The Samuelation
@samuelation.bsky.social
Here to find some community to make it through the stupidest timeline
Doing fascism instead of going to therapy remains a central theme.
Pardon me, but *holy shit* chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdog...
December 13, 2025 at 3:42 PM
Doing fascism instead of going to therapy remains a central theme.
Reposted by The Samuelation
Well, there's a photo I never expected to see in my life. Noam Chomsky palling around with Steve Bannon.
December 12, 2025 at 9:18 PM
Well, there's a photo I never expected to see in my life. Noam Chomsky palling around with Steve Bannon.
Reposted by The Samuelation
what the actual fuck are these dumb motherfuckers doing
Sen. WHITEHOUSE: We finally are moving to file a bipartisan Section 230 repeal bill. Waiting any longer serves no useful purpose.
December 12, 2025 at 11:42 PM
what the actual fuck are these dumb motherfuckers doing
Reposted by The Samuelation
OK, let's talk about DOJ.
December 12, 2025 at 9:30 PM
OK, let's talk about DOJ.
Reposted by The Samuelation
DTE is telling investors the Dec 18 vote is already in the bag even as thousands ask for scrutiny.
Be there and watch it unfold: go.mi.gov/anw2h1547
Be there and watch it unfold: go.mi.gov/anw2h1547
December 12, 2025 at 7:05 PM
DTE is telling investors the Dec 18 vote is already in the bag even as thousands ask for scrutiny.
Be there and watch it unfold: go.mi.gov/anw2h1547
Be there and watch it unfold: go.mi.gov/anw2h1547
Reposted by The Samuelation
"The jury verdict from 10 years ago contains a scrivener's error insofar as it states that the defendant was not guilty. We are changing that, nunc pro tunc, to guilty."
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
It is not! A “scrivener’s error” is for things like fixing typos or very minor non-material errors, not retroactively adding a deportation order that doesn’t current exist!
Is "correcting" a previous order like this a real thing?
December 12, 2025 at 4:26 PM
"The jury verdict from 10 years ago contains a scrivener's error insofar as it states that the defendant was not guilty. We are changing that, nunc pro tunc, to guilty."
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
Reposted by The Samuelation
The 25th anniversary of Bush v Gore is today. The conspiracy mongering & corruption of the GOP has been brewing for a long time.
Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were all on Bush's legal team, where they pushed unfounded legal theories. SC justices were already enmeshed in voter fraud myths.
Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were all on Bush's legal team, where they pushed unfounded legal theories. SC justices were already enmeshed in voter fraud myths.
Here's Sandra Day O'Connor endorsing News Max levels of voter fraud conspiracies in the 2000 election.
December 12, 2025 at 2:17 PM
The 25th anniversary of Bush v Gore is today. The conspiracy mongering & corruption of the GOP has been brewing for a long time.
Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were all on Bush's legal team, where they pushed unfounded legal theories. SC justices were already enmeshed in voter fraud myths.
Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were all on Bush's legal team, where they pushed unfounded legal theories. SC justices were already enmeshed in voter fraud myths.
Reposted by The Samuelation
Print is best.
December 12, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Print is best.
Reposted by The Samuelation
Yes, the Honduras deal allegedly only permitted 10 removals per month but the admin was filing thousands of motions to pretermit on grounds of sending people to Honduras, and as you say, the talk now is ICE was ordered to list multiple countries in one motion to pretermit on safe third grounds.
They even were acknowledging by Tuesday they'd hit the first-two-years "cap" under the HO ACA (which, duh, it was 10/month, saw that many myself in a few days).
But by yesterday they were just plowing ahead again here, including it alongside MULTIPLE ACAs they'd cite for each motion.
But by yesterday they were just plowing ahead again here, including it alongside MULTIPLE ACAs they'd cite for each motion.
December 12, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Yes, the Honduras deal allegedly only permitted 10 removals per month but the admin was filing thousands of motions to pretermit on grounds of sending people to Honduras, and as you say, the talk now is ICE was ordered to list multiple countries in one motion to pretermit on safe third grounds.
Reposted by The Samuelation
The fuck is happening in this framed photo three feet away from Steve Bannon?
December 12, 2025 at 3:41 PM
The fuck is happening in this framed photo three feet away from Steve Bannon?
Reposted by The Samuelation
Hahahaha eat shit
December 12, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Hahahaha eat shit
Reposted by The Samuelation
I’ve been covering execution-related litigation up to the Supreme Court for more than a decade.
Nearly 300 people have been killed in that time.
Don’t tell me that what happens via emergency applications — regularly called the shadow docket for nearly a decade — is an “interim docket.”
Nearly 300 people have been killed in that time.
Don’t tell me that what happens via emergency applications — regularly called the shadow docket for nearly a decade — is an “interim docket.”
December 12, 2025 at 7:05 AM
I’ve been covering execution-related litigation up to the Supreme Court for more than a decade.
Nearly 300 people have been killed in that time.
Don’t tell me that what happens via emergency applications — regularly called the shadow docket for nearly a decade — is an “interim docket.”
Nearly 300 people have been killed in that time.
Don’t tell me that what happens via emergency applications — regularly called the shadow docket for nearly a decade — is an “interim docket.”
Reposted by The Samuelation
Yes, it’s one they handpicked, and IIRC is actually a judge in management who only hears a small number of cases. It’s so flagrantly corrupt and a perversion of due process you almost have to laugh; then go off and file a bar complaint against the judge for violating ethics rules.
Isn't it a completely different immigration judge than the one from years earlier? How can they claim a "scriveners error" from someone else's order?
