Get yourself a Congressperson who will render these ghouls politically irrelevant.
mikesacksforcongress.com
@mikesacks.bsky.social
NY-17 Congressional Candidate. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Second-Best dad ever. mikesacksforcongress.com
Get yourself a Congressperson who will render these ghouls politically irrelevant.
mikesacksforcongress.com
Every time you see Mike Davis do Mike Davis things, think about Gorsuch reportedly helping land Davis a job at DOJ, then choosing him as a clerk when he was on the 10th Circuit, then choosing him as a clerk when he was on the Supreme Court.
15.10.2025 21:24 β π 421 π 133 π¬ 9 π 5Students writing public op-eds criticizing the state of Israel: "Deport them! They're adults responsible for their actions!"
Students privately praising Hitler: "Kids will be kids."
Mascott got her commission in time
15.10.2025 16:18 β π 1 π 2 π¬ 0 π 0Sotomayor cuts to the heart of the Trump adminβs arg in support of Louisiana and the white plaintiffs: βthe bottom line is just get rid of Section 2β
15.10.2025 16:06 β π 15 π 5 π¬ 0 π 0Looks like we'll have to update that line on Mike Johnson's resume from 'protects pedophiles' to 'protects pedophiles and beaters of women'
15.10.2025 16:04 β π 38 π 20 π¬ 2 π 0Sotomayor reminding Roberts now that SCOTUS didnβt order reargument in this case to revisit the controlling precedent
15.10.2025 15:50 β π 19 π 5 π¬ 1 π 0KBJ characterizes the white plaintiffsβ arg: βif the problem of no access is about trace itβs just too bad because you canβt have a remedy that relates to raceβ
15.10.2025 15:45 β π 15 π 1 π¬ 1 π 0To the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to support their position by relying on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Rhode v. Bonta, 145 F.4th at 1098, affirming the district court's decision to permanently enjoin California's ammunition background check regime, we respectfully disagree with the analysis set forth in that majority opinion. There, the Ninth Circuit held that the Californian regime was facially unconstitutional because it (1) "meaningfully constrained| California residents' right to keep and bear arms" in "all applications," "Igliven the fees and delays associated with California's ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies" and (2) was not supported by any relevantly similar historical analogues. Id. at 1106-07, 1109-16. To begin, we emphasize that the California and New York regimes are not the same. For example, according to the Rhode majority, California's regime required customers "to pay for" the background check and may have required Californians to "purchase ammunition during a specified period of time-e.g., 18 hours-after passing a background check." Id. at 1106-07. By contrast, the New York regime on its face does not require the customer to pay a dime (indeed, the
decision to pass the processing fee onto the customer is made solely by the individual retailers), and there is no block of time in which the customer must purchase the ammunition once the background check clears, which can be "immediate|]."6 App'x at 50. More fundamentally, we disagree with the Rhode majority's application of both the facial challenge and meaningfully constrain standards. As we explained above, the Supreme Court could not have been clearer that to prevail on a facial constitutional challenge, including in the Second Amendment context, the challenger must "establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid." Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, the government need only demonstrate that the challenged law "is constitutional in some of its applications." Id. (emphasis added). The Rhode majority gives short shrift to this well-settled regime for analyzing facial β’ Moreover, although not pertinent to a facial challenge (and no as-applied challenge was asserted in Rhode), we note that the record before the Ninth Circuit regarding California's implementation of the background check regime differs starkly from that in this case. As the district court in that case observed, more than a hundred thousand applicants were rejected in the first few months the background check was in place, in large part due to the state's mismatched records. Rhode v. Bonta, 713 F. Supp. 3d 865, 876 (S.D. Cal. 2024), aff'd, 145 F.4th 1090 (9th Cir. 2025). In addition, the district court noted the thousands of potential purchasers who could not overcome the system's rejections half a year later. Id. at 876-77. The record in this case, by contrast, is bereft of such wide-scale and substantial implementation failures.
