/coerced by female staff“. This “statistic” doesn’t appear anywhere in the cited source; what is written is “Among the estimated 1,390 adjudicated youth who reported victimization, 89.1% were males reporting sexual activity with female staff only, and 3.0% were males reporting sexual activity with both female and male staff” (p.23). How is “sexual victimization” defined in the survey? “Sexual victimization—any forced sexual activity with another youth (nonconsensual sexual acts and other sexual contacts) and all sexual activity with facility staff“ (p.7). “All sexual activity with facility staff”, even if consensual and legal.

Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.

25 Question: where did Costello said “Men can’t talk about domestic abuse”? Answer: Nowhere - Takashi0 made that up!

Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.

26 Pretty much no feminist has defended that one. And before you say “No Ture Scotsman!”: we’re at 26 links so far - 30, if you consider the JudgyBitch one as 5 different points. Up until now, Takashi0 managed to drag up only 3 istances of feminists doing something awful - and ZERO istances of those people being defended by the vast majority of feminists.

Strawmanning MRA members.

27 That’s because MRAs are misogynists. Hell, have you forgot the existance of Pick-Up Artists (”I hate women but I want to have sex, here’s some ways to coerce them into sex”) or Men Going Their Own Way (”I hate women, so I don’t want to think about them, let me talk over and over on the Net about how women are awful”)? People can’t discern sides of the manosphere because they’re pretty much all characterized by misogyny.

feminists attack church.

28 The video depicts a (probably feminist) protest in front of a church. Not an “attack”. [EDIT 19/01/2016: Apparently it was a protest against Argentina’s massively fucked-up laws on abortion, which severely limit them. They’re the reason why 80.000 women per year end up in the hospital due to complications caused by illegal, non-sanitary abortions… and are arrested for having an abortion if they survive afterwards. And only 1 in 8 abortions (out of 450-600.000 per year) in Argentina are performed legally.]

Feminists transphobia

29 Congratulations: you finally found a sizable group of feminists that are legitimately awful (Trans-Exclusionari Radical Feminists, or TERFs). Too bad you’re way too late for the “Feminists should care about trans* people too, not being transphobic!“ by about a quarter of century.

Feminists slander the MRM

30 Repeated link - see 27.

Again,

31 Nope, the article is accurate. There is no systemic oppression of white cishet men (Systemic oppression isn’t just “I am discriminated against”, you also need a social system that upholds said discrimination to a systemic level - and there is no vast majority of women/POCs/lgbt+ people oppressing white cishet men); MRAs really did try to slander the Don’t Be That Guy campaign with their “False rape accusations are an epidemic, stop encouraging them!” bullshit (which has been repeatedly proven to be false); pretty much none of the issues MRAs worry about are caused by - or prevented from being solved by - feminists; and, in fact, the MRM has done nothing at all to solve those issues, preferring instead to attack feminists.

And again,

32 Elliott Rodger was literally dripping with his own misogyny. He regularly frequented first PUA sites, and then the PUAHate subreddit. His violent misogyny was pretty much the final consequence of the general manosphere’s misogynistic rethoric. Also, feminists didn’t claim that Rodger was a MRA, the Daily Kos did. And no, despite what the Honey Badgers can say, Futrelle wasn’t involved.

Call them terrorists.

33 While peole do think that calling the MRM “terrorist” is quite excessive, there’s no denial of the massive amount of hate present in it. Here and here manospherians justify Lepine; here’s proof that the Tom Ball manifesto stayed on AVfM’s front page for way too much time; and here, here and here are the manospherians’ opinions on Rodger. They aren’t terrorists - they’re cheerleaders for terrorists.

Feminists say Men can’t be raped.

34 Broken and probably repeated link - see 9.

Feminists defend female raping minor.

35 ………Barbara Ellen is a prominent feminist? Oh, right, I forgot - she’s a woman, and she’s saying something you don’t like, therefore of course she’s a feminist. (Meanwhile: MRAs believe that a minor boy “having sex with” an adult woman is something enviable: 1, 2, 3.)

Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.

36 Zero proof that kermitismywaifu is a feminist. In fact, it seems he’s NOT.

Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.

37 WAVA is already gender-neutral. Plus: if the MRM wants male shelters, then why didn’t they do like feminists did and fund them?! Hell, with WAVA you’d easily get financial aid from the government!

Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.

38 Broken link, but probably a repeat of 14.

Woman smashing bottle in mans face in public. Nobody gives a fuck.

39 Oh, right, I remember when they’ve tried this before. How many times have they done the play? And how many times they’ve shown the one istance where nobody helped?

Jezebel mocks men who are abused.

40 Jezebel critiqued the faulty CTS study. Bad taste? Sure. Plenty of feminists admit that. We’re still waiting for MRAs to stop bringing up that massively flawed study.

Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.

41 Same argument as 37. Why don’t MRAs fund male shelters? Oh, right, because they don’t give a shit about male victims.

Female on male abuse in public is at best ignored, and at worst celebrated.

42 Where’s the unedited footage? Where are the bystanders’ reactions? (See point 39)

Public stops a man from abusing a woman in public, same crowd laughs when the roles are reversed.

43 Oh hey, it’s the #ViolenceIsViolence fraudolent video! See here for details!

No funding for male shelter.

