@pollyannainhell.bsky.social
Recovering lawyer, minor public official, (very) former sf/fantasy editor, occasional painter. This is the account I admit to in public.
Yes. I just wanted to clarify, since people will read terms of art as if they were natural language, and be confused, and this is important.
I can already see the posts yelling, "They're denaturalizing Zohran, it's a civil case so he can't have a lawyer!" And then you have to explain 10,000 times.
I can already see the posts yelling, "They're denaturalizing Zohran, it's a civil case so he can't have a lawyer!" And then you have to explain 10,000 times.
June 30, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Yes. I just wanted to clarify, since people will read terms of art as if they were natural language, and be confused, and this is important.
I can already see the posts yelling, "They're denaturalizing Zohran, it's a civil case so he can't have a lawyer!" And then you have to explain 10,000 times.
I can already see the posts yelling, "They're denaturalizing Zohran, it's a civil case so he can't have a lawyer!" And then you have to explain 10,000 times.
Of course it's a barrier to access, but there's still a huge difference between "you're going to need to find a public interest org who want to litigate this" and "we don't care if Danielle Sassoon is willing to represent you pro bono, you're not allowed to have a lawyer."
June 30, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Of course it's a barrier to access, but there's still a huge difference between "you're going to need to find a public interest org who want to litigate this" and "we don't care if Danielle Sassoon is willing to represent you pro bono, you're not allowed to have a lawyer."
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that to mean that unlike in criminal cases, you're not entitled to have a lawyer appointed for you if you can't afford one, but NOT to mean that you can't have a lawyer at all.
Is that great? No. But it's a far cry from not being allowed counsel, period.
Is that great? No. But it's a far cry from not being allowed counsel, period.
June 30, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Ah, thanks. I'm reading that to mean that unlike in criminal cases, you're not entitled to have a lawyer appointed for you if you can't afford one, but NOT to mean that you can't have a lawyer at all.
Is that great? No. But it's a far cry from not being allowed counsel, period.
Is that great? No. But it's a far cry from not being allowed counsel, period.
Where are you getting that? Just on the face of it, these appear to be normal civil or criminal cases, where a defendant would normally be entitled to counsel.
June 30, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Where are you getting that? Just on the face of it, these appear to be normal civil or criminal cases, where a defendant would normally be entitled to counsel.
This is likely a waste of both our time, but I'm genuinely curious: Do you really think somebody who's weaker on policy is a better choice for president because they have a few less dollars? You're pushing Gavin Newsom, not some poor person.
June 28, 2025 at 9:38 PM
This is likely a waste of both our time, but I'm genuinely curious: Do you really think somebody who's weaker on policy is a better choice for president because they have a few less dollars? You're pushing Gavin Newsom, not some poor person.
So what? Sometimes you can use a good class traitor, and he's never suggested the party's gone too far supporting trans people.
June 28, 2025 at 4:17 PM
So what? Sometimes you can use a good class traitor, and he's never suggested the party's gone too far supporting trans people.
The Great Khan of the Steppes is right there. We don't have to nominate fucking Newsom. We can go for Pritzker instead, and have someone who doesn't try to throw any of our people under buses.
June 28, 2025 at 4:07 PM
The Great Khan of the Steppes is right there. We don't have to nominate fucking Newsom. We can go for Pritzker instead, and have someone who doesn't try to throw any of our people under buses.
And Bove, who Trump nominated to the Third Circuit, is arguably even worse. I think he was scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing today. Under any normal conditions the nomination would have been pulled. But these days, who knows? Shamefully, there still might be 51 party-linevotes for him.
June 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM
And Bove, who Trump nominated to the Third Circuit, is arguably even worse. I think he was scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing today. Under any normal conditions the nomination would have been pulled. But these days, who knows? Shamefully, there still might be 51 party-linevotes for him.
And it comes on top of Bove's firing Danielle Sassoon, and attempt to fire Hagan Scotten (who resigned first) over their refusal to follow orders to disregard professional ethical standards in the Eric Adams case. It's a pattern: the Senate has evidence-based reason to assume he'll lie under oath.
June 25, 2025 at 5:12 AM
And it comes on top of Bove's firing Danielle Sassoon, and attempt to fire Hagan Scotten (who resigned first) over their refusal to follow orders to disregard professional ethical standards in the Eric Adams case. It's a pattern: the Senate has evidence-based reason to assume he'll lie under oath.
In all seriousness: do we think he understands what Social Security even is?
June 8, 2025 at 2:41 PM
In all seriousness: do we think he understands what Social Security even is?