Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

As I wrote on the last open thread, a maxim from Aesop's Fables teaches to be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. Has Donald Trump really thought out how annexing Canada to make it the 51st state would shake out? https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/canada-new-state-electoral-college-001966

Does the idea of Canada electing two U. S. Senators and dozens of members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the impact upon the Electoral College, appeal to Trump and his fellow Republicans?

[Krayt]

If the goal is to push peoples' buttons, to give oppositional evening talking heads something to believe because disasterbation through overimagination feels sooooo good, sounds like he's being wildly successful.

[hobie]

Then Trump was...lying? Successfully?

[Krayt]

Was a politician's lips moving?

[Don Nico]

Why do you think he was lying?
Why do you think it made for 1 State?
Why do you think that he meant to include Quebec?

[Mr. Bumble]

True, nobody should want Quebec.

[Estragon]

Why not? Montreal is a fine city and even Ottawa has its charms. Plenty of hydropower and maple syrup… what’s not to love?

Does French make you uncomfortable— is that it?

[Jmaie]

It's not French the language that's the issue...

[Estragon]

Why so coy?

[Jmaie]

Didn't think I was being coy...

[Estragon]

So French speakers make you uncomfortable? Is that it?

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I tell my students' : You signal to all intelligent moral folks that you have no point when you
1) use vague phrases "push peoples buttons'
2) make up private language words (Wittgenstein) 'disasterbation"
'overimagination"
3) refuse definite statements so you are not affirming anything 'sounds like"

[Frank Drackman]

I hope you know your students draw obscene caricatures of you

[Krayt]

Teach your students this: In science, it's bad form to question the arguer. You address the argument.

In politicians, you presume the facial words are a cover story for the real motivation behind the scenes. To even doubt this apriori is a tool power mongers rely on.

When you teach the Dialectic process: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, a fancy version of pro and con lists, with pre-responses to disable your opponents' cons, teach them it is an honored process and tradition of lying and fraud.

Your pro and con lists are rarely to weigh and generate a conclusion based on value judgements. You have a predecided position and are constructing arguments to win the day.

It takes two to tango. Like clockwork, right on schedule, the talking heads in their role as 100% contrarian resistance (which Fox News piloted about 15 years ago) take the stament-o-the-day and rail on it.

This is "unexpected"? No, everyone is playing their part in the grand design, with their own motivations, plug and play.

Commentators hyperbol, hey, I coined the term faceting about, so why not hyperbolate about? Commentators hyperbolate about.

I decidedly do not assign "4D chess" abilities to Trump, though some of his supporters do, in their role as apologists. But some of these proposals are clearly preplanned shitstirring of the hyperbolating, faceting power mongers on the other side.

Come on, man! "Gulf of America"? Not deliberate button pushing? I choose this sentence with care: How stupid are you?

You hyperbolating about thinking it's dead serious yo! Golly, you cog in a machine.

[Krayt]

Sample scene:

Will: Doctor Smith! Watch out!

Doctor Smith: Oh no, William! The robot is hyperbolating!

[Krayt]

Music probably by John Williams. Seriously, yo! Go look it up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Canada, Panama, and Greenland are all squid ink diversions. Forget them. Worry more about Gaza, even though that seems crazier.

But for the Ds, all this executive lawlessness creates a real problem. It threatens utterly to disarm legitimate negotiations to come, over budget and tax issues. Ds need to push hard to make headway, not merely compromise on how much more ordinary Americans stand to lose. Politically, it would be stupid for the Ds to put themselves in the position of doing nothing but reducing loss.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Tell us what executive lawlessness has occurred.
Tell us why you didnt complain about biden's or obama executive lawlessness

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're so fucking stupid that you just owned yourself with your own hypocrisy.

Remarkable.

[Jerry B.]

Add some more hominems, if you like.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I neither need, want, nor care about your criticism.

Joe_dallas is a cowardly, lying sack of shit.

[Don Nico]

Joe,
He means everything that Trump has done since Jan 20.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - he made reference to "executive lawlessness " with implication that his allegation was so far during his second term, not the first. Based on publically available info, including court filings, all the alleged executive lawlessness" since the start of his second term are policy disputes and not actual "lawlessness"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe Dallas, I know better than to contradict you.

But please answer this question for me. The National Archives is part of the administrative branch. Its operations are governed, however, at least in part by laws passed by Congress. Do you think Trump enjoys power to do whatever he wants with everything in the National Archives?

Or anything in it? Where is the line? Is the Louisiana Purchase protected, but Trump can shitcan an Indian Treaty? Maybe just one of them, if it gets in the way of energy policy?

What's your answer, because you can be sure quite a bit of stuff Trump wants to memory hole is already earmarked by law for the National Archives.

[Joe_dallas]

No reason to respond to your question - The fact pattern you presented is simply inane.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — You did well to avoid answering that question. I guess you noticed how much it would cost your argument to engage with it.

[Joe_dallas]

As I stated - the premise of your question is simply inane.

yes if trump or biden or anyone did what you imply, then it would be illegal - But no has suggested , proposed or done anything that even remotely implies that such an event take place. Which is why your premise is simply inane and doesnt deserve a response.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Results of government-sponsored research with which Musk and Trump disagree politically have been removed by the administration from government websites. Some of those findings were certainly destined for the National Archives, and legally required to go there.

To the extent the programs which generated those research results were established by law, Musk and Trump have no more legitimate power to shut those programs down than they do to destroy the results, or even to obstruct the public from seeing the results.

Some documentary photographic records of the J6 Capitol attack have been removed from FBI archives.

There is every reason to suppose that an administration which ran on a promise of political purge will act to destroy any government records which tend to prove the purge was unwise, unjust, or lawless. When evidence starts turning up to suggest that process is happening, only those complicit with the purge's objectives will remain complacent.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you are not even close to accurately describing what is happening. ie a thorough distortion of what is happening along with the validity and reasons for the actions.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Why not ask another inane question - such whether it would be executive lawlessness if he ordered someone to rob a bank.

Though most leftists are upset that he is ordering executive branh employees not to rob the taxpayers bank.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

HE appointed the AG so you both miss the point. ALL AGs are appointed so either it's always been lawless OR --- as is the case--- we now have someone so adhering to the law that they will use to crush evil. Sounds looney but much better than
https://youtu.be/Cfp_IIdVnXs

[Frank Drackman]

Do you not realize that occasionally, OK, frequently, "47" says shit just to fuck with you'se guys?, I bet you're the guy in "Goodfellas" when after Tommy shoots "Stacks" in the back of the head, starts to make a pot of coffee when Tommy asks him to

[CountmontyC]

We have long known that Democrats have zero sense of humor. They are unable to read personal cues that let them know when a person is joking.

[Sarcastr0]

No, both sides laugh just fine. Don't mistake people on the Internet with people in real life.

You. for instance, post only about how bad liberals are, and the horrible things they've done.

I very much expect and hope that outside of posting, your life has a bit more to it than that.

[Commenter_XY]

It is like watching people on the spectrum, a complete and utter lack of self-awareness. Musk was right when he referred to the woke min(D) virus.

[Martinned2]

O wow, against stiff competition that's the least self-aware comment possibly in the entire history of this blog.

[Estragon]

“Zero sense of humor”

This again. Tips on humor brought to you by the same people who laughed uproariously at their leader cracking Paul Pelosi “jokes”!

Can you unpack for me what’s so funny about an 80+ year old having the temerity to be struck in the head with a hammer in the entryway of his own home by a deranged stranger? Do you find this to be universally funny— as in would you have laughed if something similar happened to a loved one? Or is it more a Nelson Muntz kind of “ha ha”— pointing and laughing when someone (married to someone) you don’t like has something bad happen to them?

[Bwaaah]

You missed the punchline. They said he got hit in the head by his GAY LOVER.

And you're all, "That was a real hammer."

See? No sense of humor.

[Estragon]

“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco — how’s her husband doing, anybody know? [laughter] And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house — which obviously didn’t do a very good job.”

Yes, upon reflection you’re right. That punchline about Paul’s “GAY LOVER” really had them rolling in the aisles.

[Estragon]

Now, you are correct that the “GAY LOVER” thing had traction for a while in certain very-online circles— particularly at a certain social media site. Why one would find this kind of an assault on an elder funnier if it also happened in a domestic abuse context I admit is a bit hazy to me— perhaps it is my faulty sense of humor.

In any event, I particularly enjoyed this passage from a book published recently:

“Yes, I want to say one thing,” the data scientist said. He took a deep breath and turned to Musk. “I’m resigning today. I was feeling excited about the takeover, but I was really disappointed by your Paul Pelosi tweet. It’s really such obvious partisan misinformation and it makes me worry about you and what kind of friends you’re getting information from. It’s only really like the tenth percentile of the adult population who’d be gullible enough to fall for this.” The color drained from Musk’s already pale face. He leaned forward in his chair […] His darting eyes focused for a second directly on the data scientist. “Fuck you!” Musk growled.”

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Sorry, I knew people in life who did terrible things and then said 'Just kidding' NOt on as the brits say
Proverbs 26:19
KJ21
so is the man that deceiveth his neighbor and saith, “Am I not in jest?”
ASV
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbor, And saith, Am not I in sport?
AMP
So is the man who deceives his neighbor (acquaintance, friend) And then says, “Was I not joking?”
AMPC
So is the man who deceives his neighbor and then says, Was I not joking?
BRG
So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
CSB
so is the person who deceives his neighbor and says, “I was only joking!”
CEB
are those who deceive their neighbor and say, “Hey, I was only joking!”
CJB
is one who deceives another, then says, “It was just a joke.”
CEV
than to cheat someone and say, “I was only fooling!”,

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I hardly believe you know more than Trump about that.
I am not a Republican but your point is silly. It is pure utilitarianism unmoored to any morality at all. You sound like HIllary , always opposing the messy doable by the utopian not-doable.

[Martinned2]

Yes, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton it was obviously Clinton who was talking in terms of unrealistic utopianism rather than messy pragmatism.

[Frank Drackman]

It was, that whole “Glass Ceiling” Bullshit

[Swede425]

This isn't difficult.
Don't make them states.
Make them territories.
Plunder their natural resources.
Draft their population for when we go to war with China.
You don't give people like that representation.
I mean, look at the commie retard they have right now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously. But it's just an opening bid, with the actual objective being some sort of economic cooperation zone.

[Estragon]

“actual objective”

Telepathy? Sanewashing? Why not both?

[Brett Bellmore]

Rational reasoning that's not based on the assumption that Trump is an idiot.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: that Trump is an idiot is an overdetermined conclusion, not an "assumption."

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

YOu have a huge history of illogical idiocies and this adds to the pile.
ANd you misuse 'overdetermined" ... it means the opposite !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In mathematics, a system of equations is considered overdetermined if there are more equations than unknowns. An overdetermined system is almost always inconsistent (it has no solution) when constructed with random coefficients.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Once again: that Trump is an idiot is an overdetermined conclusion, not an "assumption."

What does that make the party he beat?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, dems do suck but lol at the guy thinking elections are an IQ test.

[David Nieporent]

1) He didn't 'beat' a party; he 'beat' a candidate.
2) It makes him, I guess, more popular than that candidate.

[bernard11]

How about showing us the steps in your reasoning.

If you're teaching geometry you don't just announce that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, you show the steps.

You are just making assertions without proof or logic and claiming that "rational reasoning" justifies them.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's already established above that actually bringing Canadian provinces or Greenland into the US as states would, given their politics relative to ours, make sure that Republicans would not control the government again for several decades. This is blatantly obvious, and unless you just assume Trump is a moron, he must know this.

So, unless you're assuming that he intends to kill the GOP as a national party, he does not intend these countries/provinces become states.

[Commenter_XY]

We could treat Canada in a manner similar to PR, Brett. That is always an option. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

If Alberta wanted that sort of treatment, they'd just stay in Canada.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But the Canadians don't know this, so they will be disadvantaged during the "negotiations"...

[bernard11]

Except that doesn't explain what kind of "zone" he's after, and why he thinks this strategy is a way to get there.

Now, I think you know that if you want to establish a close cooperative relationship with someone it's a very poor idea to begin the discussion by making them angry with some ridiculous demand.

So unless you think Trump is a moron (which I do) you are conceding that that's not his objective.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Now, I think you know that if you want to establish a close cooperative relationship with someone it's a very poor idea to begin the discussion by making them angry with some ridiculous demand.

You're confusing a business negotiation with finding a drinking buddy.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But in geometry you have to start with the unprovable else you go to infinity , eternal regress.
You will find that in most cases the conclusions are not the problem but the first principles are !!! Libertrarians, pro-abortion, trans, and anti-religiouis usually start with what their opponents rightly reject. No use asking for anything from a person who sees no problme ripping an 8-mponth old from the womb.

OR talks about family and shares this picture
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Fparents%2Fpete-buttigieg-baby-boy-home-after-3-weeks-in-hospital%2F&psig=AOvVaw3kIVY4gVa7csDGImZxZ2fc&ust=1739543225561000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCNjjo9LtwIsDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

[myself]

Rational reasoning that's not based on the assumption that Trump is an idiot.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[bernard11]

If you want to establish an economic cooperation zone you don't start the conversation by:

Talking about annexing the other country.
Imposing 25% tariffs on their exports to you.
Generally pissing the other country off.

That's a really poor choice of opening bid.

Besides, don't (didn't) we have a sort of economic cooperation with Canada in place, before Trump?

You're making shit up to defend your cult leader. Again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, guess what: I'm not Trump. So, the fact that I wouldn't do that doesn't mean anything.

[John 4]

Dear God, you’re a slimy little weasel.

[Jerry B.]

Hominem being added a lot today.

[David Nieporent]

Name calling is not ad hominem.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Name calling is not ad hominem.

Yeah, he's just attacking the man rather than the argument. Oh, wait....

[bernard11]

Nobody would do that.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Then it doesn't mean anything that you are not Trump, either !!! Logically.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Why wouldn't each province and territory be admitted separately, which would have the immediate impact of adding 32 liberals to the US Senate?

Regardless, annexing Canada would guarantee that no Republican would ever be elected president again, and not even Trump is dumb enough to not understand that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor are the Canadians. But a measurable percentage of Trump's supporters are. And that is why he does it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue involves navigation in the Arctic...

[zztop8970]

You don't know much about Canada, do you? Canada has 10 provinces and 3 provinces, so if they were all admitted speartely that would add 26 senators, not 32.
And you presumption that all Canadian provinces are 'liberal' is beyond ignorant. You may want to learn a bit about the politics of, e.g. Alberta, which has been right of Center for about 80 years, and is probably as Red as Montana

[Stella Link the dog]

"Alberta, which has been right of Center. . ."
Yes, where Ted Cruz (our Canadian Senator) was born.

[Krychek_2]

I bet I know more about it than Trump does. I also know enough about it to know that you are mistaken when you say that it has "10 provinces and 3 provinces." That would make 13 provinces. Actually it has 10 provinces and 3 *territories*. If you're going to jump all over me about an addition mistake -- I somehow managed to count the territories twice when I did the math in my head -- then don't make your own dumb mistakes as it simply makes you look stupid.

As for Alberta, are you aware that it had a socialist government until 2019? Google "Rachel Notley" It may not be BC or the Yukon politically, but neither is it Mississippi.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wait, is “A Woman of No Importance” also you?

[A Woman of No Importance]

We're married. I screwed up and used his computer without noticing it auto populated his login.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

ROFLMAO!!!!! Busted!!!!!!!

[A Woman of No Importance]

Busted for what? For using my husband's computer? You really are something if you think that's something to be "busted" for.

[zztop8970]

Knowing more than Trump is a pretty low bar, consistent with you not knowing much about Canada, as you continue to demonstrate in your reply

Notely's NDP led Alberta for all of 4 years, and before and after since 1935, right of center parties ruled there. It was a blip, similar to Mississippi voting for Carter, once.

If you think Alberta is going to add 2 "Democratic" senators if admitted as a state, you're in for an unpleasant surprise.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And if you think Alberta is adding any senators at all (other than its continuing unelected contributions to the Canadian Senate), then you are in for a rude awakening because this whole thing is just Trump running his mouth.

Alberta may not be Vancouver, but neither is it Alabama. As a general proposition, a Canadian conservative is to the left of an American conservative. Sure, you can find counterexamples, but they are counterexamples. Canadian conservatives in general support abortion rights, gay rights, and national health care.

If Peter Lougheed, or Ernest Manning, were running for office in the US in 2025 they'd be running as Democrats. They wouldn't be part of the Bernie Sanders caucus. But Ernest Manning was an early supporter of national health care and his Social Credit party was pure populism.

Your problem is that you don't understand nuance. You make wildly unsupportable statements like Alberta is as red as Montana. No it isn't. You can find pockets of Alberta that may be as red as Montana, but the population centers aren't.

As I said, this is moot because neither Canada nor any of its provinces or territories are joining the US any time soon. But if you think Mitch McConnell could be elected in Alberta, you're nuts.

[zztop8970]

I don't think Canada will be annexed, but this is a hypothetical scenario.

I understand nuance far better than you, someone who thinks Alberta is 'liberal', or that a 4 year blip in an 80 year history of right-of-center politics is indicative of the politics of a region. Conservatives in Canada may be to the left of American Conservatives, but they are far more to right of American liberals

Peter Lougheed and Ernest Manning have been dead for more than a decade, so I doubt either will be running as a candidate in any party anytime soon (though I'll hand it to Democrats, it is not beyind them to run a dead candidiate for office - and even win with him in a deep Blue state -https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/05/deceased-congressman-wins-primary-donald-payne).

It is not really informative to discuss how politicians who last ran for office 40 years ago would run today. Obama was famously against SSM when he ran for President just 16 years ago, as one example of why that's foolish.

If you look at the current positions of the United Conservative Party, they are clearly far more aligned with those of the Republican party than those of the Democratic ones - lower taxes, fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets, increased fossil fuel usage, opposition to a carbon tax. The idea that Danielle Smith, who opposes gender-affirming healthcare for minors and opposes trans women competing in women's sports would run as a Democrat a rather than a Republican is laughable, to put it mildly.

Perhaps McConnel could not be elected in Alberta, but I suspect that neither would Bernie Sanders.

[SykesFive]

I disagree with two assumptions in that piece.

The first is that Canada would join as a single state. The more usual hypothetical scenario for a Canadian-American union is that each province joins as a state. That said, I guess the idea is to take Trump literally, in which case Canada would be the 51st state and that's that.

But I think the second can't be ignored: surely Congress wouldn't be so silly as to keep the size of the House the same when adding millions of new voters! I think any significant increase would also entail an increase in the size of the House so as to avoid a lot of members losing their seats.

[Mr. Bumble]

Representation in the House isn't based on "voters". The number of representative hasn't changed because of the addition of 10's of million aliens and the last thing we need is more members of Congress.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, even if Canada joined as a single State (thus only getting 2 Senators), because House seats are apportioned and limited to 435 (at present), Canada would still be entitled to ~50 seats in the House, roughly the same as California. Not all of those new Representatives would vote like Californian Representatives, of course, but a large chunk of them probably would.

(Canada joining as multiple States, whether ten or 13, would also skew the Senate massively in favour [not sic] of the left-of-centrists.)

I agree that Congress (assuming Congress still has agency at the time) would not be so stupid as to agree to expand the USA without increasing the size of the House commensurately. But, you never know what they will do in the Trumperverse...

[zztop8970]

(Canada joining as multiple States, whether ten or 13, would also skew the Senate massively in favour [not sic] of the left-of-centrists.)
That is very much debatable.
I think it is pretty much a given that BC and ON would be solid 'blue', while AB, SK and MB are pretty solid 'red'.
There's no way the 3 territories, with a combined population of less than a small-to-mid sized US city get admitted as individual states, and ditto PEI (<200,000 people) . NB, NK and NS are likely to be swing states, based on recent electoral history (going back ~20 years or so). The wild card is QC whose political parties are considerably different from the rest of Canada, and don't align all that well with traditional American ones.
But even assuming it will be a "blue state", you got 3 red, 3 blue, and 3 swing. A far cry from a "massive" shift in the Senate.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To the extent possible, state law enforcement authorities ought to stay alert to chances to charge criminally any Musk minions who take a hand in barring entrance to federal facilities located outside Washington. If anonymous, un-uniformed, unbadged, unidentifiable, figures start standing guard to bar entrance at federal facilities near you, arrest them. Show up with a show of force sufficient to get it done peacefully, and without resistance.

[Mr. Bumble]

You managed to pack a lot of crap into one short comment.

[santamonica811]

Bumble,
I agree that a lot of SL's post is wishful thinking. But his underlying point seems valid. If you are the leader of a city or a state, and you get reports of people (with absolutely no statutory authority) blocking entrances in this way; what would you do? Sit back and do nothing?

If people were blocking the doors to abortion clinics, would that mayor/governor do nothing? If people were blocking the doors to licensed gun shops, would that mayor/gov do nothing? Take off our partisan blinders for a minute, and look at the situation in the legal abstract. Should a bunch of laypeople be able to prevent hardworking Americans from going to work and doing their work?

I assume you are not implying or suggesting that--assuming you agree with me about the likelihood of being arrested for blocking access to the clinic and gun shop--the federal government workers should have *less* of a right to go to work and to do America's business.

[If you and I blocked people from *leaving* their place of business, we'd eventually be arrested (and likely civilly sued) for the wrong of 'false imprisonment.' This is the opposite, so I'm gonna take the honor of being the one to name it: "False exprisonment." (Trademark!!!) ] 🙂

You're welcome, America.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think your examples apply to what is happening. Are you claiming that anyone has or should have unfettered access to federal property if the federal government has decided to restrict the same.
What authority do local officials have to arrest a federal employee on federal property for doing his/her job?

[Dr. Ed 2]

SM811 -- What you do -- ALL you can do -- is offer to help the Feds.
The examples you give are not Federal property.

It's the same thing with adjoining states -- in 1978, New Hampshire wanted Mass highways plowed because they are the only way out of NH so the NH Governor (Thompson - R) offered to send NH DOT ploes down to help and the MA Governor (Dukakis - D) refused.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

YOu never had a point but you made that clear by equating blocking an abortion clinic with working for the government . We often destroy our own points involuntarily just as you did.

[Joe_dallas]

Neither Santa & SL have a "valid point". Both comments are inane

[Armchair]

Just to review here...these are federal facilities. Not exactly the same as "gun shops" or "abortion clinics".

If individuals who are "unidentified" are blocking the access to a federal facility, you're arguing that state or local officials should arrest them? Now, if the federal government asks for support...sure.

But SL seems to be implying that the federal government isn't actually asking for support. Seems there might be a problem there.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If people were blocking the doors to abortion clinics, would that mayor/governor do nothing?"

If the people blocking the doors to abortion clinics were the owners of the abortion clinics? No, he'd do nothing. If the people blocking the doors to licensed gun shops were the shop owners, he'd probably cheer.

Your problem here is that you're treating this as some sort of outside attack, when it's actually people in authority in the same organization directing it. They're not unidentified randos, and SL knows it.

