Yesterday we were talking about the possibility of knowing someone’s intent. Actually many laws are based on our intent. This riduculous ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court is an example where simple definitions are beyond the scope of the court. This is a snippet from The Federalist regarding a stripper who decided to walk around a gas station baring her breasts:
“Even though the state has laws against exhibitionism, the justices reasoned in their opinion that the woman, a stripper named Eloisa Plancarte, did not necessarily meet the standard for lewdness mentioned in the law.
Yes, she had cocaine in her possession, and yes, she joked that “Catholic girls do it all the time” when police questioned her, and yes, she happens to be a stripper by trade, and yes, this was the third time someone reported her for indecent exposure, but none of this proves that she was showing off her breasts with a sexual intent. Nor do her breasts necessarily qualify as private parts: “the evidence presented in the stipulated-evidence trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plancarte engaged in conduct of a sexual nature.”
This is a link to the court decision referred to in the Federalist piece. in which the court is unable to determine that a woman’s bare breasts are private parts.
Yes, Debra, MN has gone nuts. Fortunately, all three branches of government are not DFL now, although barely. Thank God for the Christians who have stepped up to run.
All our justices have been appointed by the Dems, I think. Hopefully, that will change in the future. We have an educator for governor and half the students can now not read or do math. We used to be known for our fabulous schools.
So weird that now that the Hur interview was released and we see what a disaster Biden was, they quickly run out the “Joe has cancer! Feel sorry for him!” card.
Maybe we can’t hold him responsible, but we sure can gold the feet of the autopen users not named Biden to the fire. Get a look at who really ran things.
“The federal judge blocking President Trump’s spending freeze spent decades on the board of a nonprofit that now stands to receive millions in taxpayer funds after his ruling.
AFL just filed a judicial complaint against Judge McConnell.”
“Why does everyone appear ignorant of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)?
The IIRIRA limited the scope of judicial review available through habeas corpus petitions for aliens in expedited removal proceedings to three specific matters. This restriction is codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 242(e)(2), as amended by IIRIRA.The IIRIRA, enacted in 1996, introduced expedited removal under INA § 235(b)(1), allowing immigration officers to summarily remove certain aliens (e.g., those lacking valid entry documents or using fraud) without a hearing before an immigration judge. To streamline this process and reduce litigation, IIRIRA significantly restricted judicial review, including habeas corpus petitions, which traditionally allow individuals to challenge unlawful detention or removal.
According to INA § 242(e)(2), habeas corpus review for aliens subject to expedited removal is limited to the following three matters:
1. Whether the petitioner is an alien: The court can determine if the individual is indeed a noncitizen subject to immigration laws.
2. Whether the petitioner was ordered removed under INA § 235(b)(1): The court can verify if the expedited removal order was issued under the correct statutory provision.
3. Whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of evidence that they are a lawful permanent resident (LPR), refugee, or asylee: The court can assess if the petitioner has a valid claim to LPR status, refugee status, or asylum, which would exempt them from expedited removal.
The Third Circuit and Fifth Circuit have ruled that habeas review cannot extend to whether expedited removal was “lawfully applied” to an individual, reinforcing the strict statutory limits of INA § 242(e)(2).Supreme Court Ruling (2020): In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), the Supreme Court upheld IIRIRA’s habeas limitations, ruling that they do not violate the Suspension Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article I) or due process.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday bizarrely suggested that DOGE cuts to the US Coast Guard could have been partly to blame for a Mexican tall ship’s deadly collision with the Brooklyn Bridge.
“We know there has been meddling by the Trump administration into USCG staffing, and we need to know how this might have impacted the events of last night — from a command, communication and local coordination level,” the embattled Dem said in a press release.
Well this is rich. He designates this state a sanctuary state for illegals and signs a reprehensible law threatening to remove children from parents if they misgender their children. We are a magnet for illegals and deviants. He refuses to follow federal law yet demands counties to follow his law or lose state funding… all the while screeching when Trump says he will withhold federal funds from CO due to this state’s lawlessness!
The lawsuit is just the latest twist in the increasingly confrontational push and pull between the state and some local communities on housing. On Friday Polis signed an executive order requiring local governments to show that they’re enacting recently passed housing laws in order to be eligible for more than a $100 million in state grants for things like transportation and energy.
Polis has consistently asserted that the state has authority to regulate in this area.
“Housing is an interjurisdictional regional issue,” he told CPR News on Friday, ahead of the executive order. “That’s why it’s an issue of state concern. What one community does affects housing prices in other communities because people have a choice of where to live.”
Polis noted that a 20 minute commute in the Denver metro area can potentially cross 14 jurisdictions; “so it’s really about how we address this as a state.”
He said local communities should be following state law.
Wandering Views 
Yesterday we were talking about the possibility of knowing someone’s intent. Actually many laws are based on our intent. This riduculous ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court is an example where simple definitions are beyond the scope of the court. This is a snippet from The Federalist regarding a stripper who decided to walk around a gas station baring her breasts:
“Even though the state has laws against exhibitionism, the justices reasoned in their opinion that the woman, a stripper named Eloisa Plancarte, did not necessarily meet the standard for lewdness mentioned in the law.
