what is Orinoco°hard word?
candidate°hard word A: business software
candidate°hard word B: education software
candidate°hard word C: a list of philosophical°hard word prefects°hard word
candidate°hard word D: :guild°hard word_sign_1:
candidate°hard word E: a law blog°hard word ...
----
the law doth°hard word not°hard word extend°hard word that far
In that sense, what is happening in DC°hard word is predictable. DC°hard word is the center°hard word of an excess°hard word of laws, and DJT°hard word is a maximal°hard word chaos agent°hard word. 💡 this is why the news is bad. people see this and think "He's°hard word 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°hard word what the media°hard word says.
----
today, at the Supreme°hard word Court: Fuld°hard word v. Palestine°hard word Liberation°hard word 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°hard word the case is the concept°hard word of personal°hard word jurisdiction°hard word – whether courts have the power to hear a case against certain defendants°hard word. In 2019, Congress°hard word passed the Promoting°hard word Security°hard word and Justice for Victims of Terrorism°hard word Act to give federal°hard word courts personal°hard word jurisdiction°hard word over cases by terrorism°hard word victims abroad°hard word. The law provides°hard word that the PLO°hard word and the PA°hard word “shall be deemed°hard word to have consented°hard word to personal°hard word jurisdiction°hard word” in any civil°hard word case brought under the Anti-Terrorism°hard word Act, no matter when the act of international°hard word terrorism°hard word occurred°hard word, if they make payments to the families of terrorists°hard word who injured°hard word or killed a U.S. citizen°hard word or engaged°hard word in any activities°hard word within°hard word the United States. The law carves out a few narrow exceptions°hard word to the latter°hard word criterion°hard word – for example, for conduct°hard word relating°hard word to official°hard word United Nations business or meeting with government officials°hard word.
The U.S. Court of Appeals°hard word for the 2nd°hard word Circuit°hard word ruled°hard word that the dispute°hard word now before the court, brought by U.S. citizens°hard word injured°hard word in terrorist°hard word attacks in Israel°hard word, as°hard word well as°hard word the families of U.S. citizens°hard word killed in such attacks, could not°hard word move forward. It reasoned that the Palestine°hard word Liberation°hard word Organization, which is the official°hard word representative of the Palestinian°hard word people for foreign°hard word affairs°hard word, and the Palestinian°hard word Authority, the governing°hard word body for parts of the West Bank and Gaza°hard word Strip°hard word, had not°hard word agreed°hard word to have U.S. courts exercise jurisdiction°hard word over them. Nor°hard word, the court of appeals°hard word added, is the conduct°hard word that the PSJVTA°hard word targets°hard word the kind of conduct°hard word from which it would be fair to infer°hard word consent°hard word.
----
💡 it is a matter of an excess°hard word of law.
the United States Congress°hard word cannot°hard word "deem°hard word consent°hard word" for a foreign°hard word entity°hard word 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°hard word of law. it does not°hard word extend°hard word that far. now it shall diminish°hard word.
----
There does not°hard word seem to be any coverage°hard word other than SCOTUS°hard word Blog°hard word. Which says that "Justices likely to allow damages suit".
I see it differently. Clarence°hard word Thomas°hard word is not°hard word going to go for this. Neither will John°hard word Roberts°hard word. 5-4 that PLO°hard word is not°hard word subject to the judicial°hard word Power of the United States regarding°hard word its actions in the territory°hard word of Mandatory°hard word Palestine°hard word (1922). No amount of legal°hard word mumbo-jumbo°hard word can allow the US Congress°hard word to "deem°hard word consent°hard word" by a foreign°hard word party, when those parties who clearly deny it.