Being raised by conservatives growing up has been the revelation that every person who helped raised me was a fucking liar.

Trump is actually entirely correct to be angry that the Supreme Court sat idly by and let him do this for 10 months and only just now said oh yeah that's illegal, sorry

When people talk about trump's political instincts all they are talking about is his racism. trump and republicans going all in on healthcare and the economy going into the midterms has me questioning whether Democrats can get to 10%+ on the generic ballot.

New: Trump wants to make health care a central focus of his midterm pitch, despite weak polling and misgivings among some of his own advisers about elevating an issue that’s long proved disastrous for the GOP. Inside WH’s electoral recalibration:

🎉 OH MY GOD.

THIS IS LIKE MANNA FROM HEAVEN FOR DEMS.

It's also gonna make my life...very interesting for the next 8 months...

I can’t express enough just how much alike in thinking, speaking, and behaving is my biological father and the 🍊. Whenever you hear, see, or think of the 🍊, know his multiracial, closeted mental doppelgänger is sitting in prison.

This thing, and its cohorts, will be defeated.

Susan Collins hands Trump the 50th vote against free and fair elections When it comes to free and fair elections, Collins is as conservative and anti-voting rights as they come.

When it comes to free and fair elections, Collins is as conservative and anti-voting rights as they come. Not only is she supporting the SAVE Act, but during the Biden administration she opposed the For the People Act and the Joe Manchin compromise bill — the Freedom to Vote Act.

The principal dissent surmises that the President could impose “most if not all” of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA. Post, at 62 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.). The cited statutes contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize. See supra, at 8–9; post, at 62–63. We do not speculate on hypothetical cases not before us

Don't believe Trump's hype that other statutes give him sweeping tariff-imposing authority at his whim..

As @LawofRuby.bsky.social noted, this CJ Roberts shows those other statutes don't have the same unilateral power. buff.ly/Fix4Eys

This is what we all want but it will take some legal experts to head this and I advise that all Democrats tread lightly by promising to do any of this. There rules and regulations that are to be followed. I'm not saying we should try but to promise this and fail by not being honest, is serious.

A lot of accounts are turning themselves into low key Pitchbot clones today by arguing that the Supremes overturning Trump’s tariffs is actually a bad thing because anything but the maximum amount of misery might endanger court reform.

Nice midterm campaign commercial footage right here

"It's not really a big win against Trump" because [list of grievances] is a little tiresome. It's a big win against a truly tyrannical claim by the president. The fight continues.

I think this is a pretty large misread of the politics. Trump forcing the issue because he's mad makes "do u want tariffs" front and center in every congressional race. Viewing winning outcomes as bad like this is kind of just rolling over in advance.

Counterpoint: there's literally no possible version of this that was good news

Options were

1. Court upholds massive tax increase, market freaks out, bad day for Republicans

2. Court strikes down signature Trump policy, drives Trump insane, surfaces thing Republicans did.

Happy Trump eating utter shit in the Court day to all who celebrate

Don't congratulate John Roberts or the Supreme Court.

Congratulate Rick Woldenberg, the Chicago-area leader of Learning Resources, an educadtional toy company that had the courage to sue the president of the United States to save his family business.

As well as everyone else who stepped up.

Remember last year when @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social announced the rapid response task force and litigation working group, and everyone said he was doing nothing and it was a waste of time and it didn’t count.

Do you still feel that way?

Are people TRYING to hang Gavin Newsom 2028 on Democrats now? Is that what’s going on? Like, somebody wants a big bad in the Party that they can make the villain, and say “Look who Democrats want,” while we’re just busy making sure we win midterms?

Dear friends,
Psy-ops are now underway here on Bluesky. There’s a flood of “both parties are the same” and “Dems are beholden to their donors alone” and “Dems are in Israel’s pocket” bots that have dramatically increased.

Report, block, do NOT engage. It just amplifies their messaging.

I've so hated it with the coordinated Lefty talking points" These people have nothing to say about the evil curse that is in power with their help. It's truly weird!

How does your vote suppression of the Democratic Party stop any of this?

This is nothing more than the STATUS QUO rich white male standing on a soapbox yelling into a progressive bubble. 😒

Nearly seven-in-ten Progressive Left (68%) are White adults, making this group less racially and ethnically diverse than the other Democratic-oriented groups – though still more diverse than the three most conservative groups in the typology.

Whenever I see a "progressive" comment like that, I'm reminded of this fact, and the reality that they don't know what real progress means.

