LightNews LightNews
sudo-nym1.bsky.social
@sudo-nym1.bsky.social
210 followers 580 following 160 posts
Globetrotter, Democracy (Slava Ukraini), Evolutionary Biologist, Snark 🇺🇸🇺🇦🏴‍☠️
No MAGA, Engagement Farmers, Trolls, Grifters
Posts Replies Media Videos
sudo-nym1.bsky.social
Can't avoid meth.
February 8, 2026 at 4:48 PM
sudo-nym1.bsky.social
If he voted with the Dems just 25% of the time he'd get reelected.
February 8, 2026 at 4:43 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
This from Douglas is so very on point — and not at all subtle.
Finally, the majority repeatedly asks why Congress would have preserved "one of the most significant advantages available for unlawful entrants" despite its general purpose of placing applicants seeking admission on equal footing with applicants already present in the country. Ante at 21. This "seems strange to suggest." Id. at 20. Petitioners, the majority opines, offer "no commonsense explanation why, as a general matter, Congress would want to deny bond only to those lawfully seeking admission into the country." Id. at 21. There are a few: (1) bond has always been available to detained noncitizens already present in the United States; (2) as this practice exemplifies, government intrusions have always been tolerated at the border that would be intolerable in the interior, for the obvious reason that citizens and noncitizens alike expect to be able to go about their business without having to show that they are "clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted" if taken, or mistaken, for an otherwise inadmissible noncitizen; and (3) with only a little imagination, the government's and the majority's reading means that anyone present in this country at any time must carry the precise kinds of identification they would otherwise have only carried to the border for international travel, lest they be mistaken for an inadmissible noncitizen "seeking admission" into the country. The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again. This is not, or not just, a matter of human sympathy, but rather a matter of understanding one of the core distinctions in immigration law, and the very good reasons for it. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693.
February 7, 2026 at 8:39 PM