Just so you understand, this is as if you prepared for argument in front of a panel that included Cookie Monster, and Cookie Monster asked you a question about cookies, and you had not thought about cookies in advance.

*stares at Alito in Second Amendment*

The Free State of Florida, where women who don’t want a C-Section will be dragged into a court proceeding *while in labor* to defend their choice.

With this situation, it seems to me that in a nation whose political and economic leadership is all up in the Epstein files, which doesn't take sexual abuse or predation seriously, the state has ceded its monopoly on justice; all we're left with is street justice.

... by underpolicing, the state ceded its monopoly on violence. When the state doesn't care if its citizens die, it leaves people with no choice but to find justice and retribution themselves. By not pursuing state justice, underpolicing all but guarantees street justice and vigilantism. 3/

Jill Leovy's Ghettoside documents how South Central in the 90s was simultaneously overpoliced (broken windows style) AND underpoliced, with violent crimes, especially homicide, not taken seriously or meaningfully investigated. Leovy argued that... 2/

UGA instructor suspended after allegations of soliciting sex with a minor A University of Georgia instructor has been suspended after an allegation that he shared sexually explicit content with a person he thought was a minor.

Earlier this week, a UGA math instructor was confronted in class by a social media group who apparently catfish and expose pedophiles. The instructor has been fired and fled the country. The language in the messages is disgusting. I'm also thinking about the social media vigilante angle. 1/

Incredible opinion. It holds that the common ICE tactic of jumping out of an unidentified rental vehicle and seizing suspected noncitizens while masked violates the Fourth Amendment because the *manner* of the seizure is incompatible with a free society governed by the rule of law.

In addition to being absolutely brilliant, amazing & charming in her own right, we all know she was raised by a single dad w/4 siblings and that he came to the US bc of persecution bc of his participation in the ‘89 Tiananmen democracy uprising, right?

Community meme: I CAN EXCUSE FASCISM. BUTI DRAW THE LINE AT MERCANTILISM.

The Supreme Court:

Macbeth: SHIT

Benito is a threat b/c he makes art so alluring and enjoyable you want to understand everything about it and then you end up learning about sugar and slavery and colonialism and the Taínos and Hawaii and then you probably have some thoughts of your own, and that's why art is powerful and dangerous

Dr. Ernest Morrell was a legendary scholar and multifaceted leader who helped pave the way for critical English education as a practice. We express limitless gratitude for his service to NCTE and his invaluable contributions to literacy education and ELA teachers everywhere. https://bit.ly/3LYyx2W

merits aside - chris's writing is really great on that subject - imagine being on the opposite side of the following list of appellate advocates:

ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR
PAUL D. CLEMENT
DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.

I mean holy fuck.

It’s all so heavy, man.

Congratulations! Well deserved.

The Claims of Close Reading - Boston Review Literary studies have been starved by austerity, but their core methodology remains radical.

I wrote an essay for @bostonreview.bsky.social about what I learned about close reading when I taught at West Virginia University

www.bostonreview.net/articles/the...

I teach your work every semester and I'll be there tomorrow! Very much looking forward to it.

Take out your phone, go to the clock app, and find the stopwatch. Click start. Now watch the seconds as they climb. Three seconds come and go in a blink. At the thirtysecond mark, your mind starts to wander. One minute passes, and you begin to think that this is taking a long time. Two . . . three . . . . The clock ticks on. Then, finally, you make it to four minutes. Hit stop. Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating. You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas. Your mind knows that the gas will kill you. But your body keeps telling you to breathe. That is what awaits Anthony Boyd tonight. For two to four minutes, Boyd will remain conscious while the State of Alabama kills him in this way. When the gas starts flowing, he will immediately convulse. He will gasp for air. And

he will thrash violently against the restraints holding him in place as he experiences this intense psychological torment until he finally loses consciousness. Just short of twenty minutes later, Boyd will be declared dead. Boyd asks for the barest form of mercy: to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes. The Constitution would grant him that grace. My colleagues do not. This Court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Because the Court should have instead granted a stay of execution and Boyd’s petition for certiorari, I respectfully dissent.

#SCOTUS denies a stay of execution to Alabama death-row prisoner Anthony Boyd, over *quite* a dissent from the three Democratic appointees, written by Justice Sotomayor, about the problems with nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

The Georgia Museum of Art has monthly free kids days with a different scavenger hunt every month AND multiple really fun art projects each time. It's a game changer even for our kids who generally love art

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1 And yet I dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2 Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings. The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty. That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of white supremacy. Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id. at 17. This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward, was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,” 3 the Court used that rationale to justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228 (1886)). Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805 (1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111 (2020). 3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes: I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the conquered. Id. at 23. In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages. [W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel. . . . . But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or government, beyond what is required in a savage state. Id. at 23, 27-28. This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030 (1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

Every. Time. Doesn’t matter why someone posted it. Just share. Perfect way to start a Friday.

Am I in cinema and media studies? No. Will I apply just for Holbox? I may have to.

In the heart of the Miccosukee, the Native American tribe that shut down Alligator Alcatraz The community found refuge from white persecution deep in the Everglades swamps centuries ago. Together with environmental groups, they succeeded in forcing the closure of the immigration detention ce...

Remember who we have to thank for shutting down Alligator Alcatraz.

CNN headline: Trump escalates attacks against Smithsonian museums, says there’s too much focus on ‘how bad slavery was’

it’s fun that the “facts don’t care about your feelings” people make every single decision entirely based on how they feel

For our first grader, our choices are A) car line or B) a 6:50 am bus stop a half-mile from our house on an unlit street with hills, blind spots, and no sidewalks. I want no part of this ⬇️ but don't feel we have a real choice; I'm not having him walk over the river and through the woods in the dark

Thank you!!

It's proposal-writing season so, uh, does @ilanahorn.bsky.social want to bluesky-ify her old Twitter thread about cutting to meet word count? Asking for a friend who's at 2600 words.

Lucy represented that she will respect Charlie and his football kicking