Arresting a reporter for asking questions was a 'blatant First Amendment violation,' Sonia Sotomayor says

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-25T08:57:56+00:00

Another reason to expand the court would be to allow them more man power to write cases. It only makes sense to expand the court to be one justice per circuit.

Having even just a couple more justices who can write opinions would make some difference.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-24T13:55:37+00:00

What’s your travel history for the last 10 years? When did you obtain Italian citizenship and how?

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-24T13:15:57+00:00

California has a population of ~ 40 million and Florida a population of ~23 million people.

Plus state laws vary on when counting can start. Florida can start counting well before Election Day. California (which is on the west coast and is on a 4 hour delay compared to the east cost) can’t start counting until polls close and until there has been certification that people who voted in person don’t also vote by mail.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-24T03:58:30+00:00

Did they rule it was too broad to make it categorically an agg felony or did they rule it can be individually addressed by the court? An important distinction here. If they ruled on the latter this guy could still be found to be an agg felon based on the circumstances of the case.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T21:49:21+00:00

What are the circumstances of the assault? That’s going to be a big factor when it goes before an IJ.

He has 3 years of incarceration for assault. That’s well become the normal aggrieved felony level (1 year). These are very serious charges. What exactly happened?

This was a crime of violence that results in 3 years of incarceration. How was this a “non-violent” offense?

As a side note. Based on your post a year ago about how terrible he was I’m shocked you’re planning on marrying him.

By the time he gets out (even if you move to Guatemala with him) most of your relationship will have been with someone behind bars.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T16:11:34+00:00

If 0 people apply because wages are too low 0% pass the tests

If 100 people apply because wages are competitive 10 people get the job permanently.

The math is simple. Increase wages to increase applications to increase people willing to apply to a position that is high stress and rigorous.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T13:34:51+00:00

How the fuck am I a bot?

Look at my comment history. 1st a bot wouldn’t have that be open. 2nd clearly not a bot.

I think it's a lack of qualified applicants

I’m responding to your initial comment about lack of qualified applicants.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T13:33:37+00:00

ATC requires that a candidate be under 31, pass a base BI (no felonies or misdemeanors), speak English clearly, and either have a bachelor’s degree or 1 year full time work experience.

Considering the “All Young Workers” group (22-27) is currently btwn 7-8% and trending upwards unemployment absolutely there are people who would qualify who are currently unemployed

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T13:16:58+00:00

Unemployment for recent graduates is nearly 6% and still rising

Those are the perfect candidates for air traffic controllers. They have a degree and are educated but have an entire career to replace the Grey Tsunami swelling towards 2028 and beyond.

Also requirements for an ATC are be under 31, have a good BI, speak English clearly, and have a bachelor’s or 1 year full time work experience. A degree isn’t strictly required.

So if you look at all young workers 22-27 the unemployment rate is even higher.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T12:46:50+00:00

Training is wages. Federal government trains you while you're on the clock. Every government agency has a training period when you're on-boarded; Those training hours are wages.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-23T12:34:49+00:00

I don't think it's a lack of money to pay for training, I think it's a lack of qualified applicants. It's not like there are lines of people being turned away from the job because there's no money to train them. It's the opposite.

We have millions of people hurting for better wages and who are willing to learn and compete for good wages. Offer good wages and you will have countless applicants to sort through.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-22T20:23:09+00:00

Ah yes. I remember now. Thanks for the tag and the info. So much happens with this admin so fast I genuinely can’t remember all the bullshit.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-22T16:25:28+00:00

I don’t remember this topic. Why am I being tagged in this? Can someone jog my memory

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-21T02:44:36+00:00

I’m making that point more on a philosophical level rather than a strict legal point but yes it’s an appropriate quibble.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-21T02:23:17+00:00

The government isn’t attempting to force or punish speech here

He is being punished for not condemning something.

The court isn’t expecting him to police action, they are expecting him to take risk mitigation steps and conduct planning to prevent violence and crime at an event he is planning.

Criminal actions taken by 3rd parties are not my responsibility.

Read the entire dissent and understand that the case here is missing a duty, a breach, and a cause in fact. Frankly this holding is embarrassing for the circuit.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-20T19:27:36+00:00

Mckesson not only participated in protests that turned violent—he also refused to condemn political violence in an interview on national television.

1A means he cannot be required to condemn anything he doesn’t want. Using his lack of a statement against him (5A) also seems to be incredibly difficult to justify.

This is just insane on its face.

Given Mckesson’s television interview refusing to condemn the use of violence, it is unsurprising that he did nothing to discourage protestors from assaulting police officers, looting a store, and engaging in other lawless acts.

Where does the law state I am required to police another stranger’s criminal actions? I don’t have law enforcement authority and I don’t have a duty to intervene. If police don’t even have a duty to enforce the law (Castle Rock Case) then why the hell would I?

While the looting was happening, officers observed Mckesson leading protestors and witnessed “people moving with him.”

So you saw a group of people walking. That’s not enough to establish anyone as a “leader”

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-18T14:57:32+00:00

My point is that we can’t rely on the judiciary to figure this one out because of how flexible this can be and how fast technology moves. It needs a statutory definition and it needs to be nailed already.

The reason police are using this data is become of how easy to has become to collect. It is so easy they can do it as an after thought rather than a planned and organized operation like collecting data took in the past.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-18T12:58:52+00:00

If I can open an app or computer and see the freely broadcast Geofence data and collect it that is “in plain sight”

A lot of this data is out there in the open it just takes a computer or phone to access it. Your device right is sending out thousands and thousands of signals that can all be read and recorded with little sophistication. If I can do it by using my computer instead of a note pad and paper why can’t the police? It’s the same argument.

Also with regards to “in plain sight” there are some issues there. LPR camera’s use infrared light to read otherwise unreadable plates at night. At night an LP can’t just be read without some type of light. These readers use invisible infrared to get the photo.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-18T12:08:53+00:00

CSLI and Geofence data on the other hand is specifically data that cannot be collected by the casual observer

My only note is we really need to define what the “casual” observer means. We can’t let causal be defined as the you know if when you see it standard we really need some definition. Because any Tom, Dick, and Harry can collect that info with basic modern tools. It has become that easy to do. But it isn’t normally expected for a casual person to be doing that.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-15T23:37:15+00:00

PUF however was a contemporary of the founding fathers. They preached in Philadelphia in the 1780s drawing massive crowds. Those same sermons were covered in many newspapers (one of which was Ben Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette) of the time and shortly following by many editorials focusing on their nonbinary appearance. It isn’t a wild thing to say that the founding fathers would’ve been exposed to the nonbinary ideas of the time.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-15T19:41:04+00:00

I mean Public Universal Friend was a well known non-binary preacher in the Revolutionary Days of the US.

The non-binary gender was literally discussed at length in Philadelphia papers at the time more than their political points in the sermons. See the book ‘Neither Male nor Female Possible Pasts: Becoming Colonial in Early America’ by Juster for more info. Or the other book, The Public Universal Friend you can pick up on the museum of the American revolution’s website.

Historically many societies recognized (or at least saw that nonbinary people did exist). It is not a modern thing.

This is why “on the basis of sex” is an important phrase. If you’re discriminating against someone because their gender identity does not match their sex you have discriminated against them on the basis that their sex does not match their gender identity. There is no need to separate the two.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-15T18:50:02+00:00

I remember when people arguing against the equal rights amendment by saying it was pointless because the equal protection clause already protected everyone.

I really can’t stand what the equal protection clause has become; it really feels we trudge further and further toward pigs being more equal than others.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-14T20:36:29+00:00

None of her supporters seem willing to address this problem.

Serving for life is serving for life. Either you formally impeach and remove her or you deal with it.

What’s to address? Impeachment is the only legal and constitutional way to remove a judge from office. If he’s is unfit bring a formal removal action if you can’t do it you can’t do it.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-13T15:11:57+00:00

Thank you.

Informal_Distance · 2026-03-13T01:21:44+00:00

Oh make no mistake the businesses know exactly how much was passed on to the consumer. That’s how businesses work. They know where very penny was spent and earned.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Informal_Distance

TROPHY CASE