🧵On immigration, original sources, de facto repeal, and the inability to even begin reaching conclusions if people will not accept the legitimacy of previously negotiated compromises. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice, you're going to need it.

And. Here. We. Go. I decided to find the source of there are 1.2 million people in the US with final orders of deportation that are not in custody. I've seen this number thrown around and, per usual, the articles saying this provide no cite, let alone a link, to the original source of that number.

🧵The Tyranny of the Emotionally Incontinent is of a species with the Tyranny of the Least Able User and the Tyranny of the Least Of Your Brethren. Everyone get your caffeine conveyance of choice and a nice nosh. Let the nattering begin!

https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1854097006970425827

The Tyranny of the Emotionally Incontinent is when everyone else is forced to curb their behavior and actions to cater to the delicate sensibilities of a person who either incapable or unwilling (it's usually incapable because of unwilling) to handle reality in a mature manner.

🧵 Random Psychopaths story: Once upon a time, the managing partner decided that people were taking off too much time to go to doctor's appointments. Yes, doctor's appointments. She kicked up a fuss so the office manager sent around a new official office policy on it. The policy said that while of course the firm wanted people to take care of their health, these appointments should not disrupt the work day and so should be scheduled for first thing in the morning or at the very end of the afternoon.

🧵 The threatened Kids Today Don't Want To Work rant.

Let me define what I mean here. I'm not talking about the 80/20 rule or kids getting out of college who think they will be paid six figures. I'm talking The Childen (30 and under) who want work/life balance. I'll put the tl;dr at the start for once: From my perspective, significant parts of the complaints about The Children not wanting to work are really about The Children not allowing themselves to be taken advantage of at work. Those are not the same thing.

🧵

I will be the first to admit that this doesn't track exactly, this is more an observation about attitude than anything else. I was raised very conservative Evangelical Christian. I was also raised with my father working on the administrative side for religious organizations. Thus, I grew up surrounded by pastors' kids, missionaries' kids, admin staffs' kids, as well as the kids of those for whom ministry was an avocation, not vocation. Think deacons' kids, the women who ran the Sunday School programs and VBS, the volunteers who keep a church running.

🧵 I believe I have found a differentiation that is far more useful than NeverTrump vs Trumper or neocon vs populist.

Do you consider the Bush years, meaning George W. Bush, to be successful for advancing conversative goals or not?

The way a person answers that is telling. Over the last few weeks, I have seen several in the NeverTrump camp pushing a variant of it will be good for the GOP if Trump loses so we can go back to the successes of the Bush era. My response to that is what drugs are you on? The successes of the Bush era? What successes?

🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School! Today's topic is something so fundamental to those in the profession that we forget that normies do not know it even exists: dollar amounts pled in complaints to show proper jurisdiction AND COME BACK HERE IT'S ONLY MAINLY BORING! There are two parts to determining if a court has the ability to hear a matter. The first is venue. Venue is whether a case can be heard in that physical location. There has to be some kind of connection between the location and the events that gave rise to the suit.

🧵There will be a point to this other than my loving the sound of my own typing, I promise. I've spent since Saturday morning trying to fix an issue wherein my father's entire health care plan was destroyed by the actions of one person at a company that was supposed to help. As you can imagine, I took that with the calm and equanimity you would expect. Yesterday, I was on the phone with a supervisor at that place who was trying to use her best placating the ticked off person voice. That also was received as well as you may imagine. It got heated.

🧵I wonder, as I have for many years now, how much of what is deemed as philosophical differences are, in reality, differences in personality. I'll use me, since I'm a difficult person, as an example of this. Grab caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and a nosh and let's chat. I want to be left alone. Mommy says that, even a baby, I did not want to be fussed over. I wanted someone to come see that I was okay, give me some attention, and then leave me alone. Wanting to be left alone has some profound implications as to how I approach government action.

🧵Yesterday I was in a position where I could overhear three women, all in their early to mid 20s, discussing the assassination attempt against Trump. I was trying to ignore it out of simple politeness. Then they started trying to remember which President won like all the states. They couldn't remember and one said Kennedy and that's when I snapped and said excuse me I don't mean to interrupt but I have a history background and you're causing me pain from that and from my teenage years being your history: it was Reagan in 1984 and well after he was shot.

