@peacethroughtruth.bsky.social
Brutally honest to a fault. Logic above emotion. I challenge all narratives. If I don’t know something, I admit it. Love dogs and nature.
I see trumps rants as noise. The reality is that “due process” has to be more than just a few hours. The laws as written are too ambiguous. And I am happy that scotus is finally putting some common sense limits around time provided to defendants to make their arguments.
May 17, 2025 at 2:43 AM
I see trumps rants as noise. The reality is that “due process” has to be more than just a few hours. The laws as written are too ambiguous. And I am happy that scotus is finally putting some common sense limits around time provided to defendants to make their arguments.
At a minimum, there needs to be some kind of assessment that determines “is this just political bs or do the merits have teeth”.
But yeah, common people shouldn’t have to fight the government for yrs just to get their day in court.
But yeah, common people shouldn’t have to fight the government for yrs just to get their day in court.
May 17, 2025 at 2:40 AM
At a minimum, there needs to be some kind of assessment that determines “is this just political bs or do the merits have teeth”.
But yeah, common people shouldn’t have to fight the government for yrs just to get their day in court.
But yeah, common people shouldn’t have to fight the government for yrs just to get their day in court.
I don’t believe our founders ever would have intended to put on the backs of the citizens to fight against the government actions they felt were unconstitutional. So TRO’s imo are not a bad thing necessarily. But the merits do need to be reviewed quickly to ensure partisan politics don’t hamper.
May 17, 2025 at 2:05 AM
I don’t believe our founders ever would have intended to put on the backs of the citizens to fight against the government actions they felt were unconstitutional. So TRO’s imo are not a bad thing necessarily. But the merits do need to be reviewed quickly to ensure partisan politics don’t hamper.
One opinion of mine I will state at this point is that I agree with Sotomayer. I do think that having the government have to fight with their unlimited resources to argue a case is better than an individual or individuals having to argue for class action certification with limited resources
May 17, 2025 at 2:02 AM
One opinion of mine I will state at this point is that I agree with Sotomayer. I do think that having the government have to fight with their unlimited resources to argue a case is better than an individual or individuals having to argue for class action certification with limited resources
Thus the reason i never became an accountant. Too boring and confusing.
😬
😬
May 17, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Thus the reason i never became an accountant. Too boring and confusing.
😬
😬
Thank you for the update! I am Sri Lanka right now with sporadic connectivity so this was a good update!
I listened to the oral arguments from yesterday, and this seems to look like the SCOTUS is letting it “percolate” In the lower courts since that is what the Trump administration argued for.
🤣
I listened to the oral arguments from yesterday, and this seems to look like the SCOTUS is letting it “percolate” In the lower courts since that is what the Trump administration argued for.
🤣
May 17, 2025 at 1:50 AM
Thank you for the update! I am Sri Lanka right now with sporadic connectivity so this was a good update!
I listened to the oral arguments from yesterday, and this seems to look like the SCOTUS is letting it “percolate” In the lower courts since that is what the Trump administration argued for.
🤣
I listened to the oral arguments from yesterday, and this seems to look like the SCOTUS is letting it “percolate” In the lower courts since that is what the Trump administration argued for.
🤣
No hurry, I am traveling from tomorrow so probably wont be online much for a short time.
May 15, 2025 at 2:00 AM
No hurry, I am traveling from tomorrow so probably wont be online much for a short time.
Yeah, I do see that. And agree with you. Sometimes it is what it is.
May 15, 2025 at 1:59 AM
Yeah, I do see that. And agree with you. Sometimes it is what it is.
Yeah, I imagine it can be quite boring at times. But still, it’s what separates us from the barbarians of the past.
May 15, 2025 at 1:55 AM
Yeah, I imagine it can be quite boring at times. But still, it’s what separates us from the barbarians of the past.
I wouldn’t want to impose. But thank you!
May 15, 2025 at 1:53 AM
I wouldn’t want to impose. But thank you!
Ok, that’s fair. I am going to see if I can find more on how “friend” is defined in this context, just for closure on that line of argument. Maybe my OCD is kicking in. Hate lose ends.
May 15, 2025 at 1:51 AM
Ok, that’s fair. I am going to see if I can find more on how “friend” is defined in this context, just for closure on that line of argument. Maybe my OCD is kicking in. Hate lose ends.
Interesting! Btw, thanks for your insights! I wish more people of knowledge would be as open to share unbiased points of discussion.
May 15, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Interesting! Btw, thanks for your insights! I wish more people of knowledge would be as open to share unbiased points of discussion.
Yeah, that’s what I am thinking now. Like a reciprocity agreements.
May 15, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Yeah, that’s what I am thinking now. Like a reciprocity agreements.
I can understand though how some would feel that say a tourist who “flies into NYc for a weekend” and had a baby, and that baby is granted citizenship, would argue that this is too lax. But I do understand your points that this may just be how our law are written.
