Read on Twitter
drill down into those cases and pull out the ones related to civil rights, then try again.
jesus h marychain https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1248066841479729152
jesus h marychain https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1248066841479729152
abortion rights
LGBTQ rights
voting rights
immigrant rights
literally anything that progressives care about.
what would possess a person to pull numbers from wikipedia and post them like they've made a good point. i'm gobsmacked. truly.
LGBTQ rights
voting rights
immigrant rights
literally anything that progressives care about.
what would possess a person to pull numbers from wikipedia and post them like they've made a good point. i'm gobsmacked. truly.
by the end of this term, the Court is likely going to rule 5-4 that employers can fire LGBTQ people just for being LGBTQ.
It is disingenuous and wildly irresponsible for a lawyer—Harvard educated, no less—to be spouting the sort of nonsense she is.
It is disingenuous and wildly irresponsible for a lawyer—Harvard educated, no less—to be spouting the sort of nonsense she is.
It's also cynically manipulative. People who aren't courtwatchers/didn't go to law school think that every SCOTUS case is some big important issue. So she posts those numbers and people are wowed.
In reality, most SCOTUS cases relate to procedural shit few people care about.
In reality, most SCOTUS cases relate to procedural shit few people care about.
You're not going to get a divided partisan ruling on some boring issue about civil procedure, ffs.
You will get a divided partisan ruling about whether corporations are people.
You will get a divided partisan ruling about whether corporations are people.