[bernard11]

I think you are overlooking the fact that Lathrop specifically refers to "anonymous, un-uniformed, unbadged, unidentifiable, " people doing the blocking, not police or the like. Also, the people who want to get in are local citizens who work or have business in the building. Surely local law enforcement can help them.

Oh, and the owners have no need to set up a blockade. They can just lock the doors,

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not overlooking it, I'm disputing his absurd characterization of what is going on.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, all right then. I thought you were denying it was going on.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you would be happier if it were a uniformed, armed federal agent blocking access?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, states don't have jurisdiction over Federal facilities.
Remember Fort Sumner?

[Frank Drackman]

No, you incredible nincompoop, I don't remember "Fort Sumner"
There was a "Fort Sumter" that I don't know, where a certain War of Nawthun Aggression began.
Maybe you're thinking of the MA Senator who got his ass beat by a SC Congressman.

Frank

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Constitution gives the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction over “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”. The South Carolina legislature gave the land on which Fort Sumter was built to the Federal government in 1836, so the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over that property.

I suspect that there are a lot of Federal facilities built on land which has not been ceded to the Federal government. If the state hasn’t ceded the land to the Federal government, the state has jurisdiction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did the state record the deed?

[David Nieporent]

What relevance would that have? To anything?

[Dr. Ed 2]

State seeding the land...

[Stella Link the dog]

"State seeding the land."

With what? Corn, perhaps?

[David Nieporent]

So, there actually was a Fort Sumner, but I doubt there are more than 10 people who remember it.

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

Fort Sumner was a military fort in New Mexico Territory charged with the internment of Navajo and Mescalero Apache populations from 1863 to 1868 at nearby Bosque Redondo.

It is now a state monument in NM, which is why I said "10 people" rather than "3 people." (I am not claiming to be one of those; I googled just out of curiosity to see whether our resident janitor was just up to his usual level of accuracy.)

So I assume that he meant Fort Sumter. Which would be the second spelling error of his in this thread. (The New Hampshire governor about whom he told an illegal undocumented story regarding snowplows was Thomson, not Thompson.)

[Frank Drackman]

OK Davie NeverPotent, I have to give you this one, Well played Sir, Well played!
Meet me down at the Volokh Saloon for a few snifters of Brandy and some "Huzzahs"
OK, I know there's no "Volokh Saloon" (but it'd sure be cool if there was, allriteallriteallrite), but if there was, there'd be snifters (what's a "snifter" anyway?) and "Huzzahs"

Frank

[ducksalad]

Been through Fort Sumner a couple times. I'd rate it as good enough to stop and read the historical marker from inside the car, but only if you had to drive through anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you heard that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result?

Personally, if I were a big city Democratic (But I repeat myself) mayor, the very last thing I'd want to do would be to give Trump a rock solid, absolutely legit excuse to sic the DOJ on me.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe bring a tank and run over them also, in a public square so everyone will get the point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

155mm Howitzers...

[hobie]

This sort of freshly-pardoned, cop-beating militia I call "The Red Hats"

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, this is a splendid idea. Where do you get these ideas?! Last week, it was dark money and a new party. This week, armed resistance.

Will you be patrolling the federal facilities near you to look for the "anonymous, un-uniformed, unbadged, unidentifiable, figures [...] standing guard to bar [the] entrance"?

If you do, can you post a selfie for us? We need to see the new vanguard of resistance and be inspired by it. 🙂

[Michael P]

There's a federal facility somewhat near my house where the guards wear uniforms but no badges when outside the buildings, in order to remain anonymous to outsiders. But they do have patches showing their blood type. Is that the kind of facility that Lathrop plans to surveil?

[Commenter_XY]

You'll need to ask lathrop about his splendiferous idea.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

How blind you are to your own argument
THAT is the ponit !!
That describes the very person that Maxine Waters was shouting at

anonymous, un-uniformed, unbadged, unidentifiable, figures -- he was a security guard
https://static.outkick.com/www.outkick.com/content/uploads/2025/02/maxine-waters.jpg

By your view , DId Maxine give id that allowed her to annoy the guard? I know that ugly face can't be counterfeited but that is not the point. Give advice like yours and you've got unidentified anonymous folks breaking the law in the name of the law !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[not guilty]

A collection of religious organizations, all rooted in the Jewish and Christian faiths, have sued several federal agencies and officials under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment right of free association and the Administrative Procedures Act, seeking relief from the Department of Human Services's recission of its prior, sensitive locations policy, which provided that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) would conduct a variety of enforcement actions—such as conducting stops and interrogations, serving process and other orders, and executing immigration arrests and raids without judicial warrant—at or near places of worship only under exigent circumstances or with prior written, high-level supervisory approval. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2025/02/Mennonite-Church-USA-v.-U.S.-Department-of-Homeland-Security-Complaint.pdf

Bully for these plaintiffs!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullbleep.

Unmitigated bullbleep is the sort of thing that will lead to a Third Civil War.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For example: https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/12/judge-blocking-trump-spending-freeze-likened-trump-to-tyrant-in-unearthed-video/

[not guilty]

"Unmitigated bullbleep is the sort of thing that will lead to a Third Civil War."

Really? When and where was the Second Civil War?

[Mr. Bumble]

Jan. 6?

[Dr. Ed 2]

1861-1865.

The Revolution also was a civil war.

[not guilty]

Reading the complaint in that matter led me to wonder how any devout Christian or observant Jew can support Donald Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

We can distinguish government from religion?

Look at this line: "Although DHS has statutory authority to conduct a variety of enforcement actions—such as conducting stops and interrogations, serving process and other orders, and
executing immigration arrests and raids without judicial warrant—DHS’s longstanding “sensitive locations” (or “protected areas”) policy provided that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) would do so at or near places of worship only under exigent circumstances or with prior written, high-level supervisory approval. "

IOW, they always had the legal right to do this, they were just avoiding these areas as a matter of discretionary policy. New administration, new policy.

Legally, a churches' desire that the law not be enforced is of no moment.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember when Reagan was Prez, there were a few raids in churches. Highly controversial at the time.

Yes, they are legally entitled (agree with you). I am less convinced it is good policy. Then again, we DO have millions of illegal aliens to deport.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was a rather controversial raid on a church while Clinton was President, too, as I recall.

[Martinned2]

We can distinguish government from religion?

I can, but I didn't realise you could.

[bernard11]

We can distinguish government from religion?

We can. But when a self-proclaimed devout adherent to some religion endorses policies that are in conflict with that religion's teachings, what are we to think?

If your religion tells you to welcome the stranger and, instead, you accuse him of being a rapist or murderer, and rush to imprison him pending deportation you can't really claim to be an adherent, now can you?

[Frank Drackman]

Reading about Cums-a-lot and Sergeant Major Pepper Walt's support of Abortion up to the moment of birth led me to wonder how any devout Christian, Observant Jew, Mooselum, Afro-Amurican or Hispanic could support them (New Flash, they're increasingly not)

[Martinned2]

Funny, the pope was wondering the same thing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pope-blasts-trump-admin-over-mass-deportation-plan-directs-ire-vances-religious-defense-policies

[Dr. Ed 2]

F*ck the Pope -- he is a Godless Commie

[Frank Drackman]

and how many Divisions does he have?

[Brett Bellmore]

At least one, guarding the walls of the Vatican, and ejecting anybody who tries to illegally immigrate there. Yes, the Vatican has walls, and guards them.

[Martinned2]

That's odd. The last time I was in Vatican City I could walk right in without seeing any sign of a border. If you walk over from the river you'd never know that you're in a foreign country.

Feel free to show me on Google Streetview where that border wall is.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually there’s a 39 foot tall wall around most of Vatican City, (built by a Pope, go figure)I know, because I got “Disoriented”(OK I was drunk) and walked all the way around it (thinking of Asimovs “The Wall of Darkness” the whole time. Or maybe if you didn’t notice, you’re the one who was drunk

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

My Bad,
should be "Arthur C. Clarke's "The Wall of Darkness"
In a universe consisting of one star and one planet, there is a mysterious impenetrable wall surrounding the entire planet in the deep freezing southlands. Two men, one with money, the other with building skills, engage in a long-term program to scale the wall and find out what's on the other side. The answer turns out to be mathematical. And rather upsetting.

and none of you A-holes who've read it spoil it for everyone else.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

There's a similar story about a rotating planet which reached the speed of light at the equator. Can't recall the author, though.

[Michael P]

The border fence in St Peter's Square is hard to see when you start looking a fair bit away on the Rome side of the border. It's easier to see the border -- which is marked by a line and a fence there -- when you pick a closer point.

It's also not hard to see the border wall just about anywhere else around the Vatican City.

As usual, Brett has the better of the argument here.

[Martinned2]

So your argument is that the Pope has a wall to keep the roof up *and* to keep the immigrants out, and your evidence is a meter-high railing thing that anyone can walk past whenever they like?

Have any of you ever been outside the United States, never mind to actual Rome?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the wall around Vatican City is 39 (redacted) feet high, as I recounted how I drunkenly walked its entire length, and I’ve been to UK, Iceland, Azores, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Austria,Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Spain, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Where you been?
Frank

[Michael P]

My argument is that you are full of shit with claims like "I could walk right in without seeing any sign of a border". That's only true if you were blind or totally oblivious. Which was it?

[CountmontyC]

Try this
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/vatican-city-walls

[Martinned2]

So your argument is that Mussolini and the pope at the time were wrong to draw the borders of Vatican City right outside the walls that keep the pope's roof up and give him some privcy in his back yard?

I'm really struggling to understand what the difference is between the walls you're all so excited about and the walls around, say, Buckingham Palace.

[Michael P]

I would tell you to stop arguing with straw men, but you're not even doing that. You're just inventing arguments that you think have some remote connection to what others are saying and trying to put those words in their mouths.

[David Nieporent]

I'm really struggling to understand what the difference is between the walls you're all so excited about and the walls around, say, Buckingham Palace.

The anti-immigration zealots routinely confuse the concepts of the country and private property. (Thus, we frequently see the idiot response to Prof. Somin of "How many immigrants do you have in your house?" as if they thought they had scored a point.)

[bernard11]

I had the same experience. Just walked right in. No guards, no customs, no checking of passports, nothing.

Maybe I was there the same day as Martinned, and it was some kind of holiday or something.

[Don Nico]

Where did you walk in bernard? The basilica? the piazza in front? the entrance to the museum?
Yes those you can just walk into. The grounds and other Vatican buildings there are guards at the entries. You need proven of you permission to enter.

[Frank Drackman]

and the Guards aren't "Rent-a-Cops" like you'll see at most US military bases, but Swiss Guards (Why is an Argentinian Pope in Italy guarded by Swiss Guards? and they have actual "Assault Rifles" (Sig SG550's when I was there in 96-97)

[bernard11]

I don't recall, Don. I was just walking down the street and suddenly I was no longer in Rome but in Vatican City. One time I was going to see the Sistine Chapel and had to wait in line, but I don't recall any armed guards or checking of credentials.

No doubt there are guards around the private buildings, the wonderful museum, and so on, but that's not the same thing as border guards checking everyone who, like myself, was just strolling into the Vatican.

[Krayt]

If you try to wear shorts into St. Peter's, the guards will appear to stop you.

[Frank Drackman]

They will! and no Tank Tops either, (No Sleeved Shirt, No Slacks, No Salvation!) they didn't stop me, because although I've been told I have great legs/delts, I had enough style to not wear tank top/shorts there, but they did keep a few of the Marine Pilots from going in (and there was a vendor who sold shirts with sleeves and slacks, so they still got their Salvation)

Frank

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

ED< you are one stupid backwoods ignorant clod

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

A mere velleity as are most of your wonderings.
IN logic we say that you have destroyed your own argument by admitting the fact that devout Christians and Jews DO support Trump very bad in a debate to do that. !!!! 🙂

IF I may, you wonder precisely because you are not devout anything.

[Riva]

Fortunately you’re neither the arbiter of what constitutes devout worship or a legal complaint with any merit. This insane filing will ultimately fail on standard grounds, which is not to say there’s otherwise anything of merit here. I understand you’re feeling your oats because you think the lawless TROs are victories but they’re extremely short lived. Sooner or later, likely sooner, the appellate courts (or the S.Ct.) will slap down these absurdities.

[Swede425]

You caught them!
Every time they vote for president, it's like they're voting for the pope. How can you make Trump the pope? HOW?!

[Martinned2]

That's what we've been wondering when dealing with all these Trump cultists. WTF have you guys been smoking?

[tylertusta]

If you get your religious viewpoints from a plaintiff's complaint, then you aren't religious, nor are you someone that people should take advice from on religious matters.

[hobie]

To explain his new religion's charitable proclivity for helping immigrants, Vance explained the dogma of Christ:

Love first your family, the neighborhood, city, then state etc. Last is the immigrant. I tried to find mention of concentric, expanding love in the New Testament but couldn't. Might be alternate facts

[Martinned2]

Did you check the Trump bible?

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Odd that you would not know that Vance is : Catholic

Reasons for Limiting Immigration
Paragraph 2241 explains what might limit a nation’s obligation to allow immigrants into the country. It states, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” The Catechism means that immigrants should not be allowed indiscriminately. A proper vetting process must be in place to ensure the safety of the country. Open borders lead to criminals and miscreants crossing into the country to the detriment of the citizens. Next, the Catechism goes on to explain that an immigrant should “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” This suggests that an immigrant’s right to remain in the country and perhaps even to enter it is dependent on his or h

[Martinned2]

For a Catholic he seems remarkably unwilling to listen to the spiritual guidance of the Pope. The Holy Father basically subtweeted Vance by mentioning his recent Twitter discussions about ordo amoris.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pope Francis, tear down your own wall!

[Martinned2]

You realise those walls are holding up the roof, right? Now I realise you probably don't care about any painting that isn't of Donald Trump, but the Vatican Museums have lots of really nice art that should probably be protected by a roof and some walls.

[Don Nico]

"the Vatican Museums have lots of really nice art "
Indeed they do and they do need protection and conservation

[Frank Drackman]

Idiot, there's a 39 foot wall that surrounds the whole "City-State"

[Riva]

You know less about Catholicism than you do the law (which is not saying much about your legal acumen). The Pope was not speaking Ex Cathedra. Catholics are free to disagree, respectfully, with his personal, political views. And just so you know, he also speaks as the leader of the Vatican state, not the Church.

Now go away you ignorant clown.

[CountmontyC]

So Biden, Pelosi and all those Catholic Democrats were good Catholics despite supporting abortion ( one of the greatest sins in Catholic theology) but Vance is a terrible Catholic because he isn't for open borders which isn't really a thing in Catholic theology?

[Martinned2]

I don't care whether anyone is a good Catholic. But someone who claims to be a Catholic occasionally ought to worry about whether they're any good at it, yes.

Since you mentioned Biden, here is the Pope telling him he's fine: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-pope-francis-told-good-catholic-amid-criticism/story?id=80769817

[Steven410]

I think my sister hit the nail on the head regarding the pope telling Biden he was a good Catholic. She opined that seeing Biden one-on-one, the pope recognized the mental incapacity that severely limited Bide's moral culpability for his actions. He thus reassured the mentally incompetent man that he was a good Catholic, the same way a toddler would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think Francis was actually thinking, "This dude is totally going straight to hell, but he's an old man, I'll just humor him so he's happy for his last few years before starting on that eternal torment."

That doesn't seem like a Popish thing to do.

[Sarcastr0]

Both of you are just writing fan fiction because you can't abide by the Pope just thinking Biden was a good Catholic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's true, and it's because, according to well established Church doctrine on abortion, which Francis hasn't changed, Biden ISN'T a good Catholic.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not Catholic. But it appears to me you may be you're essentializing something the Pope does not.

In any case, coming at the Pope re: who is a good Catholic seems quite a move to make.

[bernard11]

Sarcastro,

You have to understand that Brett considers himself a greater authority on Roman Catholic beliefs than Francis or probably any Pope.

Now, Popes can be wrong. They used to hate Jews, but that changed dramatically, which I appreciate, but somewhere there someone must be wrong.

So too with Vatican 2. Someone was wrong. I suspect Brett lines up with the conservatives. Very important to have the mass in Latin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Appalachia is WASP -- Protestant...

[Frank Drackman]

are there any "BASP"s "Black- Anglo Saxon Protestants"??

[bernard11]

I don't think there are, or ever were, any black Anglo-Saxons, of whatever faith. They probably couldn't assemble a minyan.

[Frank Drackman]

What about the "Black Irish"??

[Don Nico]

Actually, Pelosi has been forbidden to receive communion by the archbishop of San Francisco

[Mr. Bumble]

She fakes it using NECCO wafers like we did when we were kids.

[Frank Drackman]

Never got it, so Hey-Zeus ends up in my Stomach?? (and it gets even worse from there!)

[Krayt]

To use strikethru text affectation, use the 's' html tag.

Example: Be ye kind.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

NO, you just don't read enough

“The love of our private friends is the only preparatory exercise for the love of all men.”
― John Henry Newman

[Gasman]

Religious organizations need to have cameras always on, leader in clearly religious clothing and a sacrament/service/prayer prepared to queue up at the first whiff of agents coming with a warrant.
They will not be stopped in the moment, but images like that of Bull Connor releasing the dogs and using firehoses on people will be at least part of the future truth and reconciliation process, or Hazel Bryan screaming at a Black student heading to school in Little Rock. People must be reminded that the internet has a long memory, and that being a storm trooper just following orders will not exonerate them in the eyes of their children and grandchildren.

[John F. Carr]

Compare United States v. Joseph, docket 1:19-cr-10141 in the District of Massachusetts. During Trump's first term a Massachusetts judge was charged with obstruction of justice for helping somebody in her courtroom evade ICE. A motion to dismiss was denied. Appeal from denial dismissed as premature at 26 F.4th 528 (1st Cir. 2022). The Biden administration dropped charges without any binding precedent being set. Extremism in resisting Trump is no vice.

The defense tried to paint a picture of the courtroom as a protected sanctuary. That didn't work.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14997570/united-states-v-joseph/
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-joseph-167

In the present case, if churches are sheltering people wanted by the federal government I see no reasonable alternative than to go in and get them. If the wanted people just drop in on Christmas and Easter for services there is a reasonable alternative.

[David Nieporent]

The Biden administration dropped charges

That's true, but incomplete. They dropped criminal charges in exchange for it being handled through the judicial discipline process. And that process is ongoing; it hasn't been dropped:

https://www.mass.gov/news/commission-on-judicial-conduct-files-formal-charges-against-judge-shelley-m-richmond-joseph

[Commenter_XY]

David...Is the length of time for this judicial discipline process wrt judge Joseph unusually lengthy? Or is this pace considered normal (a couple of years now, correct)?

[Noscitur a sociis]

They dropped the charges in exchange for… doing what would have happened anyway?

What a deal!

[TwelveInchPianist]

How, exactly, is that an exchange? Who agreed to what?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you have any thoughts on the legal (versus ecclesiastical) merits of the complaint? It strikes me as an extremely weak argument, but I’m curious if I’m missing something.

[not guilty]

I am skeptical of the First Amendment claim. In that judicial decisions such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), have trivialized the substantial burden component, the RFRA claim looks to be sufficient to shift the burden to the defendants both to identify a compelling governmental interest and to show that the challenged practice is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. I will accordingly wait until I see the defendants' response before forming an opinion as to the potential merits.

That having been said, I doubt that the defendants will be able to show a compelling governmental interest in effecting seizures at houses of worship which could not be accomplished under the previous "sensitive places" policy.

[santamonica811]

For sports fans; an interesting development recently here in LA. The Lakers had done a trade for a center, a young Mr. Williams. Right at the very end of the trade "window" the dates where trades are allowed in the NBA between teams, which is relevant.

Laker fans (including me!) were excited about this, as having a center who can play excellent defense close to the basket is the glaring weakness in this particular Laker team, and this seemed to fill the void. But...

A few days later, the trade was rescinded, as Williams had apparently failed his physical. He had had significant back injuries and had not played in a while, so this was already a known quantity. But news reports are that Williams failed on multiple parts of his body. Either his team hid this information from the Lakers, or he hid it from his own team...who, obviously, had no information that it could disclose to the Lakers.

I gather that many or most trades are made contingent on players passing a physical, and it's not that rare for a deal to be rescinded, due to an unknown injury. (In baseball, it's really common for a pitcher's known injury to end up being diagnosed as far more severe than previously thought, for example.).

Why am I bringing all this up? Because Williams' original team (Charlotte) is doing something that is extremely rare. . . they are challenging the right of the Lakers to rescind the deal. Maybe this has happened before, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

1. Anyone out there know anything more about this particular situation? More than has been reported on ESPN and/or the LA Times?
2. I think we have to assume that the other injured body parts were not disclosed to the Lakers. Or, at best, they were disclosed, but had been really minimized. So, I'm very curious: Now that Charlotte has challenged, what happens procedurally? Will an arbitrator be assigned? Will the commissioner himself make a decision? Other than looking at the disclosures by Charlotte in advance of the trade (written communications; medical charts; verbal representations???), on what basis could they win? I'm assuming that every single "complaint" of the Lakers is supported by a medical x-ray, or CT scan, or something tangible, right?

If you were defending Charlotte, what sort of defense (well, offense, in this case, I guess) would you try and present?

[santamonica811]

(I forgot to mention in time to handle this via Edit: It's the fact that the "window" has closed that made the rescission necessary on the part of the Lakers. If the trade had happened quite a bit earlier and Williams had failed his physical during the trade window period; Charlotte and LA could have amended the deal, to account for Williams' worse-than-expected health, longevity, etc..)

[Commenter_XY]

Caveat Emptor 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

...as shown by four years of President? Biden.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

That Latin phrase applies to facultative purchases
In the real world of , say, choosing Kamala Harris or Donald Trump the appropriate Latin is

Potest Solum Unum

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA but even I have to ask what the league rules say. I can't imagine that they don't address this if they regulate trades (e.g. "window") and on a practical sense, teams are owned by businessmen and I can't see them not wanting their own medical evaluations -- not unlike real estate appraisals.

But absent that, wouldn't this come down to misrepresentation and contract law?

[Frank Drackman]

NBA has been unwatchable since Larry Bird retired, the 24 second clock, lack of D-fense, travelling calls, and the endless parade of tattooed Circus Freaks throwing up 40 ft shots, tuned into the Allstar weekend a few years ago, they were friggin playing "HORSE"
which was actually entertaining.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Valentine's Day is right around the corner. A time of love and kisses and whatever. Busy lawyers and law professors especially need to blow off steam. And, it must be red, easy to make, and healthy. Try this drink recipe (use vodka), it checks all the boxes.

https://toriavey.com/persian-pomegranate-mocktail/

The orange blossom water makes this drink. Very easy to make, dump ingredients into your blender and blend to slushy consistency. Then drink with your loved one and...whatever.

Enjoy! (I mean that)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Vodka goggles?

