oyecaro.bsky.social
Grant Writer. š ā¤ļø. I'll probably look at your workout videos but not do a single thing š. She/Her/Ella. š³ļøāšš³ļøāā§ļø
Don't blame me, I voted for Kamala 2024.
388 posts
590 followers
565 following
Prolific Poster
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It's that "But...who knows?" vibe that defines this "Court."
comment in response to
post
In sum, trying to take advantage of the Courtās hatred of nationwide injunctions by serving up your appallingly unconstitutional losing case as the vehicle to end nationwide injunctions is not a good move. Take your losses. Be more patient. Butā¦who knows?
comment in response to
post
I didnāt hear about the effect of NOT having a nationwide injunction in this case on actual people.The SG spoke about harm to govt. The atty for the state AGs spoke about institutional harms to the states. But neither he nor the CASA atty spoke abt actual people or about the racial dimensions here.
comment in response to
post
Chief Justice Roberts tried to help the SG out with some tepid interventions. Justice Alito seemed to know the case was doomed. Kavanaugh was super into the class action idea which made no sense. Justice Gorsuc seemed in Kaganās camp.
comment in response to
post
ā¦their citizenship have to bring 10s of thousands of individual cases and no matter how many times you lose, another plaintiff has to bring another suit because each judgment will be enforced only against the one party who brought the suit. And if itās a class action it takes 3 or 4 years to getā¦.
comment in response to
post
Justice Kagan has had it. I donāt know many ways she told the SG that his case was a loser, that he had lost in multiple district courts, and would lose every future challenge, but it was a lot of times. Her point was, you want us to allow you to run a scam in which plaintiffs at risk of losingā¦.7/
comment in response to
post
Justice Barrett asked in the slow, steady voice you use when your child tells you heās going to burn the house down & kill everyone in it, whether that was REALLY what he said. The SG stood by it until the 5th time Barrett asked the same question (rephrased), then he caught on & reversed himself. 5/
comment in response to
post
you wont hear criticism from others in media. first, they just dont criticize each other -- ever. second you do NOT criticize people like maggie haberman or jake tapper in media club. theyre media world equivalent of prom king and queen. youll find yourself sitting with the nerds if youre dumb enuff
comment in response to
post
He really didn't like this one, and asked why I thought he got played (how I know it was intimidation is because the whole article answers that question) and when I offered to explain my critique on his show and have him rebut it, they stopped e-mailing me. www.pastemagazine.com/politics/med...
comment in response to
post
My worldview is that I am okay with having a good policy that may be taken advantage of by some people and but consider crackdown on crime/immigration a failure and unacceptable if it results in the killing/arrest/deportation of innocent people; and the worldview of republicans is the opposite
comment in response to
post
Personally Iām happy to pay for the laziest person in the country to have food, a place to sleep and healthcare as a small undesirable side effect if it means the vast, vast majority of people who are doing their best to get by also have that safety net.
comment in response to
post
RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz are wrong. Work requirements don't work. They have little effect on labor force participation. They do work, if your goal is to make sure people can't get access to services because of administrative burdens.
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/get-in-los...
comment in response to
post
Will share some audio/quotes soon, but what I'll say for now: jesus fucking christ.
comment in response to
post
I do my part! www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-cogn...
comment in response to
post
As such, RFK Jr. is accusing federal scientists of doing the very thing that Geier himself has done: manipulating data.
In this case, RFK Jr. clearly believes that thousands of scientists are involved in a conspiracy to hide data that would āproveā that vaccines cause autism.
comment in response to
post
If I had to bet, Iād guess Alito and likely Thomas are votes for āthe president can ignore the Constitution if I like the outcome,ā but the majority will uphold the plain text of the law except a few lawyerly caveats.
But with a Supreme Court majority that doesnāt believe in rule of law, who knows.
comment in response to
post
The Constitution says insurrectionists canāt hold office except that āCongress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.ā
The Supreme Court inverted that, to an insurrectionist can hold office unless Congress votes to bar them personally.
So who knows what theyāll make up.
comment in response to
post
The Constitution is also clear that presidents are not above the law. But this SCOTUS made up new text to say Trump effectively is.
On birthright citizenship, they could BS their way to āwell, technically, it doesnāt define āinvasion,ā so maybe that word means anything the president feels like.ā
comment in response to
post
The text of the Constitution is so clear on birthright citizenship that SCOTUS should rule for it. But even indulging the bad faith and pretending thereās something to adjudicate is not great.
comment in response to
post
The media is a helicopter parent for Democrats and a tornado chaser for Republicans.