Mike Sacks's Avatar

Mike Sacks

@mikesacks.bsky.social

NY-17 Congressional Candidate. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Second-Best dad ever. mikesacksforcongress.com

22,631 Followers  |  775 Following  |  2,000 Posts  |  Joined: 25.05.2023  |  2.582

Latest posts by mikesacks.bsky.social on Bluesky

Get yourself a Congressperson who will render these ghouls politically irrelevant.

mikesacksforcongress.com

15.10.2025 21:58 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

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€” πŸ‘ 421    πŸ” 133    πŸ’¬ 9    πŸ“Œ 5

Students 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."

15.10.2025 18:54 β€” πŸ‘ 52    πŸ” 15    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Mascott got her commission in time

15.10.2025 16:18 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 2    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Sotomayor cuts to the heart of the Trump admin’s arg in support of Louisiana and the white plaintiffs: β€œthe bottom line is just get rid of Section 2”

15.10.2025 16:06 β€” πŸ‘ 15    πŸ” 5    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Looks 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€” πŸ‘ 38    πŸ” 20    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

Sotomayor reminding Roberts now that SCOTUS didn’t order reargument in this case to revisit the controlling precedent

15.10.2025 15:50 β€” πŸ‘ 19    πŸ” 5    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

KBJ characterizes the white plaintiffs’ arg: β€œif the problem of no access is about trace it’s just too bad because you can’t have a remedy that relates to race”

15.10.2025 15:45 β€” πŸ‘ 15    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0
To 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

To 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.

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,

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.

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 NY’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases doesn’t implicate the 2nd Amendment, creating a circuit split with CA9.

storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/10/...

15.10.2025 15:26 β€” πŸ‘ 2    πŸ” 2    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Sotomayor dismembering Louisiana’s lawyer but it won’t matter

15.10.2025 15:01 β€” πŸ‘ 35    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

Kagan dismembering Louisiana’s lawyer but it won’t matter

15.10.2025 14:59 β€” πŸ‘ 35    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

And so she is

15.10.2025 14:50 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Kavanaugh now saying they shouldn’t defer to Congress’s judgment on when to sunset or repeal VRA Section 2, which gets very close to Scalia’s infamous soliloquy from Shelby County’s args

15.10.2025 14:46 β€” πŸ‘ 29    πŸ” 7    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 1

Barrett is now suggesting that the Voting Rights Act may be BEYOND CONGRESS’S POWER TO ENFORCE THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS.

Neoconfederate stuff here.

15.10.2025 14:27 β€” πŸ‘ 78    πŸ” 21    πŸ’¬ 3    πŸ“Œ 6

Kavanaugh now is picking up the gun he loaded two years ago

15.10.2025 14:24 β€” πŸ‘ 28    πŸ” 3    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Chief Justice Roberts, who two years ago voted against Alabama’s similar ask, just made clear he did so bc he wasn’t asked to revisit the controlling precedent, and is now ready to overrule it.

That’s ballgame.

15.10.2025 14:14 β€” πŸ‘ 75    πŸ” 32    πŸ’¬ 5    πŸ“Œ 4
Preview
How I Became a Populist My time at the Federal Trade Commissionβ€”before Donald Trump fired meβ€”totally changed the way I see our political divide.

This @bedoyausa.bsky.social piece in @newrepublic.com is a must-must-must read.

β€œMaybe 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.”

15.10.2025 12:50 β€” πŸ‘ 23    πŸ” 7    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 2

Hey remember when Lawler and his flunkie Republican trolls tried to weaponize anti-semitism against actual Jewish people like me?

Yeah, fuck off forever.

14.10.2025 20:16 β€” πŸ‘ 828    πŸ” 216    πŸ’¬ 16    πŸ“Œ 14

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 it’s not gonna work this time.

15.10.2025 03:47 β€” πŸ‘ 33    πŸ” 6    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Pathetic

15.10.2025 03:44 β€” πŸ‘ 6    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Trump’s lawlessness *is* political, and If they want a political fight, let’s give them a political fight

15.10.2025 03:25 β€” πŸ‘ 7    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

The 120th Congress’s daily oversight slate if we so will it

15.10.2025 03:23 β€” πŸ‘ 13    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

Trump 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€” πŸ‘ 40    πŸ” 10    πŸ’¬ 4    πŸ“Œ 0
15.10.2025 02:16 β€” πŸ‘ 33    πŸ” 12    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Every single word of this piece.

15.10.2025 02:16 β€” πŸ‘ 27    πŸ” 7    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Tomorrow the Roberts Court will hear a case designed to gut what’s left of the Voting Rights Act while Emil Bove’s 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. It’s all the same team.

15.10.2025 02:03 β€” πŸ‘ 22    πŸ” 4    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

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.

14.10.2025 21:16 β€” πŸ‘ 2721    πŸ” 1024    πŸ’¬ 55    πŸ“Œ 21

Taps sign

15.10.2025 01:48 β€” πŸ‘ 12    πŸ” 2    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Yep 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€” πŸ‘ 442    πŸ” 149    πŸ’¬ 8    πŸ“Œ 1

Let’s fight these fucking fascists.

mikesacksforcongress.com

15.10.2025 01:38 β€” πŸ‘ 6    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

@mikesacks is following 20 prominent accounts