Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 30-Jun-2023 11:41:04 JST Paul Cantrell

   Hoooo nelly
   https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

   • Embed this notice
     tj usiyan (griotspeak@soc.mod-12.com)'s status on Friday, 30-Jun-2023 12:15:05 JST tj usiyan

     in reply to

     @inthehands I must be delirious because this is just… delightful to me. Absolutely tickles me that this court made it to the Supreme Court and dude is like "excuse me, what?" Not ONE journalist or officer of the court thought to look him up and contact him before now? Not ONE?

     <starts solitary slow clap>

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 30-Jun-2023 12:16:27 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • tj usiyan

     @griotspeak
     Right there with you. It’s a distillation of exactly what’s wrong with like half a dozen things at once: the legal system, journalism, fundamentalist Christianity…

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 30-Jun-2023 21:11:05 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Fish Id Wardrobe

     @fishidwardrobe
     The article suggests it likely doesn’t make much difference from a legal standpoint, since the argument hinges on the •potential• for this situation and not whether it actually occurred, so they probably won’t care. It’s more about credibility damage and sympathy for the plaintiffs.

   • Embed this notice
     Fish Id Wardrobe (fishidwardrobe@mastodon.me.uk)'s status on Friday, 30-Jun-2023 21:11:06 JST Fish Id Wardrobe

     in reply to

     @inthehands I wonder if the supreme court will care. And if they don't, who would you appeal to?