I stand by my toddler-aged interpretation of Santa
@faineg.bsky.social showed early artistic promise. And before you ask - it’s Santa. Note the beard and the jolly demeanor.
December 9, 2025 at 3:16 PM
I stand by my toddler-aged interpretation of Santa
an unfortunately plausible interpretation of the Biden economy is "if you cut wage inequality very quickly then there will be a broad-based bipartisan mental breakdown"
December 9, 2025 at 3:21 PM
an unfortunately plausible interpretation of the Biden economy is "if you cut wage inequality very quickly then there will be a broad-based bipartisan mental breakdown"
Best interpretation I've seen.
December 8, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Best interpretation I've seen.
…biased towards the right, why the fuck would the left concede it? If I have to live with the US Senate and a hardline interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, conservatives should have to live with the most straightforward interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
December 7, 2025 at 2:04 AM
…biased towards the right, why the fuck would the left concede it? If I have to live with the US Senate and a hardline interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, conservatives should have to live with the most straightforward interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Ich finde auch diese Interpretation sehr gut:
bsky.app/profile/cait...
bsky.app/profile/cait...
People are saying the FIFA Peace Prize looks like a guy with his head in his hands and now I can't unsee it
December 6, 2025 at 7:38 AM
Ich finde auch diese Interpretation sehr gut:
bsky.app/profile/cait...
bsky.app/profile/cait...
In fact, the ET said what Peggie was arguing was incompatible with the decision in FWS, where the SC emphasised that their interpretation of sex under the Act would *not* disadvantage trans people.
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
In fact, the ET said what Peggie was arguing was incompatible with the decision in FWS, where the SC emphasised that their interpretation of sex under the Act would *not* disadvantage trans people.
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
(2/2) Whether or not it was a good idea appears to be up to viewer interpretation.
thanks again to @thesolesorcerer.etheirys.social :3
thanks again to @thesolesorcerer.etheirys.social :3
December 8, 2025 at 10:22 PM
(2/2) Whether or not it was a good idea appears to be up to viewer interpretation.
thanks again to @thesolesorcerer.etheirys.social :3
thanks again to @thesolesorcerer.etheirys.social :3
December 8, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Wurman is being pretty slippery with his definition of "purpose." There was extensive discussion about the impact of the Amendment on Chinese immigrants and "Gypsies," so they knew it would have a broader impact than just on children of freed people, and agreed on the interpretation of the words.
The evidence is the text. All you have to do is read the Constitution.
December 8, 2025 at 3:05 AM
Wurman is being pretty slippery with his definition of "purpose." There was extensive discussion about the impact of the Amendment on Chinese immigrants and "Gypsies," so they knew it would have a broader impact than just on children of freed people, and agreed on the interpretation of the words.
Birthright citizenship is the explicit text of the Constitution. It's not open to interpretation. Anyone willing to eliminate it is willing to eliminate anything and everything else the Constitution explicitly provides.
Please note that any "centrist" pundit who blithely discusses the "merits" of arguments for eliminating birthright citizenship is either a fascist enabling fascism or a clueless clown enabling fascism.
December 7, 2025 at 4:02 AM
Birthright citizenship is the explicit text of the Constitution. It's not open to interpretation. Anyone willing to eliminate it is willing to eliminate anything and everything else the Constitution explicitly provides.
It’s a hell of a thing to be a lawyer and watch SCOTUS destroying the republic in real time from their high horses.
If you haven’t been through a pre-Trump indoctrination of sacred doctrines like state decisis and statutory interpretation, you might think it was always like this.
If you haven’t been through a pre-Trump indoctrination of sacred doctrines like state decisis and statutory interpretation, you might think it was always like this.
December 8, 2025 at 4:07 PM
It’s a hell of a thing to be a lawyer and watch SCOTUS destroying the republic in real time from their high horses.
If you haven’t been through a pre-Trump indoctrination of sacred doctrines like state decisis and statutory interpretation, you might think it was always like this.
If you haven’t been through a pre-Trump indoctrination of sacred doctrines like state decisis and statutory interpretation, you might think it was always like this.
The Constitution is very straightforward on birthright citizenship. There's no ambiguity in the language, no other plausible interpretation.
