Today's occasion for a diary is a clever piece in Politico by Joshua Zeitz about recent Supreme Court decisions. Apparently, the ruling faction of the current Supreme Court believes in a doctrine called originalism, which argues that:

all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".

President Trump is attracting a diverse group of critics for his political stunt of sending active military on top of the National Guard already there on the southern border, trying to sell it as protecting us from sick and impoverished group of asylum seekers weeks away from making it to the US border.

Recently, JtC had posted "Federal Judge Says Embedding a Tweet Can Be Copyright Infringement." That was a very interesting post, and I had commented on that, but, to me, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was blowing the situation out-of-proportion. And just the other day, a commenter on reddit said something like, "Sometimes the EFF makes mountains out of molehills, but they are right in "How Congress Censored the Internet". Here I agree with the reddit commentator, and with the EFF article. This is bad, very bad.

Justice is blind and also slow. In America Justice remains slow but is no longer blind, overtly giving power to elites and corporations. Many inequities in law we experience today are the results of a two-tiered "justice" system. As the purpose of this essay is not to concentrate on judicial failings, and by extension societal failings, but to discuss a topic in which restrictions are antiquated, racist in origin, and empirically self-defeating.

The first shots of our next war have been fired.
The media and government claim they were non-lethal.

Alexandra Brodsky takes the Alliance Defending Freedom to task in an editorial in the NY Times: Don't Use Girls as Props to Fight Trans Rights. Brodsky is a Skadden fellow at the National Women's Law Center.