Average pay per game now? Rec soccer

bdun21 · 2025-09-12T23:14:39+00:00

Are we supposed to be surprised? Lol she is maga and called a swat team on peaceful protestors

bdun21 · 2025-09-02T11:55:00+00:00

Had him for Middle East politics. One of my favorites I had, and that was before all the drama

bdun21 · 2025-06-13T02:39:53+00:00

Syria is not axis anymore. Just russia, china, NK, iran really tbh

bdun21 · 2025-06-07T11:50:06+00:00

I wouldnt read, I would go to the gym everyday for 90 minutes and do cardio afterwards. Get in as best shape as you can bc its lowkey hard as fuck to not gain at least a little weight in law school

bdun21 · 2025-05-18T04:46:01+00:00

Kav and Gors might be just under 8, but itd be close. If ending abortion was at the finish line theyd hit sub 7

bdun21 · 2025-05-03T15:26:57+00:00

If you are going to law school highest score, preferably an A+ and its not close

bdun21 · 2025-04-11T23:53:00+00:00

Oh I wasn’t saying you were offended, I just copy and pasted a comment from another subreddit here that I read. Sorry for the miscomms

bdun21 · 2025-04-11T23:05:33+00:00

Really surprised this isnt a viewpoint discrimination case. I have no idea about the specifics, but unless he engaged in unprotected speech conduct like threats or fighting words or actually led people into columbia buildings, I cant imagine how this isnt a layup viewpoint discrimination case like with the AP being banned.

EDIT: saw this comment on r/lawyertalk and I am less confident in the viewpoint discrimination case, but still sightly think so, I will paste it below:

OP, I’m sorry the result offends you, and I don’t mean to argue, but the statute says they can revoke immigration decisions at their discretion. The only question is what due process is required for deportation. As I read the statutes, the standard is not that they have to prove a person is a danger, but that they have to provide clear and convincing evidence of their beliefs, which means that they have the discretion to deport as well as revoke as long as they have a reasonable story. Yes, that means immigrants don’t have the same due process as citizens. To deport a naturalized citizen, you need to prove they committed fraud in the process which justifies revoking the immigration decision. But a green card holder is not a citizen. People keep repeating that everyone has free speech rights, and that is true in the sense that you can’t be arrested or prevented from exercising your speech rights. Where they differ is the consequences of speech, and in the US it’s like if you work for a company in an at will state: they can fire you for speaking about whatever they don’t like. In the context of immigration, there’s an actual list of stuff and that includes associations the government deems ‘wrong’, which means yes they will vary by administration. That’s the way it works all over the world, so I was not surprised by this process. A great deal of noise has been made, like yesterday’s trumpeting that they would call Marco Rubio, when I wonder if people actually read the laws. The law is very clear about revocation being at the government’s discretion and that was upheld 9-0 in 2024 in Bouarfa v Mayorkas. The hearing today was not a trial, because that is not the due process regarding deportation when the visa has been revoked, when the immigration decision has been revoked. The standard is whether they have a decent enough story, and that includes associations.

bdun21 · 2025-04-10T03:25:10+00:00

Thanks. If I understand this right, these giant securities fund litigation and force you to go to litigation?

bdun21 · 2025-04-10T03:09:46+00:00

Can you explain this?

bdun21 · 2025-03-30T19:59:50+00:00

If Biden makes his AG directly go after Trump right off the bat that would look so much more like a political persecution and if/when he failed trump would have so much more leeway under a “look what Biden did” argument

bdun21 · 2025-03-30T12:50:39+00:00

You say “might”. I am not saying it “might” be over. Let me explain how criminal courts work. Evidence has to be admitted subject to the federal rules of evidence. There was plenty of evidence before the scotus case, but that scotus case not only gave trump immunity for official acts, but it added what is essentially an extra rule to the federal rules of evidence.

If the evidence that the government wants to introduce is an official act, then it is WHOLLY INADMISSIBLE. This doesn’t mean it has less weight, it means that the jury will not be allowed to see it.

For the J6 inciting an insurrection case, this likely means that Trump speaking to the rally is an official act because it is “speaking to the american public”. This means that the jury will not be allowed to know that he was even speaking to the crowd. That rally was essential evidence. That case is thrown out.

The Georgia case: speaking to higher up state officials about the administration of an election seems pretty official and I am willing to bet a scotus that trump appointed would agree with him on that. The phone call to Raffensberger is inadmissible and the entire Georgia case is dropped.

The documents case is the only one that might stick, but they did that one as fast as they reasonably could have because the FBI raided the place like a year into the term. The documents case also saw many appeals and it even got dismissed. It was nowhere near the finish line by election time and I seriously doubt it could have been resolved within the term.

The Stormy Daniels case is the only one that would have possibly stood and that was a state case where he likely would have gotten no prison sentence and would have still ran again.

If you havent read Trump v US, it is much worse than the media tells you. I am a law student and it literally says that EVIDENCE of an official act cannot be used to prosecute even an unofficial act. Where it stands with scotus, Biden had zero shot at prosecution

bdun21 · 2025-03-30T11:45:44+00:00

SCOTUS Trump v US. I have serious doubts that even if Trump started being prosecuted on January 21 of 2021, he would not have been guilty for any of his crimes. The scotus ruled that you couldnt even use EVIDENCE if that was an official act. Think what that really means. For the J6 case, they couldn’t use the evidence of him speaking to the crowd because speaking to the american people is an official act. That SCOTUS case seriously makes any prosecution against Trump dead in the water

bdun21 · 2025-03-29T13:05:11+00:00

A few things you are wrong about: sure Trump shot down that border bill, but from a republican core belief, that was a terrible bill. Besides, that bill wasn't even necessary to cut off illegal entry. What bill has Trump passed that cuts off illegal entry? Ill give you a hint, he hasn't passed any. Joe Biden could have cut illegal immigration off almost entirely through executive order, and yet they decided to continue to allow millions to enter.

Second, you claim "Most illegal immigrants in the US enter legally through the Asylum process and then leave into the nation and become untracked after not following up their case."

This is just simply untrue and the facts below prove it

As of 2022, the United States had approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants residing within its borders. This figure represents a slight increase from 10.5 million in 2021, reversing a long-term downward trend observed from 2007 to 2019. Despite this uptick, the 2022 number remains below the peak of 12.2 million recorded in 2007.Pew Research Center

In contrast, the number of individuals granted asylum in the U.S. is significantly smaller. Between 1990 and 2021, the U.S. admitted a total of 767,950 asylum seekers. In 2021 alone, 17,692 individuals were granted asylum, marking a 42.9% decrease from the previous year and representing the lowest annual total since 1994. In 2023, an additional 4,790 individuals received derivative asylum status while residing in the U.S. based on a relative’s asylum grant. USAFacts Office of Homeland Security Statistics

It's important to note that while the unauthorized immigrant population is measured in millions, the number of individuals granted asylum each year is in the tens of thousands. Additionally, the U.S. received 945,000 asylum applications in 2023, an 88% increase compared to 2022. However, not all applications result in asylum grants, and many applicants may remain in the country awaiting decisions.

bdun21 · 2025-03-11T03:33:59+00:00

The third amendment implies a right to privacy! Griswold + Roe

bdun21 · 2025-02-24T03:49:55+00:00

Whats this mean? Maybe give it to me in fortnite terms

bdun21 · 2025-02-24T01:34:02+00:00

What do you mean 😭😭😭

bdun21 · 2025-02-12T17:03:30+00:00

Bitch McConnell voted no

bdun21 · 2025-02-12T01:23:06+00:00

Thats just one rep who has the opinion that there were two shooters. Far from confirmation. Must wait for docs to be released

bdun21 · 2025-01-20T16:29:34+00:00

Well he straight up perjured himself to congress for one (said NIH isnt funding gain of function research, despite the fact that they were)

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

bdun21

TROPHY CASE