Dacafreude

A new word, coined from DHS v. Regents and Biden v. Trump

|

dacafreude

noun

enjoyment obtained when your opponents are bothered by precedent that previously bothered you.

Examples of dacafreude in a sentence

Conservatives who lost in DHS v. Regents felt dacafreude when the Biden Administration's rescission of "Remain in Mexico" failed under the Regents test.

First known use of dacafreude

Today.

NEXT: Flashback: My Impromptu Lecture on Citizens United from January 21, 2010

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

  1. Everything about the lawyer profession is really annoying. It stinks. It's in failure. It takes our $trillion and returns nothing of value. Its treasonous, failed, elite hierarchy, a bunch of Ivy indoctrinated, big government, little tyrant, low life scumbags, needs to be decapitated.

    1. "Everything about the lawyer profession is really annoying."

      Especially the sniping from wannabees.

      1. Oh, so non-lawyers are not allowed to criticize lawyers?

        I suggest you, a lawyer, are not allowed to criticize non-lawyers.

        1. Criticism is OK.

          What DB does isn't criticism.

          It's oral diarrhea.

          1. JP's rebuttal is as useful as Queenie's -- content free insults.

            If DB is so easy to rebut, why does no one rebut him?

            Or simply ignore him.

            The answer is obvious to everyone else -- they are wannabe dictators who can't stand anyone else doing anything they disapprove of.

            1. "Everything about the lawyer profession is really annoying. It stinks. It’s in failure. It takes our $trillion and returns nothing of value. Its treasonous, failed, elite hierarchy, a bunch of Ivy indoctrinated, big government, little tyrant, low life scumbags, needs to be decapitated."

              You can't rebut crazy.

              1. Once the "mute" function was enabled, DB was the first to go. I used it on one other so far. Ackenberg, I think (it's not at all worth the time to look this up). [Genuine apologies if I am mixing up Ackenberg with the person I actually Muted...it's the poster who does nothing but troll, with really extreme anti-Semetic rants.]

                Life has been 0.3% less stressful since getting rid of David B on this site. It's a bit of a mystery when I see a string of his nested rants (with the actual posts all invisible to me, natch), but then I do see the responses from normal people. But what is life without a bit of mystery, yes?

        2. It's not that he's a non-lawyer, it's that he's a wannabe. I would bet a week's pay that he's a law school reject.

          1. Still makes him a non-lawyer who is not allowed to criticize lawyers. Why do you deny that, then confirm it?

            1. It's not that he's not allowed. Anybody is allowed to criticize anyone they like. It's that if my theory that he's a law school reject is correct, then that provides important context for his criticisms and suggests they should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially given the over-the-top obsession he seems to have with the legal profession.

              I've had the experience of seeing there were six or eight comments on a thread, opened the comments expecting to see intelligent discourse, only to be disappointed that they were all Behar rants (frequently off topic) about the legal profession. And at this point, that's my biggest objection to him; he clutters up threads with multiple column inches of anti-lawyer drivel.

              1. Mute him then, or just don't respond.

                He'll get tired eventually if no one responds.

                1. I agree with your prescription, if not necessarily your prognosis.

            2. He’s allowed to criticize. Everyone else is allowed to draw inferences about him from his criticisms, judge his credibility, and make their own comments about it.

              1. BEHARED
                noun
                To see the post of someone you have muted because your sign-in to the reason site has lapsed.

                1. The site should add a like button just for your comment.

          2. Krykry. I have a law degree. I know where the lawyer lives. I want him evicted. Every self stated goal of every law subject is in failure. Imagine a car mechanic. He repairs 10% of broken cars. 20% of those repairs are for the wrong problem. He chrgesa $trillion for this quality of work. What should done? Stay civil?

            1. Besides rent seeking, name a lawyer function that wotks. That would rebut my point. In rent seeking, the lawyer takes our $trillion and returns nothing of value. Indeed, any national succees has had to overcome lawyer obstruction.

  2. DAPA- Unconstitutional; DACA- Essential, even though Congress could have fixed it since 2017. Trump was right, again. Might as well admit it, since 2020, President Trump, has been proven correct; over, and over again.

    1. " Congress could have fixed it since 2017."

      Please provide evidentiary support for this claim, or the subordinate claim that Congress could have fixed ANYTHING since 2017, or that Congress could have DONE ANYTHING since 2017.

      Resolving DACA legislatively would have been useful, and approximately 50% of Congress objects most strongly to doing anything useful.

      1. There's been a budget for the past four years. Legislation gets passed. It may not be the legislation you want.

        1. I don't know what you are defending with your comment. But it is close to irrelevant.
          Noting that Congress has passed Omnibus spending bill is no credit to the Congress as the alternative is the stopage of the Federal government.

      2. In other words, if you can't get what you want from a stale-mated Congress, executive orders are just fine.

        1. I'm pretty sure that that was the Republican approach until November 2020. Something about a wall and a state of emergency. (And until 2016 it was the Democratic approach, etc.)

  3. Neotwitism

    noun

    An invented word, coined for the purpose of attracting attention on social media, typically in response to the news of the day.

  4. Ugh.

    "A new word, coined from DHS v. Regents and Biden v. Trump"

    Biden v. Trump, you say? Now there's some 100% Blackman!

    Do you know what would be useful? If someone, with an understanding of this area of the law (not Blackman, who is tries to be a jack of many trades and gets pwned in all of them) actually did a deep dive into the full ramifications of the use of this decision, both in Regents and now in Biden v. Texas, with the procedural differences (full briefing, "shadow docket") and the overall ramifications if this continues, regardless of what party controls the executive.

    I know this is an old-fashioned belief, but you should really hope that people understand that the law is process, not just the result, and that process will continue to apply. If you are just looking at the results as shouting, "Scoreboard! Liberal Tears!" you might be missing something important.

    IMO, YMMV, etc.

    1. If someone, with an understanding of this area of the law (not Blackman . . .

      You know, there are really only two choices here:

      1. You understand this area of the law enough to make the above statement, in which case you'd be capable of doing your research project yourself (and hopefully sharing it with us, since we know you're really into sharing your thoughts around here).

      2. You don't understand this area of the law enough to make the above statement, in which case...

      1. 1. Posting a comment on the blog is not the same as doing a thorough work-through of the issues. Loki (and every other commenter here) probably has time for one, but not the other.

        2. He’s perfectly capable of understanding enough law to know that Blackman doesn’t understand an area of the law well. In fact that’s actually pretty easy to do. For instance, I’m not an expert on the Fourth Amendment. But I know enough to know that Orin generally knows it inside and out and that if I saw a Blackman post on the same subject it would be a much weaker analysis based on a facile understanding of the issues.

        1. Loki (and every other commenter here) probably has time for one, but not the other.

          Taking that as correct, then who around here is going to respond to his barking that "somebody" should do it?

          For instance, I’m not an expert on the Fourth Amendment. But I know enough to know that Orin generally knows it inside and out and that if I saw a Blackman post on the same subject it would be a much weaker analysis

          You can wrap as much language around it as you want to, but if you don't understand the issues yourself then you don't actually know the degree to which someone else does or doesn't understand them -- you're just picking a favorite based on your priors.

          1. You can know enough to know who is credible on a topic and who is not. Who speaks with knowledge and who doesn’t. It’s why I go to a medical doctor rather than a naturopath.

            I mean Blackman gets some super basic stuff about law and litigation wrong all the time. So it’s easy to see why he’s not credible on issues.

            https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/18/former-wh-counsel-i-regularly-spoke-with-outside-lawyers-particularly-law-professors-about-difficult-legal-issues/#comments

            Here he is misunderstanding how lawyers approach problems (they talk with other lawyers about issues all the time!) and how attorney client privilege works.