44 Again: WAVA IS GENDER-NEUTRAL. There’s this guy who’s asking for help to build this shelter, but have any of you ever heard MRAs raising their asses and doing something to help building those shelters? Nooooooo! (Also: good job spreading that “there are no resources for men” narrative. Apparently MRA’s prefer to tell male victims that they cannot receive any help, than to direct them towards actually existing resources like this or this or this…)

Founder of Canadas only male shelter for abuse forced to close due to lack of funding before committing suicide.

45 Did feminists cut off his fundings? No. Did they prevent anyone from supporting him? No. Did MRAs raised money to help this guy? No.

Feminists threaten to kill woman for saying men need abuse shelters.

Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.

Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.

Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.

Feminists skewed the Definition of Domestic Abuse, resulting in only male abusers being arrested and female abusers not.

46-50 Repeated points - see 1, 2, 3, 4 and 22.

Feminists’s DV training hurts Police training

51 Misleading title. What happend was: a husband attacks a man. He claims that it was self-defense because, he says, said man attempted to attack and rape his wife. The wife had previously given a taped statement to the police, stating that the man wasn’t armed. She then refused to testify in person by invoking marital privilege. Not “feminists’s DV training”.

Feminist Mary Koss denies malerape victims.

52 Koss doesn’t “deny male rape victims”. She simply states that for the purpose of researching the subject “forced to penetrate” should be a separate category.

53 Broken link to a page named “Sommers”. Possibly, it portrayed these debunked statements of her.

54 Link that shows that Koss, in her survey, attained herself to the local (Ohio) legal definition of rape because otherwise her critics would’ve dismissed her survey “because she broadened the definition of rape beyond the reasonable”. They still tried to discredit her that way, though.

Feminists violently protesting against Warren Farrell at U of Toronto

55 Repeated point - see 2. Also: no acts of violence were made.

A mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.

56 Repeated point - see 28. And there was no “attack” or “sexual molesties”.

Feminists disrupt a forum for battered men

57 Repeated point - see 5.

Feminists fought a law for equal custody to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit.

58 Broken link to Glenn Sacks. Also: probably repeated point (11).

Multiple times.

Feminists started a campaign against Father’s rights groups

Feminists fought against laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged.

Feminists fought against a law to end to the justice system favoring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.

Feminist fought against men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies.

Feminists in India and Israel fought against femalerapists being arrested, charged and convicted of rape.

Feminists fought against a economic stimulus for male-dominated job such as construction, etc.

59-66 All repeated points - see 11, 6, 7, 8, 21, 9, 10 and 15.

Feminist fought a law against Paternity Fraud.

67 The link only states what the “Revocation of Paternity Act” is. Not that feminists fought it. In fact, a search for “feminism revocation of paternity act” pretty much only brings up anti-feminists sites linking to the same webpage.

Feminist Harriet Harman has publicly requested employers to hire women in preference to White men if both job candidates are equally

68 It was basically affirmative action, it was for women and ethnic minorities (and yes, there IS discrimination against them), and most importantly it was NOT a law proposal and thus there was no obligation for those firms to follow.

Equality Minister,feminist Patricia Hewitt, was found guilty of breaching the Sex Discrimination Act by “overlooking a strong male candidate for a job in favour of a weaker female applicant”.

69 Congratulations: you found a woman doing a Bad Thing. And? Are you claiming that feminism as a whole is bad because of one woman, but that one of the biggest MRM websites putting up a libelous “criminal registry” is the action of an extremist fringe? Or that widespread hiring biases against women don’t exist because of this one woman being biased?

Elected in 2009, the lesbian feminist prime minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has vowed to “end of the Age of Testosterone

70 Do you know what the “Age of Testosterone” refers to? The 2008-11 Iceland financial crisis, caused by aggressive economic policies opposed by, among other groups, feminist groups.

Feminists want to peeing while standing illegal

71 False description - that left party is pushing to exchange stand-only toilets in male restrooms with sitting ones. Newsflash: you can pee on a sitting toilet while standing up.

Erin Pizzey had to flee the UK because she and her family received death threats and her dog murdered all because feminists didn’t like that she discovered women were equally as violent as men.

72 Repeated point - see 1.

Also Suzanne Steinmetz and her children received death threats and bomb threats she discovered that the rate at which men were victimized by domestic violence was similar to the rate for women.

73 No proof that it was feminists.

Richard Gelles and Murray Straus have all received death threats from feminists, simply for publishing their findings (that female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence).

74 No proof that it was feminists.

75 Yep, it’s the CTS study. Debunked.

Feminists say Men can’t be raped.

Feminists defend female raping minor.

Feminist defends why fucking an 8 year old boy isn’t rape.

76-78 Repeated points - see 9, 35 and 36.

Most feminists backed studies are bullshit.

79 This doesn’t prove that “most feminist backed studies are bulshit”. All this proves is that people have forgot to actually check the BOJ statistics.

Beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t apply to rape.For men only

80 A college hearing is considered akin to a civil lawsuit, and thus it isn’t bound by the same restrictions as a penal trial. Plus, even in the rare cases where the school does take disciplinary action against a student accused of sexual assault, 75-90% of the time it’s a token punishment - if the school decides to give any punishment in the first place.

