Post

@elonmusk

@elonmusk

@elonmusk

@elonmusk

@elonmusk

@elonmusk

More from @amuse

@amuse

Jul 16

This story keeps getting more bizarre. CNN is reporting Crooks bought 50 rounds of ammo, a 12' ladder from Home Depot and walked a mile to the rally with his father's AR-15, the ammo, and the ladder in tow. Nobody noticed him or stopped him?

More... dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

UPDATE: So there is much debate about where the car was parked and how far he walked. Here is what I can parse from all of the reporting -

The shooter went to Home Depot to buy the telescoping ladder. He either left his car at Home Depot and walked about a mile as the crow flies (two miles via road) or he drove closer to the rally, parked, and walked a shorter distance. I went back and reviewed the CNN reporting and it isn't clear which they meant. They simply said he bought the ladder and walked to the rally - they may have omitted the short drive down the road in their reporting.

At the end of the day, we know that the shooter walked some distance - a mile, a half mile, a quarter mile - carrying a ladder, an AR-15, and ammo.

Read 5 tweets

@amuse

Jul 12

PROJECT 2025🧵: While Trump is not involved with Project 2025 there are concerns that he will follow some of the paper's recommendations. This thread will outline the ones most likely to be implemented. First, it will bring back the Atari 2600 in every home.

PROJECT 2025🧵: Project 2025 is set to make parachute pants, the iconic baggy trousers made of lightweight synthetic fabric that gained massive popularity in the 1980s, required on Fridays.

PROJECT 2025🧵: Project 2025 will mandate that all music played on the radio must be from the 1980s. This initiative aims to revive the era's iconic tunes, bringing back the decade's unique sound and nostalgia to modern airwaves.

Read 8 tweets

@amuse

Jul 12

FLASHBACK: A NYC jury determined E. Jean Carroll was lying. The Democrats who funded her lawsuit were so desperate to be able to call Trump a 'r pist' they decided they didn't care that the jury exonerated the former president - they keep repeating the lie.

https://x.com/amuse/status/1766986480113602809

FACTCHECK: A NYC Jury Exonerated Trump in Determining he did NOT 'R_pe' E. Jean Carroll.

https://x.com/amuse/status/1766986480113602809

FLASHBACK: A New York jury of Democrats who hate Trump found E. Jean Carroll’s 'r pe' claims were not credible. The jury determined that Trump did NOT 'r pe' her - it is in black and white on the verdict form.

Read 10 tweets

@amuse

Jun 27

SCOTUS DECISION🧵: The first case - Ohio v. EPA

Case Summary:
The Supreme Court ruled on the "good neighbor" policy case concerning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its regulations to limit cross-state air pollution. The central issue was whether the EPA had the authority to enforce stringent rules on states to curb air pollution that affects neighboring states.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court granted applications for a stay, effectively halting the enforcement of the EPA's "good neighbor" policy. The decision underscores the limits of the EPA's regulatory authority, emphasizing state sovereignty in managing local environmental issues.

Majority Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in the majority. The Court's decision reflects a conservative approach to federal regulatory power, aligning with principles of state autonomy and limited federal intervention.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued in favor of the EPA's authority to implement the "good neighbor" policy, highlighting the importance of federal oversight in addressing interstate environmental challenges.

Vote:
The decision was a 5-4 split.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

SCOTUS DECISION🧵: The second case - Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

Case Summary:
The Supreme Court reviewed the case involving Purdue Pharma L.P., the company notorious for its role in the opioid crisis. The central issue was whether the bankruptcy court had the authority to approve a settlement that granted immunity from opioid-related lawsuits to the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, as part of the company's bankruptcy proceedings.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision effectively blocks the proposed settlement that would have shielded the Sackler family from liability.

Majority Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining. The majority opinion emphasized the limits of bankruptcy courts in approving settlements that extend immunity beyond the bankrupt entity itself, ensuring accountability for those responsible for the opioid crisis.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that the settlement was a practical solution to compensate victims and address the fallout from the opioid crisis, and that blocking the settlement could delay or reduce compensation for those affected.

Vote:
The decision was a 5-4 split, with the majority favoring the reversal and remand, while the dissent supported upholding the settlement.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

SCOTUS DECISION🧵: The third case - SEC v. Jarkesy

Case Summary:
The Supreme Court reviewed the case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager accused of securities fraud. The central issue was whether the SEC's administrative law judges (ALJs) have the constitutional authority to adjudicate such enforcement actions, or if these cases must be heard in federal court.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling upholds the constitutionality of the SEC's use of administrative law judges for enforcement actions.

Majority Opinion:
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. The majority opinion supports the SEC's current practice, emphasizing that the use of ALJs is consistent with the Constitution and essential for the efficient enforcement of securities laws.

