Dean Willis
@jethro192.bsky.social
Writer, Musician, Amateur Genealogist, and All-Around Nerd. He/Him.
1/ Trump is trying to defuse the obvious truth that he wanted Siebert out because he couldn't prosecute his political opponent on entirely made-up charges. But his defense, that it's because he was supported by both of Virginia's Senators, who are Democrats, is actually even WORSE.
September 20, 2025 at 4:52 PM
1/ Trump is trying to defuse the obvious truth that he wanted Siebert out because he couldn't prosecute his political opponent on entirely made-up charges. But his defense, that it's because he was supported by both of Virginia's Senators, who are Democrats, is actually even WORSE.
1/ I find this absolutely hilarious. Trump is the MASTER of delaying trials; he got out of being tried for his coup and for stealing classified documents because he dragged out those cases for *FOUR YEARS*. But now he wants "quick trials"?
Yeah, I don't buy it.
Yeah, I don't buy it.
September 12, 2025 at 3:57 PM
1/ I find this absolutely hilarious. Trump is the MASTER of delaying trials; he got out of being tried for his coup and for stealing classified documents because he dragged out those cases for *FOUR YEARS*. But now he wants "quick trials"?
Yeah, I don't buy it.
Yeah, I don't buy it.
34/ He then wraps it up with the usual boilerplate language, claiming that the government "demonstrated a fair prospect of success on the merits". Which is LAUGHABLY false. They did not such thing, and nothing Kavanaugh wrote suggests otherwise.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
34/ He then wraps it up with the usual boilerplate language, claiming that the government "demonstrated a fair prospect of success on the merits". Which is LAUGHABLY false. They did not such thing, and nothing Kavanaugh wrote suggests otherwise.
33/ He then tries to feign neutrality by pointing out that he once ruled against Biden's immigration policies, which he clearly wants us to believe means that he's totally, absolutely NOT biased in favor of Trump.
He needs a class in logic because logic that ain't.
He needs a class in logic because logic that ain't.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
33/ He then tries to feign neutrality by pointing out that he once ruled against Biden's immigration policies, which he clearly wants us to believe means that he's totally, absolutely NOT biased in favor of Trump.
He needs a class in logic because logic that ain't.
He needs a class in logic because logic that ain't.
32/ He also once again repeats the lie that when ICE detains people, it's "typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally here".
LIE. Tell that to the DOZENS of CITIZENS in custody.
LIE. Tell that to the DOZENS of CITIZENS in custody.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
32/ He also once again repeats the lie that when ICE detains people, it's "typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally here".
LIE. Tell that to the DOZENS of CITIZENS in custody.
LIE. Tell that to the DOZENS of CITIZENS in custody.
30/ He does concede that immigration has been made difficult by "the varying U.S. approaches to immigration enforcement over the last few decades", but ignores the fact that undocumented and documented migrants *alike* are being harmed *right now* by *this* administration's massive policy changes.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
30/ He does concede that immigration has been made difficult by "the varying U.S. approaches to immigration enforcement over the last few decades", but ignores the fact that undocumented and documented migrants *alike* are being harmed *right now* by *this* administration's massive policy changes.
28/ He also WHOLLY IGNORES the harms being brought to the plaintiffs. He literally doesn't mention them a SINGLE TIME in this analysis. Instead, he focuses on undocumented migrants, who he seems to think deserve NO legal protections.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
28/ He also WHOLLY IGNORES the harms being brought to the plaintiffs. He literally doesn't mention them a SINGLE TIME in this analysis. Instead, he focuses on undocumented migrants, who he seems to think deserve NO legal protections.
27/ Kavanaugh then launches into a 2.5 page diatribe that pretends to explain why the "balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government."
But he offers no actual, tangible, valid explanation. None. It's just a word salad saying over and over again that says Trump wins.
But he offers no actual, tangible, valid explanation. None. It's just a word salad saying over and over again that says Trump wins.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
27/ Kavanaugh then launches into a 2.5 page diatribe that pretends to explain why the "balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government."
But he offers no actual, tangible, valid explanation. None. It's just a word salad saying over and over again that says Trump wins.
But he offers no actual, tangible, valid explanation. None. It's just a word salad saying over and over again that says Trump wins.
