Because as a general policy that would allow people to select their judge, which would be a very bad thing - if you could get a specific judge by filing your case at a specific time, there'd be a lot of room for corruption. (See, for instance, what happens with Kascmaryk -.-)
Strictly speaking, no. What she said verbally was to file a status report when the kids were back in ORR custody, and didn't set a time on that - Ensign's representation was they weren't back but were going to be back later today, so by that understanding not filing a status report is reasonable.
No, I mean, the statistical advantage of incumbency does not hold for appointed incumbents - they don't win races more often than people of the same party as the previous incumbent.
Appointed incumbents don't actually have incumbent advantage. Plus, that would require her to put something ahead of her personal interests, which these types rarely do.
You left out a "should", I'm afraid. Because, among other things, in many places right now trans people are not allowed to use public bathrooms, to name one simple right they are denied. The correct gender bathroom is illegal, the wrong-gender bathroom is also denied if they visibly transitioned.
Yeah, okay. I just have no faith in immigration judges. I guess KAG's lawyers can ask for a modification of her order if it becomes relevant, maybe?
On the other hand, was there any chance whatsoever they would have chosen to release him in the US even if the order had been more artfully worded? :\
Yeah, the way you change Dems is by threatening to vote against bad ones so that the good ones can win the primaries. Newsom is a bad one. Want a fighter who isn't a transphobic sadist? Try Pritzker or Walz.
Early compared to the others. It also... like... Congresspeople could have started fighting in January. Governors have to wait for opportunities. but yes I am frustrated at how slow they're all being.
SCOTUS ruled the 14th amendment was not self-executing, they didn't rule the 22nd amendment was not self-executing. They *might*, but at that point it's a naked declaration that 80 million people no longer have ballots, and some of those people will resort to the only fallback they're left.
Pritzker and Walz both seem good. I was surprised by how much I liked Harris, tbh. I think the Dems have a lot of good candidates, and more of them are stepping up to fight. Newsom, however, is awful and the only thing even pretending to be a redeeming quality is that he started fighting early.
No point in candidates planning for what to do if Trump starts a civil war, you know? (And to the degree there is... Pritzker's actions are exactly how to plan to not lose it . . .)
Trump will not be on a meaningful ballot. Either he doesn't go for reelection (as the constitution mandates) or the election is fake. Anyone running should plan for it to be a real election, though. Also, Vance will likely be the incumbent come 2028, Trump's health is extremely poor.
I voted for him as governor in the past, but I will never vote for him on any ballot for any position going forward. I believe one's vote needs to be for the candidate who best balances "chance to win" and "alignment with your views", so normally any D beats any R in a general elxn... not Newsom.
I'm a cis het white male who has voted blue no matter who for decades. And I'm never voting Newsom again. My line was his fucking smirk while destroying the property of homeless people. He delights in harming the vulnerable, and will make things worse, and get the Dems blamed! Voting him is suicide.
Differences in DC: He has more authority in DC because it's not a state, if he has national guard in DC on/after the election, that will mean *he has troops in the capital* and since he has already once attempted to use violence to prevent a transition of power...
I, for one, think that the left believes that saying that Trump and his minions and bribers are immune to the law is an accurate description of reality. that doesn't mean the left LIKES that.
it's so dumb. The new logo is shitty, but uh... it's not woke? it's just bland and shitty as is the modern trend for logo rebrands, to make them "company name in a bland font on a solid background" to drain all individuality or uniqueness out of them. that's right-wing, not woke. we don't want it.
I just refer to him as Roberts Taney, myself.
anyone who supports Cuomo now is the exact opposite of a Vote Blue No Matter Who, since VBNMW says to support Mamdani, anyway!
Close! You're off by a few orders of magnitude, but your statement *is* true, you *do* need more mass than is in the solar system if you are going to build a dyson sphere around the solar system. you might also need more mass than is in the galaxy, though.
Newsom is a sadist - the simple joy visible on his face in the homeless camp sweeps as he destroyed the only things those people possessed is enough to tell.
Then maybe the Republicans could sign a national anti-gerrymandering bill? There's an offramp here but unilateral disarmament is suicide.
Well yes. And as Niemoller reminded us, you have to oppose them *everywhere*
The fact of existence of action(s) which they allege violate PC. My point is it sounds like they didn't have any such allegations! I'm baffled, because this looked facially illegal, *and yet*.
My point is that you need to allege an actual violation of PC and I do not see that allegation raised in this thread, which surprises me. CA's lawyers seem to have fumbled the case if they cannot make that allegation.
Yes, but they are also obliged to believe the case they are advancing. If the claim is that the NG deployment violated PC (which I believe) then surely someone can testify to that fact and you can find that witness. If you cannot find that witness, why ask questions with unhelpful answers?
CA does not actually seem to have great choices of people to offer, unless this is setup to show that the people in charge are idiots and they're next going to offer some people with actual knowledge of on-the-ground events? Like these seem like DoJ witnesses tbqh, wtf is CA doing??
could *not*, presumably? (I assume typo here, but...)