[Commenter_XY]

Vodka is pretty flexible. I myself might also try a bourbon, or even Jaegermeister (lol, I remember my days of university).

[Brett Bellmore]

I find it pretty useful in making flaky pie crusts, but otherwise don't have much use for it. If I actually want to drink something, I'd usually stick to my own homebrew mead and pear cider, or sometimes some Kalua and cream.

[Ska]

I'd say gin if you want something stronger and more flavorful than vodka. The herbal taste would work in that recipe. Rum would work, too - sort of like a Persian mai tai.

If you're going Jaeger but wanted a more region accurate spirit - arak. Anise flavored, sweeter than Jaegermeister but similarly herbal. I think it would be way too sweet though.

[Commenter_XY]

That could work too = gin. Great suggestion. The juniper will pair nicely with pomegranate.

[santamonica811]

Okay, you're back in my good graces again. 🙂

We made it today, and it's a really really good cocktail. We used honey in place of the agave/sugar, and that was a raging success...the flavors really harmonized. This was probably my second favorite cocktail ever, in fact.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, I am very pleased to be back in your good graces once again, and I hope I remain in your good graces.

Really glad you and your partner liked it. I mean that sincerely.

You can 'keto-ize' this by using stevia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enough is enough -- it's time to arrest the never-Trump judges for Insurrection. Yes, arrest them and throw them into the DC jail.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously Ed? Insurrection? Now you sound as crazy as the Dems insisting Jan. 6 was an insurrection.
What needs to be done is some clarifying rule as to the legitimacy of nationwide TRO's and injunctions issued by district courts.

[hobie]

Why Bumble, I'm glad to see you embracing rules for national injunctions. It only took three weeks into the new presidency to get there

[not guilty]

I'll bite. Insurrection is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which states in full:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

How does a judge presiding in a judicial proceeding making a ruling adverse to Donald Trump violate that statute?

Dr. Ed 2, pretend you are an Assistant United States Attorney drafting an indictment against a "never-Trump judge" alleging "insurrection" for presentation to a grand jury in the District of Columbia. What facts would you allege in such an indictment?

[Commenter_XY]

Sedition or the Espionage Act....those are the tried and true standbys. Nice amorphous language in both acts. Note: The judges are guilty of neither (sedition, espionage).

The only remedy I can see is impeachment.

[hobie]

Impeach judges that rule against administrations. Got it

[Commenter_XY]

That is not what I said, hobie.

[hobie]

Heh. You literally said:

"The only remedy I can see is impeachment."

[Commenter_XY]

I am not in favor of impeaching judges, Congress-critters or Executive Branch officers willy-nilly over policy disagreements. You are implying that I favor this; I do not. That said, impeachment is the only constitutional remedy I see. Do you see another?

There are no Bush judges, Obama judges, Biden judges, or Trump judges. There are federal judges who do their best to interpret the law, fairly and impartially.

Sometimes, they get it wrong. I personally think that is the case with the judge in RI (huge overreach) and Englemeyer in NY (also huge overreach). I would not impeach either one.

Appeal, and slow walk careful compliance (less staff, need more time). It would take weeks before a Court says compliance is dilatory, and contemptuous.

Two can play the game, hobie.

[Luneuka]

why are you inferring good faith on behalf of these people? they haven't done anything to earn it.

[Sarcastr0]

You contradict yourself within this post. You are against impeaching judges, but also it's the only remedy. Which you would not use, though.
Even if the judges are very bad and should not be obeyed, through bad faith delaying.

And the libs are to blame.

What the fuck is going on in your brain?

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think these two judges have done anything that is an impeachable offense, and said as much. These judges have made their rulings, I assume in good faith, but are wrong decisions. They are now being appealed.

Compliance with their rulings is another matter. One side effect of bureaucritter staff reductions is it will simply take longer to comply with the ruling. That isn't being dilatory. Tough noogies.

In the meantime, their rulings will be appealed and overturned at some point. Just like the last time (during 45's tenure).

[Sarcastr0]

That isn't being dilatory. Tough noogies.

No, this 'actually the authoritarian destruction I'm cheering for will still go on because of all the other authoritarian destruction going on' is wrong. As well as being insane.

1. No one has been let go yet. The numbers leaving the workforce remain quite small. And civil service protections are still in place.
2. Winding down stuff and stopping contracts takes *more* people not less.

[Swede425]

You're correct.
A little bit of patience keeps things right on track.
The next "constitutional crisis" occurs when the SC "capitulates" to Trump's "power grab" after they smack these lower courts down.
Everybody knows it's coming but it still has to play out.
Trump 2.0 is a much better model than I had hoped for.

[David Nieporent]

You contradict yourself within this post. You are against impeaching judges, but also it's the only remedy.

I'm as critical of C_XY's MAGA turn as anyone, but he isn't contradicting himself. The only remedy for (non-criminal) judicial misconduct is impeachment; that is a factual statement that is true regardless of whether impeachment is justified in any particular case.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Dr. Ed 2. What facts would you allege in an "insurrection" indictment of a "never-Trump" judge?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States "

[not guilty]

That, sir, is a legal conclusion rather than a statement of facts. Per Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Once again, what facts would you allege in an "insurrection" indictment of a "never-Trump" judge?

[Luneuka]

better to put them in gas chambers and pump them full of sarin.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this a new blondie pseud?

[Commenter_XY]

This Sunday, POTUS Trump has explicitly stated that all hell will break loose (violently) if the remaining hostages held by Judeocidal hamas terrorists are not released by Saturday. It sounded to me like The Donald was blustering.

The likelihood of direct US military action in gaza increased very significantly in the wake of his statements. Don't kid yourselves, POTUS Trump will act.

When US military becomes involved, will Congress invoke the War Powers Act? Yes or No.
C_XY: Yes, Congress will invoke WPA (which has never been tested in court)

Is WPA constitutional? Yes or no.
C_XY: No. It encroaches on art II powers of the executive to carry our foreign policy. Congress can withhold money, but not much else.

Will we get the hostages back? Yes or No.
C_XY: No, the hamas human animals will kill them (if they haven't tortured them to death already) and hide/destroy the bodies.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When US military becomes involved, will Congress invoke the War Powers Act? Yes or No"

No. Too few members of Congress love Hamas, (And yet, ironically, far too many.) and doing so in the context of Hamas holding American hostages is about the worst possible occasion to try out the WPA.

"Is WPA constitutional? Yes or no."

Yes, actually. Congress' power to declare war, or not!, is empty if the President can wage war regardless.

"Will we get the hostages back? Yes or No."

No, for the reasons you cite. And Hamas' actions will give Trump the political cover he needs to set out to eradicate Hamas from the face of the Earth. This is the sort of action average Americans are going to be fully supportive of, pussy footing around with terrorists who've attacked Americans has never been popular.

[Martinned2]

Wasn't the whole point of Trump that he wouldn't get the US involved in foreign wars?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, something about "optional" wars? Going to war with people who've attacked Americans isn't widely viewed as "optional" outside DC. More like, the whole point of having a military.

[hobie]

It's called 'Alternative Wars', Martin. Kelly Anne Conway coined that one

[David Nieporent]

I believe Trump's comrades call them "Special Military Operations."

[Martinned2]

Ah, OK, so we're forgetting about that whole "no foreign wars" thing then. Good to know, particularly given that the ICC is about 3 miles from here.

[SimonP]

Every Trumper believes that every Trump promise will be kept, and every Trump promise is in fact kept, excluding those promises that Trump chooses not to keep, which each Trumper will retroactively qualify or disavow, as needed, to suit Daddy Trump's convenience.

The record of batting 1.000 on "promises kept" will continue, no matter what their lying eyes and ears tell them.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

You sound like Biden !!!!
Sometimes to extricate yourself from agression you must be agressive. Falklands for example. 'This is no time to go wobbly'

[Martinned2]

That's another sudden case of amnesia, then.

[Don Nico]

Which is why he said expressly that it is Israel's decision. It is the IDF that will do the deed.

[not guilty]

Is WPA constitutional? Yes or no.
C_XY: No. It encroaches on art II powers of the executive to carry our foreign policy. Congress can withhold money, but not much else.

Wrong! The constitution authorizes Congress (Article I, § 8):

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

[Commenter_XY]

I stand corrected, NG. But is WPA constitutional? What do you think?

[not guilty]

I haven't done a deep dive into the War Powers Act, but I think it is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power. In addition to the enumerated powers I listed above, Article I, § 8 authorizes Congress "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[Riva]

Maybe you can find another judicial hack activist to issue a restraining order? Ex parte of course.

[Riva]

Oh wait, you guys can go full retard and have Hamas get a TRO. Again, ex parte.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Gaza -- neutron bombs.

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, you really need to disabuse yourself of any thought of nuking gaza because it is a very bad idea. Do you really want two-headed hamasniks being born? No, I do not think so. The fallout would affect Egypt and Lebanon, not to mention Israel.

Israel isn't gonna nuke gaza (if they have nukes).
America isn't gonna nuke gaza.
Iran isn't gonna nuke gaza (if they have nukes).

Nobody is nuking gaza, DE2.

Now, hunting down every hamas human animal and the people who directly support them, and killing them is perfectly fine. The traditional terms of war in that neighborhood are surrender or death. I think it is safe to say surrender is off the table, for now.

No one involved in 10/7 or subsequent the actions wrt the hostages should die a natural death.

[Estragon]

“human animal”

Like… island of Dr. Moreau? What kind of animal human are you imagining? Like— centaurs or something? Sphinxes? The human fly? The pigman from Seinfeld? I’m trying to get a handle on what you’re picturing when you say this.

[Commenter_XY]

Feel free to post your picture, Estragon. Then you'll know. 😉

[Estragon]

It’s a curious formulation you seem increasingly fond of employing. I wonder what other groups you might consider applying it to in the future?

Thankfully, at least it has pushed “smash” onto the back burner— that was getting a bit icky and stale.

[Commenter_XY]

I feel Ok with calling Judeocidal terrorists whose acts are vile and malevolent, human animals. I see this troubles you, Estragon.

FTR, I am perfectly fine with killing them in response to their horrific acts. Since these very same human animals currently hold Americans hostage, and tortured and killed other Americans, it is A-Ok to me to use US military to kill them in response. We have a POTUS who feels similarly.

Surprising no one, hamas has already violated the ceasefire. The ceasefire will end, and the war will resume.

[Estragon]

“I feel Ok with calling [people] human animals.”

I know. As I pointed out— you seem increasingly comfortable with this formulation.

[Bob from Ohio]

Estrogen in 1945: Why are you calling Nazi death camp guards "human animals"?

[Estragon]

For the record— in a discussion about dehumanizing rhetoric, you were the one who brought up Nazis.

[Bob from Ohio]

"For the record"

So you think Nazi death camp guards were not "human animals"?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Interesting that you would use that particular analogy, rather than one that is a much closer analogy, namely the Nazis using dehumanizing language against Jews.

[Bob from Ohio]

"human animals"

Its a bit unfair to animals, they kill for food mainly. Animals lack human thinking skills.

Monsters maybe, that won't give Estrogen the vapors I hope.

[Estragon]

Nothing you could say could give me the vapors, Bob— because after all these years here I think I have a pretty good sense of the kind of person you are

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm the kind of person who thinks Hamas are monsters, looks like you don't. No surprise there.

[Estragon]

I am comfortable calling their actions monstrous. They are still people.

[bernard11]

I agree with Bob that calling Hamas or concentration camp guards "animals" is grossly unfair to animals.

Animals kill for food, and in self-defense. Lions don't hunt gazelles because they don't like them. In fact, they are rather fond of gazelles, served up with a nice sauce and accompanied by a good Bordeaux.

Even fights by males over sexual privileges seldom end up with fatalities. The loser usually just slinks off,

[Don Nico]

Why does the famous talking horse always think about nuking places?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I don't get the fascination with DE2 nuking places, either. Maybe he'll think about it and change his mind. Time will tell.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe he'll think about it and change his mind.

L, as they saying goes, OL

[Commenter_XY]

Hope springs eternal, Nas.

[Don Nico]

NaS,
He has no mind to change!

[Brett Bellmore]

Small places with neighbors we like, yet!

[John F. Carr]

If the world genuinely starts thinking a real genocide is going in in Gaza there will be consequences. By real genocide I mean what would have been thought of as genocide when the word was young. Not the weak stuff that passes for crimes against humanity now. I remember a European country declaring universal jurisdiction over one couple keeping a servant captive. The ANC is charging Israel with genocide because the PLO and ANC were on the same side during the Cold War and the ANC wants to relive the good old days. Forcible displacement for a redevelopment project may well violate various treaties but it's a long way from killing the all residents of Gaza.

If the U.S. and Israel are perceived as aiming to kill the Gazans, the countries that right now only cut off arms sales to Israel will react.

The Ankara Tribunal would be a good short name. More formally, the Euro-Levantine Commission on Crimes Subject to Universal Jurisdiction by Entities Not Subject to the Rome Statute. Immunity under customary international law is no defense. Obeying orders is no defense. Donnie, have you ever been in a Turkish prison? (No, he wouldn't really be extradited.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Genocide is overused, but "ethnic cleansing" seems more appropriate anyway. Trump has overtly called for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, there being no other way of interpreting his words (once the "temporary" smokescreen had dissipated): All Palestinians will be permanently removed from Gaza and "resettled" elsewhere, and their land will be seized and redeveloped into the United Kingdom of Trumpindom.

[Krayt]

The point of a neutron bomb was kill people via radiation while leaving infrastructure standing. This is conceptually disgusting against a city. But no matter.

What infrastructure remains standing to be preserved?

[SykesFive]

Tell me you don't know anything about nuclear weapons without telling me . . . .

The idea that neutron bombs spare the property but kill the people is ultimately communist propaganda from the 1970s that was meant to support the Soviet-backed peace movement in the NATO countries. "It's the capitalists' weapon!"

What enhanced radiation weapons (the preferred term) actually do is align the lethal blast and prompt radiation radii more closely. The use case was in battle in Western Europe. It turns out a tank is very good protection against blast, so the way to take it out is with prompt radiation. But if you increase the yield, most of it is blast. The problem here is that there's a village about every 2 kilometers, so you don't want a huge blast radius that will kill civilians. Hence the ERW. You don't get all that excess blast, so you end up destroying fewer villages in the course of taking out the invading tanks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Neutron Bomb, because it released so much of it's energy as neutrons, produced very little fallout.

[John F. Carr]

The U.S. does not have much to add to the war. Israel is already at the "bounce the rubble" phase of the bombing campaign. A bomb dropped from an American aircraft is one less bomb to ship to Israel.

American ground forces are not up to the task of launching a rescue or retaliation mission in a densely populated area full of armed militants and prepared defenses. Black Hawk Down would look like a walk in the park in comparison.

Trump may order a bomb to be dropped just to show the world he is angry.

[Martinned2]

Hush, you're ruining their bloodlust party with your realism and your facts.

[Bob from Ohio]

" Israel is already at the "bounce the rubble" phase of the bombing campaign."

There are areas of Gaza with minimal damage since that is where the IDF believed most hostages were held. Though I agree with your general point.

[David Nieporent]

C_XY: No. It encroaches on art II powers of the executive to carry our foreign policy.

I reiterate that there is no such "power" listed in "art II." The powers to nominate (with senate approval) ambassadors, to receive ministers, and to negotiate (but not ratify!) treaties are in there. But no general "foreign policy" power. To be sure, the Supreme Court has found something of such a power in emanations and penumbras, but I think Scalia's dissent in Zivotofsky was far more compelling.

[Commenter_XY]

David, the Exec branch conducts foreign policy. Why do we have a State Dept; they execute foreign policy from their boss. They don't take direction from Congress other than funding (meaning, for example, no Senator or congressman directs the ambassador to New Zealand to execute anything).

Back to WPA (the orig topic): Will it be invoked (think gaza)? Is it constitutional? What do you think?

[David Nieporent]

Is it constitutional? What do you think?

It is unlikely that 1544(c) survives INS v. Chadha, but the rest of it, sure.

[Martinned2]

A Congressman from Georgia decided to kill two birds with one stone: Buy Greenland and fix the shameless misinformation inherent in its name at the same time.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-congressman-moves-help-trump-acquire-greenland-rename-red-white-blueland

[Brett Bellmore]

Judge tells agencies to restore webpages and data removed after Trump's executive order

I think the Supreme court is going to get tired of these injunctions pretty soon, with every Judge Tom, Judge Dick, and Judge Harry thinking they're in charge of the executive branch.

[Sarcastr0]

Judges are finding he's breaking the law, undermining Congressional authorization and appropriation laws with his administration's sabotage of agencies.

They aren't directing the executive branch, they're keeping it to it's delineated authorities.

You, being the worst libertarian on the planet, are no fan of delineated authorities when you can short-term get something shaped a bit like what you want.

So lets follow up defying the legislature and all those annoying laws with defying the judiciary and all those annoying rulings.

Your open authoritarianism continues to amaze me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What part of Compelled Speech do you not understand, Gaslighto?

[Martinned2]

The part where it's the government being compelled?

[David Nieporent]

You're using big boy words you don't understand.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's how judges order people about: By finding that not doing as they say would be breaking the law. It's frequently just a formalism.

Does anybody actually think the law clearly orders the executive branch to maintain these web pages?

[Sarcastr0]

The TRO is to prevent irreparable harm until the case is brought properly.

As to the underlying argument, I believe the argument is via the APA this is an 'arbitrary and capricious' change to an existing regulation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Doctors of America memorandum cited by the judge itself notes (In a footnote on page 6) that all of the referenced webpages are available through the Internet Archive, and helpfully provides the urls through which they may be accessed.

Which by itself is sufficient to establish that there is no irreparable harm. So enough with the hysteria already.

[Commenter_XY]

The meltdowns are spectacular, Brett. Endless amusement.

Since the cauliflower dropped out in July of last year, it has been hilarious watching them.

[Martinned2]

Yes, the breakdown of the rule of law is hilarious.

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/02/the-paradox-of-the-billionaires-saying-that-court-orders-have-no-value-for-without-court-orders-there-could-not-be-billionaires/

[David Nieporent]

The meltdowns are spectacular, Brett. Endless amusement.

This is puzzling, since it's MAGA that's been melting down: ranting about impeaching, arresting, even killing judges who dare rule against the Dear Leader.

[Bwaaah]

When did you decide that the voice of MAGA is reflected by people like Dr. Ed2? That sounds pretty wrong. (I don't believe you misunderstand; I believe you are insincere.)

Mainstream MAGA is watching and enjoying the fun in D.C. You could never.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mainstream MAGA is watching and enjoying the fun in D.C."

Yes, while Dem congresscritters march to buildings they can't get into and yell hysterically at security guards. Or yell that they want to f**k Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

BfO (and Bwaaah)...It has truly been a spectacle. Absolutely priceless, and comedic gold. And the best part is that I don't even have to pay money to see the daily comedy show.

It is like watching a version of the Luke Crywalker meme, every day.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. Even my apolitical wife, who would probably never vote for DJT, is having fun watching it.

[John F. Carr]

If the data is static text having a backup copy could be good enough. Interactive pages driven by database queries don't back up well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Good call: The interactive portions of the archived pages are indeed not working.

Well, then I withdraw my claim that they themselves have proven no harm. But I still think the idea of a random judge being able to order around an entire branch of government like this is lunacy. It's the sort of thing that ought to be kicked straight up to the Supreme court.

[Commenter_XY]

It will take a lot of time to reconnect the interactive portions of the pages. Oh well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do government IT professionals not retain the ability to revert easily when doing this sort of thing? It seems pretty basic.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe. Possibly. Still takes time. A lot of testing, and re-testing. Then it needs validation. I could see that restoration taking several months, if not years.

So many priorities, so many fewer staff to do them. The judge will understand.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wouldn't you normally revert by just changing a pointer to again point to the old version of the site, instead of the new one? No sensible person just alters the one and only site when rolling out a change. That's almost "HTML for Dummies" level knowledge.

But, I don't know, maybe government IT people have horrible practices that don't allow for easy reversion.

[David Nieporent]

Wouldn't you normally revert by just changing a pointer to again point to the old version of the site, instead of the new one? No sensible person just alters the one and only site when rolling out a change. That's almost "HTML for Dummies" level knowledge.

Brett, you are misunderstanding. C_XY is not making a factual claim about the technical aspects of situation; he is advocating that the administration in bad faith refuse to comply with the order by lying about the technical aspects.

[Commenter_XY]

Not at all, David. Great care was exercised in creating those web pages by the Biden administration. And an equal amount of care must be taken in order to restore them, by the Trump administration, to guard against any potential misinformation being transmitted to the public.

It is merely following the existing process = UX testing. It is not as simple as flipping a switch. I know, it is inconvenient. But I hear that Elon has some great programmers working for him. Maybe they can help speed up the process, in between feeding useless and corrupt agencies to the woodchipper.

[bernard11]

So you don't give a shit. Is that right? You do know that there are researchers who rely on these web pages.

But hey, lots of them work in those commie universities, so fuck 'em. Right, XY?

The extent to which you back anything Trump does, no matter how stupid and destructive, is astonishing.

[David Nieporent]

But I still think the idea of a random judge being able to order around an entire branch of government like this is lunacy.

Judges ordering around litigants is the way every lawsuit in the United States works and has always worked.
(Weirdly, you have no quarrel with the idea of a random guy being able to order around an entire branch of government.)

It's the sort of thing that ought to be kicked straight up to the Supreme court.

Well, the founders disagreed; the Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction over these cases, but only appellate jurisdiction, as a constitutional matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your ordinary litigant isn't an entire branch of government.

" the Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction over these cases, but only appellate jurisdiction, as a constitutional matter."

It does not currently. I'm suggesting Congress should ADD it to their original jurisdiction, per Article III: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I believe, (And a number of early constitutional commenters agreed.) that the above clause allows Congress to add to the Court's original jurisdiction, NOT remove topics entirely from the judiciary's jurisdiction.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You might want to look at a case called Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174-175 (1803). You can probably find a copy online.

[David Nieporent]

I believe, (And a number of early constitutional commenters agreed.) that the above clause allows Congress to add to the Court's original jurisdiction,

You believe incorrectly. That was the primary holding of Marbury v. Madison, a case you might have heard of.

[Brett Bellmore]

And not everybody agreed with that take on it at the time.

[David Nieporent]

Your ordinary litigant isn't an entire branch of government.

There is no "entire branch of government" as a litigant in any of these cases. There can't be; one can't sue "Jones v. Executive Branch." Whichever agency or department (or sometimes the head of that department) that is involved with a particular issue is the litigant.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

You both make the same mistake "They are" --- there is no unified action and certainly no agreement on why two judges agrees. It can often be that the same judicial ruling has opposed reasons that support it.

[Luneuka]

if they really believed he was breaking the law, their rulings would have legal analysis. none of them do.

the idea that the public has a right to do research on cdc sites is a joke, and you know it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

if they really believed he was breaking the law, their rulings would have legal analysis. none of them do.

