Reason Roundup

DACA Has Its Day at the Supreme Court

Plus: New York's rent control expansion has predictable effects, people are boycotting Uber again, and violence continues in Hong Kong.

|

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's attempt to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA was an executive action that stalled the deportation of people brought to the country illegally by their parents when they were under 16, and allowed them to apply for work authorization as adults. To be eligible for DACA, recipients couldn't have a criminal record.

Some 800,000 people have benefitted from the program. But its legality has long been controversial.

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the administration would be winding down the program, arguing that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally suspend deportations and, therefore, DACA was illegal.

The decision kicked off a flurry of lawsuits against the Trump administration, all asking federal courts to preserve DACA.

Supporting the government's position are Cato Institute legal scholars Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro. While stressing that they support DACA's policy outcome, Blackman and Shapiro wrote in an amicus brief that "the president cannot unilaterally make such a fundamental change to our immigration policy—not even when Congress refuses to act."

"The attorney general reasonably determined that DACA is inconsistent with the president's duty of faithful execution," the two wrote.

Disagreeing with them is Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at George Mason University, who maintains that President Barack Obama was well within his rights to enact DACA.

"Critics attack DACA on the grounds that Obama lacked legal authority to choose not to enforce the law in this case. This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them," wrote Somin in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post yesterday.

Because DACA is legal, and the Trump administration has failed to offer a coherent policy reason for getting rid of the program, Somin argues the Supreme Court could well rule against the government.

Lower courts have stalled the administration's attempts to kill DACA on similar grounds, ruling that the Trump administration has yet to articulate a valid policy justification for ending the program.

Today, legal observers will be watching Chief Justice John Roberts, who has proven to be something of a swing vote when it comes to the president's powers over immigration—Roberts voted to uphold the administration's travel ban but voted to strike down its attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Regardless of the legal arguments about DACA's legality, there's a strong policy case for preserving the program.

Deporting people who were brought by their parents to the U.S., many of whom know no other home but America, is unjust, since hundreds of thousands of people could be sent back to dangerous countries they have little connection to—some DACA recipients might not even speak the language of their country of origin. Not to mention, ending DACA and the work authorizations that come with it would cost the government and economy billions in lost tax revenue and economic growth.


FREE MARKETS

Over at City Journal, Steven Malanga lists some of the very predictable ways that New York state's June expansion of rent control is undermining the rental property market.

Malanga writes:

Because New York's progressive legislators can't repeal the laws of the marketplace, the effects have already begun to show. Two owners of large portfolios of buildings with rent-regulated apartments have already started falling behind on mortgage payments. Sales of rental apartment buildings in New York plunged 50 percent in the first quarter after the legislation was enacted, and now some owners face the prospect of being saddled with buildings operating at a loss, with a value less than their mortgages."

New York City has long maintained a rent stabilization program, which caps how much landlords can increase rents at some 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

This year, the state legislature expanded the law, limiting the repair costs property owners can pass on to tenants, and getting rid of a provision that allowed landlords to charge market rates at apartments occupied by high-income renters.

Both Oregon and California have passed statewide rent control legislation this year in response to high housing costs. Research has shown rent control to be a good deal for tenants in price-controlled apartments.

The policy, however, raises rents for everyone else by deterring new construction and encouraging property owners to convert their rental properties into for-sale condominiums.

New York is currently is being sued in federal court by two landlord associations over its rent control regulations.


FREE MINDS

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi's inexplicable decision to label the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist killed by the Saudi Arabian government, a "mistake" in a recent Axios interview kicked off a brief call to boycott the company yesterday.

"It's a serious mistake. We've made mistakes, too, with self-driving [vehicles], and we stopped driving and we're recovering from that mistake," said Khosrowshahi when pressed on the fact that Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund remains a major investor in Uber.

The comments, which Khosrowshahi has since walked back, raised the ire of many on Twitter, including Washington Post Global Opinions Editor Karen Attiah.

In response to the boycott, others suggested that this rage might be better channeled at members of Congress who've voted to sell weapons to the Saudi government.


QUICK HITS

NEXT: A Colorado Woman Was Tased After Being Arrested For Smoking and Allowing Her Dog Off-Leash

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Looks like someone’s not on ENB time.

    1. Hello.

      No shit about the faux-outrage clowns boycotting Uber. Probably the same people who just found out about the Kurds too.

      The government of Canada does arms business with the Saudis. While the province of Quebec pretends to play ‘principle games’ with Alberta (the country’s cash cow) by being anti-pipeline and then turning around to buy their oil from (aside from the USA)….Saudi Arabia.

      1. Why is the uber outrage faux, and why do you assume people “just found out about the Kurds”? It seems you need to make some bad faith assumptions about people in order to dismiss their concerns.

        1. Because it usually is given the zeitgeist.

          And I did say ‘probably!”

          /slap!

        2. We dont have assumptions about you. You make it clear your bad faith.

          1. I’m so sorry I don’t uncritically carry water for your favorite TV billionaire.

        3. The assumption is easy because the people whinging about are parroting the talking points they got in the media. 99.9 percent of them have no fucking clue when we even began providing air support to them in Syria.

          1. So the Kurds haven’t been in the American news cycle since the first gulf war?

            1. That hardly refutes the fact that 99.9 percent of people whining about the Kurds have no fucking clue when we even began providing air support to them in Syria. They think the MERV is some kind of new trendy hairstyle.

              1. This seems to be a mere assumption on your part. A lot of the outrage was from veterans who very much know the who and what about the Kurds.

                1. A lot of the outrage was from veterans who very much know the who and what about the Kurds.

                  No, a lot of the outrage was from noodle-armed progressives who would have complained about anything Trump did regardless.

                  1. Doubling down on the ignorance? Join us in reality.

                    https://www.google.com/search?q=veterans+kurds&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS717US717&oq=veterans+kurds&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.2480j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

                    1. What reality? You can’t even get your link correct.

                    2. google.com
                      “kurds veterans”
                      You’re welcome.

                    3. There is no such thing as “The Kurds” as you express it.
                      Previously, the term was applied nearly exclusively to Iraqi Kurdish, AKA the ones Sadam was constantly gassing.
                      The Treaty of Lausanne created three distinct groups with three distinct raison d’etre.
                      Contemporaneous Jorno-List usage now includes the PKK (Turkish) and Syrian Kurds (DFNS) in this connotation. We have never supported the PKK as they were Communist and we pretty much let Erdogan or whoever was running Turkey deal with them. Our relationship with the DFNS is relatively recent since the failed “Red Line In The Sand”.
                      So … fuck you, Proggie Liar.

            2. And no, dumbfuck the Kurds haven’t “been in the American news cycle since the first gulf war.” They’ve occasionally popped up in the news cycle when violence flares in the region and it directly affects them, but they haven’t even been close to a constant presence.

              1. So what you are saying is that Americans who pay attention to the news have been periodically informed on/about the Kurds and US relations with them. So asserting that 99.9% of Americans who voiced objections about Trump’s sudden abandonment of them are completely ignorant is a big fat assumption.

                1. Sorry, 99 percent.

    2. These sex links suck.

  2. How do we even know what counts as pseudoscience?

    President Williamson will tell us.

    1. I enjoyed the linked article, and thought it was a good effort, but found his argument for the use of ‘elegance’ not much more than a form of self selection.

    2. Im not reading anything from that tranny propagandist. Pseudoscience is the stuff that cant be tested that we have to accept on faith because our betters want to use it as a cudgel.

  3. Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA was an executive action…

    And here’s where the pen and the phone break down.

    1. The funny thing is that Trump has pretty much actually done what Obama promised to do with his “pen and phone”. Turns out that as president, you don’t actually have to do what political advisers tell you.

    2. Reason is generally against the unitary executive…. unless it allows for more illegal immigration. Then Obama’s EO are as good as law.

      1. Where did they make that claim? They clearly think it’s good policy, but I don’t see where they are saying it is “as good as law”.

        1. I suppose it depends if you consider Volokh conspiracy as Reason or not.

          1. Also, I’m to lazy too look, but I’d bet a dollar that Schreeka thinks it is.

            1. And lil billy binion too. His first few articles were on immigration. Half of OBLs schtick is immigration. Weird people deny Reasons stance in immigration.

          2. There’s pretty much only one guy on the Volokh Conspiracy arguing that DACA is good law. At best, you could call the VC split on that question.
            There is a better consensus on VC that DACA would be good policy.

        2. Somin writes here. They have also written articles in support of the judges blocking any restrictions.

        3. I don’t get why one would need to justify policy to be able to change it, from a legal standpoint. If you don’t have a good reason to shut down the Dept of Education, does that mean you can’t do it? And if so, isn’t that as good as law?

  4. …arguing that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally suspend deportations and, therefore, DACA was illegal.

    The decision kicked off a flurry of lawsuits against the Trump administration…

    But not a flurry of legislative action from Congress?

    1. We can’t expect Congress to resolve a legislative problem.

      1. There are impeachments to investigate!

        1. Politics must take precedence over governance.

    2. You think Moscow mitch would allow a vote on an immigration bill? You see, the whole country’s representatives need to ask a turtle for permission before they legislate. It’s an odd system, but it is as holy as giving North Dakotans several times the voting power as citizens in other states. No, the framers never mentioned either of these quirks, but I’ve been told they are sacrosanct even still.

      1. “…It’s an odd system, but it is as holy as giving North Dakotans several times the voting power as citizens in other states…”

        Oh, look! Poor loser lost 3 years ago and it still butt-hurt.
        Grow up.

        1. As long as the system disenfranchises libertarian dicks in San Francisco I guess i’m Ok with it.

          1. That’s an odd reason to be for or against something, unless you’re a bitter old troll, then I guess it makes sense.

        2. Boils a multi point argument down to “butt hurt” and losing/winning. Then gives advice: “Grow up.”
          Surely this is satire.

      2. He allowed one in 2006 with a bipartisan vote. Obama was the deciding no vote despite working with the gang if 8, voting for a poison pill amendment the bipartisan group agreed to kill.

        But facts are awful things baby jeffrey.

        1. You mean when Mitch was minority leader and had no power to allow or disallow voting? Ok then.

      3. The people of North Dakota have more voting power than you because they’re worth more than you.

        Seriously, you’re really going with this tired-ass talking point? Go jump in front of a speeding semi.

        1. Now Iowa and their undue influence on the primaries, that’s another story.

        2. Seriously, people in one state having more voting power than people in another state is anti-liberty. And as I keep telling you keyboard cowards on here, if you want me dead then come find me. Pussy.

          1. Seriously, people in one state having more voting power than people in another state is anti-liberty.

            There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the people of North Dakota more voting power than whatever left-wing shithole you live in.

            And as I keep telling you keyboard cowards on here, if you want me dead then come find me. Pussy.

            Brave words from someone who hides his email and posts behind a screenname. At least Hihn has the stones to dox himself, but then again he’s also senile and insane.

            1. Give me your email, and we’ll arrange a meeting.

              1. “LOL COME GET ME GAIZ! NO, YOU GIVE ME YOUR EMAIL I DON’T HAVE TO GIVE YOU MINE!”

                1. Call me old fashioned, but I think the clearly unhinged death wish purveyor should go first.

                  1. Nah, I’ll just call you a pussy instead.

                    1. Another action you would never even contemplate were we in the same room.

      4. It is turtles all the way down.

        Here we just watch the ducks to see which way they are leaning. Then we vote.

        ^

  5. It’s a serious mistake. We’ve made mistakes, too, with self-driving [vehicles], and we stopped driving and we’re recovering from that mistake…

    Look, all he was trying to do was get for Uber some of that benefit of the doubt the Saudis enjoyed.

    1. The guy may as well be Gavin Belson.

      1. Needs a logical redesign

        1. Damn autocorrect

          *logo redesign

  6. A bit shocked that most media censoring the name if the whistleblower isnt a bigger deal (let alone defended by) for a libertarian magazine. Facebook, youtube, etc banning the name Eric Ciaramella is kind of insane at this point.

    1. What’s the point of power if you can’t run people’s faces in it

    2. Not repeating unverified rumors = censoring?

      1. His name was already released in one of Schiff’s transcripts, so that’s hardly a concern anymore.

      2. Whether censoring, or not, it is pretty interesting to see which unverified rumors they are willing to print.

        1. And even so, JesseAz, who is very concerned with journalists not printing gossip and rumors, keeps calling for them to repeat speculation about who the whistleblower is.

          1. All in all, this presidency has been great entertainment in watching people twist themselves in all types of knots to prove that their team is the right one.

          2. While Mike Laursen “libertarian” white knight, keeps shilling for The Omnipotent Unelected State

          3. Your dishonesty of my views is hilarious. The person who started the impeachment ball rolling is kind of a big deal. Don’t you think?

            How dishonest are you going to be today “mikey”?

            1. Once the ball is rolling, it doesn’t matter how it got rolling, apparently. (See FISA warrants for collusion)

              1. Yes, that is a fair way of summing it up. The Democratically-controlled House could start an impeachment on any premise or pretense. That’s why the whistleblower doesn’t matter much.

            2. Especially if he is found to be in violation of CFR 2635.101 (b)(4)
              An employee shall not, except as permitted by subpart B of this part, solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by the employee’s agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s duties.

              by collecting over a quarter of a million dollars from unknown sources when he set up a go-fund-me for himself.

              1. “On or about September 25, 2019, several UNKNOWN PERSONS [emphasis mine] (believed to be Attorneys or their agents) who claim to represent the person who [blew the whistle] created a ‘GoFundMe’ page…”

                If we are against rumors and gossip, how did we jump from unknown persons to “het set up a go-fund-me”?

      3. “Not repeating unverified rumors = censoring?”

        Dunno, but repeating unverified rumors seems to count as journalism if they concern Trump.

        1. Anonymous sources agree.

          1. Some people have said so.

      4. The media reports unverified rumors often. See russiagate or kavanaugh.

      5. Funny how these standards work here and not with, say, SCOTUS nominees…

        1. Or high school kids. Or jussy smolet. Or any hate crimes really.

          1. Or jussy smolet.

            That French actor?

    3. No worries – the outlets that report on the rumors will get the clicks.

      1. “I thought they said *chicks*”

  7. Unbiased politifact claims it is mostly false that Democrats raised their hands to support healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants on the basis that it was only half the candidates on stage for that debate.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/politifact-who-are-you-gonna-believe-us-or-your-lyin-eyes/

    1. Shikha wrote about this and how it’s unamerican to deny illiegal immigrants healthcare. It was a defining moment for me, as I no longer came here expecting libertarian ideas

      1. Healthcare is provided to death row inmates so of course we would give medical care to immigrants. Now if the immigrant doesn’t have lawful status then they would not qualify for assistance getting health insurance but they could buy insurance like anyone else.

        1. Yeah, but what’s more important to the good fake libertarians in this board: free markets, or getting in a good jab at some subhuman illeeegals?

          1. Government provided goods is your idea of a libertarian ideal baby jeffrey? Interesting.

            1. He also believes that government employees are “dedicated public servants” and Trump is going to get us in a nuclear war. He couldn’t be any more of a neoliberal cliche if he tried.

              1. What has neoliberalism done for us any way? 70 years of peace? Precipitous drop in global poverty? Sending men to the moon? Nuclear war averted?

                Pshaw. Qanon conspiracies, now that’s a philosophy to hang one’s hat on!

                1. Neoliberalism’s accomplished none of those things, but that’s a pretty stupendous piece of fan fiction.

                  1. Just simple coincidence then? Seems unlikely, but go ahead, make your case.

                    1. What, a coincidence that neoliberalism’s accomplished none of those things?

            2. As is tradition, Jesse ha to mischaracterize his opponents argument in order to refute it.

              See: “but they could buy insurance like anyone else.”

              1. Ironic coming from you Jeffy.

                1. I’m not Jeff, so probably not irony.

  8. Idahoans are not happy about the influx of Californians to the state, and it’s starting to become an issue in local politics.

    Racists and xenophobes.

    1. No magic Idaho dirt?

    2. The news stories are exaggerated. The “Californians go back home” contingent lost that battle years ago.

      1. 40 years ago I bought a post card making fun of Californians moving to Idaho. I’m sure there are sons and daughters of California transplants who are complaining at this point.

        I would be interested in how many of these anti-Californian people would stick up for low-income communities in big cities fighting gentrification. I look forward (not) to a grand anti-freedom-of-movement political coalition 10 years from now.

        1. In the Boise area, most people seem to be from California, be married to someone from California, or went to college in California. And a lot of the ones that don’t have ties to California are transplants from Seattle or Salt Lake City.

        2. For the last 40-50 years California’s biggest export has been it’s citizenry.

  9. “Idahoans are not happy about the influx of Californians to the state, and it’s starting to become an issue in local politics.”

    Nobody is happy about california locusts fucking other states.

    1. First item on the agenda, “Carb Free Idaho, Ban the Spud!”. Rolling blackouts and burning forests up next

      1. Straws, and rent control.

  10. Why would the Uber ceo be spouting off about things not Uber?

    1. He has been under fire because of Saudi investment in Uber. And chose that opportunity to say something really dumb.

      1. I guess the Saud’s are trying to come up with a solution to the woman driver problem…

  11. San Francisco’s newest district attorney is promising criminal justice reform. He also worked for Hugo Chavez.

    Holy – and I can’t stress this enough – fuck.

    1. He just legalized pissing in the street too.

      1. Everyone should piss in the street right in front of his house.

        1. Could be successful if you brand the event as empowering for women (inclusive of trans women, of course).

          1. What an odd thing to say

            1. Only odd because you and the rest of the Trump boyz need to imagine I’m a frothing democrat, in order to preserve your fragile fictional universe.

              1. When someone parrots Democrat talking points, they’re probably Democrats.

                1. You are really on quite the assumption train this morning.

                  1. And you’re really on the baseless claims yacht.

    2. He was birthed by wolves and raised by hyenas. Chesa Boudin.

  12. Former President Jimmy Carter has been hospitalized.

    He’s desperately holding on until there’s a different sitting president to eulogize him.

    1. I think Carter was a lousy President, though there have been worse than him since. But, I give Carter a lot of credit for not getting obscenely rich from public service. Whatever his flaws as a President, and I think there were a lot of them, Carter wasn’t a crook and didn’t see being in office as a cash register. I can’t help but respect him for that. Sorry for his family and for him that it looks like he is going to pass.

      1. Carter gave Engineers a bad name.

        1. What’s Herbert Hoover, chopped liver?

      2. Yeah, plenty to disagree about and criticize with Carter, but he does seem to be a genuinely decent and honest person.

        1. I’ll give him that. Awful president but can’t really hate him as a person

        2. A decent and honest person who had far too much love for despotic dictators.

  13. So DACA has evolved from something Obama had the discretion to do to being something no future President can undo. That is a bit of a problem. It is also a complete admission that the claims that Obama was just exercising “prosecutor discretion” are and were always a lie told for the convenience of his supporters.

    The lower courts ruled that Obama had in DACA effectively made new regulations and therefore Trump had to go through the legal process involved with repealing a regulation. Not only is that conclusion counter to every defense of the program given at the time, it ignores the fact that Obama didn’t follow any regulatory process in enacting the program. Why would he have? He claimed at the time it was a policy and an act of proprietorial discretion. Now suddenly when a new President exercises his discretion to end the program, it is a regulation and can’t just be undone.

    The whole thing is complete lawlessness. I think it is so obvious and so bad that even a few of the liberal members of the court are going to strike it down. This is absurd.

    1. Who’s gonna win? Chocolate Jesus or orange man bad?

      1. It is going to go down. I can’t see any of the conservative justices buying this kind of absurd and inconsistent expansion of the regulatory state. Even if you think Obama had a legal right to do what he did, you can’t then come back and say future Presidents don’t have a right to then reverse it or have to follow the formal regulatory process when it wasn’t followed in the first place. That is just lunacy. You can’t write a coherent opinion justifying that. I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple of liberal justices voted with the majority just to avoid having to construct a dissenting opinion upholding the lower court decision.

      2. “Who’s gonna win? Chocolate Jesus or orange man bad?”

        SABRA!

    2. I’m all for something like DACA, but if one president can just do it, then another can un-do it, seems to me.

      1. It would seem that way Zeb. What is really appalling is that when Obama did this, DACA’s defenders would have never claimed that it couldn’t be undone just as easily by a future President. Yet, as soon as that happened, suddenly they discovered that it couldn’t.

        Even if you agree with the substance of DACA and want more open borders, the open borders’ advocates’s inability to make an honest argument should bother you.

        1. Pretty much everything in politics bothers me.

        2. I suspect they assumed after eight years of President Hillary, it would be considered de facto law and no one would bother touching it after that. Trump came in and said “fuck Obama’s legacy,” and here we are.

    3. I’m wondering where the rule that a president can’t rescind an EO without “a coherent policy reason” came from or who decides what qualifies as “coherent”.

      And if the SC upholds this notion, will it apply when a Democrat tries to rescind an EO issued by Trump? Sounds like something Trump could take advantage of, so the Left had best be careful what it wishes for.

      1. That rule comes from nowhere and is a complete assault on the Article II powers of the Constitution. The President doesn’t owe the courts a “coherent policy reason” for how he runs the executive. He only owes the court doing whatever he does within the bounds of the law. Saying there must be a “coherent policy reason” is just saying the President can’t do something unless he has both the legal authority and the approval of the courts for the reasons he is doing it. This is nothing but judicial tyranny.

      2. Even if you think Obama had a legal right to do what he did, you can’t then come back and say future Presidents don’t have a right to then reverse it or have to follow the formal regulatory process when it wasn’t followed in the first place.

        All they’re saying is that if you want to reverse a predecessors policies you have to have a good reason for doing so. Fortunately for Trump’s Democratic successors, “Orange Man Bad” will be accepted as a perfectly cromulent justification. There can be no possible good reason to change The One’s holy writ.

    4. //[I]t ignores the fact that Obama didn’t follow any regulatory process in enacting the program. Why would he have? He claimed at the time it was a policy and an act of proprietorial discretion. Now suddenly when a new President exercises his discretion to end the program, it is a regulation and can’t just be undone.//

      This is a perfect example of the newly emergent jurisprudence of Trump. Too many courts, professors, legal analysts, politicians, and average voters are utterly convinced that Trump, solely because he is Trump, warrants a complete perversion of every precedent and legal principle that theretofore existed, and that this inversion of the law will somehow stop once Trump is out of office and there will be a return to normalcy.

      Do not expect any of the SCOTUS progressives to affirm Trump’s power to end DACA. They view themselves as part of the “resistance” and have made no secret of their animus. The usual suspects – Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan – will unceremoniously rule, in tandem, that Trump has no power to end DACA and their reasoning will be a thin veil over their unanimous dislike of Trump. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh will side with the law – that is, with Trump’s position. If I had to wager, Roberts will flake out and side with the liberals with another legal frankenstein along the lines of “a penalty is really a tax,” but will hold that Trump *can* end DACA if he goes follows some process that he will have invented on the spot. This will keep DACA on the books and will give the progressives a rallying cry for 2020 – “If Trump is elected, he will end DACA.”

      It is absurd, but we live in times when absurdity is acceptable to people including, for some reason, a ton of professed “libertarians.”

      1. The problem is that the justices can’t just deny Trump. They have to write an opinion that explains why he can’t do it and that will then be used as precedent for future cases. That is going to be difficult to say the least. I am sure some hack like Kagan is up to it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two of them were not.

    5. It is lawless. People of a certain mindset using the courts to make a dictatorial decree vy one president unassailable by a successor chief executive is a sign of deep rot in our legal institutions, and Somin supports the rot.

      1. I haven’t gone over to Volokh to see what they are saying about this case. I have been afraid to. I can’t imagine how bad it is. So, does Somin claim Trump can’t undo DACA? What is his reasoning? Please give me the thumbnail and save my blood pressure my having to read it myself.

        1. I just read the Somin quote in this article. There are links provided to what he wrote on it yesterday.

          1. The Somin article is bat shit crazy. The whole thing is about the validity of DACA, which at this point is a moot point. It doesn’t matter if DACA was legal since Trump has ended it. The issue is whether Trump has the authority to end it. And to that issue Somin says

            The Supreme Court might conclude that Trump still has the authority to repeal the program purely on policy grounds. But that option is, at the very least, made more difficult by the administration’s failure to present a policy rationale, except at the eleventh hour. Even now, the administration still hasn’t put forward a theory of why it’s actually a good idea to subject DACA recipients to deportation, as opposed to claiming that rescinding DACA is desirable for such ancillary reasons as “sending a message” that laws will be enforced. That rationale that could justify pretty much any decision, since virtually any policy could be interpreted as “sending a message” to some group or other.

            Just read that and let it sink in. Somin is claiming that Trump has to justify a decision that Somin admits is within his power to make. Trump doesn’t need a rational if the action is within his legal authority to do.

            Somin is now claiming that having the authority to do something is not good enough. The President must have a reason sufficient to satisfy the courts. I am dumbfounded anyone could write such an absurd claim with a straight face. God, what a hack.

            1. The idea that enforcing the law as written is not in itself a rationale that the courts cannot question without throwing out the law iitself is breakdown of separation of powers. I cannot help to think that Somin favors a judicial oligarchy rather than a representative republic.

              1. Indeed. Many people, including some key justices on the Supreme Court, view the Supreme Court’s role as that of a super legislature that has a “higher loyalty” to the country and, therefore, can invent its own laws (thus supplanting the powers of Congress) and, when required, strike down executive actions if it disagrees with the policies underlying them.

                If proponents of the supremacy of the judicial branch continue on their path, I think it is only a matter of time before Trump (or, indeed, future Presidents) simply say, “Well, that’s a nice ruling …. now go fuck yourself.”

            2. But John, the real question is: How much was your BP raised reading it? 🙂

                1. Ok….let me play ‘Somin’s Defense Lawyer’ for a moment. 🙂

                  We want lively and healthy debate. That is about a libertarian value as there is – the free exchange of ideas. For this to happen, you need to have the intellectual rigor to argue both sides of an issue persuasively. Professor Somin is doing just that – making an argument. Maybe he really believes it, maybe not. Doesn’t matter.

                  What matters here is that we engage him, and argue the opposite.
                  For instance, what if I asked you: Ok John, regardless of what you personally believe, make a persuasive case for DACA. I bet you could. Am I correct?

            3. Somin is being blatantly dishonest here.

              “…President Barack Obama was well within his rights to enact DACA.

              ‘Critics attack DACA on the grounds that Obama lacked legal authority to choose not to enforce the law in this case. This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them…”

              He knows full well that this was not simply a matter on non-enforcement. If he truly believes that he has the law on his side, he would not feel the need to obfuscate.

            4. Didn’t the SC already tell the Trump administration on another issue that they didn’t believe his reason and you can’t do that. it didn’t matter that the reason the administration gave was legal the SC just didn’t like it and shot it down. it will happen again with this rouge court

              1. That was on whether it could include the citizenship question on the census. In that, the agency is required to reveal the reason behind decisions to include/exclude a question and the SC ruled the reason given was dubious. I.E. the ruling against the administration was because the agency involved didn’t follow it’s own regulations, not because it didn’t have the power to do it in the first place.

                This issue should (hopefully) be more straight-forward. There are no regulations around what laws a President does or does not choose to enforce so if one chooses not to enforce something another should be able to choose to enforce it without jumping through a bunch of regulatory hoops.

    6. Remember that time when the Obama lawyers argued on Tuesday that Obamacare wasn’t a tax… And then after that was settled, on Thursday argued that it would be implemented as a tax?

      Those were good times.

  14. “Because DACA is legal, and the Trump administration has failed to offer a coherent policy reason for getting rid of the program, Somin argues the Supreme Court could well rule against the government.”

    This is why somin is the worst of the VC crew. His first assertion is bald. No court has ruled on DACAs legality. And Obama’s DoJ dropped a defense of DAPA for fear they would lose the case which would cost them DACA. No discretion view allows positive benefits like DACA granted such as issuing work permits and allowing illegals under DACA to be eligible for medicaid and such.

  15. “The comments, which Khosrowshahi has since walked back, raised the ire of many on Twitter, including Washington Post Global Opinions Editor Karen Attiah.”

    Lol. The nerve after WapoDeathNotices.

  16. Because New York’s progressive legislators can’t repeal the laws of the marketplace…

    WHO SHACKLED THEM TO THOSE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE? No wonder they hate the market.

  17. Let me get this straight: The President has the authority to not enforce the law as written, but a successor President does not have the authority to reverse that policy and enforce the law as written without permission from the courts. How does that make sense? It would seem we are making Constitutional authority completely arbitrary in order to make or defend the policies a certain clique wants.

    Whether or not the policy in question is objectively, or even subjectively good is irrelevant to the legal question of what the executive has authority to do.

    1. No, the important part is WHO is in the Oval Office. If the right people are in charge, all is well.

      1. The ends justify the means. Welcome to the rule of man.

    2. That is exactly what is happening. Just like a penalty is really a tax, emanating penumbras are wellsprings of theretofore unheard of positive rights, and the bonds of true love between two men have the power to retroactively supplant the text of the Constitution.

      The Supreme Court routinely dabbles in policy, which is exactly we are in dire need of true conservatives justices that know their role (their limited role) in the scheme of our Republic.

  18. “This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them,”

    Cue “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument….

    1. Okay, sure they do. But the reverse is also true. It enforces its laws against a lot of people as well. So if the President has the authority to choose not to enforce the law, a future President sure as hell has the authority to choose to do so.

      1. Yep. Freedom of choice!

  19. Do public companies have any say in who owns their stock?

    1. Generally speaking, no. But a corporation can adopt a “poison pill” and similar defensive measures to deter stockholders from owning too large a percentage of its stock.

  20. “Not to mention, ending DACA and the work authorizations that come with it would cost the government and economy billions in lost tax revenue and economic growth.”

    Not necessarily, because no matter how hard you try to ignore it, most immigrants vote for free shit.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyt-wapo-mass-immigration-demographic-changes-fueled-democrat-wins-in-virginia

  21. Idahoans are not happy about the influx of Californians to the state, and it’s starting to become an issue in local politics.

    Like, Idahoans are being dragged into “legalizing” MJ.

    1. Idaho will be the last place to legalize marijuana. You’ve never seen anything as awkward as a Parliament/Funkadelic show in Boise full of white people, with not a single person smoking anything. George Clinton couldn’t get out of there fast enough at the end of the show.

      1. Ever see Tales from the Tour Bus by Mike Judge?
        The one on Parliament/Funkadelic was pretty good.

        1. I’ll have to check it out.

  22. “Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA was an executive action that stalled the deportation of people brought to the country illegally by their parents when they were under 16, and allowed them to apply for work authorization as adults. To be eligible for DACA, recipients couldn’t have a criminal record.

    Some 800,000 people have benefitted from the program. But its legality has long been controversial.”

    The upside may be that it helped 800,000 illegal immigrants, but as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated here in comments, the upsurge in the number of asylum seekers flooding to the U.S. from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras since then is largely attributable to DACA.

    In 2012, when Obama instituted DACA, there were about 4,500 asylum seekers per year. As of May of 2019, the rate of asylum seekers from those countries had climbed to a rate of over a million asylum seekers per year–overwhelming the infrastructure to care for them. Especially telling is the demographics of those asylum seekers. In May of 2019, 78% of them were either children traveling alone without a parent or families traveling with their children.

    Moral hazard shouldn’t be surprising to libertarians. The fact is that if you tell people they won’t be deported if they come here as children, it makes their parents want to send their children to the United States or bring them here themselves. Of course, that says nothing about the legality or constitutionality of creating moral hazards, but if the upside to DACA is that it helped 800,000 illegal immigrants who were already here, the downside should also be clearly identified.

    DACA brought suffering to hundreds of thousands of poor immigrant children who wouldn’t suffer the indignities of detention or the life of an illegal alien if it weren’t for DACA–and that isn’t even taking the downsides from the perspective of the American taxpayer into consideration.

    From a Constitutional perspective:

    1) The president should be able to get rid of anything by way of an executive order that was instituted by way of an executive order–in that if instituting it didn’t violate the separation of powers, then rescinding it shouldn’t do so either.

    2) The power to set the rules of naturalization is explicitly enumerated to Congress in the Constitution. It’s not just that Barack Obama had no constitutional basis by which to institute that executive order. It’s also that Obama did so after Congress had voted DACA down.

    Let’s take a stroll down Memory Lane:

    “The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.[21] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.[22][21] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[21] The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama’s decision to sign DACA.[21]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

    This is the difference between principled libertarians and phonies. Where real libertarians try to persuade their fellow Americans to change their minds on issues that are legitimately within the proper purview of democracy, and thus change those policies, phony libertarians will support unconstitutional, authoritarian maneuvers that violate the separation of powers–when doing so supports the policies they prefer. Feel free to try to persuade your fellow Americans to support DACA in Congress, but from a libertarian perspective, Obama’s DACA executive order was an authoritarian attempt to bypass the legitimate and constitutional powers of Congress and is therefore indefensible.

    1. It’s not just that Barack Obama had no constitutional basis by which to institute that executive order. It’s also that Obama did so after Congress had voted DACA down.

      *** meekly raises hand ***

      Is that an impeachable offense?

      1. I know this is half-joking, but in all seriousness, nothing is impeachable if the American people won’t support impeaching you for it, and that goes double when the Fourth estate has your back. You’d think using the NSA to violated the Fourth Amendment rights of 300 million Americans might have been an impeachable offense, as well, but going back to the Bush administration, you could literally get away with murdering American citizens so long as you did so within the context of fighting terrorism.

        1. nothing is impeachable if the American people won’t support impeaching you for it

          And by “the American people” you mean ….?

          1. By the American people, I mean whomever our representatives in Congress fear the most come election day.

    2. Congress refused to make DACA law. It is contrary to the law as it exists. So, Obama couldn’t do it through the regulatory process. So, he did by executive fiat and claimed he was just using his discretion over where, when, and over whom to enforce the law.

      The lower courts and many self professed “libertarians” are now claiming that the current President cannot use his discretion to undo Obama’s discretion. Effectively, they are saying that Obama could unilaterally amend the INA without congress and that would have the force of law such that future Presidents could not undo it.

      That is the most shameless and appalling assault on the rule of law I have ever seen. Anyone who makes that argument should be ashamed of themselves.

      1. Even Shikha Dalmia has intimated that she doesn’t expect DACA to survive this hearing. Absent a “penaltax” ruling, the worst that will come of this is that the suits brought by the states against DACA will be reinstated if Trump’s recision of DACA is struck down.

        I’d put the over/under at 7 justices to 2 in favor of Trump.

        1. The whole thing just shows what hacks Somin and the people at Volkh are. They know that Trump has the authority to do this. You can see that by the fact that Somin spends 3/4ths of his blog post talking about whether DACA was a valid exercise of power. That is a moot point since Trump ended DACA. The issue is whether Trump had the power to do that. If he did, then DACA is over and its validity doesn’t come into play. And even Somin can’t explain why he didn’t other than to mumble something about the unitary executive and invent a doctrine that says the President can only use his legal authorities in ways that have “sound policy reasons” which he has no citation for and seems to have pulled out of his ass and is also something he would never claim in any other context.

          1. Somin has problems with the idea of a unitary executive. As I understand the term means that all executive positions derive their authority from the presidency and so the chief executive is their ultimate supervisor. Meaning, he can order them on policy matters within the limits of statutory law and the Constitution. I am not sure how it could iwork otherwise or why it would be desirable for it to.

            1. Saying the executive is not accountable to the President is saying they are not accountable to the voters. How else are voters supposed to object to the actions of executive and hold them accountable if not by electing a President to do so?

              The question I have for Somin is how he thinks a free society can operate while ruled by a executive that is accountable only to itself? He is either deeply confused, not really a libertarian at all and is just pretending to be one because it gets him attention, or both.

      2. That is the most shameless and appalling assault on the rule of law I have ever seen.

        I think you’re forgetting the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal, those “treaties” Obama signed that somehow obligated the US despite the plain “advise and consent” Constitutional provision for Senate approval.

        1. Someone should point out the obvious fact that we would still be subject to all of these things: The Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Deal, ObamaCare, DACA, and God only knows what new shit–if Trump hadn’t been elected.

          Trump being elected was a Festivus miracle.

          1. If only we got to see the Feats of strength at the debates…

  23. Hey, where’s OBL? I need his hilarious posts about Shikha Dalmia and how it’s ok that the federal government is now shipping people who have lived here for 20 years back to Mexico because…. well, I don’t know exactly. He’s hilarious.

    1. This is a hard one for me. Ethically, it is horrible to be shipping some kid who grew up in the U.S. to Mexico, but legally Obama should not have been legislating from the White House. The right thing to do would be for Congress to step up and resolve the situation.

      1. How do you do that without incentivizing third-worlders to bring their minor children to the U.S. illegally? Therein lies the dilemma.

        1. Congress could pass a legislative fix that grandfathers in people already here.

      2. Mike, we agree = …but legally Obama should not have been legislating from the White House. The right thing to do would be for Congress to step up and resolve the situation.

        I don’t have ethical qualms deporting illegal aliens.

        1. Perhaps if you knew someone who was raised here since childhood, only speaks English, and has no relationship to the country they are technically citizens of, you might change your opinion.

          1. Nope, not the slightest chance I’ll change my opinion. They go.

            1. Many of them are unaware they aren’t citizens until well into adulthood. I know one such case. His mother came here with him as an infant from Cambodia, during Pol Pot. He found out he was not born here when he asked his mother for his personal records because he wanted to apply for college financial aid. He speaks rudimentary Khmer. He does have a business degree and has been employed and paying taxes for over a decade. He has American children now.

              What is to be gained by deporting him? A broken and financially ruined family?

              I’m not saying Daca is sacrosanct. I think Trump very much has the power to end it. I’m saying why do we want to deport people who did nothing wrong? The crime, if any, is their parents’.

              1. I can agree however, the fault would lay on Congress, not the President and perhaps that’s the kind of pressure Congress needs to act.

                1. The more I think about it, the more I like strict term limits for both houses. Legislators are too afraid of going on the record by voting on the issues. They are only concerned with re election.

              2. The crime, if any, is their parents’.

                We agree. Take it up with the parents.

                In the meantime, they go back to their country of origin.

          2. Nice to know somebody else has qualms about it.

  24. “”Critics attack DACA on the grounds that Obama lacked legal authority to choose not to enforce the law in this case. This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them,” wrote Somin in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post yesterday.”

    Seems like a good reason to actually start enforcing immigration laws, then.

  25. Sales of rental apartment buildings in New York plunged 50 percent in the first quarter after the legislation was enacted, and now some owners face the prospect of being saddled with buildings operating at a loss, with a value less than their mortgages.

    Is the assertion here that govt should instead have ensured effective price control of apt buildings so that banks can have a LTV of less than 1? So that owners can be assured of a profit? And why would sales DROP unless existing owners are simply being oblivious to the market price of their property because of the other tax games and real estate distortions that ownership makes possible?

    1. No, the assertion is that NY never should have expanded rent control, but you already knew that.

  26. Idaho should follow Quebec’s lead on being able to speak proper French before citizenship is allowed immigrants, and say you can’t stay unless you can gut a deer in less than 15 minutes.

    1. “‘Boy-zee’?! It’s pronounced ‘BWAH’!!”

  27. This is the biggest story of the week:

    “Google is engaged with one of the U.S.’s largest health-care systems on a project to collect and crunch the detailed personal-health information of millions of people across 21 states.

    . . . .

    Google began Project Nightingale in secret last year with St. Louis-based Ascension, a Catholic chain of 2,600 hospitals, doctors’ offices and other facilities, with the data sharing accelerating since summer, according to internal documents.

    The data involved in the initiative encompasses lab results, doctor diagnoses and hospitalization records, among other categories, and amounts to a complete health history, including patient names and dates of birth.

    Neither patients nor doctors have been notified.At least 150 Google employees already have access to much of the data on tens of millions of patients, according to a person familiar with the matter and the documents.

    . . . .

    Some Ascension employees have raised questions about the way the data is being collected and shared, both from a technological and ethical perspective, according to the people familiar with the project. But privacy experts said it appeared to be permissible under federal law. That law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, generally allows hospitals to share data with business partners without telling patients, as long as the information is used “only to help the covered entity carry out its health care functions.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-secret-project-nightingale-gathers-personal-health-data-on-millions-of-americans-11573496790?

    1. I saw that too, Ken. Pretty fucked up. This is definitely flying in the face of what was intended with HIIPA.

    2. as long as the information is used “only to help the covered entity carry out its health care functions.”

      And “its health care functions” are totes well-defined, right? RIGHT?!

    3. I’ve mentioned before that I used to work HIM in an acute care hospital (graduated to developing grouping software for a company that catered to the biggest hospitals and hospital chains in the country). When I started out, when I was working in the hospital, I was a release of information clerk. I know all about HIPPA.

      Try to adjust your head to the times, when HIPPA was passed. Netscape didn’t exist until 1994. Yahoo was founded in 1994. AOL didn’t stop charging an hourly fee until 1996. Circa 1998, most Americans still believed that AOL’s website was the entirety of the internet. Google wasn’t founded until 1998. And you think HIPPA was meant to authorize a company like Google to access the results of individuals HIV tests when it was passed in 1996?!

      No.

      “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, generally allows hospitals to share data with business partners without telling patients, as long as the information is used “only to help the covered entity carry out its health care functions.”

      HIPPA was passed with the express purpose of stopping companies like Google from doing exactly what they’re doing. The verbiage above is meant to allow hospitals to share information for a couple of basic reasons.

      1) Billing.

      Insurers and others who are reimbursing the hospital for charges have a right to see what they’re paying for. The hospital can’t just send the insurance company a bill and then say, “Sorry, but we can’t show you what services we provided because HIPPA”. The lawmakers were smart enough to understand this.

      2) Continuing Care.

      There are situations in which someone from another facility calls up and says their patient is in cardiac arrest, he had a procedure last week at our hospital, and they need his procedure report, his EKGs, etc. The law doesn’t require you to just let the guy die. If you’re perfectly healthy, however, and you want your medical records sent to another doctor or facility, you need to come into the Medical Records department and sign a release form. And you have to specify the date frame within which that authorization for the release of medical information is effective. It can’t be put in for you, and it must have a termination date.

      We were not allowed to confirm whether or not a patient had an HIV test. If the patient came in and wanted to see the results of his or her own HIV test, he or she had to sign a waiver releasing the hospital from liability if the results proved to be traumatic. You’re not allowed to see the results of your own test without giving consent, but Google was allowed to see this stuff because HIPPA?!

      No.

      There is no fucking way HIPPA makes what Google is doing legal.

      There is a defense in criminal law, where your defense is that you were relying on legal advice when you broke the law. It’s possible that Google executives could mount such a defense–and they should be required to do so if that’s what they did. This is almost certainly against the law. HIPPA was written to prevent this!

      Google should be investigated, and ignorance by Google employees, if they looked at information they were not explicitly authorized to see, is not a defense for violating HIPPA either. If charges are warranted, then the individuals responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      1. “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, generally allows hospitals to share data with business partners without telling patients, as long as the information is used “only to help the covered entity carry out its health care functions.”

        Depends on the definition of health Care functions. Analytics could be included in that. As most organizations have included health Care to things as esoteric as gun ownership, they’re not going to lose this one. As a patient, I’d be concerned. Also interesting that Catholics would get mixed up with a ridiculously left-leaning org. In that aspect I don’t think this ends well.

        1. Health Care Functions has been taken to mean things related directly to treating a specific patient. As Ken mentioned, it means that other health care providers treating that patient are covered as are insurance companies. If you are the receptionist at a doctor’s office who personally knows a patient, you can’t even mention to your shared friend that you saw so-and-so at the doctor’s last week.

      2. I know all about HIPPA.

        Ken, all due respect, but if you know all about HIPAA, the first thing you’d know is it’s HIPAA, not HIPPA.

        That’s ’cause I worked in healthcare IT for almost 30 years, so I know a fair amount about HIPAA.

        1. I suck with acronyms, spelling, punctuation, addition, etc.

          Well, I didn’t work in healthcare IT for 30 years, and I’ve been out of healthcare entirely for years and years. But I worked support for healthcare IT and as a quality control analyst over at a software company I bet you’ve heard of for a number of years–after doing seven years hard time in the HIM department of an acute care hospital in LA. And I know enough about HIPPO to know that this is not kosher–regardless of whether my dyslexia is kicking up.

          Incidentally, I used to check spelling, etc. more when I wasn’t ever posting from a phone and they had a preview button. At some point, I started just whinging it–and I feel fine.

          P.S. A Dman Kurv works the same no matter how I spell it.

      3. Ex-healthcare company IT person here. I’m not surprised Google is doing this project, and (from a big picture perspective), siccing machine learning algorithms on health data is an excellent use of the technology to improve patient outcomes. The root problem is that they failed to follow HIPPA by masking the data.

        At my company, everyone had to go through yearly compliance training on HIPPA and what was covered/not-covered as a legitimate access, use, and sharing of PII. Google isn’t directly caring for the patients whose records are caught in the transfer or processing financial/insurance for them. Without masking the data, I can’t see how this isn’t a clear violation.

        We had continual issues with developing custom software because QA couldn’t smoketest in Prod because they didn’t have the legal right to view patient data. Random Google employees are even further removed from patient care. Not sure who on which side of the deal decided to keep names, addresses, etc. in there, but they should be fired at the very least.

    4. what the actual fuck

    5. Well, if I calculate the HIPAA fines from this, Google is out of business within the week.

  28. > How do we even know what counts as pseudoscience?

    Uh, it’s pretty easy. Science is not a matter of opinion, science is a process. Science is not scientists voting, science is a methodology. Science is not subscribing to IFLS, science is a philosophy.

    Pseudoscience is a belief that has the trappings of science but none of the process or methodology. Pseudoscience medicine lacks double blind studies. Pseudoscience psychology fiddles with P values. Pseudoscience creationism is based on post-hoc explanations applied to cherry picked anomalies. Etc.

    Pseudoscience claims be truth. But science is not truth, science is a process for approaching, but never actually reaching, the truth.

    Science is about falsifiability, testability, objective data collection, hypothesis and theory, prediction and experimentation, the abandonment of the disproven, etc.

    1. “How do we even know what counts as pseudoscience?”

      When the experts say it’s pseudoscience, you know it must be–otherwise the experts wouldn’t say so. What could be easier than that?

      If scientists told me to light myself on fire, I’d do it–because science–and everyone else who doesn’t just do what they experts tell them without question is an uneducated idiot.

      How do you know who the real experts are? It’s easy! They’re on TV, the New York Times, and various websites. They wouldn’t just let anybody on an episode of The Doctors, right? They’re on same channel just before Jerry Springer, but they’re a completely different production company, I think.

    2. P.S. There is no adequate substitute for critical thinking, and, yes, people should be expected to think for themselves.

    3. But science is not truth, science is a process for approaching, but never actually reaching, the truth.

      But 98% of all scientists* agree that the truth is whatever 98% of all scientists agree on.

      *Since 98% of all scientists agree, it goes without saying that “scientists” who disagree with the consensus are not real scientists.

    4. “Pseudoscience medicine lacks double blind studies.”

      I hope everyone understands that includes the bulk of all medical practices. Procedural medicine almost never involving even single blinding. About the only thing that gets double blinded is therapeutic and diagnostic drugs. I wouldn’t call it all pseudoscience though, more the art of medicine.

      1. Medical practice is far different than medical research. Medical practice is a technicians’ field. Medical research is a scientist’s field.

    5. Uh, it’s pretty easy. Science is not a matter of opinion, science is a process.

      How is science be a “process” when it can be “settled”?

    6. Practitioners of pseudoscience are quick to claim the science is settled.

  29. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-democrats-have-a-col-vindman-problem

    The Vindman testimony didn’t go well for the Democrats. Now they are saying neither he nor the “whistle blower” who shall not be named can testify in public. At this point, they want to impeach the President over a phone call and a whistle blower complaint but they refuse to have the guy who filed the complain or the guy who told the guy who filed the complaint about the issue testify in public.

    Yeah, that will convince a lot of people. The Ukrainian Twins are out of central casting as a sleazy deep state operator or foreign agent. No way do the Democrats want these guys testifying on TV. But I don’t think the effort passes the laugh test without them doing so.

    1. John….Yes to what you say. But….Team R will need to manage this charade very carefully. I don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to do so, quite honestly.

    2. “the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the Democratic impeachment campaign”

      Actually, the heart of the case the impeachment inquiry is laying out are the “Talk to Rudy” conversations, the hallway conversations in Washington, D.C. and the Ukraine, and the delay of aid that occurred before the July 25th phone call. The phone call itself is not that interesting.

      1. Keep moving those goal posts Mike.

        1. So blatant, isn’t it?

        2. Following growing testimony is not moving the goalposts. It is only Trump apologists who keep repeating the mantra that the whistleblower is important.

        3. From quid pro quo to quid pro quo? Not much of a move.

      2. Keep moving those goalposts, shill

      3. What is the problem with talk to Rudy and/or the Attorney General (you left out the AG part by accident)? Help me out here….where is the illegality?

        1. It used Giuliani as a way to conceal what he was up to.

          1. Let’s try again: What is the problem with talk to Rudy and/or the Attorney General (you left out the AG part by accident)? Help me out here….where is the illegality?

            I’ve yet to hear anyone who actually talked to Rudy. I guess there isn’t much to conceal. 🙂

            1. Sondland did, but apparently has a poor memory.

              Volker did. He testified that Giuliani pushed for an investigation of Burisma.

              Perry did, and said he thought Giulani was bring up a lot of baseless claims about Ukrainian possession of Hillary’s email server.

              Giuliani, who like the rest of us probably talks to himself from time to time was, of course, in the meetings – – and he said: “The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney…” Giuliani is directly saying there that he was not asking for an investigation for any noble purpose like “draining the swamp”.

    3. Really grasping for straws, aren’t we?

      The author’s point 1 amounts to: Vindman is not a lawyer, so he can’t cite the law he thought was being broken. Pretty weak criticism. Also, you guys care what Vindman felt about the edits now? I thought people’s feelings were invalid?

      Point 2: All this is, literally, is Republican frustration that he would not assist in outing the whistle blower. Cry me a river.

      Point 3: He doesn’t even care about hunter biden! No shit. No one cares about Hunter Biden, except Trump. That’s kinda the point.

      Point 4: He’s (((deep state)))! OMG he’s technically competent! This is Khmer Rogue level fear of experts.

      1. *rouge damnit

        1. rogue damnits are the best kind.

        2. Hemorrhoid: The big question that you’ll need to answer is whether the American people will actually think this whole thing was even impeachment worthy behavior. Spoiler Alert: Nope.

          I can pretty much guarantee you that the majority of Americans are looking at this sad-assed spectacle, shaking their collective heads and saying, “Just more Beltway Bullshit”.

          The Senate will not vote to remove POTUS Trump.

          1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-polls-say-about-impeachment-before-the-first-public-hearing/

            Majority of Americans support having an inquiry. A plurality support impeachment. I know you guys hate 538, but find me a better aggregator and I will switch to it.

            1. 49% is not the majority.

              1. “Majority of Americans support having an inquiry. A plurality support impeachment.”

  30. “It’s a serious mistake. We’ve made mistakes, too, with self-driving [vehicles], and we stopped driving and we’re recovering from that mistake,”

    Look, some people did some things, with planes or something, right Omar?

  31. >>Today, legal observers will be watching Chief Justice John Roberts, who has proven to be something of a …

    porcelain-jawed dumbass.

  32. Dean Foods, America’s biggest milk producer, files for bankruptcy

    This must be Trump’s fau…..

    Oh…“Dean Foods’ business has struggled as more consumers turn to nondairy milk or buy private-label products. Americans’ per capita consumption of fluid milk has fallen 26% in the last two decades, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

    1. people finally figuring out we’re the only mammal who drinks others’ milk?

    2. And then there’s that whole low-carb/keto/paleo thing going on. Milk is only in our fridge around Christmas time, but by then it’s labeled ‘egg-nog’.

  33. DACA Recipients Look To Supreme Court For Hope

    The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in a highly anticipated set of cases that threatens the legal status of some 700,000 young immigrants — often called DREAMers — who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. It’s a program that President Trump tried to rescind seven months after taking office, only to have the lower courts block his action.

    In 2012, President Barack Obama put the program in place to temporarily protect these young people from deportation. If you were in school, were a high school graduate, or had been honorably discharged from the military, and if you passed a background check, you were eligible for temporary legal status and a work permit, renewable every two years. The program is formally known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

    Too bad Obama took that Pen and Phone with him. They were magical!

  34. We’ve made mistakes too, right, with self-driving … So I think that people make mistakes. It doesn’t mean that they can never be forgiven”

    The lesson to be taken here is that self-driving might really be on par with the killing of a journalist by the saudi government.

  35. other news the SC is going to allow the sandy hook lawsuit against gun manufactures, What are laws for if the government isn’t going to enforce them equally or consistantly

    1. The SCOTUS is there to make excuses for government violations of the Constitution and making sure the language of laws are twisted to fit policy.

      They are not there to enforce legislated immunity for manufacturers of death.


  36. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

    This certainly seems like a more useful use of their time rather than hearing Remington’s appeal to the Supreme Court for being held liable for crimes committed with their weapons.

    After all, Executive Orders can’t be reversed by later executives and the 2nd amendment isn’t a suicide pact. Or something.

    /sarc

  37. “Regardless of the legal arguments about DACA’s legality, there’s a strong policy case for preserving the program.”

    Whatever happened to an Executive Order (having NOT even been considered by Congress) being at the discretion of the Fucking Chief Executive?

  38. “How do we even know what counts as pseudoscience?”

    If it has anything to do with Homeopathy …

  39. HOLY CRAP!!!! Illegal Immigration JUST ages 16-17 were 800,000?!?!?!?!

    With 16-17 representing 1.3% of all-age population that’s (330M x 1.3% = 4.3M) making ILLEGALS at LEAST 18.6% of the total population growth in ages 16-17. Holy crap; is there really any question that we have a HUGE border problem? I can’t hardly believe there’s any Mexicans left in Mexico.

    1. To be fair, that’s likely self-reported age. With the DACA policy somehow irrevocable according to the courts, it becomes advantageous for adults to claim to be minors. Hadn’t heard this stat before and I’m curious if it was lost in translation somehwere, but that seems like an explanation for much of that stat

  40. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/interferons-ifns-family.htm word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.