Tessera
Folgen

@gondwanarama.bsky.social

197 Posts408 Follower227 Folgt
michael lutz@ztul.bsky.social · last wk.

Barber CEO: You Risk Falling Behind If You Don't Get A Haircut "Right Now" Industry Experts Foresee Future In Which Everyone Receives Multiple Haircuts Every Day Today Your Hair, Tomorrow The World: Barbers Say They Are On Track To Build A Pair Of Scissors So Big, It Could End Life As We Know It

ProPublica@propublica.org · 2w ago

ProPublica spoke to dozens of people who had lived in homeless encampments when cities cleared them out in “sweeps.” We distributed notecards so people could tell us about the toll in their own words. ➡️ This is what they wrote:

Handwritten notecard. Prompt at the top asks: What object was most devastating for you to lose, and how have you been coping? Answer below: Dentures. Were thrown away and coping isn't somthing I can do. It’s made me feel ugly, unworthy, can’t go get a job with no teeth. So how can get off the streets until another pair can be made?
emma best 🏳️‍🌈🏴‍☠️🏳️‍⚧️ Mxy@emma.best · last mo.

RT if you want immigration enforcement in every form to disappear tomorrow

Asawin Suebsaeng@swin24.bsky.social · last mo.

not saying federal immigration enforcement in any form should disappear tomorrow but if you leave this entity intact, and tinker at the edges and give them a stern talking to, however well meaning you are, you’re leaving these weapons and this orgy of abuses and masked thuggery intact for the next…

Adrienne@adrienneleigh.bsky.social · last mo.

My modest proposal continues to be that if any artwork gets written off for tax purposes, that artwork immediately becomes public domain. The public bought it; we own it now.

William Bibbiani@williambibbiani.bsky.social · last mo.

I'm not comfortable with folks saying COYOTE VS. ACME was "worth the wait." I'd argue the opposite. It was worth NOT waiting for. Warner Bros. shelving a whole film as a tax write-off, potentially forever, doesn't become forgivable if it's good. That's what the word "unforgivable" is for.

T. Ryan Gregory 🇨🇦@tryangregory.bsky.social · 8mo ago

"What exactly do you expect Carney to do / not do?" A thread of 50 specific items (with links, and not in any particular order), a large fraction of which are in line with warning signs we pointed out early on and were told to be quiet, wait and see, or trust his 4D chess acumen. 1/??

Max Kennerly@maxkennerly.bsky.social · 2mo ago

As always: if there's any class of people who do not have due process rights, then *nobody* has due process rights, because the government can just claim someone is in that class and there's no process to establish otherwise.

Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a smol hooman and a lorg floof@evanbernick.bsky.social · 2mo ago

I need people to understand that this administration’s litigating position is (1) federal law currently mandates the detention, without bond, of every noncitizen who is allegedly unlawfully present and (2) constitutionally, they don’t get a day in court. they’re generally losing, but they’re trying.

Ochoa Ochoa v. Noem: Due Process Having concluded that Ochoa Ochoa's detention is discretionary and not mandatory, the court turns to whether it violates due process. "Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). "Freedom from imprisonment-from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint-lies at the heart of the very liberty that [the Due Process Clause] protects." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). To support its argument that Ochoa Ochoa has limited due process rights in the detention context, Respondents rely on Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, where the Supreme Court held that a petitioner who was still "at the threshold of initial entry," though technically in the country, could still be treated as "an alien seeking initial entry." 591 U.S. 103, 114 2020) holding that a noncitizen detained "within 25 yards of the border" is treated as if stopped at the border and had not acquired due process protections). Contrary to Respondents' position, Thuraissigiam held only that noncitizens detained close to the border "shortly after unlawful entry" have not yet "effected an entry." Id. at 140; see also Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953) (explaining that noncitizens "on the threshold of initial entry stand[] on a different footing" than those who have "passed through our gates").