Yes, she had cocaine in her possession, and yes, she joked that “Catholic girls do it all the time” when police questioned her, and yes, she happens to be a stripper by trade, and yes, this was the third time someone reported her for indecent exposure, but none of this proves that she was showing off her breasts with a sexual intent. Nor do her breasts necessarily qualify as private parts: “the evidence presented in the stipulated-evidence trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Plancarte engaged in conduct of a sexual nature.”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/19/minnesota-supreme-court-sides-with-public-nudity-against-families-and-sanity/
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is a link to the court decision referred to in the Federalist piece. in which the court is unable to determine that a woman’s bare breasts are private parts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://breakpoint.org/politics-on-sunday-morning/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKYGE5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFZemVUcWI1WlBVNWJ5cGdLAR5zc86mU7FQNx39BES98RNKWRputvkh6sKLdLzKGHhLGMqlD6l7n8xfQF0Rsg_aem_3vmDSTVujBetQiqomkyb5w
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Debra, MN has gone nuts. Fortunately, all three branches of government are not DFL now, although barely. Thank God for the Christians who have stepped up to run.
All our justices have been appointed by the Dems, I think. Hopefully, that will change in the future. We have an educator for governor and half the students can now not read or do math. We used to be known for our fabulous schools.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They have gone purely delusional. They are too warped to make any reasonable judgements. Very sad for all affected by this situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So weird that now that the Hur interview was released and we see what a disaster Biden was, they quickly run out the “Joe has cancer! Feel sorry for him!” card.
Maybe we can’t hold him responsible, but we sure can gold the feet of the autopen users not named Biden to the fire. Get a look at who really ran things.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is what’s called a “conflict of interests” and just cause for recusal, in case you wondered.
https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1924232593920115132?t=Ce8qH_VgzbEXbJPzFs4lUw&s=19
“The federal judge blocking President Trump’s spending freeze spent decades on the board of a nonprofit that now stands to receive millions in taxpayer funds after his ruling.
AFL just filed a judicial complaint against Judge McConnell.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The law is clear on just what “due process” illegal invaders are due.
https://x.com/TheJetNamedChet/status/1924121327482421755?t=1rLruLRntbLK2YpX2JmhEA&s=19
“Why does everyone appear ignorant of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)?
The IIRIRA limited the scope of judicial review available through habeas corpus petitions for aliens in expedited removal proceedings to three specific matters. This restriction is codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 242(e)(2), as amended by IIRIRA.The IIRIRA, enacted in 1996, introduced expedited removal under INA § 235(b)(1), allowing immigration officers to summarily remove certain aliens (e.g., those lacking valid entry documents or using fraud) without a hearing before an immigration judge. To streamline this process and reduce litigation, IIRIRA significantly restricted judicial review, including habeas corpus petitions, which traditionally allow individuals to challenge unlawful detention or removal.
According to INA § 242(e)(2), habeas corpus review for aliens subject to expedited removal is limited to the following three matters:
1. Whether the petitioner is an alien: The court can determine if the individual is indeed a noncitizen subject to immigration laws.
2. Whether the petitioner was ordered removed under INA § 235(b)(1): The court can verify if the expedited removal order was issued under the correct statutory provision.
3. Whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of evidence that they are a lawful permanent resident (LPR), refugee, or asylee: The court can assess if the petitioner has a valid claim to LPR status, refugee status, or asylum, which would exempt them from expedited removal.
The Third Circuit and Fifth Circuit have ruled that habeas review cannot extend to whether expedited removal was “lawfully applied” to an individual, reinforcing the strict statutory limits of INA § 242(e)(2).Supreme Court Ruling (2020): In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), the Supreme Court upheld IIRIRA’s habeas limitations, ruling that they do not violate the Suspension Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article I) or due process.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry but this guy is an idiot..,
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday bizarrely suggested that DOGE cuts to the US Coast Guard could have been partly to blame for a Mexican tall ship’s deadly collision with the Brooklyn Bridge.
“We know there has been meddling by the Trump administration into USCG staffing, and we need to know how this might have impacted the events of last night — from a command, communication and local coordination level,” the embattled Dem said in a press release.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well this is rich. He designates this state a sanctuary state for illegals and signs a reprehensible law threatening to remove children from parents if they misgender their children. We are a magnet for illegals and deviants. He refuses to follow federal law yet demands counties to follow his law or lose state funding… all the while screeching when Trump says he will withhold federal funds from CO due to this state’s lawlessness!
The lawsuit is just the latest twist in the increasingly confrontational push and pull between the state and some local communities on housing. On Friday Polis signed an executive order requiring local governments to show that they’re enacting recently passed housing laws in order to be eligible for more than a $100 million in state grants for things like transportation and energy.
Polis has consistently asserted that the state has authority to regulate in this area.
“Housing is an interjurisdictional regional issue,” he told CPR News on Friday, ahead of the executive order. “That’s why it’s an issue of state concern. What one community does affects housing prices in other communities because people have a choice of where to live.”
Polis noted that a 20 minute commute in the Denver metro area can potentially cross 14 jurisdictions; “so it’s really about how we address this as a state.”
He said local communities should be following state law.
LikeLiked by 1 person