What are you talking about?

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and an Order. The Memorandum Opinion explains the Court’s legal reasoning, and the Order tells the parties what they have to do. Links are below. You will note that the Order says that the reasons for issuing the Order are stated in the Memorandum Opinion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277069/gov.uscourts.dcd.277069.12.0_1.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277069/gov.uscourts.dcd.277069.11.0_2.pdf

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Judges are finding he's breaking the law,

No the judges are not finding he is breaking the law - They are agreeing with the policy dispute and making a ruling under the guise of breaking the law.

[Sarcastr0]

Your shallow dismissal bespeaks a lazy refusal to read any of the orders, preferring to rely on your usual mix of vibes and anger.

[Joe_dallas]

Your shallow partisan response bespeaks of your very lazy reading of the order and your inability to determine the difference between a policy dispute and an actual legal dispute.

[Sarcastr0]

OK dude. Keep fronting like you've done your homework.

[Joe_dallas]

You certainly havent done the homework - otherwise you our be able to recognize that its a policy dispute from reading and understanding the ruling.

The ruling reaks of a policy disputes.

READ and UNDERSTAND

[Sarcastr0]

Weird the order here cites the APA.
Or the treasury thing that cites a ton of privacy laws and authorities.

I guess the real answer is we gotta cite Common Sense, as defined by super-lay-expert Joe_dallas.

So expert he doesn't need to do the reading!

[Joe_dallas]

Yes it cites the APA - yet there is no difference when the CDC has previously removed web pages for policy reasons without adherence to APA and this time when they removed web pages for policy reasons. You intentionally ignore that fact.

Throughout the ruling, the judge makes "policy judgements"

Bottom line is this is a policy dispute.

[Sarcastr0]

1. A complete shutdown of a website is not the same as taking some stuff down.

2. The specifics of when changing a website is an issue depends on the underlying regulations about what goes on the website and how. Neither you nor I know what the regs are like for CDC vs. NIH-wide are, regarding what can be removed and how.
Until those facts are laid down in pleadings, for now, there's a colorable legal argument.

Not a policy dispute. No sign of a policy dispute.

Yet again, you're ignorant and fill the gap with vibes and anger.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - states "Not a policy dispute. No sign of a policy dispute."

Seriously ? You are not even trying to be honest

[Absaroka]

"Neither you nor I know what the regs are like for CDC vs. NIH-wide are, regarding what can be removed and how."

Obviously, IANAL. Wouldn't it be normal practice for a TRO motion to specify the regs being violated?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Weird the order here cites the APA.
Or the treasury thing that cites a ton of privacy laws and authorities."

Courts cite stuff even when they are making policy.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're just going to declare it's all in bad faith, go ahead.

But unless you're going to support that contention, it's just a tantrum.

[Bob from Ohio]

"tantrum"

No, its an observation or opinion.

There is no "support" you are going to accept anyways.

[David Nieporent]

No the judges are not finding he is breaking the law - They are agreeing with the policy dispute and making a ruling under the guise of breaking the law.

Bookkeeper_Joe showing that legal acumen that has made him such an accomplished microbiologist!

[Absaroka]

"Judges are finding he's breaking the law"

The article linked above in turn links to the complaint. The issue seems to be that web pages were deleted.

One ironic aside is that the complaint identifies the deleted web pages without which doctors will be unable to treat emergency cases by ... giving the URLs for the archive.org pages.

But in the bigger picture, are you advocating that agencies can't delete or make changes to web pages without full on APA rule making? Because that seems pretty unworkable.

If you are advocating some lesser rule about when the courts can oversee changes to government web sites, can you articulate what that rule is?

I picked one of the URLs in question at random. It was created in November 2024, so doctor's can only have been saving lives with it for a relatively short time. In your opinion, what rulemaking process was required to create it? If it replaced some previous page, what rule making process was required prior to that change?

I'm going to assert without checking that previous administrations created, changed, and deleted web pages without any rule making process[1]. Were you unaware of those or just didn't find those particular changes objectionable?

[1]WISQARS and the UCR reporting were both, IMHO, significantly downgraded during the Obama administration, if my fast failing memory serves.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know the regulatory universe here, but from the argument it seems there are regulations about what goes on the website and when.
There is a legit argument under the APA that an agency can't stop following that regulation arbitrarily.

As to the case of urgency, the information being available and easy to find may itself have some exigency to it. And no, the Internet Archive doesn't answer that mail.

[Absaroka]

So, for specifics, what process do you think ought to have been required before creating the page in the first place in 2024? Was that process followed?

Or, consider every time some DEI wordage was added to web pages over the years. Are the process requirements to add DEI wordage to a given page the same as the requirements to delete the same wordage from that page?

This abundance of process for changing web pages is a phenomenon I haven't encountered before, and the government has been making web pages for three decades by now.

[Sarcastr0]

We are not in the land of should; we are in the land of is.

Dismissive arguments that the judge in the NIH and other cases have gone with policy and not the law are ignoring the real life legal findings being made. That depends on what the law *is*

Scrubbing DEI stuff is a vastly descoped issue from the order currently under discussion.
With that proviso, the final analysis is the same - does it appear in law; does it appear in regulation?
If it's directed in law ("shall create a portal/perform outreach efforts" or anything in appropriation etc.), the Admin has some tough legal sledding.
If it's in reg, then the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard comes to the fore.

This abundance of process for changing web pages is a phenomenon I haven't encountered before
You're focusing on process when the issue is substance. If the *substance* is reflected in reg, than you can't arbitrarily change it.

[Absaroka]

"If it's directed in law ... If it's in reg"

I'm still confused here. The Motion for a TRO lists pages, says they are useful, and then cites very generic PRA law saying "every agency must “ensure that the public has timely
and equitable access to the agency’s public information”".

Fair enough. Let's consider the specific page referenced above that was created 3 months ago. The TRO motion doesn't specify 'this page is required by CFR or USC blah. If it is currently required under the generic PRA admonition, was the Biden administration wrong to not have created it prior to last November? What changed, PRA wise, between last October when the page didn't exist, last November when it was created, and today?

I'd really appreciate some specificity here, about that web page, as opposed to generalized 'some web page might exist that the PRA would cover'.

[Sarcastr0]

The TRO is also looking at irreparable harm, since it's strong medicine.

So you need both some kind of colorable legal argument, AND a reason to roll heavy with a TRO until it gets addressed

My issue above was regarding those claiming there is no legal issue here.

Now, I never took remedies, but from what I read of the order, the exigency discussion is an independent inquiry from the legal lay of the land.

[Absaroka]

So, what is the colorable legal argument that this page is required by law today, and was not required prior to three months ago?

[David Nieporent]

Let's consider the specific page referenced above that was created 3 months ago. The TRO motion doesn't specify 'this page is required by CFR or USC blah. If it is currently required under the generic PRA admonition, was the Biden administration wrong to not have created it prior to last November? What changed, PRA wise, between last October when the page didn't exist, last November when it was created, and today?

I mean, when did the government acquire that particular data? If it acquired it recently, then obviously it could only have published it recently.

[Absaroka]

Just wandering around that page and a few of the linked pages, it doesn't look like much changed recently. For example the "SVI Data & Documentation Download" page lets you download by year, and the most recent year is 2022. The main page was first posted on 18Nov, but on the page the date is 22Jul. Hard to be sure, but it doesn't look like anything that is updated very often.

[David Nieporent]

So, for specifics, what process do you think ought to have been required before creating the page in the first place in 2024? Was that process followed?

Without getting too much into the weeds, it is unlikely that there are regulations in place for creating an individual web page. It is more likely that there are regulations in place for publishing certain types of government data. If Trump or his cronies had ordered the editing of individual pages, those regulations would not be implicated, but by simply ordering that the pages be taken down wholesale, they are.

[Absaroka]

"If Trump or his cronies had ordered the editing of individual pages, those regulations would not be implicated, but by simply ordering that the pages be taken down wholesale, they are."

I hear what you are saying, and agree that if you want to make changes - whether it's the font or changing 'woman' to/from 'persons who menstruate' - it's dumb to do it by taking the page down; just tell whoever maintains the pages to start editing.

That said, were I on the SC 🙂 when the case arrives, I think I'd thumbs down this case (at least for this page; haven't looked at other pages). Even if congress mandated 'the treasury dept shall electronically publish CPI data' I wouldn't interpret that to require zero downtime.

And FWIW, the plaintiffs didn't mention such a mandate in their motion for a TRO.

[tylertusta]

You're looking for the Paperwork Reduction Act.

[Joe_dallas]

As Absaroka states - "But in the bigger picture, are you advocating that agencies can't delete or make changes to web pages without full on APA rule making? Because that seems pretty unworkable."

Agreed - agencies routinely remove and/or change web pages without any APA and or APR rule making process.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your open authoritarianism continues to amaze me."

What part of "I think the Supreme court is going to get tired of these injunctions pretty soon..." open authoritarianism?

[Don Nico]

It is not authoritarianism. That is your ipse dixit.
It is a simple observation that with nationwide TROs and injunction, one can almost always find some judge willing to issue any order.
One just has to take a deep breath and see how appeals play out.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett is advocating against judicial checks on the executive.

No ipse dixit about it.

No one is 'finding' judges. This isn't a single judge district situation.

Trump is acting lawlessly, and daring the courts to stop him. Many on here are mad that some courts are stopping him. That includes Brett. And, apparently, you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No one is 'finding' judges."

They are just filing in northeast states where no conservative has been a federal judge in decades. Mainly because Trump balanced the 9th circuit a bit so they are not so assured of a friendly panel.

[Sarcastr0]

You have any stats to back up the lack of conservative district court judges in northeast states?

I hardly think states filing where they are located is some kind of plot.

I like how you jumped from district to appellate in the middle there. Which level are you thinking about?

[Bob from Ohio]

Most NE states haven't had a GOP senator in decades. So when a GOP president nominates a judge, he needs a "blueslip" returned from both Democrat senators. James Ho is not getting one but Judge Moderate Centrist is. So you get lefty Dem judges and squishy GOP ones.

You file in one of these states you at worst get a squish, then the circuit also leans left.

[Sarcastr0]

So no stats.

Just assumptions that blue slips by Dem Senators don't allow conservatives through.
And some ignorance about how the GOP treated blue slips when last they were in the majority.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/16/chuck-grassley-trump-court-picks-245367

[Bob from Ohio]

"Previous committee chairs have rigidly adhered to the blue-slip rule for district court nominees, whose courts span just a single state. " As did Grassley, and he said he'll do it again.

Another tick of yours, your opponents are always ignorant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Just assumptions that blue slips by Dem Senators don't allow conservatives through."

That's all you've got, Bob? Just a bunch of shaky assumptions that Dem Senators aren't going to support conservative judges? How's that going to convince anybody?

[Bob from Ohio]

Usual trick of his, demand a treatise on a claim he disagrees with.

[Sarcastr0]

It doesn't talk a lot about Senators' party, but
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44975 is illuminating.

"In total, of the 57 known nominees with blue slip issues during the Obama and George W. Bush presidencies, 17 (or 30%) were ultimately confirmed after opposition by one or both home state
Senators was withdrawn"

Turns out Senators, at least until recently, were not the same level of obligate partisan you two are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Useless since it mixes Bush and Obama nor says what states were involved nor says how many conservatives got approval eventually.

[Don Nico]

The "authoritarianism" was ipse dixit.
To try to deny that you changed the argument. you seem to do that too often for it to be coincidence.
Trump is doing what you think is lawless. He is not daring the courts. He is daring Dem AGs to stop him.
Tell the story honestly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed.

How the hell does a court have authority over web pages -- how is that not compelled speech?

Lincoln threw judges in jail for far less...

[A Japanese Student]

First Amendment does not protect the sovereign. I do find the irreparable harm and APA cause-of-action analysis dubious, but there is no free-speech problem in directing the government to speak.

[David Nieporent]

How the hell does a court have authority over web pages -- how is that not compelled speech?

WTF are you talking about? Whose speech do you think is being compelled, and why do you think that a court can't do that? A person/company may be able to argue that the government cannot compel it to speak w/o violating the person's/company's 1A rights. The Department of Health and Human Services does not have any 1A rights, so it cannot make such an argument.

[Commenter_XY]

The pages will be restored any day now. Since there are fewer people in fed govt, it might take awhile. Maybe 4 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck that disease outbreak data!

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck that calling a criminal shooting another criminal a “Disease”!

[Martinned2]

That's what happens when you lose so many court cases, you end up disobeying court orders even though you promised on a stack of (Trump) bibles that you would never do that.

[Commenter_XY]

I am not saying disobey at all, M2. Quite the opposite. One must comply with the ruling. However, since there are fewer bureaucritters, compliance will take longer. Dems the breaks.

[Martinned2]

"compliance will take longer" = disobeying, at least for a while. Do I need to explain the concept of a deadline to you?

[Commenter_XY]

Can't comply if the resources aren't there to do it.

[Martinned2]

Can't comply seems like a reason to go back to court to ask for an extension, rather than disobeying the court.

[Commenter_XY]

The judge is welcome to hold a contempt hearing. That is his prerogative.

[Martinned2]

When dealing with another government entity, the judge shouldn't have to. Something about an oath of office, etc..

[ducksalad]

If you threw away the resources for the specific purpose of precluding compliance, that's disobeying.

[Sarcastr0]

1. It takes more people to halt stuff than to keep it going as intended.

2. One thing these TROs do is keep the workforce numbers as-is.

3. You are cheering keeping disease-prevention data unpublished. That's insane.

[Commenter_XY]

Elections have consequences, Sarcastr0, remember?

There is a new POTUS, a new Congress, they have a different policy, and are effectuating it. They don't agree with you.

[Sarcastr0]

So not going to defend anything you aid. The moment the going gets tough, you yet again fall back on pretending we elected a king.

I dunno if you got lazy or had a a stroke or what but the law doesn't change when the President does.

[Martinned2]

Let them pass laws then.

[Commenter_XY]

It would appear that the Congress is content with POTUS Trump's actions. So what law would they pass?

[Sarcastr0]

Congress does not need to act to keep previously passed laws active.

[Martinned2]

A law that repeals all the laws that Trump would like to ignore.

[ducksalad]

Your position is if someone, say, robs a federal bank, it's not a crime unless Congress takes some action to indicate they still really want it to be illegal?

Or is this just one of those one-time-only principles for Trump?

[David Nieporent]

There is a new POTUS, a new Congress, they have a different policy, and are effectuating it. They don't agree with you.

Bzzzzzt. Congress hasn't said anything about a new policy. (To be clear, the way Congress does so is by legislating.) And POTUS doesn’t get to make policy that is inconsistent with federal law.

[bernard11]

Elections have consequences,

Oh STFU with this. Trump was elected President, not king.

Your cheers and gloating over his stupid policies are revolting.

[Commenter_XY]

https://i.imgflip.com/1m4q2k.jpg

🙂

[Sarcastr0]

No one has tried as hard on here to look like they're having a great time being a partisan asshole as you.

Methinks you're protesting too much.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I haven't really made an effort to turn on the partisanship. I rely on all of you to provide me with something to react to, and you do not disappoint.

There are any number of policies of POTUS Trump I am agnostic on (the beautiful buildings EO, for example), and some I simply don't agree with (pardoning J6ers with blood on their hands w/o some extra level of review).

I figure it has been hard for you since November 6th. This one is for you, because you are so....special. 😉
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/054/luke_crywalker_crying_liberal_meme_banner_image.jpg

More to the point, right-sizing the fed workforce....I am all for it. Cannot happen soon enough. And kill NGO funding too.

[not guilty]

"I think the Supreme court is going to get tired of these injunctions pretty soon, with every Judge Tom, Judge Dick, and Judge Harry thinking they're in charge of the executive branch."

The Supreme Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases per year. There are scores of lawsuits pending in the lower federal courts challenging Donald Trump's lawless actions. SCOTUS is not going to suddenly grant certiorari in 40-odd cases in service of Trump's megalomania.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Court has been getting restive about nation-wide injunctions, and a sudden spate of them is just the thing to move them to action, I think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can't they also combine cases -- send the rest back to be decided "consistent with this decision."

[John F. Carr]

The citizenship cases could be consolidated.

But you have one nationwide order on federal spending and another nationwide order on the contents of web pages and another nationwide order on whether one department has access to a another department's computer system and maybe soon a nationwide order requiring obedience to a Biden memo on immigration enforcement practices. I'm losing count.

The court would have to create a very broad policy against injunctions against the government before it could GVR all these cases quickly. (GVR = grant, vacate, remand – telling a lower court to reconsider a case based on a new legal principle the Supreme Court recently described.)

In the citizenship case the court could hand the challengers a win while establishing a precedent against injunctions. The states base their standing on money and money damages can provide relief. The individual and class plaintiffs (pregnant women) can get a declaratory judgment instead. The injunction is vacated. The case is remanded. Oh, almost forgot. We decline to overrule our precedents recognizing birthright citizenship.

[Commenter_XY]

How does the consolidation work?

Who says, "Consolidate these cases" and how is the district chosen where the newly consolidated case is tried?

Could the consolidated case be moved to TX for adjudication?

[John F. Carr]

I meant consolidated on appeal so the Supreme Court hears one set of arguments to decide several similar cases.

Consolidation in the trial court system is handled by the trial courts in the first instance. Individual cases can be moved around by individual judges, subject to some restrictions. When the cases grow into the hundreds by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation takes over.

[Commenter_XY]

How does that judicial panel decide where the consolidated cases will be tried?

The citizenship cases are form the 9th, 1st and 2nd districts. Could they move the consolidated case to the 5th district for adjudication?

[John F. Carr]

I think the panel would pick a court that already has a related case and that has convenient access to the evidence.

The process is a substitute for a class action when a true class action is not allowed or appropriate. For example, a Silicon Vallley company's terms of service prohibits class actions. Lots of individual suits are filed. The panel sends them all to a Bay Area judge for pretrial proceedings. See In re: Uber Technologies, Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084).

[not guilty]

"The citizenship cases are form the 9th, 1st and 2nd districts. Could they move the consolidated case to the 5th district for adjudication?"

The birthright citizenship cases at this point are before district courts in the First, Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits. A preliminary injunction issued by a district court in Maryland has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.69.0.pdf A preliminary injunction issued by a district court in Washington has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.69.0.pdf

In the Washington case a motion for a partial stay pending appeal is pending before the district court. In the Maryland case the government has moved the district court for a partial stay pending appeal. Both motions to stay question the nationwide applicability of the preliminary injunction.

No tribunal is going to order any case moved to a forum where no litigation is already pending.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so no moving the consolidated case to the 5th district, heh.

[Joe_dallas]

Staying the nationwide injuction on the texas top cop shop is a recent example of the court stopping nationwide injunctions

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Lawsuits filed over policy disputes are not over executive branch lawless actions. They remain policy disputes under the guise of lawlessness.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases per year.

If that many. Last term, there were 60 final opinions listed, some per curiams, including DIGs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23

[PaulS]

They may be restored as screen shots - just scroll down to see them all

[Commenter_XY]

That is one way to do it. The problem is the 'contamination' of DEI in what was removed. To remove it, it will take staff resources to edit out the DEI crap. Staff that is no longer there, or has been put on admin leave, pending RIF.

So compliance will take awhile.

[Sarcastr0]

the 'contamination' of DEI

Your cost-benefit is way out of wack.

[Riva]

They get more insane as the days pass. Democrats have no self control. They don’t know when to stop. They‘ve abused the process once too often and a higher court will stop this.

[SimonP]

Read the opinion, Goober. Turns out there are laws on maintaining access to public information! Laws that Trump seems likely to have violated!

[Commenter_XY]

These is a real question about Judge McConnell's impartiality.

The mans own words cast doubt.

https://x.com/nataliegwinters/status/1889510508115415381

[Martinned2]

In case anyone is wondering how that German Federal Supreme Court case about director liability for cartel fines turned out, the court decided to ask prejudicial questions to the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg, because it concluded that the underlying issue was one of (EU) competition law.

As a result, the case has now gotten much bigger, and will attract more attention. As far as I can see, the answer from Luxembourg can be one of two things:
- Member States are not permitted to allow recovery of fines from directors in this way, because it would undermine the effect ("effet utile") of the fine. This is what the court below (the OLG Düsseldorf) said.
- Member States are allowed to allow recovery of fines in this way, if they wish to set up their rules for director liability in this way.

There is some EU law on company law, but I can't imagine that the CJEU will somehow make it mandatory for Member States to have a rule whereby companies can recover their cartel fines from their directors. So the answer will either be "not allowed" or "if a Member State wants to, it can".

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that 90% of judges make the rest look bad.

[John F. Carr]

90% of judges haven't had a chance to rule on a high profile Trump order.

[Don Nico]

True enough, but with nationwide TROs and injunctions they don't have too.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in the world of free speech absolutism that has taken over Washington, the White House is retaliating against the ANP for calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/11/associated-press-gulf-of-mexico-oval-office-016418

[Dan Schiavetta]

New level of childish petulance. As an American I'm increasingly embarrassed. And now I see google maps calls it "Gulf of America". This is a child who badly needs a spanking.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sure you regret that Crooks missed, amirite?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You definitely am something...

[David Nieporent]

I would never say that.

[Krayt]

New level of childish petulance. As an American I'm increasingly embarrassed. And now I see google maps calls it "Gulf of America". This is a child who badly needs a spanking.

You are, of course, 100% correct and accurate. However, I am reminded of a scene from the 1950s The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Klaatu has shut down all electricity, except "planes in flight, hospitals, that sort of thing."

Professor Barnhardt : Tell me, Hilda, does all this frighten you? Does it make you feel insecure increasingly embarrassed by this baby?

Hilda : Yes, sir, it certainly does.

Professor Barnhardt : That's good, Hilda. I'm glad

I say this not to support it, "Gulf of America" was my actual example of deliberate button pushing 600 page downs up thataway [arrow up icon]. But I also loves me some rhetoric.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I tried to discover why the Reason comments section's resident lunatics are saying the US government owns the Associated Press, but have thus far been unsuccessful. My best guess is that it has something to do with the DataRepublican website, but who knows. Comet Ping Pong, anyone?

[Brett Bellmore]

Who's saying that? I must have missed it.

[Bwaaah]

Me too. Whenever somebody says something idiotic, there are people who reflexively turn that into, "MAGA says [...]."

I think ONS's name may be an oxymoron.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In this instance, it was JesseAZ, but of course its all rather WWGOWGA over there these days.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the White House is retaliating against the ANP for calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico."

Freedom of the press doesn't justify literal violence.

[Luneuka]

the below article lays out very clearly how evil of men biden and garland are. the pardons are not enough. trump needs to go after all of these people, from the judges, to the jurors, to the prosecutors, to the fbi agents, and put them in concentration camps.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/freed-jan-6-prisoners-speak-out-they-begin-rebuild-their-lives

[SRG2]

Criminals find out that being criminals can affect their lives.

