Audacious Ness
@audaciousness.bsky.social
Interests include FOSS, theology, neopaganism, veganism, feminism, queer liberation, supporting trans folk. Tendency to go from quiet to shrieking in an instant.
I don't think the government shutdown worked as an excuse to not do basic House business, including but not limited to the swearing-in.
November 10, 2025 at 10:48 PM
I don't think the government shutdown worked as an excuse to not do basic House business, including but not limited to the swearing-in.
Schumer: You know what they say—the house always wins!
November 10, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Schumer: You know what they say—the house always wins!
Also, Gen Z being 13–28 right now, I also bet a good part of it is some young people having no idea what Social Security really is other than “money for old people” combined with not understanding how taxes work (many of them likely get their taxes fully refunded).
November 10, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Also, Gen Z being 13–28 right now, I also bet a good part of it is some young people having no idea what Social Security really is other than “money for old people” combined with not understanding how taxes work (many of them likely get their taxes fully refunded).
“She would have needed at least four votes for her petition to be granted, but Monday’s order indicates that she could not get them.”
So at most 3 justices wanted to hear this appeal case (and thus it wasn't 5–4).
That said, I'm sadly sure they just want a more solid case to use in overturning it.
So at most 3 justices wanted to hear this appeal case (and thus it wasn't 5–4).
That said, I'm sadly sure they just want a more solid case to use in overturning it.
November 10, 2025 at 4:06 PM
“She would have needed at least four votes for her petition to be granted, but Monday’s order indicates that she could not get them.”
So at most 3 justices wanted to hear this appeal case (and thus it wasn't 5–4).
That said, I'm sadly sure they just want a more solid case to use in overturning it.
So at most 3 justices wanted to hear this appeal case (and thus it wasn't 5–4).
That said, I'm sadly sure they just want a more solid case to use in overturning it.
I do attend my local Dem committee meetings when i can, but other than me it's just a bunch of older folks complaining.
November 10, 2025 at 4:02 PM
I do attend my local Dem committee meetings when i can, but other than me it's just a bunch of older folks complaining.
Maybe. I used to be a member of a third party. I was constantly contacted by the local and state Dems (mail, email, phone, door visits).
I registered Dem a few years ago so I could participate in the D primary (my former party kept failing to find candidates), and now it's crickets from the Dems.
I registered Dem a few years ago so I could participate in the D primary (my former party kept failing to find candidates), and now it's crickets from the Dems.
November 10, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Maybe. I used to be a member of a third party. I was constantly contacted by the local and state Dems (mail, email, phone, door visits).
I registered Dem a few years ago so I could participate in the D primary (my former party kept failing to find candidates), and now it's crickets from the Dems.
I registered Dem a few years ago so I could participate in the D primary (my former party kept failing to find candidates), and now it's crickets from the Dems.
Actually, we have no idea.
“As is generally the case when it denies petitions for review, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to hear Davis’ case. If any justices disagreed with the decision not to take up the case, they did not note that disagreement publicly.”
“As is generally the case when it denies petitions for review, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to hear Davis’ case. If any justices disagreed with the decision not to take up the case, they did not note that disagreement publicly.”
Supreme Court declines to hear case on constitutionality of same-sex marriage
The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex […]
www.scotusblog.com
November 10, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Actually, we have no idea.
“As is generally the case when it denies petitions for review, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to hear Davis’ case. If any justices disagreed with the decision not to take up the case, they did not note that disagreement publicly.”
“As is generally the case when it denies petitions for review, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to hear Davis’ case. If any justices disagreed with the decision not to take up the case, they did not note that disagreement publicly.”
Only because the headline is misleading.
They declined to consider Kim Davis' appeal (and did so without comment).
I suspect they are waiting for a better case to use, because Davis issue was tangential at best.
They declined to consider Kim Davis' appeal (and did so without comment).
I suspect they are waiting for a better case to use, because Davis issue was tangential at best.
November 10, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Only because the headline is misleading.
They declined to consider Kim Davis' appeal (and did so without comment).
I suspect they are waiting for a better case to use, because Davis issue was tangential at best.
They declined to consider Kim Davis' appeal (and did so without comment).
I suspect they are waiting for a better case to use, because Davis issue was tangential at best.
I do not understand. There are people who want to see what Insta-influencers think?
November 10, 2025 at 3:49 PM
I do not understand. There are people who want to see what Insta-influencers think?
* weakest lie
No one can be that naïve!
No one can be that naïve!
November 10, 2025 at 1:36 PM
* weakest lie
No one can be that naïve!
No one can be that naïve!
They can't actually believe this, right? They've been paying at least a tiny amount of attention to how everything has gone lately, surely? This is just their really thin saving-face PR story for why they're collaborating to destroy everything, yeah?
November 10, 2025 at 1:35 PM
They can't actually believe this, right? They've been paying at least a tiny amount of attention to how everything has gone lately, surely? This is just their really thin saving-face PR story for why they're collaborating to destroy everything, yeah?
And as more and more US citizens hear and begin to believe this messaging, it becomes more true.
Propaganda be propagandizing.
Propaganda be propagandizing.
November 10, 2025 at 12:01 PM
And as more and more US citizens hear and begin to believe this messaging, it becomes more true.
Propaganda be propagandizing.
Propaganda be propagandizing.
I do not understand. There are people on Threads? What?
November 10, 2025 at 11:58 AM
I do not understand. There are people on Threads? What?
Dems be losing the staring contest with a simple, “Hey, over there!.”
November 10, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Dems be losing the staring contest with a simple, “Hey, over there!.”
Breaking: Senate Dems throw hands in air, capitulate.
November 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
Breaking: Senate Dems throw hands in air, capitulate.
Supporting one another? What are we, empathetic neighbors sharing resources to build a better life together than any smaller unit could obtain on their own‽
November 9, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Supporting one another? What are we, empathetic neighbors sharing resources to build a better life together than any smaller unit could obtain on their own‽
@schumer.senate.gov : I was very clear in my letter: I fold.
November 9, 2025 at 11:54 PM
@schumer.senate.gov : I was very clear in my letter: I fold.
So not a deal or even a good faith negotiation. Cool. I look forward to hearing my reps praise the amazing reconciliation as they support this shit.
November 9, 2025 at 10:21 PM
So not a deal or even a good faith negotiation. Cool. I look forward to hearing my reps praise the amazing reconciliation as they support this shit.
Oh, so *this* capitalist hellscape is why so many places suddenly added bike lanes. Finally makes sense.
November 9, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Oh, so *this* capitalist hellscape is why so many places suddenly added bike lanes. Finally makes sense.
“They should just get a job.”
They have jobs; they just don't make enough.
“They should get better jobs then.”
Oh, I'm sure they never thought of that! Where are these mystical “better jobs” that are just available for the taking?
Definitely not on the farms.
They have jobs; they just don't make enough.
“They should get better jobs then.”
Oh, I'm sure they never thought of that! Where are these mystical “better jobs” that are just available for the taking?
Definitely not on the farms.
Minimum Wage for Agricultural Workers – National Agricultural Law Center
nationalaglawcenter.org
November 9, 2025 at 6:24 PM
“They should just get a job.”
They have jobs; they just don't make enough.
“They should get better jobs then.”
Oh, I'm sure they never thought of that! Where are these mystical “better jobs” that are just available for the taking?
Definitely not on the farms.
They have jobs; they just don't make enough.
“They should get better jobs then.”
Oh, I'm sure they never thought of that! Where are these mystical “better jobs” that are just available for the taking?
Definitely not on the farms.