Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
@ryanjreilly.com
150K followers
1.5K following
1.7K posts
@nbcnews.com Senior Justice reporter, ebike guy.
Read my stuff: http://ryanjreilly.com/
Order my book: https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/ryan-j-reilly/sedition-hunters/9781541701809/
Message me on Signal: @ryanjreilly.62
🚲⚖️🕵️🦅🛎️🇺🇸
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Philip Bump
@pbump.com
· 2d
Thawing out ‘Arctic Frost’ and the new Biden-was-worse argument
A recent American presidency, you may be alarmed to hear, engaged in an action that was "arguably worse than Watergate" — an event still positioned in some circles as the gold-standard of presidential...
www.pbump.net
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
![This case, however, is about hate crimes, not hate speech. Violent physical assaults
are “not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First
Amendment.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 484 (1993). And it is well established
that Congress may account for racially discriminatory motives when penalizing criminal
conduct, as it did in the hate crimes laws at issue here. See id. at 487–88 (upholding a law
that imposed enhanced penalties for crimes committed “because of” race). While Hudak
was entitled to possess despicable Nazi symbols, the jury was entitled to consider that fact
when deciding whether he assaulted J.D. and J.S. because of their race, color, and national
origin.
How much meaning to assign the Nazi memorabilia was ultimately a question of
weight, not admissibility. But we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
conclusion that Hudak “opened the door to it[],” regardless of whether it would initially
have been admissible. Birchette, 908 F.3d at 61.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreif46umt23xjedtlfmzzcfoybeh7twc2w2tlge5fc5o24aiuk3gjoe@jpeg)
Reposted by Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray”