Maybe they should have thought about that before being criminal pedophiles.

Progressives campaigned against voting for the Democratic nominee for POTUS. They got what they wanted they're still unhappy. There's no pleasing them because they don't want solutions, they want reasons to complain.

If you hate Democrats more than you want to stop Republicans, you’re not a resister.

You’re not a progressive.

You’re not an ally.

You don’t care about LGBTQ people or Black people or immigrants or women or genocide or student loans or housing or taxing billionaires.

You’re a collaborator.

As hard-won rights face renewed attacks, we at #SEIULocal1000 refuse to retreat. We will fight for fair wages, strong protections, and dignity for workers of all races.

#BlackHistoryMonth #2026Contract #CAStateWorkers

This is societal course correction and divorce. Divorces are messy things by nature. Eventually, you settle and rebuild the life you have and the life around you.

Better things are on the other side of this moment. I’m looking forward to them ❤️

I have been in a similar position this year and last, and I recently had to cut ties for similar reasons.

Who is in my life now recognizes this moment, loves me unconditionally, and doesn’t enable cruelty. That is what will carry me through this moment of historical, unprecedented times.

Ho-lee Shit. This is phenomenally good news. Department of Education rolls back— for now— its attempts to destroy Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility initiatives. Keep an eye on them, of course, and watch for the hidden knife, always, but for now: Fantastic news.

BREAKING: The Department of Education has ended its directive that attempted to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in schools nationwide.

This is a victory for academic freedom and education equity.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Plaintiffs, * * * * * * * * Civil Case No.: SAG-25-628 Defendants. * * MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 14, 2025, the United States Department of Education ("DOE") published a "Dear Colleague Letter" ("the Letter") explaining the new administration's positions with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI") principles and federal antidiscrimination law. A few weeks later, DOE issued an announcement that it would require states and school districts to affirmatively certify their compliance with DOE's interpretations of Title VI and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ("SFFA"), 600 U.S. 181 (2023), within ten days ("the Certification Requirement"). Those documents, and whether they created new legal obligations or merely restated existing law, have been the focus of this litigation.

This case illustrates why following procedures is so important. The stringent procedures outlined by the APA are not hollow gestures designed to manufacture the appearance of fair and reasoned decisionmaking; they exist to ensure that agencies stay within the bounds of their delegated authority and exercise that authority within the constraints of the law more broadly. See Nat'l Fed'n. of Indep. Bus. v. Dep't of Labor, 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022) (*Administrative agencies are creatures of statute."). Still here, this Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not. And by leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems. Plaintiffs have shown that neither challenged agency action was promulgated in accordance with the procedural requirements of the APA, and that both actions run afoul of important constitutional rights. Both challenged actions accordingly must be vacated. The administration is entitled to express its viewpoints and to promulgate policies aligned with those viewpoints. But it must do so within the procedural bounds Congress has outlined. And it may not do so at the expense of constitutional rights.

ORDER OF JUDGMENT For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is this 14th day of August, 2025, ordered that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ECF 66, is granted as to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six and denied as to Count Four; 2. The government's motion, ECF 72, construed as a motion for summary judgment, is granted as to Count Four, and denied as to all other counts; 3. Judgment is entered for Plaintiffs on Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six; 4. Judgment is entered for the government on Count Four; 5. The Dear Colleague Letter of February 14, 2025 is VACATED under 5 U.S.C. § 706; and 6. "The Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken In Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and Request for Certification under Title VI and SFFA v. Harvard" is VACATED under 5 U.S.C. § 706. /s/ Stephanie A. Gallagher United States District Judge

THEREFORE, the Parties do HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows: 1. The challenged Agency Actions have been vacated and set aside by the final judgment entered in American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. United States Department of Education, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00628 ("AFT"), and the vacatur and terms of the judgment in AFT apply to Plaintiffs; 2. The challenged Agency Actions will not be relied on in any way by Defendants including by way of seeking to enforce its substance through ED or DOJ civil rights enforcement procedures; 3. The certification demand issued on April 3, 2025 will not be reinstated in substance even if under a different name; 4. The challenged Agency Actions creates no obligation, responsibility, or condition on Plaintiffs in any manner;

NEW: In cases brought by the NEA and AFT, there are now final court orders: Last year's anti-DEI "Dear Colleague" letter is vacated and unenforceable.

DOJ/DOE gave up the fight, dismissing the appeal and case in the Fourth Circuit and subsequently dismissing the the second case with a stipulation.