grooft.bsky.social
@grooft.bsky.social
This is like ruling that water is still wet. Chief Justice “Taney” Roberts should get no credit for being reasoned and reasonable.
December 5, 2025 at 10:32 PM
This is like ruling that water is still wet. Chief Justice “Taney” Roberts should get no credit for being reasoned and reasonable.
This year.
I am too lazy to go through the decisions where the 14th amendment was turned on its head but Shelby County counts.
I am too lazy to go through the decisions where the 14th amendment was turned on its head but Shelby County counts.
December 5, 2025 at 10:28 PM
This year.
I am too lazy to go through the decisions where the 14th amendment was turned on its head but Shelby County counts.
I am too lazy to go through the decisions where the 14th amendment was turned on its head but Shelby County counts.
Tom Cotton, Tommy Tuberville?
December 5, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Tom Cotton, Tommy Tuberville?
Maureen Comey’s case of wrongful termination in NY raises same questions re MSPB capture but is at an earlier stage.
December 5, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Maureen Comey’s case of wrongful termination in NY raises same questions re MSPB capture but is at an earlier stage.
My IANAL synopsis: Trump broke the MSPB replaced all members w/ loyalists. 4C panel finds legislative history intent of CSRA for an independent arbiter MSPB & remands for fact finding. 4C denied en banc. W/o stay (inconvenient) fact finding begins in 5 days & IJs can seek court protection.
December 5, 2025 at 4:25 PM
My IANAL synopsis: Trump broke the MSPB replaced all members w/ loyalists. 4C panel finds legislative history intent of CSRA for an independent arbiter MSPB & remands for fact finding. 4C denied en banc. W/o stay (inconvenient) fact finding begins in 5 days & IJs can seek court protection.
Steven Miller looks at the Bush approval zoom and says, “War with Venezuela looks like the most possible way to boost Trump approval. Let’s do it!”
We might need a poll of public approval of War for Oil.
We might need a poll of public approval of War for Oil.
December 5, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Steven Miller looks at the Bush approval zoom and says, “War with Venezuela looks like the most possible way to boost Trump approval. Let’s do it!”
We might need a poll of public approval of War for Oil.
We might need a poll of public approval of War for Oil.
En banc request coming?
December 5, 2025 at 3:26 PM
En banc request coming?
You are forgetting Calvinball SCOTUS rules. Republican gerrymanders are okay with SCOTUS 6, Dems, not so much, and will only go into effect (if ever) after the election.
December 5, 2025 at 2:19 PM
You are forgetting Calvinball SCOTUS rules. Republican gerrymanders are okay with SCOTUS 6, Dems, not so much, and will only go into effect (if ever) after the election.
Thank you for the stacked bar chart!
December 5, 2025 at 5:55 AM
Thank you for the stacked bar chart!
They just proved that facts are immaterial in this post-fact, post-rule-of-law era with a Calvin-ball SCOTUS backstop.
December 5, 2025 at 1:40 AM
They just proved that facts are immaterial in this post-fact, post-rule-of-law era with a Calvin-ball SCOTUS backstop.
The dissent notes that the majority did not name Purcell. The dissent notes the ability of bad actors to use Purcell to justify their desired outcome. Also notes how Purcell should not apply here and the lower court had addressed it in their ruling.
December 5, 2025 at 12:02 AM
The dissent notes that the majority did not name Purcell. The dissent notes the ability of bad actors to use Purcell to justify their desired outcome. Also notes how Purcell should not apply here and the lower court had addressed it in their ruling.
The 3 judge panel determined that this Texas gerrymander was based on race (even though partisan benefits were desired).
December 4, 2025 at 11:58 PM
The 3 judge panel determined that this Texas gerrymander was based on race (even though partisan benefits were desired).
newly redistricted, RACIALLY GERRYMANDERED, GOP-favorable congressional map in 2026.
SCOTUS 6 says * without factual basis * that it was a partisan gerrymander but the 3 judge panel wrote extensively and conclusively that the facts made it an unconstitutional racial redistricting.
SCOTUS 6 says * without factual basis * that it was a partisan gerrymander but the 3 judge panel wrote extensively and conclusively that the facts made it an unconstitutional racial redistricting.
December 4, 2025 at 11:55 PM
newly redistricted, RACIALLY GERRYMANDERED, GOP-favorable congressional map in 2026.
SCOTUS 6 says * without factual basis * that it was a partisan gerrymander but the 3 judge panel wrote extensively and conclusively that the facts made it an unconstitutional racial redistricting.
SCOTUS 6 says * without factual basis * that it was a partisan gerrymander but the 3 judge panel wrote extensively and conclusively that the facts made it an unconstitutional racial redistricting.
“And this Court’s stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral
districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
They may have pronounced it but the 6 no longer mean it.
districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
They may have pronounced it but the 6 no longer mean it.
