John Raffaele
LightNews LightNews
banner
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
John Raffaele
@jrdbtlover.bsky.social
81 followers 22 following 28 posts
Figuring it out. One day at a time.
Posts Replies Media Videos
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Morning. First BlueSky post with the Royale family. Love to you all. Thank you Glenn for committing to keeping this community alive. You are a blessing. LEOMFs.
May 2, 2025 at 12:38 PM
Reposted by John Raffaele
mjsdc.bsky.social
Judge Boasberg writes: "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it."

Anything less would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21. The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” Id.
April 16, 2025 at 4:09 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Indeed. RFK Jr is a dangerous and ignorant person. He does NOT speak for the disability community and our allies. Shameful.
April 16, 2025 at 9:28 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Boom.
February 7, 2025 at 10:50 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Hell yes.
February 7, 2025 at 10:49 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Oh. It will do just fine dear Muskrat.
February 7, 2025 at 10:47 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Loving it. Ripsaw melody and 2nd ear worm from the record. Awaiting the release. Bucking up.
February 7, 2025 at 10:44 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Maybe he will stroke out. He is truly vile and evil.
January 31, 2025 at 10:36 PM
jrdbtlover.bsky.social
Heck. He is Iron Man for crying out loud. Gotta trust that man.
January 31, 2025 at 10:25 PM