I mean this a state where their anti-bestiality law already have an explicit exception for “accepted animal husbandry practices”, so I’m going to take a wild guess that they’re not going to make any attempts to enforce it that way.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0344/BillText/er/HTML

(Though to be fair these kinds of exception exists in a surprisingly large number of states)

To clarify at the end, by “the case”, I mean the original article my comment is replying to. As in they posted an Ohio Supreme Court ruling from 2024

Free range in the US and many other countries just requires “access” to the outdoors. Access is not defined. That can be conveniently interpreted to be as little as “we had a door to a tiny screened area we open up sometimes.” Or just straight up not enforced. Free-range eggs don’t have a legal definition at all in the US from my understanding

And often for a number of the terms, they just have to submit documentation to the USDA, but not actually ever receive inspections on it. Even when clear cut labels like “no antibiotics ever” seems like it’d be hard to have a weak definition around right? Well silly, you can just ignore violations of it. Here’s one example of that for the beef industry

Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

Poultry farming is an industry where terms mean nothing. It is rife with horribly misleading terms that are completely unregulated or have weak definitions that are unenforced. This is not as uprising when you see it through that lens. It’s a continuation of existing absurdity that are less talked about

For instance, “free-range” doesn’t actually have to mean being outdoors at all

Bringing up a Tyson competitor, the farm manager wonders how other poultry companies handle supposedly free-range-raised chickens. The short answer: They don’t, really.

“Those birds don’t go outside — you know that,” the technician replies. “They don’t all go out … Look that up online.”

The manager chimes in: “It’s not like they make it like all of ’em come out and enjoy the sun.”

“That is strictly for commercial [advertising] purposes,” the technician says.

[…]

In 2017, the Intercept reported an investigation into a dozen California farms owned by a free-range chicken company that found no evidence of any animals spending any time outdoors. The chief animal care officer for Perdue Farms, a major chicken producer, has even said the vast majority of its free-range chickens stay indoors.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23724740/tyson-chicken-free-range-humanewashing-investigation-animal-cruelty

Also as a note, the ruling on this case was from last year

EDIT: to clarify by “the case”, I mean the original article my comment is replying to

They wouldn’t need Gerrymandering if that were the case. They are doing this because they are still afraid of voting. Don’t preemptively build the apathy they want from us.

They want people not to vote because while Gerrymandered maps make things more difficult, but far impossible to overcome. Hell sometimes gerrymandering backfires and leads to more flips when done poorly or there’s a big enough wave against the party. Don’t equate it as fully gone. That’s doing their dirty work for them

There already are a bunch out there and increasing. Everything from aquafaba as a binder to things like Just Egg (both cooks & bakes like eggs from Mung beans), and even starting to see some newer companies using precision fermentation to make plant-based eggs with identical proteins to chicken-based eggs

If headlines can’t even mention the battery cages this lawsuit is actually about at all, what are we doing here? Battery cages are horrifying and just the tip of cutlery

If the industry ever tells you that they treat anyone “humanely” remember that they are arguing to remove the smallest sliver of requirements. There is still a massive amount of cruelty allowed in other areas too (for instance chick culling, forced molting, etc.) and they are still angry on any requirement

There also has already been a lawsuit on other provisions in Prop 12 that went up to this current SCOTUS in 2023 and was rejected.

This almost certainly isn’t even actually about the cost of this particular law to the industry. The latest cost changes are almost all driven by bird flu. No, the thing they fear far more than a tiny increase in their costs is that we’ll actually start waking up to this industry. They worry Prop 12 will inspire more action. The more we talk about how things actually look, the more they worry that they’ll become like the fur industry where people wake up and stop buying en masse over its cruelty

He’s hedging and still trying to support some/most of the Trump line, but he isn’t doing the usual 100% blind support of Trump

Look through his posts. He posted cuts close to that. He’s been criticizing more than just this tweet

https://xcancel.com/realalexjones

Yep, and even larger can be overcome too. If you look AOC’s 2018 primary upset, she was outspent by over 10x

Insane outspending can be overcome. Obviously it makes the fight harder, but money is not everything

