As Trump Drones On, Democrats Resistance Takes Different Forms
Added 2025-03-05 11:11:53 +0000 UTCOA1133 and T3BE61 - Lydia joins today to discuss Trump's 3/4/2025 address to Congress regarding his vision for the next 4 years. Leading up to the evening, there were reports that quite a few Democrats would opt to not attend. We highlight the different approaches folks in the party took to resist in the face of chaos and authoritarianism, and discuss what we might do if we were in that position.
After that, Professor Heather Varanini comes in to share the answer to T3BE60 and present the next question in the Bar Exam!
If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!
Comments
😭😭😭 I thought she wasn't intending to cause any harm, and that's the intent that mattered. I need to give my Torts credits back to my university
I'll Be Danned If I Can't Be Frank With You
2025-03-12 10:56:50 +0000 UTCSorry I should’ve mentioned I heard ADL CEO not president on The Dispatch podcast of March 4 and that to me the danger of taking care of #1 hoping to keep the wolves at bay is akin to the leaders of a ghetto helping load the trains, sort of. At minimum, it’s buying oneself some more privilege and a false sense of comfort for a little while at the expense of everyone else. Islamophobia is an actual thing. Racism is an actual thing. Theocratic Ethnostate justification for oppression & genocide isn’t justification or a societal good.
dddebz
2025-03-07 21:12:48 +0000 UTCYes. Absolutely agree that more urgency and active measures by opposition is necessary. There is a Dem pundant who skewered Dems for standing up for trans rights as that would’ve been an easy appeasement and I’m convinced someone like Jeffries would listen to that advice. ADL is pushing for urgency protecting Jewish Americans as a single class, including any criticism of apartheid and genocide by the Israeli government or countering propaganda misleading Israeli citizens being antisemitic. ADL named Al Jazeera explicitly as harming the Jewish people by reporting the facts in Gaza and for non-Jewish Israeli citizens. It’s the same thing, to me. ADL president now is acting as if protecting only Jewish people against hate crimes is appropriate. It’s wrong.
dddebz
2025-03-07 21:00:04 +0000 UTCTo your probationary period discussion, it’s important to note that a probationary period in a new position protects the people because it’s a chance to make sure the person can effectively function in that new position. If they can’t, they could apply elsewhere. Not everyone needs or wants to be promoted past their competence. Much better than replacing professional civil service with more political hacks or ideological actors. In fact, in some agencies, they’re stating there was a negative performance review when they’re was NO performance review, which means they’re lying and also possibly ending careers without meritorious basis. I wish more Al Greens and visible signs with real time responses & fact checks become visible. The creativity and courage is absolutely necessary. Jeffries and Schumer need to be replaced by effective and creative leadership. Absolutely. Pelosi era has passed. Jeffries is arguably indebted to aipac.
dddebz
2025-03-07 20:44:08 +0000 UTCInteresting reading other Patron's distinction on a possible tort of Assault vs tort of Negligence... Is it the law in the U.S. that she deliberately assaulted him, or did she carelessly (aka negligently in legalspeak) cause him trauma? I guess I'll have to tune in Wednesday to find out 😂
I'll Be Danned If I Can't Be Frank With You
2025-03-07 02:53:32 +0000 UTCOooh, I think I know this one. I don't think this is criminal law, but I remember that someone who feels a reasonable threat from another's actions is the victim of assault. This question is torts though. But, the above distinction makes me think that there is a real action that took place here. A reasonable person would think someone swinging an axe and saying "If you move an inch, you're toast" is a reasonable threat, regardless of the intention. I don't think there has to be realized physical harm for the threat to be reasonable. For criminal law, that's the difference in assault and battery. I think that means Oscar will recover some sort of emotional damage, which narrows the answers to C and D. C does not fit because Dawn was not negligent. Her actions were intentional. The answer is D. Oscar had a reasonable belief Dawn would hit him with the axe and will recover.
Fireball Old Fashioneds
2025-03-06 14:35:29 +0000 UTC13:00 Interesting how they didn't care about decorum when Boebert and Greene were heckling Biden's SOTU.
Jason Valasek
2025-03-05 17:28:52 +0000 UTCLast week I ignored my gut and got it wrong, so this week I'm going with my gut. I think remember a previous question about how it's still a crime to rob someone with a finger-in-pocket fake gun because the victim thinks it's a real gun. So I'm going with D. Oscar shouldn't leave his axes lying around, but that doesn't give Dawn the right to swing them at him just because she has access to them.
Kait from Seattle
2025-03-05 16:58:55 +0000 UTCI'm going to go with D. I do wish the question said *what* Oscar was suing Dawn for, exactly-- that seems like a detail that would matter for whether or not he recovers! And Dawn, next time you want to teach someone a lesson about axe safety, maybe make it that *you're* the one who gets injured and involve fake blood somehow. Just a thought.
Off-by-one error
2025-03-05 16:34:23 +0000 UTCTHOMAS you had ME on a rollercoaster when you said no one on patreon got last week's right and I was pretty sure I had agreed with you!!!!
Off-by-one error
2025-03-05 16:02:28 +0000 UTCWe know why all these people were fired. Trump needs to find $4 trillion from his giant tax giveaway in his first term. He’s trying to pay back his first theft by ruining peoples lives. He’s a despicable human being and I think we need The Hague to bring human rights violation charges.
Oso Hermoso
2025-03-05 16:01:38 +0000 UTCT3BE is D. It’s a bit tricky because it doesn’t come out and say he’s suing for assault, but it is clear that (1) she plainly intended to cause an apprehension of harm and (2) he in fact felt an apprehension of harm (3) that was unlawful. Since D includes the second element of the intentional tort of assault it is correct. Negligence is an attractive distractor because it’s a sort of general catch-all tort, but there is no negligence here as her actions were intentional.
Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams
2025-03-05 15:56:49 +0000 UTCD. This is a classic case of the tort of assault
Lisa Redmond
2025-03-05 13:17:11 +0000 UTC... I love a good Torts case ... I think the answer is D, "Oscar will recover because he was afraid Dawn would hit him with the axe" ... Because she didn't /actually/ hit him, I'm sure he'll recover quite quickly, in fact. They're in a bar, just buy him a beer. Jokes and axes aside, I think he could be successful based on his being "terrified", and that Dawn was reckless or indifferent to the possibility of Oscar suffering emotional distress due to her actions, where a reasonable person should expect that her actions would cause "terror" - which all amounts to Negligence. I think this is how it works in Australia, and hopefully it's the same in the U.S. ... so that makes the answer C. (that is, it's not enough that he was terrified (answer D), he must also prove that a reasonable person would expect Dawn's actions to cause such terror, and thus that she was negligent)
I'll Be Danned If I Can't Be Frank With You
2025-03-05 12:57:51 +0000 UTC