            1. As I said -- picking a favorite (or here, the opposite) based on your priors. No matter how hard you work to fluff up those priors, the basic logical dilemma remains.

              1. There’s no logical dilemma in recognizing Blackman is out of his depth compared to other more knowledgeable people.

                1. Given this bit of circular ipse dixit, I have no choice but to question your grasp of logical dilemmas.

                  1. And I have to quesjton how you function in life at all given your insistence that you can’t use your own knowledge to assess the reputation of others.

                  2. Let’s say you’re charged with a felony in state court, and your options are 1) the public defender or 2) Josh Blackman. Who are you going to pick?

                2. Lawyering has got to be one of the biggest rackets. You clowns claim to be right and your opponents wrong, yet learned justices render split decisions after months of deliberations, snipe at each other's wrongness in their opinions, and go from 1-2 splits to en banc splits because some of the rest of the justices threw a petty tantrum from not being on the 1-2 panel and want to set things right. The Supreme Court will never admit mistakes, leaving horrible decisions in place for centuries, yet they nibble away at the edges like rats chewing cookies.

                  XKCD had it right

                  1. Split opinions prove the law is a racket?

                    Did you cat Behar disease?

        2. I can't see who you're responding to - life is better with non-substantive people on mute - but in terms of this issue, I would love to see Prof. Adler to a deep dive on this.

          He has commented before, so I know he disapproves of both Regents and the instance decision, but I'd be curious to see what he thinks about the future effects of this precedent given that it has been used again.

          I don't always agree with Adler, but I do respect his analysis in this area of the law.

          1. Adler would be the good one for the deep APA dive. Somin for the human implications. Baude/Bray for remedies/federal courts/shadow docket stuff.

            And none of them would be childishly snide about any of this stuff.

          2. life is better with non-substantive people on mute

            "I can't HEEEEEAR you, neener neener!" is not a particularly good look for someone at any age, much less an apparent grown adult.

            Nor is your apparent regard of yourself as generally contributing substance around here rather than self-important noise wrapped in angry, condescending invective.

            1. He's still not listening to you.

        3. Actually, let me give you a great example I just remembered.

          I had a professor in law school who was one of the most brilliant people I have ever met. He's one of the people cited in the "most cited" scholars that was just posted, but he was undeniably brilliant. Not just (ahem) South Texas College of Law smart.

          Anyway, while I was there he ended up getting personally wrapped up in a legal matter that was outside of his area of expertise. And he decided to handle it himself (because, again, brilliant). Thing was- his brilliance and general knowledge of the law and ability to read cases and treatises didn't make up for actual knowledge of a specific and complex area of state law.

          It ended badly for him. Which is something I remember- the best attorneys (and anyone in the legal field) knows not just what they know, but also the very real limits of their knowledge.

          1. Knowing enough to know you don’t know is an essential skill in law (and life). But you can learn enough to know who is generally more likely to get you the better answers that you need. This isn’t full-proof of course, because no approach to life is. You might be following bad advice ultimately or misjudge someone else’s knowledge. I know enough about the human body to know a doctor should treat me when I’m sick but I could certainly ultimately misjudge their ability to diagnose correctly.

            When it comes to the law, even in areas I’m not an expert in, I’m pretty confident that I’m making the right choice in thinking Blackman isn’t going to give me a lot of credible or knowledgeable analysis compared to pretty much any other professor. Maybe he’d be the best on SCOTUS trivia night though,

            1. "Maybe he’d be the best on SCOTUS trivia night though,"

              Heh.

              Back in the day, I told another law school student that Learned Hand was the name that judges use when they don't want to sign their names to opinions; you know, like Alan Smithee!

              I thought that they got the joke! Unfortunately, they thought I was being serious, and argued that point with one of their professors.

              I kind of feel bad? But not really.

            2. " Maybe he’d be the best on SCOTUS trivia night though, "

              Not if Art Hellman were present.

            3. Knowing enough to know you don’t know is an essential skill in law (and life).

              Agree 100%.

              A serious question: How do you sense that you don't know?

              1. I think there comes a moment when you realize just how vast the amount of information in a particular field is and how much it would take to even learn a little. Especially if you learn a little about the process of how the experts obtain knowledge. You might think you know how the universe works because you read Stephen Hawking in high school, but your intro to mechanics class and lab makes you realize just how much there is to learn and know about an object moving in a straight line. Or thinking you know American history because you got a 5 on the AP US History test and then taking a class on historiography and realizing just how much it takes to be a historian and how much there is to know.

                1. So, when you make the realization of the vastness and breadth of a topic, that is the proverbial 'moment of truth'. I have had similar experiences, LTG. In those briefest moments of truth, when I made that initial realization (the vastness of something), I found some of my greatest life insights. To be honest, emotionally it is humbling, leaving me with a sense of awe. Strange, right?

    2. "with the procedural differences (full briefing, “shadow docket”)"

      I take it you don't have a clue what's going on?

      DACA:
      District Court enjoined Trump from ending DACA. Appeals and SC left DC ruling in place

      MPP:
      District Court enjoined Biden* from ending MPP. Appeals and SC left DC ruling in place

      Now since the first happened many years ago, we've already had the Appeals Court and SCOTUS get the cases fully briefed and enter full decisions. We'll eventually get there with MPP, we're just not there yet.

      But so far there's no procedural differences between the two

  5. I must say that I enjoyed hearing a round of liberal pundits complaining about national injunctions...

    1. Did anyone else hear them or was this just in that guy's head?

  6. Oh, for God's sake! This process has been going on for decades in American politics & forever in human affairs. The curse of one party in power is visited on its opponent when the tables are turned. Dog bites man. You don't need to invent a word for that.

    Here's a heads-up to the Trumpites : You're not Special, no matter how much you gaze lovingly in the mirror. Other presidents get investigated. Other presidents get slapped down by the courts. Other presidents survive bad press. Other presidents lose elections.

    Once you understand every bungling mishap wasn't caused by "demonic forces" no one in history ever faced before, then you're ready for the larger truth: Your hero is nothing more than a moronic huckster buffoon.

    1. In fairness, and some time ago, I thought that people were just making this stuff up. After all, who could believe some of the stuff that we were seeing! Whether it's the shadowy cabal of demonic child molesters, or the constant claims that Trump was somehow involved in a secret plan (with Mueller) to arrest all of DC, or most recently, how Trump previewed the whole bit about how we was going to cry election fraud long before he did.

      The worst was the sheer number of falsifiable predictions that kept being made, and then kept being falsified. It would be like a doomsday cult that kept saying, "The end of the world will occur tomorrow." And then when it didn't, they'd say, "Oh, we meant tomorrow, as in... tomorrow! Just wait and see."

      It's ridiculous, right? Just transparently so. And yet, here we are. I'm at the point where I just have no idea any more who is a huckster, spreading lies that they know are untrue, who is a hanger-on, just trying to stay on the periphery by not acting against the lies, and who is a true believer. I'm not even sure those gradations matter anymore?

      1. I'm old enough to remember a time when conservatives claimed to be the adults, injecting realism into the wild-eyed dreaminess of liberals who were going to change the world for good. Now all they have is "we're against whatever they're for!", whether the "it" that "they" are for is treating people as if they were people, or just maybe not going to other countries to blow things up and kill people unless there was a really good reason for it.

        You have a batch of people who make money by pushing at the levers of political power, and those people convince their fans that it's "the other guys" who do that. At some point, the people have to stop listening to the bullshit-peddlers, or we're going to have that civil war that Special Ed keeps longing for. Except, he's not going to like how it turns out. The religious nuts beat America in unchanged-sience-12th-century Afghanistan, where there was no history of freedom. The religious nuts won't have it so easy in 21st-century America. Yes, I compared the American religious nuts to the Afhani religious nuts. The shoe fits.

