Pulaski Seedtick

Career prosecutor: expert in state criminal prosecutions and federal civil rights litigation including excessive force, immunities and police training

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

thanks for permission, Jelly, but not necessary because I was already there.

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

Okay - but do you call that music? 😂

It’s garbage.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Holy shit, maybe just maybe we can vote our way out....so afraid our legacy for our grandchildren was either killing their neighbors or camps.

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

This is sooo huge.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Exactly. McCain sucked.

[Jellenne 🇺🇸🌵🌞 @Jellenne]

McCain as his last act put his personal beef with DJT first when he killed the bill to repeal O-Care out of spite at the last minute.
I've never understood holding him up as a paragon of virtue. Ever.
Petty, petulant, selfish and self serving war monger.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

I consider myself a product of a holler though I didn't grow up in one. I was raised by a fierce Scotch-Irish father who valued his culture and its depth in a northern state, but my roots are in Pulaski County where my clan were Seedticks. I suggest a read: Born Fighting: the History of the Scots (sic and if you read it you will understand why sic) Irish in America

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

True

[Michelle @mdillon9776]

@ZitoSalena @AndyBeshearKY As an Appalachian, I know one when I see them. JD has more Appalachian blood than the silver spoon sucking Beshear could even dream of.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Same here

[Jennifer Grashel @JenniferGrashel]

@ZitoSalena @AndyBeshearKY Like the vice president, I grew up not in Appalachia but frequently visiting family there. My first thought after reading Hillbilly Elegy was, "He nailed the culture." Culture doesn't respect strict geographic borders. Funny that the dem governor of KY thinks it does.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Correct. I consider myself a product of a holler though I didn't grow up in one. I was raised by a fierce Scotch-Irish father who valued his culture and its depth in a northern state, but my roots are in Pulaski County where my clan were Seedticks. I suggest a read: Born Fighting: the History of the Scots (sic and if you read it you will understand why sic) Irish in America

[ZitoSalena @ZitoSalena]

.@AndyBeshearKY picked an odd fight to take up with Vance. First for a man of privilege to question the geographic credentials of a man who grew up in Middletown, Ohio, and Kentucky, with the former right on the edge of the government’s definition of Appalachia and the latter well within it, is curious at best.

“Then there is the large populations of people who identify with Appalachia because their families live just a smidge outside the region due to migration for jobs. J.D. Vance is one of those,” @TomMaraffa.

For Beshear to try to strip away Vance’s identity for political kudos makes little sense. To have someone mention Appalachia as a point of pride should be something to celebrate, not admonish. Especially if you grew up with your father having a seat at a state government’s table of power.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

People who seek power no matter what evidently can't tolerate complexity, or maybe they are Sado masochists who crave money and power because they love money and power, but I'm not likely as smart as Anne as you can tell from her facial expression

[FischerKing @FischerKing64]

The Romans who appointed dictators in times of emergency - like when they were fighting the Carthaginians who were an existential threat to their existence - did so because they couldn’t tolerate complexity.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Time for Canadians to research the trade deficit between the US and Canada...just sayin

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

Oh no - we can’t have that nasty, disgusting, Canadian whiskey anymore?

How will we survive.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

The "voice" told Lindsay to kill her children and herself to keep them safe, yet she only killed them. Guilty. Not hard. Clear evidence of mens rea, the fancy legal name for intent. And this is her "murder" trial which means that she is has been determined to be "competent" to stand trial which is the fancy legal concept for knowing what is happening and why....guilty. Not hard.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

I saw testimony that she heard a voice telling her to kill her children and herself to "keep them safe", but notice she didn't kill herself. Guilty of murder. Not hard.

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

Did you just say ..."My heart breaks for Lindsay Clancy"

Not a word about her children - you know - the actual victims of an evil monster.

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

If the voice told her to kill her children and herself and that proves lack of intent why isn't she dead? Just wondering and probably would make that argument if I were the prosecutor....just sayin...

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

30,000 demonic cult members.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Some of us who are in our 60's recognized this toxicity in our 20's. The hatred of men while you told us to be complete we must adhere to the essence of men was distorted and patently observable to me at 28. The vilification of the one parent working home supposedly in the securing of freedom turned out to be nothing but trying to convince me to not become a mother, something at my center I regret. I don't regret one less phone call, one less meeting or one less argument in my state's supreme court. Nope I regret one less baby and will take that regret to my grave as new and painful as it was for me at 36.

[InfantryDort @infantrydort]

It’s time.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Well said. This is the same ideology that destroyed mental institutions or jails for the criminally insane. And this ideology must double and triple down on the grotesque imbalance of accountability that caused the mentally ill to roam freely among us.

[InfantryDort @infantrydort]

Nah man this is twisted.

The reason an ideological movement can end up cheering something this grotesque is because eventually the ideology has to defend the implications of its own worldview.

To be precise, applauding a defense attorney is not necessarily applauding the killing of children. But if the celebration becomes about transforming the accused mother into a political symbol, something MUCH darker is happening.

