Yeah, I’m right there with you.  This really bothers me.

Yeah, I get that she’s old and whatever, but this bothers me.

Agreed - I don’t care if anyone else saw it.  I saw it.  She was phenomenal.

Why. The Fuck. Did He Write About This.

This is becoming pointless. To conflate the decision in Loving with Roe is just not correct. Loving is founded on equal protection AND due process. Just like this Obergefell is founded in both. As I’ve said numerous times, even if the other grounds that Roe shares with Obergefell were struck, it wouldn’t somehow…

That’s not what I said. What I said is that they are founded on two different precedents. That’s all.

Go check out the equal protection clause.

What’s happening with state’s laws are truly terrible, do not get me wrong. Slavery is a different atrocity, and personally, I’m not comfortable using that language. I don’t think it grasps the magnitude of slavery in the slightest. I represented someone who was a former slave in another country. That really drove it…

Respectfully, I disagree with this argument. The court goes on a long history of Loving and other cases related to the equal protection clause and, then, states that it now applies to gay marriage. It’s plain text - not interpretation. Even if all other grounds were overturned, it wouldn’t matter - it’s protected by…

As a lawyer, I don’t think this is true at all. I understand the idea that if one of our rights is under attack, they all are, but in terms of the legal basis on which these cases were decided, it’s not the case. The right to an abortion was founded on a different constitutional right than that of gay marriage. Gay…

Not just that, but her scores are probably voided.  I can’t imagine a school will accept her application on voided scores, no?

I am not surprised that rich white people exerted their influence in illegal ways. I am, however, extremely sad and disappointed that it’s Felicity Huffman.

Yup! We’re on the same page.

I just. I can’t. I can’t.

Well, we disagree. Again, in my original comment, I put the caveat that I can’t 100% know unless there’s a file in front of me, but from the public information that is available, I don’t think the prosecution proved their case. Saying something should happen because it happened is a bit of circular logic and, here, ass…

I mean, there are attorneys who would go to jail first.

OMFG MY HEAD IS ACTUALLY EXPLODING

I think you guys are sleeping on that chicken Momo sketch.

There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. I meant that he never should have been convicted - not that he would have been found innocent. Obviously, I feel that he should have been found not guilty.  I also feel that under the eyes of the law, there should have been a presumption of innocence that he was not…

He disclosed medical information. That’s absolutely privileged (or at least confidential if we want to be precise, though more likely privileged)- I can’t see how it wouldn’t be. He would’ve needed a HIPAA release to reveal it. The only argument here is semantic as to whether it’s privilege vs. confidential, and…