Profile avatar
raywalden.bsky.social
Attorney, writer, husband, father, grandfather, herder of cats and dog.
416 posts 338 followers 325 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
Posts 13 Comments 37

So apparently Noem is saying the federal government is deploying military to remove from state and local office the governor and mayor.

submitted 2 days ago • 0 comments

So the DOGE minions left behind drugs after they vandalized USAID offices. Is this included in the congressional investigation of the cocaine baggy found at the WH?

submitted 9 days ago • 0 comments

Congressional pubes have been scared of 47 because his bankroller would finance primary opponents. So the fear is focused on Musk. Look for the pubes to scatter confused.

submitted 9 days ago • 0 comments

My guess is big deal posters allow comments from accounts they follow but not accounts that follow them.

submitted 9 days ago • 0 comments

Is there a setting for blocking replies containing bad language ("pissed")? Usually my replies show up as soon as I hit Reply. But an ironically adoring reply to a big deal poster never showed in his replies list, though it is on my list of replies.

submitted 11 days ago • 0 comments

So, has anybody been arrested yet for saying "TACO?" They would have to empty the prisons and immigrant concentration camps to hold us all.

submitted 12 days ago • 0 comments

I confess! I too am a demented robotic clone.

submitted 12 days ago • 0 comments

Fox in profile for #caturday

submitted 14 days ago • 0 comments

The AI-generated report with hallucinated citations is the new gold spray-painted standard for science.

submitted 14 days ago • 0 comments

The TACO tyrant can DOGE one thing on his own: If he's going to pardon Diddy anyway, do it now and save court time and expense. Then all others accused of the same things 47 has done.

submitted 15 days ago • 0 comments

Just wondering how the trade court can enforce the tariffs ruling. My guess is 47 will declare the ruling moot because he's already changed things up several times, redeclare huge tariffs on everybody, and tell import collectors to ignore the court.

submitted 17 days ago • 0 comments

2/2 The reason is the bill prevents contempt to enforce without compliance with Rule 35, but Rule 35, requiring bonds for security for costs and damages to defendants, says: "The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security." Read the bill together with the rule.

submitted 18 days ago • 0 comments

Re posts about the BBBill prohibiting fed courts from enforcing orders against US officials, see www.snopes.com/news/2025/05... My read of the provision and the referenced fed rule 35 is it doesn't require posting a bond and doesn't apply to injunctions against federal agencies or officials. 1/2

submitted 18 days ago • 0 comments