[Joe_dallas]

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/rmi-led-the-push-to-ban-gas-stoves

Just one of the multitude of taxpayer money funding corruption. The academic fraud Gas stove causes asthma study funded by the us government.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're getting ready to install one of those ourselves. I can hardly wait to have a stove that actually works properly again.

Our house came with a glass top electric, and we had higher priorities until now than replacing it, since it DID work after a fashion. But now that it's gradually breaking down, the time has come to start cooking with gas again.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes - gas stoves are much more efficient, much easier to control - I've used electric stove at several airbnb's on vacation. Just much more difficult to use.

It surprising that so many defend and applaud the study in spite of the obvious signs of academic fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key point for me is that the heat from the burner automatically spreads across the bottom of the pan. I'm really getting tired of trying to scramble eggs, and they only cook in the part of the pan directly above the 'burner' and stay raw outside that area.

[Don Nico]

Get a good gas stove with at least two 25,000 BTU burners.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not going to be melting aluminum on it, if only because it would tick off my wife. And we've got an outdoor stove with two 30,000 BTU burners that we use for canning and the like.

Looking at this one, currently.

[Don Nico]

That much is needed for good stir-frying. In fact it is low. Which is why you cannot reproduce what is done in a good Chinese restaurant where the stir-fry burner is ~50,000 BTU

[Brett Bellmore]

But I don't even own a wok, and if I did, I'd just use it on the outdoor stove.

[Commenter_XY]

May I suggest the GE Profile double oven (gas)? We got the electric version, and it was a gamechanger. Cost was 3K, and worth it.

One other thing....have a good hood over the stovetop.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, but it costs 3K. That's sufficient reason for not going with it, especially given that the kitchen needs other work, too.

[Commenter_XY]

I understand, we got the oven as a part of a kitchen remodel. It really is a gamechanger, having two ovens. Makes holiday cooking sooooo much easier.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, can you fit a 28lb turkey in one of those ovens? It didn't look like it at the home center.

[Commenter_XY]

Easily. I fit a 24 pounder with ease.

Get the gliding racks. Expensive AF, but worth it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Expensive AF, but worth it."

I'm detecting a theme here, and it's a theme that is incompatible with my budget...

[Mr. Bumble]

3K for an oven? Isn't inflation great?
When the 240Z came out in 1972(?) it cost $3600.00.

[David Nieporent]

"I disagree with this study [despite having no expertise to evaluate it]" is not "corruption."

[Joe_dallas]

The authors of the study did everything except make a formal announcement that their was academic fraud

A - It was a meta study with a unique selection criteria that specifically designed to omit others studies showing zero correlation with asthma and gas stoves .
B - They used a methodology that is completely inappropriate when there are multiple cofounding variables. Extremely well known in the professional literature the population attribution fraction is meaningless with multiple variables.

The study authors couldnt be more blatantly obvious the study was academic fraud except to make a formal announcement.

[David Nieporent]

"I disagree with this study [despite having no expertise to evaluate it]" is not "fraud" any more than it's "corruption."

[Joe_dallas]

I pointed out both the academic fraud and the corruption funding the study. Its unfortunate that you are gullible enough to believe and/or defend a study in which the academic fraud is so blatantly obvious .

[David Nieporent]

"It's obvious" is bookkeeper_Joe's tell for "I am making this up and am full of shit."

[Joe_dallas]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10446003/

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.energyindepth.org/new-research-same-flawed-methodology-on-gas-stoves-and-asthma/

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.shaledirectories.com/blog-1/under-scrutiny-authors-of-activist-study-on-asthma-and-gas-stoves-admit-no-causal-relationship/

As usual - DN is too busy throwing insults to do any actual homework or engage in any critical thinking skills

[David Nieporent]

L. — as they say — O.L. You provide three links. Two of them are just to blog posts, which would add nothing even if they weren't published by the oil/gas industry, which they are. The third at least is in an actual journal. But it (a) says nothing about "corruption"; (b) says nothing about "academic fraud"; and (c) says nothing whatsoever about the relationship between gas stoves and asthma. It does little more than say "correlation is not causation, and this study only showed the former, and therefore one can't conclude that reducing gas stove usage would reduce asthma from this data." Which I have no quarrel with as a response but provides no support for your claims.

[Joe_dallas]

Just ignore the factual data -
At least you are consistent

[David Nieporent]

The careful observer will note that you provided no "factual data."

[Joe_dallas]

The quantitative claim that about 13% of childhood asthma in the United States could be prevented by reducing exposure to gas stove pollution is not supported by the data collected or by the measures of association (Population Attributable Fractions) used to analyze the data. The qualitative finding that reducing exposure to gas stove pollution would reduce the burden of childhood asthma in the United States has no demonstrated validity.

[Joe_dallas]

The use of unverified models for risk estimates and policy recommendations can be highly misleading, as their predictions may not reflect real-world health impacts. For example, a recent article states that NO2 from gas stoves "likely causes ∼50,000 cases of current pediatric asthma from long-term NO2 exposure alone" annually in the United States. This explicitly causal claim, which is contrary to several methodology and review articles published in this journal, among others, reflects both (a) An unverified modeling assumption that pediatric asthma burden is approximately proportional to NO2; and (b) An unverified causal assumption that the assumed proportionality between exposure and response is causal. The article is devoid of any causal analysis showing that these assumptions are likely to be true.

[Joe_dallas]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39286341/

DN again ignores factual data

[Joe_dallas]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37638371/

DN are you still going to dispute the facts

[John F. Carr]

An online petition seeks to have Denmark buy California. I would accept a straight trade: Denmark gets California, USA gets Greenland. I wonder if CERCLA ("Superfund") would newly apply to abandoned U.S. facilities in Greenland Territory.

[Commenter_XY]

https://x.com/AntisemitismEye/status/1889418938863276346

This X clip was entirely AI generated.

None of the celebrities were asked if their image could be used to produce this clip. Is it illegal for a content creator to do that, in US law?

[John F. Carr]

Commercial use of a person's likeness requires permission in much if not all of the United States. I do not know where the line is drawn between protected uses like news reporting and unprotected commercial uses.

If anybody believed the clip was real then defamation law could apply.

[Commenter_XY]

Looks pretty real to me....but is entirely AI generated. I chuckled at Sandler, it is just what he would do. Only he would be singing the Hanukah song while flipping off Kanye.

[Armchair]

The use of temporary restraining orders by judges has been...interesting...lately. Some might say they intrude too much on executive power. Let's examine some hypothetical TROs

1. Trump orders the US Military to the Mexican border. There's a lawsuit. May a judge order a TRO to prevent Trump from ordering the US Military to the Mexican border? Why or why not?

2. President Democrat comes into office. His first act is to rename Mount McKinley, Mount Denali. A mapmaker sues. Can they get a TRO on that? Why or why not?

[tylertusta]

I think the answer to both questions is yes, and it would rest upon how pissed off the judge is, not on the legal merits of the question.

I think there's another question to both of your hypotheticals that should also be asked: Should the executive branch officers be held in contempt for following the President's orders for defying stupid, blatantly wrong TROs?

[Commenter_XY]

I think the Exec branch officers should be held in contempt, even if the TRO is stupid and wrong. To me, we need to follow the process.

What would a judge do, incarcerate them? Seems unlikely.

Answers: No, and Yes.

[tylertusta]

Military officers are obliged to only follow lawful officers. If a judge issues a blatantly wrong TRO, is the officer obligated to follow it over the clearly correct orders from their commander-in-chief?

Let's make the hypothetical extra spicy by assuming that if the officers abide by the TRO, then soldiers will die. If they follow orders from the CINC, no one dies.

[Martinned2]

If a judge issues a blatantly wrong TRO, is the officer obligated to follow it over the clearly correct orders from their commander-in-chief?

Yes

Let's make the hypothetical extra spicy by assuming that if the officers abide by the TRO, then soldiers will die. If they follow orders from the CINC, no one dies.

Glad to see you enjoyed Kiefer Sutherland in 24, but it doesn't matter.

[tylertusta]

Glad to know you've given up rule-of-law to get rule-by-judge.

Glad to see you enjoyed Kiefer Sutherland in 24, but it doesn't matter.

I've never watched it.

[tylertusta]

The correct answer is that no, an officer is not obligated to follow an unlawful order from anyone, much less a judge. That lives are at stake only underscores the lawlessness of the judge issuing such an order- lawless because the President, as CINC, is at the zenith of his constitutional powers when issuing orders to the military.

This would be a case where a pardon of the officer is warranted, and impeachment/removal of the judge in question to be undertaken.

Again, this hypothetical presumes that the President is making the objectively correct orders to his military, and the judge is making the objectively incorrect TRO to block his orders.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't know the UCMJ tyler, but my understanding is that the military officer must carry out the lawful order from their superior officer, and the TRO doesn't come into play until the case is finally adjudicated.

The risk to the military officer is a court martial for insubordination, if they disobey the order from their superior officer.

I just don't see a fed dist ct judge trying to stop the POTUS from deploying the military to the border by means of a TRO. It seems very improbable to me.

[tylertusta]

Insubordination does not come into play because the judge is not in the chain of command (you can't be insubordinate to someone you are not subordinate to). All officers are subordinate to the President, so if the President gives the officer a direct order, then there is a question as to whether the officer is breaking the UCMJ for violating that direct order.

...and the TRO doesn't come into play until the case is finally adjudicated.

That isn't my understanding in how TROs work. They're immediate, and judges have used various mechanisms to ensure compliance.

I just don't see a fed dist ct judge trying to stop the POTUS from deploying the military to the border by means of a TRO. It seems very improbable to me.

I agree, it seems improbable.

Yet we just saw an instance where a Judge used a TRO to try to block Treasury officials from having standard access to Treasury systems. If a Judge can effectively tell a political appointee that they cannot do anything related to their jobs, then there's no limit to what a Judge can try to order the Executive Branch to do.

[Commenter_XY]

Didn't that judge amend his order the next day, to allow for Exec Branch Treasury officers to access the data? Still think it is judicial overreach.

I have never read of an instance or case where a fed dist ct judge issued a TRO relative to military deployments.

When I wrote abt insubordination, it was only in the context of a military officer giving a lawful command to a subordinate. I did mean to imply insubordination to the judge (my bad for not being clear).

[tylertusta]

It was a second judge that modified the original's TRO.

I have never read of an instance or case where a fed dist ct judge issued a TRO relative to military deployments.

I can't think of an occasion where a judge has issued such a TRO before. However, given today's politics it's not hard to think of a scenario where a judge thinks he can issue orders to the military either on a TRO or on another basis.

Borrowing Armchair's border hypothetical again:

Trump orders the military to deploy to the southern border. A Democrat State Attorney General sues in Federal (not military) court, and the judge issues a TRO against the Secretary of Defense ordering him to cease all deployment to the border.

That's a yikes of a constitutional crisis right there!

[Commenter_XY]

You know, here is a case where I could see a TRO: Suppose the POTUS authorizes cross-border attacks on MX cartels, to destroy drug labs and/or assassinate cartel leadership. In that case, might a judge issue the TRO against the SecDef? Maybe.

Still though, it seems so improbable. And so patently stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems patently stupid telling the Secretary of the Treasury that he can't access Treasury department files, too, but the first judge did it anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have never read of an instance or case where a fed dist ct judge issued a TRO relative to military deployments."

Wait a few weeks...

[David Nieporent]

I have never read of an instance or case where a fed dist ct judge issued a TRO relative to military deployments.

You should review the procedural history of Schlesinger v. Holtzman.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...Judges over-ruled each other left and right. Geez.

Thx for the cite.

[tylertusta]

Thanks for the pointer.

[Armchair]

Interesting case. There's no TRO in the case (there is a Permanent Injunction, but no TRO....) But interesting case.

[PaulS]

A process question - How would an executive branch officer become aware of the TRO? It's not their job to read the news. I doubt they are each individually served.

[Armchair]

The commanding officer(s) (likely the Secretary of Defense, but also the Joint Chiefs of Staff) would likely be served.

[Martinned2]

At least the Trump administration is consistent. They think small countries should hand over territory to big countries when asked: https://abcnews.go.com/International/full-ukrainian-liberation-russia-unrealistic-hegseth-tells-allies/story?id=118727933

[Ed Grinberg]

Do I remember correctly that you have identified yourself as a foreigner (some sort of European, I believe)? If so, I'd be curious to know what your country is doing to help Ukraine.
(It's very brave & noble of you to be willing to defend Ukraine to the last drop of Americans' blood...)

[ducksalad]

Learn to use Google.

https://www.government.nl/topics/russia-and-ukraine/dutch-aid-for-ukraine

Several billion euros, apparently. Considering the population ratio, not negligible at all.

[Commenter_XY]

The Netherlands is too chickenshit to do much beyond bleating in Brussels. They're still fighting cow farts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"brave & noble"

He's just following in the footsteps of the brave Dutch soldiers standing aside when 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys are slaughtered.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What American blood? Have you fallen on your head?

[ducksalad]

Actually about 20 American volunteers/mercenaries have died over there. And at least one confirmed Dutch volunteer dead, which like the monetary aid is roughly the same number per capita.

So Ed Grinberg was (only accidentally and technically) right about the blood. However, his attempt at a smear was another failure.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By that measure, the "American blood" has been spilled by Russia...

[Bob from Ohio]

"small countries should hand over territory to big countries when asked"

What's your plan? Endless war? Its 3 years already.

Ukraine has done well but can't beat Russia in a war of attrition and Russia isn't going to withdraw from everything because it hasn't been beat.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just say it: "small countries should hand over territory to big countries when asked" is your plan.

[Bob from Ohio]

Wars end two ways, with one side wining or a negotiated settlement.

Do you think Ukraine can win?

[ducksalad]

Trump said today that he and Putin will negotiate the end of the war. I only saw the summary of the announcement, so not sure if he even mentioned any Ukranian involvement.

Just an estimate: Trump will give Putin all the seceded/annexed territories Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, and regime change to a compliant government in the remainder of Ukraine. In return Trump will get the "rare earth", some concessions on US/Russian trade, and a news conference where Putin says Trump is a great and wise leader.

[Bob from Ohio]

Get medical help.

[ducksalad]

OK, Bob, what do *you* think Trump's proposal will look like? You lay yours out and we'll see who comes closer. Based on recent experience, Trump will probably come out with his proposed parameters for the deal fairly early in the process.

Here's my slightly revised prediction: Trump will suggest that Ukraine give up essentially all territory currently occupied by Russia, perhaps with a few minor trades here and there. Trump won't say "regime change" explicitly but we can readily assume that the surrender would cause the Zelensky regime to fall, and the replacement government would necessarily be constrained by new facts on the ground and the absence of US and European* aid, and therefore will be more compliant with Russian demands.

Trump has already said he wants the "rare earth", and trade concessions or business opportunities have been part of every single major foreign policy action he's taken so far.

Putin will supply the praise without even being prompted.

*Europeans will likely realize it's lost without the US contribution, and pull out their aid as well.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump will suggest that Ukraine give up essentially all territory currently occupied by Russia...

Give up what they've already lost? What's the alternative? Nobody appears to be able or willing to remove the Russians.

[David Nieporent]

The alternative is not giving it up, continuing to arm Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression, and keeping up the economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The definition of insanity?

[Josh R]

The status quo stalemate could easily be better than ducksalad's presumed deal.

[David Nieporent]

The definition of insanity?

No. Resisting aggression until the other side quits is often effective. See many many insurgencies for examples: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Syrian resistance, Vietnam…

EDIT: Or, what Josh R said.

[Absaroka]

"The definition of insanity?"

Three years into the US Revolution the Continental Army was freezing at Valley Forge. Three years into WWII things weren't looking all that rosy, either (Midway had just happened, which was really good, but the Marines were just hanging on at Guadalcanal, El Alamein and Stalingrad were still up in the air).

My sense (and I'm not getting any classified briefings) is that it's like WWI in 1918 - both sides are just hanging on, waiting to see who breaks first.

And if Putin wins, then we get to decide how many more troops to base in Poland and the Baltics. From a selfish American POV, Ukraine is by far the cheapest place to stop Putin.

[David Nieporent]

And if Putin wins, then we get to decide how many more troops to base in Poland and the Baltics. From a selfish American POV, Ukraine is by far the cheapest place to stop Putin.

What makes you think Trump would station any more troops in Poland or the Baltics?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What we should do is what is necessary to drive Putin out. But nobody except the Ukrainians has the balls to do that.

"Resisting aggression until the other side quits is often effective. See many many insurgencies for examples: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Syrian resistance, Vietnam"

Is there any evidence that that is likely to happen at the current half-assed level of support?

It looks like Trump's approach gets us to the same outcome as Biden's but cheaper.

"And if Putin wins, then we get to decide how many more troops to base in Poland and the Baltics."

It doesn't look like Trump's going to put more troops in Poland and the Baltics.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if we're not willing to go toe to toe over Ukraine, why would anyone think we're willing to do so over the Baltics?

[Absaroka]

America has interests that will outlast Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

David, it is time to fish, or cut bait.

Absent NATO attacking RUS in UKR, the war cannot be won by UKR. They don't have the manpower. You know that, I know that, the entire world knows that.

How much more money and how many more deaths is enough?

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter, you've said now is the time re: Ukriane since the very beginning.

You were quaking in your boots about Putin. Now that Trump's in office, you're just saying Ukraine has no way to win.

You've never argued consistently about this conflict. Just whatever strikes you as the argument of the moment that gives Russia the win and Ukraine the loss.

[Absaroka]

"the war cannot be won by UKR. They don't have the manpower. You know that, I know that, the entire world knows that."

I don't know that at all.That's like saying "the war cannot be won by the mujahideen. They don't have the manpower". (admittedly, the Afghan population is a third larger than Ukraine's, but both are a lot less than Russia's. The Russians are incurring enormous casualties relative to the gains they are making. Russia is paying higher and higher bonuses to attract recruits. At some point public sentiment in Russia will cause an end to the war, as it did for the Afghan war.

The same is true of Ukraine, of course, but no one's crystal ball is good enough to predict who will break first.

[Armchair]

"The alternative is not giving it up, continuing to arm Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression, and keeping up the economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia."

And if that results in the collapse of Ukraine instead, as they run out of men to fight?

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair -

Forgive my memory, but is this a switch for you?

I seemed to remember reflecting that support for Ukraine was one of the few areas you and I align.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, the cauliflower soiled his Depends wrt UKR, and now POTUS Trump has to clean up the mess. The war never should have started, had the cauliflower and his team possessed functioning synapses. Of course, you were also telling us that the cauliflower was sharp as a tack...you have no credibility whatsoever.

Sophisticated intellectuals like you (and Post) were telling us confidently how the war would end quickly, with the ignominious defeat of RUS. You were wrong then, and I said so quite directly. You are wrong now (what a surprise).

UKR is not a vital US national interest, and it never was
UKR is not a NATO member, and never will be, thankfully
UKR is not a EU member
UKR is corrupt AF, and untrustworthy

How much more UKR/RUS blood and American treasure are you willing to piss away? Can you even tell us what a victory looks like and the probability of attaining it? No, you can't.

Absoroka...see link below. UKR cannot match RUS. The numbers are the numbers.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=ukraine&country2=russia

Maybe 'at some point' the Russians will quit because of unpopularity of the war. Seems unlikely as they are winning and taking more territory. What is far more likely is UKR being destroyed and defeated by attrition. UKR simply does not have the manpower, and they are dealing with desertion issues.

[David Nieporent]

Absent NATO attacking RUS in UKR, the war cannot be won by UKR. They don't have the manpower. You know that, I know that, the entire world knows that.

Could the Taliban beat the US? Could the mujihadeen beat the Russians? Could the North Vietnamese beat the South Vietnamese and the Americans?

How much more money and how many more deaths is enough?

That's a question for Ukraine. (And Russia, from the other perspective.)

[Absaroka]

That link is about as facile an analysis as you could get.

" they are winning and taking more territory."

And it is costing them 96 casualties per sq kilometer. For a facile analysis, that means they can conquer Ukraine with only 50M more casualties. Wikipedia says Russia has 21M men fit for military service. The numbers, as they say, are the numbers.

This war isn't the US invasion of Grenada - it is the US in Vietnam or Korea. In one of those we cared more about winning than NK/China did, and in the other we didn't. I haven't a clue, BTW, whether the Ukraine war will prove to be Korea or Vietnam or the Russo-Afghan war. But counting aircraft carriers isn't a useful analysis.

Or for another example, look at the fall of France in 1940, and the collapse of Germany in 1918. Both were determined by failures of will, and neither outcome would be predicted by counting troops or tanks or artillery pieces.

[Commenter_XY]

David, Absoroka...The war is lost (for UKR). UKR will not take back the 4 regions they lost, and they will not take back Crimea. Acknowledge reality. It sucks, I know. I personally would've liked to see the Russians withdraw. That might have been possible in mid-2022, but the cauliflower and his dumbass team were running things (badly).

An armistice will be concluded soon. UKR will pull their remaining troops out of Kursk, and redraw their maps, sans what was lost. UKR will agree to not join NATO, and remain neutral. An election will be held in UKR, and Zelensky will probably lose. UKR will still be corrupt AF, and unworthy of EU membership.

We (America) have many lessons to learn from this sorry spectacle.

One plus, Finland and Sweden joined NATO.

[ducksalad]

Twelve, you're absolutely right about the facts on the ground.

I just don't see why Trump needs to go to Putin and engage in a summit where they divide up the spoils of Ukraine like it's Poland in the Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. We don't need to go into a ruined country and take their "rare earth". And let's be clear, that's the only kind of deal Trump understands.

All we need to do, and morally all we should do, is inform Ukraine that we're unable to sustain our military support, politely and without bluster inform our European partners, and then do it unilaterally without looking like we're collaborating with Putin or trying to grab a piece for ourselves.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just say what you believe. It's not hard. Just have some courage...

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's your plan? Personally I support letting Ukraine use western weapons against whatever targets it likes, establishing a no-fly zone, using B-52's to carpet-bomb Russian positions if necessary, etc.

What's your plan.

[Armchair]

"using B-52's to carpet-bomb Russian positions"

B-52s aren't known for their stealth or ability to evade SAMs. And Russia has a lot of SAMs. The only "Carpet Bombing" that would be done is the carpet of B-52 crashes and wrecks.

[Commenter_XY]

So TIP, your plan is to declare war = ...establishing a no-fly zone, using B-52's to carpet-bomb Russian positions if necessary...

You establish a no-fly zone by shooting down intruders. Are you willing to have NATO shoot down RUS planes to enforce it? You want to use B-52s to carpet-bomb RUS positions? That is not a good idea to me, bombing soldiers of a nuclear armed power.

Better plan = Acknowledge reality. RUS gained Crimea and abt 20% of UKR. That is lost.

In business, when we have a shitty deal, we cut our losses.

[Mr. Bumble]

A minor incursion. Of course Crimea was lost while Barry was Pres.
Sadly hundreds of thousands have died and for what?

