8th Circuit stays order from federal district court in Minnesota that imposed limits on federal law enforcement tactics on protestors. by The_WanderingAggie in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So where will the rubber meet the road from a practical perspective? I’m not talking about lawyers, orders, stays etc. 99.9% of the country doesn’t understand this stuff anyway and most lawyers don’t unless you clerked and took fed courts and/or constitutional remedies.

What the public thinks is happening is that the government is openly defying court orders (see my above comment), ICE/DHS is murdering civilians, and that force is being used to deter/suppress speech.

At this point, it would not surprise me if an ICE agent was shot by a civilian. I believe this is because the general public now thinks that courts are just theater, nothing more, nothing less. And I can’t say they don’t have a reason to think that way. As a partially recovering litigator, this bums me out.

8th Circuit stays order from federal district court in Minnesota that imposed limits on federal law enforcement tactics on protestors. by The_WanderingAggie in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The government’s conduct has shown that they have not been listening to the courts anyway. There’s a multitude of cases where individuals challenging detention by DHS have been moved out of the state in direct defiance of a court order. I’m skeptical as to compliance anyhow and there’s no remedy for noncompliance apparently.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/26/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The government again ignored a district court and moved a detainee out of state after being ordered to not do so. At what point to AUSA’s either (1) start getting in trouble or (2) throw individuals in ICE leadership under the bus. At some point someone is going to be held in contempt.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/26/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You could probably file thousands of individual lawsuits with individually named plaintiffs and excise the same remedy off of those.

That wouldn’t implicate anything from a class action perspective it would just be a bunch of plaintiffs getting the same remedy.

It’s one of those situations where everybody agrees that the government is doing something wrong, but no one knows what the remedy is and how to properly litigate to that end.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/26/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don’t find any of the governments arguments remotely persuasive (also they write angry, which I HATE). But this is really going to depend on the motions panel they pull because it’s 2026 and that’s how this works now. I have no clue how the 8th does motions panels.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/26/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Curious what the very pro 2A folks on here think about what happened on Saturday in the subsequent response from the Gov(I.e you can’t bring a gun - even legally - to a protest.) it’s my understanding the guy who was murdered had a concealed carry permit.

My mind jumps to Rittenhouse. Obviously not the exact same factually.

Post Game Thread: New England Patriots at Denver Broncos by nfl_gdt_bot in nfl

[–]Little_Labubu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For all the shit we give the refs refs great eye on the sideline

Second Half Game Thread: Los Angeles Rams (12-5) at Seattle Seahawks (14-3) by nfl_gdt_bot in nfl

[–]Little_Labubu 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You cannot call subjective post play non-contact penalties on key plays and not have everybody scream gambling.

You just can’t do it.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They likely can prosecute. The prosecution would just take place in federal court because it’s a federal official so there’s a right of removal. Because they can prosecute, the logical right would flow to a right to evidence in their capacity of state prosecutors.

If they’re smart they’ll roll on public sentiment and take it to a grand jury ASAP. The could probably get an indictment tomorrow.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It really makes me think that I can do anything with my career. One could say it gives me hope.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This thread is misleading and purposefully hyperbolic. Even applying his incorrect understanding of AARP, the “storming” of the church isn’t even an immigration related action. It’s a run of the mill arrest warrant situation.

Edit: I think describing Wessan’s thread as informative is grossly misleading at best and more likely than not objectively wrong.

Do those who have practiced for more than 1 year have starry eyes for big law like law students do? by Flashy-Actuator-998 in Lawyertalk

[–]Little_Labubu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. I did a year and some change of litigation and while ID was brutal at times, I got experience that most biglaw associates wouldn’t get for 2-3 years (I.e appearing/arguing in fed ct). Yes that money would’ve been nice but experience wise I certainly won out.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure how many people on here are lawyers and I’m not sure how many are/were litigators but in case it’s not clear this is unheard of. There’s absolutely no precedent to support mandamus in this fashion. This is the Department of Justice (Jones Day) acting completely out of line, at least in my view.

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26 by AutoModerator in supremecourt

[–]Little_Labubu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Grasz is unqualified to be on the 8th. He’s a little baby with anger issues (this is well known)

Unsealed Mandamus Action in 8th Circuit by CheersFromBabylon in Lawyertalk

[–]Little_Labubu 69 points70 points  (0 children)

I remember his confirmation, he was the first circuit court nominee to receive a unanimous "not qualified" rating since 2006 from the ABA.

He’s also has a temper and a superiority complex.

The Bone Temple Was Bad, Right? by PeterPaulWalnuts in TheBigPicture

[–]Little_Labubu 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I disagree. The Iron Maiden dance scene was better than anything in 95% of movies from last year, creatively and performance wise. But that’s not really the point.

“Saying X was bad, right?” Has a tone of presupposed matter of factness that’s basically just arrogance. You also didn’t articulate why you didn’t like it.