jannessica.bsky.social
LightNews LightNews
jannessica.bsky.social
@jannessica.bsky.social
570 followers 650 following 420 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by jannessica.bsky.social
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Nathan has a very good point, and I do want to emphasize when I post the data, that many of these people have nothing more serious than a minor traffic violation or low level misdemeanor; in other words, not the kind of “criminals” that the Trump administration wants you to think they are.
n-th-n.bsky.social n_th_n @n-th-n.bsky.social · 4h
The problem is "criminal" is a flexible concept that sometimes means (politically) "out of status," or sometimes things like (per Trump's eliminationist rhetoric) "Black Muslim immigrant." Plus, MAGA likes criminals if they're the right kind. Accepting this framework as the right metric is losing.
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 5h
Yesterday, the Deportation Data Project posted new FOIA data on ICE arrests through October 15 and it’s staggering how much it instantly disproves every claim the Trump admin has made about targeting “criminals” during its splashy arrest operations.

Here’s arrests in Illinois since April.
December 4, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Reposted by jannessica.bsky.social
jaywillis.net
I’m not kidding, this is the entire editorial. It’s six paragraphs of college Republicans talking points. It’s not just that the writer doesn’t engage in legal analysis, it’s that they’re too stupid to know that that’s something they should do in a post like this. Embarrassing! Tell me who wrote it!
Presidents too often try to advance their agendas unilaterally. Yet when it comes to funding abortion, Republicans went about it the right way: The One Big Beautiful Bill, which President Donald Trump signed in July, restricted the payment of Medicaid funds to certain abortion providers for one year. The best of The Post's opinions and commentary, in your inbox every morning What message does it send that even this legitimate, politically accountable decision has been blocked for a second time on flimsy legal grounds? Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, a nominee of President Barack Obama, tried to block the provision from going into effect in July after Planned Parenthood filed suit. Her ruling was unanimously put on hold by a three-judge appellate panel in September. Now Talwani has struck again, ordering the same result in a suit brought by states with Democratic governors. It should go without saying that Congress has the power of the purse and can steer Medicaid funds in accordance with its political priorities. But Talwani is trying to impose elaborate legal restrictions on Congress's ability to change its Medicaid policy. Talwani writes that states will be harmed by the change because "reduced contraceptive care, less frequent screenings for sexually transmitted infections, and delayed treatment for certain cancers" will burden them. Perhaps, but if the policy is harmful, residents of affected states can elect senators to reverse it. Judicial policymaking distorts the political process. The opinion also says Congress was too vague about which health care providers are covered by the new Medicaid rules. But administering a welfare state always involves interpreting rules, not all of which are black and white. If there's a dispute about whether a particular provider was covered by the law, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. It's not a reason to overturn Congress's nationwide policy. The federal courts are an important check on overreach by the elected branches of government. But courts can also overreach and undermine their own legitimacy. Appellate judges would be doing the judiciary a favor by promptly reversing Talwani, again.
December 4, 2025 at 4:10 AM
'“While you may have a right to use lethal force, that doesn’t mean that lethal force can be used in a reckless manner,” Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill told reporters Wednesday'....uhhh what?
December 4, 2025 at 3:21 AM