make a bond movie casual

goldfingernail

In other words they’re planning to do yet another warrantless search of all his devices. Because what else could take a whole week?

How to defeat originalism in court: have 5 votes. Arguments don’t matter, they’re just making shit up to produce the result they want.

We're going to have to deport all the white people since they are clearly a terrorist threat. I'm thinking Uganda.

May the odds be ever in your favor.

Except you can’t abide its definition of abiogenesis. Not abit.

(Let me know if “abit” is a word—you’re almost there.)

Problem is that the government is slyly whisking people into remote detention centers away from legal representation so they don’t get a chance to assert their rights. The constitution doesn’t help them since they can’t invoke it. This court ruling can’t help them.

Brought to you by the corrupt SCOTUS majority and their sly ban on nationwide injunctions.

Unfortunately the government will be able to ignore this interpretation, both outside and inside the 7th circuit, in all the cases where they whisk an immigrant to a remote detention center and deport them without legal representation and without a day in court. Which they are doing to thousands.

In fact it should have a name that better reflects its insidious usage under this insidious majority. Their unexplained stays facilitate horrors without them having to come up with even the lamest and most obviously contrived legal theory, and position them to reverse when a Democrat is President.

Hmm, but how many immigrants in that situation never manage to get legal representation, much less challenge detention? Reality is a 3YO child “representing herself” in her hearing. Stop lying.

Would you also provide a tea-leaf-reading of what the stays mean?

For example: “By its stay in Fulano de Tal v. Trump3.0, the Supreme Court has repealed the 1st and 4th Amendments.”

Telling the truth is cheap these days. Being a professional liar is where the big bucks are. I mean this literally.

The foreman seems obviously to be saying that the new “package”, the one with counts 2 and 3, is what they “agreed on”. Not sure how one can interpret that statement that I quoted any differently than that they voted on it. Which is not to say it is necessarily the truth.

But regardless of which version is correct (if either), one of them has to be wrong.

Foreperson to the court: "the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on".

Who is the "we" the foreperson is referring to? Seems like that would have to be the Grand Jury, no? Meaning that they did vote on it, according to the (possibly confused) foreperson.

Link to Halligan's 11/20 Notice:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Link to Halligan's 11/14 Declaration:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...