        1. The modern left is more like the Taliban than the right. Instead of a religion based in tradition and history that is being enforced though, they are using authoritarian rule to make every march in lock step to their woke agenda. Not much of a philosophical difference there except Islam at least has some credibility based upon past precedent.

          1. blah blah whu?

          2. After observing a bunch of superstition-shackled, gay-bashing, half-educated, misogynistic, gun-fondling yahoos like the Taliban, an American right-winger thinks ‘those guys remind me of Democrats, liberals, and left-wingers.’

            Some may think I am too hard on these pathetic Republican clingers . . . and they are wrong.

    2. Fact: FBI fabricated evidence to get FISA warrants against Trump.
      Fact: FBI handwaved away Clinton's violations of classified material handling.
      Fact: Federal Prosecutor delayed Hunter Biden probe "to not affect 2020 election".

      Strange how all these decisions have gone one way. Let me know when a government agency falsified evidence against Biden/Harris.

      1. BillyG : "Fact: ... (gibberish follows) ... "

        Fact : The FBI did not "fabricated evidence to get FISA warrants against Trump." Nothing in that statement is correct. The DOJ Inspector General found the FBI failed to include exculpatory evidence while pursing a warrant against one man, Carter Page.

        This was the second FBI FISA warrant against Page; the first one predated any involvement with Trump. Yep - Page was under investigation as a possible Russian spy before he had the slightest connection to either Trump or his campaign. By the time of the second warrant, all involvement between Page and Trump (or his campaign) was already over.

        Fact : There was zero chance Clinton would face charges because no one else has for anything similar. Clinton would have been charged over receiving email that the sender(s) and herself both thought unclassified, but was subsequently classified by later review. Her server is a red-herring because (a) it wasn't illegal (both her predecessors also used private email for public business) and (b) the State Department's normal .gov email would be no less liable under the law for classified messages.

        So dozens or hundreds of people would have faced charges under the same logic - everyone included in any given email chain. Probably thousands of items have their classification status changed every year & no one faces criminal penalty. Clinton received greater scrutiny than normal over this, not less. You're 100% ass-backwards wrong.

        Fact: The Hunter Biden probe was underway both before and after the election. The prosecutor delayed public actions immediately before an election because that's official DOJ policy, James Comey notwithstanding. Given the absence of results in the ten months following the election, what exactly are claiming? You're whining over the one thing - a splashy new public investigation on the eve of an election - which DOJ regs specifically forbids.

      2. Fact: BillyG is poor at recognizing facts.

    3. I'm curious, grb, do you aim the same ire at Democrats whining about the filibuster now that they're trying to pass laws? At the Democrats whining about Garland not being confirmed? Whining about ACB being confirmed?

      Here's what's actually dog bites man:
      Democrats in their lust for power destroy yet another standard, then whine like babies when the GOP does to them what they first did to the GOP

      The idea that President Trump couldn't simply wipe out a previous Executive Order with a new Executive order is fundamentally insane, and a violation of all previous history. But that's what the Left and Roberts brought us with "Regents".

      Well, now the insanity is biting the Left, and the Left is whining as usual.

      So we're mocking you losers, again as usual.

      Suck it up, buttercup

      1. Getting stomped in the culture war by your betters, and knowing you must spend the rest of your life continuing to comply with the preferences of better Americans, seems to have made you cranky, Greg J.

        Open wider, clinger. And try to be nicer, lest we start positioning the progress sideways before shoving it down your whimpering, bigoted, right-wing throat.

  7. Josh getting enjoyment about people’s lives being held in limbo because constitutional litigation is just a game to him is classic Josh.

    The moral bankruptcy of the most morally bankrupt conspirator continues.

    1. The insufferable scolding of the most insufferable scold commenter continues.

      1. Someone needs to do it. No one scolded and shamed you or Josh in your lives for your odious views. That’s why you’re morally bankrupt people who delight in the misery of others. Those people are the real insufferable ones. Again: in real life people don’t want to hang out with Eric Cartman.

        1. Again: in real life, half the country hates you. That doesn't give you the right to run their lives.

          1. Ummmmm what? I’m not running anyone’s lives. And why would anyone hating me give me a right to run their lives. This makes no sense. Also half the country doesn’t know me. In fact, a minuscule amount of the country does, so what’s their “hate” even based on?

            1. Bob accused you of scolding. Your response? "Someone needs to do it." And you call the people you don't like "morally bankrupt".

              All the hallmarks of a scolding dictator.

              1. He doth protest too much about how moral he is.

                Red flag I'd say.

                1. Protest what Bob? I’m just more moral than you (and Josh) specifically . It’s a low freaking bar. I don’t take delight in and make childish remarks about the misery of others. You two do. It’s documented. You’d be as moral as me if you stopped doing things like that. Or maybe even apologized for it in the past. It’s honestly not hard.

                  1. People who claim how moral they are usually are not dude.

                    You are the married man who always brags how faithful he is when he is sleeping with his mistress.

                    1. And you are the asshole who thinks that just because he admits he is an asshole, that its okay to be an asshole. But it's not okay and I'm calling you out on it.

                      I want you to read this carefully and consider responding thoughtfully:

                      I post some horrific facts about qualified immunity cases (including, sexual assault, dog mauling, shooting, etc.) You respond "Need a tissue." And then doubled down when I questioned your character. How was I not the better person in that exchange?

                      Or the time I described how emotionally difficult it is to see someone remanded into custody is and how difficult it is to look at the grief of crime victims or their bodies. Your response was to call me: "Weak" "Pathetic" and "Fool." How was I not the better person in that exchange?

                      I criticize you for your low morality because you routinely display it. It's not me bragging about being the most moral, it's about you failing to clear a really low hurdle. It's about you actually delighting in pain, not just even justifying it. You think it's bragging when I'm just pointing out that you don't display even minimal levels of human morality in your comments here.

                    2. It's not the 'moral' part that bothers him, it's the 'scold.' Poor thing.

                    3. "People who claim how moral they are usually are not dude."

                      So you are confessing to being not dude? I "Bob" short for Roberta?

                  2. Like Andrew Cuomo, I just wonder what terrible things you hide from your real life.

                    1. You don't even have a response to my criticisms do you? You know you behaved poorly but can't admit it so you have to project your own cynicism onto me and I assume I am hiding something dark and evil. It is wrong and disgusting for you to react the way you do to human tragedy. I'm just calling you out on it. Again, not saying "need a tissue" after describing the facts of a child being shot is a low bar of character to clear, and you couldn't even manage that. Maybe try apologizing or acknowledging that was in poor taste?

                      Stop projecting your own open darkness onto me and assume I'm hiding something. It makes you look even worse.

                    2. Bob, everyone has some dark and petty impulses, but most pull them back, while you lean in.

                      It's not that other people are as venal as you and but you're the only one who is honest about it.

                    3. "You don’t even have a response to my criticisms do you?"

                      I choose not to make one. I don't owe you anything.

                      Anyone who brags as much as you do about non verifiable morals is 100% hiding something.

                      Bill Clinton was very vocal about his empathy and concerns about women as a group but behaved poorly to multiple actual women.

                      That is your type. Secret hypocrite.

                    4. You just can't grapple with the fact that I'm in the right here and you are wrong. You were disgusting and showed poor character in your comments about human tragedy so you have to concoct this fantasy in your head that I'm a huge evil person and a secret hypocrite to boot to make yourself feel better. My beliefs about you are based on what you say and are proud of. Your beliefs about me are simply a reflection of your own cynicism projected onto me. Because if people aren't actually good, then you have an excuse not to be good either. This belief is a crutch for you.

                      And even if it was true, so what? You still debase yourself by your approach to life. You don't owe me anything, but you do owe yourself a long hard soul search as to why you say "need a tissue" to a discussion about children being shot. No matter how evil you think I am or actually am, it doesn't change the fact that this is how you approach life and this is something you are proud of.

