@antifahq.bsky.social
Reposted
He is a rapist.
He is a murderer.
His assassination was staged.
He is in the Epstein files thousands of times.
What will it take to force him out of the White House?
He is a murderer.
His assassination was staged.
He is in the Epstein files thousands of times.
What will it take to force him out of the White House?
September 23, 2025 at 3:22 AM
He is a rapist.
He is a murderer.
His assassination was staged.
He is in the Epstein files thousands of times.
What will it take to force him out of the White House?
He is a murderer.
His assassination was staged.
He is in the Epstein files thousands of times.
What will it take to force him out of the White House?
Reposted
Inflation is so bad these days that taking a $50,000 cash bribe can't even get you indicted. SAD!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
September 22, 2025 at 2:27 AM
Inflation is so bad these days that taking a $50,000 cash bribe can't even get you indicted. SAD!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Reposted
How Do We Save Free Speech in America?
open.substack.com/pub/davidrot...
open.substack.com/pub/davidrot...
How Do We Save Free Speech in America?
Free speech is under assault in America.
open.substack.com
September 23, 2025 at 3:13 AM
How Do We Save Free Speech in America?
open.substack.com/pub/davidrot...
open.substack.com/pub/davidrot...
Reposted
Corporations aren’t people, money isn’t free speech, and we need to End Citizens United.
Repost if you agree.
Repost if you agree.
July 14, 2025 at 3:31 PM
Corporations aren’t people, money isn’t free speech, and we need to End Citizens United.
Repost if you agree.
Repost if you agree.
Reposted
This is all happening 100% because of this!!
May 28, 2025 at 9:17 PM
This is all happening 100% because of this!!
Reposted
One aspect of the opinion throwing out Trump's tariffs is that it accepted plaintiffs' argument that bc it would require veto-proof majority to override a POTUS emergency, courts can intervene to rule Trump usurped Congressional power on tariffs.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![This means, the Government states, that “[t]he President still has to look
at and faithfully apply that statute . . . .” V.O.S. Oral Arg. Tr. at 47:11–13 (statement of
E. Hamilton). But what happens if the President does not do so? Does the court still have no role?
Even if Congress could hypothetically undo the President’s invocation of IEEPA powers by
passing a law to that effect (over the President’s likely veto, see generally Chadha, 462 U.S. 919),
Congress’s inherent power to legislate is no substitute for the “judicial function” of “determining
the limits of statutory grants of authority.” Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 310 (1944). “The
supremacy of law,” moreover, “demands that there shall be opportunity to have some court decide
whether an erroneous rule of law was applied.” St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298
U.S. 38, 84 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The Government also argues that § 1701 “informs legislative review of any national
emergency declared under IEEPA.” V.O.S. Oral Arg. Tr. at 47:16–18 (statement of E. Hamilton).
But Congress has already legislated on the relevant question by enacting IEEPA “to limit the
President’s emergency power in peacetime.” Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 672–73
(1981). Congress should not have to enact new statutes to enforce the statutory constraints it has
already enacted.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreiaxffxu6fj2rx5wqs4yer464ks3tyfpwhsihyjzoojfh7vvbr2keu@jpeg)
![Though the appellate court in Yoshida II interpreted TWEA so as to include tariff
authority, the court also repeatedly noted the constitutional concerns that would arise if the
President exercised unlimited tariff authority based on the words “regulate . . . importation.” For
example, the court stated that “[t]he mere incantation of ‘national emergency’ cannot, of course,
sound the death-knell of the Constitution.” Id. at 583. Indeed, according to the court, “[t]he
declaration of a national emergency is not a talisman enabling the President to rewrite the tariff
schedules.” Id.9
While the court in Yoshida II ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision and
upheld President Nixon’s tariffs, it upheld the tariffs on the basis that they were limited, “which is
quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”
9
This concern is even more significant today given the limited nature of Congress’s review over
national emergencies. Recall that the NEA originally provided Congress with the means to
terminate a national emergency by adopting a concurrent resolution. See National Emergencies
Act, Pub. L. No. 94-412, § 201, 90 Stat. 1255, 1255–56 (1976) (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C.
§ 1622). Today the NEA is much less restricted, requiring Congress to act with a veto-proof
majority of both houses. See Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987,
Pub. L. No. 99-93, § 801, 98 Stat. 405, 448 (1985) (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 1622).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreiewmaac24ektr535ryralg4nuhobhucgj7wko5bs2h3jsy5qhzbsm@jpeg)
May 29, 2025 at 3:09 AM
One aspect of the opinion throwing out Trump's tariffs is that it accepted plaintiffs' argument that bc it would require veto-proof majority to override a POTUS emergency, courts can intervene to rule Trump usurped Congressional power on tariffs.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Reposted
Donnie, be Van Gone.
May 29, 2025 at 2:35 AM
Donnie, be Van Gone.
Reposted
Reposted
Vladimir Putin is a sworn enemy of the United States.
Appeasement was never going to work.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Appeasement was never going to work.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
May 28, 2025 at 12:43 PM
Vladimir Putin is a sworn enemy of the United States.
