what are you fermenting over there; put me on! 🤣

The Memepool Closed Source Project

Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Memepool Closed Source Project.

hmm 🤔

#amen

#stacksats #plebchain

I seriously did not think I would see this ever again #plebchain

Wall Street: “Markets are too volatile… halt trading!” Bitcoin: “lol, cope.” 🚫 No circuit breakers 🚫 No bailouts 🚫 No counterparty risk Just 24/7 open-source monetary policy and relentless price discovery. Stay fiat if you like permissions. Stay Bitcoin if you like freedom. #plebchain

Female bots love me on the x bird 🤣

Mo sats mo betta #zap #sats #plebchain #pow 👇🏼

SatsFaucet - The #1 Place to Earn Bitcoin

Get paid in bitcoin for playing games, testings apps, giving your opinion, watching videos and more. Instant withdraw to your favorite Lightning Ne...

hey normies

#Bitcoin sits on throne, #tariffs scramble global trade— old guards just scoff, snide. #plebchain #gm #nostr

You may wanna stack some in case it catches on #zap #zapthon 👉🏼

SatsFaucet - The #1 Place to Earn Bitcoin

Get paid in bitcoin for playing games, testings apps, giving your opinion, watching videos and more. Instant withdraw to your favorite Lightning Ne...

Sorry guys, I’m out too #cumberland #otc#gm #nostr #plebchain

A Counter-Case: Reframing the Debate on Rule of Law and Legal Activism 1. The Rule of Law Is Not Above Accountability While the letter defends legal professionals against government criticism, it omits the possibility that lawyers and firms, like all actors in a democracy, are subject to scrutiny and public accountability. The notion that criticism constitutes retribution assumes a chilling effect that may not be universally valid. If law firms engage in advocacy—especially politically charged or high-profile cases—they inevitably enter the public arena and must accept a level of transparency and consequence. 2. Public Confidence in Legal Neutrality Matters The legal profession enjoys broad autonomy, but when law schools or firms appear to align with specific political or ideological movements, they risk eroding public trust in legal impartiality. Government leaders—and citizens—may reasonably question whether such institutions are truly upholding the law, or selectively interpreting it to advance an agenda. This is not an attack on the rule of law, but a demand for its consistent application. 3. Free Speech Is Not Freedom from Consequences The letter criticizes the punishment of individuals for speaking out on matters of public concern. Yet it conflates lawful expression with immunity from consequences—social, professional, or even legal. Speech that incites, misinforms, or undermines democratic institutions may cross into harmful territory. Dissent should be protected, but not all speech is equally constructive or protected, especially in a professional or legal setting where trust, decorum, and ethics matter. 4. International Students and Activism: A Complex Legal Landscape The letter expresses concern over international students fearing deportation for political activism. But non-citizens, by legal definition, have limited residency rights and are subject to immigration law, which may restrict certain forms of political engagement. This isn’t necessarily a violation of constitutional rights but a reflection of the legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens, which is standard in most nations. 5. Rule of Law Also Requires Institutional Restraint Ironically, by taking a broad ideological stance, the law school risks weakening the very impartiality it seeks to defend. If legal institutions openly align with a specific narrative, it may invite political counter-pressure. The long-term survival of the rule of law depends not just on defending free speech, but on the restraint and neutrality of those who interpret and enforce the law. ⸻ Conclusion The Harvard Law letter raises valid concerns—but it does so from a position that may blur the line between legal advocacy and political activism. The counter-case asserts that accountability, balance, and humility are just as essential to the rule of law as defending it from external threats. Would you like this adapted into a debate format, op-ed, or point-by-point rebuttal for presentation?

Assuming the current downward trend continues, Bitcoin's 50-day moving average would cross below the 200-day moving average (forming a "death cross") around May 9, 2025, approximately 42 days from today. This estimation is based on simplified linear trends, and actual market behavior may vary significantly. #llm #timedelta