They're not asking just to cancel the whole election. It's worse.

They (the federal government) are asking for basically election loss insurance for the Republican candidate only. Only cancel the election if it arrives at the wrong result.

I don't understand why Senator Sullivan can't just file his own lawsuit. Why does he need free representation courtesy of the taxpayers?

Aside from all the insane legal theories, the relief they're requesting is also insane and quite anti-democratic:

They want an injunction that decertifies the election results but only if the Republican guy loses by less than however many votes the other Dan Sullivan gets.

It's like, election loss insurance, or something.

It's a different thingymajigger.

One of the orgs that does TLS infrastructure was found to have used 4, a number from Sesame Street, as a private key on a TLS cert that was used to sign other certs.

To do any of those subsequent steps, you have to have something legal experts call "an actual case."

It's hard when your investigations are based on Internet conspiracy theories and sovereign citizen levels of bullshit.

This trick does not work, folks.

You probably already know this, but at the time when FDR ran for and won 4 terms, the two term rule was just a customary practice. It wasn't written into the constitution.

After FDR died, Americans wrote up the two term rule as the 22nd amendment, and adopted it into the constitution.

Oh no, I thought this was a Lemmy fad like beans.

I'm thinking a book might have a publication date or a printing date on it somewhere. There's a remote chance that would provide some loose circumstantial evidence as to ages.

From what I have read it’s not even a problem if it was filed while she was 18 provided she had no knowledge of her late father’s actions.

Lack of knowledge might insulate Ilhan from criminal charges. But because she has derived citizenship, she can lose the derivation in a civil process if it is proven that she was really 18. In that case she reverts to her previous status of lawful permanent resident. There's no statute of limitations on the civil side.

If she is found to have never received citizenship, she will probably not be eligible serve as a representative.

(Yes. The immigration laws of this country are fucked up.)

18 USC sec. 611 is a federal law that makes it a crime for a non-citizen to vote. But a federal judge in another district ruled that 611 is unconstitutional, because the constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote, subject to constraints (age 18, women, poll taxes, etc.)

Nothing in the constitution says you have to be a US citizen to vote in a federal election. That's just a rule that every state has adopted.

So I'm interested in whether they have actually charged 611 here or not.

I agree. But at this stage they're not trying to get the exhibit admitted into evidence. They really just need to match it against one of the categories of items listed in the search warrant.

(Warrants shall describe the "place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

She has also challenged the warrant, trying to get her stuff back. I haven't looked into the details on that.

Ilhan Omar received her citizenship as a dependent minor child when her father was naturalized. She was, in fact, 17 years old when this happened.

The governments theory of the investigation is that she lied about her age, and she was really 18 at the time. If that were true, then she would not be eligible for automatic derived citizenship, and she would have needed to do her own naturalization.

To be clear, this age thing is a bonkers Internet conspiracy theory. But an old children's book might conceivably be relevant.

In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.

I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don't really get what they're contributing to the legal validity of the case.

The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.

To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.

Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.

Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.

In US machine shops if they're getting down to that level of measurement, they'll switch over to milli-inches.

Yes, milli-inches are an actual unit in use.

And it's been this way since 1893. The US customary system has been sneaky metric that whole time.

This is a reminder to American service members:

Your oath of allegiance is to the United States, not to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris. You have a duty to obey lawful orders issued under the authority of the commander in chief. But it is your duty to disobey unlawful orders.

What that actually looked like:

And they are all welcome back if they can satisfy the Linux Foundation that they're not affiliated with a sanctioned entity on the SDN list.

If transgender people don't exist, then exactly whom are they trying to kick out?

Plus, they dropped Callaway Golf after their horrific ad depicting violence against women.

Wait... What?

What the fuck is Justice Jackson doing ?

Here's one analysis:

Jackson gets this application because it's from the 1st circuit, and she is assigned to initially handle all shadow docket matters from the 1st circuit. By writing this admin stay, she potentially keeps the full court from stepping in and doing it for her. And this way she gets to set the 48 hour limit. This could cause the whole case to be decided one way or another a lot faster.

The supreme court let the trans passport case sit on the shadow "emergency" docket for 48 days. This stay gives the 1st circuit approx the weekend to make their decision, then the 48 hour deadline puts some oomph on the rest of scotus to make their decision.

If Justice Jackson did nothing, and 5 votes on the court intervened to issue a stay at 1 am, then there would be no 48 hour limit.