I have questions, too ...

Let's be real. Andrew Brown was shot because he was fleeing not because he posed a threat

That is blatantly illegal.

According to NC DA, a car is ALWAYS a deadly weapon if a suspect doesn't get out of it

George Zimmerman claimed Trayvon used the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. cops claims phones and wallets looked like deadly weapons

But let's be real. The deadly weapon in these instances is black skin.

NC District Attorney claims Andrew Brown shooting was justified

This is why we keep protesting.

Too many people with power over our lives think our lives don't matter.

SCt granting cert on Mississippi abortion case: "First they came for Black voters ..."

After the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, voting rights activists begged our allies to join us in fighting voter suppression efforts across the country. Many did.

But many didn't. Because they didn't see that these voter suppression efforts impacted them. After all, they could still vote without interference and most of those measures occurred in other states, so what was the big deal?

Well, the big deal was that suppressing the Black vote meant making it easier for states across the country to elect conservative majorities and to elect Donald Trump president.

And now, here we are with an overwhelmingly conservative, anti-choice Supreme Court in perfect position to overturn Roe or give it the Shelby treatment by leaving in place but watering it down so much it hardly provides any protection at all. And if/when it does that, state legislatures around the country will be poised to pounce, just like we saw them do post-Shelby.

So now many of the people who didn't want to be bothered to fight voter suppression because they weren't being oppressed are now in a panic - and rightly so - that their own rights and those of the women in their lives are about to be ripped away.

This is a perfect example of why we must fight what we think may be other people's battles, if only to selfishly protect our own rights.

Otherwise, when they come for you, it will be too late.

Folks are wondering why Manchin would propose such an aggressive expansion of the VRA. Here's why

And it's not good.

Expanding the Voting Rights Act to 50 states would likely make it unconstitutional and guarantee it will be struck down.

Race-conscious remedies like the Voting Rights Act must be narrowly tailored to address specific problems in specific places. They can't be blanket solutions applied everywhere. That's why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applied only to certain jurisdictions with a demonstrated history of voter suppression. In order to get there, Congress held hearings, conducted investigations and made specific findings to support the provision. And even then, the Court ruled that the formula was inadequate and provided insufficient basis to the remedy the law required and imposed an unfair burden on jurisdictions without proof that they were in the wrong.

Manchin's "50 state strategy" applying the VRA's provisions to every state and locality whether or not they have any history of discrimination. It would surely be found to not be narrowly tailored, as required by the Constitution, and to be overly broad and thus, unconstitutional.

I think Manchin knows that and he knows the Democrats won't agree to it for that reason. Because most people don't understand this constitutional requirement, they will blame the Democrats for not being willing to go as far as Manchin wants, something Republicans will gladly exploit.

Don't be fooled. Manchin's proposal is NOT a good one.

Can you imagine Pelosi saying in 2017 "I'm looking forward to being Speaker in the next Congress"?

That's what Kevin McCarthy just said on the White House lawn.

What an idiot.

Charles Blow: "Liz Cheney, We have a memory. You're no hero"

CNN: Derek Chauvin and 3 other officers indicted by federal grand jury

FYI: not jumping to conclusions includes not assuming cops were justified in killing people

simply because they claim they were (and often, when they haven't).

We keep seeing people demand that we not jump to the conclusion that police officers were wrong to kill people they encountered - that we're wrong to prejudge before we "know all the facts."

But almost invariably, those who insist that we shouldn't assume the killings were unjustified turn right around and tell us why the cops were justified to kill and that the person killed was a bad person who caused their own deaths (or more recently, that a baby whom the police was shot was killed because his father was "a monster&quot . Usually, those assumptions are based on the initial reports that the police gave to the press. But often, they're just created out of whole cloth even before the police put out their narrative.

If you really believe that it's wrong to judge these matters before we have all the facts, that should include not jumping in to give the police the benefit of the doubt, assuming they were right to kill and that the person they killed was responsible for their own deaths (or in the case of that poor baby, his father bore sole responsibility and the people who shot him bore none) and expect everyone else to do the same.