A worldview that treats motherhood primarily as burden, children primarily as constraint, and female agency as the highest moral good eventually encounters a horror it cannot explain without questioning its own premises.

So responsibility gets dissolved into systems, oppression, trauma, medicine, anything except the possibility that a woman can possess agency and commit evil.

That isn’t compassion at all. Compassion can recognize mental illness, demand a fair trial, mourn a broken mother, and still keep three dead children at the moral center of the story.

The moment an ideology needs the children to disappear from the frame so its preferred symbol can remain innocent, it has fully inverted the altar.

You can tell what a civilization worships by whose suffering it asks you not to see.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

For the record I don't give a shit about data centers as long as you put them on top of buildings in Chicago, Portland, Milwaukee, LA, Cleveland, etc. I want them built in every urban, Democrat enclave. I moved from these places for a reason, open space, gunshots directed at targets and coyotes, roosters crowing and cattle lowing. If you can't put them in homeless centers and drug enclaves don't come at me. Call me a NIMBy and my response is no shit.

[Sonny Bunch @SonnyBunch]

Free messaging tip: instead of saying data center opponents are Chinese dupes, scare them with horror stories about how their Netflix streams will degrade to 480p or, gasp, occasionally crash entirely if we don’t have capacity. Americans will not stand for mild inconvenience.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Why anyone believed he was an "expert" when the truth was so easily obtainable at your finger tips will never cease to unsettle me. I guess some people don't care and are willing to believe snapshots of information from sources unvetted because they are too busy with actual life or others too stupid to understand. Maybe some are just so scared that they are easily manipulated. All I did was Google corona viruses at the time and came up with H1N1, quickly determined that I barely even remembered it and questioned why Covid was going to shut down the economy where H1N1 barely made history. That caused me to question the motive of those who were willing to shut down our economy like you shut off a light at night to go to bed. That caused me to question why you had to change the definition of "vaccine" to mandate a shot. That caused me to question why "mandates" were necessary when the shot did not prevent transmission or contagion. That caused me to question why you tried to convince me that Ivermectin was a horse medicine when if you traveled to a country rife with Malaria it was prescribed as a preventative. That caused me to question why I was told to wear a cloth on my face to control a microscopic organism when I walked through a room or was standing in one but the moment I sat down mysteriously this was not a concern. And on and on. Yet people I knew who were supposedly intelligent, critical thinkers simply obeyed. Truely the most frightening aspect of Covid for me. And how is shopping at Walmart okay but shopping at my corner bakery a public health hazard? When it makes no sense and then you discover that Pfizer was making 26 million per day...then it all makes sense.

[Senator Rand Paul @SenRandPaul]

For years we were told Fauci was the infallible expert who never made a mistake and never lied. Now his lawyers are admitting the legal exposure is so large they need a special fund to handle it.

You can’t fundraise the truth away.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

You don't pass the bar by memorizing precedents. You pass the bar by knowing the law and being able to apply that law to a particular set of facts. And there are binding precedents and persuasive precedents of case law that do not displace statutory law nor do they rely on ignoring facts. In reality the application of a precedent (binding or persuasive) is governed by the particular facts of a case and the applicable statutory law if there is any. Binding precedents are intregal to the rule of law. For example, when the US Supreme Court determines that a law is unconstitutional then that is binding precedent on all courts, That results in finality on the issue and prevents capriciousness going forward. Your undeterstanding that the existence of precedent obfuscates or replaces a legal analysis and a consideration of the facts of individual cases is incorrect.

[Peg Futrell @futrellpeg]

Preventing arbitrariness, capriciousness, sounds good on paper. And given quality of BAR members (who pass BAR exam by memorizing precedents!) that may indeed be justification for reliance, ironically enough.
In a system that aims for true justice, would adjudge a case based on all evidence & testimony.
So time-consuming! Easier to use a cheat sheet!

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

When I was young and prosecuting juries the first day my hair was down and looking hot during selection for the guys from then on I wore it up and more conservatively for the women! Plus ,my personal style is more guy like so the women generally went with me too!

[Catturd ™ @catturd2]

Black soulless eyes ... Every Time.

[Pulaski Seedtick @PulaskiSeedtick]

Precedent doesn't work like that. It is the hallmark of the rule of law and guards against judicial activism where a judge just decides who wins because he or she wants to. A judge does not (or is not supposed to) just decide a case based on another judge's decision. That only is to occur when a higher court has done so which law is binding on the lower court. That's why Supreme Court decisions are binding on all its lower courts and binding on all courts on Federal Constitutional issues. Where an advocate can prove that a fact of a case demands a different result the law shifts and changes and based on that the other decision even one from a higher court does not dictate the result. The application of precedent prevents law from being arbitrary and capricious which is its brilliant guard against judicial tyranny.

[Peg Futrell @futrellpeg]

@FloppingAces You know, the whole idea of doing justice based on precedent, seems ... unjust. Like, you don't judge each case on the merits of each side. Instead open up a book that documents what another judge decided upon a similar situation, and punt to that decision. Huh?