Valerie Sonn
@valeriesonn.bsky.social
Former teacher and writer, disabled, widowed young. Likes cats, bunnies, tech, healthcare, politics, UBI, GOA, FPC, XBIZ.
What did Mr. Kirk legalize, exactly? He did not seem to like non-white women like me.
September 11, 2025 at 9:03 PM
What did Mr. Kirk legalize, exactly? He did not seem to like non-white women like me.
This is a very sympathetic article from, surprisingly, the Washington Post.
February 28, 2025 at 12:06 AM
This is a very sympathetic article from, surprisingly, the Washington Post.
Reposted by Valerie Sonn
Hello Friends! For new followers, here's my reintroduction post. I'm Sheryl, and I run a name-your-own-price law practice in Illinois, USA. Illinois has no right to counsel in eviction or foreclosure cases,
so I represent people facing homelessness who otherwise couldn't afford lawyers.
1/
so I represent people facing homelessness who otherwise couldn't afford lawyers.
1/
February 25, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Note the quotes: 'Many Republicans in Congress say “able-bodied” adults could get coverage from a job or by purchasing insurance on their own.' For Medicaid purposes, "able-bodied" means ANYONE not yet receiving SSI or SSDI, not the public's idea of "able-bodied" he-men gracing romance-novel covers.
February 26, 2025 at 11:20 PM
Note the quotes: 'Many Republicans in Congress say “able-bodied” adults could get coverage from a job or by purchasing insurance on their own.' For Medicaid purposes, "able-bodied" means ANYONE not yet receiving SSI or SSDI, not the public's idea of "able-bodied" he-men gracing romance-novel covers.
>[Atty. Lawrence] Walters predicts that efforts to enforce federal obscenity statutes would prove a daunting challenge “unless the prosecuted content is exceedingly fringe in nature,” as the Supreme Court has demonstrated no propensity toward changing the [current definition of obscenity].
January 23, 2025 at 4:42 AM
>[Atty. Lawrence] Walters predicts that efforts to enforce federal obscenity statutes would prove a daunting challenge “unless the prosecuted content is exceedingly fringe in nature,” as the Supreme Court has demonstrated no propensity toward changing the [current definition of obscenity].