              2. Yeah. I do. That’s not running their lives, dude. That’s just stating an opinion based on the things they’ve said and my own moral sensibilities. I’m not dictating anything. If I was, Bob would have improved. He obviously hasn’t, and has probably gotten worse.

                And you’re criticizing me right now and calling me a “scolding dictator.” But guess what! You’re not running my life right now, nor are you seeking to, and I would be really dumb to accuse you of that.

          2. "half the country hates you"

            Not half of the United States population is bitter, Trump-class clingers. Maybe 20 percent are half-educated, supersitious bigots, though. Thirty percent, tops.

            And the number of bitter clingers is declining, essentially daily. They are the dwindling losers in modern American society.

      2. Bob, that trophy got retired a long time ago. The Reverend's body of work may be beyond rivalry.

        That said, have you noticed how he from time to time slips in a bit of stylish commentary, just to show he can do it, and maybe to put his critics to shame? On balance, he seems a good deal smarter than the critics, but with a humane preference to respond in kind, instead of humiliating them gratuitously. He seems to want to avoid embarrassing them, by a show of talents which they may lack.

        1. You don’t get to correspond with the bloggers and commenters you would prefer . . . you respond to the bloggers and commenters you find. Little at this blog evokes elegance or deserves much more than scorn and mockery.

    2. The push for dictatorial executive power continues when argument alone doesn't persuade the public to elect the fawning partisans you want.

      1. Again. What? This is a complete non-sequitur to what I said.

        1. Josh blogs, you read it voluntarily, and complain because he doesn't write what you want. You appeal to the authority of his college not meeting your standards.

          Instead of just ignoring his comments, you and your ilk do nothing but whine, sneer, and insult.

          "Someone did something icky"
          "I don't like it"
          "I must stop it"
          "I will snipe and sneer and stamp my little feetsies"
          "Mommy make them stop it"

          1. What the fuck even is this comment? 1) I have never made fun of Josh’s school since I know from practical experience that school pedigree isn’t really hugely relevant. 2) You’re damn right I’m going to call out josh for taking a childish and bankrupt stance on an issue.

            “Instead of just ignoring his comments, you and your ilk do nothing but whine, sneer, and insult.”

            Why should I ignore them? They’re there and open to criticism. Do you ignore Somin posts? Or do you criticize him?

            And finally, the entire Trumpist right is based on whining sneering and insults. Have you ever listened to one of his speeches??????

            And more specifically: this post itself is a sneer! You’re doing it right now!

            1. I don't pretend I'm not insulting you. I'm proud to insult my wannabe self-proclaimed betters. I enjoy it. You guys rise to the bait and make it even more fun by pretending your not my wannabe betters, that your not moralistic prudes.

              1. “Instead of just ignoring his comments, you and your ilk do nothing but whine, sneer, and insult.”

                “ I don’t pretend I’m not insulting you. I’m proud to insult my wannabe self-proclaimed betters. I enjoy it. You guys rise to the bait and make it even more fun by pretending your not my wannabe betters, that your not moralistic prudes.”

                Which is it?

              2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf : I’m proud to insult my wannabe self-proclaimed betters.

                If you ever doubted that butthurt snowflake victimhood whinging lay behind this person's political "beliefs", the hand-delivered full confession above puts the question to rest.

          2. "Instead of just ignoring his comments, you and your ilk do nothing but whine, sneer, and insult.

            “'omeone did something icky'
            'I don’t like it'
            'I must stop it'
            'I will snipe and sneer and stamp my little feetsies'
            'Mommy make them stop it'"

            In what way is this different from what you are doing?

      2. Huh? The public elected the person whose policy is being challenged in this case.

        1. There are many parties involved in this case; which one (singular!) are you referring to? Obama, one person, instituted an unconstitutional policy by executive fiat when Congress (535 people representing 300 million people) refused to do it for him. Trump, one person, illegally reversed that policy, and his illegal order, unwinding another illegal order, was thrown out, while the original illegal order, was retained. Biden, one person, illegally reversed Trump's illegal order reversing the original illegal order.

          And you want us to believe that you actually believe this comes down to just one of those many many people.

          1. Which policy do you think this case is about?

    3. I know your political positions are morally bankrupt but what are mine? *sneers*

      1. My political positions are based on empathy and a duty not to hurt others. Josh thinks this is a game and ignores the human costs with childish glee. So yeah, I’m pretty comfortable saying he’s morally bankrupt compared to me. Call it a sneer if you want, but it doesn’t change those facts. And the Trumpist right calling anyone out for “sneering” is the ultimate act of log in eye. Zero credibility on that.

        1. Open borders because empathy, for the children etc, yeah yeah. Nobody is really actually buying this nonsense.

          1. Thank you for being a caricature of a mean-spirited right-winger who thinks that no one actually cares about other people, so that I don’t have to make one up.

            1. It's not that no one cares about other people, it's that no one of reasonable intelligence believes the ferocious open borders agenda is driven by that.

              1. What’s it driven by? White genocide?

                1. It's driven by cheap labor policy, multinational corporatism, and the open agenda for global government.

                  Of course, there are the odd wacky racists who express hostility based on race, or who intentionally distort facts for the purpose of agitating racial animosity and resentment. Who preach that a given race such as whites or blacks are inferior, morally or otherwise, who promote the subjugation or conquest of races they hate such as Jews for example, who celebrate the percentage decline of non-Hispanic whites in the US population due to post-1965 immigration policy like the SPLC's Mark Potok, or who generally assent or acquiesce to such ideas. But in the US at least, I think these people are nothing more than obnoxious fringe elements and agitators, on either side of the American political divide -- although their toxic agitations are occasionally co-opted as useful to someone or other.

                  1. Forget it ML, its obvious LTG does some very bad things in his personal life and compenstates with all the posturing and scolding he does here.

                    1. Like what? List some bad things you think I do Bob. Accuse me of crimes.

                    2. "Like what? "

                      Lots of possibilities.

                      You tell me.

                    3. Burden is on you, dude.

                  2. You're a nativist, ML. You have said you think even legal immigrants are not as good as true-blue natives.

                    1. I think that every government should put the interests of its citizenry first and foremost. I don't think that's super controversial, though plenty of folks disagree with it. You make up falsehoods on the internet.

                    2. I think treating residents like they've got rights makes for more good citizens.
                      I think immigration to the US continuing to be a thing is good. You, as I recall, don't.

                      I think treating naturalized citizens the same as natural born citizens would be uncontroversial as well. But you keep quoting that one economist who thinks immigration is bad for the economy.

                    3. I think immigration is a good thing, too. Too high levels of immigration, though, are bad for wages generally in any category and particularly bad for the overall financial interest of the lower and middle classes. That can be true even if the same levels of immigration are good for . . . "the economy." Aside from that of course, you have concerns about the rule of law and security with regard to illegal immigration, concerns about the timing and ensuring assimilation to cultural values of liberty, financial aspects of the welfare state and other increasing taxpayer burdens, costs of housing, education, and health care, and of course the simple short term politics of a party trying to import new voters. All of these things are variable, matters of degree and dependent on the particulars. What do you think is a good number of annual immigrants for the US currently, both legal and illegal? Seems like that's the million dollar question. Aside from that, any merit to these "merit-based" types of ideas, or other thoughts about immigration policy?

                    4. I'm pleased you're not as much of a hardliner as I recall.

                      But you talked about benefits briefly, and then talked about costs, as though there were benefits.

                      Which is a telling bias.

                    5. So what's the number?

                    6. I don't think a number is the right metric to use.

                      Do you often get people to fall for your 'what is the exact number' trap? Because it's not a very good one.

