ShazzieB
ShazzieB's JournalThanks for this.
It was a very interesting read, and I learned a lot about Garland from it. He obviously has the background to understand what needs to be done here, the skills to do it, and the judgment to know when to "take the show on the road" (i.e., start handing down indictments).
I will never understand why so many people (many without any legal background at all) are absolutely cerrain that they know exactly what is needed to convict Trump of [fill in the blank] and are equally certain that the DOJ has all the evidence it needs to do so RIGHT. THIS. MINUTE! None of us are in a position to know all of those things, and it's silly to think we are.
I KNOW good and well that I don't (and may never) know everything about what Trump has done or what evidence has already been gathered and what's still needed. I also know that, as a person who has never even attended law school, my personal understanding of what's involved in putting together an airtight case of this magnitude is limited. For those reasons, I'm not even tempted to second guess what's going on in these investigations, much less cast aspersions on Garland's character because it's not happening as fast as *I* think it should.
I've been accused of being a "pollyanna" for no reason i can see other than than that I am declining to give up hope. Whatever. I really don't feel like a "pollyanna," though. That label implies that I am positive that everything is going to turn out perfectly, with all the bad guys, including Trump, in jail paying the full penalties for their crimes. I don't think that at all. I do think some of the bad guys will go to jail, and I devoutly hope one of those bad guys is Trump, but I would not bet money on exactly who will go to jail for what, and I'm pretty sure I'd lose some of my money if I did. There are only two things I'm sure of, and they are as follows:
1. It's not over till it's over.
2. It isn't over yet.
If that makes me a pollyanna, so be it!
The Litigants Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Have Some Truly Wild Legal Claims
If you've been worrying about the Texas abortion pill case as I have, I think you may find this article very interesting.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/texas-medication-abortion-case-close-read.html
While we wait for the ruling, I decided to actually read the 113-page complaint filed by the anti-abortion group that calls itself, unscrupulously, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. You don’t need to understand federal jurisprudence to grasp how preposterous the case is; it is apparent in the arguments offered by the plaintiffs themselves. Below are just a few of the egregious distortions contained in AHM’s complaint, and I’ve specifically chosen some that haven’t been reported on as much in the existing coverage of this case. I think it’s worthwhile for everyone to familiarize themselves with the way these plaintiffs are attempting to argue their way into controlling health care access for the whole country, which in fact overwhelmingly supports access to abortion care.
*snip*
At this point, abortion should be legal if only because this is a democracy and the people want it to be legal. Even in very red states, most people want abortion to be legal; that extremist legislators continue to force through bills that restrict access to abortion is a clear sign they don’t actually care about what their constituents want. This challenge to mifepristone is an attempt at a backdoor nationwide ban on abortion, but it’s also, and more importantly, a flagrant challenge to the structure of our democracy.
But further, I must make the strong and righteous assertion of the reproductive justice and reproductive freedom movements, that we cannot and must not depend on government or the medical establishment to protect or enable our inherent human rights. Safe, self-managed abortion is the inalienable right of anyone who can become pregnant, regardless of what nation seeks to claim or control their body, and the ability to provide appropriate patient care is a requirement for any physician that must not be interfered with or politicized. Any attempt to use the law to constrain those rights must be diligently called out and forcefully resisted.
The part I snipped out in the middle consists of lengthy list of outrageous claims made in this lawsuit and the author's demolishment of them. I didn't even try to quote any of it, because I didn’t think I could possibly do it justice in the limited amount of text we're allowed to quote here. I highly recommend reading (or at least skimming) the whole thing, to see for yourself what kind of patently ridiculous claims these plaintiffs are making.
X-posted to Pro-Choice (Group)
The Litigants Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Have Some Truly Wild Legal Claims
If you've been worrying about the Texas abortion pill case as I have, I think you may find this article very interesting.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/texas-medication-abortion-case-close-read.html
While we wait for the ruling, I decided to actually read the 113-page complaint filed by the anti-abortion group that calls itself, unscrupulously, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. You don’t need to understand federal jurisprudence to grasp how preposterous the case is; it is apparent in the arguments offered by the plaintiffs themselves. Below are just a few of the egregious distortions contained in AHM’s complaint, and I’ve specifically chosen some that haven’t been reported on as much in the existing coverage of this case. I think it’s worthwhile for everyone to familiarize themselves with the way these plaintiffs are attempting to argue their way into controlling health care access for the whole country, which in fact overwhelmingly supports access to abortion care.
*snip*
At this point, abortion should be legal if only because this is a democracy and the people want it to be legal. Even in very red states, most people want abortion to be legal; that extremist legislators continue to force through bills that restrict access to abortion is a clear sign they don’t actually care about what their constituents want. This challenge to mifepristone is an attempt at a backdoor nationwide ban on abortion, but it’s also, and more importantly, a flagrant challenge to the structure of our democracy.
