The author of the article called it correctly--Paxton is just looking to make sure to drum up voter support ahead of elections by harumphing (yes, it is an actual word). In any event, it seems fairly straightforward:
Sec. 26.010. EXEMPTION FROM INSTRUCTION. (a) A parent is entitled to remove the parent's child temporarily from a class or other school activity that conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal of the child from the class or other school activity. A parent is not entitled to remove the parent's child from a class or other school activity to avoid a test or to prevent the child from taking a subject for an entire semester.
(b) This section does not exempt a child from satisfying grade level or graduation requirements in a manner acceptable to the school district and the agency.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.
Yes, I do have a browser favorite which directs me to my State's codex of laws. The rest of you should do this, as well.
Lindsey Graham just flat-out said that in retaliation for this it's likely Republicans are going to manufacture false allegations against Democratic nominees. Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud so now we know. I mean.....wow. The projection among this crowd is bottomless. They were accusing Democrats of making it up because that is, in fact, the exact type of thing THEY would do. And now we have an admission. I'm gonna bookmark this statement.
And for the record, this attorney from Arizona has been a trainwreck. She sounds like a 4chan message board.
@jjstraka34: Can we have a source and full quote for that Lindsay Graham statement?
Graham: “If this is the new norm, God help us all as Republicans, cause this happens to us, it never happens to them. But let me tell you, my Democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.”
What Republicans might not allow Democrats to nominate judges? Oh wait that's already happened. And pretty sure former senator Al Franken is interested to hear that “it never happens to them.” And they are already trying this Graham strategy with offering the two fake Kavanaugh's as some kind of evidence last night.
Thoughts on the testimony today: while it did not add one fact to the claims nor cleared up any of the inconsistensies in her account of things, those who believe in their own mystical ability to determine the truth by reading a persons "vibe", for those people, this testimony will probably be compelling with all the theatrics and tributes to courage and bravery and whatnot.
Plugging her GoFundMe and making political statements really rubbed me the wrong way though.
The way I see it there are 4 possibilities:
1) The allegation is completely true 2) Allegation is completely false and deceptive 3) Allegation is partially false due to exaggeration 4) Allegation is false, or partially false, due to faulty memory
The fact that so many of the key details, nearly all of them besides Kavanaugh, were not remembered and the lack of corroborative evidence should put any reasonable person solidly leaning towards 4. A case can be made for 3, less so but still able for 1, but I don't personally buy either.
Kavanaugh is up next. Opening statement contains a bit of outrage and frustration, probably not good on an optics level but understandable if accusations are false. No more real time commentary for now.
Purely logically, the claim is either true or not true. If the evidence is insufficient to conclude the claim is true, one should fall back on not true. As much as I sympathise with the women - and as much as I think this guy shouldn't be in the supreme court - I also think concluding the claim is true is not reasonable with the evidence we have.
Purely logically, the claim is either true or not true. If the evidence is insufficient to conclude the claim is true, one should fall back on not true. As much as I sympathise with the women - and as much as I think this guy shouldn't be in the supreme court - I also think concluding the claim is true is not reasonable with the evidence we have.
The woman has documents going back to 2012 (at least), four sworn affadavids, witnesses who corroborate her mentioning it going back years. We have Mr. Judge's boasts and book.
Short of photos and camcorder more evidence it is not possible to get anything more rock solid. You aren't convinced?
@WarChiefZeke: I also found the "bravery" statements a bit silly, but after several decades have passed, you'd think that an assault victim would remember the event itself and not the tiny, irrelevant details that occurred in the same day. What details could Dr. Ford not provide today, which she reasonably could have if her account were true?
I remember getting in a fight in middle school. This was only like 15 years ago. I remember the fight itself and its location and the guy I was fighting with, I remember being in the locker room several minutes after the fight, and I remember detention days later.
But I don't remember anything else about that day. What details am I supposed to?
Graham: “If this is the new norm, God help us all as Republicans, cause this happens to us, it never happens to them. But let me tell you, my Democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.”
I'm not sure how serious Graham was, or if he was just speaking off the cuff. But that's a really, really ominous thing to say.
I generally thought of Graham as a decent and conscientious guy, but I don't see any other way to interpret that statement. Graham is saying that only Republicans are being targeted by false allegations, and warning Democrats that soon, "Democrats are going to be targeted by false allegations, too."
Purely logically, the claim is either true or not true. If the evidence is insufficient to conclude the claim is true, one should fall back on not true. As much as I sympathise with the women - and as much as I think this guy shouldn't be in the supreme court - I also think concluding the claim is true is not reasonable with the evidence we have.
The woman has documents going back to 2012 (at least), four sworn affadavids, witnesses who corroborate her mentioning it going back years. We have Mr. Judge's boasts and book.
Short of photos and camcorder more evidence it is not possible to get anything more rock solid. You aren't convinced?
The assault allegedly happened in 1982. Documents from 2012 are 30 years later. Everything else is hearsay, except maybe "Mr. Judge" whose eyewitness testimony comes 25 years later in 1997. No I am not convinced.
It's my understanding that both Kavanaugh and Ford's respective families have been harassed and threatened, so I can see Kavanaugh being emotionally hurt whether he was guilty or not.
