Saint Judy tonight (Fri 2/22) at 7 p.m., Emory Law School (Atlanta)

Come see a screening of this movie about immigration/asylum attorney Judy Wood, which will be released in theaters in a week, with Q&A with director and screenwriter afterward.

As I mentioned some days ago, we're having a screening of the movie Saint Judy, the true story of immigration/asylum attorney Judy Wood, at Emory Law School (in Atlanta, Georgia -- 1301 Clifton Rd.). It's today (Friday 2/22) at 7 p.m., in Tull Auditorium.

After the movie, there will be a Q&A with director Sean Hanish and writer Dmitry Portnoy, moderated by Prof. Jeff Staton from Emory's political science department.

Here's a description from the movie's website:

SAINT JUDY tells the true story of Los Angeles immigration attorney Judy Wood, who single-handedly changed the United States law of asylum and saved countless lives in the process.

In a landmark case, one of her first as an immigration lawyer, Judy Wood represented an Afghan woman who fled her home country after being persecuted by the Taliban for opening a school for girls. After a tenacious battle both in and out of court, Judy's efforts culminated in arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where she fought to include women as a protected class.

The movie stars Michelle Monaghan as Judy Wood, as well as Alfre Woodard, Alfred Molina, and others.

There's an RSVP link, but feel free to come even if you haven't RSVP'd. I'll be glad to say hi to loyal Volokh Conspiracy readers!

Comments

[JonFrum]

"she fought to include women as a protected class."

So now let's welcome 3.75 billion 'asylum seekers' to the United States.

No, no, no. This is not law - this is radical leftist ideology.

[apedad]

How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?

[gormadoc]

That's ... not how it works. Women still have to prove that they have a reasonable fear of or face persecution and they can't get their own country to alleviate that persecution. Makes for far less than 3.75 billion women being taken in as refugees. 1) there are 1.6 billion women in the Americas, Europe, and East Asia, where only a handful would qualify, and 2) women in India, who are definitely oppressed, are able to avail themselves of their government's protection and are therefore ineligible, and 3) even in failed states most women aren't being targeted because they're women but because they're part of some religious or ethnic groups, which already qualify.

Near as I can tell, besides the handful of people forced into prostitution or slave labor the women who qualify live in broken Islamic countries, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and even then most women don't qualify. For the few who do I see no reason not to allow them entry.

[HeatherJBerry]

Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do.....

click here =====>>>> http://www.payshd.com

[Sarcastr0]

Protected class doesn't mean any positive protection - it means the negative protection of making it hard to pass laws about women without a good reason.

Which seems fair considering some around here want to stop them from voting.

[AmosArch]

Feminism at its core is a tenuous dichotomy of chivalry and equality. Women are STRONG and INDEPENDENT and can and have accomplished everything Men have throughout history and not a micrometer less as shown by Google projecting doodles of females conducting scientific experiments, leading countries, and fighting in wars in approximately 50% or greater proportions. But at the same time Women are poor fragile slaves of men through all the same history they were supposedly scientists, monarchs, and generals in >50% proportion. And they need tons of free stuff and tons of laws to protect them at every turn from the depredations of men.

[AmosArch]

The concept of Protected class is a lot more than just that...

[Sarcastr0]

Your critique of feminism mostly makes clear you've never talked to a feminist.

[Lee Moore]

Exceedingly unlikely, as there's a yuuuuuge range of values for the word "feminist." There's no canonical meaning. Some interpretations are as self contradictory as AmosArch's caricature.

However, this does give me the opportunity to air a small peeve. Which is the criticism often heard that Xs are hopelessly confused because some think Y and others think not Y. We could take a current example as X = being pro Brexit; and Y = being pro free trade. There's no logical reason why all peple who think Brexit is a good idea shoud think the same thing aobut free trade. But because we have a label we can attach to them on account of their being pro Brexit, we can generate a faux inconsistency by pointing out that they are diivided on free trade. Or immigration policy. Or taxes.

This applies a fortiori with things like criticising "feminists." At least being pro-Brexit has a limited range of values about Brexit. Being a feminist has an almost unlimited range of values about womanhood, women's rights and responsibilities, and "equality." So expecting that different feminists should agree on anything in particular is ridiculous.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude says feminists want female privileges but not female responsibilities. You won't find any feminists saying that.

That's like saying 'there are lots of breeds of dogs, therefore luck dragons are real.'