She’s an American citizen so I disagree with the deportation thing. But I don’t know why anyone would want their kid to be taught by this woman, why U Chicago employs her, or why she wants to stay in a country she so clearly detests (at least performatively).
I think the most annoying thing about these people — not the worst thing in a moral/intellectual sense, just the most annoying thing — is how cliched and boring they are to anyone who knows anything about this stuff. These are not edgy, new, exciting positions. This crap was in the streets and sitting in crumbled pamphlets in coffee houses in the 1960s, 1930s, heck in the 1890s. It’s just weak-minded radical cosplay for people who think incanting stale ideas makes you transgressive and cool if your audience already agrees with you or if they’re even more ignorant than you. She’s just an academic version of Hasan Piker and no more impressive.
Nazi tattoo - OK
Blaming women for rape - OK
Mocking Purple Heart recipient - OK
Sexually assaulting a Republican - OK
Sexually assaulting a Democrat - Now that's a step too far.
The politico story confirms that the NYT writers had the details of the sexual assault but chose to omit them and instead focus their article overwhelmingly on the claims from LF so that they can just be spun as a partisan attack.
Would be interested to see the communication between the Platner camp and NYT before the article was published.
Sorry, I hate stuff like this. Ketanji Brown Jackson isn't supposed to be "the people's champion." She's not a politician. She's supposed to *interpret* the law, not make it. This kind of thing is why so many people misunderstand how our government works at a basic level.
For those keeping score: That's the same Supreme Court that, three weeks ago, Jeffries said was a “Trump Court” that was trying to “rig the midterm elections” and needed to be packed. Now it's stopping Trump from rigging the midterms. He's a cynical clown. https://t.co/Tc35kFY49n
The ruling is rooted in very clear language passed by Congress. If you don’t like the legal framework here, direct your ire at Congress. SCOTUS does not exist to save us from laws we don’t like.
Oh, is that what the case was about? The Court convened, and the justices were asked whether they liked “big business” or those with “cancer,” and seven of the nine chose “big business”? Or was it about FIFRA’s preemption clause? The press’s coverage of the law is a disaster.
@RaminNasibov The “secular” French Revolution executed three times as many people in 9 months (17,000+) as the “religious” Spanish Inquisition did in 350 years (5–6,000).