Feminist changes mind on rape culture when her son is falsely accused.

81 False rape accusations are awful. The fact that they exist doesn’t change the fact that rape culture exists, or that way more often is the accuser that gets disbelieved (including by the police), or that false rape accusations are no more common than false anything accusations.

Feminists primary aggressor clause discriminates against males.

Feminists cover up female domestic abuse stats.

Jezebel mocks men who are abused.

Feminists make sure the gov doesn’t spend money on male shelters or male research.

82-85 Repeated points - see 37, 38, 40 and 37 (again).

Feminists prevent a meeting about male suicide.

Feminists stage mock murders to scare men.

Feminist attacks male cartoonist and is hailed a hero of feminism.

Feminists shut down forum for battered husbands.

Propaganda campaign against male fathers wanting custody.

Feminists wish to slander accused names before convicted.

Try to shut down female prisons.

Create rape laws that exclude female rapists.

Make it impossible to charge women with rape.

Feminists against equal custody.

Female felons should serve home sentences.

Told judges to be lenient on women.

Feminists cover up female domestic violence.

Feminists don’t want the gov to help unemployed men.

Feminists launch campaigns to help girls only while boys are doing worse in every facet of education.

Males who were raped as a child still have to pay child support.

Women should have the right to put a child up for adoption before the father gets custody. Feminists against beyond reasonable doubt when it’s male rapists.

5 rights feminism ignores for men.

Feminists blame males for their abuse.

The primary aggressor clause where only men get charged with abuse.

Shame men into going to war.

Feminists dismiss female child rapists.

Feminists say men can’t talk about domestic abuse.

Feminists mock a man who has his dick cut off.

86-110 All these points are a repeat of links 2 through 26.

feminists attack church.

111 Repeated point - see 28.

Feminists shut down a festival about gender equality for including men.

112 That’s not what happened. What happened was that the sponsors realized that CAFE had nothing to do with equality and everything to do with MRAs and misogyny, and ran away from them.

Feminists hope MRA’s die.

113 Correction: ONE person who defines themselves as “feminist” and who doesn’t have any relevant spot in feminism whatsoever hopes that MRAs die.

Feminists against fathers day.

114 #EndFathersDay is a troll tag created by 4channers.

Feminist makes up fake assault stories.

115 Again: only 2% at best of rape accusations are false. There is no epidemic of “false rape accusations” or “made-up stories of assault”.

Female reporter bullied by feminists at the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference

116 Yes, because telling someone “Your conservative magazine isn’t welcome here” is totally bullying on par with what feminists face. </sarcasm>

The Wage Gap is a myth.

117-121 Besides the fact that the wage gap has been always correctly labeled by feminists as “How much female workers collectively make/how much male workers collectively make“, there’s some small factoids such as: women are penalized if they get pregnant more than if they take a pause from their jobs from any other reason; women are penalized if they try to negotiate their salary; there’s hiring and promoting biases; and even if we consider a man and a woman doing the exact same job/efficiency/hours worked, there’s still a 7% difference.

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

122-124 How is this a problem? Feminists aren’t “stealing jobs” or “preventing men from taking jobs”.

Women in some cases make more than men.

And their husbands dont have a problem with it either.

125-134 Still doesn’t negate the existance of the gender wage gap.

Women CHOOSE to stay away from STEM field

135-138 Still doesn’t negate the existance of biases against women in STEM. (Here’s two examples.)

Did I mention that at least 50 of these links are repeats? Good fucking job, Takashi. Good fucking job.

#debunking antifeminism

2 notes · View notes

rapeculturerealities · 6 years

Link

The site where former Stanford student Brock Turner sexually assaulted a young woman known as Emily Doe in 2015 is a mulch-covered slope next to a basketball court, dotted by a few trees. It is still there, largely unchanged, though the area it abuts, where there used to be dumpsters enclosed by a wooden fence, has since been turned into a small commemorative park.

I was there on a beautiful spring day in March; a water feature now trickles next to two benches surrounded by landscaped vegetation and a low stone wall. A plaque bearing Doe’s words was to be installed there, too, an attempt at a sort of commemoration that did not materialize after the university and the victim could not agree on what it would say. If you didn’t know about Turner’s crimes, you might sit here and listen to the quiet fountain in the sunshine, looking out across the basketball court at Lake Lagunita, the mostly dry drainage basin around which members of the campus bike and jog, without knowing why this little park exists.

“I think when people hear ‘campus rape,’ some people, they have a mental picture that’s probably wrong, but it’s really wrong in this case,” Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor and sociologist, said to me, as we walked over from the spot on the slope to a path on the other side of the basketball court, along the lake. From there, we looked back toward the crime scene from the approximate vantage point of the two Swedish graduate students who were biking in the area when, according to one of them, Carl-Fredrik Arndt, they saw the then-19-year-old Turner “thrusting,” over what appeared to be a motionless body. It was a disturbing enough sight that they ran over to Turner, who they say bolted, leaving his victim, still unconscious, lying in dirt and pine needles, naked from the waist down, save for her boots. “Whatever comes into your mind when you hear campus rape, this is not it,” Dauber continued. “This is the stranger-danger-in-the-bushes scenario that your mother warned you about.”

