Playoff hockey in Philadelphia

Absolutely electric Flyers game.

I still can’t get over the NYT unwillingness to say without qualifiers that routine news gathering is protected by the first amendment.

It’s not widely considered protected, it’s universally considered protected.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply anti-1A and that’s not the same thing!

I saw a video that said the boys are calling him Marty McFlyer

FLYERS UP 3-0 IN THE SERIES!

LIVE NOW!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LBg...

No more loyalty to the old guard. Time for courage.

Meet @saikatforcongress.bsky.social — running to replace Nancy Pelosi in CA-11.
His Day One pledge? File articles of impeachment against Trump.

No waiting. No excuses. Accountability starts now.

'The Rich Don't Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?' Why petty theft might be the new political protest. April 22, 2026, 11:00 a.m. ET By Nadja Spiegelman, Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino Produced by Vishakha Darbha OPINION 「y Ax 山

I think that we should simply run on prosecuting the rich for their crimes instead of creating a low trust society that will sow the seeds for further fascism

THAT'S MY HOCKEY TEAM BABY

Are You Adequately Flyer'd Up Brother?

Here, I made this for my newsletter a few months back. Feel free to share with any Cabinet members you know.

bsky.app/profile/jess...

PLEASE FLYERS

There is a reason Watergate was broken by Woodward & Bernstein on the metro desk AND NOT by the White House press corps.

Izzy Stone was mocking White House reporters as useless back in the 1950s

Favorite scene in All The President’s Men: Woodward & Bernstein attend White House Correspondents Dinner, hobnob with Nixon Administration officials, have such a swell time that they back off Watergate investigation so they don’t lose their access.

SIX FLYERS IN THE PENALTY BOX

lmao another flyer got called for an unrelated penalty so now there are SIX GUYS IN THE BOX

Perfect screen grab by @blackburn.bsky.social

I'd like to thank the Phillies for everything they're doing to bring the Flyers success.

All this time, I thought Virga was simply the more-than-mist and less-than-drizzle that makes up a good chunk of Seattle precipitation. But apparently not.

Happy Earth Day!

Never forget that BSH is pretty much the only Flyers blog actually paying the people that work there fairly. If you like the Flyers, you will not regret spending $20 on the awesome coverage these folks produce. Plus you won’t have to see any ads! Bonus!

Section 10 requires any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to "visibly display identification" while performing federal law enforcement duties. Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State. We previously granted the United States's request for a temporary administrative injunction. We now address the merits of the United States's motion for an injunction pending appeal. We conclude that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation. The United States is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim, and the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in its favor. Thus, we grant the motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the federal government in its performance of law enforcement operations. It expressly applies to federal officers. Cal. Penal Code § 13654(d)(2). It seeks to control their conduct in performing law enforcement operations. Id. Case: 26-926, 04/22/2026, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 12 of 16 12 USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA § 13654(a); see also id. § 13654(d)(1). It purports to override the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers. See id. § 13654(a). And in so doing, it aims to regulate the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law. See id. Thus, the state law regulates the performance of "governmental action[s]" which are "carried on by the United States itself." Mayo, 319 U.S. at 448. These provisions do not merely affect "persons who [a]re acting for themselves and not for the United States." Id. at 447. They "layl] hold of" federal agencies and officers "in their specific attempt to obey orders and requirell qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient." Johnson, 254 U.S. at 57. Section 10, in short, directly regulates the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause does not "barl] all state regulation which may touch the activities of the Federal Government." Hancock, 426 U.S. at 179 (emphasis added). For example, the Supreme Court has suggested that States may impose "general rules" regulating conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform, like a "statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets." Johnson, 254 U.S. at 56. But the Supremacy Clause does bar direct state regulation of the federal government. See Washington, 596 U.S. at 838; City of Arcata, 629 F.3d at 991-92. And that is precisely what the No Vigilantes Act does. The Act does not regulate conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform. Rather, it applies exclusively to law enforcement agencies and their officers, including federal law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement officers. The Act thus directly regulates conduct reserved to sovereigns. And so it is barred by intergovernmental Case: 26-926, 04/22/2026, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 14 of 16 14 USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA immunity, which forbids States from regulating the federal government qua government and from controlling federal governmental functions in any manner and to any degree. See California, 921 F.3d at 883. Because § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States, we conclude that it is likely unconstitutional. See Blackburn, 100 F.3d at 1435.

NEW: Ninth Circuit panel blocks California from enforcing No Vigilantes Act provision requiring federal law enforcement to "visibly display identification," granting DOJ's request for an injunction pending appeal.

The unanimous panel previously had granted an "administrative injunction."

Fisherman. We're blowing up fishing boats.

The right gambled, tried to rig the election, lost, and now it’s excuses and tears.

Thanks for everything, Virginia. 🙏🏽

This is the kind of betrayal a nation carries out when its leaders don't believe in the concept of allies and that views promises as something for suckers.

It also makes our armed forces less safe. No nation will ever trust us again. Why should they? We stab our friends in the back.

Aside from who started it, states like CA and VA putting a counter-gerrymander up to a referendum, where people are told and can make a decision on the context for why it's being done, has vastly more democratic legitimacy than state legislators rushing it through because they got bullied by POTUS.

The Ethicist | I am a White House official who is being blackmailed by my mistress. Would it be better to ask ICE to deport her or to do some insider trading on crude futures to get the money to pay her off?

Scenes from a personalist regime: A nominee to an independent federal body refuses to acknowledge that the President ever lost an election.

you want to talk about an unfair aspect of modern american politics? let's talk about the 147 republicans in congress who joined the effort to steal the 2020 election but were allowed to keep their seats instead of being disqualified & removed from office as the 14th Amendment demands

It's peace talks day and the president is watching television.

Left, Fox & Friends, 6:40 a.m.
Right, Trump, 6:50 a.m.

There is no anti-Trump, anti-authoritarian elected official anywhere in the United States who would have the guts to say this and then act on it.