Tab
LightNews LightNews
banner
discoveryattorney.net
Tab
@discoveryattorney.net
1.6K followers 3K following 1.9K posts
Is everything not computer?
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Tab
benfields.net
Man this channel I watch of a guy who just talks through picking locks with a fixed camera on his hands does way better numbers than that (I find it soothing idk, he's also clearly very skilled which is pleasant to watch)
The three most recently posted videos from the LockPickingLawyer. All posted in the last two weeks and with 169k, 220k, and 236k views
December 14, 2025 at 11:09 PM
discoveryattorney.net
This was my question...
December 15, 2025 at 7:14 PM
discoveryattorney.net
Maybe Trump shouldn't have tried to kill Mike Pence.
December 11, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
(3) concludes that the standard applied by the Ninth Circuit panel in Newsom v. Trump was likely wrong (and praises Judge Marsha Berzon's dissent to that en banc request) because "there is no reason for the judiciary to accept at face value" a presidential determination on these issues; and
In Newsom, we concluded that we had the power to review the President's decision to deploy troops to enforce federal law in Los Angeles. 141 F.4th at 1045- 47. What standard of review do we use? We concluded that courts must defer to the President's determination that a statutory precondition for federalizing the National Guard has been met so long as that determination "reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'" Id. at 1051 (citing Sterling, 287 U.S. at 399). Although we did not "further specify the precise standard that governs our review," id., we described the standard as one that is "especially deferential," id. at 1047. I am concerned that such deference sounding in horizontal separation of powers concerns-cannot be reconciled with vertical separation of powers principles found in the Domestic Violence Clause. And no matter the appropriate standard of review, one thing is clear: It does not require courts to turn a blind eye to pretext. Courts are "not at liberty to shut [their] eyes to an obvious mistake, when the validity of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared." Baker v. Carr, The question in this case is not how the President directs the National Guard, but whether the National Guard may be deployed to Oregon against the wishes of the state in the first place. The President has made certain statements in support of his › In her dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in Newsom, Judge Berzon provided a thoughtful analysis explaining why exceptional deference to the President's determinations is not appropriate in this context. See Newsom v. Trump, - F.4th --, 2025 WL 2977104, at *3-10 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025) (Berzon, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). 50 25-6268 Case: 25-6268, 12/08/2025, DktEntry: 100.1, Page 53 of 93 proposed course of action. The issue for us is how much deference do we owe to those justifications? There are, of course, circumstances where the judiciary, as a coordinate branch of government, must accord great respect to Presidential determinations of fact. But the cases in which we have been "especially deferential" are largely limited to national security and foreign affairs. Neither context is implicated here. The upshot of all this is that although there are certainly circumstances where the President's findings deserve substantial deference, in the context of the interpretation and invocation of the constitutional terms at issue, the President's findings cannot be the last word. Absolute fealty is not required here. We have the capacity both to define constitutional terms and to make findings as to whether the President's asserted basis for action comes within that definition. Just as we would not entrust the President to judge for himself whether a tax was proportional, art. I, § 8, cl. 1, whether a regulation gave preference to one port over another, art. I, § 9, cl. 6, or whether a rule was properly within the scope of the Commerce Clause, art. I, § 8, cl. 3, there is no reason for the judiciary to accept at face value the President's determination that a condition of insurrection or rebellion exists within a state or that he is unable to execute the law through ordinary means.
December 9, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Reposted by Tab
numb.comfortab.ly
"...and this is where we bathe our coats."
December 1, 2025 at 9:16 PM
discoveryattorney.net
Dude...
November 21, 2025 at 7:42 PM
discoveryattorney.net
Jealous. So fun.
November 21, 2025 at 3:09 PM
Reposted by Tab
kenwhite.bsky.social
/6 Also, it is the obligation of every lawyer who takes their oath and the Constitution seriously to shun from legal society every single AUSA and DoJ lawyer participating in this. Strike their names from every book and tablet, every pylon and obelisk, every monument of the rule of law.
November 19, 2025 at 11:46 PM