81
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
81 points (100.0% liked)
politics
31682 readers
3692 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't really get the argument. The judge gave them access to the data for analysis and only ordered that they not reveal names when doing so. The "Justice" department wants contempt charges against the organization for doing just that.
This is how Russia uses its legal system.
No, the judge ordered two things. In addition to not revealing names, the judge also ordered that the group use the data only to prove they have standing, which is the right to sue based on the Administration's actions. Lawsuits get dismissed all the time due to lack of standing.
So, they examined the data and found it is all bullshit. The DoJ is essentially saying "whether or not it's bullshit has nothing to do with this group's right to sue us!"
Which seems like an absurd argument, but that's all the administration has right now.
Specifically, standing that the plaintiff here, an immigrant rights group, has to be suffering or has to be about to suffer, some kind of real, articulatable harm.
So the group's argument is probably, "the group of people we represent are being harmed by these bullshit allegations.". And the DOJ's argument is probably like, "the group is not the people they represent. If people on the list are harmed, then they need to file their own lawsuits."
It's dumb. DOJ has been doing these dumbass, legalistic arguments for the last 22 months.