#us courts

[short-wooloo]

Every time you hear about a judge blocking one of 49% eo's you better look up which judge it was, because odds are it was one of the TWO-HUNDRED THIRTY PLUS judges Joe Biden appointed as president and were confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate (with tie breaking votes from Kamala Harris) of 2021-2025

Yall fucking owe them

[repetition-in-poetry]

stop posting luigi mangione to criminal by britney spears.

stop posting luigi mangione with heart eyes and kissy faces.

besides the fact that sexualizing a man you have never met because of his newfound celebrity is disgusting, you are not benefiting him by making him america’s new sexyman.

luigi mangione is on trial for a murder he did not commit and will likely be charged and punished much more harshly than is truly just.

luigi mangione is an INNOCENT MAN whose trial is being conducted as simultaneously a public spectacle and a megacorp coverup. he is being made an example of. what the government wants to do with luigi mangione is make a gibbet out of him, and in the process impose a sense of helplessness on the working class.

making goo goo eyes at someone who is barely older than 20 and who is currently fighting for his LIFE (because yes, they will sentence him to death if they can) in the new york courts discredits his humanity and posturing him as someone like katniss everdeen or luke skywalker makes it easier for them to indict and convict him for something he did not do.

luigi mangione is INNOCENT and he deserves the decency of the court to stand on its precedent to conduct his trial fairly and without bias.

innocent until proven guilty. free luigi mangione.

[corporationsarepeople]

“He has attacked the judicial system, our system of justice and the rule of law his entire life,” said J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appellate judge and one of the founders of the recently formed Society for the Rule of Law. “And this to him,” Luttig told me, “is the grand finale.”

The 2024 presidential election, in the estimation of Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel during the investigation of President Bill Clinton and an assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Homeland Security in the administration of George W. Bush, isn’t a referendum on Joe Biden. It isn’t even a referendum, he said, on Donald Trump. “This election,” he told me, “is a referendum on the rule of law.”

More unnerving, though, than even that is an idea that has coursed through my conversations over these past several months: That referendum might already be over. Democracy’s on the ballot, many have taken to saying — Biden just said it last week — but democracy, and democratic institutions, as political scientist Brian Klaas put it to me, “can’t function properly if only part of the country believes in them.” And it’s possible that some critical portion of the population does not, or will not, no matter what happens between now and next November, believe in the verdicts or other outcomes rendered by those institutions. What if Trump is convicted? What if he’s not? What if he’s not convicted and then gets elected? What if he is and wins anyway? More disquieting than what might be on the ballot, it turns out, is actually what might not.

“Our democracy rests on a foundation of trust — trust in elections, trust in institutions,” Bassin said. “And you know what scares me the most about Trump? It’s not the sledgehammer he’s taken to the structure of our national house,” he told me. “It’s the termites he’s unleashed into the foundation.”

[obsessore]

NEPA just got fucked 😭😭😭

us court rulings are ruining everything 😭

[uboat53]

Sigh

Another day, another time we find out that courts are using psuedoscience to adjudicate vitally important disputes.

I feel like a science literacy class should be a requirement for becoming a judge.

[djungleskogs]

it’s crazy how absolutely blatantly luigi’s constitutional rights are being breached and people seem more concerned about his appearance than a real, scary view of the power CEOs and the healthcare industry have over the legal system. like yeah he looks good in those photos i can appreciate that too but can we focus on the fact that the media is absolutely treating him as if he has already been found guilty. this could happen to anyone. anyone could be arrested over the death of a wealthy, influential person and the precedent being set right now is essentially that the prosecution can run wild and create documentaries declaring your guilt. like that’s really serious and scary.

[reesiereads]

I need ya’ll to realize running back to TikTok like nothing fucking happened is exactly what this motherfucker wants. He wants you to run back and to be grateful. He wants you to forget that the Supreme Court has just passed something that indicates they can pursue intense censorship and remove our access to free speech and non-propagandized/monitored spaces whenever they want. He wants you to be so focused on all this that you completely forget that he’s about to pass at least a hundred horrific policies stripping us of our rights as soon as this week. He wants you to stop talking about Palestine who is still in danger and is in desperate need of aid despite the ceasefire. He wants you to turn your attention away from all the people in LA suffering thanks to the fires.

I don’t want to say it’s just an app, because it’s not. I was incredibly sad about losing TikTok yesterday. Many of us had a community that meant a great deal to us torn away suddenly and I am not saying we shouldn’t be upset about that. But I am saying that as much as the Supreme Court has more important things they should be focusing on over banning TikTok we have more important things to do then run back to an app that was obviously used for a publicity stunt by Trump and will inevitably be influenced by him and his fascism.