The assault occurred at around 1:00 a.m. on a January night in 2015, near a Kappa Alpha fraternity party that Turner and the victim had both attended; there were few lights in the area. (More have been added since.) According to the incident report, it was there on the ground that the then-22-year-old Doe’s dress was lifted up, her underwear removed, and her bra exposed. Police suspected that Turner had photographed her breast (evidenced, the prosecution said in its sentencing document, by a message he received in an app called GroupMe saying, “Whos [sic] tit is that”), and she was digitally penetrated, according to a police interview with Turner. Doe woke up in the hospital around 4:00 a.m. She had no memory of the assault, nor of the several hours preceding it, as recorded in the police report. Though Turner, at one point, while questioned by police, said that he couldn’t remember how he and Doe ended up on the ground, a year later he testified that Doe had uttered yes or sure three times, affirmatively consenting to various aspects of their encounter.

After two days of jury deliberations, in March of 2016, Turner was convicted of three felonies, including assault with intent to commit rape. He faced a maximum of 14 years in state prison; the prosecution asked for six.

If those convictions indicated a cut-and-dry version of the night’s events, the sentencing two months later blurred it: On June 2, 2016, Judge Aaron Persky sent Turner to county jail for only six months—of which he served just three—and gave him three years probation, citing the “severe impact” prison would have on the once heavily recruited athlete (who, the probation report also said, had already “surrendered a hard-earned swimming scholarship”). Turner was also required to register as a sex offender. Persky, himself a Stanford alum (and a former captain of the club lacrosse team), said that Turner had expressed remorse, and that “up to this point, he complied with social and legal norms sort of above and beyond what normal law-abiding people do.” That leniency inspired Doe to publicly release the victim’s impact statement she had read in court, a document detailing more than a year of her struggles with physical, psychological, and emotional trauma incurred by the assault and trial. It, and the outrage that it provoked, subsequently went viral.

It also inspired Dauber—a tenured law professor at Stanford, a family friend of Doe’s, and an outspoken critic of Stanford’s sexual assault disciplinary process—and a group of like-minded supporters to come together over one shared goal: to recall Judge Persky.

On June 5, Santa Clara County voters will have the chance to do just that, and to choose between two other candidates who are running to replace him: Cindy Hendrickson, currently an assistant district attorney, and Angela Storey, a civil attorney. This is an enormously rare occurrence: A recall is allowed under the California Constitution for elected officials (superior court judges serve six-year terms), but the movement against Persky marks the first judicial recall, in any state, to make it on a ballot in 36 years. (The last successful judicial recall in California was in 1932.)

For Dauber and the other volunteers who have spearheaded the effort, a vote for or against recall is a vote for or against the way that American society has normalized sexual violence against women, which is to say it’s a vote against rape culture itself. Critics of Persky’s sentencing say that he clearly identified with Turner as a white man (in a state where, as of 2014, the ratio of black to white prison inmates was 8.8 to 1), and as a former Stanford athlete, in determining whether or not to send Turner to prison and for how long. Persky gave Turner less than a tenth of the time desired by the prosecution, but it’s worth noting that Persky also sentenced Turner within the bounds of the probation report, which suggested “a moderate county jail sentence”; recall supporters believe that report was also biased toward Turner, and that the judge should have made a better final call. Both Persky and the probation officer cited Turner’s remorse as a reason to sentence him less harshly, despite a sentencing memo submitted by the prosecution that claimed Turner had misrepresented his own innocence and lied about being exposed to drugs and alcohol for the first time at Stanford. This was central to the remorse he expressed: In a letter to Persky, Turner said that he regretted the “party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school.”

“[Persky] saw a young man with a bright future,” said Dauber. “He didn’t see what was before him. He saw, instead, an image that was untrue and refracted through the lens of bias and privilege.” This sentiment, that Persky’s empathy lay more with Turner than with Doe, was also expressed by critics after a statement Turner’s father made in court was made public: he characterized the assault as “20 minutes of action,” and any time in prison as “a steep price to pay” for it.

The recall campaign has unearthed additional cases in which Persky, they say, also adjudicated leniently for defendants of similar social status—cases where the accused are all male, largely white, and/or connected to a university or to Silicon Valley, though a report by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which the recall campaign dismisses as “one-sided,” concluded that there was insufficient proof of Persky’s judicial misconduct, including accusations of bias. And it has sparked a contentious battle not only between recall proponents and defenders of Persky, but also with members of the legal community, who worry that a recall threatens judicial independence, no matter whether the sentencing was fair or not; and with public defenders, who say that black and brown defendants will suffer the most from a rash of harsher sentencing, if judges start to fear they will be recalled for the opposite.

Yet the recall has vaulted over every hurdle it has faced so far, including gathering more than 90,000 signatures (far more than what was required to get the measure on the ballot) and seeing Persky’s attempt to block the election by citing a procedural error rejected by an appellate court. Its organizers are a cadre of mostly women volunteers, some of whom are sexual assault survivors themselves, who were outraged on behalf of Emily Doe in 2016, watched Donald Trump win the presidential election a few months later, and have since seen the #MeToo movement blaze through the halls of power elsewhere in America. They are now seeking a reckoning on their home turf, taking on two behemoth institutions: Stanford University and the law.

