"Being on SCOTUS doesn't mean you need a history degree" then maybe the "originalists" on the Court should stop speaking so authoritatively on it then?

Literally breaks every single day now

Yeah I can't even log in now

Whatever money they're paying you it isn't nearly enough that's all I'll say

Gosh. If only there were a Supreme Court case that looked at whether or not "well regulated" meant anything and SCOTUS said "nah, can't do shit."

#Huntlow ‘s your pool scene

#TOH

I mean her first act of relative prominence was when she tried to get Palestinian professors fired at Columbia. She's always been an apparatchik and nothing more. A useful idiot constantly failing upwards by being the whiniest person in a room

Gisler won

What we might refer to as a "Kavanaugh Stop"

It is and I just wanna say it's a lot funnier if you think this is actually him tweeting that shit and not whatever poor intern at a consulting firm he hired with the last of his funds

Also look at AMR and Dionne Foster!!!

His concurrence in Herrera v.Collins was one of the most evil things I have ever read in a judicial opinion. The idea that it is a “laughable question” to him whether the State can execute an actually innocent person (because to him, it’s SO OBVIOUS the answer is yes).

Ooh fancy

I have to repeat what others are saying but your line art is impeccable. You also really capture emotion well which is such an invaluable skill and it shows how amazingly talented you are

🏳️‍🌈 Pride or die 🏳️‍🌈

Oh hey lol

This is—it bears repeating—ethnic cleansing and a war crime. It feels utterly pointless to say, and roughly equivalent to screaming into the void, but the United States should not be supporting or providing any aid to a state that has ethnic cleansing as a policy position.

very cool that for ten years people at the heights of political commentary insisted to the point of rage that the paramount threat to free speech was “censorious” college students

Here's a picture that a @kuow.org photographer took in Seattle yesterday, showing the ICE officers masked up in the hallways as they waited to arrest people coming out of their hearings.

Finally, respondents Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. See Response of Wilcox in Opposition to App. for Stay 2-3, 27-28; Response of Harris in Opposition to App. for Stay 3, 5-6, 16-17, 36, 40. We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8.

They’re not only overturning precedent on the shadow docket, but ~deciding~ other cases in a non-binding (dicta) way to give cover for these actions.

Today, this unnamed group of conservative justices, not even claiming this is “per curiam,” say that the Federal Reserve is different. Sure.

I don’t mean to be a caricature, but this just isn’t law. The Supreme Court is always making policy. But this is beyond. “This dicta in an emergency order will reassure the markets but just uh trust us on the law here ok no we’re not overruling Humphrey’s yet and when we do we’ll spare the fed.”

Another reason why Seila Law was such a horrendous decision. Kagan had the majority dead to rights in that case as she does here and they didn’t care

hunter expression studies

martyrs wrapped in butcher paper

Kennedy is talking about Mauritius for some reason

Sasha & Grime, the Dread Duo

#Art #Amphibia #SashaWaybright

lost my humanity but gained a friend #theowlhouse

I know I'm just teasing

Silly nerd

#amphibia #BRart #Marcanne

(Extra in reply)