eriureiuremoe0er09er

 Fox news will Cain may 24 2024 

https://www.abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/the-view-host-suggests-caitlin-clark-aided-by-white-privilege-not-being-lesbian-sunny-hostin-wnba-iowa-indiana-fever-basketball-nba-the-view-abc-race-lgbtq

https://www.foxnews.com/media/author-hits-back-sunny-hostin-after-fiery-view-interview-she-had-no-idea-what-she-talking

Do you agree with Sunny Hostin's view that a third-party candidate is a bad idea and a healthier Republican Party would be a more viable solution to the problems caused by Donald Trump?

lark’s popularity can be attributed to the fact she is a straight white woman.

In a segment titled “Caitlin Clark Popularity Leads To Questions of Race & Sexuality,” the show’s hosts discussed Clark’s collegiate career, during which she shattered several major records. Host Whoopi Goldberg informed viewers Clark had earned her place in the WNBA unlike some Ivy League students who “only got in because [they're] Black.”

This girl earned this,” she said. “There are great players but nobody else has done this. I’m not mad they gave her a basketball.”

Former Farmer

 · 

6mo

We need two HEALTHY partys or no party at all and have RANK CHOICE like Alaska but at this point it would be very difficult to change because of thestreams already in place‍Votefor now as it is healthiest and more sane then any other choices

https://www.quora.com/On-what-issues-are-the-Democrats-very-clearly-wrong-even-in-the-eyes-of-liberals

Opposition

According to the American Bar Association, the main concern regarding AB 2542 was that it would overwhelm the courts and cause further delays in the adjudication of criminal cases.[5]

The California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) and the California State Sheriff’s Association opposed the passage of the CRJA. The CDAA’s opposition warned about the already-burdened courts having to “hold lengthy and costly evidentiary hearings” and sift through “massive amounts of statistic evidence” to adjudicate CRJA claims. They also opposed the initial draft of the bill which would have applied to all criminal cases in California, because “[p]ractically every single conviction that has ever occurred in California can now be re-opened and potentially reversed.” Lastly, the CDAA also criticized the fact that a petitioner does not have to make any showing of prejudice in order to motion the court for relief.[2]

Though they did not officially oppose the bill, the California Judges Association voiced their concerns that AB 2542 would upset the delicate balance that current law had achieved between making judgments final and preserving the rights of defendants, particularly because the original version of the bill had not required a prima facie showing to obtain an evidentiary hearing.[2]

Academic Commentary

The CRJA aims to provide more meaningful relief for people who have experienced racism in the criminal justice system. In theory, if claimants rely on its protections, it will offer more meaningful and practical relief for both systemic racism and incidents of bias by non-state actors than does the Constitution under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, statutory regimes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or municipal accountability mechanisms like internal police reporting.[7] Though largely ignored by both supporters and critics, the Act provides a novel approach to addressing police racism.[7] Both § 745(a)(1) and § 745(a)(2) include racist statements and conduct by police officers among their prohibitions.

The CRJA has been compared to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits particular pieces of evidence from being used in a criminal trial if they are the product of a constitutional violation. The CRJA has been called a "super-exclusionary" rule because if a violation is proven, it affords much greater relief than its Fourth Amendment counterpart.[7] Its impact as compared to the Fourth Amendment context stems from the fact that a CRJA violation does not merely exclude any particular piece of evidence but implicates the integrity of the entire case and relatedly, that the remedy can involve charging or sentencing relief, rather than only a re-trial. Unlike the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, the CRJA does not require a showing of prejudicial error. In other words, it does not matter if the alleged violation did not alter the outcome of the case.

Increasing transparency around prosecutors' charging practices and judges' sentencing patterns remains a concern. The Act's discovery provisions are not affirmative Brady-like obligations to turn over relevant exculpatory or impeachable information to the defense. Nor does the Act contain any requirement that counties publish or even collect charging, conviction, or sentencing data. As exhibited by the experience of advocates in Kentucky who have remarked on the difficulty in obtaining the data necessary to litigate their Racial Justice Act, a stronger CRJA would require that prosecutor's offices and even courts proactively collect and publish county-level data.[6] One law review article has recommended the development of "county-level, single-prosecutor statistical studies and historical records of discrimination."[6]

One legal treatise has identified a number of ambiguities in the procedural and remedial dictates of the CRJA. Only a few are listed here:

It is unclear who hears a CRJA motion. If the default is to have the trial judge hear all matters, what happens when the accusation is leveled against the trial judge himself? AB 2542 does not provide any guidance.

What form should statistical data disclosed pursuant to discovery take? While the state is not obligated to collect, synthesize and publish data, it is unclear what exactly would be shared with defense counsel and how.

While a remedy is required by the CRJA, it is uncertain whether such a remedy depends on when the violation occurred or when it was adjudicated. This legal treatise suggests it probably depends on the latter.

According to § 745(e)(2)(A), if "the court has the ability to rectify the violation by modifying the judgment," the court is required to "vacate the conviction and sentence, find that the conviction is legally invalid, and modify the judgment to impose an appropriate remedy for the violation that occurred.” What constitutes an "ability to rectify" is undefined. Moreover, how is the court meant to "modify the judgement" if it has already vacated the conviction at issue? There's no indication from the text alone that the court should grant a new trial. Courts might put more weight on the statutory directive to modify and impose an "appropriate remedy" rather than the instruction to vacate.[22]

Ritchie torres 'djt should apologize to Bronx over mishandling of buggy

the blexit woman founder on fox news will Cain her views May 24 2024

Fox news on former poc Baltimore Mayor admitting to Anderson Cooper that DJT is connecting w minority voters (May 24 2024) + CNN admits DJT is gaining ground on Joe Biden in Bronx (fox news May 24 2024)

Lebron defends Caitlyn Clark

https://www.quora.com/Does-The-View-make-the-Democrats-and-liberals-look-bad

https://www.quora.com/On-what-issues-are-the-Democrats-very-clearly-wrong-even-in-the-eyes-of-liberals

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cvs4kd/president_of_iran_along_with_foreign_minister_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cy68wd/peru_classifies_transgender_identities_as_mental/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cz8iq7/even_as_cynical_as_i_am_this_headline_is_just/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cydjdh/2020_hunter_biden_laptop_story_has_all_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1cy10sp/comment/l56tarw/

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-transit-workers-union-outraged-as-suspect-in-assault-on-mta-worker-sent-to-mental-health-court 

https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/05/02/mta-worker-assault-case-crawls-forward-in-the-bronx/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cx6qh8/lmao_one_of_you_called_this_already_but_im_still/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/10wd492/act_would_remove_cultural_background_reports_for/

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1cybl45/california_to_introduce_race_as_a_factor_in/

https://law.stanford.edu/2024/04/22/the-california-racial-justice-act-of-2020-explained/#:~:text=But%20the%20RJA%20has%20also,differently%20based%20on%20their%20race.