December 12, 2025 at 1:30 PM
Yes, it’s one they handpicked, and IIRC is actually a judge in management who only hears a small number of cases. It’s so flagrantly corrupt and a perversion of due process you almost have to laugh; then go off and file a bar complaint against the judge for violating ethics rules.
Reposted by The Samuelation
I am deadly serious when I say that any liberal Project 2028 people should be taking names of the civil servants who go way past their authority to do stuff like this.
That is very much not me saying that normal employees following bad orders should be fired. But there’s a line. This crosses it.
That is very much not me saying that normal employees following bad orders should be fired. But there’s a line. This crosses it.
That should be a career ending act of corruption
December 12, 2025 at 1:52 PM
I am deadly serious when I say that any liberal Project 2028 people should be taking names of the civil servants who go way past their authority to do stuff like this.
That is very much not me saying that normal employees following bad orders should be fired. But there’s a line. This crosses it.
That is very much not me saying that normal employees following bad orders should be fired. But there’s a line. This crosses it.
Reposted by The Samuelation
⤵️
For the uninitiated, the scrivener’s error doctrine allows you to correct typos, not retroactively conjure nonexistent orders into existence
December 12, 2025 at 2:08 PM
⤵️
Reposted by The Samuelation
And to issue the order after work hours and when the underlying case is on appeal (divesting jurisdiction) and to falsely claim it was sua sponte?
That is corrupt. I don’t throw that around lightly but I honestly cannot think of a better word for a lawyer who does that.
That is corrupt. I don’t throw that around lightly but I honestly cannot think of a better word for a lawyer who does that.
December 12, 2025 at 1:57 PM
And to issue the order after work hours and when the underlying case is on appeal (divesting jurisdiction) and to falsely claim it was sua sponte?
That is corrupt. I don’t throw that around lightly but I honestly cannot think of a better word for a lawyer who does that.
That is corrupt. I don’t throw that around lightly but I honestly cannot think of a better word for a lawyer who does that.
Reposted by The Samuelation
Reposted by The Samuelation
i stand by this statement every year
December 12, 2025 at 1:27 AM
i stand by this statement every year
Reposted by The Samuelation
Trump sent Vance there twice. He threatened to cut off all federal spending to the state. He vowed to back primary challengers of any Republican who voted against him here. He posted their names online, prompting his fans to send them death threats.
But all that failed, so now he wasn't involved.
But all that failed, so now he wasn't involved.
Reporter: The senate in Indiana voted against the redistricting effort.
Trump: I wasn't working on it very hard. I wasn't very much involved
Trump: I wasn't working on it very hard. I wasn't very much involved
December 12, 2025 at 12:57 AM
Trump sent Vance there twice. He threatened to cut off all federal spending to the state. He vowed to back primary challengers of any Republican who voted against him here. He posted their names online, prompting his fans to send them death threats.
But all that failed, so now he wasn't involved.
But all that failed, so now he wasn't involved.
Reposted by The Samuelation
In case you ever needed proof that the Heritage Foundation is not a conservative organization, here we have them cheering on the Federal Government threatening to strip all funding from a state that does not make political decisions the President likes. Any true conservative would be howling.
December 11, 2025 at 8:21 PM
In case you ever needed proof that the Heritage Foundation is not a conservative organization, here we have them cheering on the Federal Government threatening to strip all funding from a state that does not make political decisions the President likes. Any true conservative would be howling.
Reposted by The Samuelation
One of the most blatantly authoritarian threats in a Trump term full of them
December 11, 2025 at 4:51 PM
One of the most blatantly authoritarian threats in a Trump term full of them
Reposted by The Samuelation
Also this. make protest songs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=61I4...
"Join ICE" - Jesse Welles (LIVE on The Late Show)
YouTube video by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
www.youtube.com
December 11, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Also this. make protest songs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=61I4...
@alttag.bsky.social hey, so, when did you steal my dog? 😂
December 10, 2025 at 8:31 PM
@alttag.bsky.social hey, so, when did you steal my dog? 😂
Reposted by The Samuelation
COLBERT, on Paramount’s $108 billion bid for Warner:
“.. Wow. .. If my company's got that kind of green, I'm sure they can afford to un-cancel one of their best shows.”
$PSKY @latenightercom.bsky.social
@colbertlateshow.bsky.social
“.. Wow. .. If my company's got that kind of green, I'm sure they can afford to un-cancel one of their best shows.”
$PSKY @latenightercom.bsky.social
@colbertlateshow.bsky.social
December 10, 2025 at 6:36 PM
COLBERT, on Paramount’s $108 billion bid for Warner:
“.. Wow. .. If my company's got that kind of green, I'm sure they can afford to un-cancel one of their best shows.”
$PSKY @latenightercom.bsky.social
@colbertlateshow.bsky.social
“.. Wow. .. If my company's got that kind of green, I'm sure they can afford to un-cancel one of their best shows.”
$PSKY @latenightercom.bsky.social
@colbertlateshow.bsky.social
Reposted by The Samuelation
In general, the following is true:
The following two conditions are sufficient to remove your online anonymity completely: (1) you have pissed off someone with sufficient resources; and (2) you have made one mistake ever.
I propose that we call this Tewson's Law.
The following two conditions are sufficient to remove your online anonymity completely: (1) you have pissed off someone with sufficient resources; and (2) you have made one mistake ever.
I propose that we call this Tewson's Law.
December 10, 2025 at 6:32 PM
In general, the following is true:
The following two conditions are sufficient to remove your online anonymity completely: (1) you have pissed off someone with sufficient resources; and (2) you have made one mistake ever.
I propose that we call this Tewson's Law.
The following two conditions are sufficient to remove your online anonymity completely: (1) you have pissed off someone with sufficient resources; and (2) you have made one mistake ever.
I propose that we call this Tewson's Law.