25/ He's also wrong in claiming that the injunction prevents the government "from effectuating statues enacted by representatives of its people". That's because these aren't laws enacted by Congress; they're policies invented by Trump and enacted by appointed Executive branch officials.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
25/ He's also wrong in claiming that the injunction prevents the government "from effectuating statues enacted by representatives of its people". That's because these aren't laws enacted by Congress; they're policies invented by Trump and enacted by appointed Executive branch officials.
24/ Kavanaugh didn't even *attempt* to refute this logic, and instead relied on the flawed ruling he signed onto in CASA. He also complained that the lower court's injunction could "chill" ICE agents by making them fear a contempt citation later on.
But contempt isn't retroactive. This is Law 101.
But contempt isn't retroactive. This is Law 101.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
24/ Kavanaugh didn't even *attempt* to refute this logic, and instead relied on the flawed ruling he signed onto in CASA. He also complained that the lower court's injunction could "chill" ICE agents by making them fear a contempt citation later on.
But contempt isn't retroactive. This is Law 101.
But contempt isn't retroactive. This is Law 101.
22/ Next, he claims that the government has "demonstrated that it would likely suffer irreparable harm if the District Court's injunction is not stayed." As precedent, he cites the finding in Trump v. CASA Inc that banned nationwide injunctions.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
22/ Next, he claims that the government has "demonstrated that it would likely suffer irreparable harm if the District Court's injunction is not stayed." As precedent, he cites the finding in Trump v. CASA Inc that banned nationwide injunctions.
21/ He then repeats the lie about how ICE will let citizens and migrants with legal status/protections "go after the brief encounter".
Then he hilariously whines that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would require them to overrule precedents. Even though that's ALL he and his buddies have done.
Then he hilariously whines that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would require them to overrule precedents. Even though that's ALL he and his buddies have done.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
21/ He then repeats the lie about how ICE will let citizens and migrants with legal status/protections "go after the brief encounter".
Then he hilariously whines that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would require them to overrule precedents. Even though that's ALL he and his buddies have done.
Then he hilariously whines that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would require them to overrule precedents. Even though that's ALL he and his buddies have done.
20/ He cites NO other "salient" factors. He claims that there are other "precedents", but cites NONE. The only case he cites is the one he quotes from, U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, but it doesn't offer any kind of standard or test.
Ergo, he has no evidence, and he knows it. He's blowing smoke.
Ergo, he has no evidence, and he knows it. He's blowing smoke.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
20/ He cites NO other "salient" factors. He claims that there are other "precedents", but cites NONE. The only case he cites is the one he quotes from, U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, but it doesn't offer any kind of standard or test.
Ergo, he has no evidence, and he knows it. He's blowing smoke.
Ergo, he has no evidence, and he knows it. He's blowing smoke.
19/ Kavanaugh then went on to try to explain how the tactics at issue here are in fact appropriate in determining "reasonable suspicion", and he failed MISERABLY.
He concedes that a person's ethnicity alone "cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" absent "other salient factors", but stops there.
He concedes that a person's ethnicity alone "cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" absent "other salient factors", but stops there.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
19/ Kavanaugh then went on to try to explain how the tactics at issue here are in fact appropriate in determining "reasonable suspicion", and he failed MISERABLY.
He concedes that a person's ethnicity alone "cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" absent "other salient factors", but stops there.
He concedes that a person's ethnicity alone "cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" absent "other salient factors", but stops there.
13/ Kavanaugh claims that the plaintiffs here "have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop *them* in the future based on the prohibited factors - and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent."
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
13/ Kavanaugh claims that the plaintiffs here "have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop *them* in the future based on the prohibited factors - and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent."
10/ After the litany of false and misleading claims, Kavanaugh began to explain why he voted to grant the government relief, and it's as ludicrous as you'd expect.
He starts by claiming a lack of standing (this court's favorite reason to punt on cases), and relies on a 42 year old case to do it.
He starts by claiming a lack of standing (this court's favorite reason to punt on cases), and relies on a 42 year old case to do it.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
10/ After the litany of false and misleading claims, Kavanaugh began to explain why he voted to grant the government relief, and it's as ludicrous as you'd expect.
He starts by claiming a lack of standing (this court's favorite reason to punt on cases), and relies on a 42 year old case to do it.
He starts by claiming a lack of standing (this court's favorite reason to punt on cases), and relies on a 42 year old case to do it.
7/ Claim 3: "If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go."
Facts: Countless U.S. citizens and migrants here lawfully or enjoying various legal protections have been detained by ICE.
