Cal
LightNews LightNews
chalciope.bsky.social
Cal
@chalciope.bsky.social
14 followers 50 following 41 posts
pretty, gay, pretty gay. she/her.
Posts Replies Media Videos
chalciope.bsky.social
Like this is truly the level of analysis it feels like we're at right now with their construction of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". It seems pretty similarly self-evident; and yet!
[screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf] MR. BAXTER: -- it's hard to express what their actual concerns are. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it? MR. BAXTER: You know, Your Honor, I -- again, Montgomery County's own principals objected to this – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. Now The sentence "Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it?" is highlighted in blue
April 22, 2025 at 10:31 PM
chalciope.bsky.social
imo it's incredibly REVEALING about how these justices interpret the constitution itself that alito is out there blatantly lying about what this children's book is about

and that even when sotomayor proves it by QUOTING THE BOOK, both alito and the lawyer just ignore her and get to speak over her 🤡
[screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf] JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, the book has -- the book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with. I don't think anybody can read that and say, well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men, that Uncle Bobby gets married to his boyfriend, Jamie, and everybody's happy and everything is -- you know, it portrays this -- everyone accepts this except for the little girl, Chloe, who has reservations about it. But her mother corrects her: No, you shouldn't have any reservations about this. As I said, it has a clear moral message. There may be – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Wait a minute. The reservation is about – JUSTICE ALITO: Can I finish, please? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel. Yeah. JUSTICE ALITO: It has a clear moral message. And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with. [screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf] JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, a couple of questions to clarify things. Uncle Bob's Wedding, the character, the child character, wasn't objecting to same-sex marriage. She was objecting to the fact that marriage would take her uncle away from spending more time with her, correct? MR. BAXTER: Again, it would be -- you know, courts would be engaged in religious discrimination entanglement if they – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm asking you to answer my question. It wasn't that she was objecting to gay marriage qua gay marriage, period. She was objecting to having her uncle's time taken by someone else? MR. BAXTER: I'm not sure that's correct, Your Honor. I think, for a child of that age – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Then now we -- now – MR. BAXTER: -- it's hard to express what their actual concerns are. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it? MR. BAXTER: You know, Your Honor, I -- again, Montgomery County's own principals objected to this – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. Now
April 22, 2025 at 10:26 PM
chalciope.bsky.social
The Supreme Court got to it at 12:55, as you said; then, just a few minutes later, the 5th Circuit issued its own order on the relevant motion at 1:03am EST (12:03am CST - so technically the dating IS wrong). So like I said - time zone issue!
14 Apr 18, 2025 COURT ORDER: Petitioners' opposed motion for a temporary administrative stay and an injunction pending appeal is DENIED as premature. "A court of appeals sits as a court of review, not of first view." Zaragoza v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 112 F.4th 313, 322 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). That principle dictates our ruling today. Just yesterday, the district court entered an order indicating that "[the government states that authorities will not remove the petitioners during this litigation, and it will alert the Court if that changes. " If Petitioners are concerned that Respondents' position has changed, they should have litigated these concerns before the district court in the first instance. We do not doubt the diligence and ability of the respected district judge in this case to act expeditiously when circumstances warrant.Petitioners insist that they tried to proceed before the district court in the first instance, and that the district court simply "refus[ed] to act." But the district court's order today indicates that Petitioners gave the court only 42 minutes to act--and did not give Respondents an opportunity to respond. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1), for substantially the reasons stated in JudgeRamirez's concurrence. [4] [4]. Mandate issue d is 06/10/2025. [25-10534] (RAJ [Entered: 04/19/2025 12:03 AMI Att 1 Dispositive Court Order
April 21, 2025 at 1:11 AM
chalciope.bsky.social
after the district court refused to act (along with Judge Boasberg in DDC, actually - given the urgency, they were going to all courts that might act ASAP), as they mentioned in their motion:
TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT: Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, Applicants A.A.R.P, W.M.M., et al., on behalf of a proposed class of Venezuelan men in immigration custody, respectfully file this emergency application for a stay of removal and an immediate administrative stay to preserve the status quo for individuals challenging their removal under the Alien Enemies Act ("AEA") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Members of the proposed class are in imminent and ongoing jeopardy of being removed from the United States without notice or an opportunity to be heard, in direct contravention of this Court's order in Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, at *3 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025). Many individuals have already been loaded on to buses, presumably headed to the airport. Because of this ongoing and imminent risk of removal to a prison in El Salvador, Applicants are simultaneously seeking relief through a renewed application for a temporary restraining order in the district court in the District of Columbia and an application for a stay of removal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2025 at 1:10 AM
chalciope.bsky.social
the temptation to respond to spam messages on Signal now, just in case I’m about to get the inside scoop on what the Trump admin is planning next …

Mike Waltz, this you? 😂
Screenshot of notification from the messaging app Signal about new message from “Unknown”, no profile picture, at 12:12 pm. Message reads: “Let’s grab dinner tonight at our favorite spot. 8 pm okay?”
April 18, 2025 at 8:21 PM
chalciope.bsky.social
this is the SINGLE BEST law review article i have ever read. now presenting: originalism as rpf tinhatting.

no notes, just screaming. stacey lantange is a genius.

link: digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcont...
Screenshot of an abstract from a law review article, with several sections highlighted. In full, the abstract reads: TINHATTING THE CONSTITUTION: ORIGINALISM AS A FANDOM Stacey M. Lantagne* Abstract Several recent Supreme Court cases, most notably Bruen and Dobbs, have employed originalist methods to interpreting the Constitution, seeking to give the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively, the meaning that was understood by the public in 1791 and 1868. In this imaginative exercise compiling massive amounts of textual evidence to arrive at conclusions regarding what unknown people were thinking, originalism resembles a type of fandom practice called RPF, or Real Person Fiction. This type of fan activity likewise compiles massive amounts of textual evidence to arrive at conclusions regarding what unknown people were thinking. It’s just that RPF revolves around celebrities instead of the Framers. This Article seeks to interrogate originalism through a fandom lens, viewing it as a type of RPF. Doing so can provide a different perspective on some of the criticisms that have been leveled at RPF, including its lack of neutrality and diversity. This Article finds that originalism is actually a particular RPF phenomenon known as “tinhatting,” in which those engaging in the imaginative exercise believe their conclusions to be the truth. Tinhatters are maligned in fandom, leading to query why originalists are not so easily dismissed. The following two sections are highlighted in blue: 1) "originalism resembles a type of fandom practice called RPF, or Real Person Fiction" and 2) "originalism is actually a particular RPF phenomenon known as 'tinhatting,' in which those engaging in the imaginative exercise believe their conclusions to be the truth." The final sentence alone is highlighted in orange: "Tinhatters are maligned in fandom, leading to query why originalists are not so easily dismissed."
April 11, 2025 at 10:12 PM