Kevin Cheney

@CNLiberalism @mcldenisj He was popular enough to win his most recent election. Voters simply do not care about personal stuff anymore. And they really don’t care that much about character either.

@mcldenisj How popular is Donald Trump?

The president of the United States cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star. Are we still pretending swing voters care about these types of indiscretions anymore?

@javier_mabrey @MattLabor I wish we had an actual progressive in the race.

Gov. Polis is vetoing the Worker Protection Act. Now this fight moves to the gov race. Last week, Sen. Bennet said he would support a compromise that preserves the second election And AG Weiser still hasn't committed to signing it either. So here's my question: If you're running for governor and calling yourself pro-worker, will you sign labor's biggest priority bill or not? We need commitments.

@teddyj_CEO @cowtown_law So if you paralyze a 6 year old girl and she needs $10,000,000 in future medical care it should be capped? Everyone should be responsible for the full harm them cause. No more. No less.

@cowtown_law Can’t sue beyond insurance limits, needs to be a cap on this crap.

I am the last person to advocate for government intervention.. I want the government out of my bedroom and out of my wallet. However, the government must address nuclear verdicts' in the trucking industry. The safest carrier can have a bad day on the road.

@javier_mabrey @DeepNotShallow This is correct. They are the same on basically every issue. We only have moderates in the Gov race.

Weiser isn’t clearly campaigning as if he’d be better though. They are running the same campaign as far as I see, vague platitudes so as to not make any donors upset. Nether has said they’d sign the worker protection action, allow for rent stabilization or ban surveillance pricing.

Colorado Democrats mad at Polis about Tina Peters need to hear this: Bennet will be MORE conservative than Polis on education, labor, climate, housing & land use. Thought Polis didn't do enough? Bennet will do less. Bloomberg's puppet cannot be allowed to win.

@Youcannotbese15 @freightcaviar Truck crash lawyer here. I think the answer is pretty clearly no. There isn’t strict liability here. In order to prevail against the broker, we have to prove it was negligent. And to be negligent they have to do something unreasonable like hiring a less than reputable carrier.

@freightcaviar Exactly People making way too much out of this The fundamental question is this If a broker hires a reputable carrier and they have a major accident, is the broker liable? Until this is answered the rest of this is just muted noise and people getting way over their skis

TIA wrote this in an email: “To be clear, this does not open the floodgates to brokers being sued for every carrier accident. Any plaintiffs must still prove in every individual case legal causation -- that the broker's action resulted in the injury in question -- and that the broker did not meet a supposed standard of care, as well as other applicable legal standards.” Hasn’t it been like this for decades already? What exactly has changed @grok with the latest SCOTUS ruling against brokers? Are all the tweets being pushed right now just fear mongering about a lot of freight brokers, agencies, and carriers going to have to close shop @grok?

@habbott Truck crash lawyer here. Agree with this take for the most part. Brokers need to take reasonable steps to make sure the carriers they work with are safe. Many brokers already do this. But some, hiding behind immunity, were not. Those days are over.

SCOTUS Freight Ruling: Second thoughts. I went through the opinions and here three things that stand out; 1. The Kavanaugh concurrence is the operational playbook. Kavanaugh went out of his way to say this is not auto-liability. He wrote that brokers who acted reasonably and used reputable carriers should be able to defend successfully, and that the operative standard is "asking the hard questions of the carrier." That phrase will be litigated for the next decade — and it's the standard every brokerage should be designing toward right now. supremecourt 2. The legal standard is ordinary care, not strict liability. The court grounded its analysis in Restatement (Second) of Torts §411 — the same duty of reasonable care that already applies to anyone employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm. Shippers exercise this duty in selecting carriers. Carriers exercise it in hiring drivers. Brokers are now held to the same standard. 3. The case is remanded. Montgomery still has to prove negligent hiring on the merits in the lower court — Broker can still win on the facts. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh acknowledged the broker industry's concerns as legitimate and weighty, and explicitly flagged the legislative path as the remedy for repercussions Legal risk will go up. Insurance costs will follow. But for brokers who run a tight playbook, this can be manageable. Do what's in your control — vet carriers with discipline, ask the hard questions, use the data, document everything.

Massive win for road safety!

@InsAgencyOwner @FreightAlley @TheLastRefuge2 You don’t have to vet the drivers. You have to vet the company. Companies that have lots of accidents or issues shouldn’t be used. This isn’t hard.