The Republic is saveble but if the Dems don't fucking fight they're going to let Trump quietly walk us into a dictatorship. (and I mean: fight, as in gum up the gears of government, do everything in their power to hit his approval, file lawsuits, etc. none of this consultant shit.)
the worst part is that there was a vaccine we were working on that was kinda close to the thing he's describing, except less stupid! it was mRNA vaccines! AND WE FUCKING CANCELLED FUNDING ON THEM!!
do you not understand that Trump did do those exact things? and that it is really fucking weird?
I mean ... he's lying about not knowing why, too. but yes.
I observe he reframes "did you know that X *happened*?" to "I didn't know WHY X happened" in his answer . . .
Notice that this chart rates "authors" at almost as replaceable as historians... (but, uh, lol, no? absolutely not? not even remotely? That's something said only by a person who has never read a book in their life...)
And the majority of people who voted for the senate voted in races that elected people who voted against Bove's confirmation. But the Senate is an undemocratic institution ...
Impeachment is a 2/3rds deal.
Great question, I too want to know the answer now. (and it wasn't obviously addressed in a quick search of ACOUP)
the republic or the later empire? because he's said that the republic becoming an empire was pretty clearly because the emperor offered peace to end the civil wars. don't think he has gone into detail on his blog as to why there were so many civil wars leading up to that, yet.
The thing is that crank math/crank physics used to be trivial to reject and it's harder now - it's not any better but it's correctly formatted so you have to actually read it to know it's crankery instead of being able to reject it from the cover letter.
Hey, bsky must've made it, now we're getting influence ops!
and if you average those amounts together . . . (the person you replied to was making a joke.)
Well, I mean... they'll just follow the explicit order and try to figure out how to weasel around the edges to be as obnoxious as possible. But they will follow the explicit written order despite whining a lot. the system is still, barely, holding a little bit. (assuming SCOTUS doesn't step in -.-)
Okay but Trump isn't the one who is actually executing the orders, and anyone who might be detaining KAG themselves is unlikely to want to be found a contemnor. it tends to ruin your ability to continue in law enforcement and all that.
Saves his followers time and energy, means conversations on his posts are more likely to have value for other people, etc. or at least, those are some benefits of block over mute, idk if they're *his* reasons.
Well... I wouldn't say *always*. He was pretty normie and a decent analyst back in 2008. I think he's been going more and more off the rails since 2016 as he embeds himself further into the sewer parts of the online infosphere. (like, oh, Twitter-now-X, and Substack...)
No clue on that. Maybe?
My understanding is that you can countersue if they drop the suit after you've responded, same if you win. but you can't countersue until the current suit is resolved somehow.
among other things. being true is a complete defense against libel, which means any evidence in Trump's possession that serves as evidence of the truth of their statements is now discoverable. but there are other defenses, so it's basically impossible to win this suit.
it's the difference between "suppressing" and "not being compelled to report". Active steps to suppress would absolutely still be criminal, but being *allowed* to not tell others ... well... in general people are allowed to not say anything.
there is also a focus on not banning religions, and given that the confessional is very important *to* that religion, banning the privacy of the confessional is government intrusion into the religion in a way that would not even create meaningful safety because people would just not confess crimes.
No, it's because he decided it was not going to be worth his time arguing with a brick wall.
it is only a protection on the narrow case of "told to the priest in confessional". it does not protect the crime, it does not protect if the priest happens to observe (ie, from a comment the victim makes during sunday school), it only protects the confessional.
So did Murdoch yell at you personally when he couldn't get the WSJ to kill the story or what?
For direct/actual effect: it means nothing, because she's currently powerless. For indirect effect: it means that *if* the appeals court lets her do anything, the plaintiffs win this part of the issue for sure.
because it's a hyper-specific word that has close common synonyms. so it's useful in legal briefings sometimes (because you need that technical precision) but in casual conversation the only reason to use it is to show off.
There are scenarios where killing is necessary to prevent more killing - none ever apply to state executions, but defensive war, time-sensitive defense of self or other scenarios, etc, those exist and are acceptable. But that's because it's a "least harm" option, not a punishment.
still consistent with "they gave him the tools to suicide and turned their backs" which is the non-crazy conspiracy there.
He absolutely was going to lose the trial and not beat the charges though. Like, the evidence was not in his favor and rich people *were* sometimes facing consequences at that point. It was the height of #MeToo! He did not have many reasons to live. They also had reasons to kill him though.
At this point district courts need to just start ignoring unexplained orders. Issue an order declaring that clearly the previous order was invalid due to having been issued too quickly, but it's been X days later now so it's fine to reissue the same thing. Anything to make them use some words.
I guess they figure there's not much risk of that while Trump is the one who would be nominating replacements...?
well, Paxton is taking the stance that is a winner in court, while Abbot et al are taking the stance that lets them redistrict mid-cycle.
Honestly just dig up the order, it's a pretty easy read if you skim the legal parts and focus on the specific holdings and fact-findings. Bunch of legal people dropped links when it first came out.
well yes. people sure do say things about the state of the budget because inflation means number goes up even though scale doesn't really. but that's them glonzoing.
well that's because the fiscal cliff is "government debt exceeds the statutory limit" and every time we're about to go over that limit, we raise the limit. Like... that's real! It's dumb that it's real, but the reason it's not been a disaster yet is that action was taken every time.