[SimonP]

I suppose we should alter the narrative:

"No new wars on Trump's watch" really means "Major concessions and surrenders made to Russia in order to avoid wars on Trump's watch."

[TwelveInchPianist]

You talk about concessions and surrenders but your source merely links to an observation. Typical.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They think small countries should hand over territory to big countries when asked:"

I'd note that this is also your position, Obama's position, Biden's position, Sarcastro's position, Don Nico's position, and the position of all those who were unwilling to do the things necessary to remove Russia from Ukraine's territory.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Really? Then why did we and so many other countries give them all those weapons?

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the opinion in the Washington case in the other thread:

Contrary to his claims, D.E.I. programs aimed at addressing racial inequalities against Black people and other minorities are not by their very nature discriminatory against whites.

The judge appears to be adopting the practice from the AP and others of capitalizing Black but not white.

Seems like not a great look for the federal judiciary.

[Martinned2]

You know what Ed would say: Prosecute him for insurrection!

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think prosecuting him for insurrection goes to far.

I would say that we should simply use his choices to infer that maybe he and other federal judges aren't as unbiased as one might hope.

[Martinned2]

So you're suggesting instead that Trump should just ignore his judgments?

[TwelveInchPianist]

No. Another installment of short answers to stupid questions.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "judgements"?

[Drewski]

Interesting. Where did you learn English? Americans don't spell it like that.

[David Nieporent]

You know what Ed would say: Prosecute him for insurrection!

Don't you mean kill him, or at least send him to Gitmo?

[Sarcastr0]

VITAL CAPITALIZATION NEWS!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you think it's a good practice for the federal judiciary?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm having a hard time caring at all; and am kinda impressed you can.

I know some leftist activists on bluesky just as concerned with this kind of trifle as you are, to be fair.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, I've notice that you have a hard time caring about issues of principle that benefit your side.

A student wearing a "There are two genders" shirt being censored? You don't care. Removal of porn from elementary school libraries? Worst encroachment on "free speech" the world has ever seen!

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think CapitaLization is an issue of principles, nor that it benefits either side.

Do you disagree?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. In this case the issue is capitalizing the term for one set of people but not another. The principle is avoiding the appearance of bias. Ignoring the issue or treating it as a non-issue in this context benefits your side.

I hope that helps.

[Mr. Bumble]

You should know by now that he is beyond help.

[Commenter_XY]

You just don't understand. For Sarcastr0, the principles are (D)ifferent.

[Sarcastr0]

I understand the issue. I don't see what the impact is, so I don't really care.

'Avoiding the appearance of bias' is you buying trouble .
But you and the Very Serious leftist bluesky people can frown at each other furiously all you want.

Ignoring the issue or treating it as a non-issue in this context benefits your side.
How?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You might understand the issue better if you imagined judges capitalizing White but not black.

"Ignoring the issue or treating it as a non-issue in this context benefits your side."

Because, at least in my experience, capitalizing Black but not white is a woke leftist thing.

[Sarcastr0]

So you think woke leftist stuff helps 'my side?'

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Your side is the woke left, so anything that helps the woke left helps your side. Please try to keep up.

[Sarcastr0]

Nope. Beyond your mischaracterization of who I am and support, you're still not getting it.

You think this helps the 'woke left' because the 'woke left' wants it.

I don't think the second proves the first. The woke left likes a lot of stupid performative bullshit. Shit that doesn't help them.

Similar to how you're into some stupid performative bullshit here, and it's not helping you or anyone on 'your side.'

It's just yelling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The woke left likes a lot of stupid performative bullshit. Shit that doesn't help them."

OK, and if woke left judges do stupid performative bullshit that doesn't help them in federal judicial opinions, do you think that helps or hurts the federal judiciary?

"Similar to how you're into some stupid performative bullshit here, and it's not helping you or anyone on 'your side.'"

Remind me again about how I'm a federal judge writing an opinion?

[Sarcastr0]

Help or hurt is a false choice.

I don't think 'performative bullshit to alleviate white guilt' does much to the judiciary at all.

It's lack of practical upshot is *baked into your own language.*

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't think 'performative bullshit to alleviate white guilt' does much to the judiciary at all."

OK, I guess that's where we disagree. I think judges should keep such performative bullshit out of their opinions, especially when it comes to referencing one group differently from another, because it doesn't gain them anything and it could lead people to question their impartiality.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, the performative bullshit in opinions ship sailed long ago.

I'm not going to get worked up over each new instance.

Neither are you.

Just this one. I guess because you think the wokesters want it, so you've dug in dead-set against it.

Which still seems silly to me.

[Michael P]

That side has been telling us for years that Only Black Lives Matter, and it's racist to even argue that all lives matter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That side has been telling us for years that they are more interested in performative bullshit to alleviate white guilt and other racial hangups than they are in engaging in serious business.

That's one of the reasons why, no matter how bad people like Trump get the left as currently composed will never be the adults in the room.

[Commenter_XY]

That side is still confused about what a woman is.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if those guys suck like that over there, I guess that's license for you to suck in exactly the same way right here!

the left as currently composed will never be the adults in the room.
'The left' is a fun term. It can be expanded and contracted to be as crazy as you need, and then changed to be as broad as you want!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro reduced to IKYABWAI. Gotta love it.

[Sarcastr0]

Where am I doing the same thing as your protean leftist game?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You know they've lost when they're trying this hard to distance themselves from their own ideology.

[Michael P]

Please elaborate. Where have TIP or C_XY or I capitalized the name of one racial group but not another as part of performative excuses for favoritism towards the capitalized group?

[Sarcastr0]

Not about capitalization, about complaining about petty shit.

TiP justifies his caterwauling by the left being into 'performative bullshit to alleviate white guilt.'

If the left sucks, then he's kinda admitting he sucks.

[Michael P]

So what does that make you? Most of your shtick here is performative whining about petty shit, and now you're piling on oblivious hypocrisy about it.

[Sarcastr0]

No one can tell anyone they're taking themselves too seriously without being bad?

[Michael P]

No. You (personally) only make substantial comments about one out of 15 or 20 comments. The rest are vapid whining about petty shit or just shouting "nuh-uh, wrong wrong wrong". Remove the log from your eye first.

[Sarcastr0]

I obviously disagree with your review of my comments.

But what about you? What is your review of the substance ratio of your own comments?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not caterwauling, I'm simply saying that it doesn't help look the judiciary look impartial.

For example, as a white person, I don't mind being called a honky. I think it's hilarious. But I don't think federal judges should run around calling white people honkies, either.

[tylertusta]

Elected Democrats and left-wing groups are not seeing eye to eye on how to counter Trump these days:

Members of the Steering and Policy Committee — with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in the room — on Monday complained activist groups like MoveOn and Indivisible have facilitated thousands of phone calls to members' offices.

"People are pissed," a senior House Democrat who was at the meeting said of lawmakers' reaction to the calls.

The Democrat said Jeffries himself is "very frustrated" at the groups, who are trying to stir up a more confrontational opposition to Trump.

Some Democrats see the callers as barking up the wrong tree given their limited power as the minority party in Congress: "It's been a constant theme of us saying, 'Please call the Republicans,'" said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)

A similar dynamic occurred during the Gorsuch confirmation process, where Senate Democrats initially seemed willing to not go scorched earth only to reverse course when called out by left-wing groups.

(Test of block quote tags again)

Edit: First time it's worked in months. Nice.

[Martinned2]

That's OK, they never see eye to eye on anything else either. They're used to it. Nobody thinks that it will be Congressional Democrats who will stand up and protect US democracy.

[tylertusta]

"Nobody" in this case certainly includes foreigners opining on American domestic politics.

[Martinned2]

It does, yes. Very perceptive of you.

[tylertusta]

Eh. My edit removed the blockquotes. My attempt to restore them misplaced the ending tag, so it included my commentary as the last paragraph.

[Martinned2]

Terrible how the Trump administration over-regulates while the European Commission and the UK authorities got out of the way and let companies compete:

The lawsuit against HPE’s acquisition of Juniper Networks filed by US antitrust authorities marks another transatlantic divergence in competition enforcement — a difference in approach that appears to be happening more frequently. The case was also the subject of disagreement within the US Department of Justice, where the agency’s staff recommended clearing the deal and the front office punted the decision to the incoming administration.
(...)
It is understood that the companies agreed to delay closing the deal to give the DOJ more time to review it. The delay was to last until the end of January — after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump — sending a signal that departing Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter didn’t want to make the decision in the waning days of his tenure. The DOJ’s new front office, led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi, filed suit on Jan. 30 (see here), and declined to comment further.
(...)
The European Commission said in its decision that the majority of HPE and Juniper’s customers said they expected the deal to have a neutral or positive impact on competition. The commission said the deal wouldn’t significantly reduce competition in those markets, asserting that HPE would continue to have only a “moderate” market position and would continue to face competition from a “wide range of competitors.”

The market for enterprise-grade wireless local area network (WLAN) solutions, which was the focus of the DOJ’s lawsuit, has more players in Europe than in the US — notably Chinese firm Huawei. However, that still leaves at least another five common companies that are present in the US: Ubiquiti, CommScope (Ruckus), Extreme, Fortinet, and Arista.
(...)
In its answer to the DOJ's lawsuit, HPE said the "European Commission, UK Competition and Markets Authority, and eleven other antitrust authorities around the world cleared this transaction without as much as a second look."

The company said it expected that after reviewing millions of documents and speaking to customers and competitors, the DOJ would come to the same conclusion and clear the transaction.

The DOJ, the company said, filed a complaint that "ignores both the extensive benefits that will result from the proposed acquisition and the nature and extent of competition in the wireless networking space."

[Michael P]

"Company A buys Company B" is not what most people call "let companies compete".

[Martinned2]

Let companies compete with company C, company D, company E, company F, etc. Or do you think antitrust investigations are fun?

[Michael P]

Companies A and B already compete with companies C, D, E and F, correct? Blocking the acquisition would be the "more competition" stance.

Maybe there's some nuanced argument that HPE and Juniper have some good synergies, but HPE already bought Aruba Networks, and while Juniper is -- in my experience -- regarded as having reasonable prices for high-performance gear, HPE is more regarded as being overpriced and like a modern-day IBM ("no one ever got fired for buying HPE"). It's not clear to me that there really are such synergies.

[Martinned2]

You don't have to convince me. I (occasionally) block mergers for a living. But companies A and B would argue that their merger is good for consumers and good for competition.

[Martinned2]

Dilan Esper, previously of this parish, is of course quite right in his tweet that is quoted by Tyler Cowen:

I have pointed out already that Elon Musk has massive economic interests in cases currently before the federal courts. That is reason enough he would have to obey an order or resign if Trump demanded he not do so. A federal court could default him on those suits.

But more generally federal courts can issue writs that can be levied on bank accounts and properties. These could effectively freeze the assets of ANY noncompliant government official. Yes, even the President. And no, President Trump couldn’t order then unfrozen.

But I think the rest of his twitter thread is much too optimistic, as are some of the assumptions behind this tweet. There's a world between compliance and flat-out standing in court telling the judge to go to hell, just like there a lot of things Trumpists can do to "persuade" banks etc. to do things that will look an aweful lot like unfreezing assets.

[Martinned2]

Sorry, forgot to link the Marginal Revolution post: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/02/why-it-is-hard-for-the-executive-to-disobey-the-judiciary.html

[Michael P]

Judges are much more susceptible to quiet power than those posts are premised on. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts was apparently pressured into changing his vote on Obamacare at the last minute. The judiciary as a whole will not want to go to war with the executive branch and civil society more broadly by (from Esper and Cowen's hypos) ordering banks to sanction US citizens.

[Estragon]

“Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected […] Nobody is going to bat 1,000.”

This one goes out to all of you who were very very concerned about $50 million in condoms for Gaza. Rest easy— Elon was just making it up!

[Estragon]

Here’s the video if you want to watch the whole thing. A bit awkward!

https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-and-elon-musk-speak-to-reporters-about-doge-efforts/655710

[grb]

Musk was asked this :

REPORTER: If you have received billions of dollars in contracts from the Pentagon and the president is directing you to look into the DoD, does that present a conflicts of interest?

MUSK: First of all, I'm not the filing the contract. It's people at SpaceX

And as he stood there, smirking & trolling the reporters, Donald Trump sat nearby - mute and vacant like a senile old potted plant.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have a time mark at which he does this potted plant imitation? It's half hour video, and five minutes in he seems pretty attentive.

[Brett Bellmore]

12 minutes in, still animated and attentive. Perhaps you're just complaining that he's not interrupting Musk?

Ah, there it is at 13 minutes. No potted plant in evidence.

[ducksalad]

You're right, Brett. Trump was merely showing the characteristic modesty for which he is famous. He knew who was the proper focus of attention in this WH event and that it wasn't himself.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was attentively listening the whole time he wasn't talking himself, as demonstrated by the fact that when he did interject, it was perfectly relevant to what Musk was saying.

I don't know what you wanted him to do here. Continually interrupt Musk? Talk over him? Wriggle his eyebrows Groucho Marx style?

No reasonable person would describe what went on in that video as "potted plant". You're just being nuts here.

[ducksalad]

I didn't say he was a potted plant, that was grb. In fact, I said you were right.

I don't know what you wanted him to do here.

Well, if you're asking literally, I wanted him to apologize, resign from office, and promise to disappear permanently from public life.

However, I would have settled for him turning to Musk, and asking Musk what he thought of annexing Gaza, and Musk saying "Don, that is a very stupid idea".

[Brett Bellmore]

I took it for sarcasm, and I'm still thinking that...

Trump is not typically modest. He's also typically not sharing the room with somebody who could buy him out with pocket change. Between the two of them, he knows quite well who's the better businessman.

[hobie]

How many minutes did Trump dance with himself at that rally? I think it was awhile.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Dancin' like the country had never seen before...

[myself]

More than a bit, Musk is standing behind Trump at the desk, non-formal clothes and a hat, and he's got his little kid with him (who gets to bring their kid to work? The boss).

They could have done that briefing anywhere, but it's heavily staged to show Musk as being in charge, and Trump just sits there and takes it.

Oh, and on the subject of the kid, from Musk's son's mouth to Trump:

"You are not the president and you need to go away."

Kids don't just come up with stuff like that, he's clearly parroting someone, almost certainly his dad. And Trump just takes it.

Something deeply, deeply weird is going on. At best Musk's quarter billion came with the explicit agreement that he gets to call the shots (at least on certain subjects).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I know Josh Blackman wants to celebrate Kavanaugh's birthday

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8)

but today is also someone else's birthday. Well, more than one, though the most well-known is Abraham Lincoln.

By chance, Charles Darwin was born on the same day. Also born today: Louisa Adams, US First Lady (1825-29), born in London (model to Melania Trump?), and various celebrities including Christina Ricci, who believe it or not is now 45.

[Ska]

In fairness, Lincoln's birthday isn't Supreme Court history. Now, celebrating Christina Ricci's birthday? I like that idea even more; particularly the grimy Buffalo 66 version of her.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lincoln had a significant influence on constitutional history.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s (notionally) Supreme Court history, not constitutional history. Although that would have a lot more force if there weren’t already a bunch of events with a similarly tenuous connection.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He had a significant role in Supreme Court history too.

[RedheadedPharoh]

So what's the Stockholm Syndrome excuse/rationale over the recently FOIA'd NARA emails where they confess to colluding with the WH to setup President Trump?

[Commenter_XY]

That was (D)ifferent! You know that. 😉

[David Nieporent]

That you're lying, as usual.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Sad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Got a link? I'm interested.

[Joe_dallas]

The New York Times says “Musk Asserts Without Proof That Bureaucracy Is Rife With Fraud.” Seriously? The GAO — under Biden — estimated last year that we are losing $233-$521 billion *per year* to fraud. Guys, it’s right there. Why do you continue with this… fraud? SMH

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1889536681675509843?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1889536681675509843%7Ctwgr%5Ebe4d3e7535af201ba3f80a5462cd46fd3b8bd6f4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F702108%2F

[tylertusta]

And people wonder why public trust in our media is so low.

[Sarcastr0]

The cited GAO report doesn't support what Musk asserted.

Who is doing the fraud in the GAO report, Joe? Improper payments is not the bureaucracy defrauding.

Also, none of it is taking place in the Agencies Musk's been fucking over, so if he's finding fraud it's different in both kind and location than where the GAO thinks it is.

[Kazinski]

This AP report is about the covid fraud 4 years ago, but I guess they got all of their systems fixed so it could never happen again:

June 11, 2023
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Much of the theft was brazen, even simple.

Fraudsters used the Social Security numbers of dead people and federal prisoners to get unemployment checks. Cheaters collected those benefits in multiple states. And federal loan applicants weren’t cross-checked against a Treasury Department database that would have raised red flags about sketchy borrowers.

Criminals and gangs grabbed the money. But so did a U.S. soldier in Georgia, the pastors of a defunct church in Texas, a former state lawmaker in Missouri and a roofing contractor in Montana.

All of it led to the greatest grift in U.S. history, with thieves plundering billions of dollars in federal COVID-19 relief aid intended to combat the worst pandemic in a century and to stabilize an economy in free fall."

[Sarcastr0]

Again, strawman.

Musk is talking about *current fraud* *by the government workers*.

You're nowhere near his assertion.

[Kazinski]

Well here is another example that would not qualify as fraud:

"USAID: The swamp is deep. One of the activist judges blocking Trump's agenda, Judge John Bates, is married to the founder of a USAID-funded NGO. Carol Rhees is a Democrat lawyer who started Hope for Children in Ethiopia a long-time USAID grant recipient. "

https://x.com/amuse/status/1889694676048871471

This is the judge that ordered the restoration of the gender related web pages, not one of the ones than enjoined funding cuts, or employee furloughs.

[David Nieporent]

That is correct; it would not qualify as fraud. Indeed, it would not qualify as anything. A judge who is not hearing a case about USAID is married to someone who serves as an unpaid director of a charity that (supposedly) got some USAID money, although for some totally inexplicable reason no information is provided about this money.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you actually start to read the article (and I do mean start, it’s literally the first sentence), you’ll see what they’re saying and why the headline is accurate.

I won’t spoil it for you! Here’s an actual link though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/trump-musk-oval-office.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Pay-walled of course without even that first sentence accessible.

[SimonP]

Is there any pay-walled source that you have access to, Bumbler, or should we just assume you only read headlines fed to you on Twitter?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Usefully my browser is slow so I can read the first few paragraphs before the paywall comes up. Sarcastr0, as I recall, also once cited a way to get free archived copies of articles.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes!
https://archive.is/.

Just post the url and you can get the full article most times.

[tylertusta]

The first sentence, which at first blush doesn't contradict the GAO report:

The billionaire Elon Musk said in an extraordinary Oval Office appearance on Tuesday that he was providing maximum transparency in his government cost-cutting initiative, but offered no evidence for his sweeping claims that the federal bureaucracy had been corrupted by cheats and officials who had approved money for “fraudsters.”

However, later down the article, the NYT points to specific claims that Musk makes:

Among Mr. Musk’s claims, which he offered without providing evidence, was that some officials at the now-gutted U.S. Agency for International Development had been taking “kickbacks.” He said that “quite a few people” in the bureaucracy somehow had “managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” without explaining how he had made that assessment. He later claimed that some recipients of Social Security checks were as old as 150.

Personal enrichment as Musk claims is not out of bounds of what the GAO reports, since it identifies possible fraud from within Social Security but doesn't give specific examples.

Regardless, this was a dumb editorial decision by the NYT. The editors at the NYT have decided that the story is: "Musk Makes Wild Claims and Implied To Be A Liar!"

That is a disservice to the nation and insults their readers. It also undermines the credibility of the NYT because they're implying Musk is wrong. What happens if he's correct?

[Bob from Ohio]

Ah, the "no evidence" canard, only employed against republicans.

"credibility of the NYT"

Mythical creature except for its cultists.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you suggesting that Elon Musk did provide evidence for his claims? If so, where can I find it?

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm suggesting that they never use "without evidence" when discussing what a democrat claims.

Canard was a bad word choice, maybe "meme".

[SimonP]

Yes, they are scrutinizing the claims of a man who has been lying rather brazenly for years more closely than they typically do for most politicians.

[Bob from Ohio]

Biden lied at least as much as Trump.

"scrutinizing"

LOL

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You live in a different world.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"credibility of the NYT"

I dunno. Their latest hire is a master stroke.

[David Nieporent]

He later claimed that some recipients of Social Security checks were as old as 150.

There are more than 70 million people who receive social security payments, so it would be insane to think that there aren't some improper payments being made. (I believe Musk cited some low number, like a dozen.) But isn't the more likely explanation than fraud that someone fat-fingered the data entry on a few of those 70+ million accounts, and they input a birthdate of 1850 instead of 1950 by accident?

[RedheadedPharoh]

lmao, wow now you're bootlicking over fraud.

It was just an oppsie doodles, guys! No way, no never way would a beloved bureaucrat commit fraud!

[Brett Bellmore]

Frequently in these cases what you see is paper records being transferred over to a computer system that won't allow the record to be stored without filling in all the fields, so they routinely insert obviously wrong data in the fields they don't have data for.

So somebody for whom there is no reliable birth date gets their record computerized, and the guy doing the data entry puts in something like 1850 exactly BECAUSE you know the guy wasn't really born in 1850, so it flags the entry as just a place holder.

This is not to say there aren't a fair number of really old people drawing social security who are actually dead; Japan had that come up, when they wanted to celebrate a bunch of centenarians by doing individual interviews and writeups on them, and found that they were actually pension fraud by relatives who didn't report their deaths, and just kept cashing the checks.

[David Nieporent]

Frequently in these cases what you see is paper records being transferred over to a computer system that won't allow the record to be stored without filling in all the fields, so they routinely insert obviously wrong data in the fields they don't have data for.

Yes; that's what I kept trying to explain to (IIRC) Dr. Ed and others who breathlessly reported that there were 120-year-old people voting in the 2020 election.

[Stella Link the dog]

Social security workers do make mistakes.

When I was about 17, I lost my social security card. No big deal, I knew the number and for about 30 years nobody asked to see it. Then Texas started threatening to not renew drivers' licenses without presentation of SS cards so I went down to the office to apply for a new one. Years later, I tried to efile the 1040 and it failed; it wouldn't accept my birth date. Turns out that when I applied for a new SS card, they changed my birth date. So, I just started using the wrong birth date when I efiled. Then, when I applied for SS and Medicare, the ship hit the sand. What a mess.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus, Josef Mengele didn't have that much trouble getting a good Argentinian ID (Didn't work out as well for Eichmann, that "Groucho Marx Glasses/Nose/Mustache didn't fool anyone)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that the referenced GAO report doesn’t refute Musk’s claims. That doesn’t mean that it’s evidence of them.

Look, I’m not only sympathetic to the claim that the bloated federal budget is rife with fraud and waste, I’d actually like it to be true. I think it would be particularly great if the fraud is so blatant that a few of people actually looking into it for a couple weeks can stop it. That would both flatter my worldview and mean that it would be a lot easier to make the government look more like I want it to look than I would have thought.

