Something that’s awesome about tumblr compared to other sites is that we’re still passing around images and things that people posted on here upwards of 15 years ago like I saw this amazing photo on here earlier with only like a thousand notes and the timestamp on the post was like this time of year in 2010

Everybody is just on here sharing cool stuff that they enjoy and there’s no shelf life on posts here. I love that

there is so much happening

when you’re so in love with a character you literally squeal and curl into a ball when they make an appearance

@trevors-vampire-wifey

#and then years later #when dean’s deal happens and he’s in hell #sam purposefully messes with the car and plays shitty music so that maybe dean WILL come back to haunt him #anything to see his face again  #hear his voice one last time (via)

GO SIT IN THE FUCKING CORNER AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU’VE DONE

brb crying

i don’t know how Jared manged to film this scene without laughing the whole time.

A Crisis in the Courts - L.A. County’s Reporter Shortage, Jessner’s Controversial Order, and the Looming Threat of Jury Nullification

In Los Angeles County, a storm is brewing within the legal system—one that could shake the very foundation of justice in California's largest court system. At the heart of the matter lies a controversial move by Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner, who recently issued a general order permitting electronic recording of proceedings in certain types of civil cases. On its face, the order may seem like a practical response to a court reporter shortage. But beneath the surface, legal experts, court observers, and concerned citizens are raising alarm bells. Critics say Judge Jessner’s order not only violates existing California law but also risks triggering a broader constitutional crisis—jury nullification.

The Legal Backdrop of California Government Code § 69957

To understand the magnitude of this decision, it's important to first look at the law. California Government Code § 69957 explicitly limits the types of court proceedings that can be electronically recorded in lieu of official court reporters. The statute allows such recordings only in limited civil cases—typically smaller disputes involving damages below $25,000.

However, the statute prohibits electronic recording in unlimited civil, family, and probate courtrooms. These are high-stakes proceedings—cases involving millions of dollars, child custody, complex estates, and more. The law clearly indicates that human court reporters must transcribe these cases to ensure accurate and official records.

The Legislative Attempt That Failed

Earlier in 2024, California’s judiciary sought to change that. A proposed bill, AB 662, aimed to revise the Government Code and allow for broader electronic recording, including in unlimited civil, family, and probate matters. The judiciary’s argument was straightforward: the state faces a critical shortage of licensed court reporters, and electronic recording offers a stopgap solution.

But the California Legislature disagreed. In a decisive move, AB 662 was rejected—deemed inappropriate, perhaps unsafe, and certainly not a full replacement for trained professionals who capture the nuance, emotion, and verbal precision of courtroom proceedings. The bill’s failure reinforced the legal status quo: electronic recording remains strictly limited.

Presiding Judge Jessner’s recent order allowing electronic recording in civil, family, and probate courts defies California law—one that was already upheld in court 30 years ago. In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) sued LASC for the same issue and won. That decision was appealed and upheld. Jessner’s defiance now not only breaks the law—it violates settled case precedent.

​In the 1990s, the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) challenged the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, leading to significant legal decisions that continue to influence court practices today.​

CCRA v. Judicial Council of California (1996):

In this case, the CCRA petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the Judicial Council from authorizing electronic recording in superior courts, arguing that such practices were inconsistent with statutory law. The trial court denied the petition, but upon appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the CCRA. The appellate court found that the California Rules of Court permitting electronic recording were invalid as they conflicted with existing statutes requiring certified shorthand reporters for superior court proceedings. This decision underscored the necessity of adhering to legislative mandates regarding court reporting methods. ​

Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association v. Superior Court (1995):

Similarly, the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association contested the Superior Court's practice of using electronic recording devices instead of certified court reporters for general civil proceedings. The association sought a writ of mandate to compel the court to cease this practice, arguing it violated statutory provisions. The trial court ruled in favor of the association, ordering the Superior Court to stop using electronic recording in specified circumstances. This decision was upheld on appeal, reinforcing the requirement for certified court reporters in superior court proceedings and highlighting the judiciary's obligation to comply with statutory requirements. ​

These cases established clear legal precedents emphasizing that the use of electronic recording in superior court proceedings, without explicit legislative authorization, is impermissible. They highlight the judiciary's duty to adhere strictly to statutory mandates concerning court reporting methods.