                    7. Well it's the main question of immigration policy, no way around it. If you have an opinion on the topic of immigration you ought to be able to give a range. Do you think the current amount of legal immigration is about right for a total? More, less?

                    8. Sarcastr0

                      1: What is wrong about favoring my fellow American citizens over everyone else in the world?

                      2: Legal immigrants who haven't assimilated to the US generally are not as good Americans as true blue Americans (by which I mean: not Democrats, not people who hate the written US Constitution).

                      What, you think passing a citizenship test is all you need to become a real American, as opposed to just a legal one?

                    9. Pretty cool Greg how you just get to decide some people don’t count as Americans (despite being a huge portion of the population, possibly over half any). I wonder if there are any other regimes in history who liked to exclude certain disfavored groups from the “nation” and what the consequences of that decision were.

                    10. Greg J : What is wrong about favoring my fellow American citizens over everyone else in the world?

                      Open your eyes, Greg, and you'll see your fellow American citizens are often like all those other people all over the world. That might free up your perspective a bit.

                      As for your tired old "assimilation" shtick, we've see that worn-out act so often before. MAGA's forefathers, the Know Nothing Party, insisted the Irish & Italians couldn't assimilate. We were told Chinese immigrants of the Nineteenth Century couldn't assimilate. Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler? It might be nice to let them in, but they just can't assimilate.

                      How many times can American history prove you wrong, Greg, before you look for a new excuse?

                    11. LawTalkingGuy:

                      Pretty cool Greg how you just get to decide some people don’t count

                      Why not, that's what the Left does all the time.

                      I'm a cis het white male, so according to the left I don't count. I'm not "diverse". Heck, by thinking for myself I'm a biggest threat to domestic safety, just ask the Biden* FBI.

                      I wonder if there are any other regimes in history who liked to exclude certain disfavored groups from the “nation” and what the consequences of that decision were.

                      Why don't you ask Twitter and Facebook? You know, the groups that won't allow Trump to speak there, but will allow the Taliban

                      Dude, you drive us out of everywhere you can, try to destroy our lives (cancel culture), destroy our businesses, force us to bow to you and kiss your feet.

                      If you think that hate isn't coming back to you, x 10, you're even more stupid than I think you are.

                    12. grb

                      Greg J : What is wrong about favoring my fellow American citizens over everyone else in the world?

                      Open your eyes, Greg, and you’ll see your fellow American citizens are often like all those other people all over the world. That might free up your perspective a bit.

                      No shit Sherlock.

                      but those people all over the world don't pay the taxes that fund my government, they don't join the military that protects my freedoms.

                      When I'm overseas, if I have a problem I have an expectation that I can go to the US Embassy to get help (now, with the Biden* Admin f'ups in charge, that's far less likely. But it may still be my best hope).

                      No one else's embassy is going to help me, because I'm not one of theirs.

                      I owe a greater moral duty to the people for whom I'm "one of theirs" than I do to those to whom I'm not.

                      So do you, but since you have no morals or morality, I'm sure that doesn't stop you.

                      As for your tired old “assimilation” shtick
                      Why thank you for establishing that you're an America hating PoS who wants to see America ripped apart in the kind of sectarian violence that destroy Yugoslavia

                      insisted the Irish & Italians couldn’t assimilate. We were told Chinese immigrants of the Nineteenth Century couldn’t assimilate. Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler? It might be nice to let them in, but they just can’t assimilate.

                      Make up your mind, a$$hole, are you for assimilation or against it?

                      Assimilation takes time, sh!t for brains, and will. i said nothing about inability, I said for those of whom haven't done it.

                      Learn how to read.

                      How many times can American history prove you wrong, Greg, before you look for a new excuse?

                      Well, 2017 proved that the reason why people in America without college degrees haven't been getting raises, is because massive immigration, both legal and illegal, has kept wages down for them.

                      Fear of Trump's immigration policies, plus the rational expectation that Trump was going to give criminal invaders the open door the way Obama did, caused an immediate drop in illegals in the US, and an almost immediate rise in wages for those without college degrees.

                      Trump set records for the lowest unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans, just by not letting as many criminal invaders in.

                      If you cared about your fellow Americans, even the ones not like you, you'd have learned from that.

                      So, the question is: are you too stupid to learn, or just too evil?

                    13. “Dude, you drive us out of everywhere you can, try to destroy our lives (cancel culture), destroy our businesses, force us to bow to you and kiss your feet.

                      If you think that hate isn’t coming back to you, x 10, you’re even more stupid than I think you are.”

                      Wow. I’m a straight cis white man and I can’t even imagine thinking any of this. Has it ever occurred to you that you’re not hated you just feel uncomfortable in a changing society and that you’re claiming other people are hateful to justify your own rage and desire for revenge?

                    14. "1: What is wrong about favoring my fellow American citizens over everyone else in the world?"

                      If your fellow Americans can compete better because they're Americans, then they don't need the help. If they can't compete better, you aren't really benefitting them by telling them that they are.

                      We've spent more than a century systematically drawing the best scientists and engineers here to America to design and build American products for Americans. OK, now they're being built in factories in China because the Chinese will work cheaper, but the products of American technology started here, because we brought the best and brightest here for education and training, particularly in our graduate schools. I want the best available engineer designing bridges over American rivers, and if that guy happens to be from Des Moines, great. If the best available guy is in Bangalore, also great, get him over here to study. If the best available engineer is currently fearing for her life in Kabul, get her over here. What the hell, lets get all the good engineers, so that we all can have fast Internet with effective security, and cars that run on water vapor and laptops that use less power than the desktops we had as kids.

                      "Legal immigrants who haven’t assimilated to the US generally are not as good Americans as true blue Americans (by which I mean: not Democrats, not people who hate the written US Constitution)."

                      Now that you've ruled out the two most popular political parties in the USA, who's left?

                    15. LawTalkingGuy
                      Wow. I’m a straight cis white man and I can’t even imagine thinking any of this.

                      That's because you're a left-wing PoS who thinks you're always going to get to make someone else pay for your policies.

                      Has it ever occurred to you that you’re not hated you just feel uncomfortable in a changing society

                      No:
                      https://thepostmillennial.com/25-public-school-districts-use-childrens-book-that-depict-whiteness-as-evil/

                      No, I have no problem with a society that constantly pushes the best up, and the worst down.

                      I have a great deal of problem with a society that defines "best" and "worst" based on skin color. And an even greater problem with massive racists (that would be you on the Left) claiming that their policies must be supported to "stop racism"

                    16. James Pollock
                      Me: “1: What is wrong about favoring my fellow American citizens over everyone else in the world?”

                      If your fellow Americans can compete better because they’re Americans, then they don’t need the help. If they can’t compete better, you aren’t really benefitting them by telling them that they are.

                      Wow, you really are stupid, aren't you.

                      1: You've just delivered the best argument for why "affirmative action" programs are bad: they take people who can't meet the standards, and put them in competition with people who can, thus guaranteeing they'll be failures

                      2: I favor my fellow Americans by protecting them against competition from people who are willing to take less to do the same job. Not because my fellow Americans are "better", but because they're my fellow Americans

                      OK, now they’re being built in factories in China because the Chinese will work cheaper, but the products of American technology started here

                      Except they Chinese required the companies to give up their technology to Chinese "partners" in order to take advantage of that "cheap" manufacturing.

                      China wins, America loses.

                      If you care about your fellow Americans, you're opposed to that.

                      I want the best available engineer designing bridges over American rivers

                      really? So you oppose all "affirmative action" programs? you reject all "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" programs? You demand that everyone ignore skin color and sex, and hire solely based on indiviudal merit?

                      I'm going to bet the answer is "no" on that. Feel free to prove me wrong.

                      Now that you’ve ruled out the two most popular political parties in the USA, who’s left?

                      You think you're a wit, but you're only 1/2 right.

