LightNews LightNews
boygeniusx2.bsky.social
@boygeniusx2.bsky.social
9 followers 43 following 0 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
hp28.bsky.social
Dems when they don't have leverage: "We can't do anything cuz we don't have leverage!"

Dems when they have leverage: "It would be bad if we used our leverage!"
March 14, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Reposted
emmavigeland.bsky.social
What is the difference between someone who does a Sieg Heil with sincerity and someone who does a Sieg Heil as a "troll?" Either you're legitimately a Nazi or you're trying to appeal to Nazis.
January 24, 2025 at 12:26 AM
Reposted
andrewtorrez.bsky.social
MIFEPRISTONE MADNESS
1/ Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, one of the worst villains on the federal bench (NDTx) has done something batshit crazy *even for him* in the mifepristone litigation.

It allows Missouri to intervene & REPLACE the Texas-based plaintiffs...

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Here, Defendants and Intervenor Defendant fail to show that Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint would surely fail a motion to dismiss. The Rule 15(a) standard for leave to amend is “liberal” and a court needs a “substantial reason” to deny leave. S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (Sth Cir. 2003); Marucci Sports, 751 F.3d at 378 (internal quotation omitted). Leave to amend is “by no means automatic.” Halbert v. City of Sherman, 33 F.3d 526, 529 (Sth Cir. 1994). But there is a “bias in favor of granting leave to amend.” Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, 283 F.3d 282, 286 (Sth Cir. 2002). Considering Rule 15(a)’s high standard for denying leave to amend, Defendants’ failure to conclusively demonstrate that venue disputes at this juncture would render amendment fully futile does not provide the Court with a “substantial reason” to deny leave. Unlike in the cases Defendants and Intervenor Defendant cite, venue remains disputed here and should be properly dealt with at a phase where each party may fully argue the issue. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Motion. The Court ORDERS Intervenor Plaintiffs to file the amended complaint and accompanying exhibits found at ECF No. 195-1 to 195-7 as a separately filed amended complaint and exhibits. Defendants and Intervenor Defendant have pending Motions to Dismiss against the original plaintiffs and Intervenor Plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs have since voluntarily dismissed their claims. ECF No. 206. And following this Order, Intervenor Plaintiffs will file an Amended Complaint. As a substantial portion of the pending motions to dismiss focus on original plaintiffs’ complaint and the only remaining complaint in this action will soon be amended, the Court DENIES as MOOT the pending motions to dismiss (ECF No. 196 and ECF No. 199). S
January 16, 2025 at 8:27 PM