Snarkymuse
@snarkymuse.bsky.social
7.3K followers 6K following 2.7K posts
Author of "45 Shades of orange" 45shades.com "TDWVAN" Where We Merge Truth, Opinions, Common Sense and a little Snark Together, to come up with a plan for our Future & make a new Friend or two along the way..
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
snarkymuse.bsky.social
you can thank Scott Walker for that
Reposted by Snarkymuse
ronfilipkowski.bsky.social
What he not saying is that his friends and cronies invested a fortune in Argentina since their guy Milei won, they stand to lose a big chunk of those fortunes the way things are going, and Argentina’s elections are in two weeks and we are tampering in them to bail Milei out.
Reposted by Snarkymuse
hernandez888.bsky.social
Trump is the corrupting branch, & Congress is the corrupted branch. The Supreme Court consolidated. These are your domestic enemies.
They have already betrayed us, nothing they do now will change it.
It can all be broken down to one word, tyranny.
When law is lawless,
Revolution becomes mandatory.
Reposted by Snarkymuse
confettimother.is.democrat
𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀, 𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗹𝘀.

Bring them to #animal shelters.

The #cold is #coming!
Reposted by Snarkymuse
bgrueskin.bsky.social
If a federal judge, appointed by Trump, can call him “simply untethered to facts,” our White House press corps can as well.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
In sum, the President is certainly entitled "a great level of deference," Newsom II, 141
F.4th at 1048, in his determination that he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws
of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). But "a great level of deference" is not equivalent to
ignoring the facts on the ground. As the Ninth Circuit articulated, courts must "review the
President's determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law
PAGE 22 - OPINION AND ORDER
Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 56
Filed 10/04/25
Page 23 of 31
within a 'range of honest judgment.'" Id. at 1051 (quoting Sterling, 278 U.S. at 399). Here, this
Court concludes that the President did not have a "colorable basis" to invoke § 12406(3) to
federalize the National Guard because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal
law enforcement officers to execute federal law. Id. at 1051-52. The President's determination
was simply untethered to the facts.
c. Whether there is a Rebellion or Danger of Rebellion
Defendants also aroue that the Sentember 28 2025 federalization order is authorized
snarkymuse.bsky.social
WHAT IS YOUR CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?