CupidS Escorts

update - Fed'l judge rules Alina Habba is illegal and voids all her official actions

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113


You know how the administration found a guy willing to tell them what they wanted to hear about Kilmar Abrego García? The "star witness" is a three time convicted felon named Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes. The administration is going to release him from prison and has agreed not to deport him for at least a year in exchange for this testimony. Hernandez Reyes has previously been deported five times! He was first picked up in 2015. Hernandez Reyes has been arrested or in prison every year since. Once, he was caught firing a gun out of his pickup truck and sentenced to two years in prison. Note that Abrego García has no criminal record. But this stupid administration is so desperate to nail him that they're going to let loose an actual criminal to try to do so. These people are sick. They have no principles at all, no sense that being in control of the federal government means they have some responsibility to behave ethically. Trump said Abrego García is a criminal, so they have to move heaven and earth to "prove" it, whatever the cost. This isn't a policy disagreement. These are bad people who genuinely don't care about the country, and simply want to indulge in sadism while gratifying the ego of one man.


Image


Image
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
I don't think that the rightie majority is as ludicrous as some commentators suggest - aside from Thomas and Alito of course. There's an argument that in a legal system which appears to weight religious belief very heavily, opt-outs are legitimate.
The majority makes up facts to justify its decision.
This isn't about finding reasonable accommodation to religious belief.

Besides, do you honestly think this is going to apply when muslims and satanists start using it?

The rule is now every parent can object to every bit of the curriculum that even implies something they don't like.

That's not a good rule.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
Reportage on both sides is inaccurate and hysterical.
That's just the modern media environment, you are going to find nonsense all over.

Doesn't change how fucked up the decision is, though.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
The majority makes up facts to justify its decision.
This isn't about finding reasonable accommodation to religious belief.

Besides, do you honestly think this is going to apply when muslims and satanists start using it?

The rule is now every parent can object to every bit of the curriculum that even implies something they don't like.

That's not a good rule.
The comments have already been made about flat-earthers and other odd belief systems. IDK how the system is going to handle those lawsuits without being blatantly inconsistent.

OTOH, there have been recent decisions kicking the 10 Commandments out of LA classrooms. So there's no full court press to make the school system openly Christian fundamentalist. Yet.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
They could. But those threads appear and die with only a couple of hundred views. This big thread appears to have gained almost 150k views in under 4 months though. Which is absolutely insane for a politics thread.
Is anyone reading it though?
You keep changing the title, I expect most of those views are people just clicking through and then off.
No one seems to be engaging with it other than me, because it is nice to have a bunch of things aggregated in one place.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
The comments have already been made about flat-earthers and other odd belief systems. IDK how the system is going to handle those lawsuits without being blatantly inconsistent.
Why would it want to not be blatantly inconsistent?
That's largely the point.

OTOH, there have been recent decisions kicking the 10 Commandments out of LA classrooms. So there's no full court press to make the school system openly Christian fundamentalist. Yet.
Nope.
This is death by a thousand cuts kind of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
Why would they mention it?
They seem to be actively soliciting criminals to testify against immigrants in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences.
Just that silly, little old-fashioned thing called professional legal ethics.

Not really a strong suit in Trump's DoJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
Is anyone reading it though?
You keep changing the title, I expect most of those views are people just clicking through and then off.
No one seems to be engaging with it other than me, because it is nice to have a bunch of things aggregated in one place.
IDK.

The view count is astronomical. This thread probably accounts for 80% of all the views of all politics forum threads over the last year. How that is happening, IDK. And the thread is less than 5 months old.

I assume that I am providing bite-sized chunks of legal news for anyone who cares to glance at them and people are sick of the usual Notty vs Vinny vs Frankie vs Earp arguments and don't want to read those threads.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
Trump administration wants to fine those illegally in the US $1,000 per day until they leave
The Trump administration aims to accelerate its ability to fine individuals in the U.S. illegally, according to a rule published Friday in the Federal Register.
Currently, the government notify individuals in the U.S. who are undocumented 30 days before issuing fines.
The rule proposed by Attorney Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice and Secretary Kristi Noem’s Department of Homeland Security allows the government to begin fining individuals in the U.S. illegally immediately, up to $1,000 per day.


