@annbauerwriter You can ridicule this type of thing, but it’s a big mistake to say it’s not about serious political analysis and beliefs to people.
English
Alt Dicta
468 posts
Alt Dicta
@AltDicta
Just law and politics and trying to be reasonable. Usually pestering (relatively) smart people making bad arguments.
United States Katılım Eylül 2025
220 Takip Edilen20 Takipçiler
Put aside Bruce fans, of which there are many (confoundingly, at least to me). It was an EVENT - Bernie Sanders, Jane Fonda. It was a celebrity thing and people love that. They go to take photos they can post. Has nothing to do with serious political analysis and beliefs.
English
@Trillest115 @CaseyMattox_ Eric frequently misrepresents or oversimplifies question presented and decisions in his tweets.
x.com/altdicta/statu…
Alt Dicta@AltDicta
@EWess92 Why do you incessantly characterize rulings in inflammatory and bad faith ways?
English
@CaseyMattox_ Am I crazy or is Eric straight up wrong about the question presented? Does it not say mandatory LWOP for felony-murder?
English
Merits of the decision aside, I do like it generally when state courts take their own state constitutions seriously and don't just treat them as copies of the federal constitution. Make your own mistakes so the rest of us can see how that works out.
Eric W.@EWess92
Does the Constitution prohibit life without parole? Yes--but not the constitution you are thinking of, says the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Pennsylvania's highest court agrees that LWOP is not Eighth Amendment "cruel or unusual" but violates PA's own constitutional analogue.
English
That moment when a lawyer arguing before the Court can feel the trap door opening beneath his feet:
English
The @nytimes has published another calumny against President Trump. Yet the Supreme Court ends up catching strays. The Supreme Court has been "remade" by President Trump and now abandoned responsibility? No. The Court is the only bulwark against questionable lower court decisions
English
@AliceFromQueens @showmeopie 1968 style chaos wasn’t inevitable, but it was a clear risk among other risks that a Kamala candidacy didn’t entail.
English
@AltDicta @showmeopie knife fights are good. the idea that this would lead to 1968 convention chaos was just moronic
English
People say stuff like this but never offer up the alternative - who would have been stronger than the sitting VP? Either when Biden stepped down or if he had done so earlier? It’s not clear to me how she was weaker in comparison to Trump, an old moron she vaporized in a debate.
Alice@AliceFromQueens
@showmeopie If defeating Trump was a matter of life or death, we shouldn't have run a weak candidate, regardless of her race and sex. To do otherwise was profoundly neurotic, as I said at the time, and now you can thank your neurosis for four more years of Trump
English
@AliceFromQueens @showmeopie But getting everybody to *agree* on one is a whole different issue. Democrats would have got behind whoever got the nom ultimately, but until that point, it would have been a knife fight with no clear process to select that nominee.
English
@showmeopie Any of the big Democrats in the mix who could handle themselves on camera and wasn't affiliated with the Biden admin would've done better. This is so obvious I can't believe anyone still argues otherwise
English
@AliceFromQueens You may not have thought avoiding the friction points was worth nominating Kamala, but there was a rational, mostly non-racial case for doing so. And Biden’s preference was a huge factor. It took long enough to push him out—we didn’t have much time for more negotiation.
English
@AliceFromQueens I disagree that three on my list were “direct functions” of a racial neurosis. Race may have played into or enhanced some of them, but all of them would have been friction points no matter the VP.
English
Trump was beatable in 2024, too.
But after forcing Biden out, the plain imperative-- find the strongest candidate to beat Trump--was knocked off the table by imperatives born of racial neurosis.
Sami Gold@souljagoyteller
I have to say, seeing America remember in slow motion why it didn’t vote for Trump for a second term in 2020 is incredibly frustrating
English
@Alexand16730477 @pjaicomo @catturd2 @RhondaHolland Isn’t the issue that the Admin has expressly justified the war as protecting the U.S.—not just its interests and allies? Seems fair to criticize that justification.
English
@pjaicomo @catturd2 @RhondaHolland "Expand the United States". No actually, nobody is expanding the United States, what people with brains are pointing out is that allowing stalwart American allies to get fed to wolves isn't in US interests as a global power.