#Persky #Turner #victim blaming #rape apologia #Standord #recall #judge

22 notes · View notes

maxwellyjordan · 5 years

Text

Justices release February argument calendar

The Supreme Court released the calendar for its February sitting today. The justices will hear eight hours of oral argument over five days, including in two of the highest-profile cases of the term so far, involving factfinding in the dispute over the decision to add a question about citizenship to the census and a challenge to the constitutionality of a cross on public land.

The February sitting begins on February 19 with Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the census case. The case has its roots in the announcement, earlier this year, that the 2020 census would include a question about whether the individuals responding to the census are citizens of the United States. The Trump administration said that the question was intended to help the Department of Justice better enforce federal voting-rights laws, but the challengers (including a group of states, led by New York) argue that including the question would skew the results of the census because it would discourage households with undocumented immigrants from responding.

February’s oral argument will not focus on the legality of the citizenship question, but instead on a dispute over what evidence can be gathered for use in a trial on the citizenship question. The challengers wanted to take the depositions of Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, and John Gore, the acting head of the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, and obtain evidence outside the official government record considered by Ross in making his decision; in late October, the justices blocked Ross’ deposition but allowed the Gore deposition and factfinding, and eventually the trial itself, to go forward.

On February 27, the justices will finish the February sitting with one hour of oral argument in two consolidated cases: American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association, challenges to a World War I memorial in the shape of a Celtic-styled Latin cross that stands in a traffic median in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. The challengers argue that the cross is an unconstitutional government endorsement of Christianity, while the state of Maryland and the American Legion counter that it is simply a secular war memorial. In addition to deciding the fate of the cross, the case could give the justices an opportunity to clarify when religious symbols are (or are not) permitted on public land.

Other cases scheduled for oral argument in February include:

Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service (Feb. 20): Whether the government is a “person” who may petition to institute review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology (Feb. 20): Whether a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement — which “constitutes a breach of such contract” under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code — terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law

Gray v. Wilkie (Feb. 25): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has authority to review an interpretive rule reflecting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if the VA chooses to issue that rule through its adjudication manual

Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck (Feb. 25): Whether the private operator of a public-access television channel is a “state actor” – that is, someone who is acting on behalf of the government — who can therefore be sued for violations of the First Amendment

United States v. Haymond (Feb. 26): Whether a federal law that requires additional prison time for sex offenders who violate the terms of their supervised release is constitutional

Mont v. United States (Feb. 26): Whether a period of supervised release for one offense is paused under federal law while an inmate is held in custody awaiting trial, when that pretrial time in custody is later credited toward the inmate’s sentence for another offense

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Mission Product Holdings, but the author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

The post Justices release February argument calendar appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/justices-release-february-argument-calendar/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

In 2016 we had But Her Emails. In 2024 we have Biden Is Too Old. The sources of these two lines haven't changed: the flailing GOP with an assist by bothsiderist news media.

Yes, it's the same old distraction technique to draw attention away from the leader of the Republican Party who is an adjudicated sex offender who just lost a gigantic lawsuit based on his past use of fraud.

It's time to push back and aggressively. And successful messaging is repetitious messaging – get used to repeating things if you wish to cut through the noise.

But the main thing is not to freak out and to play offense instead of being defensive. For example: Why are so few people on our side bringing up Trump's unhealthy lifestyle? Drinking 12 Diet Cokes® a day and copious chomping of double cheeseburgers wouldn't be recommended for somebody half his age. And what kind of drugs is he being prescribed?

[A]ll of the #BidenTooOld coverage is about as new and revelatory as #ButHerEmails. If nothing else, it proves that a scandal holding that the president forgets things is always going to go down smoother than a scandal in which a special counsel flagrantly violated a long-standing Justice Department practice and protocol not to “criticize uncharged conduct.” As Sullivan was quick to point out, CNN and the New York Times and every U.S. corporate media entity and its cousin jumped onto the bandwagon. [ ... ] Perhaps one way to navigate yourself through this seemingly insoluble morass would be to ask yourself why Biden, who is stipulated #Old, has managed to helm the most successful presidency in modern history. Booming economy, eye-popping jobs reports, first gun violence reduction bill in decades, $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan plus COVID relief, Inflation Reduction Act, infrastructure prioritized, judges seated. Pick your metric—there have been a lot of wins. And the reason this old man who sometimes forgets things like dates has gotten all this done? He has, for the most part, surrounded himself with experts, genuine scientists, respected economists, and effective governmental actors and advisers. Governance is not an action film. There is no minute-to-minute psychodrama involving someone in a tight black T-shirt mincing along the outdoor ledge of a skyscraper, ninja-kicking his lonely way down to the stairwell, where he karate-chops the well-armed baddies and then commando crawls his way into an empty vault with the glass chest where the nuclear reactor sits. No. Despite our fascination with the Great Man theory of American lawmaking, the presidency is an office that largely turns on superb staffing, visionary planning, deft political negotiation, and artful execution. Joe Biden doesn’t actually have to remember every single detail himself—he has to use his judgment to employ and empower a large contingent of skilled experts to execute upon their agreed-upon vision. If you are unconvinced, the best evidence that we keep falling for Great Man fantasy propaganda is the unmitigated failure of the first Donald Trump presidency. Here we had a self-described loner literally trumpeting his I-alone-can-fix-it worldview, all embodied in Great Man megalomania. He managed to accomplish virtually nothing: Almost none of his promises for single-handed economic revitalization, world domination, or intrepid urban crime-solving panned out. His great dreams were either strangled in infancy by staffers or halted by courts. And whether you believe that this happened because Donald Trump surrounded himself with incompetent yes men or steely adults in the room, both versions serve to offer proof of concept: Donald Trump accomplished close to nothing because the people around him were either too inept to put his vision into practice or too skillful at blocking him to allow him to put his vision into practice. Put another way, if you or anyone you know finds themselves reacting to the Biden Is Old revelations with the thought that, sure, Donald Trump is a 91-indictments-richer, adjudicated sexual abuser, defamer, liar, violator of national security, self-enriching, fascist-boosting insurrectionist, but it’s OK because he will surround himself with people who might check those impulses—well, doesn’t it rather intuitively make more sense to instead vote for the highly effective, internationally respected, but yes, sometimes forgetty guy who is surrounded by people with day planners?