@FreightAlley @TheLastRefuge2 How does a freight broker vet drivers for every trucking company they match loads to? This seems like a near impossible feat.

OMG, this is the most pivotal moment in trucking history since Deregulation. It could be an extinction event for 30-50% of all freight brokers. Matt Lefler and I will be on the air at 11AM ET to discuss. Live, streaming on X.

@javier_mabrey @daveyseligman 100%. Vote for @daveyseligman!

.@daveyseligman has already been on the record about this and he has been specific about cracking down on suncor, he hasn’t just been vaguely claiming to be fighting to protect our climate. Let’s elect leaders who are meeting the moment.

@shannonrwatts He is our best chance of winning in a state we haven’t won in in years. Why are you angry?

Dude has not received a single fucking vote yet he’s our party’s savior instead of Juliana Stratton or Amy Acton or Marlene Galán-Woods or Rebecca Cooke…

@Rossputin Every Dem voted to ban this last time it came up. We need a few Rs and Trump to sign it.

One of the best things that could be done for our republic would be a federal law to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need FAR more competitive seats. The problem is that many of the people who would need to vote for it will lose their special congressional lapel pins (by losing their seats in Congress) if it passes, so they won't do it...the same way they won't vote for term limits (although it's not clear to me that term limits are constitutional without actually amending the Constitution.) The harm Trump created by starting this rush to redistrict to reduce the number of competitive seats is hard to overstate. A truly massive mistake, not so much on a partisan basis but for the nation (not that Trump or many other people running the two major parties actually give a damn about the nation.)

No one has ever explained to me how what I did in Iraq and Afghanistan made anyone’s lives better in Sullivan, Maine. Our foreign wars are good for a lot of people: defense contractors, draft-dodging politicians who want to feel tough, Benjamin Netanyahu. But not for us.

@EWErickson It’s probably not marginal rates. It’s probably a tax credit or some other tax law, state or federal, that applies or doesn’t apply. But guaranteed she had a lawyer look at it.

One of the side benefits of this hell site is you get to see people who think of themselves as experts reveal they don't really know what they are talking about, but presume themselves smarter than the legion of accountants and lawyers who help athletes navigate their finances.

@EWess92 Yes because that was before Dodds when you could easily see a doctor in every state for it. Now you can’t. Banning mail order essentially makes it impossible for people in certain states to access it.

Huh, Senator Wyden believes that President Obama's 2016 rules requiring a pregnant women to see a doctor before being prescribed an abortion pill "amounts to a nationwide abortion ban." Those rules were in effect until President Biden's now-set-aside 2023 change allowing mail

Justice Kagan: "I dissent. The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—'one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation's history.' It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act."

If the Democrats don't make rebalancing and expanding the Supreme Court a top priority for whenever (if?) they next get into power, then I don't know what to say anymore. The GOP-packed court is the biggest block on progress in this country and has been for a while.

Reporter: What do you make of Republicans saying that Virginia— AOC: Wah wah wah. We have asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan gerrymandering. And for 10 years, Republicans have said no. Republicans have fought for partisan gerrymanders across the United States of America. And these are the rules that they have set. And so if the Republican Party wanted to start this, they did this in North Carolina. They drew out three Democratic members of Congress in North Carolina. They did it in Texas. What they’re just mad at is that they have been accustomed to a Democratic Party that rolls over, doesn’t fight, and takes everything sitting down. And what they’re mad at right now is that we are here in a new day. And we have been asking the Democratic Party to stand up and fight, and now they did—and now the Republican Party doesn’t like the fact that they are fighting against someone who actually will stand up for the American people. So if Republicans decide that they would like to revisit a ban on partisan gerrymandering, I welcome them. We have the bill right here to end this all today. But they don’t want to, because they like pursuing and continuing to enact an unfair electoral landscape. And so we have an obligation to defend ourselves.

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 #NCSen: Toss Up —> Lean D #GASen: Toss Up —> Lean D #OHSen: Lean R —> Toss Up #NESen: Solid R —> Likely R

@literaryeric It likely could be both. If someone accidentally gives you something that isn’t yours, and then asks for it back, it’s criminal theft in most states not to give it back. It could also be a civil theft law suit.

I’m not a lawyer. Can one explain to me why this is a criminal case and. It a civil one?

If we survive Trump, Dems will run up huge numbers in 2026 & 2028, like 2006 & '08. But if the next President doesn't govern like FDR, broad reforms, corruption prosecutions, landmark legislation, we end up right back here. Winning isn't enough. Dems have to change things.