Because they massively outspent Zohran in the primary and still lost. Vote because you can still overcome this. They want us to give up and think we can’t. Don’t do their dirty work for them

Hope does not mean blind hope. It does not mean you will always win. It means knowing that you can

Always try. No matter how hopeless it seems, you always have the possibility to win a seemingly impossible fight. This a shining example of overcoming and winning big

Giving up is a guaranteed loss. That is what they want us to do. Never give in

They poured millions and million and massively outspent Zohran and still lost. Zohran had no name recognition, and was virtually a nobody in February. The establishment worked hard against him and still lost. They rolled out shameless endorsement of Cuomo after shameless endorsement (like Bill Clinton, apparently). The establishment didn’t lose for a lack of effort. This could happen anywhere next

If they ignore it, the progressives are starting to get ready to take it in the primaries themselves. There’s been an increase in young progressives running for state & local office following these results

(https://bsky.app/profile/amandalitman.bsky.social/post/3lsflzpcjlk2i)

A historically massive over performance of the polls and how the candidate (Lander) who is third on the first round is also a progressive

Few polls had Zohran winning. Even the polling that had Zohran winning had him losing the first round vote by a fair amount and only flipping to win in the 7th round. No polling had him winning the 1st round. He’s just won the first round by like 7% of the vote. He’s not far from 50% of the vote outright on round one

We won’t have the official results from the later ranked choice rounds until July 1st, but just ~60% of Lander’s #2 votes alone would push him above 50% even if all candidates below Lander went 100% Cuomo for #2. Lander cross endorsed Zohran and told his supporters to rank Zohran #2

If they get him on state charges, only the Minnesota Board of Pardons can do that. Which consists of the Governor Tim Walz (D), Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court (appointee of Walz), and Minnesota Attorney General (D)

There’s one important detail that you might be missing here: Republicans are coming for the filibuster indirectly despite profusely saying how much they valued preserving senate rules

They are overriding the senate parliamentarian to do this. They are carving out the filibuster without saying they’re doing so. Right now it’s on some more technical details, but they are setting precedent that they can ignore the parliamentarian. The senate parliamentarian is the one who decides what counts as budget related for reconciliation (which is used as a narrow way around the filibuster strictly for budget). If they can just declare anything budget related and ignore the parliamentarian, they can push all kinds of stuff through that they otherwise couldn’t get through now

Through the series of votes Wednesday, Republicans set precedent for the Senate to reject the state EPA waivers with a simple majority vote. They made that move even after the Senate parliamentarian agreed with the Government Accountability Office that California’s policies are not subject to the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to reject federal regulations under certain circumstances

Update, has been released from custody

https://www.northjersey.com/videos/news/essex/2025/05/09/newark-nj-mayor-ras-baraka-released-from-custody/83545443007/

The administration is also folding in many, though not all, of these cases. Just with 10x less media coverage

For instance, a week ago ICE released Columbia pro-Palestine activist Mohsen Mahdawi from detention after a judge ordered immediate release. Here’s a photo of him leaving

Or when Maine’s governor stood up to Trump’s anti-trans attacks, he at first suspended federal school lunch funding to the state. But a month later he backed down

The Trump administration has agreed not to freeze funds to Maine schools, a win for a state that was targeted by the president over its support of transgender rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-maine-funding-freeze

This is not to say what they’re trying to do is not dangerous. This is to say they are weaker than they want us all to think

EDIT: also just now, Rümeysa Öztürk has been released from ICE detention after a judge ordered her immediate release earlier today. Here she is speaking to supporters

Aside about Rwanda - not only are they another dictatorial country, but they are also heavily backing the M23 militia in the DRC who have been committing some pretty horrible war crimes. Rwanda claims they aren’t tied to M23 at all, yet things have been happening like Rwanda suddenly exporting resources that it doesn’t have (that do exist within the DRC)

The war in the DRC has substantially less attention in the west than that of Ukraine and Gaza, but is still pretty horrifying

If the Marshall Service does not enforce contempt, it is possible for the courts to appoint others to enforce for them if they are willing to do so. It would be unprecedented, but well within the bounds of what the law states

The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

[…]

Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

[…]

Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/