Tahir Duckett

@tahir.bsky.social

213

Followers

172

Following

169

Posts

Executive Director + Adjunct Prof. Georgetown Law Center for Innovations in Community Safety.
Policing, consent, soccer, food. He/him.

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Worth noting the EPA's brief correctly uses "nitrogen oxide" 7 times, and the EPA submitted a declaration from an official who used it twice. But nobody involved in the majority opinion, Justices and clerks, bothered to take the EPA's brief seriously, and so none of them noticed the error.

Still marveling at Gorsuch's Ohio v. EPA opinion, in which he confused nitrogen oxide (a pollutant) with nitrous oxide (laughing gas). He did this five times, never once getting it right—in an opinion overruling the EPA's own expert scientific analysis! s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...

Remember that time last week when the Supreme Court made us all the worst parts of a monarchy?

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

I have no idea the best path re Biden but I do know a solid week straight of “Biden Old” and “Rich Dems Worried” above-the-fold stories are *obscene* in the face of SCOTUS using the Constitution to wipe their asses purely in the service of reinstating a felon rapist as president. Crazy-making shit.

Ppl with kids in the District of Columbia on July 4th... Bedtime. How? Help??!!?? Should I just leave town?

Can editorial boards be saved? There *might* be more embarrassing writing happening elsewhere, but rarely with the audience and backing of WaPo or NYT's absurdly out of touch, ill-informed group of nonsense peddlers.

Wop bop a loo bop a lop bom bom Tutti frutti, oh rootie

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Fucking unbelievable that the big publications are running with this as the lead story after the Supreme Court just promised to install a convicted felon rapist insurrectionist as Emperor for Life.

IMO this is a straight-up ageist and ableist image, no?

The NY Times continues to be the most embarrassing version of itself.

Why I Don't Vote (OK, I Do Vote, but I Would Like to Discourage You, NY Times Reader, For Doing So For Some Reason) Via @bubbaprog.ilovecitr.us

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

just watched 74 people speaking at least a dozen different languages become american citizens in a ceremony at monticello, where the speakers were themselves children of immigrants. inspiring stuff and a vivid illustration of what reactionaries want to snuff out

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Official act. Immune.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Jesus. Automated enforcement advocates really underestimate the potential for abuse with these cameras. The amount of information they collect is staggering, as is the ability to piece it all together to meticulously track individual people. reason.com/2024/07/01/s...

Sacramento cops shared license plate data with anti-abortion statesreason.com Sacramento authorities are not only collecting drivers' information but sharing it with law enforcement agencies in other states without a warrant.

A lot of this is on the Times but a lot of this is also on Biden and the Dems. Dems shouldn't be talking about ANYTHING but the Court. But not only do they refuse to full-on run against the Court, they're the ones giving quotes and tidbits that are fueling the fire. Embarrassing party.

the times continues its vigorous campaign to end democracy. literally the same playbook they ran in 2016 with the emails. we're so fucked. i'm existentially depressed.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence. /1

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

So based on decisions from just this week, the President, as long has he has the gloss of officialdom, can basically do anything without legal restraint, whereas the President, acting via duly appointed agencies authorized by Congress, is more restrained than ever? What a coherent jurisprudence!

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Reply to

Nails Nathan

The case for abolition, UBI, universal housing and healthcare has the power of moral force. Couching these positions in the idea they’re actually secretly popular muddles the argument and elides the very real work that needs to be done in convincing people.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

In general, I think it’s important to remove the argument for leftist positions from the idea there’s an overlooked silent majority just waiting to support them if only for the machinations of the dastardly elite.

I've heard worse ideas!!

In a fucked up turn of events, I would use the end of Chevron as the excuse to expand the court and the whole judiciary by pointing out that they don’t have the capacity to hear all the cases they just gave themselves. 27 justices, double the size of the circuits. Huh. Thanks John Roberts.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

on the very day the Supreme Court's conservatives said 'we know best' and put themselves in charge of complicated agency decisions one of the geniuses confused nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxide. So they had to have a do over. Not exactly an auspicious start. www.forbes.com/sites/alison...

Supreme Court Corrects EPA Opinion After Gorsuch Confuses Laughing Gas With Air Pollutantwww.forbes.com The error came in an opinion blocking an EPA policy meant to improve air pollution.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Jailing people for being homeless is a classic American policy: stupid, brutal, and very expensive.

I'm also just embarrassed by how BAD the arguments in the opinions are. The finest conservative minds in the nation and we get, "banning sleeping outside is no different than banning public alcohol use." Bro what????

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

This is my sense of it as well. As with so many right wing projects,, the chaos will be fun and exciting to them for a while, but eventually things will get so baroque and absurd that they'll start slowly walking this back and maybe 10 years from now they'll make a new Chevron

hope everyone enjoys the next two to ten years or so of chaos until the supreme court invents chevron deference again

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

We've reached a point in American political life where the vast majority of the public and much of the elite agree our political system doesn't work, but we've not yet reached the point where anyone is proposing changing it at the scale of the problem.

This opinion is nauseating. Textbook criminalization of poverty. Too poor to afford a bed? We'll just jail you.

First decision is Grants Pass. Gorsuch has the 6-3 opinion finding that the Eighth Amendment does not bar "generally applicable" laws banning public camping. Sotomayor writes the dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...

Reposted by

Gear up for several years of doctrinal chaos as courts try to figure out how to deal with regs in complex areas that the judges can't possibly understand ...

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

From a non-tech person’s point of view, the AI discourse went very quickly from “there’s a 78% chance this will end civilization” to “we’re installing this in all dishwashers, stepladders, social sciences research, and novellas and you will be so so grateful”

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

A phenomenon that galls me: *continues to spend time on a toxic, miserable social platform* *constantly screenshots example of the toxicity and misery* *brings screenshots over here because we were just dying to know how it was going*

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

I think it’s hard to understate the extent to which two-century old history is incomplete, contradictory, and subject to multiple interpretations—and thus fundamentally incapable of providing the sort of clear guidance Originalists claim that it can.

The court's new hyper-literal originalism is producing a weird jurisprudence in which some cases turn on two competing, highly subjective, highly-distilled, multi-century historical narratives. The narrative that gets 5 votes then becomes "Official U.S. History" for every similar case that follows.

Amy Coney Barrett Sounds Fed Up With Clarence Thomas’ Sloppy Originalismslate.com In a trademark case, Barrett agreed with Thomas’ bottom line but sharply disagreed with pretty much everything else.

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

“A study that followed a cohort of nearly 34,000 women, found that those who frequently used chemical hair-straightening products, a majority of whom were Black women, were two and a half times as likely to develop uterine cancer as those who did not use the products.”

The Disturbing Truth About Hair Relaxerswww.nytimes.com They’ve been linked to reproductive disorders and cancers. Why are they still being marketed so aggressively to Black women?

Reposted by

Tahir Duckett

Everyone who still uses Twitter in June 2024