Yeah, I don’t see this as indicative of a ring, but rather indicative of general attitudes toward child abuse and poor children. The human mind doesn’t want to believe/accept that such a thing could happen to a child in the first place because they would mean it could happen to their children or could have happened to…

Wasn’t saying it’s not risky, just that it’s not like other states where the governor appoints someone to finish out the term.

MA has to have a special election within a given number of days if a senate seat is vacated. Their governor would only appoint an interim senator until the election is held. And there is an argument to be made that Warren could resign in advance of the date when she actually steps down, shortening the time for an…

He’d only pick an interim senator to hold the office for a short period of time while they have a special election. MA law.

I mean, like, good? It was a side gig for them on independent contract. Now they won’t make that money and the Lynx won’t have to have racist assholes they don’t trust in charge of security.

What? No, that’s not true at all. Any half-decent lawyer would’ve counseled him to only speak with an immunity deal because it was the only strategy to keep him dealing with just the FBI instead of getting wrapped up in the ridiculous dog and pony show of the congressional hearings. DOJ wouldn’t have granted him…

Okay. I think I’ve maybe moved onto the “this is all for PR” train and think Harris is in on it. Because...what?

Sure, so are a lot of things, but they aren’t criminal. They have nothing to do with her power or wealth immunizing her from prosecution like you said since it’s not an offense that can be prosecuted.

The Federal Records Act is not a criminal statute. There is no crime to prosecute as a result of violating it, not even a “minor” one.

What she was doing was not “unquestionably illegal” because the criminal statutes involved have intent requirements. How exactly is it “unquestionable” based on what you know that she was grossly negligent with regard to those particular email chains (not just her email in general) rather than just negligent?…

Then how are they relevant? If a woman is killed in a domestic violence dispute, do you also think articles are misleading if they don’t mention that 15 years ago she cheated on her high school boyfriend? Or if they don’t mention that she was a cam girl once? Or that she got a misdemeanor for weed possession once?

Those facts aren’t inconvenient, they’re irrelevant because they weren’t known by the police at the time.

Another every-single-day washer checking in! My hairdresser says that I shouldn’t even try doing it less because it’s naturally very oily. According to her if I started bleaching my hair or otherwise seriously color treating it I might be able to start doing every other day because it would be dryer, but until then,…

I sort of think that they’re being so obnoxious about it that it must be real.

The right to privacy is the result of an interpretation of the constitution.

Having a right to do something just means that it’s protected from government infringement, so yes, the constitution, by saying what’s protected from government infringement, dictates what rights we have.

Except we don’t interpret the constitution with the ballot box.

Except jurisprudence defines rights. If jurisprudence says that all that is protected by the constitution is the keeping and bearing of arms for the members of well-regulated militias, then that’s not removing an individual right to bear arms because the constitution never granted one in the first place.

“Wow Mr. Vice President, it’s such an honor to meet you, and so surprising to run into you here at our local McDonalds!”

Jurisprudence doesn’t generally limit rights, state or federal governments limit rights with legislation and then courts decide whether those limitations are constitutional or not.