A president is a lot closer to being a CEO than a superhero. And when it does come to being businesslike, Trump has declared bankruptcy six times – approximately six more times than Biden. Trump's business "skills" lean heavily towards fraud, deceit, and bullying.

The real reason we all keep falling for Great Man horse race stories is because they are good for fueling fantasies of all-powerful big daddy presidents who control every tiny aspect of governance in their tiny wee hands. If that is your jam, well, it would make sense to vote for the only candidate who believes in the same dream. If it’s not, the question is reducible to rather simple stakes: Do you want the Big Daddy who surrounds himself with sycophants and nutters and people with shared last names, or the one who surrounds himself with competence and expertise? This doesn’t seem, on balance, like a really tricky call. Do we prefer presidents who can backflip and ninja-kick their way to total world dominion? Perhaps. To my knowledge, nobody ever made a Tom Cruise movie about listening and learning and compromising. But if you still believe governance to be a sober and serious enterprise, vote like the alternative is chilling, because it is.

Trump flatters himself as a "stable genius". But it is Biden who brought stable governance back to the US. Being a constantly ranting gasbag is not an indicator of competence.

Very little attention is being paid to psychological age. Trump is just 42 months chronologically younger than Biden, but Trump acts like a toddler who is not yet 42 months old.

Parents with kids who were constantly having temper tantrums and being frequently disruptive would consider taking those kids to a child psychologist. Being a disruptive narcissist in his late 70s does not make Trump seem youthful but instead more like a case study for arrested development as a toddler.

#but her emails!#the age issue #joe biden #maturity #donald trump #trump's temper tantrums #trump's immaturity #trump's narcissism #trump's artrested development #trump's unknown prescription drugs #trump is an adjudicated sex offender #trump is mentally unfit to be president #vote blue no matter who #election 2024

23 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

youtube

Nepo baby Donald Trump is a draft dodger who got his rich daddy to pay a doctor in the 1960s to write a note saying that little Donny had a "bone spur" which made him ineligible for military service during the Vietnam War. His "bone spur" hasn't prevented him from spending hours on golf courses or haranguing followers in lengthy speeches while hopping around on a stage.

And he's a notorious adulterer, not to mention adjudicated sex offender, who considers marital fidelity an optional thing the way he views laws.

But Trump is hypocritically castigating Nikki Haley's husband Michael for serving his country in a way Trump never could conceive of.

Trump attacks Haley for absence of her husband, who is deployed

Trump is also famous for calling veterans and Americans killed in action "suckers" and "losers".

John Kelly confirms Trump privately disparaged U.S. service members and veterans Trump called fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers" during his presidency, according to a 2020 report in The Atlantic.

During his term, Trump tried to camouflage his cowardly past by surrounding himself with generals (who ended up loathing him), decorating the Oval Office with military paraphernalia, and holding a half-baked military parade in Washington.

This is somebody who pals around with America's enemies like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin while disparaging our long time friends and allies.

Trump is unfit to be a crossing guard – let alone the commander-in-chief of the United States.

This incident is yet another reminder of what a despicable and disgusting individual Donald Trump is.

#donald trump #nikki haley #south carolina #michael haley #trump disparages our military #trump hates people who serve their country #nepo baby #trump is a draft dodger #trump's fake bone spur #vote blue no matter who #election 2024

11 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 5 days

Text

Thursday was a relatively good day for Trump at the US Supreme Court but a relatively bad day for him at the hush money trial in New York.

youtube

Trump keeps saying he wants to testify in the hush money trial. But if he does, he can be asked about his liability in the E. Jean Carroll case and that would remind the jury that he's an adjudicated sex offender.

Not sure why Trump would think that his testifying would be good for his case.

Video of Trump confusing E. Jean Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples shown during lawsuit trial

Given Trump's aversion to truthfulness and established reality, he opens himself up to charges of perjury even if he is somehow acquitted of all 34 felony counts.

