Whoa, U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker (George W. Bush appointee) just pressed Ensign on the free speech issue in both cases:

"Take a position."

Looks like it was a very cool panel!

To say that you live paycheck to paycheck, meaning expenses exceed cash on hand during the time period between one pay check and the next, suggests poor exit options, because even on a high salary, unemployment for a single pay-cycle would consume all liquid assets, so walking off is a risky option.

The Left already speaks to peoples' subjective "lived experience" of vulnerability and percieved ordinal situation, rather than their statistical cardinal situation, when it comes to people the Left has historic sympathies with.

Maybe we can expand our sphere of empathy.

(that is, *lower* immediate stress, *lower* immediate reward situation, not stress free or no reward, but I was at the character limit).

"'The pursuit was not related to any laws being broken. The pursuit was taking place in an effort to protect the well-being of Mr. Garner' the coroner said..."

How does a coroner come up with that conclusion? Decedent's injuries were consistent with a high speed chase for protective motives?

Even if many people who self-report living "paycheck to paycheck" are materially comfortable, subjective precarity is still real stress, that suggests poor exit-options and bargaining power.

That's surely a politically relevant problem too, even if it's a different problem than absolute poverty.

You might think that on some level all lawsuits are suits for "hurt feelings"...just some hurt feelings can be translated into a legally cognizable harm *and* presented in a way that, at least at the onset, the suit seems like a socially acceptable recourse? Most causes for action aren't acted on.