May 15, 2025 at 1:43 AM
I can understand though how some would feel that say a tourist who “flies into NYc for a weekend” and had a baby, and that baby is granted citizenship, would argue that this is too lax. But I do understand your points that this may just be how our law are written.
So when you say “seem to mean”, does that mean there is an interpretation opening here for them?
May 15, 2025 at 1:40 AM
So when you say “seem to mean”, does that mean there is an interpretation opening here for them?
I just remember filing for my state sales tax back when I used to travel to the US but then back home before becoming a citizen. I also worked in the US before becoming a citizen and my company recouped my income taxes paid or maybe that was my gov giving me credit?
May 15, 2025 at 1:39 AM
I just remember filing for my state sales tax back when I used to travel to the US but then back home before becoming a citizen. I also worked in the US before becoming a citizen and my company recouped my income taxes paid or maybe that was my gov giving me credit?
And maybe that is why they seem to be pushing the AEA? It’s fascinating to me the use of old common law. Wish I had become a lawyer sometimes. But alas, not very good at memorizing. But i can develop from first principles of math. 😬
May 15, 2025 at 1:36 AM
And maybe that is why they seem to be pushing the AEA? It’s fascinating to me the use of old common law. Wish I had become a lawyer sometimes. But alas, not very good at memorizing. But i can develop from first principles of math. 😬
So I agree with your statement under line of thought 1. Thats what would be implied by this argument.
May 14, 2025 at 2:36 PM
So I agree with your statement under line of thought 1. Thats what would be implied by this argument.
I can see two lines of though here. 1. Regarding being allegiant too, meaning they have sworn allegiance (which GC holders do not do until naturalization)
2. Being considered a “friend” of that which allegiance is sworn. I.e. does being classified a “friend” in legal terms, mean legally present?
2. Being considered a “friend” of that which allegiance is sworn. I.e. does being classified a “friend” in legal terms, mean legally present?
May 14, 2025 at 2:35 PM
I can see two lines of though here. 1. Regarding being allegiant too, meaning they have sworn allegiance (which GC holders do not do until naturalization)
2. Being considered a “friend” of that which allegiance is sworn. I.e. does being classified a “friend” in legal terms, mean legally present?
2. Being considered a “friend” of that which allegiance is sworn. I.e. does being classified a “friend” in legal terms, mean legally present?
I think it should always be implied that statements made by any government official not under oath, need to be taken with a big grain of salt. So not implying anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is responsible for their own discernment.
May 14, 2025 at 12:15 PM
I think it should always be implied that statements made by any government official not under oath, need to be taken with a big grain of salt. So not implying anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is responsible for their own discernment.
Point take . Wasn’t my intention, although I do think that because of my inadvertent way of seeming to come in hot has lead to faster and more robust responses vs. what i likely would have got coming in luke-warm. 😬
May 14, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Point take . Wasn’t my intention, although I do think that because of my inadvertent way of seeming to come in hot has lead to faster and more robust responses vs. what i likely would have got coming in luke-warm. 😬
…where “alien friend” is used. So the question I have is what is the definition of “friend”. Can it be construed as the same or imply “consent”.
If not, the primary argument of the right regarding consent fails right?
If not, the primary argument of the right regarding consent fails right?
May 14, 2025 at 12:07 PM
…where “alien friend” is used. So the question I have is what is the definition of “friend”. Can it be construed as the same or imply “consent”.
If not, the primary argument of the right regarding consent fails right?
If not, the primary argument of the right regarding consent fails right?
Good morning. Just a quick drive by question 😬
So this is at the start of their argument about “ligeantia” and its implication that the “jurisdiction of” requires the consent of the presence of the person.
I found this unsupported directly but then there is the old i guess common law view….
So this is at the start of their argument about “ligeantia” and its implication that the “jurisdiction of” requires the consent of the presence of the person.
I found this unsupported directly but then there is the old i guess common law view….
May 14, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Good morning. Just a quick drive by question 😬
So this is at the start of their argument about “ligeantia” and its implication that the “jurisdiction of” requires the consent of the presence of the person.
I found this unsupported directly but then there is the old i guess common law view….
So this is at the start of their argument about “ligeantia” and its implication that the “jurisdiction of” requires the consent of the presence of the person.
I found this unsupported directly but then there is the old i guess common law view….
Agree with that.
Hey, thanks to all of you. I need to get some sleep. Great and insightful convo!
Hey, thanks to all of you. I need to get some sleep. Great and insightful convo!
May 14, 2025 at 4:39 AM
Agree with that.
Hey, thanks to all of you. I need to get some sleep. Great and insightful convo!
Hey, thanks to all of you. I need to get some sleep. Great and insightful convo!
No its not a overpayment. Its a full refund of all taxes paid.
Including sales taxes.
Including sales taxes.
May 14, 2025 at 4:38 AM
No its not a overpayment. Its a full refund of all taxes paid.
Including sales taxes.
Including sales taxes.