I don't see why this kind of harassment isn't a criminal act that can be prosecuted. If you're calling a random stranger issuing death threats and hurling invective at them, I don't see how that would constitute free speech.
It's not like you couldn't trace hate mail and over-the-phone harassment back to the source. Ostensibly, if somebody is sending you threats and organizing harassment campaigns, you should have the legal ability to prosecute them.
It's clear to me that by the real-time interest right now in the thread that a good portion of the country is either watching this or is going to watch the clips when they get home. This is the kind of thing that will move votes.
I'm reasonably certain Kavanaugh does bear some ill will for Ford and is guilty, but if he were innocent, it would be entirely possible for him to bear her no ill will. He has suggested that Ford was indeed attacked, but that it was someone else who attacked her. You might not bear ill will against someone who simply misidentified you, as opposed to fabricating an accusation to intentionally damage your career.
The unhinged screaming and sneering doesn't seem to be going over well nor the pizzagate type conspiracy theories.
He does not deserve to be a judge much less a Supreme Court justice.
It also demonstrates just who in society is allowed to come off as angry and who isn't. Imagine the reaction if Professor Ford had had the same temperament earlier.
Kavanaugh is acting like someone who is having his trust fund ripped from his hands. He has been bred to be a Supreme Court Justice his entire professional life. And his anger is at the fact that what he sees as his right is being taken from him. He is also revealing himself as the dyed in the wool political operative he has always been. This is a script from AM radio.
@WarChiefZeke: I also found the "bravery" statements a bit silly, but after several decades have passed, you'd think that an assault victim would remember the event itself and not the tiny, irrelevant details that occurred in the same day. What details could Dr. Ford not provide today, which she reasonably could have if her account were true?
I remember getting in a fight in middle school. This was only like 15 years ago. I remember the fight itself and its location and the guy I was fighting with, I remember being in the locker room several minutes after the fight, and I remember detention days later.
But I don't remember anything else about that day. What details am I supposed to?
It really depends on which detail it actually is.
I'm hesitant to even get into the weeds about this because there isn't an objective baseline but I will go with what my girlfriend has been telling me about this, because she's actually outraged about this, with her permission given: She was sexually assaulted and the guy actually went to jail for a serious amount of time. She was literally drugged and she was a young teen. And she recalls more details than what we were given, to this day over a decade later, including who brought her there and who got her home, and she was under the influence the whole time.
We were not given any details, at all. Now that's fine, nobody is expecting a picture perfect memory, and everybody sympathizes with somebody who wants to forget about things. But you are talking about someone's life, whether they will be remembered for the rest of their days as a rapist or not, and the *only* thing you are trying to use to pin this on this person is this memory. If you can't establish an accurate recollection of anything else regarding this, how is a person to have faith in this sole piece of evidence? Yes, they may have a vivid memory of *something* happening, but in the absence of any other details we can use to confirm an accurate recollection, how can we reliably say this part of the memory is accurate? It's just not reasonable, given the stakes involved.
Wow. He actually played the “I’m the victim here” card. That will not go over well.
If the allegations are false then he IS the victim. Just saying...
He said the allegations destroyed his career. No. They did not. They only stalled it.
He says he can’t coach basketball anymore or teach. Once again, no it does not.
This is exaggeration. This is a form of lying. Not perjury lying, but emotional lying.
I am in the camp that a person should not be judged on what they did in high school or as a minor. I honestly think he is just afraid to admit to it, to his past mistakes, thinking it will tarnish his image. It will now, but as I said prior fully admitting your past deeds, acknowledge the hurt that he has caused another person and ask for forgiveness and showing how you redeemed yourself as a person would of solidified himself as moral person in a lot of people’s eyes than the deny, hide and shift blame tactic he has chosen.
I am also in the camp that he shouldn’t have been rushed through without all of the documentation from his time in the White House.
I am also Canadian and have no say in this matter. Just opinion which counts as much as a high score in Baldur’s Gate.
I'm sorry to hear your girlfriend had to go through that, @WarChiefZeke. It's one of the worst things that can happen to a person. I hope the wounds have healed.
If nothing else, it's good that the rapist saw justice in the end. Too often, they squeeze through the cracks.
Wow. He actually played the “I’m the victim here” card. That will not go over well.
If the allegations are false then he IS the victim. Just saying...
He said the allegations destroyed his career. No. They did not. They only stalled it.
He says he can’t coach basketball anymore or teach. Once again, no it does not.
This is exaggeration. This is a form of lying. Not perjury lying, but emotional lying.
I am in the camp that a person should not be judged on what they did in high school or as a minor. I honestly think he is just afraid to admit to it, to his past mistakes, thinking it will tarnish his image. It will now, but as I said prior fully admitting your past deeds, acknowledge the hurt that he has caused another person and ask for forgiveness and showing how you redeemed yourself as a person would of solidified himself as moral person in a lot of people’s eyes than the deny, hide and shift blame tactic he has chosen.
I am also in the camp that he shouldn’t have been rushed through without all of the documentation from his time in the White House.
