@nickmue.bsky.social
Follow up emails outgoing here shortly
December 9, 2025 at 3:51 PM
Follow up emails outgoing here shortly
Looked relatively ok. I've seen worse.
December 3, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Looked relatively ok. I've seen worse.
I didn't check. Was just on the Oak Leaf on my way to work. Maybe I'll run by there today.
December 3, 2025 at 12:23 PM
I didn't check. Was just on the Oak Leaf on my way to work. Maybe I'll run by there today.
Yeah, I'll reach out again. I mostly took care of it so we're ok until the next one.
December 1, 2025 at 12:08 AM
Yeah, I'll reach out again. I mostly took care of it so we're ok until the next one.
Reposted
Ellis: "Requiring the government to comply with its obligations under the Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment, is simply not a harm."
November 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Ellis: "Requiring the government to comply with its obligations under the Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment, is simply not a harm."
... A conversation I seem to have regularly...
November 5, 2025 at 3:05 PM
... A conversation I seem to have regularly...
Reposted
I went to buy a dehumidifier recently and the only one that was available seemingly required an Internet connection, how about you make shit dry you fucking asshole
October 2, 2025 at 4:23 AM
I went to buy a dehumidifier recently and the only one that was available seemingly required an Internet connection, how about you make shit dry you fucking asshole
Reposted
"The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
![Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion. The U.S. Reports are chock-full of language explaining the importance of individuals’ right to speak out against the government—even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when doing so is provocative, even when doing so causes inconvenience. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1972) (“To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. … That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.”); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (“But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. … Any word spoken … that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk.”); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 550–51 (rejecting the argument that a conviction for breach of the peace “should be sustained because of fear expressed by some [onlookers] that ‘violence was about to erupt’ because of the demonstration” and explaining “that constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreicef73mhdhdkllvz3c36u6jystthou7yxo5m2hknejk7koc76oefq@jpeg)
June 13, 2025 at 1:08 AM
"The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
Can't wait to ride home around 4 today 😬
May 20, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Can't wait to ride home around 4 today 😬