@moonbird: Brokewind would be an awesome last name.

@ashleybecca: What a beautiful doggy smile she has!

@exliontamer: Oh darling, I can give you about 120 thousand dollars worth of reasons why you don't want to go to law school.

@IfWhiskeyWereAWoman: Oh, if only it were true. But you'd be surprised what law students wear to job interviews. Especially the ones who went straight from college and have never worked in "the real world" and they have never learned that yoga pants and flip-flops are not appropriate office attire at a law firm.

@Betty Bea: So if you like bacon you're a man?

@voteforme: See Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

@Sven.T.Sexgore: Yes

@SarahMC: Jesus H., my eyes! That needed a warning label!

@TurnYourHeadAndCoffee: "Bless your heart" is up there with "With all due respect..."

@PhillyLass: Besides the perjury by the school board and attorneys, potentially she has grounds for a civil rights action. (Hold aside for now that the kids with mental disabilities who were also excluded not only have grounds under civil rights law, but under federal special ed laws. The school board is in a world…

@southernbelle: Yeaa for your dad!

@BAngieB: I wasn't referring to the kids - I was referring to the parents and the school officials as the smug self-satisfied cretins who thought they were getting away with something. And yes, the parents' generation are the children and grandchildren of the lynchers and folks fighting integration. I'm from the South…

@lavenderstain: Sending you hugs. Way to rise above it.

@roseylivesonaboat: Most of them never leave town. Look at their parents. Senior year of high school is where they peaked socially and apparently intellectually.

So cruel, petty, and pathetic. These smug self-satisfied cretins are the children and grandchildren of people lynching blacks and fighting integration so I'm not surprised.

@Jezebellicose/Queenjulie: I *totally* loved that suit...I'm sure it's more than my monthly salary, though.

@14Kgold: In California, re-testing and re-evaluating the evidence that sustains the delinquency finding is not part of the post-dispositional stage of placement and adjudication in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Maybe things are different in Ohio, but that's how we roll in CA under the Welfare & Institutions Code.

@GGobsessed: Juveniles don't have a right to jury trials. It's all the judge. If she had second thoughts about her finding, she should have tossed the cases. That would be less insulting to the girls than forcing them to have polygraph tests (which are not required by the rules of evidence of any state I've practiced…

@huls: I'm not in Ohio, but I don't see how it's permitted - she's reopening the cases in which she already found them delinquent, and the victims are not a party to the case (it's State of Ohio v. RapistDude, not RapeSurvivor v. RapistDude).

Thanks for running this story, Jezebel. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who tipped you off to it, but it is so disgusting and outrageous, it needed more attention.