Is Jessner’s Order a Legal End-Run?

With the bill defeated, the courts were expected to respect the will of the legislature. But Judge Jessner had other plans.

In a sweeping General Order issued after the failure of AB 662, Jessner authorized the use of electronic recordings in exactly the kinds of cases the law prohibits: unlimited civil, family, and probate. Critics argue that this is not only a defiance of the legislature but a direct contravention of the law itself.

Legal scholars and former judges have described the move as an overreach—what some call “legislating from the bench.” In effect, Jessner made a unilateral decision to expand the court’s powers, a responsibility that belongs solely to the state legislature. Her justification? A persistent shortage of court reporters.

Fact or Fiction? Questioning the Reporter Shortage Narrative

But that justification may not hold up under scrutiny.

Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with court insiders suggest that the data Jessner cited to support the court reporter shortage may have been overstated or manipulated. While there is a known shortage of reporters statewide, critics say the Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) has failed to address the problem in meaningful ways—such as improving working conditions, increasing pay, or investing in recruitment.

Instead, some accuse court leadership of manufacturing a crisis to justify policy changes that benefit the court’s administrative convenience at the expense of legal safeguards. By framing the shortage as a dire emergency, Jessner's order attempts to bypass legal channels and implement a solution that had already been rejected through the proper democratic process.

The Constitutional Crisis - Eroding Trust in the Judiciary

The implications of Jessner’s order extend beyond courtroom logistics. At stake is the integrity of the judicial system itself.

Imagine walking into a courtroom as a prospective juror. You are instructed by the judge, “Can you follow the law as I give it to you?” It’s a routine question in voir dire—the process of selecting a jury.

But now imagine the juror’s reply:

It’s a provocative response—but one grounded in real concerns. If judges can disregard the law and act unilaterally, what moral authority do they retain in asking jurors to uphold the law?

This is where the concept of jury nullification rears its head. Traditionally seen as a check against unjust laws or abusive prosecutions, jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt because they believe the law itself is wrong or has been applied unfairly.

In this case, the danger is broader: that jurors may begin to see the judiciary as lawless, or worse, politically motivated. When trust in judicial impartiality erodes, the entire system suffers.

A Call for Accountability and Reform

This controversy points to a larger issue within the California judiciary—how courts respond to challenges, and whether they respect the legislative process.

No one denies that court reporter shortages are real and problematic. But the solution must lie in lawful reform, not judicial fiat. If court leadership believes electronic recording is necessary, they must make their case through the proper democratic channels—and respect the outcome.

To bypass the law because it is inconvenient sets a dangerous precedent. What happens the next time a judge finds another law too restrictive or outdated? Will they ignore that one, too?

What’s Next?

For now, legal watchdogs are calling for immediate action. Some advocate for judicial review of Jessner’s order, or for intervention by the California Judicial Council or even the State Bar. Others are considering litigation to challenge the order's legality.

Meanwhile, the public—and especially jurors—are left in a troubling position. They are asked to follow the rules in a system where even the rule-makers seem to pick and choose which laws to obey.

The Los Angeles Superior Court system is not just facing a shortage of court reporters—it’s facing a crisis of confidence. And unless transparency, accountability, and respect for the rule of law are restored, that crisis could soon spill out of the courtroom and into the conscience of every citizen called to serve.