constitutional challenges by merely summing up its features and then concluding, ipso facto, that those qualities meaningfully constrain "in all applications." Rhode, 145 F.4th at 1107; see id. at 1125 (Bybee, J., dissenting) ("The majority has not even attempted to explain how these features necessarily impede firearm access." (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Furthermore, the Rhode majority does not explain how a background check can meaningfully constrain an individual's rights where the attendant delays are minimal. As the Rhode dissent points out, the face of the California law imposes no delays, and the majority's reliance on "hypothetical delays|] contradicts ... the Supreme Court's warning... that we avoid belaboring onerous 'hypothetical scenarios." Id. at 1121 (Bybee, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The only way in which the Rhode majority could be understood to be faithfully applying the facial challenge standard is if they believed that any delay or fee, however minimal, suffices to constitute a meaningful constraint, so long as it applies to all transactions statewide. But that conclusion, as detailed above, is flatly contradicted by our Circuit's precedents, our sister courts' precedents, and, indeed, the Ninth Circuit's own precedents. See, e.g., Giambalvo, 2025 WL 2627368,
at*12; Frey, 2025 WL 2679729, at *13; Antonyuk, 120 F.4th at 985 n.32; Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., 116 F.4th at 227; McRorey, 99 F.4th at 839; Manney, 11 F.4th at 1052; B & L Prods., 104 F.4th at 119. Accordingly, we conclude, on this record and on different bases than those relied on by the district court, that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment challenges? We therefore affirm the district court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief.
CA2 says NYβs background check requirement for ammunition purchases doesnβt implicate the 2nd Amendment, creating a circuit split with CA9.
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/10/...
Sotomayor dismembering Louisianaβs lawyer but it wonβt matter
15.10.2025 15:01 β π 35 π 1 π¬ 1 π 1Kagan dismembering Louisianaβs lawyer but it wonβt matter
15.10.2025 14:59 β π 35 π 0 π¬ 1 π 1And so she is
15.10.2025 14:50 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Kavanaugh now saying they shouldnβt defer to Congressβs judgment on when to sunset or repeal VRA Section 2, which gets very close to Scaliaβs infamous soliloquy from Shelby Countyβs args
15.10.2025 14:46 β π 29 π 7 π¬ 1 π 1Barrett is now suggesting that the Voting Rights Act may be BEYOND CONGRESSβS POWER TO ENFORCE THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.
Neoconfederate stuff here.
Kavanaugh now is picking up the gun he loaded two years ago
15.10.2025 14:24 β π 28 π 3 π¬ 1 π 0Chief Justice Roberts, who two years ago voted against Alabamaβs similar ask, just made clear he did so bc he wasnβt asked to revisit the controlling precedent, and is now ready to overrule it.
Thatβs ballgame.
This @bedoyausa.bsky.social piece in @newrepublic.com is a must-must-must read.
βMaybe we try to become skeptical of the idea that the least powerful people are the most responsible for our problems. Maybe we punch up instead of punching the neighbor.β
Hey remember when Lawler and his flunkie Republican trolls tried to weaponize anti-semitism against actual Jewish people like me?
Yeah, fuck off forever.
When Republicans hold power, they hurt people, tank the economy, and then distort our democracy to preserve their power because hurting people and tanking the economy is unpopular.
But itβs not gonna work this time.
Pathetic
15.10.2025 03:44 β π 6 π 1 π¬ 0 π 0Trumpβs lawlessness *is* political, and If they want a political fight, letβs give them a political fight
15.10.2025 03:25 β π 7 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0The 120th Congressβs daily oversight slate if we so will it
15.10.2025 03:23 β π 13 π 1 π¬ 2 π 0Trump may pardon every last one of them but the 120th Congress can haul them before the House all day and night so the American people can learn their names and see their faces, try them in the court of public opinion, and banish them to the political wilderness while we reconstruct our democracy.
15.10.2025 03:21 β π 40 π 10 π¬ 4 π 0Every single word of this piece.
15.10.2025 02:16 β π 27 π 7 π¬ 1 π 0Tomorrow the Roberts Court will hear a case designed to gut whatβs left of the Voting Rights Act while Emil Boveβs 3rd Circuit will hear a case designed to get SCOTUS to declare assault weapons bans unconstitutional.
These stupid fascist incels serve that right-wing agenda. Itβs all the same team.
To everyone who says, "But this won't matter": *MAKE IT MATTER.*
You have that power! This is not inside baseball and your friends and neighbors will likely be appalled. And if they're *not* appalled, don't be cynical yourself. Take the lead, give the cue.
Taps sign
15.10.2025 01:48 β π 12 π 2 π¬ 0 π 0Yep another U.S. attorney who Trump HANDPICKED this time around who team trump quickly determined: nope sorry not authoritarian enough, next
15.10.2025 00:48 β π 442 π 149 π¬ 8 π 1Letβs fight these fucking fascists.
mikesacksforcongress.com