🧵
Let me clamp down as hard as possible on the third rail. Let me monologue, because this is in no possible way a conversation, about the fact that there are, in fact, currently enacted immigration laws and regulations. Grab caffeine conveyance of choice and a snack. Let's go. This is a link to the Immigration and Nationality Act - these are the duly enacted immigration statutes.



These are the duly promulgated regulations pertaining to immigration.



These exist. I want to stress that, these exist.uscis.gov/laws-and-polic…
uscis.gov/laws-and-polic…

🧵 I am even more enraged by this editorial than I thought I would be. This paragraph, specifically, is unhinged from reality, sanity, and principle.

nationalreview.com/2024/05/let-jo…
Here is the statute in question. Note that this was passed in July, 2010. Screenshot of text also included.
codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-c…

🧵 The idiocy with the Appeal to Heaven flag and Alito made me look to see what happened with Emmaneul Cafferty. He's the man fired by SDG&E in 2020 because some idiot posted a picture of Cafferty's hand hanging out of his truck window and claimed he was a white supremacist. The claim was that Cafferty was flashing the okay symbol, which 4chan managed to hoax idiots into thinking was a white supremacy symbol, in the vicinity of a BLM march. Cafferty was in his work truck and the cretin who posted the picture called and got others to call to complain.

🧵 So. Here's the story about how I got thrown out of a pro life group because people did not want to hear what I had to say. This was in the late 2000's. I was asked to assist a group with drafting legislation designed to test Roe/Casey and secondarily to be the trigger law. I agreed, though I had some hesitance since I knew a couple of people running it and let us just say that their passion for the pro-life movement, which has high and admirable, was not matched by being overly fussed with the practical details of implementing such restrictions.

Good afternooon and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is judgments, execution on judgments, appeals, stay of execution pending appeal, statutory interest, and just how all of this works. Grab a snack and beverage of choice and let's get it. It's an old not remotely a joke in the legal profession that I can get you a judgment but what you want is money and those are not the same thing. This is absolutely true. Getting a judgment is just the first step of getting money. So why is that the case?

🧵On media literacy, media reliance, and why people should be justifiably enraged at having their good will and faith abused. Everyone have their beverage of choice and a snack? Let's get it. Another round of headline having one sentence from a longer statement, people flipping out about the sentence, the sentence in context being the opposite of the implication of the headline, and the media entity going we linked the whole thing, we didn't lie is happening.

Good afternoon and welcome to Twitter Law School, what is per curiam, concur in the judgment, and judicial restraint and what does that have to do with keeping people off the ballot? Others will delve into the Sec 3 and Sec 5 of the 14th, I'm here for the sniping at each other. The important part is this: in Trump v. Anderson, SCOTUS help unanimously that a state cannot remove a candidate for Federal office from a state's ballot. Not only that, that part of the decision was joined by all nine justices. There is no doubt about this at all. It's settled.

🧵
New Gemini test - this time about how did Mary Jo Kopechne die. Here is the answer if you ask the question the way a human being would - how did Mary Jo Kopechne die?





Further pushing as to why the initial answer was nah brah I can't do that. And then there's the what are you calling misinformation response.

🧵 Back to the employer expectations vs. employee expecations argument. Someone I know is the manager for a team that brings in the most revenue for the company. Her team routinely assits other divisions to hit goals. Everyone is a high performer who brings value. She had to fight like hell to get raises over 2% for her team and only did so because she showed up at the meeting with the CEO and CFO with what people could get if they went somewhere else along with the data on how much money her team brought in. They still lost three people.

🧵

This is re: work. You sacrifice when you are young to be rewarded later requires there to be a reward later other than getting let go in second round, not first. I can't quantify it but there really does seem to have been a sea change post 2008 to make everyone widgets. Loyalty is a two way street. Far too many employers seem to take it as a given that an employee owes, as a matter of course, highest loyalty to the employer while the employer owes nothing at all for the employee. People have caught onto this and are saying I don't think so.

Twitter Law School🧵 All the SCOTUS order does is vacate (make like it never happened) the Fifth Circuit order granting injunction pending appeal. That injunction said that DHS couldn't cut down the wire, except for medical emergencies. What does that mean each side can do now?

https://twitter.com/lucentile/status/1750217529631416512

Texas can put up more wire. DHS can take it down. I will type this slowly so people get it. SCOTUS did not rule that TX cannot put up more wire. SCOTUS didn't say DHS has the right to cut the wire. SCOTUS issued an order vacating a lower court's order granting an injunction.