The money should be held by the court in an appeal bond. Hopefully she doesn’t have to try to extract it from Trump directly.

The vote was 5-4 for the proposition that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

The vote was 6-3 that a regular federal law guarantees the same right.

Kavanaugh is the switcher. He voted against the Constitution and for the federal law. This is crazy because the relevant text in the law is a copy paste job from the Constitution. It’s the same text. Kavanaugh’s position is that the same words mean two different things in two different places, because the federal law was enacted at a different time than the constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch voted against birthright citizenship both times, but in his opinion he’s pretty clear that children born to parents who are domiciled in the US are citizens by birthright. Domicile means you are staying in the US long term and intend to remain. But you don’t need legal immigration status to have domicile. So that’s not really a Trump-friendly position if you dig into it.

Edit: I meant to reply to the other comment, but I messed that up.

Something, something about “deep-rooted history and tradition” that protects the federal reserve and not any other Congressionally-created independent commission.

Never mind that the “history and tradition” of central banks in the United States is that two previous banks failed before the federal reserve, and the first one was considered by many founding fathers to be unconstitutional.

Basically, it’s a made-up argument that makes no sense. And all done to protect Justice Robert’s stock portfolio from Trump’s fiscal mismanagement.

Misleading headline: The Court didn’t actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.

What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.

The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.

When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for “reasonable” searches where no warrant is needed.

A veto proof majority is also good enough to pass a discharge petition.

Yep. This is why Trump is dicking with the post office, which is federal.

Also, if only red states abstain from the elections, then only their representatives and senators will be bogged down in lawsuits. Not a great way to retain control of the chambers.

New York Times reported that no sounds of power tools were heard, and it appeared that the lettering was simply removed by hand.

No, I’m quoting the Constitution because it means something to me, and maybe to you as well. I’m not talking to them.

“They” will only accomplish their goals when enough regular people go along with it. Conversely, the Constitution will continue to have meaning as long as enough regular people are still invested. Despite some serious cracks and strains, it is holding up so far. I hope it continues to do so.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

• Constitution. Article III, section 3.

The legislature is changing the law to eliminate the entire public office before the election winner can be sworn in.

The political dynamics are that the state legislature is controlled by the (largely white) Republican party, while the electorate of Orleans Parish tilts to the Democratic party, largely on the support of black citizens.

This amendment to state law only affects the structure of elected offices in Orleans Parish, and not any other part of Louisiana.

I can’t wait for him to answer questions under oath in a video deposition regarding his tabs at the Poodle Room that were produced in discovery.

The types of visas that are available and the rules for them are set by laws passed by Congress. Trump doesn’t have the power to just unilaterally create a new visa category. So if you look at the fine print, this is actually some other already existing category that allows the president to admit individuals at discretion, and the fee is just a donation to the US Treasury. That’s also why it’s not racking up a bunch of court challenges.

Curiously enough, SPLC was known to pass tips they learned from their spying ops to the FBI until Kash Patel shut that down recently.

More than an investigation, there’s now a criminal indictment that alleges that SPLC, Inc. defrauded their donors when they paid undercover informants to infiltrate racist and extremist groups. The theory of the case is that SPLC was actually assisting and aiding these racist groups, contrary to SPLC’s public positions, by doing things like paying membership dues on behalf of their undercover informants.

There are also money laundering charges on the basis that SPLC deliberately misstated the purpose of funds when they were transferring money over to the undercover infiltration side of the operation. Because, maybe, you know, they were trying to be under cover about it.

You mean the “aid” where we dump off our old military equipment and don’t have to pay to dispose it any more? That aid?

Or is it just the regular aid, where Congress cuts some fat checks to Northrup, Lockheed, and General Dynamics, and all that money circulates inside the United States?

This three judge panel has been quasi-overruled by the en banc court on this case and issue once before. So it seems reasonable to think that might happen again.

There are still a bunch of hurdles to getting close to any kind of real contempt finding, even if that happens. There’s a real argument that the most Boasberg can do with criminal contempt is make a referral to the DOJ for prosecution. And just imagine how much action this DOJ would take on such a referral…

Edit: apparently this is a different three judge panel than the first, but Judge Rao was randomly assigned to both panels.

I’m pretty sure she was fired before quitting.

Before he puts boots on the ground in Iran, he’s got to put boots on the staging ground somewhere in the theater. Unlike strategic bombing, invasions don’t happen from Missouri.

More like after they lose the prelim injunction and the stay pending appeal. My guess, in the 8th circuit, is that they stand a chance at winning the stay pending appeal, which would let them keep rolling for a while.

It’s a non trivial piece of 10th amendment litigation. Maybe Minnesota has a sovereign right to investigate a homicide. But does that oblige the feds to do or not do something? Does it matter if the feds are the only way to get critical evidence? Is it important whether the feds are actively trying to thwart and deny MN’s police power? Does MN have to prove they can beat the Supremacy Clause on this case before they can get stuff?

Don’t forget the 6th amendment right to the assistance of counsel.