But further, I must make the strong and righteous assertion of the reproductive justice and reproductive freedom movements, that we cannot and must not depend on government or the medical establishment to protect or enable our inherent human rights. Safe, self-managed abortion is the inalienable right of anyone who can become pregnant, regardless of what nation seeks to claim or control their body, and the ability to provide appropriate patient care is a requirement for any physician that must not be interfered with or politicized. Any attempt to use the law to constrain those rights must be diligently called out and forcefully resisted.
The part I snipped out in the middle consists of lengthy list of outrageous claims made in this lawsuit and the author's demolishment of them. I didn't even try to quote any of it, because I didn’t think I could possibly do it justice in the limited amount of text we're allowed to quote here. I highly recommend reading (or at least skimming) the whole thing, to see for yourself what kind of patently ridiculous claims these plaintiffs are making.
X-posted to GD.
Anti-LGBTQ+ hysteria comes to my town. ☹😖😬
An event promoting the same kind of anti-LGBTQ+ and book banning hysteria that's been going on in many parts of the US has taken place in my backyard (figuratively speaking), and I am really upset about it. 
I knew this kind of insanity has been happening in lots of places, especially in red states. We all know it; you can't spend 5 minutes at DU these days without being smacked in the face with stories about places where this stuff is going on. But I somehow (naively, I guess) was NOT expecting anything like this so close to home.
I guess I should have known better. This is not a red state, but my county is purple, rather than solid blue, and some parts are redder than others. What really has me kicking myself was that I didn't find about it in time to take part in protesting this event that was organized by a conservative pac for what appears to be the purpose of getting parents riled up about children supposedly being "sexualized" by the presence of books on LGBTQ+ issues in schools.
At least I think that's what the main thrust of the event was, reading between the lines of dog whistle verbiage like “rescuing children from government-run schools that are ruining America’s future." The article was rather poorly written and very confusing, imo. I did my best to snip out parts that made things relatively clear.
[https://www.shawlocal.com/northwest-herald/2023/02/25/charlie-kirk-event-in-crystal-lake-sparks-protest-shouting-match/
Both those in favor and against the event Saturday said children and schols are the priority
Crystal Lake resident Joyce Sheridan said she’s worried about her grandchildren. It was a sentiment shared by both protesters and attendees of an event Saturday at the Holiday Inn in Crystal Lake, featuring prominent conservative activist and radio host Charlie Kirk.
*snip*
Kirk’s address was organized by the McHenry County GOPac, a local conservative political action commitee. The event was titled “EXPOSING Radicals’ War on Kids” and was advertised as a summit aimed at “rescuing children from government-run schools that are ruining America’s future.”
*snip*
Ahead of Kirk’s event on Saturday morning, a protest took place on the outskirts of the Holiday Inn parking lot. It drew about 30 people and featured chants calling for Kirk to go away and for the community to protect transgender children.
*snip*
Lisa Arvanites with the McHenry County National Organization for Women, helped organize the protest. After attempts to get the hotel to cancel the event, she said she hoped the protest would show the hotel that community did not support it. She said she felt the event was promoting “an undeniably hateful message” and was censoring teachers.
X-posted to Illinois group
Anti-LGBTQ+ hysteria comes to my town. ☹😖😬
An event promoting the same kind of anti-LGBTQ+ and book banning hysteria that's been going on in many parts of the US has taken place in my backyard (figuratively speaking), and I am really upset about it.
I knew this kind of insanity has been happening in lots of places, especially in red states. We all know it; you can't spend 5 minutes at DU these days without being smacked in the face with stories about places where this stuff is going on. But I somehow (naively, I guess) was NOT expecting anything like this so close to home.
I guess I should have known better. This is not a red state, but my county is purple, rather than solid blue, and some parts are redder than others. What really has me kicking myself was that I didn't find about it in time to take part in protesting this event that was organized by a conservative pac for what appears to be the purpose of getting parents riled up about children supposedly being "sexualized" by the presence of books on LGBTQ+ issues in schools.
At least I think that's what the main thrust of the event was, reading between the lines of dog whistle verbiage like “rescuing children from government-run schools that are ruining America’s future." The article was rather poorly written and very confusing, imo. I did my best to snip out parts that made things relatively clear.
[https://www.shawlocal.com/northwest-herald/2023/02/25/charlie-kirk-event-in-crystal-lake-sparks-protest-shouting-match/
Both those in favor and against the event Saturday said children and schols are the priority
Crystal Lake resident Joyce Sheridan said she’s worried about her grandchildren. It was a sentiment shared by both protesters and attendees of an event Saturday at the Holiday Inn in Crystal Lake, featuring prominent conservative activist and radio host Charlie Kirk.
