The counts say false (para. 24), false and misleading (para. 27), and false or misleading (para. 28). Could the DoJ reasonably argue those as specifically saying the statements were false? Or would the fact that the only specified statements are under the "false or misleading" paragraph stop that?
lol
I had been considering writing a post pointing that out, and thought it wouldn't be worth it. Oh well.
Probably should also recognize the distinction between Greek and Latin.
Augustus was granted a triumphal arch after the Battle of Actium, so there is some precedent...
Judge even said that the arguments were so bad (and the administration so willing to circumvent procedural rules) that he had to make sure he could enforce his order with contempt.
I found the House Rule that allows it: Rule XI clause 2(j)(1), providing that for any hearing, the minority is entitled to at least one day where they can select and call witnesses. Senate version is XXVI.4(a), and exempts the Committee on Appropriations.
Do you know how often they happen?
I'm pretty sure it's a derogatory reference to kaparot, which for some reason antisemites seem to have decided:
1) is universal among Jews
2) is a way to not take responsibility for sins
3) involves swinging chickens so hard it kills them
Am I misunderstanding something about Alito's claim, yours, or the history? I'm the furthest thing from an expert, so I fully accept that I'm probably missing something obvious.
I feel like I'm missing something - sorry if I'm being dim - but I'm not seeing the falsification. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the 14th Amendment was adopted after the CRA's enactment, but Alito said its re-enactment. The CRA was re-enacted under the Enforcement Act of 1870.
Did you see the NFL verdict overturned a couple of years ago? Judge found the jury must have used an improper calculation.
Check the account's recent replies; several contentless replies per minute for the entire past hour on completely unrelated threads. They're a spambot.
note: I'm currently taking Admin Law and we haven't really gone over change-in-position doctrine yet, so I'm just hoping I haven't misread this badly.
The Court found that the guidance explained why ICE thought arrests in or near immigration courts were fine, so the guidance was not arbitrary and capricious.
Sources:
Final 2025 guidance: www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/...
Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
I don't think that's correct; the 2025 guidance was saying that ICE specifically could engage in the challenged behavior around courthouses generally. As I read it, the challenge was under the APA arbitrary and capricious standard, specifically concerning the "change of position" doctrine.
@glowlaw.org , that's your cue
Yeah, he's hard down the esoteric Nazi rabbit-hole hard. He's just under 100 strips into a retelling of WWII called "Re-imagining Villains" after nearly 200 strips of esoteric pagan antisemitism. He had a very short Christian stint, but now seems to see all of Christianity as a Jewish conspiracy.
At what point do they get to be part of the local population?
What constitutes the local population?
You do know that this site has a search function, right?
I would have a joke about math, but it trivially reduces to the previous jokes.
I should note that that archive is going through...issues where the administrator has changed archive contents related to a dispute they were involved in.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
In case it helps, they also show up on another archive:
archive.is/K0weX
If you want to focus on Israeli population sentiment, I honestly have nothing to contribute, and will happily bow out.
Ok. Until this point, it genuinely was not clear to me that you were backing off of your claim of the war being unprovoked. I genuinely saw your claim that "I'm not arguing with you over what is provoked or unjustified" as rewriting the argument - you had been arguing over exactly that.
In fact, in the post that my above post was directly responding to, you specifically claimed that your "original point" was about why, not whether, Israelis support the war.
bsky.app/profile/axel...
While you were not the first to argue reasoning in this thread - that would be @peacefulcoexistnce.bsky.social - you were the first to bring up provocation.
bsky.app/profile/axel...
Moreover, you specifically argued provocation and justification in at least 6 posts out of at most 20 in this thread.
Choosing to respond to repeated provocation only when responding is advantageous does not render that response unprovoked or unjustified.
You are again conflating justification with strategy.
"The Israelis support this war because" is a claim about justification, not strategy. Helping Iranian citizens is primarily justification, only tangentially strategy. Whether Israel "felt like it" is justification, not strategy.
As for what caused the change in strategy: I don't know, but several factors do suggest themselves. A willing American president, an apparently deeply compromised enemy, a lack of supporting states for that enemy, and potentially advantageous domestic (Israeli) politics for a war all come to mind.