                      Democrats support a "living" US Constitution, Republicans support the written one. Dumbsh!t

                    17. James Pollock,

                      I will congratulate you on your 9pathetically failed) attempt to reframe the issue.

                      The people criminally invading over the US Southern border aren't desperate civil engineers, lawyers, doctors, etc.

                      Those occupations are all protected by "professional boards" etc from foreign (and domestic) competition

                      What you're fighting for is for the foreign ditch digger, bus boy, crop picker, chicken plant worker to come in and drive down the prevailing wages for the American versions of the same

                      Not because you want a "better ditch", but because you want a cheaper one, and don't care how many of your fellow Americans get screwed over so that you can get it

                  3. M L : "and the open agenda for global government"

                    Methinks ML hears the buzzing whirl of black helicopters as they descend from the sky laden w/ jack-booted thugs to haul him off to a FEMA camp. I hear tinfoil wrapped tightly around the head protects against that sorta thing....

                    Tell us, ML : Since the "agenda for global government" is so open, why not lay out its players, objectives, principles and tactics? I concede a lot of people & companies enjoy cheap labor, but you'll need much more than that to make this fever dream float. Maybe some "globalists" - and we all know what type of people they are.

                    That is, if you even make the effort. I've observed a lot of people just love Conspiracy Speech, with its murky hints of secret plots and vast hidden forces. They don't care a whit if there's no reality behind what they say; they just like the way the words roll off their tongue. (a damn strange fetish if you ask me)

                    1. You certainly do seem to have a conspiracy fetish of some kind, but I'm not discussing any sort of conspiracy. Just referring to a host of opinions and policies that I disagree with. I'm not sure if you're ignorant or feigning ignorance.

                      This isn't some new thing. It's as old as history actually. But here's an article published over 20 years ago in TIME magazine. The author was Clinton's deputy secretary of state.

                      http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,160112,00.html

                      "Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I'll bet that within the next hundred years (I'm giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- "citizen of the world" -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st."

                    2. So your "open agenda for global government" is a deputy secretary of state's daydream musings to a reporter some twenty years ago ?!? Huh.

                      I don't want to be critical, but given your claim this is a major factor in the "ferocious open borders agenda", I'd kinda expect you to do better than that. And given there is ZERO evidence of any "open agenda for global government", I'd sure as hell like to see you try.

                      It would be fun to watch you dig for something at least in this decade, or scrounge for a source more relevant than a dozen-person commune in Lodge Grass, Montana, or hipster study group at some west-coast university.

                      After all, this is a driving force behind the "ferocious open borders agenda", right? Shouldn't you be able to produce a single atom's worth of evidence that anyone who believes in "global government" produced any policy that anyone listened too?

                    3. "'Here is one optimist’s reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I’ll bet that within the next hundred years (I’m giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century — “citizen of the world” — will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.'"

                      Go back a little further, and you can find

                      "Imagine there's no countries
                      and no religion, too
                      Nothing to kill, or die for"

                      What a horrible vision for the future. Nothing to kill for? Why go on living?

                    4. The article is just a good example of the viewpoint expressed by a lot of influential people who also, naturally, advocate for open borders. But yeah, that's just a part of what drives the de facto open borders policy instituted by our government and favored by influential interests while being disfavored by the overwhelming majority of Americans. A bigger part is, cheap labor policy, corporatism, and the simple politics of importing voters.

            2. Ah LawTalkingGuy, so you're both stupid, and evil.

              We right wingers actually do care about our fellow America citizens. You know, the ones who got lower unemployment and higher wages because Trump's policy of stopping criminals from invading the US meant that there weren't as many of them competing with legal Americans for jobs, so the bosses actually had to hire and pay more.

              Which is why Trump had the lowest levels of black and Hispanic unemployment ever measured in the US: because Trump actually cared about Americans.

              You, OTOH, only care about well off Americans who want to hire cheap Mexicans to do under the table work for them, not about the poorer Americans who lose out.

              The point is that YOU have no empathy for anyone you don't find convenient, including your fellow Americans.

              And if you actually gave a damn about the kids, you'd want them not being sold to coyotes and dragged along as an excuse to get criminals into America. But you don't

              1. This comment is so deranged it’s not worth responding to.

                1. Truth hurt, fuckface?

                  1. It’s not the truth because he made a bunch of assumptions cast as conclusions. But since a violent sociopathic racist freak like yourself is agreeing with him, I’ll take “stupid and evil” as a huge compliment.

                    1. And, since the assumptions are correct, you're unable to refute them.

                      So you run away, leaving a cloud of BS behind you

                    2. “ The point is that YOU have no empathy for anyone you don’t find convenient, including your fellow Americans.”

                      This wasn’t correct at all. I think I would know who I have empathy for better than you. Hint: it’s literally everyone including you. I actually feel bad that you feel so victimized by the changing world that it enrages you to the point of being a very hateful person. I hope you can sort of mellow out. Or at the very least not turn to violence and do harm to others or yourself.

                    3. "This wasn’t correct at all. I think I would know who I have empathy for better than you."

                      Nope. Because I get to see your preferred actions. And when your preferred actions directly make the lives of the people you claim you have "empathy" for worse, you're clearly lying about that empathy.

                      Whether you're lying to us, or to yourself, is irrelevant.

                      i pointed out how you're making people's lives worse. You didn't argue that point, because it's obviously true.

                      Case closed

                    4. lol you don’t know anything about me personally so you can’t say I’m making anything worse or better or anything. You’re just making up fantasies about me in your head.

                    5. Yo, shit for brains LTG,

                      i see the policies you support here.

                      Or are you claiming that everything you say here is a lie?

              2. "Ah LawTalkingGuy, so you’re both stupid, and evil."

                Whereas you are a greg, which is to say, amazingly stupid. And correspondingly belligerent about it. Like it's anyone else's fault that you insist on demonstrating stupidity for other people to see, first hand.

                "And if you actually gave a damn about the kids, you’d want them not being sold to coyotes and dragged along as an excuse to get criminals into America. But you don’t"

                Dimwit, you have coyotes because there are people who want to be in the USA, but don't have a way to do it that doesn't involve coyotes.
                Cut the coyotes out of the deal by providing a way to come here with no coyote involvement, and then you don't have to worry about what the coyotes do, because they won't be doing it here, they'll go to do something that pays better, like running American guns into Mexico. Whoops, there I go, showing no sympathy for the Americans who'd like that opportunity.

                As in so many other areas, I'm biased in favor of choices that actually achieve what we wanted to achieve.

                1. Gosh, what a brilliant idea!

                  We have criminal invaders who want to come to the US. So James says the way to fix this is to make it legal for them all to come to the US,

                  Go fuck yourself, James

      2. "I know your political positions are morally bankrupt but what are mine? *sneers*"

        Irrelevant, mostly.

    4. I don't care if these people's lives are in limbo. They don't belong here, white Americans don't want them, and they're genetically likely to be a burden on us. No mas.

      1. 0-3.

        In America, this means you're out on strikes. Sit down in the dugout until it's your turn again.

        1. 3-3. You're an idiot.

          1. but a 1.000 hitter. Ted Williams was a pretty good hitter, and he only managed .400.

    5. Conservatives are getting enjoyment because you left wing scumbags might actually be prevented from completely ignoring US Immigration law, because of sleazy things you did during teh Trump Admin.

      The moral bankruptcy of the Left continues

      1. Right but you realize this is about fleeing people being forced to wait in desperate circumstances on the border right? You want enjoyment over that?

