🤣

the pope, trying to explain Augustine’s ‘libido dominandi’ to 21st century visigoths & vandals

This was great and hilarious.

Maybe Republicans are right. Has the pope even read the Bible? | Opinion Is it just me or does it seem like Pope Leo XIV won't stop talking about religion? But is the head of the global Catholic Church really an expert?

Is it just me, or does it seem like Pope Leo XIV won’t stop talking about religion?

My Catholic-splaining column:

www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...

Trying to explain St Augustine to the pope, the former head of the Augustinian order, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Augustine, on his way back from celebrating mass at the Basilica of St Augustine in Annaba, Algeria, overlooking the site where Augustine lived is peak Adult Catholic Convert.

Same and feels.

Leo: "The message of the church, the message of the gospel -- blessed are the peacemakers. I do not look at my role as being political. I don't want to get into a debate with him. I don't think the message of the gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing."

Trump's a demon in a meat suit. (Think about that gigantic alien bug in Men In Black, except the bug is a demon and the suit is falling apart.)

Understatement.

Plus, you just deserve to think of his bloated corpse sinking into a toilet, or whatever. As a little treat.

I'm totally going to celebrate when HE dies. AND I will feel no shame at all. That demon has to leave the decrepit meat suit eventually.

Today's frog is the Maluti river frog.

🚨: NASA just dropped a full disk image of Earth taken by Artemis II 🤯

im so mad that NASA has never come to me saying they need me to go to space to save the world. Maybe theres no need for a personal injury lawyer in space. But you wont know until they try.

Listening to Birthright Citizen case. Chucking at CJ Roberts saying, "It's like Roman law you're going to."

He shoulda used AI. /s

DUAL NATIONALITY AND ELECTION RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR. (1921)

Just so everyone knows, the Solicitor General straight up lied about the 1921 law review article he kept talking about. quick thread:

Wang now talking about comments senators made during the debates which strongly made clear that they were fully agreeing to adopt birthright citizenship.

She brings in the Know-Nothing party, talking about how they were vehemently opposed to Irish immigration, but even they agreed on birthright.

Kavanaugh gets to the very obvious question: the text that the SG keeps relying on in the Civil Rights Act before 14A ("not subject to any foreign powers") is completely different than the text of the 14th Amendment adopted a year later ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), doesn't that matter?

Sotomayor now jumps in and is reading directly from Wong Kim Ark, specifically language which appears to completely reject the SG's argument that the key question is "allegiance." She also hits him on the specific historic comments of the drafters making clear that birthright means birthright.

Very first question is from Justice Thomas, who asks the SG to start with Dred Scott and to explain whether their argument would create different definitions of citizenship for the United States and for state citizenship.

MR. ABRAMS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: And the phrase "particularly disfavored, " which is in quotes in your brief, "attributed to Planned Parenthood, " does not appear anywhere in Planned Parenthood. There is also in your briefs Planned Parenthood cited for the proposition that under the mandatory -- heightened mandatory injunction standard, plaintiffs must show not just a fair chance of success, but a substantial likelihood or a heavy and compelling weight of evidence. I don't view Planned Parenthood as standing at all for that proposition. And then you also cite for the mandatory injunction standard the case of Packard Elevator, which does not discuss mandatory injunctions at all. You also cite Nken v. Holder, 556 U.s. 418, for the proposition that when a mandatory injunction interferes with the government's core functions, the balance of equities weighs more heavily against the movant. That's your quote. Nken does not discuss mandatory injunctions or core government functions. In addition, you cite the case of 22nd Avenue Station for the proposition that the requested relief would force ICE to overhaul the operational and security protocols

of Whipple, and the public interest in efficient and secure law enforcement outweighs plaintiffs' speculative claims of harm. The 22nd Avenue Station case concerns the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance restricting adult entertainment. It does not concern operational and security protocols of a government facility, nor the public interest. I'm not sure how we got here. I expect better of the United States Government. I expect better of the Department of Justice. I am quite surprised that you are not ready to address this today and that neither of you seemed to know what I was talking about yesterday when it was fully set out for you in the reply brief. I do want an explanation. I expect an explanation, and I expect it to come from someone who is senior to both of you in the Department of Justice. We're going to take a 15-minute recess and then see where we are. THE CLERK: All rise. (Recess taken at 1:45 p.m. till 2:19 p.m.)

“I'm not sure how we got here. I expect better of the United States Government. I expect better of the Department of Justice.” rip the presumption of regularity for doj, 1870-2025

THE COURT: I wanted to clear one thing up, and I just, in the event that you need to run this issue down, I wanted to raise it with you at the beginning of the day, and you don't need to answer now. But I am troubled by pages 11 and 12 of your brief, as well as footnote 4 and the citations contained therein. The propositions that you cite as noted by the plaintiffs don't follow from those cases. There are quotes in there that are, at least one actual quote, that doesn't appear in the case. RENEE A. ROGGE, RMR-CRR (612) 664-5107 24 And so I'm not sure who wrote it, but my question is how that happened and whether AI was involved and what your response to the reply is on that issue. You certainly can wait, but in the event you needed to run it down, I wanted to raise it at the beginning. run that down. MS. PARASCANDOLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I can't respond at this time, but we do plan to THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Thank you both.

court started at 9:10, this is right after opening statements. and the court just drops this bomb.

some personal news

#NoKings #Houston

Good job, NYPD.

Feels

Duh. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming.

* US MAKING PREPARATIONS FOR POTENTIAL GROUND TROOPS IN IRAN: CBS

@bloomberg.com