Facts: Countless U.S. citizens and migrants here lawfully or enjoying various legal protections have been detained by ICE.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
7/ Claim 3: "If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go."
Facts: Countless U.S. citizens and migrants here lawfully or enjoying various legal protections have been detained by ICE.
Facts: Countless U.S. citizens and migrants here lawfully or enjoying various legal protections have been detained by ICE.
6/ Claim 2: "About 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States".
Facts: This is exaggerated. Current data suggests that it's actually about 9%, but as noted above, it likely includes undocumented migrants that enjoy some protections.
Rating: False
Facts: This is exaggerated. Current data suggests that it's actually about 9%, but as noted above, it likely includes undocumented migrants that enjoy some protections.
Rating: False
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
6/ Claim 2: "About 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States".
Facts: This is exaggerated. Current data suggests that it's actually about 9%, but as noted above, it likely includes undocumented migrants that enjoy some protections.
Rating: False
Facts: This is exaggerated. Current data suggests that it's actually about 9%, but as noted above, it likely includes undocumented migrants that enjoy some protections.
Rating: False
3/ Claim 1: There are "at least 15 million people . . . in the United States illegally. Many millions illegally entered (or illegally overstayed) just in the last few years."
Fact: The "government estimates" Kavanaugh refers to have been intentionally inflated to bolster fake claims of a crisis.
Fact: The "government estimates" Kavanaugh refers to have been intentionally inflated to bolster fake claims of a crisis.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
3/ Claim 1: There are "at least 15 million people . . . in the United States illegally. Many millions illegally entered (or illegally overstayed) just in the last few years."
Fact: The "government estimates" Kavanaugh refers to have been intentionally inflated to bolster fake claims of a crisis.
Fact: The "government estimates" Kavanaugh refers to have been intentionally inflated to bolster fake claims of a crisis.
2/ By the *second page*, he's already spouting proven lies. I count at least two lies and one exaggeration in just three paragraphs. Let's go through them in turn.
September 8, 2025 at 10:52 PM
2/ By the *second page*, he's already spouting proven lies. I count at least two lies and one exaggeration in just three paragraphs. Let's go through them in turn.
2/ Trump knows these numbers are bad, and he's desperately trying to downplay them again. At a dinner with tech executives last night, he pre-emptively suggested that they'd be fake, & he would have known at that point what the numbers would be. So he intentionally lied in order to try to save face.
September 5, 2025 at 3:46 PM
2/ Trump knows these numbers are bad, and he's desperately trying to downplay them again. At a dinner with tech executives last night, he pre-emptively suggested that they'd be fake, & he would have known at that point what the numbers would be. So he intentionally lied in order to try to save face.
1/ Just two years ago, Trump endorsed the GOP-promoted theory that states have total authority to run elections however they see fit. They argued before the Supreme Court that such authority was so great that it was in fact unreviewable by the courts.
August 18, 2025 at 3:10 PM
1/ Just two years ago, Trump endorsed the GOP-promoted theory that states have total authority to run elections however they see fit. They argued before the Supreme Court that such authority was so great that it was in fact unreviewable by the courts.
Sorry, Charlie, but I want nothing to do with your misogynistic, white supremacist, Nazi sympathizing ass. You and your ilk are fascists who hate freedom and democracy, and I will fight you with everything I have.
August 15, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Sorry, Charlie, but I want nothing to do with your misogynistic, white supremacist, Nazi sympathizing ass. You and your ilk are fascists who hate freedom and democracy, and I will fight you with everything I have.
1/ They're DESPERATE to find a way to protect Trump, and it shows. Also, Vance denied that this meeting was taking place, meaning he lied.
August 7, 2025 at 1:06 AM
1/ They're DESPERATE to find a way to protect Trump, and it shows. Also, Vance denied that this meeting was taking place, meaning he lied.
Trump has signed more Executive Orders this year than Biden did in four. And he's signed more orders in two terms than anyone since Eisenhower.
But sure, tell me again how he's not an authoritarian ruling by fiat.
But sure, tell me again how he's not an authoritarian ruling by fiat.
August 5, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Trump has signed more Executive Orders this year than Biden did in four. And he's signed more orders in two terms than anyone since Eisenhower.
But sure, tell me again how he's not an authoritarian ruling by fiat.
But sure, tell me again how he's not an authoritarian ruling by fiat.