But I find it’s especially important to be skeptical of the stories that do validate your preconceptions this way, and so far a very high percentage of the claims of wasteful spending discovered by DOGE have been described inaccurately, and I don’t think they’ve specifically identified any fraud. So I do think the lack of evidence to substantiate these lavish claims is noteworthy, and I don’t see the problem with the New York Times pointing it out.

[Estragon]

I have a question. If one were looking for fraud, who would be best suited to that kind of work, in your opinion, from a professional standpoint?

I know much has been said (and will be said as we learn more) about these young DOGErs running amok in federal agency mainframes and their, ahem, idiosyncratic views on societal matters.

But if one’s true objective were to uncover “fraud” would one hire programmers? ISTM there would be folks far better suited to that kind of work, like, oh I don’t know, forensic accountants? Just spitballin here.

[Sarcastr0]

I know some fraud investigators.

They're from either a law enforcement background or an insurance/finance background.

Every spreadsheet tells a story kinda thing.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, those 'experts' you talk about never found the fraud for years that Musk's programmers identified in less than a month on the job.

[Sarcastr0]

If you want tot tell the GAO to suck it, you're not going to find anyone better in Musk's show.

I refer you to Noscitur's comment - saying fraud over and over again does not establish actual fraud.

At some point, loud proclamations with no evidence establishes kind of the opposite.

Meanwhile, the GAO found fraud, has some suggestions about it, and is ignored over substanceless flashiness.

[David Nieporent]

Musk has found $0 worth of fraud.

[Estragon]

“You know, those 'experts' you talk about never found the fraud”

That’s interesting to say. Have you perchance read what the IGs had to say in their lawsuit?

[Estragon]

And setting aside the IGs, I was asking a different question.

In a vacuum. You are bringing in people from the outside to uncover fraud in a large organization. Why programmers and not accountants? Now I will grant you these programming lads did blow the lid off the $50 million in condoms to Gaza scandal but what else have they uncovered?
On the other hand, if your goal was monkeying around with the code, then programmers might make sense. But cmon— this isn’t any way to do a real audit. Surely even you can acknowledge that?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

They need to get the Cyber Ninjas!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why programmers and not accountants?"

Because the data is on computers, and programmers scale, unlike accountants.

[Estragon]

That is so true. No accountants I know ever use computers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course accountants use computers. Do they write custom program to analyze the data in them to detect questionable patterns?

[Sarcastr0]

Forensic accountants and IGs and the like are the ones with the education and experience to help them define and identify questionable patterns.

Computer programmers are the ones that make an AI program to pretend it's an accountant, but with no actual cognitive work or experience behind it. And the don't check it's work.

This gonna end great.

[Estragon]

“The files are IN the computer… It’s so simple!”

-Hansel

[David Nieporent]

The GAO estimated no such thing. Maybe you ought to re-read whatever source you think said that. "Fraud" wasn't part of the report's finding, and you didn't read the number correctly either.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd love it if we treated the GAO report as correct and implemented it's suggestions.

That would require hiring more federal employees so dunno about that though.

[Estragon]

Not only that— this report relies extensively on the work of multiple IG’s in the various agencies… you know— the people Trump fired on day 4!

[Bwaaah]

From the GAO report":

"GAO estimated total direct annual financial losses to the government from fraud to be between $233 billion and $521 billion, based on data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alan Charles Raul served as associate White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan and as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. He currently serves as board secretary of the Society for the Rule of Law and is a lecturer at Harvard Law School.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/11/trump-congress-courts-doge-musk/

He discusses the unconstitutional nature of DOGE. A taste:

Even under the most aggressive view of the president’s “unitary executive” control over the entire executive branch and independent agencies, it is Congress’s sole authority to appropriate and legislate for our entire government. The president basically directs the executive branch within the contours prescribed by Congress, subject to constitutional checks and balances.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's one person's view.

[Bob from Ohio]

Old man trying to be relevant.

[Kazinski]

Yes, and a federal judge also needs to sign off on all web page changes too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gabbard approved as DNI.

[Roger S]

Can she order herself removed from the terrorist watch list?

[tylertusta]

Probably.

She's also in a position to discover why she was added in the first place.

[Commenter_XY]

She can shed a lot of sunlight on many things as DNI. Hope that happens.

I really hope she narrows section 702 to safeguard our 4A rights. What terror acts were prevented by searches under sec 702? Heard a lot of talk about that during the hearing, but nothing specific.

[tylertusta]

She can't narrow 702's language, but she is in a position to influence when those kinds of searches are used.

[Commenter_XY]

I really hope she does that = influence when those searches are done

[Kazinski]

That was a homeland security list, so presumably Noem already fixed that.

And the actual Terrorist watch list is under the FBI.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gabbard approved as DNI."

Good. The McCarthyism failed.

[David Nieporent]

Fortunately for Syria, this comes two months too late to help Assad.

[Kazinski]

Well if Pelosi couldn't help him, I doubt Gabbard could either.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

At least there will be no more "the deep state was mean to us" excuses.

Should have let Trump have Gaetz, too.

[John F. Carr]

Judge Denise J. Casper ruled in favor of Massachusetts' "right to repair" law. The law, dating back to 2020, gives car owners the right to certain telematics data. The Biden administration told car makers not to comply with the law because hackers would take over cars. The demand was later withdrawn.

The order dismissing the remaining counts is sealed. (Activate the Volokh!) Possibly it contains information about security holes in vehicle communications systems. Possibly it reveals a method for car owners to enable heated seats or adaptive cruise control without paying a subscription fee.

According to news sources, some telematics features are no longer offered in Massachusetts because car makers are not willing to open up access.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation v. Campbell, case 1:20-cv-12090 (D. Mass).

[Brett Bellmore]

" Possibly it reveals a method for car owners to enable heated seats or adaptive cruise control without paying a subscription fee"

In the case of heated seats, this is known as "a toggle switch".

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe a way to permanently disable auto start/stop.

[SRG2]

Note this: https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated-seat-subscription-microtransaction

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of BMW's offer of a heated seat subscription. $18 for a month, $180 for a year, $300 for three years, $415 unlimited, and if you don't pay your switch doesn't work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Subscriptions for features that are actually physically present in the product, and don't cost anything extra to allow to work, are a scam which really desperately needs to be stamped out with extreme prejudice. They are one of the uglier things that computers and connectivity in products has enabled.

[David Nieporent]

Careful, pretty soon you're going to stop sounding like a libertarian and start sounding like Elizabeth Warren!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Fuck off, slaver.

[Sarcastr0]

I read a pretty bad Scalzi novel, but one of the good bits of it was a pitch meeting where someone opened with 'I'd like you to consider...your testicals...as a Service.'

[Voize of Reazon]

I saw a car I wanted parked in a car lot, so I took it.
I mean, they've already spent time and money designing and manufacturing it, it wouldn't cost anything extra to give it to me so demanding payment is just a scam.

[ducksalad]

don't cost anything extra to allow to work

*ALL* software works this way, not just the extra features.

I assume you're OK with software that lets you download for a free test and then pay a registration fee to unlock. What difference does it make if it's a whole package or a part of the package - the grouping is arbitrary.

[Frank Drackman]

Wait until you hear about the Zyklon B substitution when you miss a payment

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Becoming Nicole: The inspiring story of transgender actor-activist Nicole Maines and her extraordinary family by Amy Ellis Nutt was written about ten years ago.

Nicole Maines is now an actress. She has an autobiography entitled "It Gets Better ... Except When It Gets Worse."

She references her parents read Jennifer Finney Boylan. Boylan had a recent guest op-ed in the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/opinion/transgender-trump-america.html

[Bob from Ohio]

"actress"

Not really.

I thought they were all called "actors" these days anyways.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, that would be hate speech.

[Commenter_XY]

It has been alleged that one or more FBI employees intentionally leaked information about impending ICE raids.

https://www.newsweek.com/kristi-noem-fbi-ice-raids-immigration-2028646

What is the penalty for this sort of thing....is it a felony, or is it an OPR sanction of some kind? Nobody got hurt, so does that make it 'no harm, no foul'?

[David Nieporent]

Even when they're not batshit crazy, they can't help but demagoguing:

Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox Report on Sunday: "Well, you know, if anyone leaks anything—people don't understand that jeopardizes the lives of our great men and women in law enforcement,

No, leaking that there are going to be immigration raids — even if that happens — does not jeopardize the lives of law enforcement. Do they think illegal immigrants are going to use the information to set up paramilitary operations to ambush ICE agents? What the government is whining about is that it will enable illegal immigrants to hide, not that it will endanger anyone.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, it's still illegal to leak operational information, isn't it?

[David Nieporent]

I assume it would be characterized as some flavor of obstruction — depending on the specific facts, of course — so yes.

[RedheadedPharoh]

It was a raid on one of those militant Venezuelan gangs that the Democrats let take over those apartments in CO.

You poor sad victim.

[ducksalad]

So the excuse for the next four years is going to be "leakers"?

Maybe next week they'll say they were about to arrest 150 cat-napping Ohio Haitians but they only caught zero because of "leakers".

[Commenter_XY]

So David....no harm, no foul?

[Brett Bellmore]

" Do they think illegal immigrants are going to use the information to set up paramilitary operations to ambush ICE agents? "

Anti-ICE Protesters violently attack & beat Man Outside Of City Hall In Los Angeles

And when you consider the high priority targets right now are criminals and gang members who happen to be illegal aliens, yeah, actually that IS a possibility.

[David Nieporent]

First, those people look unarmed, so I've been reliably informed that the correct term for them is "tourists."

Second, what does a fight breaking out in a crowd of people have to do with people who are wanted by law enforcement setting up a tactical operation to get into a gunfight with heavily armed ICE agents?

[Brett Bellmore]

We already have violence by people who are opposed to Trump enforcing immigration laws, and didn't have anything personal at stake. The idea that the people who'd actually be deported, many of whom are hardened criminals, wouldn't engage in violence is laughable.

Many of these people are members of the same gangs and cartels who have made Mexico almost a failed state. They'd like to do the same thing here.

[ThePublius]

You know, David, you often make a lot of sense to me, even though we are obviously on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but your comment here is just ridiculous, and probably motivated by your strongly partisan opposition to Trump and anyone associated with him.

It's clear - obvious - that leaking information about a raid risks the safety and lives of the agents involved. Many of the people sought by these agents are violent criminals, and leaking to them would allow them to prepare to resist, violently.

[David Nieporent]

You people watch way too much TV. This is not an effort to send some army platoon to take out a Hamas base, where operational security is paramount to avoid an ambush. If you tell a bunch of illegal immigrants in advance that there is going to be immigration raids, they are not going to gear up to try to fight off ICE. They are going to flee or hide. Now, that may be undesirable from the perspective of the govt (and even from my perspective, if we're actually talking about violent criminals), but it's not a risk to officer safety.

[apedad]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FOIA/Public_CAPCO_Register%20and%20Manual%20v5.1.pdf

Here's the manual discussing protection of Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information.

Personnel should be adminstratively punished for leaking LES info.

[Commenter_XY]

So...OPR, and a remote possibility of job loss.

[ducksalad]

Ought to be a firing offense.

But while we're at it ... suppose a private citizen like myself decided to park outside the ICE compound, and post on a website any notable departures and the direction they left in. Ought to be legal, right?

How about the next step. A "resistant" city lets me have access to their traffic light camera system and plate recognition software to track the ICE vehicles in real time, and I post that.

Not in collusion with any specific person trying to avoid ICE, of course. Just as a general free public service.

[M L]

Bukele re wild rulings by US judges: "That's exactly what judges were doing in El Salvador in 2021 . . So we impeached them all and then proceeded to fix the country."

[Frank Drackman]

Really love Karoline Leavitt's "Cady Heron" impression over Karine Jean-Pierre's Raggedy Ann/Shirley Temple.

[RedheadedPharoh]

"Not to be insensitive. But it’s beyond ironic that the Democrat’s witness defending the govt‘s horrific record on finding waste and fraud.. is an actual blind man."
https://x.com/SchmittNYC/status/1889708980315828255

lol I wonder what his username is here?

[questioner7]

Are laws against "aiding and abetting" homeless encampments constitutional? https://wapo.st/41ebZjv

[Krayt]

Jesus: Stop feeding and clothing poor people!

[Kazinski]

The January inflation report came out today, and it came out hot. The markets didn't like it much but mostly recovered.

I also have to say that I too am disappointed Trump was not able to cure inflation in his first 12 days.

Inflation picked up for a fourth straight month in January amid another rise in in food and energy costs, possibly setting the stage for a year of halting progress in the battle to slow consumer price increases as President Donald Trump rolls out myriad import tariffs.

An underlying inflation measure also accelerated.

Some economists said the larger-than-expected price surge takes additional Federal Reserve interest rate cuts off the table until at least year's end. Others said the figures may not be as alarming as they appear because of measurement issues the government often faces early in the year.

Consumer prices overall increased 3% from a year earlier, up from 2.9% the previous month, according to the Labor Department’s consumer price index, a measure of goods and service costs across the U.S. That's the most since June and above the 2.9% expected by economists surveyed by Bloomberg."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/02/12/cpi-report-january-inflation-impact/78436987007/

But it does show why DOGE is so important, because the fed is out of tools to bring down inflation, or at least no one wants them to start raising rates again.

The most effective tool available is fiscal policy, and that means we have to cut at least a half trillion out of the budget (and the 2 trillion deficit) as just a down payment this year, but more likely a Trillion a year is needed for ongoing cuts.

The problem is the spending and we need to get it under control, and until that is taken on seriously we aren't going to see any progress on inflation.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've been kicking the fiscal can down the street for decades now, and we've now reached the point where there's no more kicking room. But the forces that prevented a fiscal solution before are not any weaker today, so it's going to be a brutal political fight, uglier than we've previously seen in American politics in maybe a century.

The legal skirmishes over keeping Trump from knowing where the money is spent are just the opening shots of that fight. I think Trump understands that we're now at the point where we either win this fight or go over a cliff, and he's spoiling for that fight.

Again I'll say it: We'll look back in a few years and know that his talk with Javier Milei was a signal that he didn't mean to pull ANY punches. At all.

[DixieTune]

What talk with Milei?

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/15/trump-elon-musk-javier-milei-government-cuts.html

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA sure is loving to pick their favorite Latin American strongman for Trump to emulate.

Not that they agree on which strongman.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you disagreeing with what I'm saying, or are you just registering your (Already assumed!) dislike of Milei? The libertarian strongman who is relentlessly freeing Argentina from government oppression.

Trump has decided to go Milei on the US, is my conclusion. So he's not going to be backing down on anything. He thinks this is a fight that either gets won, or the country is going down the tubes.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I disagree with what you're saying. Trump isn't motivated by the debt, nor is he patterning himself after anyone; that's wishful thinking by you.

2. That what you wish Trump would do is follow a populist Latin America strongman says a lot about where you sit on the libertarian-authoritarian continuum.

[Commenter_XY]

More of your magical mind reading of motivation?

POTUS Trump made no secret of the fact he was going to cut the size of government, and spending. And he is delivering, much to your discomfort.

[Sarcastr0]

Trumps past actions have made it abundantly clear he doesn't give a rat's ass about the deficit.

You don't care about the deficit either. You have never mentioned it in all your brainless number go down cheerleading.

A badly run government is not a cheaper government.

[Commenter_XY]

Less government is better government.

[David Nieporent]

So I see C_XY has hopped on BLM's "defund the police" bandwagon. Interesting.

[Sarcastr0]

Less government is not randomly lowering the number people in it, and immiserating the rest.

That's just a recipe for bad government.

This has been pointed out to you by people far more into small government and with a more considered mien then myself.

You have shown again and again that you don't care.

Less government isn't your thing. A childlike world of simple issues is your thing. The mirror of the tankie. But you don't even have a book to point to.

[Brett Bellmore]

It says a lot about you that you dismiss Milei as "a populist Latin America strongman". And nothing good.

He is, to everybody's shock, pulling Argentina back from the brink, and faster than anybody thought possible. And, as he said at Davos, in Argentina's past the West can see their own future, if they do not change course.

You don't want that course changed, obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying he's done nothing good - that will take time to work out.
I'm saying he's a Latin American strongman.

America is a robust democracy. It is not Argentina.

It's been clear for a while what style of government you favor.

[DixieTune]

Robust democracy my asshole.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The last President was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote--that's pretty "robust", if you look at it in a particular way...

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation is really complex. Multiple, differently time-phased variables.

So it's almost certainly a combination of a bunch of stuff.
Still, the smart money is on the threatened inflationary policies effecting inflation expectations.

Not, of course, your unsupported economic thriller you're writing about the debt being at the cusp of total explodiation and Hard Trump making the Hard Decisions about it.

I think Trump understands that we're now at the point where we either win this fight or go over a cliff,
Trump. Does. Not. Care. About. The. Debt.

[DixieTune]

He cares more about it than Biden did, who actively wanted to destroy America to buy votes.

Biden is just a disgusting, despicable, criminal subhuman savage.

[Kazinski]

Its already explodiated, its way past the cusp.

Here is debt by year and % of GDP since 2015:

2015 $18,151 100%
2016 $19,573 105%
2017 $20,245 104%
2018 $21,516 105%
2019 $22,719 107%
2020 $27,748 129%
2021 $29,617 124%
2022 $31,420 119%
2023 $34,001 122%

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe, given the lack of economic smitherneens, your definition of exploded is overtuned when it comes to sovereign debt.

[Bwaaah]

Gonna wait 'til you're caught between a rock and a hard place, eh, genius?

"I work for the government. It *has* to pay its bills, because the law says so. I'm why you give full faith and credit to people who know no limits to spending. If there are limits, you will learn them from me. And I will learn them, by mistake."

You're a real confidence builder.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what I said.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure it is. Bwaaah responded to it.

[Bwaaah]

Watch this episode of Sarc's Non-Answers to Real Questions...

Sarc...what is your limit to how much our federal government can safely spend?

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone that says they know the limit is selling you something.

My theses are these:
1) there is no clear causality for this current inflation spike, though the big month-on-month change is Trump's tariff threats.

2) Our debt is not something to be neglected - paying attention to growth, revenue, and spending. But neither is it an immediate crisis requiring radical action.

3) Trump's motives do not include any concerns about the debt. The administration's actions are not currently focused on addressing the debt, just on destruction.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) There is clear causality, but it's at the "earthquake caused the tsunami" level, not "this butterly flap is why that eddy was clockwise instead of counter-clockwise" level.

2) At the point where it becomes an immediate crisis, it's too late to avoid a disaster! You don't wait until the iceberg hits the passenger liner before you change course!

3) Says the guy who dismisses any reasoning about motives as "mind reading".

[Sarcastr0]

1. Your 'all inflation is caused by DEBT' remains obviously incorrect. For one thing, we're talking a month-on-month spike. No change in month-on-month spending.
Heck, your take would require the inflation rate never goes down so long as the debt keeps growing.

2. You keep saying it's an immediate crisis. And you keep insisting on very very radical changes.
That's just you excluding the middle between 'not an issue' and 'lets destroy every governmental institution to go after the debt.'
This is not economics, it's not political science; it's vibes.

3. Again, Trump's actions have made it clear he doesn't give a shit about the debt. His actions. It's at this point bad faith for anyone, including you, to claim that's mind reading.
You, on the other hand, have this whole scenario about a Latin American strongman Trump's following. based on not much other than your own wishful thinking and a visit. Now THAT is some mind reading.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Your 'all inflation is caused by DEBT' "

Yet again, it's my, "All inflation is caused by DEFICIT".

"For one thing, we're talking a month-on-month spike. No change in month-on-month spending."

I totally wasted the electrons on my point #1, didn't I.

"You keep saying it's an immediate crisis. And you keep insisting on very very radical changes."

Yes, Sarcastr0: The crisis becomes immediate when you reach the point where if you don't immediately change something, the disaster becomes unavoidable. Not at the point where the disaster arrives.

As you reach that point of no return, the actions necessary to avert the disaster keep getting more extreme. This is perfectly normal. Accelerate towards a wall in your car. At first, all you need to do is take your foot off the accelerator, and coast to a stop. A bit later you need to apply the brakes, too. A bit later it's time for a panic stop. After that? Slow down as much as you can while bracing for a collision.

When it comes to inflation, and the building debt crisis, it's still up in the air whether we're at the point where emergency action can avert the crisis, or just moderate it. But if we listen you you, we'll just slam straight into that wall still accelerating.

[Bwaaah]

Hey Sarc...consider the meanings and implications of the terms "mass" and "trajectory."

(And "cheap blathering excuses" too.)

[David Nieporent]

Yes, Sarcastr0: The crisis becomes immediate when you reach the point where if you don't immediately change something, the disaster becomes unavoidable. Not at the point where the disaster arrives.

As you reach that point of no return, the actions necessary to avert the disaster keep getting more extreme. This is perfectly normal. Accelerate towards a wall in your car. At first, all you need to do is take your foot off the accelerator, and coast to a stop. A bit later you need to apply the brakes, too. A bit later it's time for a panic stop. After that? Slow down as much as you can while bracing for a collision.

I didn't have "Brett comes out in favor of immediate action on climate change" on today's bingo card.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "I didn't have "Brett comes out in favor of immediate action on climate change" on today's bingo card."

He didn't. And though that theoretical equivalence occurred to me, it only took me a moment to dismiss it as a problem with very different dynamics and little equivalence at all. But it works if you subscribe to the Greta Thunberg (and AOC) school of thought that says we're all going to suddenly burn to death.

Anyway, I know by your own protests, that you're not a Democrat. One day, maybe you'll say something that distinguishes you from one (other than saying, "I'm not a Democrat").

My theory is that TDS puts you in an unintended camp with Democrats, you and them disavowing anything and everything that those people (read: "MAGA") say. Like Wagstaff in Horse Feathers, you could safely adopt the motto, "Whatever it is, I'm against it."

I'm sure you could point out exceptions. But that wouldn't controvert the implications of your extraordinarily consistent opposing positions. It doesn't make a difference what you call yourself; you ardently oppose pretty much all who express disagreement with Democratic thinking (often calling them "MAGA") regardless of topic or the particulars. A real pillar, you are.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey a post from Bwaah going on at length with broad assertions about how someone really works, despite what they say.

[DixieTune]

Paying people to stay home and order new shit over Amazon wasn't such a great idea, now was it?

[Frank Drackman]

Worked pretty good for me, just kidding, I liked it, umm, for the first 2 weeks, then went crazy, still remember doing an Assignment in Filthy-Delphia October 2020, allmost everything closed, guys wearing masks on Motorcycles (without a Helmet) walking the streets drinking from a Bourbon bottle in a brown bag like a bum...
Finally, early 2021, in Tampa Florida, walk into a Publix, I'm the only one wearing a mask....
Amazing that we still had to wear them on Airplanes until 2022...

