's Avatar

@guysmiley1968.bsky.social

38 Followers  |  38 Following  |  3 Posts  |  Joined: 25.01.2025  |  1.4692

Latest posts by guysmiley1968.bsky.social on Bluesky

I would simply not care about Trump voters. They’re not worth anyone’s time. Fuck em

05.12.2025 18:58 — 👍 12    🔁 1    💬 1    📌 0
Preview
Rep. Lawler Fielded Sock Puppet Provocateur at Raucous Town Hall This is my official new favorite story ever. It’s from the Journal...

Rep. Lawler Fielded Sock Puppet Provocateur at Raucous Town Hall talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/rep-l...

08.07.2025 23:26 — 👍 375    🔁 95    💬 18    📌 12

Serious question. Isn’t the military supposed to follow the constitution?

22.06.2025 01:02 — 👍 2    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
(Against All Defendants)
Unconstitutional Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment
140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in each of the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
141. The First Amendment “prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals
to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in” First Amendment-protected conduct.
Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 474 (2022) (quoting Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S.
391, 398 (2019)).
142. The Order and Fact Sheet unlawfully retaliate against Jenner & Block because they
single out and punish Jenner & Block for its protected speech, reflected in its advocacy for clients
challenging policies of the current Administration.
143. The Order and Fact Sheet also unlawfully retaliate against Jenner & Block in
response to the speech of a former partner who has criticized and investigated the President, and
in response to Jenner’s association with that former partner.
144. This is not just protected speech, but “core political speech” and association
receiving the First Amendment’s highest protections. FEC v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 313 (2022); see
Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 546, 548-49 (2001) (First Amendment violated by
laws that attempt to “draw lines around” those arguments that the government “finds unacceptable
but which by their nature are within the province of the courts to consider”). Indeed, the Order
does not even attempt to hide that it has targeted Jenner & Block for its protected activity: Section
1 invokes Jenner & Block’s “partisan representations to achieve political ends,” Ex. 7 (Jenner
Order), § 1—a phrase synonymous with “pure political expression absolutely protected by the First
Amendment.”

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I (Against All Defendants) Unconstitutional Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment 140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 141. The First Amendment “prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in” First Amendment-protected conduct. Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468, 474 (2022) (quoting Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 398 (2019)). 142. The Order and Fact Sheet unlawfully retaliate against Jenner & Block because they single out and punish Jenner & Block for its protected speech, reflected in its advocacy for clients challenging policies of the current Administration. 143. The Order and Fact Sheet also unlawfully retaliate against Jenner & Block in response to the speech of a former partner who has criticized and investigated the President, and in response to Jenner’s association with that former partner. 144. This is not just protected speech, but “core political speech” and association receiving the First Amendment’s highest protections. FEC v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 313 (2022); see Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 546, 548-49 (2001) (First Amendment violated by laws that attempt to “draw lines around” those arguments that the government “finds unacceptable but which by their nature are within the province of the courts to consider”). Indeed, the Order does not even attempt to hide that it has targeted Jenner & Block for its protected activity: Section 1 invokes Jenner & Block’s “partisan representations to achieve political ends,” Ex. 7 (Jenner Order), § 1—a phrase synonymous with “pure political expression absolutely protected by the First Amendment.”

Read Jenner & Block's lawsuit challenging Trump's unconstitutional assault on their firm.👇 Very glad to see Jenner fighting back. They're represented by Cooley, which is taking a risk here too.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

28.03.2025 13:15 — 👍 3895    🔁 749    💬 67    📌 52

Word from a principal in VA Beach: ICE agents picking up kids at bus stops. Panicked parents calling asking not to send kids home on the bus. This is the police state we live in now.

01.02.2025 23:07 — 👍 1    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Post image Post image Post image Post image

It’s not Gluten Free January

25.01.2025 13:36 — 👍 6    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

@guysmiley1968 is following 19 prominent accounts