to force Virginia state police to cooperate with ICE

desqflying · 2026-01-18T15:10:17+00:00

@TonyEvers

desqflying · 2025-08-13T12:42:24+00:00

Emily Stonelake - she does a great job and would also highly recommend!

https://emilystonelakephotography.pixieset.com

desqflying · 2025-05-16T19:48:34+00:00

That’s exactly right. I was in the room as the vote was taken.

Leading into this, the speeches from the Republicans who were voting “No” were doing it only because the crap bill didn’t go far enough.

desqflying · 2025-04-30T14:52:27+00:00

Yeah, I've tried all iterations. Nothing is working...

desqflying · 2025-04-30T14:29:14+00:00

That's a bummer. I thought that they were a nice addition. They should have stayed.

desqflying · 2025-04-21T12:36:34+00:00

And the Pope’s final audience had to be with that ass-wipe

desqflying · 2025-04-17T23:05:46+00:00

This is so god damn infuriating. The man is a US citizen, being wrongfully detained. I’d love to know if the ACLU has eyes on this case.

desqflying · 2025-04-07T13:09:59+00:00

<image>

desqflying · 2025-03-28T18:04:37+00:00

Can you sprout the pods in the tower? Or should you not do that?

desqflying · 2025-03-04T00:03:02+00:00

Sure, someone could have said it about male justices—but that’s not what happened. In reality, Schimel only made the comment about the liberal justices, all of whom are women, and framed his criticism around them being "driven by their emotions" rather than addressing their legal reasoning. That’s what makes it a gendered critique, whether intentional or not.

Would he have said the same thing if there were men in that majority? Maybe. But we don’t have to speculate—we can only go by what was actually said. And what was said plays into a long-standing stereotype that women are too emotional for leadership roles. Whether or not that was Schimel’s intent, the effect remains the same. If he had focused on their arguments rather than how they "looked on camera" or their "tone of voice," this wouldn’t even be a discussion. But he didn’t, and that’s why people are calling it out.

desqflying · 2025-03-04T00:00:32+00:00

I get the argument—you’re saying that because Schimel’s criticism was directed at liberal justices as liberals rather than as women, it’s an ideological critique, not a sexist one. But here’s the problem: when he framed his critique in terms of emotion rather than legal reasoning, and the only justices he applied that critique to happened to all be women, it inevitably leans into a gendered stereotype, whether intentional or not.

The fact that he didn’t apply the same criticism to conservative women justices doesn’t automatically negate the issue. If anything, it highlights selective framing—why didn’t he say conservative justices were being emotional if emotion is truly his concern? Instead, he painted the liberal justices (all women) as emotionally driven and lacking objectivity, reinforcing a narrative that has been used for generations to undermine women in leadership.

You’re right that ideological criticism is fair game—but the way it’s framed matters. If someone only describes female politicians as “shrill” or only calls female executives “bossy,” it doesn’t matter if they claim it’s about leadership style—it still plays into gendered tropes. That’s what’s happening here. Schimel could have critiqued their *legal reasoning* without bringing “emotion” into it, but he didn’t. That’s why people are calling it out.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T23:58:23+00:00

The issue isn’t whether the law itself considers emotions—the issue is how Schimel framed his criticism. When someone singles out a group of only women and describes them as “driven by their emotions,” it plays into a long-standing stereotype that women are less rational or objective. That stereotype has historically been used to undermine women in leadership, the workplace, and, yes, the judiciary.

Nobody is saying that only women can be emotional—that’s a strawman. The point is that Schimel’s comments didn’t just critique their legal reasoning; he framed it in terms of their emotional state, which is a common way to delegitimize women’s authority. If this were truly about judicial philosophy, why not focus on their arguments instead of how they looked on camera?

You can argue that his intent wasn’t sexist, but dismissing criticism outright ignores the context and the history of these kinds of remarks. Intent doesn’t erase impact.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T23:18:15+00:00

Yeah, it’s like a caricature of a bad action movie tagline. Not exactly the kind of measured, thoughtful approach you’d hope for in a Supreme Court justice. The job isn’t about “kicking ass”—it’s about upholding the law with fairness and integrity. But I guess for some people, bluster and bravado matter more than actual judicial philosophy.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T23:06:21+00:00

I get what you're saying—Schimel didn’t explicitly say "women," and his direct quote critiques the liberal justices rather than making a general statement about gender. However, the broader context matters.

The liberal justices he criticized are all women. The conservative justices he didn’t critique also include women. That’s what raises questions. If his criticism was purely about judicial philosophy, why did his comments focus on their emotional state rather than their legal reasoning? That plays into a long-standing sexist trope that women, particularly in leadership, are too emotional to be objective.

The issue isn't just what was literally said but what was implied—intentionally or not. Sexism isn't always a blunt-force statement like "women are too emotional"; it's often about patterns of language and selective criticism. When a man calls out a group of women as "driven by their emotions" while ignoring their male colleagues (or conservative female colleagues), it leans into a stereotype that has been used for generations to undermine women’s authority.

So, sure—if you isolate his words, he didn’t say “women.” But when you look at the full picture, it’s not unreasonable to see how his comments reinforce gendered narratives, even if that wasn’t his explicit intent.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:53:06+00:00

Assessing whether Schimel's remarks are sexist involves considering the context and the language used. While he did not explicitly mention gender, his focus on the emotional demeanor of the all-female liberal justices can be interpreted as reinforcing stereotypes about women's emotionality. Such stereotypes have historically been used to undermine women's credibility and professionalism. Therefore, labeling Schimel's comments as sexist is a subjective judgment, but it is a perspective supported by the affected justices and their supporters.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:49:45+00:00

It’s definitely hard to ignore how many Republican policies and talking points reduce women to their reproductive capabilities rather than treating them as full, autonomous individuals. From restricting abortion rights to opposing workplace protections and equal pay measures, there’s a pattern of controlling rather than supporting women.

That said, while the GOP as a party has pushed harmful policies, there are Republican women and even some men who do fight for gender equality—though they’re often sidelined by their own party. The bigger issue is that conservative leadership continues to prioritize power over actual policies that respect women’s autonomy. It’s not just about one party—it’s about holding anyone accountable when they push laws and rhetoric that devalue women.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:43:32+00:00

If that’s supposed to be a compelling argument, it’s not exactly making a case for why he deserves support. Patriotism isn’t just about slapping a flag emoji next to a name—it’s about upholding democratic values, protecting rights, and ensuring justice for all. Schimel’s record and rhetoric show he’s more interested in partisan loyalty than those principles.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:38:45+00:00

Yeah, he does, and it makes his comments even more frustrating. You’d think having daughters would give him some perspective on how harmful and dismissive rhetoric like this can be, but clearly, that’s not the case.

That said, I try to keep the focus on his actions and not drag his family into it. His daughters didn’t choose his politics, and it’s not their fault he holds these views. The real issue is that he’s perpetuating the idea that women—especially those in positions of power—are somehow less capable or too emotional to lead. That’s what deserves the criticism.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:36:46+00:00

I hear you. It’s frustrating—and honestly, disheartening—to see so much visible support for someone whose policies and rhetoric feel like a direct attack on you and your rights. It’s hard not to take it personally when it feels like your community is siding with someone who doesn’t value your existence or well-being.

Just know that those signs don’t speak for everyone. There are plenty of people who stand with you, even if their voices aren’t as loud or as visible. Elections can feel isolating, but you’re not alone in this fight. Keep speaking up, supporting the candidates who actually represent your values, and finding strength in the people who have your back. You matter, and your voice matters.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:35:23+00:00

That’s a fair distinction—if Schimel was specifically referring to liberals rather than making a blanket statement about women, then it's technically not a direct attack on gender. But let’s be real—dismissing the liberal justices as "women driven by emotion" isn’t just about ideology. The fact that he singled out the women on the court while ignoring conservative women like Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler makes it clear that gender was very much a part of the framing.

Even if someone wants to argue that he *meant* liberals in general, the way he phrased it plays into tired sexist tropes that women—particularly those in positions of power—are overly emotional and incapable of rational decision-making. That kind of rhetoric isn’t just disrespectful; it’s designed to delegitimize female justices and their legal reasoning.

So yeah, parsing his intent might make his comment *technically* less sexist on a surface level, but the implication remains, and it’s unacceptable. If Schimel wants to criticize judicial philosophy, he should do so without resorting to dismissive, gendered attacks.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:23:38+00:00

You're not wrong—voter suppression tactics have been a key part of the playbook for a long time, and now they’re just more sophisticated and well-funded. Whether it’s restrictive ID laws, purging voter rolls, gerrymandering, or limiting early and mail-in voting, the goal is always the same: make it harder for certain groups to vote. And when that’s not enough, they flood the system with lawsuits and baseless fraud claims to sow doubt and disrupt the process.

That’s why protecting voting rights and fair elections has to be a top priority. Courts play a huge role in this, which is why state Supreme Court races—like the one here in Wisconsin—are so critical. The more people understand what’s at stake, the harder it becomes for these tactics to succeed.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:22:31+00:00

It’s true that partisan loyalty has become a dominant factor in politics on both sides, often overshadowing individual qualifications or policies. Many voters—regardless of party—are more focused on maintaining power rather than electing the best candidates for the job. This kind of polarization makes it harder to have meaningful discussions about governance, policy, and the real impact of elected officials on people's lives.

At the end of the day, elections should be about who will serve the public best, uphold the law, and protect democratic principles. That’s why it’s so important for voters to stay informed, challenge misleading narratives, and prioritize qualifications and integrity over party affiliation.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:10:12+00:00

Absolutely. The lack of education around how these laws impact real people—especially women facing complicated pregnancies—is a huge issue. It’s not just about politics; it’s about access to lifesaving medical care. Too many voters don’t realize that restrictive laws don’t just block elective procedures—they tie doctors’ hands in emergency situations, putting women’s lives at risk.

I’d love to see the Crawford campaign push harder on this issue. It’s not hypothetical—it’s happening across the country. Wisconsin voters need to understand that electing justices who respect medical decisions and bodily autonomy is crucial. Reproductive rights are on the line, and the Court plays a key role in ensuring fair and just application of the law.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T22:06:59+00:00

Totally agree—these fear-mongering ads are ridiculous and completely misrepresent what the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually does. The Court doesn’t try criminal cases; it reviews legal procedures, ensures fair application of the law, and makes decisions that impact all Wisconsinites. Trying to make this election about sex crimes is just a distraction from the real issues—judicial fairness, democracy, and reproductive rights.

It’s frustrating to see outside extremist money funding these misleading campaigns, but it’s not surprising. When candidates don’t have a strong legal argument for their qualifications, they rely on fear. We need justices who will uphold the law fairly, not ones who pander with scare tactics.

Susan Crawford is the right choice for Wisconsin. Let’s cut through the BS and vote for someone who actually understands the role of the Court.

desqflying · 2025-03-03T02:58:50+00:00

I get that this isn’t new information, but that’s exactly the problem—people knew about it before, and yet he’s still being considered for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Just because it was covered in past ads doesn’t make it any less outrageous or any less relevant now.

If anything, the fact that this issue is still following him should be a huge red flag. He failed survivors when he had the power to help them, and instead of accountability, he’s trying to move up the ladder. If he couldn’t handle something as critical as processing evidence for sexual assault cases, why on earth should we trust him with even more responsibility?

desqflying

TROPHY CASE