@trabern@mas.to
@trabern@mas.to avatar

trabern

@trabern@mas.to

Crim Law Prof, Tribal Court Judge, Santa Fe, NM USA
I’m more into Sincere Intelligence

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Bears respect boundaries

“If I deny his attempts at closeness by leaving or setting a boundary, he could feel frustrated, rejected, or ashamed. If he doesn’t know how to recognize or manage those feelings, he’s likely to experience them as anger. And then I’m a solo woman stuck in a forest with an angry man, which is exactly what women are most afraid of. “

https://bikepacking.com/plog/man-or-bear-debate/

jenniferplusplus, to random
@jenniferplusplus@hachyderm.io avatar

Reminder not to eat the rich.

The rich are apex predators, and they accumulate high concentrations of environmental toxins.

Instead, you should compost the rich

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@qurlyjoe @valthonis @jenniferplusplus I figure it is best as a slurry. Maybe pasteurized.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Also not a good hunting dog

Just a good dog

Frody.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@thepoliticalcat He hunts crumbs in the cushions real good

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Can I just say how amazing it is to have Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court?

While the white side of the room was chattering of concern not to neuter the presidency, she was all like, hold up, this is the most powerful person in the world, we don’t want to incentivize it into a “seat of criminal activity.”

She brought back the discourse to the job to work for the people of the US.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@WhiteCatTamer Her voice on this is such a departure. She groks the power position and sees danger.

She asks us to examine why we should think it bad that the most powerful man in the world would be chilled from nefarious conduct.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@D_J_Nathanson Sotomayor was ON POINT. She was relentless in reminding us that immunity is a bright red danger sign.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

The SCOTUS argument on immunity just gaveled out. Many hours of arguments.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

A couple observations:

1: It is clear there will still be a Jan 6 case against Trump after SCOTUS rules. No possible outcome results in stopping the prosecution altogether.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

2: None of the Justices, and especially true of the conservative wing, wanted to talk about the Trump charges. They abruptly interrupted to keep the advocates from going there.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

3: Sotomayor and Jackson both have very high level understanding of the perils of any form of immunity, and the reasons for the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity. And the insight that all 9 Justices also enjoy a broad immunity (and why)

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

4: At least some number of Justices on the right wing will rule that there is some kind of immunity for core Article II functions (veto, pardon, recommendation clauses mentioned) and maybe even further proceedings to excise core functions (Trump dealings with DOJ mentioned) from indictment, but no blanket immunity against the Jan 6 charges.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

5: The case delay may be all Trump accomplished in SCOTUS.

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

6: Hypo from Justices at start that got thoughtful traction:

If a President appoints an ambassador (clearly a core Art II function) in return for a million dollar bribe (clearly criminal). Does the prosecutor have to excise the pure presidential authority part (appointment) from charges and trial due to immunity?

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@mpjgregoire This came up at argument, Justices quick to add there is no precedent that self-pardon is a thing.

The answer appears to be yes-yes. The authority to pardon (like Ford did Nixon) shows there is not immunity—having been pardoned is an admission, with political (instead of criminal) consequences.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

The young people will win.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

“They’ve taken away my right to speak!!!” screams the guy who won’t shut up.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Santa Fe friends, drop what you’re doing and go outside and look at the sky rn.

trabern, to SantaFe
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Santa Fe friends: I need your help. Last week I took on foster care for 4 adorable puppies thru Rezdawg rescue. They are not eligible for local shelter due to wonky jurisdiction of being surrendered on tribal land. 8 weeks old.

They are now spayed/neutered, chipped, vaccinated, weaned and crate trained and very socialized. And adorable. 2 boys, 2 girls.

Cat, large dog, and kid friendly. Just adorable and ready to bond. Adoption fee waived. Help me get the word out.

Tzopup. Male, outdoor athlete type.
Just Ken. Very social.
Chaco taco (she). Smartest of the bunch.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

In case you are scratching your head about why 5 “yay states’ rights” Justices in Dobbs have today ruled “not like that” in the 14th Amendment case…..

You are not alone. Those of us who do constitutional law for a living have scratched our heads raw.

D_J_Nathanson, to random
@D_J_Nathanson@mastodon.social avatar

For-profit private equity prison healthcare is a sin. It's evil. It shouldn't exist. And Massachusetts should not participate in it. It should be run by state employees of the Department of Public Health, accountable to the public. Pass it on.

"[P]rison health care — an industry dominated by two private equity-backed firms — Wellpath and YesCare — both possible bidders for the state prison contract ... Is this really the best Massachusetts can do?"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/03/04/opinion/wellpath-doc-contract/

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@D_J_Nathanson

There should never be a profit in removing people’s liberty. Period.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Gift article, Engoron ruling

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-civil-fraud-trial-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V00.vOCL.KVEo75OOBPwM&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

lzg, to random
@lzg@mastodon.social avatar

"it's not a draft, it's more of a declaration of intent to actually write the thing"

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

@lzg I sometimes draft out a memorandum of understanding with me of my terms for writing said thing.

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

Trump lawyers this morning: Before SCOTUS for hours making the case Jan 6 wasn’t an insurrection.

Trump an hour later: It was an insurrection.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-says-jan-6-insurrection-1234964730/

trabern, to random
@trabern@mas.to avatar

So I’m that nerd that listened live to the SCOTUS arguments in the insurrection clause case this morning, up until I had to run upstairs for class.

(I didn’t live-toot, because I was running through much of it, and others on here do that better.)

The Justices disregarded all normal time limits, so it’s fair to say it’s a big deal

Here are my top 2 takes:

1/2

trabern,
@trabern@mas.to avatar

  1. The same Justices who were hot after States’ rights to competently make women’s health decisions are absolutely sure States courts can’t be trusted to make competent decisions on whether someone did an insurrection.

  2. Trumps’ “officers” argument turned into a de facto immunity argument fairly quickly.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • cubers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • JUstTest
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • provamag3
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •