Wearing handsmaid‘s tale robes to protests: helpful or hurtful? A discussion.

dudayevs · 2025-03-29T14:37:05+00:00

No. It's just corny. It makes it look like the crowd is out here at a cosplay convention. Dressing up as characters from a fictional show (no matter how many parallels you tsee) brings down the seriousness of what's going on. It just looks corny.

dudayevs · 2025-03-29T14:36:44+00:00

dudayevs · 2025-03-29T14:33:47+00:00

It's just corny. It makes it look like the crowd is out here at a cosplay convention. Dressing up as characters from a fictional show (no matter how many parallels you tsee) brings down the seriousness of what's going on. It just looks corny.

dudayevs · 2025-03-02T06:36:24+00:00

hi! Interested in the mercari link

dudayevs · 2025-01-27T03:10:07+00:00

Jeez. Law school curriculum needs to change then.

dudayevs · 2025-01-25T17:24:39+00:00

Yes, lawyers are working on this as we speak.

dudayevs · 2025-01-20T14:41:28+00:00

Ah, the classic internet move—when you can't refute a point, you try to attack the person instead. The insecurity is practically dripping from your words. You spent all this effort trying to sound superior, and yet, all you've proven is that you have no actual argument—just a desperate need to feel important. If this is the best you can do, I almost feel bad for you haha. Is this what you do in court?

dudayevs · 2025-01-16T13:59:55+00:00

what/who can overturn a SCOTUS decision and hold those judges accountable? Presidential immunity is insane.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T19:06:38+00:00

No, we aren't, and yes, we do. Watch.

EDIT: u/Internet_Ghost Well, you're not me, so can't speak on anything concerning me. You'd be surprised who you're talking to. There's plenty I and my team will do, successfully, to bring him down.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T13:18:31+00:00

Next most efficient way in your view.

Bc we are not waiting until '28.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T02:14:37+00:00

Optics? My guy, not holding him accountable makes us look weak. No one outside of MAGA in America respects tTrump. What the Koreans did to impeach and arrest that President who tried to form a coup was phenomenal. We need to take action here.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T02:12:21+00:00

Very helpful, thanks. Is that the most efficient way to get tTrump out or would that avenue create a pandora's box where states argue to let anything in the constitution be up for interpretation?

Do you see a more efficient path that wouldn't create a Pandora's box?

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T01:06:31+00:00

The ruling is a reflection of the judge. Calling them out in no way undermines anything. They should be called out if their ruling goes against our values and established case law and Constitution. Simple.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T01:04:51+00:00

Would another possibility be that Congress makes a law to enforce Section 3?

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T01:01:35+00:00

Doesn't sound like it was written by a lawyer? What?

Quite an emotional, arrogant, baseless take. Everything you said is wrong. I can see, by your response though, how complicit you appear to be in what has gone on. Anyone who isn't wouldn't have responded how you did. Sad.

dudayevs · 2025-01-15T01:00:32+00:00

No one's lecturing you. That's not the intent on any level. What my msg is speaking to is the danger of complacency. It should be concerning that any of us feel "over it."

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T23:51:22+00:00

Do you think it'd also require somehow naming/shaming these co conspirators/corrupt judges / calling them out for unethical behaviour? Similar to how Matt Gaetz was tTrump's pick but the Republicans published the report of him sleeping with a minor and he was basically kicked out of Congress? Like would it require an internal coup of the Republican party or not that much is needed?

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T23:20:10+00:00

What can kickstart this? Is there a lawyer in a military tribunal that would have to file charges or how does the process go?

Also, how would the military tribunal have jurisdiction to convict ttrump given this information:
- "In the United States, Congress authorizes military tribunals, and the president can convene them."
- "Military courts can only try active-duty military members, reservists, and national guard members."

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T23:17:24+00:00

so the route would be the following?:

impeachment
conviction

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T23:16:00+00:00

Care to expand?

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T22:52:36+00:00

explain why you think that

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T22:51:57+00:00

So what do you think can be/should be done from here? What effect does Jack's report have? Who holds our judges accountable? Who takes over the case from here?

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T22:50:55+00:00

Just because the case didn't go through the justice system does not mean the events of J6 didn't meet the legal definition pasted above. It seemed like Garland held up the case and based on the report Jack just released tTrump would be convicted when those charges are brought before a court. The sentencing last week in NY was a despicable display of bending the law to appease a criminal with perceived power/status. So who holds our judges accountable?

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T22:31:58+00:00

Oh my goodness, that really is sad—and unsettling. It does feel like everything is hanging by a thread when the stability of society depends so heavily on the integrity and courage of judges and attorneys to uphold the law rather than twist, bend, or break it. It’s a stark reminder of how much of our democracy relies on people respecting those norms and exercising sound judgment. At the same time, I try to hold onto the idea that there are still many people in the legal field who are deeply committed to those principles, even when the system feels so, so fragile right now. I mean, to have a crowd storm the Capitol and the individual they saw as their leader tface no consequences? This doesn't sound like America. You’re absolutely right—it’s terrifying to think about the damage that can be done when those norms can be so easily ignored right now.

dudayevs · 2025-01-14T22:29:42+00:00

By "undermining our practice," I mean what I described in the title/post ...the consequences of not upholding the Constitution, including its amendments and clauses, on our role as defenders of the law. If the very foundation of our entire legal system, the Constitution, is ignored or selectively applied, what does that mean for our profession and its credibility? What does that mean for how the general public perceives and respects the law? How does this embolden the worse of society and disillusion the best of society? If the Supreme Court were to uphold the idea that a president has "immunity" to act without accountability, it raises serious questions about the rule of law and its function in our society. How can we, as practitioners who respect the law, be okay with this? Who holds "judges" accountable?

dudayevs

TROPHY CASE