Except that’s just not true. Before Bork, no nominee had been rejected for being too ideological. Alito was the first time a candidate had been opposed simply because people thought he would dramatically shift the ideological balance of the court. Sotomayor and Kagan were the first times otherwise qualified…

Both sides are clearly at fault for the escalation.

Of all the stupid takes, this is the stupidest. Do you think that the republicans would have accepted Garland shifting the ideological balance of the court had Joe Biden or Bill Clinton been president? If you do, you’re out of your mind

“The rule change will also apply to any nominees for positions in the executive branch and federal court nominees”

From what i gathered from clicking through the links, it seems that according to the judge, the Mexican law under which the defendant was charged required that he have “carnal intent.” According to the judge, the defendant intended to humiliate the victim, not to receive sexual gratification. Thus, he did not act…

Think it’s “ok?” No.

You know what issue is also fairly uncommon? False accusations for any crime. And yet, there are still a few of us liberals who actually still give a shit about criminal defense

Before anybody starts complaining about Berkeley being “cowards” for not stepping in to cancel the Milo event: they can’t. That would be illegal.

This isn’t just Oklahoma, and if Jezebel could hire somebody who has the first clue about what law is, I’d appreciate it. It’s not “incredible” that he filed an appeal. It is incredibly common. It happens all the time. This is true in every state, and in the federal system, and for all types of crimes.

......that’s incorporated as a non-profit corporation

That’s....not the law. Churches are incorporated as non-profits for legal and tax purposes

Here’s the brief for anyone interested:

But the legal analysis for a church is the same as it is for a non-profit corporation. If the church can have a religion, so can a corporation

You can be in favor of strict interpretations of the trial protections of defendants (confrontation clause, for example), but also believe that once duly convicted, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual

How about the Catholic Church? The legal analysis is the same

There’s a number of things wrong with this statement:

Trump’s cabinet and advisors are very anti-LGBT, but by “all” I was referring to his choices for Supreme Court, which is what we were talking about.

It’ll be interesting to see how they try to get around South Dakota v. Dole and the first ACA Supreme Court case. The federal government can’t just strip all federal funding because the states refuse to carry out federal policy. The question is, are the Trump administration lawyers smart enough to fit their policy…

But Sotomayor’s point was that justices who will decide cases based on law and not policy preferences will be unable to tell you in advance how they’ll vote on cases (incidentally, that’s not actually correct). You then talked about how these justices will vote in ways you don’t like, with no regard to law.

Sotomayor says she wants justices who care about the law and who don’t simply decide cases based on their policy preferences.