Kaeli Cedarfallen ✩ 🔞 ✩ 🏳️‍⚧️ ✩ ΘΔ

"Party approval rating is somehow lower than the authoritarians, lower than any time in the last 30 years. It can only go up from here."

Dems: hold my spine

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that zero of the Ds who voted 'yes' are up for re-election in 2026.

Maaaaaan if this is true it's like, worst of all possible worlds

"We just can't play politics with people's lives!" okay but you literally were doing that, and it was working, and then you decided enough of that already??

They had no intention of trying to win, they just wanted to look like they were trying because they know it makes them much more popular

Hahahahah they were just playing a trick on us where they’d pretend to fight back until we voted for them, and then immediately cave www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

I miss Kirby Air Riders, chat.
I miss her a lot.

Drawing of an anthro Glaceon

Femboy Glaceon bf 💙✨

fresh off caving, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is going on Fox & Friends

"moderate democrats" Fascists in disguise :P

(Why was that sorta catchy?)

BERNIE: “This senate is about to make a horrific situation even worse… health insurance premiums will double/triple/quadruple… some will pay 50% of their income… 15 million will lose insurance… 50,000 will die unnecessarily…”

#MedicareForAllNOW

Pay close attention to which health care "advocacy" organizations condemn Senate Democrats for fucking over the entire health care system, and which care more about Schumer liking them than real people staying alive and say nothing at all...

When Republicans don't vote to extend the premium help, are you going to pay my premiums Tim @kaine.senate.gov?

i think america being "the land of the free" is a title we hold strictly over the UK and basically no other first world country

You can't be this fucking stupid?

chuck schumer cannot be replaced as party leadership quickly enough

WATCH: After he got booed @FOXSports shamefully let Trump come on the air during football and lie to the American people that prices are down (NOPE 🤥) and we’re getting $17 TRILLION in investments (NOPE 🤥 )

MORE DRAGON BOY

New: Sens. King, Shaheen, Hassan led negotiations on a deal that will have enough Democratic support to pass in the Senate, I'm told. This is the package: - CR thru Jan 30 - A vote on a ACA bill by a December, on a DEM bill - Minibus WHICH INCLUDES reversal of shutdown RIFs and back pay and protections against them happening in the future PLUS SNAP is funded through the fiscal year 26

Dems have spent the past two months saying they're fighting to address the crisis of spiking healthcare costs and now they're caving for a deal that does nothing to address healthcare costs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

pay your taxes puppy!

puppy girlfriend final boss
#puppygirl #cute #catgirl

wrong bikini size :c
#comic #puppygirl #cute

naga girls make for fun sounding toys :)

Mightyuki's mighty cheeks

Commission for @evov1.bsky.social

Catbox: files.catbox.moe/ebxwr9.mp4

Redgifs: www.redgifs.com/watch/bewitc...

Twitter: x.com/i/status/198...

Patreon: www.patreon.com/Kasdaq

good news: you met a hot slime girl who wants to fuck you

bad news: the slime feels awful on your autism

What does the fox say?
#foxpopvli #art #retro #90s

immediately with its allegedly unlawful policy against the harm to the individuals who would be subjected to that policy. See Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U.S. 1309 (1979) (Stevens, J., in chambers). Balancing the equities is an important part of the analysis because it avoids unnecessary real-world injury to people with colorable legal claims. The Court ignores these critical limits on its equitable discretion today. The Government secks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evi dence that it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily en joined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect. The Court nonetheless fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government's favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party. Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiescteo this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, T respectfully dissent.

7. Justice Jackson, joined by justices Kagan and Sotomayor, issued a blistering dissent:

passporttso display an individual's biological sex at birth. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from enforcing the policy, and the First Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. The Government then filed this stay application. Applying our familiar stay factors at this preliminary stage, we grant the application. Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attestintgo a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow. See 22 U.S. C. §211a. For these reasons, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits. And the District Court's grant of class-wide relief enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document. In light of the foregoing, the Government will _________________ _________________ Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2025) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A319 DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ASHTON ORR, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [November 6, 2025] This case concerns an Executive Branch policy all new passports to display an individual’s biological sex at birth. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from enforcing the policy, and the First Circuit declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. The Go…

6. In this new shadow docket ruling, the conservative court has determined with virtually no analysis that the policy did not stem from animus towards transgender people and was not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

4. The ruling leaves transgender people who obtained updated passports under the prior policy in limbo—and all transgender travelers facing profound uncertainty—as the administration now weighs further actions against their documents.

3. In the unsigned decision, the majority asserted that banning trans people’s correct gender markers did not constitute differential treatment, while disregarding clear violations of the APA and brushing obvious unconstitutional animus embedded in the EO that enabled the ban in the first place.