I am also Canadian and have no say in this matter. Just opinion which counts as much as a high score in Baldur’s Gate.
I, personally, think the ones emotionally lying are the ones who think having "nationally known rapist" next to your name isn't life destroying to an innocent man. No matter what the actual truth of the matter here, there is a seriously wronged party.
It's certainly life destroying, but "innocent man" is very much disputed. We have external confirmation from other people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, and confirmation from his yearbook, that he was a heavy drinker and a party guy who slept around. He's claimed his drinking was very moderate and that he didn't have sex at all during that time, which is contradicted by his own yearbook.
He's already misrepresented his own past (and I'm not counting his previous perjury). We have no record of Ford, however, misrepresenting her own past.
He's completely dodging the yearbook question now (I'm still watching him with my mom on MSNBC). He's implied that the details were a "farce" and exaggerations, but never even bothered specifying which parts were false.
Comments
Yes, I do have a browser favorite which directs me to my State's codex of laws. The rest of you should do this, as well.
Texas is clearly trying to circumvent the Supreme Courts decisions by claiming a parental note would allow students to not follow the law.
Why put this unnecessary hoop unless it is designed to restrict people's (children's) rights?
It's clearly unconstitutional given the Supreme Courts prior decisions. Where are all the gay Baker supporters on this one?
And for the record, this attorney from Arizona has been a trainwreck. She sounds like a 4chan message board.
*Waves hands back and forth *
What Republicans might not allow Democrats to nominate judges? Oh wait that's already happened. And pretty sure former senator Al Franken is interested to hear that “it never happens to them.” And they are already trying this Graham strategy with offering the two fake Kavanaugh's as some kind of evidence last night.
Src for Graham quote:
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1799246
Plugging her GoFundMe and making political statements really rubbed me the wrong way though.
The way I see it there are 4 possibilities:
1) The allegation is completely true
2) Allegation is completely false and deceptive
3) Allegation is partially false due to exaggeration
4) Allegation is false, or partially false, due to faulty memory
The fact that so many of the key details, nearly all of them besides Kavanaugh, were not remembered and the lack of corroborative evidence should put any reasonable person solidly leaning towards 4. A case can be made for 3, less so but still able for 1, but I don't personally buy either.
Short of photos and camcorder more evidence it is not possible to get anything more rock solid. You aren't convinced?
I remember getting in a fight in middle school. This was only like 15 years ago. I remember the fight itself and its location and the guy I was fighting with, I remember being in the locker room several minutes after the fight, and I remember detention days later.
But I don't remember anything else about that day. What details am I supposed to?
It really depends on which detail it actually is.
I generally thought of Graham as a decent and conscientious guy, but I don't see any other way to interpret that statement. Graham is saying that only Republicans are being targeted by false allegations, and warning Democrats that soon, "Democrats are going to be targeted by false allegations, too."
I don't see why this kind of harassment isn't a criminal act that can be prosecuted. If you're calling a random stranger issuing death threats and hurling invective at them, I don't see how that would constitute free speech.
It's not like you couldn't trace hate mail and over-the-phone harassment back to the source. Ostensibly, if somebody is sending you threats and organizing harassment campaigns, you should have the legal ability to prosecute them.
total farce. this is an abomination.
I double-down on your farce call...
He does not deserve to be a judge much less a Supreme Court justice.
Kavanaugh is acting like someone who is having his trust fund ripped from his hands. He has been bred to be a Supreme Court Justice his entire professional life. And his anger is at the fact that what he sees as his right is being taken from him. He is also revealing himself as the dyed in the wool political operative he has always been. This is a script from AM radio.
We were not given any details, at all. Now that's fine, nobody is expecting a picture perfect memory, and everybody sympathizes with somebody who wants to forget about things. But you are talking about someone's life, whether they will be remembered for the rest of their days as a rapist or not, and the *only* thing you are trying to use to pin this on this person is this memory. If you can't establish an accurate recollection of anything else regarding this, how is a person to have faith in this sole piece of evidence? Yes, they may have a vivid memory of *something* happening, but in the absence of any other details we can use to confirm an accurate recollection, how can we reliably say this part of the memory is accurate? It's just not reasonable, given the stakes involved.
He says he can’t coach basketball anymore or teach. Once again, no it does not.
This is exaggeration. This is a form of lying. Not perjury lying, but emotional lying.
I am in the camp that a person should not be judged on what they did in high school or as a minor. I honestly think he is just afraid to admit to it, to his past mistakes, thinking it will tarnish his image. It will now, but as I said prior fully admitting your past deeds, acknowledge the hurt that he has caused another person and ask for forgiveness and showing how you redeemed yourself as a person would of solidified himself as moral person in a lot of people’s eyes than the deny, hide and shift blame tactic he has chosen.
I am also in the camp that he shouldn’t have been rushed through without all of the documentation from his time in the White House.
I am also Canadian and have no say in this matter. Just opinion which counts as much as a high score in Baldur’s Gate.
If nothing else, it's good that the rapist saw justice in the end. Too often, they squeeze through the cracks.
He's already misrepresented his own past (and I'm not counting his previous perjury). We have no record of Ford, however, misrepresenting her own past.