Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

Dahlia’s quickness to assume the Cornell 7 are factually guilty without vetted evidence to support that claim is highly concerning…especially for a podcast that claims to be rooted in the Constitution and its protections. This is not meant to be coy at all, but just because young men speak in uncouth terms on Snapchat about the victim Jane Doe, does not necessarily mean their encounter with her was non-consensual nor assaultive. If we don’t like this fact pattern, the solution is to amend the law, and not vilify seven individuals who have not even been criminally charged nor had the chance to cross examine or confront their accuser in a judicial forum.

Dahlia, stop your bad habit of nervous giggling through an important statement. meaning you can retrain your voluntary reflex to nervous laugh through statements that are very serious. just stop doing that. It is a very bad habit when you have the power of the truth yet giggle right through it which then lowers your believability in what you are saying. “you are old enough” to understand that and to stop your nervous laughter which only lowers your credibility that we should take you seriously in what you say.

Enjoyed the discussion. just Friday, David French NYT, scoffed and ridiculed aesthetic injury calling bogus. So, what correct here … 50 year established standing principle or bogus?

Thank you both for making the subject of the law so relevant and interesting to me, a non-lawyer who loves fairness.