Appeasement was never going to work.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Appeasement was never going to work.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Reposted
Pierre Poilievre so beautifully illustrates the entitlement, the hypocrisy, and the awe-inspiring corruption that is political Conservatism.
vm.tiktok.com/ZMS6mdyES/
vm.tiktok.com/ZMS6mdyES/
May 28, 2025 at 12:20 PM
Pierre Poilievre so beautifully illustrates the entitlement, the hypocrisy, and the awe-inspiring corruption that is political Conservatism.
vm.tiktok.com/ZMS6mdyES/
vm.tiktok.com/ZMS6mdyES/
Reposted
Reposted
T-rump
A-lways
C-hickens
O-ut
A-lways
C-hickens
O-ut
May 28, 2025 at 10:36 PM
T-rump
A-lways
C-hickens
O-ut
A-lways
C-hickens
O-ut
Reposted
Kamala Harris on “the big, beautiful bill:”
“It’s an agenda...a narrow, self-serving vision of America...where they punish truth tellers, favor loyalists, profit from their power, and leave everyone else to fend for themselves.”
Nailed it!
🔥
“It’s an agenda...a narrow, self-serving vision of America...where they punish truth tellers, favor loyalists, profit from their power, and leave everyone else to fend for themselves.”
Nailed it!
🔥
May 28, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Kamala Harris on “the big, beautiful bill:”
“It’s an agenda...a narrow, self-serving vision of America...where they punish truth tellers, favor loyalists, profit from their power, and leave everyone else to fend for themselves.”
Nailed it!
🔥
“It’s an agenda...a narrow, self-serving vision of America...where they punish truth tellers, favor loyalists, profit from their power, and leave everyone else to fend for themselves.”
Nailed it!
🔥
Reposted
Jessica Tarlov: “He does these interviews and says I don't know, or I'm not sure. He was asked ‘do you need to uphold the constitution? I don't know, ask a lawyer’ … He may be in front of you, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not spewing utter BS.”
May 28, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Jessica Tarlov: “He does these interviews and says I don't know, or I'm not sure. He was asked ‘do you need to uphold the constitution? I don't know, ask a lawyer’ … He may be in front of you, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not spewing utter BS.”
Reposted
Another win!!! Now release him. A federal judge just ruled that the law used to detain Mr. Khalil is likely unconstitutional. Why? Because it’s too vague and was never meant to apply to someone like him a U.S. resident who never left the country.
May 29, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Another win!!! Now release him. A federal judge just ruled that the law used to detain Mr. Khalil is likely unconstitutional. Why? Because it’s too vague and was never meant to apply to someone like him a U.S. resident who never left the country.
Reposted
Beyond parody.
May 28, 2025 at 9:40 PM
Beyond parody.
Reposted
May 29, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Reposted
Give me a break, Musk is not leaving because his scheduled time is up
The litigation held him accountable, & for that & other reasons he became politically unpopular & a liability
He lost. Democracy won. Only one round of the fight but a biggie!
The litigation held him accountable, & for that & other reasons he became politically unpopular & a liability
He lost. Democracy won. Only one round of the fight but a biggie!
May 29, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Give me a break, Musk is not leaving because his scheduled time is up
The litigation held him accountable, & for that & other reasons he became politically unpopular & a liability
He lost. Democracy won. Only one round of the fight but a biggie!
The litigation held him accountable, & for that & other reasons he became politically unpopular & a liability
He lost. Democracy won. Only one round of the fight but a biggie!
Reposted
TACO!
Trump Always Chickens Out
Trump Always Chickens Out
May 28, 2025 at 11:00 PM
TACO!
Trump Always Chickens Out
Trump Always Chickens Out
Reposted
It’s only appropriate that Trump’s nickname is TACO, since he is the same exact colour of a nacho Dorito.
May 29, 2025 at 2:39 AM
It’s only appropriate that Trump’s nickname is TACO, since he is the same exact colour of a nacho Dorito.
Reposted
Reposted
Reposted
“Truth North is indeed strong and free.”
I think King Charles sent a strong message, in a nice way, to the American bozo in the Oval Office: Canada 🇨🇦 is a sovereign nation. PERIOD
#Canada
I think King Charles sent a strong message, in a nice way, to the American bozo in the Oval Office: Canada 🇨🇦 is a sovereign nation. PERIOD
#Canada
May 27, 2025 at 3:40 PM
“Truth North is indeed strong and free.”
I think King Charles sent a strong message, in a nice way, to the American bozo in the Oval Office: Canada 🇨🇦 is a sovereign nation. PERIOD
#Canada
I think King Charles sent a strong message, in a nice way, to the American bozo in the Oval Office: Canada 🇨🇦 is a sovereign nation. PERIOD
#Canada
Reposted
This is why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. The firms that caved to this thug are an embarrassment to the legal profession—and I for one wouldn’t be in the least upset if all of them collapsed permanently under the weight of their shame. OF COURSE he’s now demanding political—non-pro-bono—work.
Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them.
www.nytimes.com
May 28, 2025 at 2:20 AM
This is why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. The firms that caved to this thug are an embarrassment to the legal profession—and I for one wouldn’t be in the least upset if all of them collapsed permanently under the weight of their shame. OF COURSE he’s now demanding political—non-pro-bono—work.
Reposted
We can keep discussing these societal issues year after year, but nothing is likely to change. Instead, it’s up to you to take proactive steps to protect yourself and your family and live with the reassurance that you can protect your life if the threat arises—plain and simple.
May 27, 2025 at 4:21 AM
We can keep discussing these societal issues year after year, but nothing is likely to change. Instead, it’s up to you to take proactive steps to protect yourself and your family and live with the reassurance that you can protect your life if the threat arises—plain and simple.