In Washington, the US Supreme Court doesn't seem like it will rule that presidents are fully immune from prosecution. But it does looks like it could send the case back to a lower court which could delay Trump's attempted coup trial until after the election.

#donald trump #trump's legal problems #hush money #new york #e. jean carroll #lock him up!#us supreme court #trump immunity #election 2024 #vote blue no matter who

6 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

Democrats pick up House seat in special election in NY-03!

I ❤️ NY-03!

Democrats have not won a major election in suburban Nassau County since Biden took the area in 2020. NY-03 is mostly in Nassau County and was famously won by Republican fabulist George Santos in 2022. It was Santos's ouster from the House which led to this special election.

So Democrat Tom Suozzi easily defeated his GOP opponent Mazi Pilip on Tuesday by a margin similar to Biden's win in 2020.

Republicans sought to use immigration against Democrats in this election – and failed.

William Kristol and Andrew Egger observed at The Bulwark:

Republicans pummeled Suozzi on immigration with waves of hyperbolic border-invasion ads. But in his three terms in Congress Suozzi had been, for a Democrat, something of a border hawk. And he had plenty of money to portray himself as that. Indeed, he did so aggressively. When Republicans in Congress torpedoed the border bill, Suozzi attacked them for doing so and lamented that it would not now be able to expel “eighty percent” of asylum seekers and to stop migrants from flooding New York.

Yep, Republicans have been demanding border reform. When a viable bipartisan plan became a possibility in the US Senate, they shot it down on orders from adjudicated sex offender Donald Trump.

So now we have a Republican border crisis which Trump hopes will catapult his demented self back into the White House. But indications from NY-03 are that it probably won't work out for them.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut was one of the senators who worked on the Senate bipartisan immigration reform which Trump sabotaged. Murphy sees the MAGA GOP flip-flop on the border as something which can be used against Republicans nationally.

Sen. Chris Murphy urges Democrats to follow Tom Suozzi and go on the offensive on the border

“Suozzi messaged aggressively on the issue, running ads that highlighted his support for a secure border and legal pathways to citizenship,” Murphy wrote. “He flipped the script on his Republican opponent, successfully painting her as unserious about border security because of her opposition to the bipartisan border bill, and turned what could have been a devastating political liability into an advantage.” Murphy acknowledged his frustration that after months of negotiating the bipartisan border security bill, Republicans in the Senate ultimately knifed it in a matter of days. But he said the GOP’s rejection of the bill provides Democrats with a way to counter GOP talking points on the border.

Back in NY-03, some Republican apologists tried to blame the 7.8% defeat of their candidate on the weather. The official NWS weather station at La Guardia Airport in Queens, next to NY-03, reported a grand total of 3.3 inches [8.38 cm] of snow on Tuesday. And the snow was over by 3 PM. In New York, polls are open until 9 PM. There was plenty of time for Republicans to sweep away the minor amount of snow from their sidewalks and get to their polling places. Don't let the GOP give you a snow job about their loss of a swing district.

Anyway, with the victory of Tom Suozzi, Republicans are one step closer to losing their majority under Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson.

#ny-03 #us house of representatives #special election #democratic victory #tom suozzi #mazi pilip #queens #nassau county #new york #snow #immigration reform #republican border crisis #chris murphy #“maga mike” johnson #donald trump #vote blue no matter who #election 2024

8 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

The truth is plain for America to see. Republicans don't REALLY care about the border. They would actually prefer to have 50,000 migrants show up every day to help stoke culture wars.

The Democrats' lead negotiator on a $118 billion bipartisan national security bill says GOP efforts to tank the bill are not based on its merits, but an effort to support former President Donald Trump's reelection bid. "Right now most Republicans are prepared to listen to Donald Trump, who says he wants chaos to continue at the border because that will help him politically," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Morning Edition's Michel Martin. At least two dozen GOP senators are casting doubt on the chances of the $118 billion bill, which would result in the most significant change to U.S. immigration law in some four decades.

Republicans don't bargain in good faith. They waste your time for months and then do an abrupt U-turn when ordered to by their Lord and Savior Donald Trump.

"We did exactly what Republicans told us to do," Murphy said. "We got a bipartisan border reform bill, a historic one. And now those same Republicans are saying that they are going to oppose the bill that they asked for because Donald Trump wants chaos at the border."

^^^ emphasis added

Instead of going ahead with border fixes, House Republicans tried to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. With the House GOP in shambles all through the 118th Congress, things went about as you'd expect.

House GOP Suffers Spectacular Double Fail on Mayorkas, Israel Package

Republicans are unfit to govern. They kowtow to Trump who needs chaos at the border to keep voters from being reminded of his Nazi rantings, numerous legal problems, and reputation as an adjudicated sex offender.

The MAGA Republican version of immigration reform involves putting up incredibly low-grade barriers that fall apart when it rains or gets windy. These pictures of Trump's "wall" were taken during his term.

The Trump wall was what Russians would call a показуха which could be translated as window dressing or possibly staged event. Though the barrier equivalent of a Potemkin village also would be an appropriate description for this failed project.

