all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 1 week ago (1 child)

A State Department spokesperson, given anonymity to discuss internal thought processes within the agency, told POLITICO that the U.S. “is under no obligation to admit or suffer the presence of individuals who subvert our laws and deny our citizens their Constitutional rights.”

Yet we have to suffer the presence of Trump, Rubio, Musk, and the rest of the fascist cabal that subverts laws and denies citizens their constitutional rights.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Did they file that under the case of Duh v. Doy?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Just like every single one of these, it will only stand until it hits the Supreme Court, at which point it will be reversed and become legally binding nationally.

    Absolutely NONE of these defeats is unexpected. In fact, they are the goal.

    It's twisted and perverted, but the best possible thing a judge could do here is rule in FAVOR of Rubio so he has no ability to appeal to the Supreme Court, leaving it unsettled for every other state. By striking him down now, it just turns into a national victory later.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Stand Up

    Speak Up

    Act Up

  • source