English
So you mean Trump has information that doomers don’t have?
Go figure.
0HOUR1@0hour1
Iran had the ability to strike London ,Paris and Greece with a nuclear strike.
English
@cabsav456 @JohnPerry194624 I will add to Lauren’s comment that the Russian interference for Trump + other circumstantial evidence strongly justified an *investigation* into collusion. Collusion may not have been proven (either because it didn’t happen or because of obstruction), but it wasn’t a hoax.
English
@JohnPerry194624 You seem to not understand Russian interference vs. Russia collusion. Russia collusion was a hoax. Russian interference in the election that had a net benefit towards Trump is 100% proven fact. There's a 1,000 page Senate Intelligence Committee report about it (led by Rubio)
English
I swear some right-wing accounts repeatedly try to distort reality. Robert Mueller was not appointed by Democrats. He was appointed by Trump's own Deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, who was confirmed by a Republican-led Senate.
Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel just days after the FBI Director was fired by Trump while he was in the middle of a counterintelligence investigation — an investigation that the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee had already confirmed was based on real Russian interference.
Everyone knows the mainstream media and the Democrats ran with the story for years to try & sink the administration, but that doesn't change the facts of how it actually started.
And no, nothing justifies Trump's disgusting celebration of Robert Mueller's death. Nothing.
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke
It’s totally understandable why President Trump would feel this way after what was done to him, but I’d argue it’s even worse than that. The real crime was what Democrats and the media did in using a half-dead Robert Mueller as their figurehead, propping him up as a respected front for their evil enterprise, essentially like a mafia running in the shadow of a senile old man. And it wasn’t just Trump, but dozens of innocent people they set out to destroy, and in many cases did destroy. The real criminals remain active, and not one has been made to answer for their deeds.
English
@ilan_wurman “Some people might be doing things for unknown bad reasons, so maybe it’s better we stop expecting people to do things for good reasons and just let them openly do things for bad reasons.”
English
Did JP Cooney’s interest in running for Congress emerge only after he was fired, or was it a longstanding aspiration of his that he kept in the back (or forefront) of his mind as he engaged in prosecutions of his party’s political enemies?
The public integrity section is important and politicians of both parties presumably commit crimes and should be held accountable in appropriate circumstances. And most prosecutors never run for office as far as I know. But can we really pretend that all political prosecutions are conducted by neutral and apolitical career folk?
It may actually be better that we know that what Trump’s DOJ is doing is because he won an election and wants the thing in question done. Maybe it’s better than pretending that career prosecutors are apolitical?
J.P. Cooney@cooneycongress
I prosecuted the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and then Donald Trump himself. One week after he took office again, he fired me. Now I’m running for Congress to defend our democracy and restore the rule of law.
English
@Vintage56inVA @carney They don’t do this lol. There is no incentive to do this whatsoever.
English
@RMFifthCircuit “Negligence in leading a violent protest” is a big tell that what follows will not be sound reasoning.
English
It would not surprise me if Ford v McKesson goes to SCOTUS again, maybe after trial. I personally don’t see how McKesson can be liable here consistent with the First Amendment, though obviously two CA5 Judges disagree.
ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
English
Former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel is unequivocally qualified to be U.S. Attorney. He capably served in that role for 120 days. Yet the district court has taken the position that the office may not be led by the President's choice until confirmation of a successor
Matt Smith@mattsmith_news
New: Attorney General Pam Bondi has appointed Brad Schimel First Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District in Milwaukee after his term as U.S. Attorney expired and federal judges declined to make his post permanent
English
@JustinWStapley It is not that Democrats are against law and order. It’s that they the prioritize the laws to be enforced differently.
English
@JustinWStapley Democrats, for example, would rather an undocumented woman abused by her partner feel comfortable calling the police in that situation rather than worry about facing deportation if she does.
English
I haven't shied away from calling the balls and strikes on ICE and deportation efforts, but lest other dishonest actors skate without some responsibility, let's remember that it was the Democrats who insisted under the Biden administration that local and state law enforcement have no authority to enforce immigration law, so they more or less set the stage for these massive federal deployments because, based on the parameters they set, only federal authority gets to engage in any kind of immigration enforcement.
English