Bianca Walser

there are benighted lands on this planet where a child can be born into statelessness

but such barbarism is nearly unknown in the Americas, home of hummingbirds & redwoods, the great river & the great cordillera

bsky.app/profile/hann...

That notion, which is rare among the most-developed countries in the world, is grounded in the language of the 14th Amendment. The amendment, ratified after the Civil War, states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

You could write this. Or you could write: “That notion, which has been the rule in nearly every country in the Western Hemisphere for over a century, is grounded in the language of the 14th Amendment.”

All how you choose to frame it.

The entire debate over birthright citizenship is anti-constitutional because the purpose, intent, and text of the 14th Amendment were designed to foreclose any argument about who counts as an American citizen.

The hepatitis B vaccine had been recommended for all newborns since 1991.

From 1990-2019, acute hepatitis B infections reported among children and teens fell 99 percent. www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/w...

YouTube video by Oh The Urbanity! How This Small City Tripled Its Cycling In Just 11 Years

Interesting point at 4:39 of this @ohtheurbanity.bsky.social video

This citys cycling grew once it shifted focus to bike infra. on major roads, not just side streets bc:
- that’s where destinations are
- that’s where danger is
- it made bikes more politically visible

youtu.be/mpWm45qting?...

their goal is to kill children

and every Republican senator who knew better and voted to confirm him anyway has that blood on their hands

i’ve always found the 2016 cooper union bathroom signage redesign, a result of successful advocacy by trans students, to be a brilliant, elegant solution.

cooper.edu/about/restro...

should not be complicated to grasp that we cannot have war crimes without a war — but we can and we do have murder, and when we've programmatically murdered scores of victims we have mass murder

That's why safe infrastructure shouldn't be up for public debate.

the thing is that blowing up drug boats is just murder. no law licenses it. it is just war crimes. but to say out loud what the penalty for committing them is puts us in the position of accusing high government officials of capital crimes.

it is critically important to be able to say the obvious.

Ireland calling the UK out for being stupid enough to fall for this 'gender critical' bollocks.

One thing that’s pretty consistent in American history is elites getting away with it

Convenient low cost storage for private vehicles is a huge part of their competitive advantage as a mode of transportation.

No wonder people fight so hard to maintain it. Otherwise they may have to face the reality that cars don't work well in cities without a ton of public subsidy.

If the bike lane requires you to be at "peak human" performance to survive, it's a failed design.

a car blocking a sidewalk parked at a crosswalk

Driver extremely wary of using crosswalk they always blow through.

how about instead of focusing our energy on teaching kids road safety we teach adults safe systems.

The metric should not be whether drivers hate it. The metric should be whether it makes our streets safer for everyone. And by all accounts this accomplished that. That’s more than worth a few seconds of all of our time

No one could’ve predicted that putting a lot of Opus Dei weirdos on the Supreme Court would end our democracy

They're not even trying to appear nonpartisan anymore.

It's not hypocrisy, it's power.

The entire premise of the federal Constitution is that the ends do not justify the means, that the government is restricted in its choice of means *even when acting in furtherance of a legitimate end*

Our infrastructure isn’t ready for what’s coming.

If you see John Roberts in person, be sure to tell him he’s a worse Chief Justice than Roger Taney (pronounced “tawny”). That’s a nerd burn that will hit him where it counts.

It's good—very good, and very important—that district courts keep issuing these 100-page rulings upholding the law. It must be incredibly dispiriting to see them overturned in a two-page, lawless, unsigned order, but please, keep them coming. They expose SCOTUS' corruption like nothing else.

Texas is not on “the eve of an election,” as was true in the case the majority cites. Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, 589 U. S. 423, 424 (2020) (per curiam); see ante, at 2. The election there was five days after the injunction. Similarly, the election in Purcell was “just weeks” away. 549 U. S., at 4. Here, Election Day is eleven months from now. Even the primary election (which Texas could change) is in March. The District Court care- fully listed the various “election preparations” underway to switch to the 2025 map. App. 144. On the other hand, the court noted how the 2021 map—which the injunction rein- stated—was, in a real sense, the status quo. See id., at 145. Officials, candidates, and voters are all familiar with it from the last two election cycles. Until late last summer, every- one expected that map to govern 2026 too. And indeed, it will be used in a special runoff election in the State’s largest county on January 31, 2026. So, the District Court properly concluded, “[a]n injunction in this case would not cause sig- nificant disruption.” Id., at 144. Except to the extent all of us live in election season all the time, the 2026 congres- sional election is not well underway.

16 ABBOTT v. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS KAGAN, J., dissenting And even supposing it is now the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that? It was of course the Texas legisla- ture that decided to change its map six months before a March primary. The plaintiffs could not have moved any faster: They requested an injunction before the new law was even signed. And to try to speed the litigation, they de- clined discovery. (That decision, by the way, probably ac- counted for their failure to submit an alternative map, which to be probative must be based on the State’s particu- lar districting criteria. See supra, at 13 n.) The District Court moved expeditiously too, issuing its 160-page opinion (on November 18) just a month after post-hearing briefing concluded. No one dilly-dallied in this case. The District Court ruled as “late” as it did because the legislature en- acted a new map less than three months before. If Purcell prevents such a ruling, it gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election. The District Court, once again aptly, made the point: Were judicial re- view so broadly foreclosed, then to implement even a “bla- tantly unconstitutional map,” the “Legislature would need only to pass” it on a schedule like this one. App. 154–155. That cannot be the law—except of course that today it is. According to the majority, Texas had a free pass to redis- trict in August 2025 for the 2026 House elections. See ante, at 2. All that the plaintiffs can hope for is better luck in 2028.

Pretty notable, in my view, that Kagan points out the Supreme Court's pro-gerrymandering decision in Texas is a step-by-step instruction manual for states to draw discriminatory maps while ducking judicial review, and the majority has...nothing to say in response www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

I am humbly requesting that lawmakers in every Democratic-controlled state spend every waking hour between now and Christmas cooking up new congressional district maps that draw Republicans out of electoral existence

The fact that a second strike like that in an armed conflict is definitely a war crime should not completely negate the fact that *there is no war* and ALL the strikes are cold-blooded murder. The whole chain of command are murderers.

The first school to market itself as AI free is going to corner the market on people interested in actually learning. And I would not be surprised if rich families and the children of people creating this tech were the first movers.

Yeah, a House member needs to send up that impeachment flag. This is illegal, immoral, dangerous behavior — that is also likely unconstitutional as well.

once again, "the supreme court will act as a bunch of partisan republican hacks" is the single most accurate heuristic for predicting its behavior, putting any coherent legal theory to shame

because fuck you, that's why