Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Brian

@gogosox.com

Sometimes a write out a whole message, admire it, and then I delete because I’m giving out the top tier stuff for free.

December 27, 2025 at 4:28 PM

Reposted by Brian

Jimmy Lonetti

@djgloverepair.bsky.social

Wilson A2200, endorsed by Jimmy Piersall

December 27, 2025 at 4:19 PM

Reposted by Brian

Irish Literary Times

@irishlittimes.bsky.social

December 25, 2025 at 10:27 AM

Reposted by Brian

@played41

@played41.bsky.social

Simply Wishing You a Wonderful Christmas Time

December 25, 2025 at 12:27 PM

Brian

@gogosox.com

“Now take your ketchup eatin’ ass and get the fuck out of Chicago.”

December 23, 2025 at 10:13 PM

Reposted by Brian

The People's Fabric

@peoplesfabric.com

Henceforth this shall be known as the Shut the Fuck Up About Chicago decision.

@harebrained.bsky.social

Jon Seidel @jonseidel.bsky.social · 3d

#BREAKING The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the State of Illinois on National Guard deployment.

Under the law invoked by President Trump, he must be unable "with the regular military" to "execute the laws of the United States," it finds.

Full ruling here: cst.brightspotcdn.com/80/88/05a75e...

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 25A443 _________________
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 23, 2025]
Federal immigration-enforcement efforts have encoun- tered significant resistance, as well as some violence, in Chicago. According to the Government, federal officers have been obstructed, threatened, and assaulted as they at- tempt to perform their duties. The Government also alleges that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, has been the site of frequent and sometimes violent protests, damaging federal property and threatening the safety of federal officers. These at- tacks, the Government says, have greatly impeded its ef- forts to enforce the immigration laws.
On October 4, 2025, the President called 300 members of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois, particu- larly in and around Chicago. The following day, members of the Texas National Guard were also federalized and sent to Chicago. In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U. S. C. §12406(3), which empowers him to federalize members of the Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois entered a temporary restraining order bar- ring the federalization and deployment of the Guard in Illi- nois. The Seventh Circuit denied in relevant part the Government’s motion for a stay, permitting the Guard to

remain federalized within Illinois but maintaining the bar on deployment.
The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court’s order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties’ initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term “regular forces” in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Govern- ment argues that the term refers to civilian law enforce- ment officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service. Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary.
We conclude that the term “regular forces” in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili- tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States.” Because the statute requires an assess- ment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from “execut[ing] the laws” “except in cases and under circumstances ex- pressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” 18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the reg- ular military and must be “unable” with those forces to per- form that function.
At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not in- voked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse

Comitatus Act. Instead, he relies on inherent constitu- tional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property. But the Government also claims—consistent with the longstanding view of the Executive Branch—that performing such protective functions does not constitute “execut[ing] the laws” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act. See Supp. Letter Reply Brief for Applicants 8; 1 Supp. Op. OLC 343, n. 1 (1971) (collecting sources). If that is correct, it is hard to see how performing those func- tions could constitute “execut[ing] the laws” under §12406(3). See Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. 566, 574 (2019) (“This Court does not lightly assume that Congress silently attaches different meanings to the same term in the same or related statutes”). Thus, at least in this posture, the Government has not carried its burden to show that §12406(3) permits the President to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect fed- eral personnel and property in Illinois. We need not and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the Pres- ident under §12406(3) or any other statute.
The application for stay is denied.

December 23, 2025 at 8:49 PM

Brian

@gogosox.com

Can’t wait to send parts of the Epstein files back to MAGA relatives wishing me a Merry Christmas.

December 23, 2025 at 9:13 PM

Reposted by Brian

Mark Harris

@markharris.bsky.social

Some of the best (I think) material in Five Came Back is there because a librarian saw what I was working on over 3 days and asked me if I'd like to take a look at a box of old George Stevens papers that had not been catalogued yet. So no, for a ton of reasons, AI cannot "do the research for you."

December 22, 2025 at 1:42 AM

Reposted by Brian

MeidasTouch

@meidastouch.com

🚨 The DOJ appears to have redacted Donald Trump’s name from the allegations made in this exhibit in the Epstein files.

Trump’s name was in the original release. Now, it’s blacked out.

See for yourself.

December 21, 2025 at 4:56 AM

Brian

@gogosox.com

Interestingly enough, the most of the links to the files of the missing 16 pdf now go to a dead link. But when you type in the address for www.justice.gov/epstein/file... the file is still there. They can’t even cover up good.

December 21, 2025 at 4:49 AM

Reposted by Brian

John W. Miller

@jmjournalist.bsky.social

“The Last Manager” wins Casey Award as best baseball book of 2025. Awarded annually by Spitball, America’s best literary baseball magazine. I loved getting the call: “John, this is Mike Shannon, editor of Spitball Magazine…”

December 20, 2025 at 8:50 PM

Reposted by Brian

Marc Elias

@marcelias.bsky.social

🚨BREAKING: The Department of Justice (DOJ) appears to have pulled a photo containing images of President Donald Trump from the thousands of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein it released Friday. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...