Crip Dyke

Backing "not bombing" over "bombing" is not backing Iran over Israel. "Not bombing" is in the best interest of literally everybody.

I'm getting one trip to the refrigerator per 6 rolls of Smarties.

I know a lot of ppl would be shocked if Trump arrested Roberts and declared CJ vacant.

I would be appalled. I would fight it. But I would not be shocked.

My question is to SCOTUS. How would they respond to such an eventuality given Trump v US?

I honestly DK, esp if he immediately noms Alito.

Okay, I was gonna be mad on your behalf otherwise.

Nick Saban and Urban Meyers are famous for their nurturing of student athletes, encyclopedic knowledge of the barriers women athletes face, and sympathy for the issues which affect trans individuals attempting to participate in sports that other people decided must be segregated to their detriment.

Adjourned

McCabria says that he will "make every endeavour" to get his decision out by Tuesday, but is worried the timeline is too short given the complexity of the issues pursuant to this motion.

PC properly notes that the Kansas reliance on Skrmetti is FUCKING WOW, YOU PIGS and encourages the court to treat both Skrmetti and Bostock as persuasive, but further elaborates on why they see Bostock as more relevant than Skrmetti... and they are right.

Plaintiffs counsel speaks for 5 min, then McCabria in Doe v Kansas asks for a moment before summing up for the day.

The problem with state employees (even high level ones) saying that the legislature pushed them off a cliff is that it can be bad for their tenure if they blame the people who decide the budget out of which their salary is paid for a clusterfuck like SB 244.

CRB is more or less correct, but I think if you listen to everything in context they're trying to say, "The legislature pushed us off the cliff and we're trying to pack our parachute and prepare it for deployment while we're falling, so if you could make the ground farther away, that's great."

Judge says entered court thinking he might be able to rule today, now thinks the decision will not come down until Tuesday.

Encourages parties to discuss the issue and perhaps come to a voluntary agreement about delaying implementation of SB244.

LOL

Plaintiff's attorney attacking the concession on balance of equities.

Judge now calling this "sudden regulation" and "timing that doesn't make sense" but is reminding parties the central question is that of the constitutional issues.

Yes, although now they're saying they were wrong and it's only 275.

Judge returning from break. Plaintiff's counsel speaking now.

The 30 day TRO proposed would end on March 26, though, for everyone who is interested and/or confused.

The TRO would be 30 days from the laws date-in-force, which was in Feb.

In any case, the balance of equities just got easier for plaintiffs.

The KDoA is asserting that because there was no time to prepare for implementation (usually the law's "in force" date is not right after passage, but specified some time out so that government can prepare), there is no harm on the state's side to balance against harm to plaintiffs.

Immediately before the KDoA official was asked to speak to the court for background on this and other issues, state counsel defending SB 244 from the proposed injunction was asserting that the general interest in legal certainty and enforcing laws the state passes counts as a harm.

To understand what this means you have to understand that in considering a TRO that would block a law, a judge has to consider several factors.

ONE of those is the harms done by blocking the law. This is part of the "balance of equities" analysis.

I assume that's a wry statement, not an indication that you think I'm unfamiliar with the presumption of regularity and why a judge might articulate that.

Hate the fact that tone of voice isn't available in text and how that makes parsing some statements more difficult.

This is FUCKING HUGE news out of Kansas. The KDoA "supports" the temporary restraining order.

Judge clarifies (through questions) that the KDoA is not requesting a TRO bc the KDoA would be harmed by the law. The KDoA is only saying that this is hard for them to implement and more time is helpful.

Dept of Administration representative:

"There are 2 components, really, for us, the DL portion and the bathroom portion."

"We are not opposed to a TRO on the bathroom portion, in fact we would [welcome] it as it would give us time [to write a new policy that fully implements the law]"

Judge James McCabria: "I presume that people - especially in Kansas government - operate in good faith."

LOLOLOLFUCKYOLOLOLOLOL

I was going to say, 'If majority, why 35% shaped?'

But now they're saying that only 275 persons have received notices, so 138/275 is, just barely, a majority.

Not sure why the earlier number of 390 would have been inaccurate, so not clear what's going on here.

"The state is perfectly willing to delay the change of status [in the police database] ... More than willing to delay until a month after...

Interesting concession from the state.

Also asserts "majority have already complied but the number from earlier was 138 / 390 or so.

I like taunting the worst people; you like blocking them. It's a conflict for sure.

Black summer raspberry: the fruit that tastes extraordinary.

Positively pulchritudinous.

Elsa Lemmilä isn't a perfect basketball player, but she sure can Finnish.

#womenshoops
#ReasonsToBlockMe

I had a friend who sold buttons at feminist academic conferences (yes, it was a niche gig, but not her only gig).

one of the best sellers was, "Lost in the discursive landscape."