*snip*
Kirk’s address was organized by the McHenry County GOPac, a local conservative political action commitee. The event was titled “EXPOSING Radicals’ War on Kids” and was advertised as a summit aimed at “rescuing children from government-run schools that are ruining America’s future.”
*snip*
Ahead of Kirk’s event on Saturday morning, a protest took place on the outskirts of the Holiday Inn parking lot. It drew about 30 people and featured chants calling for Kirk to go away and for the community to protect transgender children.
*snip*
Lisa Arvanites with the McHenry County National Organization for Women, helped organize the protest. After attempts to get the hotel to cancel the event, she said she hoped the protest would show the hotel that community did not support it. She said she felt the event was promoting “an undeniably hateful message” and was censoring teachers.
X-posted to GD
Same here, absolutely.
I was never anti-Biden; I just wasn't inspired by him. I was thrilled by the array of choices in the 2020 primary, so much so that I couldn't pick a "favorite" to save my life. The one thing I knew for sure was that I did not want an "old white man." I wanted a woman, a poc, someone who represented the diversity of the Democratic Party and the diversity of America in some way. Mayor Pete, an out gay man? Sure! But please, no old white guys need apply!
I felt so strongly about it that I immediately crossed both Joe and Bernie off my list. I'm not proud of it, believe me, but I'm not gonna lie, that's what I did. I just did not want that election to be a battle between 2 old white guys. Reading what I just typed makes me cringe now, but that is the fact of the matter!
I had some time to decide on my vote, because my state's primary is not one of the early ones. It's not super late, but it's late enough that the nomination is often decided, or nearly so, by the time our turn comes. Sometimes I'm bummed out, because it can feel like my vote in the primary doesn't count for as much as it would if I lived in one of the Super Tuesday states.
In 2020, I was still on the fence when the South Carolina primary rolled around on February 29. That landslide in SC almost seemed like a sign to me. I had been unable to commit to anyone up until then, but all of a sudden, my choice was crystal clear. I've been on Team Biden ever since, and I've never been so happy to admit to being wrong about something in my life!
I wish I could have seen his greatness on my own without SC having to hit me over the head with a symbolic 2 x 4, but I'm glad I was paying enough attention to get the message. 
Rant about my apartment complex's silly stance on cannabis.
I live in a state where marijuana (both medicinal and recreational) is now 100% legal. We don't use it ourselves, but we fully support legalization, and others can use it all they want, as far as we're concerned.
Unfortunately, the company that owns and manages our apartment complex has taken a different stance. We and the other residents of our building (6 apartments in all) have received several form letters over the past few months stating that they have received repeated reports from some unidentified person or persons of a smell of marijuana in the common areas of our building . Furthermore, they have informed us, the company follows federal law, not state law, and the use of marijuana is therefore forbidden anywhere on the property.
As this has been going on for a while now, the letters have gotten more strident, and this latest letter is threatening to inspect all the units in our building if the smell persists/continues. They also stated that "neighbors" have been instructed to call the police (in a state, remember, where the stuff is fully legal) if it continues.
This is really starting to annoy me almost enough to drive over to the nearest dispensary and buy some weed to smoke. Not quite annoyed enough to do that, because that could get us evicted, and I'd really like to stay here for a while yet, but annoyed ¹⅘d enough to fantasize about it.
I just resent the idea of being nagged and now threatened, just because someone may have used a substance that is fully legal in this state, somewhere in this building, at some point. I'm also baffled, because my husband and I haven't smelled a darned thing.
I sent an email response to this last letter saying that we don't use marijuana or any recreational drugs, we don't smoke anything (even tobacco), and we have never smelled weed in the building ourselves. I don't really expect it to make a difference, but I wanted to go on record on all of the above. What I did NOT say is that I don't personally give a flying fig if anyone in this building is smoking weed, and I probably wouldn't tattle to the management if I did smell it.
Is this situation as ridiculous as I think it is? I realize that the management company has the right to make rules about what's allowed on their property, but this seems incredibly petty to me, especially the bit about calling the police on someone for using a substance that is LEGAL in this state.
I just wish the federal government would get its head out of its ass about cannabis and make it legal across the board already.
The coiner of the word "cisgender" speaks out.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-cisgender-means-transgender_n_63e13ee0e4b01e9288730415By Dana Dafosse
I coined the term “cisgender” in 1994. Nearly three decades later, the word has had ramifications I never dreamed of.