Source: A Crisis in the Courts - L.A. County’s Reporter Shortage, Jessner’s Controversial Order, and the Looming Threat of Jury Nullification

http://kissanime.com/Anime/Free

oh so civil war guys can reenact their battles but when i, a 9/11 enthusiast

prev i need to be alone with you in a small space. like perhaps the cockpit of a commercial airliner

not donald trump singlehandley uniting the world against america and encouraging mass boycotting

“Meatless alternatives are getting so good, you should try them! I bet you wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference! In fact….”

Please

Please

Please stop trying to sneak-feed me meat alternatives.

I am willing to prepare and share a vegan meal with you, I’m willing to skip animal products in our group spaces.

Please.

Stop trying to sneak-feed me meat alternatives.

Mycoprotein is fucking cool, vat-grown meat is fucking cool, believe me I am fucking down for figuring out efficient calories and I’m interested in attempting to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture but you wouldn’t want me to sneak-feed you cricket flour, you don’t get to sneak-feed me your stuff.

I wouldn’t mind if you snuck-fed me cricket flour, actually. If cricket flour is indistinguishable from regular flour then sure, go for it.

I really don’t know what the initial gripe is about, though. The anonymous person you quote is not trying to sneak-feed you anything. They outright say “meatless alternative.” Is your problem that they may have GMOs? I genuinely have no idea what your complaint is, because you’re talking about people sneak-feeding you meatless stuff but your pics are all about GMO corn starch or whatever.

I have celiac disease and a corn allergy and a relative who wanted to try to pass off impossible burger as ground beef to prove how good meat alternatives are.

I don’t care about “gmo” and I dont care about the fact that it’s “textured protein” I care about “corn” and “wheat” and I care that people without food allergies rarely know how inescapable some of those allergens are.

“Oh, I checked the ingredients, it doesn’t have corn”

Okay but does it have maltodextrin, modified food starch, xanthan gum, caramel coloring, dextrose, or glucose syrup?

If it does have any of those things do they specifically say “from potatoes,” “from tapioca,” “from cane sugar” or “from rice”?

If it didn’t did you check the manufacturer’s website? If that didn’t say did you call the manufacturer?

Sometimes I’ll use almond or coconut flour as a replacement for wheat flour when I’m cooking. I do not try to pretend that my alternate flour chocolate chip cookies are wheat flour chocolate chip cookies because most people don’t expect to run into coconut or almond when they pick up a chocolate chip cookie. I don’t try to hand them to people, wait for them to eat a cookie, and say “hah, bet you didn’t think gluten free cookies could taste good, huh?” because if I did that to someone with a severe allergy it could kill them, but also because people should have a say in what they’re eating.

I’ve got no problem with beyond beef or impossible burger describing their products as meat alternatives, I’ve got no problem with GMOs or the fact that quorn is made out of a heavily engineered protein. That’s all very neat, actually.

But I do have a problem with people trying to sneakily serve meat alternatives without considering that doing so is shitty for a number of reasons.

Also, insect protein can cause severe reactions to people with shellfish allergies, so that’s another reason not to feed cricket flour to people without telling them.

The biggest misconception in public schools is that literary analysis is about proving you can be right or wrong about a book you read

Literary analysis isn’t about the book

It’s not even about being right

It’s about performing an investigation and presenting your case to the jury

It doesn’t matter if your defendant killed that guy or not. If you can convince the jury he didn’t, you’ve won

And the incredible life skill of spinning bulletproof bullshit out your ass with a handful of facts and a prayer is soooooooo much more valuable than anyone’s ever gonna tell you

If the average tweenager knew that good media analysis meant you could force your English teacher to admit that fuckin- (rolls dice) What’s Eating Gilber Grape is a metaphor for (rolls dice again) Why the crack cocaine epidemic is good actually- we would have far better literacy and critical thinking skills as a nation. And I stand by that

You could develop the magical psychic and illusory power to force the middle aged bitchfuck who makes you raise your hand and beg for permission to take a shit accept the premise that Cocomelon is a subversive and scathing artistic commentary on the pitfalls of modern democracy. Chat GPT essay engines are stealing this from you