There's only one plausible answer that I can see: They are under orders to make that exact thing possible.
Plus, as the judge pointed out, there will, for certain, be members who do not yet exist and thus cannot be added to a suit at this time, rendering it even more vital that it be a class for the issue to actually be settled...
Sotomayor and Kagan? They're too into collegiality but that doesn't extend to DHS.
People doing first-time armed resistance psyching themselves up are gonna do some kinda-weird stuff, imo. That's my armchair explanation for the graffiti - that person wasn't entirely "ready" to do violence, but was going along with the group, etc.
and yet ... there are scam groups that do the pettiest fucking online shit. (I work for a company that runs a small social network-adjacent site and we have a scam group problem from literal Nigeria that is smaller-ball than this stuff.)
I mean, given how they react to Trump . . .
I mean, yeah, I get how they're trying that. *But he didn't get in*. The whole thing is fucking insane. The only actual news story here is that the NYT is platforming a racist and lying about said racist's credentials, in order to smear a Democrat.
But he didn't displace anyone, even if you accept that framing! He wasn't accepted! He didn't go there!
This is still the college he didn't get into, right? Like, just checking here.
you probably didn't actually - if someone QTs someone who later blocks them, bsky shows the QT as just "blocked" to anyone who views it later. which is generally good but confusing sometimes. (and maybe not great for people like this...)
The actual real effective fertility policy would be *reducing the cost of raising children*. But that's socialism or whatever, lol. (Also, opening up immigration, but again...)
I am so glad that I managed to dodge learning that as a child, tbh. Because in retrospect, I can see how there was that message all over the place... and yet, it never sunk in, and I am far better off for that.
very fair. this format does indeed suck.
Huh. Media as an explicit branch of government... Also not clear to me what Executive would do once Administrative is split out. (I'd rather eliminate the personal executive entirely, tbh, but that's a little bit different...)
... What would the five branches of government be?
that's the "beauty" of having queer people as the fascist boogeyman - they can enact genocide forever! -.-
Oh, sure. Make it so that this election is for three years, to align with the presidential when re-held in 2028? that would have been sane and reasonable, yep.
Well, they actually can't move it up a year (that'd put it in 2024, which has, um, obvious practical difficulties), but your second option would absolutely work.
Sometimes, not always (you need LPR status, which most not-already-citizen children of naturalizing parents will have). Basically the law here is an enormous patchwork of special cases that cover *almost* everyone, but there are a few holes.
it's already been filed, fwiw. still insane, still delays justice, this ruling is still an existential threat to the rule of law (per Justice Jackson!) but maybe birthright citizenship will survive for now.
I mean, they're clearly not afraid it will *fail*. They're afraid it might work.
The exception he fell under is because his father was recently naturalized; probably most of the children you're thinking of have parents who were born citizens. (imo there should be a 'never make someone stateless' exception to the rules, but that would be compassionate or something so nope.)
Yeah. Only happens if they naturalize then promptly leave, at which point normally you'd expect the child to have a connection to the country they were born in so it largely wouldn't matter, but when it's a military base...
His father was a naturalized citizen who had not been naturalized long enough for automatic citizenship. Basically, a loophole in the law. And very, very, fucked up.
Fundamentally it would take someone I am following to be reposting clips like that. Which... well, in my case that would include you! not that me seeing them contributes much to virality, but I have seen a few clips you've posted and shared a few, even.
The granting in part basically means "They're allowed to make further arguments and those further arguments will be heard", ie "Abrego wins for today but we're coming back next month", rather than an actual victory for the government, right?
I mean, no, you can't. You'd appeal, and if the sentencing was actually unlawful you could get it overturned. But if you are asking for an injunction against the practice of a court, and you have the backing of the government, a suit against the official person of the judge(s) is where it would go.
Wish Schiff had followed up with something like "How can you be unsure? How can that be a thing you have any doubt whatsoever that you might have said? Is that a thing you would ever even consider saying?" or some such. :| I mean, it's pretty bad of Bove but like... c'mon, follow up!
Right, that'd be another reason to toss it, depending on what was being asked for. I was assuming a hypothetical pleading asking for the same outcome as this one, where their personal capacity would not be capable of granting the result asked for, while their official capacity can.
No, in their official capacity. If it was in the personal capacity it would get tossed immediately for non-redressability, but official capacity at least has room to attempt to make an argument.
I'm sure she's been 31 for the past, oh, 18 years or so.
I'm guessing "affects control of the Senate so that they actually have something to offer her for her defection", tbh.
Sure, I'm not saying other dems were definitely down (Sinema also wasn't, for instance) but like, Manchin for certain wasn't, so you cannot say Biden had the opportunity, even if he probably wouldn't've taken it if he *did*.
I mean... Manchin was never on side with packing the court so I don't know that Biden actually had the opportunity.
Indeed. There doesn't seem to be a way to make sense of what that poll is claiming - simple data entry errors aren't enough to make coherence, you kind of have to require it to just not follow RCV rules at all which throws all credibility out the window.