It began innocently enough. I was in graduate school and writing a paper on the health of trans adolescents. I put a post on alt.transgender to ask for views on transphobia and inclusion on the campus of the University of Minnesota. I was struggling because there did not seem to be a way to describe people who were not transgender without inescapably couching them in normalcy and making transgender identity automatically the “other.”
I knew that in chemistry, molecules with atoms grouped on the same side are labeled with the Latin prefix “cis–,” while molecules with atoms grouped on opposite sides are referred to as “trans–.” So, cisgender. It seemed like a no-brainer. I had no idea that hitting “enter” on that post would start an etymological time bomb ticking.
*snip*
I call on all communities to voice intolerance of anti-trans hate speech and the transparent incitement of violence by those who feign innocence and moral supremacy. Because it diminishes all of us. And it’s not about words. You don’t need to be a student of gender identity terms to know that living in a just society means respecting human dignity and autonomy and opposing the victimization of children.
The coiner of the word "cisgender" speaks out.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-cisgender-means-transgender_n_63e13ee0e4b01e9288730415By Dana Dafosse
I coined the term “cisgender” in 1994. Nearly three decades later, the word has had ramifications I never dreamed of.
It began innocently enough. I was in graduate school and writing a paper on the health of trans adolescents. I put a post on alt.transgender to ask for views on transphobia and inclusion on the campus of the University of Minnesota. I was struggling because there did not seem to be a way to describe people who were not transgender without inescapably couching them in normalcy and making transgender identity automatically the “other.”
I knew that in chemistry, molecules with atoms grouped on the same side are labeled with the Latin prefix “cis–,” while molecules with atoms grouped on opposite sides are referred to as “trans–.” So, cisgender. It seemed like a no-brainer. I had no idea that hitting “enter” on that post would start an etymological time bomb ticking.
*snip*
I call on all communities to voice intolerance of anti-trans hate speech and the transparent incitement of violence by those who feign innocence and moral supremacy. Because it diminishes all of us. And it’s not about words. You don’t need to be a student of gender identity terms to know that living in a just society means respecting human dignity and autonomy and opposing the victimization of children.
What I Got for Challenging Trump's Coup Attempt From the Bench
What I Got for Challenging Trump's Coup Attempt From the Bench
By Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky
In a democracy there are legitimate ways to effectuate change. You can vote, seek public office, enact legislation, and file suits in courts of law. There are also illegitimate ways to make change—disenfranchising legitimate voters, rigging legislative districts, and intimidating and harassing elected officials. As an elected state supreme court justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I sometimes have to navigate in both lanes. But recently, I found myself personally involved in the latter in a way that I never imagined. Specifically, I faced such harassment and intimidation after participating in oral argument in a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election that I feel obligated to tell my story.
Within days of the 2020 election, it was clear that Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris won nationally by 7 million popular votes and 74 electoral votes. In Wisconsin, the Biden-Harris ticket had won the election by a margin of 20,427 votes. The Trump campaign requested a recount in only two of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. It was the campaign’s right to ask for a recount—the margin was thinner than 1 percent—but the recount didn’t change the results. Even after receiving a definitive conclusion that the results were accurate, President Trump falsely continued to beat the voter fraud drum. At one point, he tweeted, “The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally, and that case will be brought after the recount is over…”
Nonetheless, the election was certified by the chair of the Wisconsin Election Commission, and Wisconsin decided it would send 10 Electors to vote on December 14, in the state capitol, for President-Elect Biden and Vice President-Elect Harris. Before this could happen, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit appealing the recount determinations. The suit sought a remedy of “drawing down”—essentially throwing out—227,000 votes, only in Dane and Milwaukee Counties. Oral argument was scheduled before the Supreme Court for an extraordinary session on Saturday, December 12.
In reading the briefs and preparing for the oral argument, I became increasingly concerned about several aspects of the Trump campaign’s position. First, I was troubled by the fact that Trump’s attorneys were perpetuating the “Big Lie.” That is, they were claiming—without any evidence—that the election was “stolen” and that “voter fraud” was rampant. Rudy Giuliani, then serving as an attorney for the president, was going around the country saying that cities with larger populations of Black voters—including in Wisconsin—had “a reputation for voter fraud.” Giuliani was making these unfounded statements in court as part of the avalanche of litigation being filed that they were hoping might overturn the 2020 election. (He would eventually be disciplined for those false comments.)
This article is a judge's eye view of one of TFG's bogus election fraud cases and the aftermath she experienced. I found it fascinating!
Justice Karofsky spoke about this experience on this past Saturday’s Amicus podcast. Listen to that conversation here.
Profile Information
Name: SharonGender: Female
Hometown: Chicago area, IL
Home country: USA
Member since: Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:18 AM
Number of posts: 16,396