        1. No, I realize this is about economic migrants who want into the US in violation of US immigration law.

          And I realize this is about Democrat scum who want to quickly turn them into voters so they can steal more elections

          And I realize this is about greedy amoral employers who want workers who will take less that the legal wage, while not being able to complain about bad working conditions since they're here illegally

          Real refugees would stop in Mexico

          1. Wow. Everyone is just out to get you, huh?

          2. "And I realize this is about Democrat scum who want to quickly turn them into voters so they can steal more elections"

            You poor dear. It's so much harder to make good arguments when you have to stick to facts, isn't it. Making up your own is so much easier. You have to learn to avoid looking for the easy way out. I don't want to say it's a moral failing on your part, even though it obviously is.

            "Real refugees would stop in Mexico"

            OK, so we'll just ignore the refugees who never set foot in Mexico until we sent them there? That's another one of those darn facts that doesn't work for you?

            1. "OK, so we’ll just ignore the refugees who never set foot in Mexico until we sent them there?"

              Really? How did these "refugees" get to the US Southern border w/o passing through Mexico?
              Please, enlighten us.

      2. Sleazy things like making sure people who were brought here as kids aren’t removed by force to a country they may have no connection to anymore? I mean what’s the moral case for using violence to remove someone who was brought here when they were three?

        1. Sleazy things like rewarding criminal invaders.

          If you dad steals a million dollars, moves the family to a really nice neighborhood, and then gets caught, we take the money back. We take the house that was bought with those ill gotten gains back, sell it to someone else, and kick you out.

          If you're in America illegally you need to be kicked out. No excuses

          1. Criminal invaders doesn’t describe those whose were DACA eligible. And if you think it does, you’re too far gone to possibly help.

            1. Every single person who came here illegally is a criminal invader.

              Every single DACA recipient who is over the age of 18 is an adult criminal. Which is to say they're here illegally, and a legal adult. By remaining after they turned 18, they become an adult accessory to their parents crime

              1. That’s actually not true. They’re not criminals at all because remaining here after 18 isn’t a criminal offense. They’re just subject to the civil and administrative sanction of removal. So you’re just flat out wrong to call them criminal invaders.

                1. They violated US immigration law by coming here

                  "Violating the law" == "criminal"

                  There's still here, still in violation of US immigration law. So, still criminal.

                  The fact that you don't like the laws doesn't make them go away

                  It's this sort of scummy utter dishonesty that has pushed me so firmly into the anti-immigration camp.

                  I used to be pretty much "open borders". but then I noticed that the "open borders" pushers were all a bunch of liars.

                  And one thing I solidly know: If you're lying about your domestic political position, it's because even you know your position is crap.

                  So, keep on lying, baby, it makes the rest of us feel so good.

                  Esp. since you're so stupid about it

                  1. Uh I’m not the stupid one because I actually know that not all, nay even most, violations of the law are criminal. Like what do you think the civil law system is even for? Easy example: it violates the law to not hire someone based on their race. But it’s not actually a crime to do that, you’re just subject to civil suits. No one can go to jail for violating title VII. Similarly, simply remaining here after authorization doesn’t subject you to a criminal penalty it’s just subjects you to the CIVIL sanction of removal. So you’re either being ignorant or lying yourself by saying anyone here without authorization is a criminal.

          2. "Sleazy things like rewarding criminal invaders."

            You're talking about three-year-olds.

            "If you’re in America illegally you need to be kicked out. No excuses"

            That's not how it works. If the government wants to punish you, then first you get a chance to defend yourself in court. No matter what they've accused you of. It's like you've never even heard of the Constitution.

            1. “If you’re in America illegally you need to be kicked out. No excuses”

              If you commit crime X, then you need to be capture, tired, found guilty, and punished

              it's like you never heard of a criminal justice system

              Me: "If you commit murder, you should spend the rest of your life in jail"

              James: "Oh, haven't you heard of trials?"

              GFY, James

              1. Right but three year olds can’t commit crime X, because they can’t form the required mens rea, nor, for the purposes of border crossing, likely perform the actus rea of physically crossing of their own volition. Ergo you couldn’t try someone at any point for the “crime” (actually it’s a civil offense) of crossing the border.

                1. If they're currently 3, then their criminal parents need to be kicked out, and they need to be kicked out with them.

                  Don't break up their families, scum bag.

                  If they're now 18, and still in the US in violation of US immigration law, then they are criminals, and need to be kicked out.

                  Because rewarding people for breaking the law is only something you do if you're an utter moron, or someone who has no respect for the law, or for the rule of law.

                  Which would make you scum

                  1. 1. Not criminals, simply subject to civil removal.

                    2. “ Which would make you scum” calm down, there Radio Rwanda.

                    1. You can claim that people violating US immigration law "aren't criminals" all you want.

                      It's bullshit, and we both now it.

                      Have fun with your mental masturbation, I'm not playing any more

                  2. I can claim that because it’s how immigration law works. It’s less mental masturbation than it is simply reading the statutes.

                    “I’m not playing any more.” Good maybe you will have some time to read about immigration law now.

  8. Feelings like this are the parts of everyone's nature, but parts you generally don't want to proudly display.

    And I second the call for more of a dive into ACA of it all - a comparison of the substance of this case versus the DACA case.
    Seeing some saying they are similar lower court decisions, others saying they are very different.

    1. Well, the DACA lower court decision was pure utter bullshit based on nothing other than the Left's hatred for Trump, and US Immigration law.

      Because the idea that one President's Executive Orders could bind another President is so fundamentally daft taht no one had ever tried it before.

      In this case, at least DHS had actually signed an agreement w/ Texas about MPP, rather than just an (illegal) Executive Order. As the Biden DHS just totally blew off the agreement, Texas could / should have legitimately won something even without "Regents".

      But with it? Slam dunk

      1. You're really not a thinker, are you?

        You don't seem to have read either of the lower court decisions, and just spew talking points.

        1. No, I haven't bothered to read any of the bullshit from the Democrat judges about why Trump's attempt to stop Obama's illegal Executive Order was "against the law".

          I have a life.

          Prosecutorial discretion doesn't give you the right to give illegal aliens the right to work in the US, the most it can do is give the the power to say "we're going to ignore the law and not expel these criminals who should be expelled".

          I did read a bunch of the 5th Circuit court ruling, it was amusing, so worth my time.

          Reading obvious lies isn't worth my time

          1. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think I like Aktenberg more than you. His over the top villainy is somehow less aggrieved sounding and the gay sex stuff is kind of funny.

          2. greg, you were asked "You’re really not a thinker, are you?"
            and you answered "No"

            nice to see some honesty come from you.

  9. This is a switch on Schadenfreude, the glee in seeing someone else's misfortune.

    Here, the misfortune belongs to the thousands of suffering brown people at the border. But to Josh it's all a game and something to be flip about.

    1. All of the world's "suffering brown people" are not America's problem. Let the brown people fix their own lives.

      Unless you want to acknowledge they're not mentally capable of it, and then that means we should recolonize. But if they're too dumb to fix their own problems, then they shouldn't be made full Americans so they can recreate those problems here.

    2. No thread is complete without the race card being thrown.

      1. I really really really like how you posed this AFTER you clearly saw Aktenberg's posts on the subject.

        1. So you think every brown person is America's responsibility?

          1. Humans have a collective duty to help each other avoid unnecessary suffering and to refrain from knowingly cruel acts.

            1. What if the only way to prevent the other 6 billion people on the world from suffering is to suffer ourselves? Are we obligated to do that?

              1. Well it’s not the only way, so there’s that. You just think it is because you’re a bigot with a low opinion of the vast majority of your fellow humans. And also your definition of suffering is probably wrong too: you living around other people you don’t like is not suffering in the same sense as using force and violence to keep other people in squalid conditions is.

                1. Yes, actually, it is the only way. The only way we can alleviate the suffering of the world's poor is to drastically lower our own standard of living.

                  You're a delusional, pie in the sky, idiot.

                  1. “You’re a delusional, pie in the sky, idiot.”

