Martin Gardner

@zombievols.bsky.social (thanks man)

a man in a blue shirt and tie is pointing at a bulletin board with a lot of papers on it . ALT: a man in a blue shirt and tie is pointing at a bulletin board with a lot of papers on it .

What I understood.

Wait a second.

The Onion never misses.

Aaron Rupar ‪@atrupar.com‬ Trump: "They have the ballots. That should be no problem, right? FBI came in and raided. They found plenty of stuff. Now they have the ballots. And Democrats are fighting like hell to not let anybody see the ballots. Why don't they want them to see the ballots? Because they cheated like dogs." [sweaty Trump in front of the mic] zombievols.bsky.social ‪@zombievols.bsky.social‬ Interesting....so fighting to keep something hidden makes someone guilty you say?

10/10, no notes.

"sad" blobfish

Alysa Liu

That's the skeet.

Remember when Prince Harry doing an interview with Oprah was the "worst royal crisis in 85 years"?

Good times.

Why isn't every answer just "Fifth"?

Left: former Prince Andrew is arrested Right: surprised cat meme

Knew I'd seen this somewhere before.

🤔🤔🤔

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My dog when I turn on the lights and find him trying to open the treats cupboard.

Wasn't it in Pam Bondi's first letter to the agency? Something about advancing Trump's agenda?

Does…does he think you can *pass* legislation via a filibuster?

Trump famously doesn't read, and I think his advisor all told him the Epstein Files made him look great, and he believed them.

"Oh shiiiiiiiiit"

YouTube video by Lower East Side Records Technohead - I Wanna Be A Hippy (Flamman & Abraxas Radio Mix)

I've done a terrible job of remembering to post, but this is from this week's UK chart from 30 years ago.

youtu.be/nmYi5u9BhtI

E. Rule 11 Considerations Finally, Petitioners reiterate concerns raised at the Status Conference regarding misrepresentations or frivolous arguments made by Respondents in this matter. [See Transcript at 13–14]. As Respondents indicate, no Rule 11 motion has been properly filed nor presented such that Respondents may benefit from the mandatory 21-day period. [Opp. at 11]. No further discussion is necessary as to this issue.

Finally, as what follows is the conclusion, the court highlights that no Rule 11 motion has been filed, in what looks like a massive invitation for plaintiffs to do it.

(Rule 11 is the sanctions one, BTW)

As a preliminary matter, necessity and propriety are not the standards by which the Court may issue orders requiring notice to a certified class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B). Rather, Rule 23(d) permits a court to issue orders on “procedural matters” to “protect class members and fairly conduct the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B), (E). This includes entering orders “giving appropriate notice to some or all class members” of “any step in the action[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B)(i); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendment (“Notice is available fundamentally for the protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action[.]”); id. (“Subdivision (d)(2) does not require notice at any stage, but rather calls attention to its availability and invokes the court’s discretion.”).

For those who care about such procedural matters.

The Court’s initial decision to deny Petitioners’ request to vacate Yajure Hurtado under the APA was an act of judicial restraint: a formality. However, based on the representations Respondents have made to the Court, it is evident that further relief is both necessary and proper. The Court VACATES Yajure Hurtado under the APA.

I think the court felt it was unnecessary to actually vacate it, as it's not the case the court is reviewing.

But the executive branch is claiming the case is binding on immigration judges, so she is vacating it.

It is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). It is not the executive department’s province and duty to say what the law is. The role of the

*DING DING DING DING DING*

Respondents engage in a deliberately dense three-step maneuver to reach their core absurd conclusion that no further relief is warranted.   Step 1: Identify an immaterial difference between two things that are functionally the same. [Opp. at 9; Dkt. No. 103 at 3]. Step 2: Insist that the immaterial difference is so consequential that it can violate separation of powers. [Opp. at 12; Dkt. No. 103 at 3]. Finally, and most importantly,  Step 3: Make sure to never mention the Constitution with the hope that a federal court will not notice. [See generally Opp.; Dkt. No. 103 at 3].

C. Form of Further Relief Respondents have violated and continue to violate the law by detaining Bond Eligible Class members in contravention of the Final Judgment. Worse, Respondents proffer frivolous arguments that aim to insulate unlawful policies from judicial review while taking positions that seek to bludgeon separation of powers into oblivion. [See generally Opp.; see also Dkt. No. 103]. Respondents’ fixation on the “coercive” nature of the declaratory judgment issued by the Court ignores the other form of relief expressly granted by the Court: vacatur under the APA. Thus, the only relevant argument raised in the Opposition is Respondents’ suggestion that Yajure Hurtado is not the DHS Policy that was previously vacated, and that Yajure Hurtado remains binding upon IJs because the BIA issued it.

Bludgeon!

When considering one branch’s aggrandizement of power, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that the Constitution “establish[ed] certain limits not to be transcended.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803). Respondents engage in unlawful practices under the guise of “immigration enforcement” and fidelity to agency regulations. Those practices were found unlawful by way of statutory interpretation by this Court. “[I]nterpretation of the laws” is “the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” The Federalist No. 78, at 525 (A. Hamilton) (J. Cooke ed. 1961). The Supreme Court observed recently that “the Framers structured the Constitution to allow judges to exercise that judgment independent of influence from the political branches.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 385 (2024) (citations omitted).

Yeah,

They can't hide behind "but the BIA says" when they've been told by dozens of courts that they've got the law wrong.

Ordinarily, the Court would not state basic principles of law to avoid pontification. Yet separation of powers concerns is at the heart of this case, this Court’s exercise of authority, and this country’s foundational principles imbued in the Constitution. Respondents appear to have little regard for such fundamental tenets; thus, a brief lesson in legal history is apt. Separation of powers as well as checks and balances are essential components to this country’s founding. The Constitution is evidence of that fundamental premise. The words and structure of the Constitution anticipate that the three branches of government would be in tension with one another. See Redish, supra, at 3 (describing the Framers’ design of the constitutional system “to protect against the risk of a dominant faction abusing its power”). There is nothing “awkward” or “confusing” about that, as Respondents and IJs suggest. [See Opp. at 6; Dkt. No. 107-3 at 3]. The current reality that two branches of government are at odds with one another is not an anomaly. It is the very nature of the government put into place by the Framers. “[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” The Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison). James Madison posited that “[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition,” and “such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.” Id.

Respondents can only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist. The Constitution makes no apology in condemning Respondents. With no other option but to uphold its constitutional duty, the Court GRANTS Petitioners’ Motion.