We’ve been discussing boycotting Instagram, Facebook, Twitter/X, and other Meta platforms due to their connections to Trump and his posse of billionaires. TikTok must be treated the same way so long as the CEO and company is in Trump’s pocket.

[the-psudo]

Trump got absolutely dumpstered in court in the last few days.

His and Elon's program to pay people to retire early has been halted by a temporary restraining order issued by District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of the US District Court, District of Massachusetts in American Federation of Government Employees et al v. Charles Ezell (acting Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management). This temporary order only lasts until they have a hearing on Monday to determine whether this program is constitutional.

13 state attorneys general sued to prevent Elon from accessing personal data about government employees and citizen clients of their agencies, leading to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the case Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent (Trump's Secretary of the Treasury) ordering the Department of Justice to ensure no unauthorized persons, including Elon and his team, have access to the Labor Department's database of information on tax filings, employment, and the like.

Two separate judges have ruled that Trump's executive order trying to eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of the western Washington district, a REAGAN appointee (!), said, "It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain." The other judge, US District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland, ruled that the executive order cannot be implemented until she has had a chance to rule on the merits of the case.

US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in DC paused Trump’s restrictions on transgender women being incarcerated in women’s prisons and federal prisons providing gender-affirming medical treatment, after inmates (!) sued to block the policy.

US District Judge Loren L. Alikhan of DC broadly blocked the Trump administration’s memo halting almost all federal assistance.

That's six rulings scrapping five of Trump's major policy operations in the past four days (Feb 3rd through the 6th, 2025).

That's news worth celebrating!

[apple-pie-42]

NBC News: Daniel Penny found not guilty in chokehold death of Jordan Neely

[oxytocinatrocities]

A comic I drew about leaving the Mormon church.

Can also apply to other things. Ex. constitutional originalism in the US

[doesephs]

put neil josten in solitary refinement that man needs to learn some manners

[nando161mando]

[enjymemink]

Thank you Yemen 🇾🇪

Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, they showed more empathy than those so-called civilized developed countries.

[agentfascinateur]

The case in California vs Biden & Blinken

Taking a page from Trump & January 6th:

Dereliction of duty is recognized as a crime in some state laws, such as an Ohio statute governing law enforcement personnel, but no general federal law makes it a crime. There is, however, a robust body of dereliction of duty law in the armed forces. Since the president is commander in chief, there is some justice in invoking the concept, even though Trump was never subject to military law, either before or during his time in office. The Manual for Courts-Martial sets forth the elements of the offense of “dereliction in the performance of duties.” The first three apply across the board: (a) that the accused had certain duties; (b) that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (c) that the accused, willfully or through neglect or culpable inefficiency, failed to perform those duties. A fourth element applies where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm: (d) that such dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm to a person other than the accused. The manual elaborates: A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse. The manual also provides that “where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm, the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not required.” Dereliction can be a serious offense in the armed forces. The maximum punishment turns on whether the conduct was willful, negligent, or the result of culpable inefficiency. Importantly, for willful dereliction that results in death or grievous bodily harm, confinement for up to two years is authorized. Had Trump been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there would be no question that his actions and failures to act on Jan. 6th rose to the level of willful dereliction. And there were fatalities and grievous bodily injuries at the Capitol that day. Setting aside technical definitions of dereliction of duty, even its broader, colloquial sense—someone’s failure to perform an action it was his responsibility to perform—is now no longer the main point. It could have formed the basis for an impeachment, but Trump is no longer subject to impeachment. Indeed, he escaped his last impeachment, coming as it did so close to the end of his term, in part because some thought his misconduct could be adjudicated in criminal and civil proceedings. (“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,” Mitch McConnell said. “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation.”) Even so, reference to dereliction of duty in connection with Jan. 6th is quite understandable. It contributes to our understanding of just how grave a betrayal Donald Trump’s behavior represented. It may go to his intent, and it would certainly be taken into account on sentencing in the event he is criminally charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol. Particularly as the Jan. 6th Committee trains its sights this week on his conduct during that assault, it is worth keeping in mind, if only for contextual reasons as the Department of Justice, state prosecutors in Georgia and perhaps elsewhere, and Americans generally, make the critical decision whether he should face criminal charges.

(Source: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trumps-inexcusable-jan-6th-dereliction-of-duty )