                    Coming from you this is basically the greatest compliment I have ever received in my life. So thanks.

      2. You can leave out the reference to skin color and my point still stands.

        1. "You can leave out the reference to skin color and my point still stands."

          You accuse the professor of racism then just shrug it off. You ought to think why you do it.

          1. Not above being the moral scold, eh?

            1. I learned from you.

              1. Good. I'm glad. Now just apply that to yourself and maybe we'll get somewhere.

                1. Scolding is now one of my new bad habits.

                  1. It's a quirky little niche you've found, Bob : The world's only proudly-amoral moral scold. I dare say you might find a little hypocrisy somewhere in all that jiu-jitsu.

                    1. "amoral"

                      Excellent. You used the right word this time for the dumb point you were making.

                    2. Proudly describing yourself as amoral essentially amounts to a conscious rejection of morals and puts you in the immoral camp.

                      “[A] implies an awareness of moral standards, but a lack of concern for them while acting.”

                      “Immoral refers to a conscientious rejection of typical moral standards and has a connotation of evil or wrongdoing.”

                      https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/using-unmoral-immoral-nonmoral-amoral

                      Kind of self-burn, no?

                    3. ***[A]moral

                    4. I've got little inclination to parachute into a lexiconic discussion of the difference between "amoral" and "immoral", particularly because the practical distinction is often nil.

                      You see, a person who is amoral usually becomes immoral because there's no barrier against him indulging his baser instincts. And let's be honest here, Bob : No one in his forum indulges his baser instincts as eagerly or often as you.

                  2. "Scolding is now one of my new bad habits."

                    You need fewer bad habits, not more.

          2. "You accuse the professor of racism then just shrug it off. You ought to think why you do it."

            It's not like he cared. Any of the times he's posted racist stuff.

        2. Great

          You are welcome to take as much of your personal wealth as you wish, and spend it on ameliorating the suffering of as many people, of whatever skin color, that you wish.

          What you're not welcome to do is to tell the rest of us that we have to let you take a lot of our money to spend it helping criminal invaders

    3. So, what captcrisis is saying is that if there's "suffering [criminal] brown people" (my, what a racist statement) then US law is properly thrown out.

      The suffering of the non-Criminal people of all skin colors? Well, captcrisis doesn't give a damn about them.

      Which is why Trump gave us the lowest unemployment rates for American blacks ever recorded, and Biden* won't. Because Trump cared about them, and no one on the Left does

      1. “ and no one on the Left does.”

        What about black people on the left?

        1. You mean the ones supporting "Black Lives Matter", teh organization that only cares about the lives of criminal blacks, not the lives of their far more common their black victims?

          The blacks that actually do care about the fellow blacks are the ones against illegal "immigration".

          Which you'd know about, if you ever looked around

          1. Well they’re on the left and presumably care about themselves at least…so it’s not “no one.”

            But more broadly I mean the 90% of black Americans who consistently vote Democratic a left of center party you think doesn’t count as American. So your statement about no one on the left caring about black people excluded black people themselves. It’s a common occurrence in the US so don’t feel too bad.

            1. You are confusing "votes Democrat" with "on the Left".

              But, since you're pretty much confused about everything else, this is not a surprise

              1. You’re the one who said Democrats weren’t Americans, presumably because of their left wing beliefs. So I think you’re the confused one.

                1. What I said was this, you lying sack of shit:
                  2: Legal immigrants who haven’t assimilated to the US generally are not as good Americans as true blue Americans (by which I mean: not Democrats, not people who hate the written US Constitution).

                  Now, are you seriously trying to claim that Democrats love America? That they value being American citizens? That they value America?

                  Because if you are, you're even more full of shit than I thought you were.

                  1. I’m a democrat and I do all those things. That you think I don’t says more about you than it does me. Also you’re very belligerent. It’s unbecoming.

                    1. "I’m a democrat and I do all those things."

                      Weren't you telling me up above that you don't consider yourself to owe any sort of greater moral duty to your fellow Americans, than to random South and Central American law breakers?

                    2. So LTG, you skipped this abotu:

                      Who do you think is bringing this shit into America?

                      Give you a hint: It's that Party with the letters d e m o c r a t in their name

                      https://thepostmillennial.com/25-public-school-districts-use-childrens-book-that-depict-whiteness-as-evil/

                    3. Reality check:

                      If you love something, if you have empathy for people, it changes your actions.

                      So, LTG, What are the policies you abandoned, and what are the policies you've adopted, because of your "empathy" for lower class Americans?

                      What are the policies you abandoned, and what are the policies you've adopted, because of your "love" for America?

                      Because if you can't answer that, your "empathy" and "love" are meaningless.

                      Starting point:
                      One of the bullshit go-to lines for free traders is that "you're a worker 8 hours a day, but a consumer 24 hours a day.

                      This is garbage, and anyone not lying to themselves knows it.

                      We Americans define ourselves by what we do. "I am a Lawyer." "I am a Doctor." "I am a Welder."

                      "I am a failure as a human being, because I can not support my family based on my own work, and must rely on charity instead."

                      What are the policies that you promote to make that last one less likely?

                      And no, "I support raising the minimum wage" doesn't cut it. the minimum wage is where you enter the job pool. It's not where you stay, if you're a functional worker.

                      One of the points of a higher minimum wage is to make it hard for people to get that starter job, so that there are more failures around to be "cared for" by the social worker footsolders of teh Democrat Party.

                      "I support keeping out illegal aliens, and cutting down the amount of low skilled legal immigration, so that people without college degrees have a job market where the employers have to compete for workers, rather than the workers have to compete for any possible job, no matter how crappy"

                      That would be showing empathy. But you're against that

                    4. "Democrats don’t love America"

                      It wasn't the D's who were literally shitting on the Capitol back in January.

                    5. It wasn’t the D’s who were literally shitting on the Capitol back in January.

                      It was the D's who assaulted the Senate Hart building to try to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation.

                      It was the D's who rioted and destroyed property in DC when Trump was inaugurated

                      It was the D's who looted and burned Ameican cities last summer, and it was D mayors and D governors who refused to stop the looting, burning, and murders

                      It was the D's who trashed DC, who burned the church across from Lafayette Park

                      And if anyone was actually shitting on the property, as opposed ot having a protect about the certification of an obviously fraudulent election, I guarantee you that person wasn't an R.

                      Because taking a dump on public streets / property is a D thing, not an R thing.

                      It was D's who were blocking and kicking out poll watchers, "counting" ballots when there was no one around to monitor the process, stopping vote counts in the middle of election night for no legitimate reason, eliminating absentee ballot anti-fraud measures, and violating chain of custody rules on more ballots than Biden's "margin of victory"
                      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/08/30/a-stunning-number-of-absentee-ballots-in-dekalb-county-georgia-violated-chain-of-custody-rules-n1474202

                      And it most certainly is the D's who are fighting tooth and nail against any actual audits of the 2020 vote.

                      Which is not something you do when you think your side won legally.

                      It is not the D's who love America

                2. “I am a failure as a human being"

                  Gosh, Greg, what brought on this onslaught of honesty from you in this article?

                  1. Thank you, James, for demonstrating just how stupid and pathetic you are.

          2. "You mean the ones supporting “Black Lives Matter”, teh organization that only cares about the lives of criminal blacks, not the lives of their far more common their black victims?"

            Those bastards with their "ONLY black lives matter" signs and banners!

            1. Yep, those bastards who don't care at all about the thousands of innocent black lives that are destroyed by black criminals.

              Feel free to provide links and quotes fom "black lives matter" protestors who actually care about the black lives destroyed by criminals.

              I'll wait

      2. "So, what captcrisis is saying is that if there’s “suffering [criminal] brown people” (my, what a racist statement) then US law is properly thrown out."

        Actually, that's what YOU just said.

Please to post comments