Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

LightNews

2 of 6

@twoofsix.bsky.social

360 followers 200 following 2.4K posts

Resistance is not futile. “Hold on to the truth and hope.”

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1h

Simple answer. There was WWII, where the U.S. helped save Holland from Nazis. Then, the Marshall Plan, where the U.S. rebuilt Europe. The Cold War followed, where the U.S. defended the Dutch, and others, from the Soviets. So, there are U.S. bases abroad because we’ve protected you for generations.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1h

Ditto. I’m not going back to the Zuckerverse.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 2h

a man in a helmet with the words " this is the way " behind him

ALT: a man in a helmet with the words " this is the way " behind him

media.tenor.com

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 13h

You’re half right/wrong. The House would have to vote to authorize a Member, other than the Speaker, to administer the oath. Judges, however, are already authorized to administer oaths, so a judge wouldn’t need a special vote.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 16h

The law allows a judge to swear Grijalva in. It does not have to be MAGA Mike. I do not understand why the Dems are waiting.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 16h

Nothing says “America First” like inviting occupation by a foreign military.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 16h

A foreign country is going to have a military base on U.S. soil. Did we lose a war while I wasn’t looking?

Mrs. Betty Bowers @mrsbettybowers.bsky.social · 19h

We've all heard that there is no free lunch.

Well, guess what?

There is no free 747 either.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 22h

Nope, you troll. You’re arguing with an attorney. I’ve actually read the Constitution and understand law. You don’t know shit. GFY.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 22h

That’s a weird way to say you’ve never read the Constitution and don’t understand the law. Sad.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

Forewarned is foreskinned.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

💯 They’re not cowardly bending the knee; they’re doing it with enthusiasm.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

💯 The absolutely gutless and out-of-touch President Bonespurs telling our brave soldiers what to do. Shameful.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

I bet this new circumcision/Tylenol link is just the tip of the problem.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

Most corporate boards are just puppets for management. It’s the source of many of our problems.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

What is your legal authority for these positions? They seem contradictory to the plain language of 5 USC 2903(c), which would allow anyone who is authorized to administer oaths (e.g., a judge) to swear Grijalva in?

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

Of course, they have undone Roe … and Chevron … and the Department of Education … and USAID … and rules against race-based stops by police … and independent federal agencies … and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act …and they’re working on Birthright Citizenship and Obergefell … but not everything!

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

Did Grijalva explain why she thinks that MAGA Mike could swear her in before certification, but a judge could not? Is there some practical concern, because the administration of the oath would have the same effect as a matter of law.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

It absolutely CAN be done. Under 5 U.S.C. 2903(c), anyone “authorized by local law to administer oaths” in a jurisdiction can administer “[a]n oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States.” That means a judge CAN administer the Congressional oath. This “opeski” guy is a troll.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

Nope. I’m an attorney who can read the plain language of the Constitution and U.S. Code. I can also read the comments you’ve left on other posts, and you’re nothing but a troll. GFY.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 1d

There’s a saying, “Sometimes it’s better to ask forgiveness, than permission.” Dems analyze while MAGA acts. The result is a MAGA steamroll. Grijalva is just one example. I’m not sure Republicans are the ones who need to grow a spine.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 2d

Ah … here is where we differ. Grijalva’s service in Congress is not the request for a privilege; it is the exercise of a Constitutional right. She was duly elected to serve her district during the ongoing Congressional term. She doesn’t have to wait for a new term to begin. She starts now.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 2d

Yes and no. You can call his bluff and force him (1) to accept the oath by the judge, (2) to swear Grijalva himself, or (3) to be a petty, nasty, imbecile. If he does (1) or (2), it’s a clear “win.” If he does (3), Grijalva is no worse off than now, and the optics are good for Dems.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 2d

This election wasn’t close, Mike already congratulated her on the win, and he said he would swear her in whenever. Dems can finally stop playing defense and call their bluff by swearing Grijalva in. Make them argue that someone who won in a landslide shouldn’t be seated on the weakest technicality.

2 of 6 @twoofsix.bsky.social · 2d

Why does Grijalva have to sue, rather than simply taking the Constitutionally-required oath to assume her elected position? Let MAGA sue to block her. Place the onus on them. What is their argument for refusing to allow her to assume her position?