Dr. Colleen Kadleck
LightNews LightNews
banner
ckadleck.bsky.social
Dr. Colleen Kadleck
@ckadleck.bsky.social
940 followers 650 following 320 posts
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, mom, mostly post about public policy, will probably like your dog or cat post
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
librarycolleen.bsky.social
gizmodo.com/librarians-a...
Librarians Are Tired of Being Accused of Hiding Secret Books That Were Made Up by AI
AI chatbots are generating fake titles that people insist are real.
gizmodo.com
December 13, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
simonwdc.bsky.social
The reason folks are focusing on DHS's refusal to honor Real IDs is that it means that the Trump regime is asserting the right to detain anyone in America, resident or visitor, without probable cause. It's an erasure of habeas corpus for all Americans.
bsky.app/profile/jare...
jaredmcclain.bsky.social Jared @jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 1d
Add to this that HSI just filed a declaration in our case challenging these policies saying they can’t trust REAL IDs as proof of status.

So showing your papers isn’t even enough to end the stop.
December 13, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
rosejudson.bsky.social
I work, for now, in higher education marketing, and can recall the MBA concentrations for blockchain and fintech and big data analytics which all wound up withering on the vine.
December 9, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
tressiemcphd.bsky.social
Read this as an American woman and then go break something.
December 8, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
jamellebouie.net
the whole structure of this argument — independent agencies are politically unaccountable therefore the president must have removal power — treats congress as if it were a total nullity, or as if only the president truly represents the public.
December 8, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Reposted by Dr. Colleen Kadleck
criminalerin.bsky.social
OH THAT IS INTERESTING
Interestingly, those with household incomes of $100,000 or more were the most likely (40%) to say they’ve intentionally taken an item without scanning it. Just 17% of those making less than $30,000 said the same.
December 7, 2025 at 9:11 PM