Kelly
@justkelly.bsky.social
2.8K followers 270 following 4.2K posts
software engineer for almost two decades before I quit to become a lawyer. 2L at Cornell. she/her
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
justkelly.bsky.social
Look at this absolute weirdo
Paul Ingrassia at a protest with a line of cops behind him. He is wearing a tuxedo under a gray overcoat, red scarf, and black leather gloves. The overcoat is hanging oddly. The scarf is so high on his neck that the bow tie is fully visible below it. Overall he just looks weird and sleazy
justkelly.bsky.social
Fishing in that game is very annoying!
Reposted by Kelly
nkalamb.bsky.social
There is no need to editorialize. Just quote.
“Why don’t we tattoo a Star of David on the forehead of every terrorist we have to release?” - My daughter 

Proud father.
Reposted by Kelly
mjsdc.bsky.social
Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...
MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1
 And yet I
dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the
federal case law that applies to this dispute.
FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY
AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving
Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that
the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By
doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and
condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements. Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized
Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the
land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate
Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government
employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to
strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2
Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings.
The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8
L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty.
That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John
Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal
government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents
tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would
follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of
white supremacy.
Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong
and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually
sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man
was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils: Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United
States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.
Id. at 17.
This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward,
was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions.
In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903),
often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,”
3
the Court used that rationale to
justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes.
These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities
dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food.
Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and
helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.
Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L.
Ed. 228 (1886)).
Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that
same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be
both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805
(1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111
(2020).
3 See A Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was
less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes:
I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the
applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of
organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are.
Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to
equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the
conquered. Id. at 23.
In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope
used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages.
[W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become
agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of
humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel.
. . . .
But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states
or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law
of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held
together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or
government, beyond what is required in a savage state.
Id. at 23, 27-28.
This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030
(1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.
justkelly.bsky.social
If you have enough kids then you won’t be sad if a few of them die
Reposted by Kelly
erinbiba.bsky.social
LMAOOOOO

A bunch of comedians tried to make up for their participation in the Riyadh comedy festival by donating their pay to Human Rights Watch and Human rights Watch was like “nah bitch we don’t want your dirty blood money” 😂😂 I’m dying
Human Rights Watch Doesn’t Want Any Riyadh Comedy Festival Money
Taking money from those who took money from Saudi Arabia would impact perception of the org’s independence.
www.vulture.com
Reposted by Kelly
jimdaleywrites.bsky.social
Pass it on: If you FILE A COMPLAINT about police activity, it flags the body-worn camera video so reporters can obtain it later via FOIA requests.

City: www.chicagocopa.org/complaints/i...
County: apps.cookcountyil.gov/oiig/
State: oeig.illinois.gov/complaints/o...
peoplesfabric.com
State troopers just dragged three people out of the crowd.
justkelly.bsky.social
So The Hague is Bibi’s enemy?

Fascinating
justkelly.bsky.social
23 years old but dressed like they’re 92 lmao
justkelly.bsky.social
Yeah totally. Thanks for the reminder, I try to avoid clearsky bc there’s no point in stressing about who has blocked me, but this is a good use case to make an exception for!
justkelly.bsky.social
A model of how to professionally and respectfully communicate with users by acknowledging their concerns. If only bsky folks would learn something from this, but they won’t.
rude1.blacksky.team
I hear and see your concerns. Over the weekend, a couple users hosted on Blacksky's PDS were banned from the Bluesky app and thus the Bluesky API servers. This was a weakness of our system I've been aware of and hoped we had more time to address before any kind of public incident. 1/11
justkelly.bsky.social
A block shouldn’t prevent me from blocking someone back, but unfortunately, it does
justkelly.bsky.social
One thing I hate about nuclear block is that now I can’t find the asshole who was just in my mentions so I can block them back
justkelly.bsky.social
This isn’t about you or me and your refusal to acknowledge that or the fact that you also don’t read every article you see is why I am blocking you now
justkelly.bsky.social
Even if I read the article it’s an issue for society that most people don’t and this will give them the wrong impression. You might not care if other people incorrectly believe the false narrative that Portland is burning, but I do
justkelly.bsky.social
You do not read every article you scroll past. You simply don’t.
Reposted by Kelly
esqueer.net
ICE is a hostile occupying force that is a danger to everyone.
Alt text: A man in camouflage clothing and a face covering sits inside a gray Jeep, pointing a weapon out of the open driver-side window. The gun is aimed directly at the camera. The man wears gloves and a dark cap, and his eyes are visible above the mask. The vehicle’s door and side mirror are wet with raindrops.
justkelly.bsky.social
CNN *absolutely* knows the majority of people who scroll past this post are not going to open the article. That’s simply a fact about how social media and online news work.
justkelly.bsky.social
I can agree on the lack of media literacy, though. Incredible that people think headlines/photos on social media are unimportant as long as the article is correct