Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Cole

Gillian Brockell

@gbrockell.bsky.social

In this clip from a longer interview, she says while she was in detention, agents called Renee Good a “lesbian b*tch.”

This video belongs to @statuscoupnews.bsky.social and I’ll take it down if they want me to.

2/2

January 12, 2026 at 2:46 AM

Reposted by Cole

Insipid Twaddle

@insipidtwaddle.bsky.social

Generally speaking, one should not get into a standoff with the We Love Shooting Hostages Party under the belief that the sight of suffering hostages will result in the WLSHP capitulating.

November 10, 2025 at 3:04 AM

Reposted by Cole

Matt Cameron

@mattcameron.bsky.social

7/ As usual, the dissents lay out the actual case and what is going on here. Sotomayor says the quiet part that the dissenters were trying to bring out at oral argument:

We all know that the government is not going to appeal the merits any further, because they will lose.

This is the ballgame.

The majority insists that the constitutionality of the Citizenship Order will come before this Court eventually and that, when it does, the
Government will obey this Court’s resulting opinion with respect to all
newborn children. Ante, at 25, n. 18. Why? The majority is sure that
the Government will honor its oral-argument promises to “‘seek cert’”
when it “‘lose[s] one of ’” its pending appeals and to “respect both the
judgments and opinions of this Court.” Ibid. (quoting Tr. of Oral Arg.
50). The majority’s certainty that the Government will keep its word is
nothing short of a leap of faith, given that the Government has adopted
a plainly unconstitutional policy in defiance of this Court’s precedent and
then gamed the system to stymie this Court’s consideration of the policy’s
merits. In any event, the Government’s promise is cold comfort to the
many children whose parents do not file a lawsuit and whose citizenship
status remains in flux pending this Court’s review.

June 27, 2025 at 3:06 PM

Reposted by Cole

Matt Cameron

@mattcameron.bsky.social

9/ Remember that the EO did not purport to amend the Constitution, but only to instruct the federal government not to honor it. A child born to undocumented parents in TX won't be able to get a US passport, but one born in MA will. Two different countries.

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

June 27, 2025 at 3:11 PM

Reposted by Cole

Sheryl Weikal, still saying Free Palestine

@leftistlawyer.com

Of course they would. But if you can force a court to burn down a load bearing pillar of its own institution in order to reach its desired result, you have to do it. In other words, make it actually hurt.

June 27, 2025 at 4:16 PM