iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Balls & Strikes

@ballsandstrikes.org

11K followers 8 following 1.5K posts

A nonprofit media outlet for progressive, bullshit-free commentary about courts, judges, and the legal system they uphold. Run by @jaywillis.net.

Posts Replies Media

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 19/05/2026

We are sorry about all the posts about Trump's DOJ on the front page of Balls & Strikes this morning, but in our defense they are bad lawyers who keep fucking up in spectacular fashion

010125

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 28/08/2025

This is fucking monstrous ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cultur...

For most prospective lawyers, the path to licensure is both arduous and relatively straightforward: spend three years in law school, cram for a two-day-long bar exam, submit an application for licensure, and, if all goes well, attend a swearing-in ceremony. However, the story can be very different for those who have a criminal conviction, an eviction, a civil judgement against them, mental health disabilities, or financial issues.

Such was the case for one applicant, Jessica Younts, who had a felony drug conviction. After completing her sentence and attending law school, she applied for licensure in New York. Instead of breezing through the process like many of her peers, she endured what can only be described as a hazing ritual: Bar officials subjected her to multiple hostile interviews that interrogated aspects of her life wholly unconnected to the practice of law, such as whether all her children had the same father. She was even asked probing questions about her arrest, requiring her to recount specific details of that day, which essentially relitigated her already-adjudicated criminal matter. As a result, a process that takes most law school graduates a few months took Jessica four years—and in the end, she was still denied.

0226

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 07/08/2025

Trump's judicial nominees know exactly what to say to not lie, but to not really tell the truth either ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/...

The second (and more troubling) trend is that Obergefell v. Hodges, the now decade-old Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage, is squarely in the judiciary’s crosshairs. Several nominees were asked whether cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which held school segregation unconstitutional, and Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage, were correctly decided, and all agreed that they were. But when asked if the same was true of Obergefell, they all demurred. Tung said only that “the Supreme Court granted such a right.” Mercer described it as “binding precedent,” but said it wasn’t his job to “grade the Supreme Court.”

The implication of their careful treatment of Obergefell was clear to anyone listening: These nominees, like those during Trump’s first term who described Roe and Casey as “the law of the land” and “precedent on precedent,” are foaming at the mouth to undermine and eventually overturn Obergefell and relegate same-sex couples to second class status.

0104

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 24/06/2025

Emil Bove is everything Trump wants in a federal judge ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/...

3205

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 16/05/2025

Trump asks Supreme Court to make it 1857 again ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/birth...

071

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 02/01/2025

screenshot of the CJ McCollum "Im trying Jennifer" tweet

31257

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 21/11/2024

Okay, let's try and figure out the "deal" that Senate Democrats just made with Republicans about the remaining judicial nominations buff.ly/4eJYR90

42710

Balls & Strikes @ballsandstrikes.org · 30/10/2024

The Supreme Court's most important feature is its ability to bullshit buff.ly/3Ut7MEC

05814