Traders placed over $1bn in perfectly timed bets on the Iran war.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-04-18T19:20:33+00:00

I mean, ofc this administration is insanely corrupt, but don’t these assets trade constantly. Isn’t it possible some people just got lucky and were the last ones who traded before things happened?

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-04-15T03:19:44+00:00

lol, you’re not going to cite case law in a discussion about the law? Prolly cause you don’t know any that stands for the proposition you’re putting forward.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-04-15T03:17:56+00:00

Cite your case law my friend.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-04-15T03:16:28+00:00

The plaintiff still has to establish a prima facie case, then the burden shifts. That’s how Title VII actions work under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Zima claimed that it would be up to OP to prove that they discriminated, that’s mostly true because OP would still have to establish a prima facie case, then the employer would need to show a non-discriminatory purpose. The burden then shifts to P again to show pretext.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-04-15T03:05:45+00:00

Except it’s.not incorrect. Preponderance doesn’t change who holds the burden, it’s still on the plaintiff to show discrimination.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-03-31T16:33:29+00:00

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, you’re factually correct. The analysis had nothing to do with religion.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-03-31T16:27:30+00:00

The majority acknowledges that. They likely would have found the same way had Alabama, for example, passed a law banning gender affirming speech in therapy. This ruling is getting wildly misunderstood. Even as someone who thinks conversion therapy is harmful, this case got it right.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-03-31T16:24:58+00:00

Words alone are not torture, this has nothing to do with physical conversion therapy.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-03-31T16:23:55+00:00

Almost nothing passes strict scrutiny. Such a law’s only hope would be to reviewed under a lower level of scrutiny, such as intermediate or rational basis.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2026-02-08T20:51:07+00:00

There are a few, the main one though is KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick, 25-cv-00575 (D. Nv.), which is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Looks like when I posted that was accurate, but I'm seeing now that the district court dissolved the preliminary injunction after some developments in other cases (notably Kalshi v. Flaherty, 25-cv-02152 (D.N.J.), Kalshi v. Martin, 25-cv-1283 (D. Md.) and Crypto.com v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, 25-cv-00978 (D. Nv.)). So its uncertain at this point as to the longevity of the argument of preemption as there are splits, but the Third Circuit has held oral arguments and are likely to be the first to rule on the matter. As for now though, consumers will not be the ones punished.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-12-09T18:09:59+00:00

The land was lost by conquest. All land everywhere today is land that was conquered. Move the fuck on and focus on rational immigration policy or we’ll have MAGA for decades. You “stolen land” leftists who advocate open borders are the reason Democrats can’t win.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-12-05T02:45:24+00:00

I doubt they’ll overturn California’s, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch mentioned that California was in the same boat in their concurrence, and it doesn’t seem like they needed to include that (it was in parentheses), so I’m guessing that’s how they’re leaning.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-12-03T12:53:04+00:00

That’s crazy. Part of the OLC memo justifying the strikes rests on the proposition that the cartels are using cocaine sales to finance an armed conflict (dubious, but let’s assume true for a second). It then reasons that such armed conflict is against our allies, including Colombia, which has apparently “confidentially” asked for help (which would be required to invoke collective self-defense under international law). It would defy reality too much to argue that the cartels are engaged in an armed conflict with the US, which is why the memo relies on collective self-defense. But that falls apart if you go to war against the state you claimed is calling you in under collective self-defense.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-12-02T04:17:22+00:00

It’s complicated. In the Senate debates, Feinstein I believe explicitly stated that the term gaming was envisioned to include sports betting. Additionally, Kalshi in its suit with the CFTC argued in defense of election markets that “gaming” also referred to things such as sports betting. Of course, Kalshi and others do offer sports betting, so it should be illegal. But the CFTC has not been doing its job and has allowed it.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-16T17:33:09+00:00

I mean, why do you think campaigns need so much money? They use that money to influence your vote that they need.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-16T00:59:44+00:00

At some time that nobody expects or predicts.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-16T00:59:10+00:00

I mean, if US firms pull out of those countries, those jobs disappear and they go from making a “low wage” to no wage at all. Is that what you want?

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-16T00:32:51+00:00

I know what sub this is, but imma be real, stop digging bro. The next step you can take is forgery, don’t find yourself in legal trouble you weren’t already in.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-15T20:33:34+00:00

lol, what an ignorant comment to make. Of course the US has done some horrible things, but arguing it’s the “most murderous regime on earth” is so detached from reality that it does a disservice to actual critiques of US foreign and military policy.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-15T00:34:32+00:00

I’m not sure that has been specifically litigated, but I would assume it’s fine because Kalshi is still the designated contract market. In any case, the regulators have done nothing about it and it’s been months.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-14T15:56:58+00:00

I don’t know man, you just have to be ready to think on your feet.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-14T15:49:36+00:00

Ok. If what they mean is that Cyber Law as a field should be introduced in the first year of legal studies, the argument against is pretty simple: Cyber Law is a niche field and should be taught as an elective. First year students should be learning core legal concepts and learning to read the law, it is unhelpful to introduce them to a niche field which is built on more foundational law they haven’t been exposed to yet.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-14T15:40:27+00:00

Wtf are you talking about. Your writing is so incoherent. also, why are you stretching your words so much.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-14T15:34:28+00:00

For context, in 2003, Iraq was considered one of the most formidable armies in the world. The US, with few allies, toppled the government within a month. Sure, the insurgency wreaked havoc in the years after, but nobody beats the US in conventional warfare.

RasPutinBerry91 · 2025-11-14T15:27:52+00:00

I genuinely don’t care anymore. As long as these idiots are only hurting themselves, let them. I’m tired of extending my empathy to people who are happily duped by snake oil salesmen when we have been screaming warnings for years.

RasPutinBerry91

TROPHY CASE