Peter_ryans
@ryanbegley.bsky.social
Reposted by Peter_ryans
Lindsey Graham doesn't want you to know the name of his opponent but will try every last pathetic attempt to save his seat.
My name is Lee Johnson. I am a Democrat running to retire Lindsey. If you are with me I need you to share this and follow my account. Let’s end this nightmare.
My name is Lee Johnson. I am a Democrat running to retire Lindsey. If you are with me I need you to share this and follow my account. Let’s end this nightmare.
June 27, 2025 at 1:04 AM
Lindsey Graham doesn't want you to know the name of his opponent but will try every last pathetic attempt to save his seat.
My name is Lee Johnson. I am a Democrat running to retire Lindsey. If you are with me I need you to share this and follow my account. Let’s end this nightmare.
My name is Lee Johnson. I am a Democrat running to retire Lindsey. If you are with me I need you to share this and follow my account. Let’s end this nightmare.
Reposted by Peter_ryans
God bless you.
It’s been a long and hard journey, but this letter I received today has made every heartache, smear campaign and sleepless night more than worth it!
June 26, 2025 at 4:07 AM
God bless you.
Reposted by Peter_ryans
It would be a shame if these job ads received hundreds of bogus applications
June 24, 2025 at 9:46 AM
It would be a shame if these job ads received hundreds of bogus applications
Reposted by Peter_ryans
... but given the clear descent we're seeing into fascism?
It's another sign. It's also another sign for critics to shut up, or they get called it from official channels too.
That's why it's alarming as hell.
It's another sign. It's also another sign for critics to shut up, or they get called it from official channels too.
That's why it's alarming as hell.
June 23, 2025 at 6:57 AM
... but given the clear descent we're seeing into fascism?
It's another sign. It's also another sign for critics to shut up, or they get called it from official channels too.
That's why it's alarming as hell.
It's another sign. It's also another sign for critics to shut up, or they get called it from official channels too.
That's why it's alarming as hell.
Reposted by Peter_ryans
Reposted by Peter_ryans
leftists are consistently labeled as out of touch extremists, but there isn’t a single prominent left position this unpopular
"Do you want America to be at war with Iran?"
No: 85%
Yes: 5%
YouGov / June 22, 2025
No: 85%
Yes: 5%
YouGov / June 22, 2025
June 23, 2025 at 3:39 AM
leftists are consistently labeled as out of touch extremists, but there isn’t a single prominent left position this unpopular
Reposted by Peter_ryans
He just dropped $280,000,000 worth of artillery in a war that’s not ours, but our grandparents have to live on Ramen noodles because America can’t afford Meals on Wheels anymore.
Make it make sense.
Make it make sense.
June 22, 2025 at 8:27 PM
He just dropped $280,000,000 worth of artillery in a war that’s not ours, but our grandparents have to live on Ramen noodles because America can’t afford Meals on Wheels anymore.
Make it make sense.
Make it make sense.
Reposted by Peter_ryans
Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreih3qdtlloz3yhggypbtwiveqdgzzfgapsnetvq7qsni7wfmyuovoi@jpeg)
June 20, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Reposted by Peter_ryans
Reposted by Peter_ryans
this is as good as turning the Constitution off. If this is what congressional leaders are going to do when an executive just seizes power from the legislative branch, we do not have one.
Trump’s military attack on Iran gets quick support from the Speaker of the House and Senate majority leader 👇
June 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM
this is as good as turning the Constitution off. If this is what congressional leaders are going to do when an executive just seizes power from the legislative branch, we do not have one.
Hi there. F twitter!
May 10, 2023 at 6:06 AM
Hi there. F twitter!