Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 7h

If you start arguing about crime statistics, he's already won the messaging war!

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 7h

Stop surrendering to Trump's framing of this issue. This is not about crime! Any idiot can see that we don't need the fucking military in Seattle. Just go there!

This is about a wanna-be military dictatorship. This is about authoritarianism. Moral outrage and mockery are the only proper responses!

Gov. Bob Ferguson @governorferguson.bsky.social · 8h

Washington state does not need or want the president to militarize our streets.

Violent crime in Seattle and across Washington state is dropping.

1 2

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 7h

Stop surrendering to Trump's framing of this issue! It is not about crime! Any idiot can see that we don't need the fucking military in Seattle. Just go there!

This is about a wanna-be military dictatorship! This is about authoritarianism! Moral outrage and mockery are the only proper responses!

3

Reposted by Who me?

A.R. Moxon @juliusgoat.bsky.social · 1d

“Guys, wait. Look at this flyer. There’s a dance competition in two weeks and first prize is exactly $50,000 and a house for my mother. If we all work together on our routine and try our best,we just might still be afford to destroy democracy.”

alternet.org @alternet.org · 1d

Supreme Court 'expects to run out of funding' in hours due to shutdown: report

Both the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the federal judiciary itself is about to run completely out of money to do anything beyond basic operations, according to a new report.The Hill reported Friday that the High Court "expects to run out of funding on October 18," per Supreme Cour...

bit.ly

17 78 440

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

A good narrator can make a mediocre book great and a bad narrator can kill a great book. Just don't see this robotic uncanny narration ever being something I'd actually want to listen to.

1 1 9

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

AI is the future. Just ask Stewart about how it has revolutionized her work product.

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · 1d

JUST IN: Judge Mehta threatens contempt and bar sanctions for attorney Carolyn Stewart — who has repped numerous Jan. 6 defendants and pardon recipients — over filing a motion with “fabricated” citations to local rules and refusing to correct it.

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

AI is the future. Just ask Stewart about how it has revolutionized her work product.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

Now we're kidnapping people in international waters too.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

Which is not to say that it would be impossible to sue the fed gov directly - there may be other reasons that withholding funds are illegal. But state anti discrimination laws aren't going to get you there.

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

"By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions." U.S. v. Skrmetti (2025) (syllabus)

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

"If you can think of something which is inextricably related to some other thing and not think of the other thing, you have a legal mind."

Jonathan Ladd @jonmladd.bsky.social · 2d

Only in the Federalist Society academic bubble could you say that the government going in and splitting up geographically contiguous communities of Black voters in order to prevent them from ever being a majority in any House district is "government not taking race into account."

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

Can we bring back all the women and black people they fired?

5

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 1d

Yes girl! El presidente in 2028!

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

Juries have a lot of power to stand up to the administration's vindictive prosecution bullshit.

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 2d

Jeanine Pirro’s office tried three times to indict a woman on bogus felony charges of assaulting an ICE agent. A DC grand jury turned her down each time. So Pirro brought a misdemeanor charge instead. And now a trial jury has acquitted her of that. www.huffpost.com/entry/sidney...

Jeanine Pirro Strikes Out Yet Again In Federal Court

Prosecutor Jeanine Pirro failed to secure a felony indictment against the woman three times, then lost a jury trial on a misdemeanor charge. Ouch.

www.huffpost.com

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

They might as well turn the government into an old folks home. Seriously. I'm surprised they don't evaluate you for alert/oriented and fall risk and when you're sworn in.

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

Rather, the remedy would be with the fed gov - suing to keep them from withholding funds on a discriminatory basis. But you can't sue the fed gov for not complying with state antidiscrimination law. There are no fed law protections. And as SCOTUS has made clear, no US constitutional protections.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

A thorny issue but I suspect we have not seen states or major advocacy grps sue over this because it's not a winner. If, e.g., an org would be forced to close entirely if fed funds were cut, a court is unlikely to order that to accommodate a trans person. What's the point if there is no org left?

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

It's not really if the EO supercedes state protections. The issue is more likely whether loss of federal funding, etc., is a "legitimate nondiscriminatory reason" for excluding a trans person. USOPC doesn't have any control over the conditions Trump sets and the EO is not being challenged directly.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

Which is already deeply fucked up because super PACs exist in the first place.

5

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

You do such good reporting. Between the misappropriating funds, the surveillance cameras, the whole relaxing ethics standards things - it feels like local government officials are just impressionable kids getting bad ideas from the wayward federal gov. You'd think we could do better here.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

So pack the Court. Undo the damage. Screw the institution.

What's the worst that could happen? The GOP later packs the court back? How would that be different from the far-right supermajority we have now? And what about it would be worse than the parade of horribles the Court is pumping out now?

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

So the monumental conservative policy wins delivered by the Roberts Court are not chiseled into stone. And pronouncing that something is "unconstitutional" is not forever. New justices can simply say the constitution means something different now. And they can undo the damage of the Roberts Court.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

It's why the constitution is 4 pages but the judicial opinions that constitute actual "constitutional law" span untold thousands of pages. It's because judges are just making it up as they go along - and citing as precedent only what earlier judges made up themselves.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

The secret obscured by the Court's robes and arguments and opinions - one some lawyers are loath to admit - is that what is and is not considered "constitutional" is almost entirely made up by judges. That's why you get opinions with one line quoting the constitution and 75 pages of interpretation.

1

Who me? @whomequestionmark.bsky.social · 2d

I mention these particular opinions as examples because they represent monumental conservative policy wins - yet they rest on a foundation of hot air. They are the law, but only because the Court said the magic word "unconstitutional."

1