@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Teri_Kanefield

@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social

Former appellate defender and UC Berkeley Law graduate. My practice was limited to representing indigents on appeal.

I’ve written more than a dozen books and published more than 50 short pieces in The Washington Post, Cnn.com, and others. My book prizes include the Jane Addams Book Award.

Tfr

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

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Here is Stephanie P. Jones' take on SCOTUS's decision to grant cert in the immunity case.

https://blog.stephaniejones.com/2024/03/01/yes-the-supreme-court-could-have-declined-the-case-but-then-what/

(She gets annoyed at a few of the influential TV lawyers.)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@mastodonmigration what I like about Stephanie is that she thinks for a while before she responds and she usually has a different viewpoint.

The law is complicated. It's hard to see all possible angles.

(She has an account here but so far hasn't been active)

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

If you will all please forgive me, I am about to do a "Brag About The Kids" moment.

My stepdaughter (who is now finishing her third year at Harvard Law School) made this video while bored during the pandemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFIhSBn9510

Me, my husband, and her shirtless younger brother make a brief appearance at the end.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@jacobyaudio I think she is but I'm really super partial.

How is it that our kids are the cutest and most talented on the planet?

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@goodreedAJ

I think when she started they were back in person.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Catawu That wasn't me! I was the one at the table telling my shirtless son to go get his shirt :)

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I will qualify my prediction ⤵️
https://mastodon.social/

Lawyers are always trying to predict what courts will do. That's part of the job.

Nobody gets it right all the time. If everyone knew what courts would do the practice of law would be very different. It's always a calculation.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@realcaseyrollins SCOTUS taking the immunity case

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@newmanth the Supreme Court doesn't find facts. They basically explain the law. Lower courts then apply the facts to the law.

Meyerweb, (edited ) to random
@Meyerweb@mastodon.social avatar

This article is disturbing in many ways, but the thing that jumped out at me is that in the US, while the right is more likely to support authoritarianism than the left, it’s only by four points, probably close to the margin of error — but, unlike every other country, “centrists” support authoritarianism at a much higher rate than either right or left. (See Figure 2.) That’s a flashing red alert sign, with klaxon.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@mhale0 @Meyerweb

And what political psychologists tell us is that the authoritairan disposition is found on both sides of the political spectrum.

I saw a bunch of people responding to Marjorie Taylor Greene by saying, "All the traitors need to be arrested." (meaning Democratic leaders)

Over the past few days, several people who are "liberal" MSNBC types told me the same thing, meaning Republican leaders. (I kept screenshots).

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@mhale0 They tell me "but they ARE traitors."

I am then torn between explaining the legal definition of "treason" (which does not, by any stretch, include Trump) and explaining what is wrong with the sentence "arrest all the traitors."

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I'll put this response here for everyone:

The Court made a decision. All we can do is speculate about why. Eventually we may know why they elected to proceed in this manner.

Like everyone else, I can speculate on why they proceeded this way, but I refuse.

I predict they'll nix the idea of immunity.

That's different from speculating on what happened in a closed meeting.

(Maybe, as a defense lawyer, I am accustomed to courts not doing what I want them to do or think they should do.)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@mjf_pro I never saw that. Thanks for the link.

I think Jack Goldsmith is usually good and it makes sense.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@mjf_pro @cdlhamma

If the trial ends up during election season Trump gets his worst nighmare.

(I am enjoying my evil thoughts)

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@EllenJS @mjf_pro

That is correct! Ginsburg was offended by the whole "the woman and her doctor" thing, which she found patronizing.

She believed that the authority should have been located in the 14th Amendment and not the implied right to privacy.

The Dobbs court would have still overturned it because in their decision, they said "it also doesn't belong under the 14th Amendment" for reasons that would have enraged RBG.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Rayven73 This is an excellent theory. It never personally effected them. Nixon resigned when it was clear law enforcement was clsoing in, so they figured Trump would, too.

And the people who are horrified and having meltdowns have never stopped to consider what it was like to be, say, a Black woman in 1860 or anyone who wasn't white and male before 1954. They say "OMG WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME"

People with a sense of history realize how much work is left to be done, and that it never ends.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Between this site and a few others, I must have typed a dozen times "Go to my blog, find the Criminal Law FAQ page under the resources tab of my blog and read the entire page."

Why?

Because dozens of people are saying the exact same phrases.

That's what happens in group think ecosystems.

If you are saying the same thing, in the same words, that hundreds of other people are saying, you have lost your way.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@thadd 5 justices granting a stay was remote.

Remote doesn't mean impossible.

I was not part of their meetings. I am not a mind reader.

People can speculate on what they are thinking and why, but it is pure speculation.

Because they have ruled against immunity in lesser instance (like executive privilege) I don't expect them to grant immunity. They had opportunities before now to do so.

Why they want oral arguments, I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@MsMarceline

Right. I should have a word file with the five or six variations I use and then just paste in the appropriate one.

Would I be flagged as a bot?

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I spent 5 years writing FAQ pages and "talking people off the ledge" each time there was a collective meltdown.

I stopped doing that because it is never ending.

I keep saying the same things over and over.

In 2021, when people were demanding indictments, I said, "indictments are the start of a long harrowing process."

I explained that trials are harrowing.

Judges make bad decisions.

Juries don't always get it right. A person can be guilty but be acquitted.

1/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@sjgenco

Forgive me for thinking there is anything you can learn about the criminal justice system from a lawyer who practiced criminal law.

I should take notes whenever you talk. Maybe I'll learn something.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@fizzily

Read my criminal law FAQ page. Then read the post called There will always be an anti-democratic opposition.

Then consider the extent to which you are advocating for a police state.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@sjgenco

You didn't offend me.

If you want an answer to your comments, go to my blog and read the criminal law FAQ page.

I wrote my FAQ page for the hundreds of people who come Into my feed saying things like "Delay delay delay" or "accountability is delayed."

Most of them (possibly not you) are MSNBC viewers or follow large social media accounts that focus on politics.

It gets to be like a chorus.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@delric

Go to my blog and read the pinned series beginning "There are no Yankees here" for an answer.

It is a lot to read -- there are 6 parts.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@istone826

If you want an answer to your comment, go to my blog, find the Criminal Law FAQ page under the "resources" tab.

That should help you understand the connection between rule of law, politics, and the criminal justice system.

If you think I condescend to my readers, why are you here reading my posts?

Block or mute my account immediately (unless you are trying to troll me)

Also block or mute whoever showed you my post.

Why be offended?

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Meznor If you want an answer to all of your comments, go to my blog and read the following:

The DOJ FAQ page and the Criminal Law FAQ page. They are under the "resources" tab of my blog.

Then read the pinned series entitled "There are no Yankees here."

The way I "empathize" with people on the ledge is by helping them see that they are the victims of a misinformation-outrage cycle.

If they elect to stay in that cycle, after I offer facts, I can do nothin for them.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@johnelamb

I don't think that has anything to do with it. The Court made a decision. All we can do is speculate about why. Eventually we may know why they elected to proceed in this manner.

Maybe, as a defense lawyer, I am accustomed to courts not doing what I want them to do.

Like everyone else, I can speculate on why they did this, but refuse.

My prediction is that they'll nix the idea of immunity.

That's different from speculating on what happened in a closed meeting.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • HellsKitchen
  • rhentai
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • rosin
  • cubers
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • relationshipadvice
  • lostlight
  • normalnudes
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines