Usually, courts have trusted the office of legal counsel quite a lot (because they have been seen as very competent and somewhat neutral). But the judge here says the OLC (flawed) view can't be relied on by the Admin, which is quite important separate from the outcome.

The actual case could go their way (probably not) or be reversed on appeal by a higher court, allowing them to kill the CFPB later. The judge had ordered them to keep CFPB running in the meantime, they don't want to wait, she clarifies that her previous order prevents also this approach.

Key is that this relates to a preliminary injunction, which means the judge is stopping the Admin from killing the CFPB before the actual case even goes to trial, "the merits".

So the Admin tried to be clever with "flawed reasoning" to kill CFPB making the trial pointless, bypassing the court.

Yes, people did treat Google like the oracle, but I’d argue that the nature of how LLMs work and how most people interact with them and view them makes that existing problem exponentially worse

The judge says trying to dismantle the agency by not requesting the money needed to run the agency is (also) against her previous order (an order stopping the Admin from doing something, an injunction).

She says the office giving legal advice at DOJ (OLC) can't overrule the law and her.

bsky.app/profile/theo...

All your prompt belong to us.

As illustrated by xkcd bsky.app/profile/cube...

The moon rockets too. This one hits a bit too close to Elon these days. bsky.app/profile/xkcd...

xkcd.com/984/

To be clear, he's far right in any frame.

"Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!"

Ecactly my point as well, let's just boost and support each other. We know who division is helping.

Who are they arguing with? Who are these scornful Europeans denying that all the protests of the last decade happened?

The Danish police publishes an annual report on their use of "force multipliers". This means that they track every single time a cop pulls out their gun (there's a chip in their holster, in fact), separate from *firing* the gun, and also the use of batons, tasers, and even police dogs.

In case I didn't make it clear -- this thread isn't about how Europeans view American protests.

Most European activists and antifascists know what the US is like and what we deal with here.

It's about how American folks view their own protests through the lens of videos they see of other countries

And a reason the Convention mandates that is because it's interpreted by a non-political *supranational* collegium of judges that has built up a jurisprudence since 1950 saying that's what the Convention means. No individual government can influence or usurp that court quickly, how much they want.