December 4, 2025 at 11:38 PM
“And this Court’s stay ensures that many Texas citizens, for no good reason, will be placed in electoral
districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
They may have pronounced it but the 6 no longer mean it.
districts because of their race. And that result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.”
They may have pronounced it but the 6 no longer mean it.
But the James Baldwin quotation that forms the first part is essential to get her full cry of “BULLSH*T”!
December 4, 2025 at 10:23 PM
But the James Baldwin quotation that forms the first part is essential to get her full cry of “BULLSH*T”!
Was this a randomly assigned panel? Katsas and Rao seem to be drawing a lot of cases where they can support Trump by overturning the district court’s ruling.
Or is it just my noticing that Katsas and Rao are at it again?
Or is it just my noticing that Katsas and Rao are at it again?
December 4, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Was this a randomly assigned panel? Katsas and Rao seem to be drawing a lot of cases where they can support Trump by overturning the district court’s ruling.
Or is it just my noticing that Katsas and Rao are at it again?
Or is it just my noticing that Katsas and Rao are at it again?
It will, however, be implemented for 2 years while the question of constitutionality works its way through the legal system. This time frame is fixed regardless of the proportion of cases which find it unconstitutional (97 to 3). It will eventually make it to SCOTUS merits hearing.
December 4, 2025 at 7:50 PM
It will, however, be implemented for 2 years while the question of constitutionality works its way through the legal system. This time frame is fixed regardless of the proportion of cases which find it unconstitutional (97 to 3). It will eventually make it to SCOTUS merits hearing.
And when you attack the Capitol in support of Donald Trump on January 6,2021 you get a pardon when he becomes president again.
December 4, 2025 at 7:44 PM
And when you attack the Capitol in support of Donald Trump on January 6,2021 you get a pardon when he becomes president again.
The “Donald J. Trump Institute of War is Peace” building.
December 4, 2025 at 5:40 PM
The “Donald J. Trump Institute of War is Peace” building.
Also the appropriate identification is DHS lying spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
December 4, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Also the appropriate identification is DHS lying spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
The plaintiffs got a bad appellate panel of Reagan, Trump, Trump judges who initially took a pro ICE/CPB position that would have overturned Ellis’ ruling. If the plaintiffs withdraw the case with prejudice the appeals court won’t issue a (precedent setting) final pro-CPB ruling in the case.
December 4, 2025 at 5:33 PM
The plaintiffs got a bad appellate panel of Reagan, Trump, Trump judges who initially took a pro ICE/CPB position that would have overturned Ellis’ ruling. If the plaintiffs withdraw the case with prejudice the appeals court won’t issue a (precedent setting) final pro-CPB ruling in the case.
“A move to the center to appeal to the gettable Republican voters”. The Overton window shifts rightward to now legitimize Democrats who were (and might still be) Nazi leaning.
December 4, 2025 at 4:56 PM
“A move to the center to appeal to the gettable Republican voters”. The Overton window shifts rightward to now legitimize Democrats who were (and might still be) Nazi leaning.
Also don’t forget liver cancer.
It’s so ridiculously asinine that even can see it. The new Washington Post editorial board called the out.
@erictopol.bsky.social
Today.
"Or they simply don't know what they are doing"
wapo.st/4rE11ib
It’s so ridiculously asinine that even can see it. The new Washington Post editorial board called the out.
@erictopol.bsky.social
Today.
"Or they simply don't know what they are doing"
wapo.st/4rE11ib
Opinion | The CDC’s next anti-vaccine clown show is coming. Take your seats.
Delaying hepatitis B shots would be RFK Jr.’s most disruptive change yet to immunization policy.
wapo.st
December 4, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Also don’t forget liver cancer.
It’s so ridiculously asinine that even can see it. The new Washington Post editorial board called the out.
@erictopol.bsky.social
Today.
"Or they simply don't know what they are doing"
wapo.st/4rE11ib
It’s so ridiculously asinine that even can see it. The new Washington Post editorial board called the out.
@erictopol.bsky.social
Today.
"Or they simply don't know what they are doing"
wapo.st/4rE11ib
The obnoxious alarms were imposed by governmental legislation because the seatbelt uptake was opposed by so many libertarian (idiots).
Eventually the carmakers realized that the mandate was here to stay and improved seatbelts and made them more comfortable.
Eventually the carmakers realized that the mandate was here to stay and improved seatbelts and made them more comfortable.
December 4, 2025 at 4:31 PM
The obnoxious alarms were imposed by governmental legislation because the seatbelt uptake was opposed by so many libertarian (idiots).
Eventually the carmakers realized that the mandate was here to stay and improved seatbelts and made them more comfortable.
Eventually the carmakers realized that the mandate was here to stay and improved seatbelts and made them more comfortable.
The last person I knew who consistently refused to wear a seatbelt went through her SUV’s windshield and left her children motherless high schoolers.
December 4, 2025 at 4:26 PM
The last person I knew who consistently refused to wear a seatbelt went through her SUV’s windshield and left her children motherless high schoolers.