Hahahahah. I'm not checking a transcript when multiple media sources quote the same thing. You want to say they're all lying? You go read the whole transcript.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Selective Editing... OMG. We are in bigger trouble than I thought. Think critically - soundbite arguments aren't going to work in a court of law and that is what we're discussing. Be Smarter
What are you even talking about? The "sound bite" is what is in the letter. The argument, as you put it, is in the transcript you have already said you refuse to read?
This judge asked a valid hypothetical in response to a question of whether animus motivated the EO being ruled on.
I ask this with all sincerity. Do you know what the "bite" part in "sound bite" means? It means a portion of a longer answer. Literally the removal of context, important context! Animus toward historically marginalized groups is a legal trigger for enhanced review. This stuff is REALLY important!
Right. How much could they edit WWJD - it's just a few words. There is absolutely no reason for her pull the "go outside and think of what you've done" BS. And Are you joking? You think that somehow a judge overstepping is about showing that people are attacking marginalized groups? Please.
Right but that's the thing. You are reading her UVA comment incorrectly because you lack context. You believe that it was targeting the lawyer arbitrarily in some weird...power game? I have no idea what you think.
It wasn't a valid hypothetical question - Would Jesus do this? That offended Me. How did you feel when I made you leave the court? That is puerile and performative.
You claimed that "selective editing" was the issue - that's what I meant by soundbites. Again - you go read the whole thing
Comments
This judge asked a valid hypothetical in response to a question of whether animus motivated the EO being ruled on.
You claimed that "selective editing" was the issue - that's what I meant by soundbites. Again - you go read the whole thing