Sign in

joemontana1.bsky.social

@joemontana1.bsky.social
25 followers 176 following 7 posts
PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Anonymous @youranoncentral.bsky.social · 20/08/2025
The “Bela” mystery is solved, Musk and Murdoch are teaming up to influence and rig the upcoming US elections. Musk was passing through Bella to a property owned by James Murdoch, the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He is also a board member of Tesla.
Trump mystery tweet on 8/17/25Musk mystery trip for secret meeting with Murdoch 8/18/2025
55995438
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @aoc.bsky.social · 23/06/2025
Wow so you’re telling me everyone who cheered on the Iraq war is on board with this now too? And so are the people who opposed the Iran nuclear deal and killed it? You’re kidding.
1309561458438
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Andrea Junker @strandjunker.com · 22/06/2025
Following a rich white man to war because you didn’t like the sound of a black woman laughing will go down in American history as one of the stupidest things ever.
247101732176
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 20/06/2025
Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.
12439511093
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Just Jack @just-jack-1.bsky.social · 18/12/2024
Popcorn Alert: The House Ethics Committee has voted to release the Matt Gaetz report.
43289481251
joemontana1.bsky.social @joemontana1.bsky.social · 17/11/2024
That was pathetic bears. How do you leave someone that wide open.
010
Reposted by @joemontana1.bsky.social
Preet Bharara @preetbharara.bsky.social · 16/11/2024
Hi there 🙋🏻‍♂️
5622856188