“DHS believes that the nature of the failure-to-depart and unlawful entry penalties supports the need for more streamlined procedures,” the proposed rule says.
The new process will apply to individuals who enter the U.S. illegally, fail to comply with final orders of removal, or do not comply with a judge's voluntary departure order while in the U.S.
Fines will range from $100 to $500 for each illegal entry into the U.S., up to nearly $10,000 for failing to voluntarily deport after a judge orders it, and up to $1,000 per day for those who do not comply with a removal order.
President Donald Trump introduced fines for migrants illegally in the U.S. during his first term. The program was halted during the Biden administration and then resumed when Trump returned to the White House in January.
“The law doesn't enforce itself; there must be consequences for breaking it,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday.

“President Trump and Secretary Noem are standing up for law and order and making our government more effective and efficient at enforcing the American people's immigration laws. Financial penalties like these are just one more reason why illegal aliens should use CBP Home to self-deport now before it's too late.”
Expand article logo


Those who use the Customs and Border Protection's CBP Home app to self-deport will have any fines imposed on them waived, according to the DHS. As of June 13, the DHS has issued 10,000 fine notices, according to ABC News.

Meanwhile, the Senate parliamentarian has advised against a proposed $1,000 fee on immigrants seeking asylum.

The chamber’s nonpartisan arbiter of Senate rules also stated that other proposed fees on immigrants in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” would not comply with procedures and would be subject to a higher 60-vote threshold for inclusion.



Republicans are relying on the fees and cuts to food stamps and health care to help cover the costs of extending Trump’s tax cuts bill, which also includes increased funding for his mass deportation agenda.

The spending bill overhauls the system of immigration costs, with dramatic increases and new fees imposed for once-free services.

Applying for asylum, which has long been free, will now cost $1,000, with asylum seekers paying an additional $550 for employment applications.

Among other fee increases, appealing an immigration judge's decision jumps from $110 to $900, and applying for temporary protected status, which allows people from certain countries facing civil unrest or natural disasters to stay temporarily in the U.S., goes from $50 to $500.

For wealthier immigrants, the new fees will be an inconvenience. However, for the vast majority of people, even a few hundred dollars could be enough to alter their plans.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
IDK.

The view count is astronomical. This thread probably accounts for 80% of all the views of all politics forum threads over the last year. How that is happening, IDK. And the thread is less than 5 months old.

I assume that I am providing bite-sized chunks of legal news for anyone who cares to glance at them and people are sick of the usual Notty vs Vinny vs Frankie vs Earp arguments and don't want to read those threads.
Maybe.

I am using it to glance at news to see if there is something I missed elsewhere.

I think it is wildly optimistic to think people are reading it, though.
(This crowd isn't a "read things seriously" crowd.)
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
Maybe.

I am using it to glance at news to see if there is something I missed elsewhere.

I think it is wildly optimistic to think people are reading it, though.
(This crowd isn't a "read things seriously" crowd.)
I don't know where the views are coming from. The thread has 147k views in under 5 months and the rate of views per day is actually increasing.. The thread has 2 - 3k views a day. That's nuts for a TERB thread. It will overtake most of the photo threads within a few days and the major spa review compilations with a month or so. And those threads have been around for years.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
36,721
73,381
113
I don't know where the views are coming from. The thread has 147k views in under 5 months and the rate of views per day is actually increasing.. The thread has 2 - 3k views a day. That's nuts for a TERB thread. It will overtake most of the photo threads within a few days and the major spa review compilations with a month or so. And those threads have been around for years.
That makes no sense, actually.
Could the outside links somehow be recorded as views?

Those numbers just seem wildly out of line with the traffic TERB actually gets.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
That makes no sense, actually.
Could the outside links somehow be recorded as views?

Those numbers just seem wildly out of line with the traffic TERB actually gets.
I know. And outside links do not count as views. A lot of the time I just post screenshots and do not post links.

I don't have an explanation. I have never seen this happen with a thread before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,103
116,946
113
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.

The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001.



But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.


FILE - The Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill, Feb. 27, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)© The Associated Press
Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say.


Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles law school, has predicted the court will strike down the limits. “That may even make sense now in light of the prevalence of super PAC spending that has undermined political parties and done nothing to limit (and in fact increased) corruption and inequality,” Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog.



President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters as he meets with Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)© The Associated Press
The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. But the Trump administration notified the court that “this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach” because it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment.



The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, who's now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.

In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.

The court also agreed to referee a fight between internet service provider Cox Communications and record labels over illegal music downloads by Cox customers.

The justices will review a lower-court ruling in a lawsuit led by Sony Music Entertainment that Cox has to cut off customers who downloaded music they didn’t pay for or face liability for any future acts of digital piracy.


Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts