Polis should be impeached if he does this. This would be little different than granting clemency to a January 6 insurrectionist
04.03.2026 02:22
π 534
π 127
π¬ 8
π 6
Polis should be impeached if he does this. This would be little different than granting clemency to a January 6 insurrectionist
Major redistricting news:
Colorado Dems are launching a ballot initiative effort for November that would let them redraw the House map in 2028 to counter Republican gerrymanders elsewhere.
A new map could flip 3 currently GOP seats & create a 7-1 Dem majority (though some may flip in 2026 anyway)
![UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARK KELLY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 26-81 (RJL)
V.
PETE HEGSETH, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
February 12, 2026 [Dkt. #2]
United States Senator Mark Kelly, a retired naval officer, has been censured by
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for voicing certain opinions on military actions and
policy. In addition, he has been subjected to proceedings to possibly reduce his retirement
rank and pay and threatened with criminal prosecution if he continues to speak out on these
issues.
Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military
servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental
obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces. Unfortunately for Secretary
Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over
the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreiclbgaenrhgnor6zvmnfql4d3olwzqp7zikm3maum5ylc4m6epys4@jpeg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARK KELLY, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 26-81 (RJL) V. PETE HEGSETH, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION February 12, 2026 [Dkt. #2] United States Senator Mark Kelly, a retired naval officer, has been censured by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for voicing certain opinions on military actions and policy. In addition, he has been subjected to proceedings to possibly reduce his retirement rank and pay and threatened with criminal prosecution if he continues to speak out on these issues. Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces. Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!
Worse still, Secretary Hegseth contends that this Court is not yet competent to decide the issues in this case. He and his fellow Defendants argue that military personnel 1 Case 1:26-cv-00081-RJL Document 37 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 29 decisions are exempt from judicial review and, in any event, that Senator Kelly should first be required to go through the military appeals process so the military can have the first crack at adjudicating his First Amendment rights. I disagree. This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees. After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it! Senator Kelly's First Amendment claim is not only justiciable; he is likely to succeed on the merits. He has also shown irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities fall decidedly in his favor. As such, his motion for a preliminary injunction on his First Amendment claim is hereby GRANTED.
BREAKING: Judge blocks Hegseth effort to punish Sen. Kelly.
"This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees."
Background: www.lawdork.com/p/breaking-k...
Liam goes homeβ¦
www.instagram.com/reel/DUOW4_E...
Who could've predicted that there's zero market for another Fox News?
![The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court's order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties' initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term "regular forces" in Β§12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service.
Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary.
We conclude that the term "regular forces" in Β§12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under Β§12406(3), the President must be "unable" with the regular military "to execute the laws of the United States." Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from "execut[ing] the laws" "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."
18 U. S. C. Β§1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under Β§12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be "unable" with those forces to perform that function.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiftbhzwvn3vgwhqsi7k2paizvdw4t26ailljvovso3chqupnmj364@jpeg)
The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court's order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties' initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term "regular forces" in Β§12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service. Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. We conclude that the term "regular forces" in Β§12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under Β§12406(3), the President must be "unable" with the regular military "to execute the laws of the United States." Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from "execut[ing] the laws" "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." 18 U. S. C. Β§1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under Β§12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be "unable" with those forces to perform that function.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trumpβs deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
The irony is delicious
OAKLAND: a Trump ICE goon shoots a PASTOR β Rev. Jorge Bautista β directly in the face with a pepper round
We are over the cliff, folks πΊπΈ
Who doesn't love This Modern World by my good friend @tomtomorrow.bsky.social? Pick up his latest cartoon collection here! www.kickstarter.com/projects/tom...
![REPORTER: Mr. President, my condolences to you, Sir. My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk. [unintelligible]
How are you holding up over the last day and a half, Sir?
TRUMP: I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks? They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they ve been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years. And it's gonna be a beauty. Absolutely magnificent construction. We just started, so it'll get done very nicely.
And it will be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cfy5rgqvohpdqxgu2geb5u2b/bafkreig42mujsiyxozvq3kiayszu47dbk6zds3icm5bwu34twt3d7vbo2q@jpeg)
REPORTER: Mr. President, my condolences to you, Sir. My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk. [unintelligible] How are you holding up over the last day and a half, Sir? TRUMP: I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks? They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they ve been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years. And it's gonna be a beauty. Absolutely magnificent construction. We just started, so it'll get done very nicely. And it will be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually.
oh well, onward and upward
They really are fascist
Remember when they pretended to care about free speech?
βWe hate this shooting as much as conservatives do. The difference is we hate all the other shootings, too.β
www.dailykos.com/stories/2025...
Very, very bad stuff coming from leading right-wingers
We hate this shooting as much as conservatives do.
The difference is we hate all the other ones, too.
A new report by Civiqs examines public attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence as of mid-2025. The results are based on over 10,000 interviews nationwide, with insights on usage habits, trust & safety, and bringing AI more closely into alignment with social preferences.
civiqs.com/reports/2025...
This is good shit-->
Massie: "The pressure is going to build over August recess. I don't think it's going to dissipate like the speaker hopes it will."
The resultβan increase of executive power at the expense of legislative authority-does not stand alone. Just last week, this Court granted another stay allowing the President to ignore a federal statute. That decision permitted the President to push forward in dismantling the Department of Education, even though Congress created that agency and tasked it with performing vital functions. See McMahon v. New York, 606 U.S. (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). If the majority had any valid basis for taking that action (relating, say, to the breadth of the District Court's preliminary injunction) it did not appear on the face of the Court's unreasoned or-der. See id., at _ (order) (slip op., at 1); id., at (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 18). That order simply signaled that the President could carry on, even in the face of a conflicting statute. So too does this order, and with the same lack of care. The majority has acted on the emergency docketβwith "little time, scant briefing, and no argument" βto override Congress's decisions about how to structure administrative agencies so that they can perform their prescribed duties. Wilcox, 605 U.S., at _ (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another. Respectfully, I dissent.
By a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS lets Trump fire the Dem members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who are protected against removal by statute.
Dissenting, Kagan says the majority is undertaking a βpermanent transfer of authorityβ from Congress to the president.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Politico & Punchbowl report House Republican leadership is shutting down the Rules Committee - which is essential for moving party-line bills on the floor - for the week rather than vote on Democratic amendments on the Epstein files.
Dems have effectively halted Republican legislation in the House:
Great story--> This isn't the GOP slam dunk Trump thinks it is. www.dailykos.com/stories/2025...
NEW: Bishop Rojas of San Bernardino has dispensed his Diocese from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass due to ongoing ICE raids.
Press freedoms were nice when we had them
Everyone who voted for Harris had an idea.
June 18, 2025 β The Trevor Project received official notice yesterday that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is initiating the closure of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifelineβs LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program within 30 days, effective July 17, 2025.
BREAKING
The Trevor Project confirms that the Trump administration is eliminating the LGBTQ+ option on the 988 suicide hotline.
Right now, LGBTQ+ people who dial 988 can access specialized services.
A top staffer to Sen. Tina Smith emailed Sen. Mike Leeβs top staffers on Monday about βhow much additional pain youβve caused on an unspeakably horrific weekendβ
Via Sam Stein on twitter