#chris murphy #immigration reform #national security #republicans #donald trump #gop concern about the border is a sham #republican chaos at the border #trump's failed border wall #alejandro mayorkas #house gop failure to impeach mayorkas #us house of representatives #house republicans #“maga mike” johnson #republicans are unfit to govern #election 2024 #vote blue no matter who

9 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

« Isn't it past your jail time? »

— Host Jimmy Kimmel responding live to adjudicated sex offender Donald Trump's Truth Social post during the 2024 Oscar Awards. From Entertainment Weekly.

You would think Trump had better things to do than critique the Oscars.

In February of 2020 the COVID-19 virus was already spreading across the US despite President Trump's January 22nd assurances on CNBC that, "we have it totally under control". Instead of trying to deal with a potential public health disaster, Trump was ranting about Parasite being chosen as best picture that year.

Trump Mocks ‘Parasite’ Best Picture Win: ‘What the Hell Was That All About?’

Jimmy Kimmel will probably have a more detailed response once he's back on his late night show.

#jimmy kimmel #oscar awards #oscars #donald trump #trump's legal problems #covid-19 pandemic #parasite #election 2024

6 notes · View notes

maxwellyjordan · 6 years

Text

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the justices added two cases to their merits docket for next term and asked for the views of the solicitor general in one case. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court.

The court also issued opinions in two cases yesterday. The first is Texas v. New Mexico, an original-jurisdiction case in which a unanimous court held that the United States can pursue claims against New Mexico for violation of the Rio Grande water compact. Ryke Longest has this blog’s opinion analysis. Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the opinion. At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]hough the ruling was limited to the facts at hand, the Court has now opened the door to federal intervention in agreements between the states, known as interstate compacts.”

In U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, in another unanimous opinion, the justices held that the court of appeals was right to defer to the bankruptcy court’s determination of non-statutory insider status. This blog’s opinion analysis comes from Ronald Mann. Subscript’s graphic explainer is here.

For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “[t]he Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to expand states’ authority to collect sales tax on internet transactions, joining a chorus of state officials seeking to overrule a 1992 precedent exempting many online retailers from having to add taxes to a consumer’s final price.” At OUPblog, Edward Zelinsky discusses the current case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, arguing that “the Supreme Court should overrule Quill in the Court’s role as guardian of the states against federal commandeering.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]

At NPR, Nina Totenberg surveys the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In an op-ed at The Hill, Lawrence Friedman reflects on the court’s recent cert denial in Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases, suggesting that “this is simply not the right time for the Supreme Court to step into debates about the Second Amendment’s scope.” In an op-ed at Fox News, Adam Carrington finds the justices’ reluctance “to rule on the constitutionality of gun regulations in a systematic fashion” “both strange and problematic.”

Briefly:

At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that “[t]wo prominent leaders in Republican politics have urged the Supreme Court to consider the Pennsylvania redistricting case as a part of this year’s intense political battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives – an issue outside the constitutional issues at stake.”

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak observes that the advancing age of death-row inmates is affecting the Supreme Court’s death-penalty jurisprudence, as “[t]he court, which has barred the execution of juvenile offenders and the intellectually disabled, is now turning its attention to old people.”

At CNN, Joan Biskupic reports that “[o]ver the past year, the Trump administration has reversed the US government’s legal position on voting rights and election law, on the arbitration of workplace disputes, labor union power, and protections for gay and transgender people,” potentially affecting several pending Supreme Court cases.

At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Jennifer Mascott looks at the federal government’s brief in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the solicitor general “contends that the Court should revisit ALJ tenure protections that are too robust and insular[] to provide meaningful supervision under Supreme Court precedent”; she suggests that “there are reasons to reconsider the claim that the existence of an expert corps of agency adjudicators necessitates nearly impervious removal protections.”

At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the recent oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the high-profile union-fees case, and Dahda v. United States, in which the justices considered how broadly to read a statute requiring the exclusion of a wiretap order that exceeds a judge’s territorial jurisdiction.

At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Cori Alonso-Yoder considers Jennings v. Rodriguez, in which the court held that immigration-law provisions do not give detained aliens a right to periodic bond hearings but remanded the case for the lower courts to consider whether the provisions are constitutional, concluding that “the unsettled nature of the Jenningsdecision foreshadows a future in which the courts are likely to wrestle with increased calls to address these issues of detention and enforcement.”

At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Jay Schweikert urges the justices to review a cert petition that will allow it to “reconsider its misguided qualified immunity jurisprudence,” which, he argues, “lacks any legal basis, vitiates the power of individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights, and contributes to a culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement and other public officials.”

In an op-ed at the Washington Examiner, Jay Hobbs weighs in on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law requiring disclosures about the availability of publicly funded family-planning services; he asserts that “[a]mong its many and obvious flaws, the act accepts as gospel truth the false narrative from NARAL that pregnancy centers mislead women.”

In an essay available at SSRN, Michael McConnell considers Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding; he maintains that although “[s]ome may say that [a decision in favor of the baker] prioritizes one right over another – the right of freedom of speech, or perhaps the freedom of religion — over the right not to suffer invidious discrimination,” such a decision would instead “put these rights on an equal plane.”

At Excess of Democracy, Derek Muller tries to determine which recent justices “attract the most academic attention,” concluding that “Justice Scalia dwarfs all others, which was not surprising.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/tuesday-round-up-418/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes