Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

Innocent Father or MS-13 Gang Member?

Plus: Taibbi takes on the Truth Czar, a wild tale about Ayn Rand's estate, and more...

Liz Wolfe | 4.2.2025 9:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Alleged members of the violent Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua are escorted to their cells at the maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on Sunday, March 16, 2025. |  EL SALVADOR PRESIDENTIAL PRESS O/UPI/Newscom
Alleged members of the violent Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua are escorted to their cells at the maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on Sunday, March 16, 2025. ( EL SALVADOR PRESIDENTIAL PRESS O/UPI/Newscom)

Who is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? If you ask the left, he's an innocent father of three (one biological kid, two step-kids) who lives in Maryland, has no criminal record, and was wrongly deported to El Salvador's most notorious prison, CECOT, or the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo. If you ask the right, he's a dangerous MS-13 member who was in the country illegally, has made only bullshit asylum claims, and does not deserve to live in our country. Who's telling the truth?

Here's what we know to be true: Abrego Garcia had been in the U.S. since 2012, living under protected legal status—withholding of removal, which protects him from deportation back to El Salvador due to likelihood that he'd be persecuted there—since 2019, married to a U.S. citizen, with a 5-year-old autistic child. He has no criminal record here. He worked in construction for years, soliciting in Home Depot parking lots, and finally got a job as a sheet metal apprentice about a year ago. On March 12, he was stopped and informed by ICE agents that his status had changed. On March 15, he "was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error," say attorneys with the Justice Department. Now he's at CECOT, the notorious prison in rural El Salvador, touted by President Nayib Bukele as an option for the U.S. government to send deportees.

Get your morning news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.

Get your morning news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Contra the DOJ, which says he was wrongly removed to El Salvador, Vice President J.D. Vance says Abrego Garcia "was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here" and that "it's gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize."

Abrego Garcia's wife is suing the Trump administration and asking a judge to order the U.S. government to get the government of El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia.

Here's what's claimed by each side: In court documents from 2019—seven years after entering the country, once stopped by law enforcement—Abrego Garcia says his family had attracted the attention of local gangs (Barrio 18) in El Salvador because they ran a successful pupusa business while he was growing up. His parents reportedly went to great lengths to protect their sons from being handed over to those gangs. The family moved over and over again to try to escape extortion.

Abrego Garcia's case was compelling to a judge, who dinged him for failing to make an asylum claim within the one-year deadline but ended up granting him withholding of removal—protection from being deported back to El Salvador, described by some as "asylum lite"—because of a credible threat of persecution there.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, says he is a "danger to the community" and an active member of MS-13, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization. Abrego Garcia's lawyer claims the gang allegation is false and that they are due to "a 2019 incident when Abrego Garcia and three other men were detained in a Home Depot parking lot by a police detective in Prince George's County, Maryland," per reporting by The Atlantic. ("During questioning, one of the men told officers that Abrego Garcia was a gang member, but the man offered no proof and police said they didn't believe him, filings show.") More on this claim here, and here, from one of the lawsuits.

There are two issues worth separating here: Whether he is a dangerous gang member, and whether he is here illegally and thus legally able to be deported. Many appear to be conflating the two, since claiming the first makes the second an easier pill to swallow.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Abrego Garcia "an illegal criminal who broke our nation's immigration laws."

"These are vicious criminals," Leavitt continued. "This is a vicious gang, and I wish that the media would spend just a second of the same time you have spent trying to litigate each and every individual of this gang who has been deported from our country as the innocent Americans whose lives have been lost at the hands of these brutal criminals."

From my vantage—someone broadly in favor of more immigration, done legally; more pathways to citizenship as well as more work authorization granted; someone who wasn't keen on the Biden-era border chaos—the White House is being irresponsible at best, deceitful at worst, by spreading the idea that Abrego Garcia is a gang member when we don't have sufficient evidence to establish that fact. By the looks of it, he was not supposed to be deported to El Salvador. It's possible that, given Bukele's crackdown on gang activity, he no longer had a credible fear of persecution in his home country. (Then his status would need to have been changed.) It's possible that he was not telling the truth about the pupusa business and the gang extortion. It's possible that he did have gang ties. But it's also possible that the Trump administration screwed up and deported the exact type of person our asylum system is designed to protect, someone well on his way to making a good life in the U.S.

Taibbi sticks it to the Truth Czar: "The American government has no role in protecting citizens from speech," journalist Matt Taibbi said before Congress yesterday, in a hearing on the State Department's Global Engagement Center, which was meant to counter so-called foreign disinformation and misinformation but had pivoted to targeting American social media users during the Biden administration. "The whole idea of the system that was designed by Jefferson and Madison is that the American people view each other as adults who are capable of sorting out the truth for themselves. They do not need a nanny state or a guardian or a law enforcement agency to decide for them what's truth."

More Taibbi on the collapse of the American censorship regime here: 


Scenes from New York: 

HUD's April 1st data release is unfortunately not an April Fools joke:

If you're a family of 4 earning ~$100,000 annually in NYC, you now officially qualify for Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects (60%AMI) https://t.co/qBNbgNmWCH

— Alex Armlovich (@aarmlovi) April 1, 2025


QUICK HITS

  • Absolutely wild piece from The Atlantic on Leonard Peikoff, who inherited Ayn Rand's whole estate, and who may be in danger of losing it all due to a caretaker-turned-wife who has possibly taken advantage of him. ("I would let her step on my face if she wanted," Peikoff once said of Rand, with whom he was extremely close.)
  • "In recent weeks, China has been practicing unusual maneuvers off its southern coast involving three special barges. The vessels have linked up one behind another, forming a long bridge that extends from deeper waters onto the beach," reports The New York Times. "The vessels' debut suggests that China's People's Liberation Army may be a step closer to being able to land tens of thousands of troops and their weapons and vehicles on Taiwan's shores."
  • Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) just filibustered for 25 hours, breaking the record formerly held by Strom Thurmond. "These are not normal times in our nation," said Booker. "And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate." The kind of odd thing about it all is that he wasn't filibustering in favor of or against a specific bill; there's no clear action item, nor is there much fixation on the actual contents of the speech (with the exception of a few lefty pundits who seem to like what they're hearing), just the stunt.
  • "Elon Musk's candidate faced a resounding loss in a Wisconsin judicial race despite the world's richest man pouring millions into the campaign, while Republicans avoided upsets in two critical US House seats in Donald Trump's home state of Florida," reports Bloomberg. "Taken together, Tuesday's special election outcomes came to a draw. Republicans couldn't break the 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, while Democrats fell short in their longshot bids to win either of two heavily Republican House seats, which would've complicated the GOP's efforts to advance Trump's tax cut plan through Congress."
  • Tariffs-as-solution-to-fentanyl-crisis continues to be absurd framing:

Senator Tim Kaine, who ran against me with Crooked Hillary in 2016, is trying to halt our critical Tariffs on deadly Fentanyl coming in from Canada. We are making progress to end this terrible Fentanyl Crisis, but Republicans in the Senate MUST vote to keep the National Emergency…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 1, 2025

  • Pivot to Alaska:

the trump admin firing a bunch of NIH leadership and offering to relocate them to alaska if they want to keep their jobs is the funniest thing they've done so far pic.twitter.com/24LACsh1mh

— nic carter (@nic__carter) April 2, 2025

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Supreme Court Lets ATF Regulate (Some) DIY Firearms Kits

Liz Wolfe is an associate editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupPoliticsImmigrationTrump Administration
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (425)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

    Does Liz read zero hedge?

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/maryland-father-or-ms-13-migrant-gangster-which-it-msm

    1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

      How many articles did Reason write on the innocence of MS-13 dad?

      1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

        About as many as ‘Trump will nationalize TikTok’.

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Looks like Liz missed a salient fact or two.

        A) he had a final removal order already signed off by a judge.
        B) the judge in 2019 ruled he was a gang member as JD posted from court documents.

        https://x.com/JDVance/status/1907056566890566136

        How did Liz miss these facts? He literally got his due process. In 2019.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Jesse, pre-2025: “You can’t trust the government’s claims!”
          Jesse, 2025 onward: “You must accept the government’s claims at face value!”

          1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

            So you are for ignoring judges who make rulings you don’t like now?

            1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

              Jeff has one principle. What does the left want to believe to be true is truth.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                Confession via projection. You and ML are the biggest Team Red shills around here.

                1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

                  Did you say that with a straight face while looking in the mirror?

                2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                  Coming from the Reason comment’s most active paid Democratic party shill I suppose that’s supposed to be praise.

                3. Chumby   2 months ago

                  Libertarians see you for what you are, pathological liar.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                    And you are the biggest pro-Putin shill around here. How many more Putin mouthpiece propaganda ‘news’ articles are you going to cite here?

                    1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                      “pRo-pUtiN sHiLL”

                      Thanks, Joe McCarthy. Keep up the faith. You’ll get your precious WW3, yet.

                    2. Chumby   2 months ago

                      Shame on Russia for putting their country so close to all those recently constructed NAFO bases and shame on Russia for contesting all those CIA color revolutions on her borders.

                      I get compensated 50 kopeks per post. Urah!

                      Also, Russian NHL star Alexander Ovechkin is about to break the regular season career goals scored record currently held by ethnic Belorussian Wayne Gretzky.

                      Anyhow, your habitual lying is regularly noted and called out. A shared collective reasoning by the libertarian commentariat.

              2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

                That’s how they Science.

          2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            He literally posted the court case you retarded fuck. I’m not trusting JD. I’m showing the court ruling.

            I thought you were always pro judge.

            Retarded fuck.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              You ARE accepting Vance’s cherry-picked excerpt as representing the truth of the matter, while ignoring the entire rest of the context that Liz provided – that the claim that “he was in a gang” was based solely on the say-so of one guy. It is literally using rumor and hearsay as a basis for the decision. You ignore that and you appeal to the carefully-framed propaganda that the government very helpfully provided to you.

              1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

                What if the one guy that says so is a Judge? I don’t think you complained about the summary judgement against Trump.

              2. damikesc   2 months ago

                …and this is the issue with national injunctions, which have exactly zero legal justification for them.

                A court ruled he was a gang member and ordered him for deportation. A different court ruled otherwise. Given Roberts won’t intercede, why the fuck should Trump go with the other court rather than the original?

                1. Nelson   2 months ago

                  Because that’s how the appellate process works?

                  When a court is overruled by a higher court, you don’t get to say, “I’m going to ignore the higher court because I don’t like what they ruled.”.

                  1. damikesc   2 months ago

                    It was not overruled by a higher court.

                    Nice try, though.

                    Hell, the recent “You cannot end TPS” decision went against a higher court decision.

                  2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                    Current rules of the courts require a bond for assumed costs for these injunctions. The judges are waiving these bonds despite courts ruling they can not.

                    For an example one of the orders ordered an immediate dispersement of 2B with no bond.

                    This is against rules and puts taxpayer money at risk.

                    These are costs born due to these rulings being overturned at the appellate.

                    You being a leftist idiot think this is just fine.

                    1. Chumby   2 months ago

                      Oh here we go! Sounds like a two-tier system Jeffy supports.

          3. Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   2 months ago

            Jeff yesterday: “Listen to judges.”
            Jeff today: “Don’t listen to judges.”

        2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

          The 2019 ruling was in her article yesterday. She dismissed it as ‘weak.’ So the narrative shifted from no due process to I don’t the outcome so I am going to Reeeee.

          1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            Ahh. Like supporting inferior judges even in clear violation of the constitution, precedence, etc.

            Seems to be the norm for Reason lately.

            1. Chumby   2 months ago

              They work backwards from the answer they want with a few “the a miracle happens” in between to tie it all together.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                No, that is you and your team. You want the filthy foreigners deported so you defend every rigged corrupt system of law that generates that outcome regardless of how much injustice occurs as a result.

                As I said, you WANT a rigged two-tier system of justice. You WANT innocent people to be sent to gulags as long as they are foreigners that you no longer want to be here, by any arbitrary reason that you and your team dream up.

                What happens when citizens are ‘mistakenly’ sent to the Salvadoran gulag?

                1. Chumby   2 months ago

                  Their contract to enter provides the current means to compel them leave. They are at will guests and some are no longer considered guests. Keep seething, raging, and lying.

                2. Marshal   2 months ago

                  As I said, you WANT a rigged two-tier system of justice.

                  Kind of amusing from someone who supports a two-tier system of justice in the very same thread.

                  1. Chumby   2 months ago

                    Jeff projects rhetorically as much as his belly does physically. He is also a habitual liar without remorse regarding that. His paymasters should send something less weak.

                  2. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

                    Immigrants can beat off on who every they want with impunity….as long as they feel sorry after. – Pedo Jeffy

        3. Dillinger   2 months ago

          >>How did Liz miss these facts?

          used to be a Sunday a.m. show out of Wichita I think KAKE called Uncle Bill Reads the Funnies where Uncle Bill read the Sunday cartoon page … this is “Liz reads NYT & Bloomberg”

        4. VULGAR MADMAN   2 months ago
      3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

        I wonder what Pricilla Villarreal thinks about why JD Vance is wrong about gay MS13 barbers?

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      The ZeroHedge article just repeats the White House spin. Liz actually did a decent job trying to present both sides. Not surprised that you are upset by a rather neutral take and insist that everyone should accept the government’s narrative uncritically.

      The evidence that Garcia is in MS-13 is very very weak. It is basically just based on the statement of one guy in 2019 who said that he was.

      Besides, if the government really did think that Garcia was in MS-13, why would they later say that he was deported “in error”? What was the error?

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        There are no b0tH siDeS.

        Liz is making excuses because Reason was duped yet again, and had chosen to die on that hill. End of story.

        And you, of course, are prevaricating because that is your job.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          You’re right. Garcia’s side of the story doesn’t matter at all, he’s just a filthy illegul. The only side that matters is the government’s side.

          Garcia said he wasn’t in a gang, and we know he’s lying because he’s a foreigner, and foreigners lie.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

            Lots of gang members try to claim they aren’t members when caught, dingbat. Ever hear of omertà?

            1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

              Wanna find a whole lot of innocent people? Go to a jail and ask.

          2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

            Garcia’s side of the story doesn’t matter at all

            Correct.

            “he’s just a filthy illegul.

            Yes, and even worse, he a known member of one of the world’s most violent, brutal, narco gangs, known for beheading and cannibalistic terror tactics.
            Since you’re evil and all, I suppose those are plus’s in your mad desire for the destruction of humanity.

            “Garcia said he wasn’t in a gang”

            And he lied, we know because he also said he was a member. Which time was he lying, Lying Jeffy?

            “and we know he’s lying because he’s a foreigner, and foreigners lie”

            I’m a foreigner, you fucking retard, and technically “brown”. You know that. You’re getting lazy again and falling back on race-baiting to try and score cheap points again.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              Evidently, ML’s idea of “due process” is that the government can accuse any foreigner they want of “being in a gang” and it’s up to the foreigner to prove his/her innocence – before being sent to a Salvadoran gulag, in which case it’s too late and who gives a shit anyway.

              Say, don’t you have Canadian relatives living in the US? Maybe they are in a gang. Who knows? Time to sic ICE on them and deport their asses to El Salvador.

              1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                They already gave him due process, you lying fuck. There’s hard documentary evidence. All you are doing now is inventing ridiculous, untrue scenarios and excuses because your psychotic bosses have decided this is another hill to die on, and you’re paid to lie for them.

                “Say, don’t you have Canadian relatives living in the US?”

                Yes, I do. Is this going to be some gigantic reach to try and equate a scofflaw illegal MS13 gangbanger with a middle-aged housewife with a teaching degree from the University of Calgary, and an American citizenship, who took the long, hard and arduous road to become an American citizen while scrupulously following all the laws of her adopted country?

                “Maybe they are in a gang. Who knows?”

                Oh, yup. There it is. Your appeals to emotion might work if they weren’t quite so retarded.

                1. Chumby   2 months ago

                  Jeff might be the actual hill. Visible from near Earth orbit.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  Here, ML defends a ridiculous sham that the state is calling “due process” only because his team is using it towards goals that he supports. He would never ever tolerate this ridiculous sham of a process being applied to himself or anyone he cares about.

                  Garcia was picked up by the police in 2019 for *loitering* and was declared to be a part of a gang because a “confidential informant” said so. That’s it. That is the ONLY REASON.

                  That is what you are declaring “welp, that’s good enough for me”. No it isn’t, nobody with an IQ above room temperature would tolerate being treated like that. You only support it because it’s being used against THEM, and you think it will never be used against you.

                  You deliberately and purposefully support a two-tier justice system as long as it’s used against the people you don’t like. Which is exactly the complaint that you and Jesse and all of the other MAGA morons around here said about the ‘two-tiered justice system’ when it was applied to Trump. Turns out that was confession via projection as well. You support a two-tiered justice system, you just want it used against the dirty filthy illegals and not against your God-Emperor Trump.

                  1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                    You lying fuck. That is an utter fucking lie and you know it. Garcia wasn’t picked up solely for “loitering”, and wasn’t just declared to be a part of a gang because a “confidential informant” said so. There was extensive documentation from law enforcement officials and multiple witnesses, plus Garcia’s own admission.

                    You never fail to surprise me how incredibly dishonest you are. You are easily one of the most evil people I have ever had the misfortune to come across. There is no lie you won’t spread for your depraved paymasters, including the lie that a known MS13 gangbanger was just some helpless suburban dad.

                    And due process my fucking ass, he got that in spades. He had his day in fucking court. What you want is extra special double process that gives your demonic party whatever they want to keep their newly imported voter replacements in situ.
                    Fuck you, Lying Jeffy.

                    1. Chumby   2 months ago

                      Jeff is a habitual liar. He won’t change. He won’t acknowledge his lies when called on them. He won’t have remorse regarding said lies. That is his reality.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                      Garcia wasn’t picked up solely for “loitering”

                      lol, even the snippet of the court documents that Vance posted on Twitter, that Jesse cited above, states that Garcia was picked up for loitering in 2019.

                      and wasn’t just declared to be a part of a gang because a “confidential informant” said so.

                      That is what the “past, proven and reliable source of information” is, you moron. Read Jesse’s own Twitter link.

                      There was extensive documentation from law enforcement officials and multiple witnesses, plus Garcia’s own admission.

                      As I said, the “extensive documentation” consists of one gang interview sheet which claimed that he was a gang member because some anonymous informant said so and – oh – also because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hoodie. That’s proof right there, huh?

                      Garcia never admitted to being a gang member. That’s just a flat-out lie.

                      You are a shameless gaslighting liar. You will do or say anything to help your team no matter how dishonest.

          3. damikesc   2 months ago

            Never heard of a criminal saying he was innocent. Totally new thing.

            1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

              I know, right? So strange. A criminal wouldn’t lie about something like that.

              1. Chumby   2 months ago

                Jeff lies regularly and has no remorse doing so. It is a norm in his reality where, at times, he might just believe what he says instead of what is.

                1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                  Yes, but Jeff is also probably a criminal. The FBI should take a long hard look at his D:\ drive.

                  1. Chumby   2 months ago

                    The glowies in here are only looking for references to woodchippers.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              Good libertarians assume that accused criminals are guilty based on rumors and hearsay evidence and demand that the accused prove their innocence. Got it.

              1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

                You do realize he already had a deportation order, right, shill?

                1. Chumby   2 months ago

                  Possibly. And if so, he would have no hesitation to lie about it.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  The issue here isn’t about the deportation order. The issue here is about whether or not it was justified to send him to a Salvadoran gulag because he was a supposed “gang member”.

                  Again, I ask, is it too much to ask that for those who are going to be deported, that the government deports the correct people for the correct reasons to the correct place?

            3. One-Punch_Man   2 months ago

              I know 95% of people in jail are innocent they say. The 5% are “yeah, I did hell yeah!”

            4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              It’s totally the correct thing to do for the state to demand that the accused prove his innocence.

              1. Truthfulness   2 months ago

                He had due process, and he failed. Deportation it is.

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        “Besides, if the government really did think that Garcia was in MS-13, why would they later say that he was deported “in error”? What was the error?”

        They’re too polite to bluntly say “Your court has zero standing in this regard whatsoever so you can kindly go fuck yourself, your honor”

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          “they’re too polite” lol that’s the lamest excuse yet

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            It is reality. I hope they tell the judge to go home and slap his mother for birthing him.

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      Also, I love how you all continue to use the results of a legal system that is deliberately rigged against migrants, as further justification to continue to be shitty towards migrants.

      “The law says that Marco Rubio can just deport any foreigner he wants based on his say-so alone! That’s his ‘due process’!” No, that’s a rigged system that is unjust towards foreigners.

      “A judge ruled based on one guy’s testimony that Garcia was in a gang! Can’t argue with the judge!” No, that is a rigged judicial system which counts hearsay and rumors as credible evidence against migrants.

      It is as if you are absolutely *determined* to keep this two-tier system of justice going. Is it because, if citizens get “real justice” while the foreigners get shit, it makes you feel better as superior to those dirty filthy migrants?

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        “”The law says that Marco Rubio can just deport any foreigner he wants based on his say-so alone! That’s his ‘due process’!” No, that’s a rigged system that is unjust towards foreigners.”

        Take it up with Congress. Courts are not the appropriate locale to litigate this. Courts have no standing here and Trump is starting to put the courts back in their place.

        He has given SCOTUS ample time to fix the problems. District courts cannot issue national injunctions barring a class action — and none of the injunctions would qualify as class actions — so it is time for the judiciary to be reminded it is not sacrosanct. It has limits just as all branches do.

        “”A judge ruled based on one guy’s testimony that Garcia was in a gang! Can’t argue with the judge!” No, that is a rigged judicial system which counts hearsay and rumors as credible evidence against migrants.”

        I get it, You do not like the decision. That is a you problem. You will survive.

        “It is as if you are absolutely *determined* to keep this two-tier system of justice going. Is it because, if citizens get “real justice” while the foreigners get shit, it makes you feel better as superior to those dirty filthy migrants?”

        I know, tier 1 is “chemjeff likes the verdict” and tier 2 is “chemjeff does not”

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          Why do you want a two-tier system of justice? Why do you think innocent people should be sent to gulags based on the flimsiest of evidence, when that is a standard that you would never tolerate for citizens?

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            Take.
            Up.
            Your.
            Bitching.
            With.
            Congress.
            Who.
            Passed.
            The.
            Law.

            There is no innocent person involved here.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              You are the one supporting it. You don’t have to. You could also say “this thing that they are calling ‘due process’ is a total sham”. But you’re not.

              I believe Congress should change the law, and I also think that people like you should stop trying to defend an indefensible status quo.

              1. damikesc   2 months ago

                Agai, take. Up. Your. Bitching. With. Congress.

                They even included what due process was. And it was followed.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

                  Why do you support this sham called ‘due process’?

    4. Minadin   2 months ago

      “Notably, this Mexican drug cartel . . .”

      Erm, MS-13 is about as Mexican as choripán.

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        “Choripán

        Is that anything like a Cuban sandwich? Because Maine doesn’t have those yet.

    5. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Personally, I like the underlying presumption or assertion that 100% of the natives in American prisons are guilty and the unique arrests associated with deportations are somehow exceptional. All of a sudden, if we send someone to El Salvador, now, it’s somehow worse than innocent people we’ve had in lockup or will have in lockup for 5, 10, or 20+ yrs.

      But, of course, that gets into the idea that, even if only a minority of crimes actually get successfully solved/convicted, a majority of those times an actual criminal gets arrested/deported even if ~1% of the time, or less, there is a case of mistaken identity.

    6. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Let’s imagine the left is correct, and Garcia is an innocent angel who never did a bad thing in his life and has improved life in the US by 2000%. And let’s imagine we all publicly agree.

      Then what?

      Does the left think we will therefore stop all deportations? Or accept a “compromise” plan where each deportee gets 12 to 36 months of hearings and appeals (or gets put on a decade-long waiting list for a first hearing)? And that people already deported will be brought back?

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Even in your scenario that he is innocent, he was still here illegally and given final deportation orders. And stayed 5 years past that order.

        But yes. They want 18 months for illegal in order to bog down the system. Make it so expensive that is untenable.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        Is it too much to ask that people who are to be deported, are the correct people to be deported, for the correct reasons, and to the correct places?

        In the scenario that you yourself posited, assuming Garcia is “an angel”, do you think it is just to send him to the Salvadoran prison?

      3. Nelson   2 months ago

        “ And let’s imagine we all publicly agree.

        Then what?”

        Due process. Which is all that people (excepting the wingnuts) are calling for.

        Deport someone *after* they get due process to determine if the government is lying or not. It’s not unreasonable. Unless you are a paleocon on a vengeance high.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

          You’re not calling for “due process”. They already got that. You con artists are calling for “extra process”.

          1. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

            Exactly. They can’t define “due process” in this context. They just don’t like what the current administration is doing because MSN said so. Weird how they pick the shit that favors the worst criminals.

        2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          He had due process retard.

          Can none of you leftists register what is written?

    7. Chumby   2 months ago

      LET HIM DIE

    8. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      And, one more time:

      If Garcia really is a gang member, and the government knew he was a gang member ever since 2019, why are they NOW saying that it was “an error” to deport him to the Salvadoran gulag? What precisely was the “error”?

      The answer is, of course, that this whole “he’s a gang member from 2019!!!” is retconning. At the time he was deported, they had no real idea whether he really was in a gang or not, and only now are they trying to pretend that they knew all along.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        They were being nice to the pathetic judge, who should have been laughed at and, possibly, slapped around.

    9. Nelson   2 months ago

      Nobody with any brains or desire for the truth reads zerohedge.

      1. Chumby   2 months ago

        Did they once say Act Blue donors are not conservative?

        1. damikesc   2 months ago

          I miss the whole “Act Blue is proof of being a conservative” days.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            Of course I never said anything of the sort. The ActBlue thing is all you guys.

            1. Truthfulness   2 months ago

              That’s not remotely true. ActBlue is real, and they use tactics like that to push their agenda.

              You wouldn’t get that news from the mainstream media. ZeroHedge at least covers it.

              You need to stop being so stupid, Nelson.

              1. Nelson   2 months ago

                “ ActBlue is real”

                Yes. And? What’s your point?

                “they use tactics like that to push their agenda.”

                Tactics like what?

      2. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

        All of the Act Blue conservatives read it.

      3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        What was wrong in the article? Didn’t donate enough to Act Blue? Wait. It’s Nelson. They probably donated a ton to get their conservative label.

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          Man, you idiots really want to pretend I said something I didn’t. It’s like a paleocon convention the way you all cluck the same nonsense.

    10. BladdyK   2 months ago

      Nothing in this changes anything. The DOJ is claiming that he was in a gang, thus it is in court filings. There are other court filings saying the dad was not in a gang. Which is right? That’s the problem when there is no due process.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

        The MAGA bootlickers around here think “due process” is just accepting at face value a police ‘confidential informant’ who declares that he is in a gang.

        1. Truthfulness   2 months ago

          You two just don’t get it. The court filings were created because he confessed to being a gang member. The documentation is there!

          He had due process, and failed. Deport him.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            He never once admitted anything of the sort. If someone is showing you a document that says he did, it is a forgery.

  2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

    The Atlantic lied (again), and Reason died (again)

    The Atlantic’s Giant Fake News Screw-Up

    Jeffrey Goldberg sure likes screwing the Democrats over with phony stories but they never ever learn.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      The intentional misrepresentation is wild. Even when facts are public retards like Jeff will continue to lie about it.

      Unfortunately Liz seems to have also missed key facts.

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        Liz didn’t miss them. She just doesn’t want to be fired for acknowledging them.

      2. Chumby   2 months ago

        Liz is young and needs the money.

    2. VULGAR MADMAN   2 months ago

      The fucking liars who run this shitty rag don’t care about the truth.

      1. Chumby   2 months ago

        Just mask and take the totally safe and effective vax. Oh look, a food truck!

    3. mamabug   2 months ago

      I don’t fully trust either side’s version of events, however the blatantly deceptive phrasing by the MSM makes me lean a bit more towards the administration’s view.

      Is it bad that someone was deported who had a judicial hold in place that should have been adjudicated? Yes. Is it not anywhere near as bad as reporting that makes it sound like some random guy minding his own business was thrown on a plane because someone didn’t check their paperwork? Also yes. Does the presentation of the former as the latter make me want to dismiss the next ‘scandal’ out of hand? Resoundingly yes!

      I just want a libertarian (or other) news outlet that will lay out all the facts.

  3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

    New fun TRO regarding TPS.

    TPS is supposed to be temporary, it never is. Declaration and revocation is fully under discretion of the executive by statute. Even the 9th accepted this during trumps first term.

    Yesterday judge chen upended settled precedent claiming Trump can’t end TPS and must extend it. He did this despite being under clear ruling from the 9th.

    His decisiok contained no statutory or constitutional analysis. The judge wrote a policy paper.

    I’m sure QB will be here again to say why the facts are wrong and the judge is right.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/smacks-racism-activist-judge-halts-trump-admins-move-revoke-protected-status-venezuelans

    1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

      The judge ruled you can’t perdict people’s behaviors based on race/nationality. That is racism.

      I wonder if judge Chen eats rice?

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

        Rice is good if you want to eat 2000 of something.

        1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

          Shrimp buffet

          1. Super Scary   2 months ago

            “You’re telling me a shrimp fried this rice?”

            1. Chumby   2 months ago

              Don’t want to belittle the chef, but he be little.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Rice or lice?

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

          Flied lice! It is fried rice, you plick!

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

            That’s lacist!

    2. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

      I’m sure QB will be here again to say why the facts are wrong and the judge is right.

      Nah. I read your source and the decision (well I tried to skip the fluff…78 pages… you know) and the only thing I can conclude is that it’s complicated.

      Legally: too complicated for QB
      Sensibly: it should be up to the executive to revoke TPS at his will
      Morally, a dick move to pull the rug out from under people

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        I agree. Biden was a right bastard lying to those people.

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Except it isn’t complicated.

        The clearest and simplistic reading of the case from the ruling is revocation is held by DHS.

        There is no language or complexity changing that fact for a Visa type.

        The cry of complexity is a cop out you want to use to ignore the ruling. Full stop. It gives you an excuse to ignore the ruling.

        Even in this example the 9th of all circuits was clear the decision was held in the executive.

        Add all these cases and rulings together it is clear this is an executive power. With all these instances saying no judicial review.

        You don’t like this so you scream “it’s complicated” just like mike and Jeff try to when they are wrong.

        You even then here try to twist it into a moral argument. Lying about status, not following terms you agreed to, false claims of asylum are also immoral. But that doesn’t matter to you.

        You’ll use any argument you can think of to justify not liking the law and finding a means to dismiss the argument.

        1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

          you scream “it’s complicated”

          Did I scream? I’m sorry.

          Except it isn’t complicated.

          Great! Will you interpret this for me into layman terms?

          As indicated by the above, Plaintiffs’ case is founded in large part on the APA. The APA provides in relevant part that a court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be – (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [or] (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity . . . . 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Plaintiffs’ present motion seeks temporary relief pursuant to § 705 of the APA. Section 705 provides as follows: When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review. On such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the reviewing court, including the court to which a case may be taken on appeal from or on application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing court, may issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 705. A. Jurisdiction Although § 705 expressly authorizes a court to postpone the effective date of any agency action, or to preserve status or rights pending judicial review, the government contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Plaintiffs. The government raises two jurisdictional arguments, one based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) and the other based on §1254a(b)(5)(A). 1. Section 1252(f)(1) According to the government, Plaintiffs are effectively seeking “classwide” injunctive relief in their motion, and thus their motion must be denied pursuant to § 1252(f)(1) which prohibits such relief. Section 1252(f)(1) provides as follows: (f) Limit on injunctive relief. (1) In general. Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 [“IIRIRA”], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such chapter have been initiated. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). As the Supreme Court has explained, § 1252(f)(1) “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.” Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 550 (2022). The government maintains that the TPS statute (§ 1254a) is one of the specified provisions to which § 1252(f)(1) applies – i.e., that the TPS statute falls within “part IV of this subchapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). The government acknowledges that the U.S. Code places the TPS statute within part V, not part IV, which is consistent with the statements by a number of courts that part IV covers only §§ 1221-32.5 No court has yet to hold that §1252(f)(1) applies to §1254a, which, as a facial matter, is reasonable given that § 1252 is titled “Judicial review of orders of removal” and TPS does not directly involve orders of removal. Cf. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R., 331 U.S. 519, 529 (1947) (noting that “the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text” but they can be of use “when they shed light on some ambiguous word or phrase”). Nevertheless, the government argues that the U.S. Code contains an error; that the IIRIRA, when it amended the INA in 1996, designated the TPS statute, among other sections, under part IV, see 110 Stat. 3009, at 3009-548, 614-15 (Sept. 30, 1996) (in § 308 of the IIRIRA, amending the table of contents); and that “the text of the United States Code ‘cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large [i.e., the IIRIRA/INA] when the two are inconsistent.’” Galvez v. Jaddou, 52 F.4th 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2022). Yet, it appears that the codification of §1254a into part V may well have been consistent with IIRIRA and the INA. Part IV is titled “Inspection, Apprehension, Examination, Exclusion, and Removal” whereas Part V is titled “Adjustment and Change of Status.” TPS is more akin to an adjustment of status (albeit temporary) than a deportation proceeding. In assessing Plaintiffs’ position, the Court must begin with the “strong presumption . . . that the actions of federal agencies are reviewable in federal court.” KOLA, Inc. v. United States, 882 F.2d 361, 363 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Sackett v. E.P.A., 566 U.S. 120, 128 (2012) (stating that “[t]he APA . . . creates a presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action”). “[O]nly upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 (1967). Moreover, where there is no other forum for a litigant to raise their claim, that should also factor into a court’s determination as to whether judicial review is available. Cf. Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that, “because [a veterans organization] cannot bring its suit in the Veterans Court, that court cannot claim exclusive jurisdiction over the suit,” and, “[b]ecause [the organization] would be unable to assert its claim in the review scheme established by the [Veterans’ Judicial Review Act], that scheme does not operate to divest us of jurisdiction”). The Court also bears in mind that the Supreme Court has, to date, declined to address the issue of whether § 1252(f)(1) is a bar to a court issuing relief pursuant to the APA. For example, in Aleman Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that § 1252(f)(1) barred a lower court from entering an injunction requiring the government to provide bond hearings for not only plaintiffs but also all other class members (all of whom had been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)). But, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her concurrence/dissent, the majority decision did not purport to hold that §1252(f)(1) affects courts’ ability to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U. S. C. §706(2). . .
          . In addition, the Court rightly does not embrace the Government’s eleventh-hour suggestion at oral argument to hold that §1252(f )(1) bars even classwide declaratory relief, a suggestion that would (if accepted) leave many noncitizens with no practical remedy whatsoever against clear violations by the Executive Branch. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. at 571-72 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Barrett made the same point as part of her dissent in Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. at 785 (where the Supreme Court held that § 1252(f)(1) did not deprive lower courts of all subject matter jurisdiction but rather simply withdrew the authority to grant a particular form of relief). Specifically, she noted that the majority “reserves the question whether §1252(f)(1) bars declaratory relief, an issue on which there are conflicting views” and further “avoids a position on whether §1252(f)(1) prevents a lower court from vacating or setting aside an agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Id. 839 (Barrett, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court, therefore, has not adopted any view of § 1252(f)(1) that would preclude Plaintiffs from obtaining relief. See also Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. at 801 n.4 (“At our request, the parties briefed several additional questions regarding the operation of section 1252(f)(1), namely, whether its limitation on ‘jurisdiction or authority’ is subject to forfeiture and whether that limitation extends to other specific remedies, such as declaratory relief and relief under section 706 of the APA. We express no view on those questions.”). No court has adopted the construction of § 1252(f)(1) advanced by the government. Rather, all courts that have addressed the issue have rejected the government’s construction of the statute. For example, in a decision issued after Aleman Gonzalez and Biden v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit rejected DHS’s contention that vacatur of an agency action is a de facto enjoining or restraining of an agency enforcement decision. The Fifth Circuit explained: There are meaningful differences between an injunction, which is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy,” and vacatur, which is “a less drastic remedy.” The Supreme Court has indicated that § 1252(f) is to be interpreted relatively narrowly. Indeed, the Court described § 1252(f) as “nothing more or less than a limit on injunctive relief.” Texas v. United States, 40 F.4th 205, 219 (5th Cir. 2022) (addressing DHS’s memoranda regarding immigration guidance for the apprehension and removal of noncitizens). The Fifth Circuit added: [A] vacatur does nothing but re-establish the status quo absent the unlawful agency action. Apart from the constitutional or statutory basis on which the court invalidated an agency action, vacatur neither compels nor restrains further agency decision-making. We decline to extend Aleman Gonzalez to such judicial orders, especially when doing so would be contrary to the “strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Id. at 220; see also Texas v. United States, 126 F.4th 392, 419 n.40 (5th Cir. 2025) (reaffirming the same); Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1284-85 (N.D. Fla. 2023) (stating that “[v]acatur is ‘a less drastic remedy’ than an injunction, and the Fifth Circuit concluded in the opinion currently on review at the Supreme Court that §1252(f)(1) does not preclude vacatur … Finally, the Court takes note that, under binding Ninth Circuit law, § 1252(f)(1)’s bar on classwide injunctive relief does not preclude a court from issuing declaratory relief. See Al Otro Lado v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Review, 120 F.4th 606, 625 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating that “§ 1252(f)(1) does not ‘bar classwide declaratory relief’”); see also Kidd v. Mayorkas, 734 F. Supp. 3d 967, 986 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (stating that “the Court can issue declaratory relief – which is not precluded by § 1252(f)”); Immigrant Defenders Law Ctr. v. Mayorkas, No. CV 20-9893 JGB (SHKx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75206, at *40 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) (stating that “[t]he best reading of Biden v. Texas and Aleman Gonzalez is that district courts like this one retain jurisdiction to award declaratory relief in immigration class actions”).6 Here, Plaintiffs do seek declaratory relief. See Compl., Prayer ¶¶ 1-3; FAC, Prayer ¶¶ 1-3. Thus, if the Court were to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone based on § 1252(f)(1) – as the government requests – that would effectively render any declaratory relief moot. The TPS of the 2023 Designation beneficiaries, if the Secretary’s vacatur is not postponed, will expire in early April 2025, long before any final judgment ordering declaratory relief could be obtained herein. Accordingly, the Court rejects the government’s contention that § 1252(f)(1) is a bar to Plaintiffs’ request for relief 2. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) The government argues that, even if § 1252(f)(1) is not a bar to Plaintiffs’ case, there is another jurisdictional hurdle – specifically, § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) is part of the TPS statute. It provides that “[t]here is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). In assessing the government’s argument based on § 1254a(b)(5)(A), the Court must first separate out the challenges being made by Plaintiffs in the case at bar. Plaintiffs are contesting (1) Secretary Noem’s decision to vacate the extension of the 2023 Designation and (2) her decision to terminate the 2023 Designation. With respect to (1), Plaintiffs have multiple arguments: (a) the Secretary lacked the inherent authority to vacate the extension; (b) even if she had the authority, the rationale to vacate the extension was arbitrary and capricious; and (c) even if she had the authority, the decision to vacate was motivated at least in part by unconstitutional animus based on race, ethnicity, and/or national origin. With respect to (2), Plaintiffs assert, inter alia, that the decision to terminate (like the decision to vacate) was infected by unconstitutional animus. At the hearing, the government explicitly conceded that § 1254a(b)(5)(A) does not bar the Court from entertaining Plaintiffs’ contention that the Secretary lacked the inherent authority to vacate the extension of the 2023 Designation. The government acknowledged that whether the Secretary had such authority is purely a matter of statutory construction (i.e., of the TPS statute) and is not a “determination” with respect to a TPS designation, termination, or extension. The government, however, contends that § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars the other claims asserted by Plaintiffs (i.e., whether the vacatur was arbitrary and capricious and/or whether the vacatur or termination was unconstitutionally motivated). The Court does not agree. The Court previously addressed the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A) in Ramos v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2018), another case that involved TPS terminations but during the first Trump administration. When Ramos was appealed, the Ninth Circuit panel also addressed the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A), see Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2020). However, the panel decision was later vacated so that the matter could be reheard en banc. See Ramos v. Wolf, 59 F.4th 1010 (9th Cir. 2023). Ultimately, the en banc hearing did not take place because the government, having transitioned to the Biden administration, made new decisions regarding the TPS designations and terminations at issue. See Ramos v. Nielsen, 709 F. Supp. 3d 871, 876 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (reviewing history of proceedings). Because the Ramos panel decision was vacated and no en banc ruling ever issued, this Court’s decision in Ramos has not been overturned. Moreover, although the Ninth Circuit panel in Ramos ultimately held that § 1254a(b)(5)(A) did bar Plaintiffs from proceeding based on the particular nature of the claims asserted, the panel basically agreed with this Court that the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A)’s bar on judicial review was limited to “inquiring into the underlying considerations and reasoning employed by the Secretary in reach her country-specific TPS determinations.” Ramos, 975 F.3d at 891. It does not apply to, e.g., a pattern or practice that is “collateral to and distinct from the specific [country] TPS decisions and their underlying rationale.”7 Id. at 891-92. Given these circumstances, the Court adheres to its prior views on the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Nothing in the government’s papers or oral arguments presented in the case at bar persuade the Court that § 1252a(b)(5)(A) should be construed differently.8 Thus, here, the government’s argument that § 1254a(b)(5)(A) is a jurisdictional bar lacks merit for several reasons. a. Presumption of Judicial Review First, as noted above, there is a “strong presumption . . . that the actions of federal agencies are reviewable in federal court,” KOLA, 882 F.2d at 363, and “only upon a showing of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.” Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 141. b. Applicability to Plaintiffs’ APA Claim Second, Plaintiffs’ claim that the Secretary’s decision to vacate was arbitrary and capricious does not fall within the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A) because the statute bars judicial review of determinations made with respect to TPS designations, terminations, or extensions only. A decision to vacate (a matter not expressly authorized by the TPS statute) is, literally and textually, not a “designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” 5 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Furthermore, as the Court held in Ramos, § 1254a(b)(5)(A) was designed to bar judicial review of substantive country-specific conditions in service of TPS designations, terminations, or extensions of a foreign state – not judicial review of general procedures or collateral practices related to such. See Ramos, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 1102 (taking note of Supreme Court cases holding that “similar statutes which preclude review of a ‘determination’ of immigration status did not preclude review of collateral practices and policies”; citing, e.g., McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (individual denials on the merits were not challenged but rather the process under which denials were determined)). This holding is consistent with the panel decision in Ramos. See Ramos, 975 F.3d at 891-92 (“[A court] may still have jurisdiction over a broad challenge to the agency’s procedures or practices. To the extent a claim purports to challenge an agency pattern or practice rather than a specific TPS determination, we may review it only if the challenged pattern or practice is indeed collateral to, and distinct from, the specific TPS decisions and their underlying rationale, which the statute shields from judicial scrutiny.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is also consistent with the understanding of multiple district courts who have addressed TPS cases. See, e.g., Saget v. Trump, 375 F. Supp. 3d 280, 330-32 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (stating that “the jurisdiction-stripping provision proscribes only direct review of individual TPS determinations” but does not block challenges based on deficiencies in the process employed to terminate TPS); CASA de Md., Inc. v. Trump, 355 F. Supp. 3d 307, 317-21 (D. Md. 2018) (concluding that the TPS jurisdiction-stripping provision “is best read as barring judicial review of the merits of the determination itself, but not whether the determination was made through unconstitutional practices and policies’”; adding that “Plaintiffs’ constitutional and APA claims do not threaten the ‘agency’s primacy over its core statutory function’”); Centro Presente v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 332 F. Supp. 3d 393, 404-09 (D. Mass. 2018) (noting that plaintiffs’ “constitutional and statutory claims [are] frame[d] as challenges to Defendants’ process of adjudication rather than the content of any particular adjudication”). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs’ contention that the decision to vacate was arbitrary or capricious – and thus should be set aside – does not dictate how the Secretary should ultimately rule on a TPS designation, termination, or extension. Indeed, Secretary Noem’s vacatur decision was based purely on procedural concerns (e.g., whether Secretary Mayorkas had taken a “novel approach” or caused confusion) and did not turn, e.g., on country conditions in Venezuela or a concern about U.S. interests. Therefore, Plaintiffs are simply making a collateral challenge, not a direct one, and § 1254a(b)(5)(A) is not implicated. That Plaintiffs’ challenge to the vacatur decision is collateral in nature is underscored by Mace v. Skinner, 34 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1994), where the Ninth Circuit considered the following factors in determining whether a challenge is direct or collateral: (1) whether the plaintiff’s claims are based on the “merits of his individual situation” or, instead, a “broad challenge to allegedly [improper agency] practices”; (2) whether the administrative record “for a single [decision] would have . . . relevance” to the plaintiff’s claims; and (3) whether the claims raised matters “peculiarly within the agency’s ‘special expertise’” or “an integral part of its ‘institutional competence.’” Id. at 859; see also Ramos, 975 F.3d at 892 (panel decision) (considering the above factors); id. at 912-13 (Christen, J., dissenting) (same). City of Rialto v. West Coast Loading Corp., 581 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2009), added a fourth consideration: whether there is another forum where a plaintiff’s claim may be heard. See id. at 874 (taking note that, in a prior decision, “we rejected jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claim in part because we held that the claim ‘can be effectively advanced in the context of an appeal from an individual order of deportation’”); see also Ramos, 975 F.3d at 913 (stating that “City of Rialto teaches that we must consider whether another forum exists where plaintiffs’ claim may be heard”)….

          1. Dillinger   2 months ago

            anyone can string citations together and attempt a legal argument …

            1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

              Right.

              And this judge excels at stringing citations. That’s why I’m saying it’s too complicated for me. Maybe I should have said it’s too obfuscated for me. This could be a rock solid legal argument or 100% bullshit. I can’t tell.

              1. damikesc   2 months ago

                This has ALREADY been adjudicated. Several years ago. The judge is 100% wrong and has zero authority here.

                Trump should make a video of him wiping his ass with the decision. Or have Vance tear it in half during a State of the Union.

                1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

                  Wait a minute.

                  You’re referring to Ramos v. Wolf decided by the 9th circuit in 2020, right?

                  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-16981/18-16981-2020-09-14.html

                  That decision was vacated in 2023.

                  On February 10, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to an en banc rehearing of a lawsuit challenging the termination of TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit vacated the court’s September 2020 ruling on the matter

                  https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-ninth-circuit-vacates-order-on-tps-termination-for-several-countries-agrees-to-full-panel-rehearing.html

                  This judge at least knew this much.

                  When Ramos was appealed, the Ninth Circuit panel also addressed the scope of § 1254a(b)(5)(A), see Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2020). However, the panel decision was later vacated so that the matter could be reheard en banc. See Ramos v. Wolf, 59 F.4th 1010 (9th Cir. 2023)

                  Currently Ramos v. Wolf remains undecided and cannot be used as precedent.

                2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                  Precedent is only valid if it stops Trump – qb.

                  Bet qb also support this judges finding of animus which doesn’t exist in actual legal construction either. But used to stop Trump.

                  1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

                    Thanks for the question, Jesse.

                    No findings of animus seem too much like thought crimes to me.

                    You may also notice that I’m just trying to parse convoluted law and debunk erroneous claims. I haven’t been arguing about what I want. The closest I got was saying it would make the most sense to me to rule in Trump’s favor (even though I think Trump is an immoral heartless asshole for cancelling their status).

  4. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    There are two issues worth separating here: Whether he is a dangerous gang member, and whether he is here illegally and thus legally able to be deported. Many appear to be conflating the two, since claiming the first makes the second an easier pill to swallow.

    Meanwhile people like you and all the other ‘editors’ at Reason ignore the second.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      As I indicated above and continue to point out regarding the death penalty; the idea that libertarianism stipulates that locking someone in a cage for life vs. exiling them to some remote hellhole for life vs. simply executing them is really just a pseudo-religious parlor trick.

      Doubly so in the case of “This green card/visa means he can be locked in a cage, but not deported.” and multiplicatively when taken as a whole. These aren’t people with serious convictions or arguments who are knowing and willing to accept more vigilante killings and blood feuds in lieu of more immigration and less capital punishment. Nor are they some sort of radical intellectual divergents who think that if we socially condition enough immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard and place them in lower class communities around the country, if not the world, they can make a difference in those communities. They’re children blowing out their birthday candles, wishing Mommy and Daddy could get back together again well after one of them has moved out and remarried.

  5. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

    Booker should thank a couple of unpopular democrats for keeping them from ending the filibuster.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      It sure was interesting to see a Democrat black man leverage the Jim Crow Filibuster that Democrats wanted to scrap a few months ago.

      1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

        It was not a filibuster because there were no bills on the floor at the time. It was a very long speech.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          So Strom Thurmand still holds the filibuster record?

          You should tell the media…

          Cory Booker Breaks Filibuster Record Set by Segregationist Thurmond to Confront Trump’s Agenda

          A lot of people just watched Cory Booker’s record-breaking filibuster

          N.J. Sen. Cory Booker sets filibuster record in 24-hour attack on Trump (The Associated Press)

          Cory Booker sparks TikTok memes, songs and praise with record-breaking Senate filibuster

          Cory Booker Live Filibuster: How Long Has He Been Speaking?

          Ted Cruz jokes about ‘pulling the fire alarm’ to end Cory Booker’s filibuster

          Longest Filibusters in History: Cory Booker Goes Overnight in Trump Protest (Newsweek)

          Cory Booker reveals how he managed to not use bathroom during record-breaking filibuster

        2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          But at least we know why it was called Jim Crow filibuster…

          On August 28, 1957, Strom Thurmond, a Democratic United States senator from South Carolina, began a filibuster intended to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

        3. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

          So the dems are once again lying about what they have done?

          They seem proud that Booker broke the record.

      2. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

        Just got email from a Cory Booker support organization…seems to me that the whole ‘filibuster’ thing was a fund-raising stunt.

        Cory Booker 314action.org
        From: info@e.314actionfund.org

        Yesterday, I stepped off the Senate floor after speaking for over 25 hours straight — because I cannot stand idly by while Donald Trump and Elon Musk completely disregard the rule of law, the Constitution, and the needs of the American people.

        I may be tired and a little hoarse, but as I said again and again in the Senate: this is a moment where we cannot afford to be silent. We must speak up.

        What’s clear to me is that this is just the beginning. Americans across this country, no matter their title or party, are ready to be heard.

        I believe that history will show we rose to meet this moment.

        It will show that we did not let the chaos and division go unanswered.

        It will show that when our president chose to spread lies and sow fear, we chose to come together, to work together, and to rise together.

        If you’re willing and able, support our movement for justice, opportunity, and freedom by splitting a donation between me and 314 Action today.

        If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will be processed immediately and split between Cory Booker and 314 Action Fund.

        CHIP IN $10 IMMEDIATELY »
        CHIP IN $25 IMMEDIATELY »
        CHIP IN $50 IMMEDIATELY »
        CHIP IN $100 IMMEDIATELY »
        CHIP IN $250 IMMEDIATELY »
        CHIP IN ANOTHER AMOUNT »

        1. Chumby   2 months ago

          Send him $0.01 so the processing on their end costs mote than the donation received.

        2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

          It’s all about posturing for 2028.

  6. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

    The Trump/Bessent repricocity tariff plan continues to work. Israel becomes 6th country to reduce their tariffs in response. So the action taken is actually lowering global tariffs making trade more free.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/economy/israel-moves-drop-all-tariffs-us-imports-ahead-trump-tariff-moves

    Who would ever have guessed a tit for tat strategy would do this?

    The only countries fighting back against this policy are countries with enormous trade advantages due to current trade structures against the US. Countries with much higher tariffs on the US. The norm people like sarc think is free trade.

    1. Nelson   2 months ago

      You continue to miss the “cut off your nose to spite your face” element of tariffs. Prices will rise and it will be directly connected to tariffs.

      I’m also waiting for the moment Republicans have to try to claim they have cut spending, but the deficit mysteriously went up. But given the prevailing level of economic and fiscal ignorance in Trump’s base, they will probably blame Biden and Obama.

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        You still have zero actual understanding of actual economics and it comes through your post loud and clear. You are a leftist. You have a narrative. Even when actual data comes in that shows your narrative is wrong, you just dismiss it.

        For 3 months now your side of ignorant economics and their bumper stickers gave screamed loudly about a parade of horribles that have not occurred as you predicted. Yet you keep marching on without blinking.

        You’re a moron Nelson. I truly mean that.

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          I’ve noticed that you manage to be deeply ignorant on a wide array of subjects. Economics is just one of the ones where your completely lack of knowledge shines brightest.

          Tariffs will never accomplish any of the things Trump says they will. They’ll just raise prices on American consumers.

          Regarding DOGE and the pennies per thousand dollars they are cutting, it isn’t going to change the trajectory of the deficit. Unless they make systemic changes in Social Security and Medicare, the deficit will continue to rise.

          Regarding me being a leftist, that’s only if your definition of leftist is “opposes cultural conservatism and fiscal irresponsibility”. I support capitalism, a balanced budget, free speech, due process, keeping religion out of government, and limited government. To most people, that makes me a libertarian. To paleocons, that makes me a leftist. Given your ignorance in most things, you thinking I’m a leftist is 100% on-brand.

  7. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

    Spain is the next European country to try to arrest non leftist politicians.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/spains-vox-party-spokesperson-faces-hate-crime-probe-after-calling-out-link-between

    Politician charged with hate crime for posting facts regarding increased crime with increased immigration.

  8. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

    Corey Booker is speaking for 24 hours straight because he’s upset that Elon is taking social security away from DEAD PEOPLE. Gotta admire his commitment to the Democrat base.

    Cory Booker Breaks Record for Longest Senate Speech in Trump Protest

    1. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

      Somebody is getting that money.

      *slowly turns and stares at Booker*

      1. Nelson   2 months ago

        No, they aren’t. You are in the category of stupid people who believe that people still being in the rolls and people getting checks are the same thing. They aren’t even close to the same thing.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

          He’s getting paid for it Clowntits, as probably are you. The difference between you two is the degree.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            He’s getting paid for dead people being on the Social Security rolls, but not getting checks? How does that work?

        2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

          Cory Booker @CoryBooker
          Jan 11, 2022
          The filibuster has been abused to stop reforms supported by the vast majority of Americans—from background checks to protecting the right to vote. We must stop this abuse of power.

          https://x.com/CoryBooker/status/1481087436130242561

          1. Chumby   2 months ago

            FaCtS cHaNgEd

          2. Nelson   2 months ago

            Yes, he is a hypocrite. And engaging in political theatre. What’s your point? I don’t support him or most of his progressive positions. It’s no skin off my nose if you point out he’s a hypocrite. I agree.

        3. damikesc   2 months ago

          Somebody is getting the money.

          Hell, Biden was trying to bankrupt SS as much as humanly possible.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            The money that isn’t being paid to the dead people on the SS rolls? Who exactly is getting the $0 you’re referring to?

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Why do you hate dead people? (Aka dead voters)

    3. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

      I am guessing you did not listen to one word of the speech or the questions asked during the speech.

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Give us the highlights.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          Let’s see. “Brave black hero defies Nazis”?

      2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        *24 hr speech*

        I am guessing you did not listen to one word of the speech or the questions asked during the speech, either, you fucking retard.

        I’m also guessing you didn’t even know how long the speech was.

      3. damikesc   2 months ago

        Your presentation of highlights was, ODDLY, missing.

      4. Nelson   2 months ago

        Why would anyone bother? He talked for 25 hours. Why would anyone waste a day listening to Cory Booker waste a day?

    4. Nelson   2 months ago

      “ Corey Booker is speaking for 24 hours straight because he’s upset that Elon is taking social security away from DEAD PEOPLE”

      You can’t even start with a valid premise (since the 100+ year old people weren’t getting checks), never mind a valid conclusion (why Booker made his marathon speech). It was performative bullshit, but it had nothing to do with Social Security, since there wasn’t a bill on the docket.

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        “since the 100+ year old people weren’t getting checks”

        You’re right. They weren’t. Instead fraudsters were receiving that money that was intended for the dead 100+ year olds.

        Why are you trying to prevaricate about this?

        1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          Cmon now. They aren’t getting SSI with it. Just using it to get Medicaid and other benefits.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            That has as much evidence to support it as the SS checks. Meaning none.

        2. Nelson   2 months ago

          “ Instead fraudsters were receiving that money that was intended for the dead 100+ year olds.”

          If you actually paid attention to details, you would have seen that the people DOGE claimed were defrauding SS weren’t because they weren’t being issued checks. It was pretty widely reported, although I’d guess not at ZeroHedge.

      2. One-Punch_Man   2 months ago

        Did you listen to the speech ?

        Topics Spartacus talked against:

        1. Securing our borders
        2. Deporting illegal alien criminals
        3. Peace through strength
        4. Rooting out fraud & waste
        5. Unleashing American energy
        6. Ending government weaponization

        So in your mind paying dead people isn’t fraud or waste. Good to know. I’m glad you are part of the 21% that approve of democrats. Your team is doing great.

        Oh wait, you can’t speak against something unless there is a bill on the docket. Gotcha.

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          Since SS wasn’t issuing checks to the dead 100 year olds, how is it fraud? Not paying a dead person isn’t fraud or waste. It’s just another example of the sloppy logic and basic errors Trumpkins are renowned for.

    5. Mike Parsons   2 months ago

      “…odd thing about it all is that he wasn’t filibustering in favor of or against a specific bill; there’s no clear action item, nor is there much fixation on the actual contents of the speech”

      Incidentally, you can go to about any corner in the SF bay area and hear a schizo or drugged out homeless person putting up similar performances.

  9. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

    If there was not legislation, was it a filibuster?

    1. Longtobefree   2 months ago

      The phrase unhinged rant comes to mind – – – – – – – –

    2. Nelson   2 months ago

      I agree. I don’t think it was technically a filibuster, it was just a performance.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Overshadowed by his aide getting nailed with a gun on the Capitol grounds.

      2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

        Performance is all they have.

    3. Rockstevo   2 months ago

      Someone is planning on running for president

  10. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    critical Tariffs on deadly Fentanyl

    Brilliant! Why all the pro-tariff folks buried this lead is beyond me. The cartels will be forced to finally pay their fair share.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      But at least they no longer have to prove DEI compliance, like they did under Biden.

    2. Square = Circle   2 months ago

      The cartels will be forced to finally pay their fair share.

      And we’ll take care of the fentanyl problem. It’s win/win!

  11. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

    Wonder what it would be without the cherry picked respondents.

    Per CNN, Democrats in Congress now have a whopping 21% approval rating.

    Scott Jennings: “Turns out when you die on every 80-20 hill, you wind up at roughly 20% approval. Who could’ve known?”

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      Sadly quite a few of that 21% pretend to be libertarian here.

      1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

        And the number writing for the publication is an inverse ratio at best.

      2. Chumby   2 months ago

        Like Chase Oliver? Heard a rumor that he might be gay.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

          Wait, what? Do JeffSarc know?

          1. Chumby   2 months ago

            I think they know he’s a closet progressive but not sure about the (rumored) gay part.

            1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

              They’re going to be furious. They don’t think people will vote for teh gay.

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

      Dems will ignore it like that did Biden’s mental health.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

        That or double down on the insanity.

  12. sarcasmic   2 months ago

    But it’s also possible that the Trump administration screwed up and deported the exact type of person our asylum system is designed to protect, someone well on his way to making a good life in the U.S.

    Trump administration screwed up? That’s blasphemy! He is Political Jesus! He’s the pope of the GOP! He’s the head of the Church of Trump! He cannot do any wrong!

    1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

      Scream and seethe, Democrat.

      The Atlantic story was a lie, the guy was a villain all along, and you wanted to be fooled. Just like with everything else.

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        It is wild seeing fake libertarians like Jeff and sarc defend murder and 20 years for even non violent J6 protestors, but then demand illegals get full protections from all laws.

        1. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

          They will die on the 80-20 hill. They seem compelled to defend the fringiest shit the DNC can propose. Cultists.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

      Your strawmen are just terrible now, Sarc. Admit defeat and take your L.

  13. Spiritus Mundi   2 months ago

    The vessels have linked up one behind another, forming a long bridge that extends from deeper waters onto the beach…

    Fighting the last war. This wont be a WWII style amphib landing. Building a mulberry won’t work when you can precisely hit pontoons and landing craft with missles fired from 100’s of miles away. Even shoulder fired javalins from troops on the beach will sink amtraks.

    1. rbike   2 months ago

      Umm. We couldn’t do it when the Palestinians weren’t totally firing at us. In the Mediterranean Sea.

  14. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Jeff, et al. might be sad…

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/01/see-you-next-two-tier-tuesday/

    At the 11th hour, by the skin of our teeth, England and Wales have avoided the two-tier sentencing regime we were set to be lumbered with today. Two-Tier Tuesday hasn’t come to pass after all.

    The new rules would have forced judges to almost always order a pre-sentence report (PSR) for defendants from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, among other categories. PSRs, drawn up by the probation service to give judges more background about a defendant, do not necessarily entail a lighter sentence, but they do make one more likely. The upshot would have been a system that treats those from minority groups more favourably.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

      do not necessarily entail a lighter sentence

      Which is what I said all along. Now even Spiked agrees. Meanwhile you all were absolutely insisting that the rule changes MANDATED lighter sentences for minority groups. That was always the lie that I was arguing against.

      1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        No it isn’t. You denied it was even happening when even Starmer said it was wrong lying fuck. They’ve revised the plan. Due to the push back.

        Why do you lie so much?

        I bet in practice it will still come to pass. See your stance on migrant rape.

        Your initial report was an ad hominem against GB News.

        Such a lying shit weasel.

        Then again you believe migrants can raoe minors with no jail time because you’re a sick pedo fuck.

        1. Chumby   2 months ago

          His employer is not sending their best.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 months ago

          Then again you believe migrants can raoe minors with no jail time because you’re a sick pedo fuck.

          Not just that, he said a man should be able to flash kids walking around the neighborhood as long as the guy is doing it from inside his house.

        3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          No it isn’t.

          This is what you wrote, on Sunday:

          https://reason.com/2025/03/29/rise-of-the-samurai-lawyers/?comments=true#comment-10980708

          Britain officially makes 2 tier justice a thing. White men, only men, will recieve longer sentences for the same crime.

          That statement is a lie. That is not what the rules change said, and even Spiked agrees with me at this point.

          You denied it was even happening

          You lying fuck, I was the one who posted a link to a *more informative* article describing what was actually happening, not your right-wing trash that lied in order to gin up outrage.

        4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          you believe migrants can raoe minors with no jail time

          That is a lie. I never said that.

          1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

            You were just arguing they should be released onto the country with a future immigration court date but no other stipulations or guarantees. In other words, released without consequences.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              I said nothing of the sort and I dare you to provide any supposed quotation to the contrary.

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Do you support institutionalized differential legal treatment, based on race, or not?

        1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

          I’d like to ask that question, too.

          It sure seems to me Jeff is trying to gloss right over that aspect.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

            It’s part of what Lying Jeffy does. He glosses over things like this, often obfuscating his answer.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

            You sure seem to gloss over the lies that Jesse and his team bring to these comments every single day.

            1. rbike   2 months ago

              Y

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          No, I don’t. I never did and I never claimed to support it when the issue was first presented on Sunday.

          The problem is, you all never take responsibility for the lies in your media bubble. Jesse presents links from ridiculously partisan sources here every day which contain avalanches of lies and half-truths, who is going to call him out on that?

          1. Chumby   2 months ago

            What are these “ridiculously partisan” sources and why are you labeling them as such? Also, needz moar adverbs.

      3. Marshal   2 months ago

        but they do make one more likely.

        Note what Jeffey omitted and therefore what he is arguing. He is asserting a process which makes sentencing different between races is acceptable as long as it is not 100% determinative.

        Compare this to the Jim Crow era. Using Jeffey’s standard Jim Crow was acceptable because some white people were found guilty of murder and some blacks were fund innocent. The over difference in process is to be ignored as long as it is not 100% controlling. Does anyone believe this? Does anyone think Jeffey would assert his own standard in these circumstances? As usual just a bit of thought demonstrates how completely unprincipled Jeffey is.

        1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          DEI policies aren’t quotas even if they end up acting the same as quotas.

        2. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

          Reconstruction South he’d be arguing the voting literacy tests were perfectly fine because some black American could read Chinese…somewhere.

        3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

          He is asserting a process which makes sentencing different between races is acceptable

          I said no such thing. I didn’t say it was acceptable. I was calling out Jesse’s lies on the subject.

          Why can’t you people EVER discuss issues honestly? Your media bubble is continually an outrage factory powered by lies and half-truths. At what point are you all going to use facts and reason to discuss an issue?

          1. Marshal   2 months ago

            I said no such thing. I didn’t say it was acceptable.

            You said treating people differently based on race isn’t creating a two-tier legal system. Therefore it seems clear you think treating people differently based on race is acceptable as long as the tiers are not 100% distinct.

            It’s not clear how you’re trying to parse this but I guess you need to lie to yourself to maintain your self-image as the armchair hero holding back fascism.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago

              You said treating people differently based on race isn’t creating a two-tier legal system.

              This is a lie. I dare you to post the quote where I supposedly said that.

    2. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Deporting people on student visas calling for the destruction of The West irreparably chills free speech but being within hours of being categorically assigned to the lower tier of a two-tier justice system is a privilege white males should be grateful to experience one way or the other.

    3. mamabug   2 months ago

      At this point, isn’t anybody of any faith a minority in England & Wales?

  15. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

    Rip Val kilmar you really were the tops.
    Both secret, and gun

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

      Real Genius.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

        Should be on his Tombstone

        1. Chumby   2 months ago

          What his epitaph will be is Top Secret!

          edit: didn’t see Rev referenced that already. Not working The Man Who Broke 1000 Chains or Thunderheart into this (the other films I have seen with him in).

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

      Listen to me, Hillary. I’m not the first guy who fell in love with a woman that he met at a restaurant who turned out to be the daughter of a kidnapped scientist, only to lose her to her childhood lover who she last saw on a deserted island, who then turned out fifteen years later to be the leader of the French underground.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Shit, now I have to watch that again.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

          I know. It all sounds like some bad movie.

    3. MK Ultra   2 months ago

      Does Liz skeet surf?

      1. Square = Circle   2 months ago

        If everybody had a 12-gauge/and a surfboard, too”

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

          Hail, hail East Germany / Land of fruit and grape / Land where you’ll regret / If you try to escape / No matter if you tunnel under or take a running jump at the wall / Forget it, the guards will kill you, if the electrified fence doesn’t first.

    4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

      Dude played Batman, Jim Morrison and John Holmes.

      A rock star porn star super hero. Damn.

  16. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    The kind of odd thing about it all is that he wasn’t filibustering in favor of or against a specific bill;

    Spartacus can’t be bothered with the specifics of whatever he’s rebelling against. Ceasar has crossed the Rubicon, and only him and his army stand against the sacking of Rome.

    Or something

    1. damikesc   2 months ago

      I bet his boyfriend thought he was amazing.

  17. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    “The whole idea of the system that was designed by Jefferson and Madison is that the American people view each other as adults who are capable of sorting out the truth for themselves. They do not need a nanny state or a guardian or a law enforcement agency to decide for them what’s truth.”

    Just like Hitler would say.

    Less snarky (a bit), what drives some people to seek a nanny state? Why do people, some who claim to be well-educated and worldly, willingly cede autonomy in exchange for authoritarian promises to care for them?

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

      Estrogen

    2. sarcasmic   2 months ago

      Why do you Trump defenders praise an authoritarian regime that imposes taxes without representation and imprisons people without due process?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

        Why do you continue with your old, tired, stupid strawman about a man cutting government being some sort of dictator when he actually follows the law and the Constitution?

        1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          He will never admit every EO Trump has issues cites the legal framework and constitutional framework for each EO.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

            Or explain how cutting government is authoritarian.

            1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

              Trump is not cutting government you fool. We have a government of laws, not a government of men. Trump is getting rid of men, but leaving all the laws in place. So when Democrats take back the White House they’re going to rescind all of his executive orders and it will be back to the way it was before Trump was elected. That’s why people with functioning brains want to get Congress involved. But here’s the kicker. When I or others say that the laws should be changed, we are attacked by you and the other Trump defenders. What that tells me is that you are lying when you say you want to cut government. Because if you did you’d want to repeal the laws that delegate all that power to the executive. But you don’t. You’re hostile to anyone who does. That means you don’t want to cut federal power. If you did you’d want to repeal the laws that give the executive that power. You fully support an authoritarian president, as long as his name is Trump.

              1. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

                That’s why people with functioning brains want to get Congress involved.

                How did your congressmen respond when you asked them to get involved?

                1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                  Sarcs entire ethos is to maintain the status quo. All his arguments male sense when you realize that.

                  Well. The status quo from Obama and Joe.

              2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

                Lol. Well then, let’s put the dems in the awkward position of reinstating funding for tranny surgeries in Guatemala when they regain power. See how that goes for them.

                Maybe that’s the point. Haha.

      2. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

        Those are libertarian taxes, libertarian wealth redistribution and libertarian due-process-free-imprisonment in a foreign country.

        It just feels like we’re reliving the Bush II Gitmo torture policies, which in hindsight we all agree worked out great for everyone.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 months ago


          It just feels like we’re reliving the Bush II Gitmo torture policies

          That is exactly what it feels like. It is so weird that the Trump crowd loathes Bush Jr. as some moderate sellout while endorsing his binary “you’re either with us or you’re against us” stupid mentality.

    3. Randy Sax   2 months ago

      some who claim to be well-educated and worldly

      Those who make the claim generally aren’t.

    4. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Cheap Stuff. You know, affordable sleeping pods, all the crickets you can eat, and 50% increases in chocolate rations from 30g to 20g.

      1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

        Funny how Trump defenders who said Bidenflation was the end of the world now mock people who say low prices are a good thing.

        1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

          Morning drunky, do you think Bidenflation was good? What high prices has Trump made?

          1. mad.casual   2 months ago

            Right: Holy shit! The price on everything has gone up! Gasoline… meat… bread… energy… everything!
            Left: Supply chains bitches, STFU.

            Left: OMG! Canadians won’t be able to buy Bourbon! Mexico will have to meet the trade agreements they committed to! China isn’t being allowed to facilitate their one China delusion unfettered! This is unconstitutional! Western Democracy as we know it is at an end!
            Right: Uh, there is no Constitutional right to sell cheap whiskey to Canadians. That doesn’t even make sense.
            Left: STFU you homophobic racist fascist.

        2. Super Scary   2 months ago

          “now mock people who say low prices are a good thing.”

          Where is this happening?

          1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

            If I was a loser like Jesse I’d have bookmarked comments where people say that. But I’m not a loser like Jesse. So you’ll just have to pay more attention.

            1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

              You aren’t a “loser like Jesse” because your tall, clean-cut cop isn’t a drunken bitter troll.

              Also, people HAVE to bookmark your comments because you won’t stop lying about the shit you’ve said.

            2. Chumby   2 months ago

              You are saying you are a loser, unlike Jesse? If so, 100% agree with you. Kudos to you for seeing reality on this.

              1. Nelson   2 months ago

                Sarc is a partisan hack, but so is Jesse. Pretending they are different is wishful thinking.

                1. Pepin the short   2 months ago

                  Aren’t you the one that tried to call Trumps would be assassin a supporter?

                  Sit this one out chucklefuck

                  1. Bertram Guilfoyle   2 months ago

                    something, something, actblue = conservative.

                    1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                      It is known that Republican’s are the biggest ActBlue supporters.

                    2. Nelson   2 months ago

                      Your ActBlue thing is bizarre. Why are you so obsessed with ActBlue?

                  2. Nelson   2 months ago

                    “ Aren’t you the one that tried to call Trumps would be assassin a supporter?”

                    No, I said based on their reported ideology, they were both conservatives. There isn’t a chance they were supporters.

                2. Chumby   2 months ago

                  Jesse is a libertarian partisan hack. I agree with that too.

                  1. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

                    Oh boy, that was good. Jesse doesn’t have a libertarian molecule in his body.

                    1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

                      Did you let the Colt 45 go to your head?

                    2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

                      See, I told you guys Sarckles had no clue what Libertarian meant. He thinks it’s synonymous with Democrat.

                  2. Nelson   2 months ago

                    “ Jesse is a libertarian partisan hack.”

                    Jesse is a pure paleocon. He is closer to Bernie than libertarianism. They both hate people being free to choose things for themselves.

                3. sarcasmic   2 months ago

                  Sure I am. That explains why I’ve never promoted or defended a single policy from Democrats. Because I’m a partisan hack.

                  Not even Jesse the loser with thousands of bookmarked comments spanning many years can produce a single one where I support Democrats. Not a one, because they don’t exist. Well, I suppose they do if you’re a tribalist moron engaging in fallacious reasoning who equates criticism of your tribe as praise for the tribe you hate. And you’d have to. Because there exists exactly zero comments of mine where I’ve directly praised Democrats.

                  Fucking idiot.

                  1. Chumby   2 months ago

                    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

                  2. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

                    You are such a retard, Sarc.

                4. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                  The guy who says donating to act blue makes you conservative everyone. Lol.

                  1. Nelson   2 months ago

                    You are the one who said that, not me. I said their reported ideologies made them conservatives. Which is true. You are the one with the weird ActBlue fixation.

    5. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

      In their mind when you allow people to choose sometimes they choose wrong and they’re just trying to help them for their own good.

    6. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

      Because, “Would someone please think of the children?”!

      1. Nelson   2 months ago

        Please don’t bring the anti-trans freaks out. They are so awful.

        That’s who you were referring to, right?

        1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

          I know it from a famous Simpsons clip:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3D8670smTI

          But the fact you went straight to “anti-trans freaks” says more about you than the group you’re trying to smear.

          1. Nelson   2 months ago

            You mean the people who think they should inject their (literally) uninformed opinions into the health care decisions of others because “WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?”

            I don’t need to smear them. They do it all by themselves.

    7. Chinny Chin Chin   2 months ago

      To feel safe and stable. The same reasons people seek religion.

      At a deeper level, human groups are hardwired to follow strong leaders who maintain their power through force. That’s what made democracy so revolutionary… and why such political systems are hard to maintain.

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        I never imagined that you sacrifice goats to feel safe and stable, Shrike.

      2. Truthfulness   2 months ago

        “Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything.” – C.S. Lewis

  18. Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)   2 months ago

    the trump admin firing a bunch of NIH leadership and offering to relocate them to alaska if they want to keep their jobs is the funniest thing they’ve done so far

    Hey! I have made that same suggestion before! 😀

  19. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

    Pivot to Alaska

    God, what did the citizens of Alaska, Montana, and Oklahoma do to Trump that he would inflict such as diabolical plot onto them? I’d take the four horseman over them.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      But it is fun to imagine some effete metro area “health provider” dropped into the Alaska bush, and trying to engage with a local village filled with rough people who have never donated to NPR.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

        It is. I just feel bad for the locals if any did take them up on the offer. Dr Fauci’s sycophants have to make for the worst possible neighbor.

      2. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

        That was the premise of Northern Exposure. Great show by the way.

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

          It was. Especially early seasons; faded at the end (but that’s TV in general).

          1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

            faded at the end

            I had scrubbed that from my memory, but yeah, it became unwatchable.

          2. Square = Circle   2 months ago

            faded at the end

            They should have stopped at Joel returning to NYC. After that, the show was pointless and didn’t go anywhere.

            1. Nelson   2 months ago

              They still had everyone else under contract, Morrow breached his contract, so they tried to move on without him. Unfortunately it was a failure.

              One of the streaming services has all the episodes and we recently watched them (maybe Netflix?). Still a great show.

        2. Square = Circle   2 months ago

          Great show by the way.

          ^

          IMHO the first truly great TV show.

          Still one of my favorite scenes is when Maggie is trying to get Joel to punch her to get her back for her having punched him and he shouts back something to the effect of “I’m not going to do that – I’m going to sue you and take your house, your plane, your business, everything, and ruin your life, because that’s how civilized people do things!”

    2. Randy Sax   2 months ago

      It’s like sending the apprentice to Home Depot to buy a left-handed hammer.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 months ago

        True, if the apprentice upon arriving tells them how to stock the shelves, who needs to be on cashier and when, and what time they close.

      2. Super Scary   2 months ago

        I’ve looking everywhere for some headlight fluid. It’s been years at this point.

      3. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

        If you’ve ever watched one of the mic’d up segments from back when Brett Favre was playing, he’d make the same joke every time: “I need a left-handed football. Where are the left-handed footballs?”

  20. Longtobefree   2 months ago

    “Innocent Father or MS-13 Gang Member?”

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

      It makes the difference to him, his family, and everyone who loves freedom and due process. It does not matter to MAGAs.

      1. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

        Now say it again but with J6ers.

        1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

          J6ers all got due process. They knew the charges, had a lawyer, and got their court trial. They all got off light.

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            The deported also had a trial and was sentenced. You disliking it does not make it non-existant.

            1. Nelson   2 months ago

              No, they didn’t. That’s the point everyone is trying to get you vengeance junkies to understand. Due process is the foundation of the rule of law.

              Allow the government to label someone as a gang member without any opportunity to challenge it and anyone can be shipped to a foreign prison for any reason, as long as the government says it’s the right reason.

              1. damikesc   2 months ago

                He did receive a hearing and was found to be a member.

                Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean due process did not occur.

              2. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

                MAGAs are unable to comprehend anything but the simplest ideas and facts melt what is left of their brain.

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 months ago

                  This coming from the same bitch who said that PII was “highly classified information.” What remained of your two brain cells melted away around the time Chad dumped his load down your throat in college.

              3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                Literally in the first sets of comments.

                Are you a retard?

          2. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

            No they didn’t, many were held for years without trial you lying fag

          3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            The charges the USSC said were invalid after many spent years without bail pre trial and then were sentenced?

            Some great due process.

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        He had due process in 2019 dumbass.

        1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

          Due process does not count if the government ignores rulings that they don’t agree with and deports him anyhow.

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            How does it count if they ignore rulings that do agree with them?

          2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            This “victim” ignored the 2019 final deportation orders a court ruled on dumbass.

            Guess where he wouldn’t be now if he actually respected the US legal and court system.

            1. Nelson   2 months ago

              You keep saying this, but it isn’t true. This is a habit you have, of accepting everything ZeroHedge says without skepticism.

              1. damikesc   2 months ago

                Except he did.

                You keep citing the DNC without skepticism.

              2. Marshal   2 months ago

                Compare his concern for truth in this comment to the claim Trump is on Putin’s payroll. Whatever could cause such an extreme reversal?

                I guess some truths are more equal than others.

                1. Nelson   2 months ago

                  That was obviously a joke. He’s not on Putin’s payroll, although he is constantly outmaneuvered by the man. Is it worse to get played by Putin for free or to get paid for it?

              3. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

                Hey retard. It is true. JD even shows it is true from the court documents.

                I ask again. Are you retarded?

      3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

        Now do all the “innocent” people in prison.

      4. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        He already had due process you fucking retard.

        If someone is charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to jail, but they escape from the bus to the jail, are recaptured, and sent off to jail, do you claim they never had due process, because there wasn’t a second trial between escape and jail?

        1. Chumby   2 months ago

          Depends if the person is a piece of shit foreign national gang member.

        2. Nelson   2 months ago

          That didn’t happen here, so why the ridiculous hypothetical?

          1. One-Punch_Man   2 months ago

            You aren’t smart enough to get it. He already had due process and was found guilty. Does he deserve a second due process because something happened between the sentencing and now.

            1. Chumby   2 months ago

              Did he donate to Act Blue after his conviction?

          2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

            Tell me why there was a judge involved in his deportation case then.

  21. mad.casual   2 months ago

    “The vessels’ debut suggests that China’s People’s Liberation Army may be a step closer to being able to land tens of thousands of troops and their weapons and vehicles on Taiwan’s shores.”

    Obviously, the real problem is that we didn’t repeal The Jones Act so that Chinese bridging and landing vessels could be built even more cheaply and operated even more profitably.

  22. Marshal   2 months ago

    This is the third roundup without mentioning the most important story of the year: massive escalation of US involvement in the Ukraine War resulting in the military’s estimate of nuclear war increasing from 5% to 50%, all while the elected President was too incompetent to approve the dessert menu.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      Still local news.

      They also had a number of egg prior mentions before egg prices dropped. They have a narrative.

      Right now it is deportation is bad and tariffs. They will ignore most everything else. Nothing on deregulation. Nothing on other countries lowering their tariffs. Nothing on price drops. Nothing on Europe arresting leading politicians. These aren’t part of the globalist approved narrative.

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   2 months ago

        Nothing can go against the orange man bad narrative.

      2. Marshal   2 months ago

        I guarantee if there were a new anti-Trump event the narrative could make room for it.

        What I find shocking is that Reason is genuinely anti-war and yet they’ve ignored this completely. I’m honestly shocked the article was even reported since it validates US military involvement which gives Putin a justification for widening the war. We would certainly see it that way if Russia were identifying targets and directing UKR fire missions.

        But since that can’t be changed the focus should be who exactly was approving our consistently changing the rules of engagement and engaging in actions previously prohibited due to the likelihood of triggering a nuclear response and how was that approval expressed? Was it Jill Biden reporting what Joe supposedly said in private? Was it her or the Chief of Staff leading him by the nose? Did the Joint Chiefs approve by themselves since they weren’t going to get an answer from Joe?

        What the fuck was going on?

        1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          I agree. The admittance in the NYT was done intentionally in order to give Putin a vector for response. They want to drag NATO and the US into Ukraine. With Trump basically pulling out, the NYT wrote this to give Russia a reason to act which the left believes would force Trump into Ukraine. It was only admitted to try to force the issue.

    2. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

      Dave Smith is great if you’re an strongly antiwar libertarian type. He has a lot of content on Ukraine. I’m sure you know already, but just in case.

      1. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

        I first discovered Dave Smith when he would be a guest on Red Eye back in 2012 or so. I watch almost every Part of the Problem episode on YT. I disagree with him on a couple things, but I find him correct on the vast majority of issues, with good justifications for his positions. He’s pretty good at explaining the libertarian position in simpler terms so non-libertarians can understand. Ron Paul was the best at that, but I’d argue Tom Woods and Smith are some of the best at that now.

        1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

          Yeah. I agree on all points.

    3. Nelson   2 months ago

      “ nuclear war increasing from 5% to 50%”

      Only one country in the conflict could start a nuclear war because only one country has nuclear weapons. Ukraine surrendered theirs for security guarantees. They fucked up, they trusted us.

      The chance today is zero, since the current President is on Putin’s payroll. It’s a tragedy for those who love freedom, but it is one of the consequences of an inept Democratic Party running not just one, but two terrible candidates.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Can you demonstrate how Trump is on anybody’s “payroll”?

        I cannot imagine a fervent due process guy like you would make false allegations.

        And I love that fighting on the side that is not holding elections and is preventing people from running for office who the EU is not fond of is “pro-democracy”.

        Seems both sides are terrible. But Dems happily defended Stalin back when he was relevant…

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          It’s a joke. He’s just gets played by Putin so badly and so often, it just seems like he is getting paid. But he actually just does it for free.

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        Thanks Rachel.

  23. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

    Yale fascism expert on fleeing to Canada
    …
    Last week one of the U.S.’s leading scholars and thinkers on fascism announced his intention to leave his country, which he said was “tilting toward authoritarian dictatorship.” Jason Stanley will be leaving Yale and taking up a post at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.
    …
    Stanley has been warning about the threat and rise of fascism in the United States since Donald Trump’s first term – his work notes the throughline between American Jim Crow and the Third Reich, fascism’s reliance on the identification of internal enemies, and why fascism rests upon the promise of restoring a mythic past.

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/yale-fascism-expert-on-fleeing-to-canada-1.7499515

    What a pussy. Donnie is not a genocidal fascist. He is more like Franco than Hitler.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Do you need help checking the bus schedule to Montreal?

    2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    3. damikesc   2 months ago

      Franco — the guy who did NOT deport Jews for the Holocaust? Yup, he was the bad guy in Europe during WW II. Hitler did not have to twist French arms to deport Jews.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 months ago

        Franco wasn’t even a fascist. He was a monarchist who saw the Catholic Church and the military as the keystones of Spanish society, and considered Spain’s interests above all others. The best decision he ever made was keeping that country out of World War II.

    4. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

      “What a pussy. Donnie is not a genocidal fascist.”

      Trudeau, Carney and Freeland, on the other hand, are genocidal fascists. That’s like fleeing Hazzard County for Treblinka.

      1. Chumby   2 months ago

        Pluggo would have liked to have been a guard at the boys camp.

  24. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/01/sen-john-kennedy-destroys-nationwide-injunctions-and-its-amazing-n4938490

    Questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.

    “Mr. Shumate, what’s a universal injunction?” Kennedy asked.

    Shumate explained, “Senator, a universal injunction is an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case but applies nationwide or in some cases universally.”

    Kennedy pressed further, asking, “What’s the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?”

    “I’m not aware of a statutory basis, Senator,” Shumate admitted.

    “There is no statutory basis, is there?” Kennedy reiterated.

    “No, Senator,” Shumate confirmed.

    Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.

    “Can you name me that case?” he asked.

    “I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate responded.

    “There isn’t one, is there?” Kennedy pressed.

    “I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate repeated.

    Kennedy then laid out the fundamental issue: “You have a plaintiff and a defendant, and the plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal court. The judge has jurisdiction over those parties. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else outside of that courtroom?”

    “Uh, it shouldn’t be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time,” Shumate admitted. “I think on the theory that courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it nationwide so that all non-parties are protected.”

    “I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren’t in court, you had to file a class action,” Kennedy countered.

    “That’s correct, Senator,” Shumate agreed.

    Kennedy pointed out that instead of filing class actions, plaintiffs often seek universal injunctions, which have no legal foundation.

    “Does this encourage forum shopping?” he asked.

    “Yes, Senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge who will enjoin a single policy nationwide,” Shumate said. “If you have five lawsuits, only one of those cases needs to be successful.”

    In his closing remarks, Kennedy highlighted the constitutional issue at hand: “Tell me the basis for universal injunction in Article III. Where does it mention universal injunction?”

    “It does not, Senator,” Shumate said. “It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case.”

    Kennedy concluded, “So Congress could act and say, ‘Look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can’t impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action.’ That’s why God created class actions, isn’t it?”

    “Yes, Senator,” Shumate agreed.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      That was a great video. Saw it yesterday. Wish Roberts had.

      1. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

        If you showed it to him he’d shut his eyes tight and plug his ears.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Hey, what does law have to do with judicial rulings?

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        we must be judicial tyrants to protect our democracy!

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

      Yeah Kennedy comes off as a goofy good old boy but he’s one sharp motherfucker.

    4. Nelson   2 months ago

      Serious questions for any ConLaw lawyers:

      If the Federal government is a party to a case and they are enjoined from doing something, why wouldn’t that impact the entire Federal government?

      Is the Federal government considered a collection of independent entities (states, districts, zip codes, or some other division) for the purposes of legal injunctions?

      If they are separate, is there a tipping point where X% (maybe more than 50%?) of cases turns it into a national injunction?

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        “If the Federal government is a party to a case and they are enjoined from doing something, why wouldn’t that impact the entire Federal government?”

        Why would it?

        District courts are DISTRICT courts for a reason, no? They were never intended to be national. They can try and do a class action suit (which they would not be able to do), but a national injunction should be nullified before the sound of the gavel banging dissipates fully.

        The judiciary is not superior to the executive. Minor parts of the judiciary sure as fuck are not.

        “Is the Federal government considered a collection of independent entities (states, districts, zip codes, or some other division) for the purposes of legal injunctions?”

        What if the entire country does not oppose the actions? Why should a few who do oppose control the majority who do not?

        There is no legal standing for them. None. They are purely an invention of lower courts. And they have decided to target one man above all others in history.

        “If they are separate, is there a tipping point where X% (maybe more than 50%?) of cases turns it into a national injunction?”

        No.

        If a national injunction is needed, SCOTUS is available. Otherwise…no.

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          “ Why would it?”

          Because the Federal government is a named party in the suit. What I’m trying to find out is if, legally, there is a division of the Federal government and, if so, what that division is.

          If John Smith was prevented from doing something by the 9th Circuit, he would be enjoined even if he was in the 4th Circuit, correct? So is the Federal government different and, if so, how?

          “What if the entire country does not oppose the actions?”

          That’s is a federalism argument (states vs. federal). We both know the law works differently. It isn’t a popularity contest, it’s the exact opposite.

          I know that a circuit split usually leads to a SCOTUS action, but if there isn’t any other similar ruling from a superior court, why wouldn’t the defendant (in this case the federal government) be required to live by the ruling?

          “ There is no legal standing for them.”

          That’s the crux of my question. If a party to a suit is enjoined, why wouldn’t they be enjoined? They lost the case. Not that it can’t be appealed, as you mentioned with SCOTUS. But why would a party to a case be able to ignore a court order? You or I couldn’t, so why is the Federal government different? And if it is, why is it different?

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        District courts disagree all the time dumdum.

        Did you ever question why all these inferior court judges are dem appointed?

        1. Nelson   2 months ago

          Is there a district court that disagrees in this matter? If so, I haven’t heard about it.

  25. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

    “Federal judge in S.F. blocks Trump plan to deport 350,000 Venezuelans”
    […]
    “…”He said Noem’s order to cancel the Venezuelans’ temporary protected status was evidently based on “unconstitutional animus” — hostility toward the Venezuelans — and that “the animus of President (Donald) Trump appears to have influenced (her) decision-making.”…”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-in-sf-blocks-trump-plan-to-deport-350000-venezuelans/ar-AA1C2iHa?ocid=BingNewsSerp

    Gee, does animus get protection under A1? Or some other amendment?

    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      Sometimes I wonder why Trump is fighting this particular battle instead of just quietly letting the TPS protections simply expire on schedule. It would be a huge stretch for a court to force the executive to extend a discretionary program, much more so that it is for a court to say you cannot terminate a program before its expiration date.

      The Venezuelan extension would have expired in Oct. 2026 anyway.

      —–
      https://www.nationaltpsalliance.org/expiration-dates/

      The lawsuit challenges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Krist Noem’s decision to revoke an 18-month extension of TPS for Venezuelens, which had been lawfully granted by the Biden administration in January. Noem’s reversal would cut short protections for 350,00 Venezeluzans by April 2025 and another 250,00 by September 2024, despite the original extension running through October 2026.

      We argue that this decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act, as the law does not permit early termination of TPS once granted. The lawsuit also contends that the termination was driven by racial animus, violating the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

      TPS country designations are currently extended through the following dates:
      Country Designation in Effect Through
      Venezuela (2023 Designation) April 7, 2025 (Terminated)
      South Sudan May 3, 2025
      Afghanistan May 20, 2025
      Cameroon June 7, 2025
      Nepal June 24, 2025
      Honduras July 5, 2025
      Nicaragua July 5, 2025
      Venezuela (2021 Designation) Sept 10, 2025
      Syria Sept 30, 2025
      Burma (Myanmar) November 25, 2025
      Ethiopia December 12, 2025
      Haiti February 3, 2026
      Yemen March 3, 2026
      Somalia March 17, 2026
      El Salvador Sept 9, 2026
      Ukraine Oct 19, 2026
      Sudan Oct 19, 2026

      1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

        Venezuelans are a race?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

          To the bottom.

          1. Quicktown Brix   2 months ago

            LOL

          2. Mother's Lament - (Sarcasian Meanister of Foreign Affairs)   2 months ago

            ;_;

      2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

        The 9th already ruled for its district that revocation of TPS has no judicial review. This judge, under the 9th, doesn’t care.

        1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

          So the 9th has already found for Trump?

          1. damikesc   2 months ago

            Basically. And Roberts won’t stop anything. So, fuck the lot of them. It is his job to prevent the courts from shitting all over the courts legitimacy and credibility.

            So, it is now time for the courts to be shat upon.

            You had your shot John.

          2. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

            In 2018 if I remember.

    2. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

      But the judge obviously has no Animus against Trump.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Just applying the Orange Man Bad precedent.

      But cool to see it out front, and in legalese (“animus”).

  26. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/03/31/what-the-dogers-keep-finding-at-social-security-explains-the-progressive-spasms-n3801328

    DOGE Engineer and Elon reveal that 40% of all calls to Social Security are from fraudsters trying to change direct deposit info in order to steal funds.

    ELON: “What we’re doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people as a result of the work of DOGE will receive more Social Security, not less.”

    “Let the record show that I said this and the it will be proven out to be true.”

    Also:

    A whistleblower’s shocking testimony reveals a coordinated effort to sign illegal immigrants up for permanent Social Security disability benefits—a disturbing strategy to create lifetime government dependency at taxpayer expense.

    The whistleblower, who worked directly with migrants, revealed staffers were instructed to identify and document minor health issues like “recurring headaches” or “lower back problems” that would qualify migrants for long-term disability payments that would continue for life.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      Sarc swears this doesn’t happen.

      Just like they don’t get tax refunds despite the video of Jackson Hewitt telling illegals how to get refunds even if they don’t have jobs.

  27. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1906526419079082173

    – Democrats did give MILLIONS of illegals Social Security Numbers
    – They were REGISTERING TO VOTE
    – Elon Musk has confirmation THEY DID VOTE
    – Democrats qualified illegals for MAX SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
    – They enrolled in Medicaid with their new Social Security Numbers

    See graph in video:

    “Then you’ll notice there’s a strange, what jumped out at us when we saw these numbers. We’re like, what is this? In 2021, you see 270,000 people, it goes all the way to 2.1 million and 2024. These are non-citizens that are getting social security numbers.

    This is a mind-blowing charge. This literally blew us away.”

    “If I hadn’t seen this myself, I’m not sure I believed it. I went through it myself and mapped it. And Elon is right. This is true. The defaults in the system from social security to all of the benefit programs have been set to max inclusion, MAX PAY for these people and minimum collection.

    We found 1.3 million of them already on Medicaid as an example. We’ve gone through on every benefit program we went through, we found groups from this particular group of people, this 5.5 million people in those benefit programs.

    And then what was really, really disturbing us was why we’re asking ourselves why.

    So we actually just took a sample and looked at voter registration records and we found people here registered to vote in this population. Yes.

    Who did vote? We found some by sampling that ACTUALLY DID VOTE.

    We have referred them to prosecution at the Homeland Security Investigation Service. Yeah. Already, already. That is already happening right now. The truly disturbing thing though, I just want you to know this, a truly disturbing thing to me, and the darkest thing about this, to me, the voter fraud is terrible.”

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      What do you have against food trucks?

      Stop with facts. Let the ignorant of the world live in sweet ignorant bliss and bumper stickers. Sullum and jeffsarc don’t want to know.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

      Reason informs us pretty much every week that SS is unsustainable but not a word about this. Odd.

  28. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/multi-billion-dollar-federal-job-corps-breeding-ground-rape-crime?topStoryPosition=undefined

    Multi-Billion Dollar Federal ‘Job Corps’ Is A Breeding Ground For Rape And Crime, Data Show
    Federal program pays teen runaways and hardened criminals to live together in dubious job training dorms.

    The Department of Labor’s Job Corps operates 131 facilities where low-income people ages 16 to 24 can live while being paid to gain a high school diploma and certification in trades like plumbing. Created in the 1960s, it has transformed into something between a prison and a college, gathering people from the margins of society and housing them in cinderblock dormitories where they fight, rape, and sell drugs to each other, data exclusively obtained by The Daily Wire shows.

  29. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   2 months ago

    No sign Trump will honor US auto tariff protections won by Canada, Mexico in 2018
    …
    March 29 (Reuters) – Canada and Mexico won protections against potential new U.S. auto tariffs in 2018 as part of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, but there is no evidence that President Donald Trump will honor those commitments as he imposes 25% duties on global automotive imports.
    The side letters to the USMCA trade deal agreed to by Trump’s first administration granted both Mexico, opens new tab and Canada, opens new tab a 60-day delay on the imposition of any global auto tariffs as a result of his first-term Section 232 national security investigation into auto imports.

    What a shitty deal negotiator Donnie is.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-sign-trump-will-honor-us-auto-tariff-protections-won-by-canada-mexico-2018-2025-03-29/

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    2. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

      Please explain for the commentariat just how you managed to get your original account permanently banned here.

    3. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      NY Times: On Eve of Trump’s Tariffs Announcement, Israel Says It Will Lift All Duties on U.S. Imports

      The move was an apparent bid to ensure that Israel is exempt from new tariffs that President Trump plans to announce on Wednesday.

  30. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    “None of this is in any way normal,” a cryptography professor from Johns Hopkins University, Matthew Greene, said via AT. “Has anyone been in contact? I hear he’s been missing for two weeks and his students can’t reach him. How does this not get noticed for two weeks???”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/cybersecurity-professor-erased-from-indiana-university-while-fbi-raids-his-home-none-of-this-is-in-any-way-normal/ar-AA1C5PUg

    Xiaofeng Wang, a Chinese computer scientist and cybersecurity professor who has worked at the university for more than 20 years, “is considered to be one of the most prominent systems security and privacy researchers,” according to his profile on Indiana University’s website…

    As reported by the Bloomingtonian and later the Herald-Times in Bloomington, a small fleet of unmarked cars driven by government agents descended on the Bloomington home of Wang and Ma on Friday. They spent most of the day going in and out of the house and occasionally transferred boxes from their vehicles. TV station WTHR, meanwhile, reported that a second home owned by Wang and Ma and located in Carmel, Indiana, was also searched. …

    Attempts to locate Wang and Ma have so far been unsuccessful. An Indiana University spokesman didn’t answer emailed questions asking if the couple was still employed by the university and why their profile pages, email addresses, and phone numbers had been removed. The spokesman provided the contact information for a spokeswoman at the FBI’s field office in Indianapolis.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      They got called home to the mother ship?

    2. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

      (I didn’t read the article you linked.)

      Are they suspected of being agents for the Chinese government and left quickly before they could be apprehended?

  31. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hundreds-of-voter-fraud-cases-in-key-state/ss-AA1C6hFg

    After a Nevada report revealed 303 cases in which individuals allegedly attempted to cast multiple ballots, officials have launched investigations. While no second ballots have been counted, the state is treating the actions as felony offenses. Some of the cases have been referred to external agencies for further investigation, with five closed and 298 still active.

  32. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago


    Vivid.
    @VividProwess
    I can’t believe my eyes. Lesley Stahl had the audacity to ask a Jewish hostage, who was tortured and starved by Hamas, if Hamas really meant to starve him or if they just didn’t have enough food.

    Is this a joke? How the hell can she even ask him that?
    Video

    https://x.com/VividProwess/status/1906774317150433329

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   2 months ago

      Once met a Japanese businessman (born after WWII) who maintained that the Bataan Death March was simply a result of a lack of trucks.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        said hello to an old-timer at a golf club in Palm Springs Saturday morning & complained to him about it being cold he said “there’s a nip to the air just like Pearl Harbor”

    2. mad.casual   2 months ago

      Is this a joke? How the hell can she even ask him that?

      If she’d said “April Fools! Of course they had food! But they probably only had enough fuel for the generators for a couple of days… just kidding again! Seriously, even if they didn’t have food, that doesn’t really justify or explain beating, torturing, or even really taking hostages in the first place.” I’d probably actually tune in to 60 min. to see it.

      Edit: “So, let’s change the topic; I hear Ukraine is going to win the war any day now!”

      1. JohnZ   2 months ago

        And Putin is about to be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity! The Russian Army is collapsing as Ukraine bombs Moscow into surrender!
        Zellensky is made permanent ruler of Ukraine.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Stupid and/or vicious cunt.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        did he … punch her in the face?

    4. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      Gee, Lesley, if they didn’t have food to feed the hostages, they surely could have just…let the hostages go?

  33. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

    ‘Absolutely wild piece from The Atlantic…’

    Those guys are on a roll.

  34. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

    Another Appeals Court overrules District Courts in favor of Trump.

    ———

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump has the constitutional right to fire officials from supposedly “independent” federal agencies.

    Court Affirms Presidential Authority

    The court ruled 2-1 that Trump can remove Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, despite lower court rulings that had attempted to block these firings.

    Judge Justin Walker, writing for the majority, based the decision on constitutional principles.

    “Article II of the Constitution vests the ‘executive Power’ in ‘a President of the United States’ and requires him to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” the judge wrote. “To protect individual liberty, the Framers created a President independent from the Legislative Branch.’”

    The decision overturned orders from two district judges who had ruled that Trump lacked the authority to remove these Biden appointees. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, joined Walker in the majority opinion.

    The ruling represents a significant affirmation of presidential authority to control the executive branch and ensure that appointed officials faithfully implement the administration’s policies.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      It is amazing that roberts continues to not call out these TROs even as the apellate overturned them. Not doing so continues to allow political judges to add costs and delays based on nonsense.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        we know who he is are you still amazed?

        1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

          I’m amazed he had the gall to try to say nothing can be done by anyone else against these judges while not doing a thing about the judges.

          If that is his stance he should have remained quiet.

          1. Dillinger   2 months ago

            must be strange to believe oneself untouchable I suppose it may lead to bizarre behavior

          2. damikesc   2 months ago

            Trump, at this point, has to simply ignore them. He had more TRO’s against him in the first two months of this term than were issued in the 20th Century…combined.

            It is up to Roberts to maintain the credibility of the judiciary. If he refuses, it is not Trump’s job to treat them seriously.

            1. Dillinger   2 months ago

              second.

  35. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) just filibustered for 25 hours

    all those complete games thrown by A’s pitchers and saved by Dennis Eckersley are fucking statistical granite.

  36. Dillinger   2 months ago

    bigger star, Val Kilmer or Richard Chamberlain?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 months ago

      Is this like “Quein es mas macho?”

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        no literally asking. two giants died back-to-back

    2. JohnZ   2 months ago

      Played Jim Morrison very well.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        owns Doc Holliday. I can recite Real Genius …

      2. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

        Probably because he was on the Sam amount of drugs as Morrison at the time

    3. Marshal   2 months ago

      Depends on your age: Chamberlain for Boomers and Kilmer for GenX and younger.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        fair. I remember every lady swooning all day because Thorn Birds & Shogun

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 months ago

          God, no kidding. I was in elementary school when The Thorn Birds was broadcasting, and that damn thing was catnip for the surburban mommy set. I think buying the book made them feel more sophisticated than the pulpy trash romance novels they normally purchased.

          1. Dillinger   2 months ago

            perfectly apt recap of the times it’s like you lived on my street lol.

      2. Jefferson Paul   2 months ago

        This is the first I’ve heard of this Richard Chamberlain. Val Kilmer I’m very familiar with.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic (Sarcasia’s disloyal opposition)   2 months ago

          Familiar with both, but never saw things like The Thorn Birds. I usually think of Richard Chamberlain as Alexander McKeag in Centennial.

    4. One-Punch_Man   2 months ago

      While I love me some Real Genius, Chamberlain. Besides movies , he did mini-series like Shotgun and Thorn Birds which are loved. Also, I didn’t know, he was a teen idol, singer, and worked stage and musicals.

      Kilmer has some well known rolls – Iceman, Doc Holiday, cough Batman but most don’t know him for much else. He was difficult to work with too (rumor at least)

      Boomers remember Chamberlain. I’m Gen X so I know Kilmer better

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   2 months ago

        Kilmer has some well known rolls – Iceman, Doc Holiday, cough Batman but most don’t know him for much else. He was difficult to work with too (rumor at least)

        Most of that reputation comes from the time period he was working on “Island of Dr. Moreau,” and I believe that was largely due to his marriage falling apart, plus the general dysfunction of having to work around the quirks of the way-past-his-prime Brando and all the drama HE was causing. The Doors was a chaotic set as well, but that’s to be expected with a Stone production.

        And “Batman Forever” is essential viewing if only for the presence of Peak Nicole Kidman.

      2. Dillinger   2 months ago

        >>teen idol, singer, and worked stage and musicals.

        ya that’s why I was asking “bigger star?” also I don’t remember any chicks ever saying “ooh that Val Kilmer gets me something” … Val’s famed roles are all from guy movies I can also recite Top Secret … and clearly Chamberlain was a hit with the fairer viewers

        1. mamabug   2 months ago

          Well I, for one, as a teenage girl wanted the Iceman to cometh…

          1. Dillinger   2 months ago

            thank you! I was more into Molly Ringwald lol

  37. JohnZ   2 months ago

    Proven member of MS-13. End of argument!
    Off you go!

    1. Nelson   2 months ago

      That’s a very loose definition of “proven” you’ve got there.

  38. Dillinger   2 months ago

    Taibbi is pleasant when he is a +1

  39. Dillinger   2 months ago

    >>Pivot to Alaska:

    if there’s a way to negotiate the NIH job to the spring & summer months only I’d take it

  40. Dillinger   2 months ago

    just watched a Guilty or Innocent on A&E where a Wisconsin jury put a man away for life in what was the easiest Stand Your Ground defense in the history of criminal law I suggest everyone stay the fuck out of Wisconsin forever anyway

    edit: no Alpine Valley ever again sorry phish

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   2 months ago

      Well Rittenhouse had to cross a state line to get there but he was found not guilty. Outside of Madison and Milwaukee the cheese heads are pretty cool.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        used to play in a soccer tournament in Lacrosse too … I mostly kid but I still am wary about Alpine Valley

    2. Nelson   2 months ago

      “ no Alpine Valley ever again”

      Right? I saw my first concert there, hitchhiked up from Chicago. I had fond memories of it.

      I went back for PJ20 in 2011 and couldn’t believe how steep the lawn was. You need goddamned rappelling gear to avoid sliding down the hill and taking everyone out at the knees.

      Another illusion of youth shattered.

      1. Dillinger   2 months ago

        that lawn is bananas idk what they were thinking outside of Keystone Cops

  41. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    Who is Kilmar…

    He’s your huckleberry.

  42. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    …since 2019, married to a U.S. citizen, with a 5-year-old autistic child.

    At this point I think we can just assume an American child is autistic unless otherwise stated.

    1. JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)   2 months ago

      It is becoming like Britain where a large percentage of parents declare their kids to be somehow disabled to get more government funding.

    2. mad.casual   2 months ago

      In my head, I’ve been substituting “autism” with “inconvenient” for almost 10 yrs. now.

      It’s not like you get “5-yr. old diabetic child” or “5-yr. old asthmatic child” or “5-yr. old child with halitosis”. If the MSM is any indication, the diseases of autism and transgenderism have an R0 of 50 and childhood cancer is long since defeated.

  43. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    Abrego Garcia’s wife is suing the Trump administration and asking a judge to order the U.S. government to get the government of El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia.

    Only if he can bring value to the WNBA.

    1. damikesc   2 months ago

      The judge is always free to ask them.

      I bet Bukele would take the request seriously.

  44. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    If you’re a family of 4 earning ~$100,000 annually in NYC, you now officially qualify for Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects…

    Pretty soon there will be no one left to mow their lawns and pick their fruit in NYC.

  45. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) just filibustered for 25 hours, breaking the record formerly held by Strom Thurmond.

    Good company.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   2 months ago

      I see what you did there.

  46. Fist of Etiquette   2 months ago

    the trump admin firing a bunch of NIH leadership and offering to relocate them to alaska if they want to keep their jobs is the funniest thing they’ve done so far

    Suck it, NIH’ers. And Alaska, apparently. You’re officially a punishment now.

  47. mad.casual   2 months ago

    The best anti-ICE/pro-immigration argument I’ve seen in months.

    The second best anti-ICE/pro-immigration argument I’ve seen in months.

  48. JohnZ   2 months ago

    So far ICE is doing what they need to be doing.
    More to come, I mean go.
    Recently I read that TdA was deliberately infiltrated into the U.S. to create chaos.

  49. NCMB   2 months ago

    I don’t believe there is any question that Garcia entered the US illegally in 2011. I don’t believe there is any question that a judge determined in 2019 he was subject to deportation, but not to El Salvador per existing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) status for that country.

    The greater question is why is their a blanket TPS status for El Salvador? TPS for El Salvador was initially granted in 2001 following the impacts of two earthquake in the country causing widespread damage. The TPS has been extended numerous time, most recently in January 2025 by the outgoing administration, “due to ongoing conditions from those disasters and other geological and weather events.”

    The earthquakes happened almost 24 years ago. The weather in El Salvador is what it is. Why has the TPS status been allowed to remain?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'

Jacob Sullum | 6.6.2025 2:50 PM

Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.

Billy Binion | 6.6.2025 1:51 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!