The fact that this is a public discussion at all, and that the Supreme Court is taking it up, is on its own anti-constitutional bullshit.
Read the text👇
The fact that this is a public discussion at all, and that the Supreme Court is taking it up, is on its own anti-constitutional bullshit.
Read the text👇
It starts with knowing the truth. Don’t allow yourselves to be gaslit into believing this is a real question.
December 6, 2025 at 4:07 PM
The Constitution is very straightforward on birthright citizenship. There's no ambiguity in the language, no other plausible interpretation.
The fact that this is a public discussion at all, and that the Supreme Court is taking it up, is on its own anti-constitutional bullshit.
Read the text👇
The fact that this is a public discussion at all, and that the Supreme Court is taking it up, is on its own anti-constitutional bullshit.
Read the text👇
Reading Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs on the subway but shaking my head so everyone knows I disagree
December 8, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Reading Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs on the subway but shaking my head so everyone knows I disagree
This is the easiest question of Constitutional interpretation imaginable, and Wurman and Barnett are trying to lawyer brain ethnic cleansing into existence
The evidence is the text. All you have to do is read the Constitution.
December 7, 2025 at 8:30 PM
This is the easiest question of Constitutional interpretation imaginable, and Wurman and Barnett are trying to lawyer brain ethnic cleansing into existence
Another one for the interpretation class
(always grateful to friends for sending me examples)
(always grateful to friends for sending me examples)
December 5, 2025 at 11:51 AM
Another one for the interpretation class
(always grateful to friends for sending me examples)
(always grateful to friends for sending me examples)
again, the supreme court did not write the constitution (or the declaration) and—despite what you may think—they don't have the monopoly on the interpretation of those documents.
the people have a say, and if the court is out of step with the people, that's a problem for the court, not the governed
the people have a say, and if the court is out of step with the people, that's a problem for the court, not the governed
i think to understand the meaning of the birthright citizenship clause to the framers of the 14th amendment, you have to understand significance of dred scott to the civil war republican party. dred scott wasn't just a bad ruling, it was understood as a rejection of the declaration itself.
December 6, 2025 at 8:28 PM
again, the supreme court did not write the constitution (or the declaration) and—despite what you may think—they don't have the monopoly on the interpretation of those documents.
the people have a say, and if the court is out of step with the people, that's a problem for the court, not the governed
the people have a say, and if the court is out of step with the people, that's a problem for the court, not the governed
I have little faith in these six to maintain a consistent interpretation of the law.
They will have a vastly different interpretation when a Democrat exercises this authority
They will have a vastly different interpretation when a Democrat exercises this authority
December 8, 2025 at 6:06 PM
I have little faith in these six to maintain a consistent interpretation of the law.
They will have a vastly different interpretation when a Democrat exercises this authority
They will have a vastly different interpretation when a Democrat exercises this authority
this is a White House that has presumed to lecture two popes on the interpretation of the Gospel, so it’s fair to hold them to a higher standard
December 8, 2025 at 7:34 PM
this is a White House that has presumed to lecture two popes on the interpretation of the Gospel, so it’s fair to hold them to a higher standard
Its open to interpretation
December 4, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Its open to interpretation
hey so uh this is incredibly bad faith interpretation of that post
December 6, 2025 at 8:36 PM
hey so uh this is incredibly bad faith interpretation of that post
I'm seeing some folks refer to VF axing Olivia Nuzzi as "consequences," which is a generous interpretation of the magazine trying to -- belatedly -- save its own ass.
December 5, 2025 at 10:01 PM
I'm seeing some folks refer to VF axing Olivia Nuzzi as "consequences," which is a generous interpretation of the magazine trying to -- belatedly -- save its own ass.
Nooooo. My entire tourism & class interpretation & understanding relies in part on his aesthetic. RIP Martin Parr.
December 8, 2025 at 3:53 AM
Nooooo. My entire tourism & class interpretation & understanding relies in part on his aesthetic. RIP Martin Parr.
OLD FAFAFOX DOODLES BE UPON YE
my artistic interpretation of what art block feels like
my artistic interpretation of what art block feels like
December 8, 2025 at 10:23 PM
OLD FAFAFOX DOODLES BE UPON YE
my artistic interpretation of what art block feels like
my artistic interpretation of what art block feels like