what is Orinoco?
candidate A: business software
candidate B: education software
candidate C: a list of philosophical prefects
candidate D: :guild_sign_1:
candidate E: a law blog ...
----
the law doth not extend that far
In that sense, what is happening in DC is predictable. DC is the center of an excess of laws, and DJT is a maximal chaos agent. 💡 this is why the news is bad. people see this and think "He's working for Russia?" No. But, he is "chaos" and Russia is, in some way, "chaos" ... if you play just a bit stupid, you end up with "working for Russia". so, that's what the media says.
----
today, at the Supreme Court: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization ⚙️ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-likely-to-allow-damages-suit-against-palestinian-authority-to-go-forward-in-u-s-courts/
At issue the case is the concept of personal jurisdiction – whether courts have the power to hear a case against certain defendants. In 2019, Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act to give federal courts personal jurisdiction over cases by terrorism victims abroad. The law provides that the PLO and the PA “shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in any civil case brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act, no matter when the act of international terrorism occurred, if they make payments to the families of terrorists who injured or killed a U.S. citizen or engaged in any activities within the United States. The law carves out a few narrow exceptions to the latter criterion – for example, for conduct relating to official United Nations business or meeting with government officials.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the dispute now before the court, brought by U.S. citizens injured in terrorist attacks in Israel, as well as the families of U.S. citizens killed in such attacks, could not move forward. It reasoned that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which is the official representative of the Palestinian people for foreign affairs, and the Palestinian Authority, the governing body for parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, had not agreed to have U.S. courts exercise jurisdiction over them. Nor, the court of appeals added, is the conduct that the PSJVTA targets the kind of conduct from which it would be fair to infer consent.
----
💡 it is a matter of an excess of law.
the United States Congress cannot "deem consent" for a foreign entity to be subject to US Courts.
this is a matter of fact.
whether they choose to do so anyway is an open question.
💡 there is an excess of law. it does not extend that far. now it shall diminish.
----
There does not seem to be any coverage other than SCOTUS Blog. Which says that "Justices likely to allow damages suit".
I see it differently. Clarence Thomas is not going to go for this. Neither will John Roberts. 5-4 that PLO is not subject to the judicial Power of the United States regarding its actions in the territory of Mandatory Palestine (1922). No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo can allow the US Congress to "deem consent" by a foreign party, when those parties who clearly deny it.