Concurring Opinion:
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. The concurrence highlighted specific constitutional principles supporting the majority decision, particularly the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the role of administrative agencies.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued that the SEC's use of ALJs undermines the constitutional right to a jury trial and proper judicial oversight, asserting that such enforcement actions should be handled by federal courts.

Vote:
The decision was a 6-3 split.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

Read 5 tweets

@amuse

Jun 26

OPEN BORDER: @KimWexlerMAJD just discovered that Speaker Johnson's "64 Biden Actions to Weaken the Border" document is no longer on the House website. Why was it removed the day before the presidential debate? Oversight or Purposeful?

https://x.com/KimWexlerMAJD/status/1805962644492345486

OPEN BORDER: Why is the "64 Biden Actions to Weaken the Border" document missing from the House website?

https://x.com/KimWexlerMAJD/status/1805962644492345486

https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1745822539123712336

OPEN BORDER: This one...

https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1745822539123712336

Read 4 tweets

@amuse

Jun 21

SCOTUS WATCH🧵: We're just 30 minutes away from the Supreme Court releasing new opinions. I'll cover them in this thread as they come out. The anticipated decisions include:

Fischer v. United States: This case examines whether the obstruction charges used against January 6 participants are overly broad. Specifically, the court is considering if actions not directly related to congressional inquiries or investigations can be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). The outcome could significantly impact how obstruction charges are applied in future cases.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: This case challenges the Chevron deference, a doctrine that allows courts to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. If overturned or limited, it could reduce the power of federal agencies in interpreting laws, shifting more interpretative authority back to the courts.

Moody v. NetChoice: This case addresses the issue of censorship on the internet. It focuses on whether states can impose regulations on social media companies to prevent them from censoring user content. The decision will have broad implications for free speech and state regulation of tech companies.

Moyle v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: This case revisits abortion rights and state powers post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The court will decide on the extent to which states can regulate or restrict abortion access, which could further redefine reproductive rights in the U.S..

Murthy v. Missouri: This case involves censorship on social media and whether government officials can pressure social media companies to remove content. The decision could set new precedents for government influence over private companies and free speech online.

Trump v. Vance: This case deals with presidential immunity and whether a sitting or former president can be subject to state criminal subpoenas. The ruling will clarify the extent of presidential immunity and could impact ongoing and future investigations involving former President Trump.

United States v. Rahimi: This case involves gun rights and addresses whether certain gun control measures, such as those involving domestic violence restraining orders, are constitutional under the Second Amendment. The decision could impact the legality of various gun control laws nationwide.

SCOTUS WATCH🧵: First SCOTUS opinion released:

In the case of Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, the Supreme Court ruled on issues concerning the allocation and use of water from the Rio Grande under the 1938 Rio Grande Compact. This compact was designed to equitably distribute the water of the Rio Grande Basin among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

The case centered on Texas's complaint that New Mexico was failing to deliver the appropriate amount of water as required by the compact, effectively breaching its obligations by allowing downstream users in New Mexico to siphon off water that should be reaching Texas. The United States, having intervened in the case, supported Texas's position, asserting that New Mexico's actions also violated the federal government's responsibilities under a 1906 treaty with Mexico to deliver a set amount of water annually.

The Supreme Court, following the recommendations of the Special Master appointed to oversee the case, denied New Mexico's motion to dismiss Texas's complaint. The Court agreed with the Special Master's interim report, which found sufficient grounds for Texas's claims to proceed. However, the Court also partially dismissed the complaint filed by the United States, agreeing that the compact did not grant the federal government enforcement power over its terms.

The ruling was unanimous, reflecting a consensus among the justices regarding the interpretation of the compact and the related legal principles. This decision underscores the Court's role in resolving interstate disputes and interpreting agreements like the Rio Grande Compact to ensure equitable resource distribution among states.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

SCOTUS WATCH🧵: Second SCOTUS opinion released:

In the case of Department of State v. Muñoz, the Supreme Court addressed two primary issues regarding the denial of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse. The case focused on whether the consular officer’s refusal impinged upon a constitutionally protected interest of the U.S. citizen, and whether the process of notifying the visa applicant of their inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) was sufficient.

The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Barrett, ruled that the refusal of a visa did indeed impinge upon a constitutionally protected interest of the U.S. citizen spouse. The Court also found that merely citing the statutory ground for inadmissibility was not sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. Instead, the government must provide a factual basis for the visa denial in a timely manner.

The ruling requires that the State Department must now offer more detailed explanations when denying visas, ensuring that the affected individuals can understand and potentially challenge the basis for such decisions. This decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in immigration processes, recognizing the significant personal impacts of visa denials on U.S. citizens and their families.

The decision was closely contested, reflecting the Court's divided views on the extent of constitutional protections in the context of immigration law and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

@amuse

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @amuse

@amuse

@amuse

@amuse

@amuse

@amuse

@amuse

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!