TFW people (ON BOTH SIDES) talk about overturning or protecting Roe v. Wade as if it had been governing precedent for more than the last quarter century. (Nope.) I cannot take any such people seriously. FFS, at this point it has NOT been the standard longer than it ever was.
-
Show this thread
-
Yes, I know it's a synecdoche for "legal abortion." But using a decades-superseded case caption as your synecdoche IN A DISCUSSION OF LEGAL PRECEDENT instead of the current governing standard is just a self-own. Precision, people. Precision.
7 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @LibertyFarmNH @BostonDelendEst
yeah, I've been watching the thread and clicking "like" on each update, because this also annoys the bejeezus out of me
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It's important. If a party files a brief on a legal issue and cites a superseded case as setting forth the standard and framework, it is "problematic" as the kids say. It's fine to be imprecise in politics. Not in law.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It doesn't even require anything of any depth. It really is as simple as knowing, in 2019, that: The Casey viability standard (1992) supplanted the Roe trimester analysis (1973). The rest is commentary, now go and study.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
> simple as knowing you don't even have to KNOW; you just need the process of googling !@# before spouting off on it "roe v wade wikipedia" <read for 30 seconds> oh!
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.