Frank

[Kenneth Almquist]

In 2016, many candidates competed for the Republican nomination. Republican primary voters chose the candidate who promised the largest deficits. It’s not surprising that the highest debt to GDP ratio in recent years occurred under Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, if you only count 2020, you Fuck.
Umm, since you're a Simpleton, let me draw you a Simpleton Diaphragm, Yes, if you shut down the Economy for 6 months, pay peoples to sit at home and do nothing, yes, the "Debt to GDP Ratio" will increase. At least "45/47" had the balls to do something, on the fly about a medical crisis, with Sleepy Joe, the Magic Knee-grow Barry O, or Cums-a-Lot, you'd have had 150,000,000 dead.
I get it, you're pissed we haven't declared war on Roosh-a yet, go over there and fight yourself, if it's so important, you poof, OK, you can't fly there for here, because no Airline is stupid enough to fly into a war zone (where you'd probably be shot down by the You-Cranes)

Frank

[hobie]

Big old jump in 2020. What I've learned the past four years is that regardless global impact events (wars, supply chain, pandemics, inflation), everything is entirely the president's fault and his alone. Looks like Trump really fucked our debt in 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Inflation is really complex. Multiple, differently time-phased variables."

A tsunami is really complex, when you get down to the detailed level of how houses get washed away, and local eddy's. But it's really simple at the top level. Same with inflation; Complex in detail, very simple in cause.

Governments, of course, want people to think it's all terribly confusing, because they ARE the cause, and they want people confused about that.

[Sarcastr0]

It's economically illiterate to reduce inflation to one variable - our national debt.

You're just putting your priors into reality again.

[Brett Bellmore]

But who's doing that? You're confusing the function and its integral.

The national debt, if static, doesn't cause any inflation at all. It's the deficit that causes the inflation, not the debt.

But, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'; I don't expect you to ever admit that government itself is the cause of inflation, and shrinking it is the cure.

[Sarcastr0]

Debt, the change in debt (which is the derivative not the integral), you are reducing the cause to one variable.

We don't know what is the case in economics, but we do know what's not. And inflation does not follow the change in the national debt.

As I said above, smart money is on the driver being the tariffs threat raising inflationary expectations. But the smarter money is on a Hayekian realization that we don't actually know.

[Brett Bellmore]

Debt is the integral of deficit, just as deficit is the derivative of debt, so your 'gotcha' is just a trivial distraction, nothing more.

I know you don't like that Milton Friedman is back to running the show. But he always was, in a Gods of the Copybook Headings sort of way.

[Sarcastr0]

I wasn't doing a gotcha - just nailing down that for you salient variable is the change one not the absolute one.

You've now shifted to some bad appeals to authority.

Milton Friedman was a monetary guy. Particularly when it came to his take on inflation. What Trump is doing does not derive from Friedman.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA blamed the inflation on Biden's energy policy.
And the inflation reduction act.
And worldwide stimuluses.
And Covid shutdowns.
And Biden's tax policy.
And the expectations that arise from just being a Democrat in the Presidency.

[DixieTune]

It was a combination of unnecessary stimulus spending, central bank printing and shutdowns.

[Absaroka]

"It's the deficit that causes the inflation"

Government overspending can absolutely cause inflation, but it's not the only possible cause. The 1970's oil shock, for example, was inflationary and not the result of government spending.

(Johnson's (and Nixon's and ...) guns-n-butter spending was part of the late 70's/early 80's inflation, but oil prices had a lot to do with it as well)

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on how you define "inflation", I suppose. The usual definition is "a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money."

The key is "general"; It's not that any given thing has gotten more expensive, it's that the money itself has gotten less valuable, so the cost of everything, denominated in that money, goes up uniformly. EVERYTHING.

Now, if some input into the economy, oil for instance, goes up in cost, the products that incorporate it will go up in price by varying amounts, but the impact will vary depending on the product. Products that don't incorporate it at all might even go down in price as a result of demand dropping.

OTOH, if that input drops in price again, the drop also propagates through the economy.

That non-uniformity distinguishes price shocks from actual inflation. That, and the fact that inflation is basically always one-way. It's like the difference between waves and the tide.

[Absaroka]

Well, the price of oil went up ten fold between 1973 and 1981.

Oil isn't like rutabagas; you can't just switch to turnips. It is an input to the cost of almost everything - you pay more for gas, the farmer jacks up his prices to cover tractor fuel, and the wholesaler and supermarket jack up their prices to cover the cost of truck deliveries.

Perhaps that general rise in prices wasn't called inflation everywhere. I spent those years in VA, OH, TN, KY, WY, and MD, and it was called inflation in those places.

Heh. I had a motorcycle that had a 1.1 gallon tank. With gas at 39 cents a gallon I was used to using pocket change to fill up. I remember being shocked at having to pull out a dollar bill to pay for a fill-up.

[Kazinski]

The real signal something will get done is the reconciliation bill. Congress can give authorization for all the cuts, if they want to.

But Rand Paul is threatening to vote against it because they want to use fake cuts instead of real cuts to offset spending increases for the military and deportations, which shows that Thune at least has no appetite for real cuts.

[hobie]

I don't think things are looking good for a reconciliation bill, Kazinski. The last one we had in 2021 every single Republican voted against it. For the reason, inter alia, that it is an improper way to advance legislation

[Commenter_XY]

This is starting to eerily look like the Fed's unsuccessful inflation fighting circa 73-79. It looked like inflation was under control, the Fed cut rates, and inflation took off about 2 quarters later.

We risk the same. The best move right now is for the Fed to do nothing, or raise rates by one-quarter point.

Inflation is NOT contained.

[Josh R]

If rates are increased, it will be entertaining when Trump fires Powell.

[Commenter_XY]

The Donald has done a lot of firing lately.

DOE is next to be fed to the woodchipper. 🙂

[SimonP]

So maybe now's not the time for another big tax cut, is what you're saying.

[DixieTune]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics/sonia-sotomayor-trump-court-orders/index.html

Look at this fat pig. It's a discredit to America that she's on the Supreme Court.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, she's heavy, but she's got the facial muscle wasting common in End Stage Kidney Disease/Diabetes, "47" will have another pick before too long.

[DixieTune]

I hope so. Hopefully he picks someone better than Barrett or Kavanagh

[Mr. Bumble]

I'd be inclined to agree with your medically based opinion.
She certainly doesn't look well and I doubt she will last for four more years.

[Commenter_XY]

1. She is not a fat pig
2. It is not a discredit to America that Sotomayor sits on SCOTUS

I don't agree with her judicial philosophy, DT. It is a credit to the country that a career prosecutor who actually tried cases sits on the Court. Kagan, notably, has not ever tried a case before a jury.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thinking back, it's amazing how many male attorneys used language like that (and worse) to describe female judges/attorneys back in the 1990's when I was starting out. Times have changed, at least where I practice.

[Kazinski]

Yes, its mostly a conversation among people I've muted because they never seem to want to discuss actual issues.

I can ignore that tendency with NG, for example, when he seems fascinated with the breast size of the attorney that totally derailed the Fani Willis' prosecution of Trump in Georgia, which might possibly indicate respect for even more imposing attributes. Mainly because no matter how consistently wrong on outcomes he is, he does bring a lot of knowledge to the table.

[DixieTune]

I don't use that language about women who are attractive and not fat. But she's fat and ugly. She has bad skin and bad hair.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are a juvenile waste of time. Muted.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"1. She is not a fat pig
2. It is not a discredit to America that Sotomayor sits on SCOTUS"

Yup. And since she sits on SCOTUS, it's fortunate that she's not a fat pig.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why, because otherwise they'd be crushed?

I'd like to see her off the Court for ideological reasons, but I wish her the best of health. Unfortunately, I can't see her retiring.

[Absaroka]

Here is an an interesting article on the limitations of economic metrics. To pick one well known example, people's individual market baskets differ; 20 year olds buy a lot less health care than 80 year olds, and Floridians buy a lot fewer mittens than Minnesotans. The article points out that the market baskets of janitors and radiologists differ in composition as well:

"If prices for eggs, insurance premiums and studio apartment leases rise at a faster clip than those of luxury goods and second homes, the CPI underestimates the impact of inflation on the bulk of Americans.
...
Our alternative indicator reveals that, since 2001, the cost of living for Americans with modest incomes has risen 35 percent faster than the CPI. Put another way: The resources required simply to maintain the same working-class lifestyle over the last two decades have risen much more dramatically than we’ve been led to believe."

They discuss other economic statistics as well. It's an interesting and plausible thesis, and an issue worth paying attention to.

[DixieTune]

The other problem is that CPI doesn't take into account asset inflation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Floridians buy a lot fewer mittens than Minnesotans"

No.

Sears in Bangor, ME used to sell the same number of winter coats as sears in Miami, FL did.

People in Florida consider 60 degrees cold, people in Bangor consider it warm.

[David Nieporent]

I'll take "things Dr. Ed made up on Wednesday" for $1,000, Alex.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that's not even accounting for the market basket manipulation.

[Sarcastr0]

Which is just more you being economically illiterate, and conspiratorial.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I've explained this to you before.

Beef and Chicken both go up by the same percentage, but chicken is still less expensive than beef, so people whose incomes have not kept up with inflation shift their consumption towards chicken.

And the government uses this as an excuse to reduce the amount of beef in the market basket, and increase the amount of chicken, which has the result of making the official inflation number lower even though both went up by the same fraction.

Eventually people are eating lentils instead of chicken, and the government replaces chicken with lentils, and claims low inflation even as people continually see their standard of living degraded by higher prices.

It's a racket, a way of understating inflation, and they damned well know it.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, you don't understand it (despite multiple people including conservatives trying to explain it to you) so you assume hidden leftist bad faith again.

I'm not walking you through it again. Maybe someone better at that than me will try.

Leftist conspiracies whenever you don't understand or like something is your go-to. Your happy place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Inflation is supposed to tell you changes in the cost to maintain a fixed standard of living. Lowering the number to account for people reducing their standard of living in response for inflation is simply illegitimate.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Trump elected chair of the Kennedy Center by newly constituted board"

Among those on the board are Pamela Bondi, Elaine Chao, Lee Greenwood, Usha Vance, and of course Donald Trump.

https://www.kennedy-center.org/about-us/leadership/trustees/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Plans are for a special performance of The Sound of Music with a special new ending. The Captain welcomes the new regime and the Von Trapp singers have a special performance in Germany.

[santamonica811]

Heh. I mean, ouch. 🙂

[Kenneth Almquist]

They are also considering “Springtime for Hitler,” which has the advantage that the plot doesn’t have to be altered. The only challenge is making sure the audience doesn’t think it’s satire.

[Frank Drackman]

Just imagine, it was only 11 months ago when we had a POTUS who was the "Best Joe Biden Ever" (HT M. Schmoe) giving his State of the Onion,
and imparted this nugget of wisdom....
" Lincoln (sic) Riley! An innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That's right. But how many of thousands of people have been killed by illegals??"
I'd thought he said "killed by legals" to make a stupid point about how 300 million American citizens might commit more murders than 30 million illegals (do they?) but he literally asked how many people had been killed by "Illegals"
Amazing that it took a debate where he stood with his mouth open for 2 hrs to get him out of the race....

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Other than washing and waxing his vette (I doubt anyone would let him drive) what has Joe been up to?

[Frank Drackman]

I'll give Joe that much, he does have a sweet Vette (67' best yr for that style) "V'room! V'room!"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, no question about that, though I'm more of a '69 T-top guy. Love those flared wheel wells!

Which reminds me, I need to get the family back out to the Lane Motor Museum again, ideally on a day when they have the vault open. Ever been there? It's worth a visit!

[Kazinski]

Wow:

"BREAKING: AG Pam Bondi announces the DOJ has filed charges against the State of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and Mark Schroeder:

“New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops — it stops today.”

https://x.com/alx/status/1889801358708187421

They aren't fooling around. But it will be interesting how far it goes in court, even getting it to trial would be a big win.

Some outlets are saying "charges" other outlets are saying its just a lawsuit.

[not guilty]

"BREAKING: AG Pam Bondi announces the DOJ has filed charges against the State of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and Mark Schroeder"

Do you have anything other than a x post to confirm that such as, you know, a charging instrument? There is no substitute for original source materials.

[ducksalad]

The more respectable outlets are saying it's a lawsuit:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2025/02/12/pam-bondi-and-doj-sue-new-york-kathy-hochul-over-green-light-law/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bondi looks a LOT more professional than she used to.

[David Nieporent]

The more respectable outlets are saying it's a lawsuit:

The thing is, Bondi herself used the legally illiterate phrase "filed charges." So, yeah, while a good rule of thumb is that every Twitter user who starts off their tweet with a "BREAKING" is lying and worth muting, in this case you can't blame that tweeter.

[John F. Carr]

Here is previous litigation over the "green light" law: Kearns v. Cuomo, 1:19-cv-00902, Western District of New York. The plaintiff, a county official, lost due to lack of standing. Along the way the court sent the following notice to the Attorney General:

TAKE NOTICE that in the above-captioned action, Defendants filed a memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss on August 16, 2019, which asserts that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[Kazinski]

I saw the video of Bondi announcing it, that seems like an original source.

[not guilty]

Actually that is hearsay. The original source would be the civil complaint or, if criminal, an indictment or a complaint with a supporting affidavit.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, hopefully the People's Republic of NJ is #3 on the list.

[Commenter_XY]

With all of the TROs that are coming out, has anyone thought to require an injunction bond?

If the plaintiffs lose, they pay court costs and atty cost.

Why aren't injunction bonds a standard for a nationwide TRO?

[ducksalad]

Wouldn't be much of a deterrent for the cases currently in the news. Even if you think the plaintiffs' suits are meritless, the stakes are serious for them and most plaintiffs either are large organizations or have the backing of one.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think they aren't? Here's the last portion of Judge Engelmayer's TRO:

ORDERS that plaintiffs post security in the amount of $10,000 prior to Friday, February 14, 2025, at 2 p.m.

[Life of Brian]

LOL. 10 flippin thousand across 19 states, to bind the hands of the Executive? That's not even a bargain -- that's a joke. Their collective coffee bill during the complaint drafting phase was probably more than that.

[Commenter_XY]

10K is chump change.

1B is a different matter.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In the United States, each side normally pays its own attorney fees. The biggest criticism of this approach is that it allows a wealthy plaintiff to force a defendant with limited resources to spend money defending a lawsuit that the defendant will win. That isn’t an issue when the cases are strong enough to justify a TRO and the defendants are Federal agencies.

[Michael P]

"cases are strong enough to justify a TRO"? There's discussion just down-thread about how a case that doesn't even satisfy threshold issues got a TRO. Courts give out TROs kike candy when leftist causes are involved.

[John F. Carr]

Bonds can work well for some cases about money. In the citizenship case it is hard to decide what amount the bond should be.

In 2006 several plaintiffs sued to block the sale of the Indiana Toll Road. They lost quickly because under state law they had to post a bond comparable to the value of the contract unless the judge thought their case was strong. Bonney v. Indiana Finance Authority, 849 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2006).

A judge inclined to immediately grant a nationwide injunction would also think plaintiffs' case is strong enough to waive a bond. Unless the law absolutely required a bond.

[Krayt]

Are there any studies to see if the combo of nationwide TRO and "chance of ultimate success good!" actually pan out? If certain judges demonstrate abysmal prognostication ability, that would be good to know.

[Armchair]

Maybe Trump can get an injunction against further TROs

[Commenter_XY]

Make the states pony up beaucoup dollars for an injunction bond if they insist on nationwide TROs. The process costs time and money, so let them pay for the privilege.

[John F. Carr]

Governments get special treatment when it comes to bonds because governments are more creditworthy than most litigants.

I think requiring bonds is not going to be effective. Pick one of the other ideas for limiting judge shopping. For example, a TRO or preliminary injunction against a government policy can only be granted by a three judge panel. Or the order does not take effect until ratified by a Court of Appeals.

Most of this rush of litigation is not so urgent as to require action in less than a week. People routinely wait years to get money owed them. The citizenship order didn't even go into effect immediately and the effects would not be felt for some time after that. Somebody who gets funded by federal grants told me the agency usually makes a payment every three months. If the grant had been from NIH he wouldn't have noticed the change in indirect cost recovery rate for months.

I would make the government liable for interest on breaches of contract starting from the date of breach. I don't know if prejudgment interest is currently allowed in this case.

[David Nieporent]

Or the order does not take effect until ratified by a Court of Appeals.

That literally makes no sense. The entire point of a TRO is to freeze current conditions in effect with immediate effect while the issue is litigated.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hardly freezing things in place when a judge orders the government to restore the status quo ante after a new policy has already been put into effect.

[tylertusta]

Perhaps Trump should go to Judge A to obtain a TRO against Judge B to prevent him from issuing a TRO? Perhaps a TRO denying Judge B access to his computer?

With what's been coming out of the courts, that would be fair play.

[John F. Carr]

In abortion pill litigation there were dueling orders, one from a conservative judge saying "pill bad, limit access or take it off the market" and one from a liberal judge saying "pill good, do not limit access or take it off the market".

In the case of the abortion pill and in many of the present cases Congress could intervene to decide the issue. The merits are mostly not constitutional questions. The courts are asked to decide whether the executive branch is correctly following orders from Congress.

The Texas abortion pill case was not decided on the merits. Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. That was a constitutional question.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gotta love Vermont: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/02/12/aclu-accuses-vermont-dcf-of-illegally-surveilling-pregnant-woman/?p1=hp_primary

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston Judgr reverses himself -- DROPS INJUNCTION
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/02/12/federal-judge-in-boston-clears-way-for-trumps-plan-to-downsize-federal-workforce-with-deferred-resignation-program/?p1=hp_featurestack

[Kenneth Almquist]

The judge ruled that the unions lack standing to sue. That doesn’t justify Trump breaking the law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He still reversed himself...

[David Nieporent]

He did not, in fact, reverse himself.

[not guilty]

Here is the order: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25523906/otooleord021225.pdf

It is not a reversal of anything. The judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until a hearing on the merits of the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion could be held. That TRO was not a merits ruling.

Neither is today's order a ruling on the merits as to whether the buyout program is or is not lawful. It is instead a determination that the instant plaintiffs do not have standing to litigate the matter and that, under the applicable statutes, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted.

There is no substitute for original source materials.

[Michael P]

Ackchually it wasn't a reversal, it was just a federal court lifting a hasty restraining order that it imposed on behalf of parties that don't have standing and could not prevail on the merits. That's totally not "reversal" except in the way that normal humans use the word every day.

[David Nieporent]

This is a good illustration of rhetorical trickery. By definition, all restraining orders are "hasty," so adding that adjective here adds nothing substantive; it just is meant to insinuate to that there was something shady about this one.

And no, no 'normal human' thinks that "Okay, I've thought about it; you can go ahead and do X if you want" is a "reversal" of "Hold on; I need to think about it for a bit before you do X."

[TwelveInchPianist]

So Trump could have ignored the order?

[not guilty]

"So Trump could have ignored the order?"

Not at all. As SCOTUS opined in United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947), a United States "District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it was determining its own authority to grant injunctive relief. The defendants, in making their private determination of the law, acted at their peril. Their disobedience is punishable as criminal contempt." The Court further opined:

Violations of an order are punishable as criminal contempt even though the order is set aside on appeal, Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14 (1887), or though the basic action has become moot, Gompers v. Bucks Stove Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911).

We insist upon the same duty of obedience where, as here, the subject matter of the suit, as well as the parties, was properly before the court; where the elements of federal jurisdiction were clearly shown; and where the authority of the court of first instance to issue an order ancillary to the main suit depended upon a statute, the scope and applicability of which were subject to substantial doubt. The District Court on November 29 affirmatively decided that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was of no force in this case and that injunctive relief was therefore authorized. Orders outstanding or issued after that date were to be obeyed until they expired or were set aside by appropriate proceedings, appellate or otherwise. Convictions for criminal contempt intervening before that time may stand.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"where the elements of federal jurisdiction were clearly shown"

[not guilty]

Have you read United Mine Workers? It is exactly on point that a party may be punished for disobeying a court order even if the court was ultimately determined to lack jurisdiction to issue the order.

The order there was an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from striking, cessation of work, and from taking any action which would interfere with the court's jurisdiction and its determination of the case. 330 U.S. at 266-267. While the order was in force, the defendants held a strike and were subsequently convicted of criminal contempt. The alleged contemnors Their motion challenged the jurisdiction of the court and raised the question of whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited the granting of the temporary restraining order at the instance of the United States. Id., at 267-268.

The upshot of the decision is that a federal trial court has jurisdiction to determine its own subject matter jurisdiction or the lack thereof, and until such determination is made, the parties are obliged to comply with orders issued by the court -- even where subject matter jurisdiction on the merits of the dispute is lacking. Violation of the interim orders is punishable as criminal contempt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said above: Judges agree that judges are all powerful, even when they don't have the law on their side. News at 11.

[tylertusta]

Indeed.

However, there may well come a point in the future where a judge abusing a TRO against the executive branch requires a check against the judiciary for violating the separation of powers.

By that I mean the issuance of a pardon for the US executive officer to protect against criminal contempt, plus impeachment and removal of the offending judge(s) by Congress.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump administration sues NY over ‘Green Light’ law

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/02/trump-administration-sues-ny-over-green-light-law/402973/

The article has a link to the civil complaint.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25524002-united-states-v-new-york-green-light-lawsuit/

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Complaint starts out by acknowledging that, “While States are welcome partners in [the effort to stop the crisis of illegal immigration], it is their prerogative as separate sovereigns to refrain.” It then spends the rest of this brief arguing against that proposition. Congress supposedly passed a law saying that states must cooperate. By failing to cooperate, the state is discriminating against the Federal government. Most important, the Federal govenment cannot achieve its policy objectives without the assistance of the states.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which said that states did not have to assist in the return of fugitive slaves, would seem to be fatal to Bondi’s case assuming it is still good law. The return of fugitive slaves was required by the Constitution; the expulsion of undocumented immigrants is not. So if anything, the case for requiring states to assist in the capture of aliens is weaker than the case for requiring states to assist in the capture of fugitive slaves.

As an aside, the quote attributed to Luis Sepúlveda in paragraph 35 of the complaint doesn’t appear in the source cited.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might have quoted the very next sentence, "But a State’s freedom to stand aside is not a freedom to stand in the way."

A little further down, about the Green Light law, "And it requires New York’s DMV Commissioner to promptly tip off any illegal alien when a federal immigration agency has requested his or her information."

I think right there the state has crossed the legal line between refraining and interfering, by engaging in affirmative acts to oppose federal law.

Secondly, the law purports to make it a state crime for a federal officer, having obtained information from the state for non-immigration purposes, to pass it on to be used for immigration enforcement.

A further argument is that, while the state may be entitled to refrain from assisting federal law enforcement, they can not prohibit anyone from voluntarily assisting the feds, including their own employees.

All in all, while some parts of the complaint might be a stretch, other parts are on very solid ground indeed.

[David Nieporent]

A little further down, about the Green Light law, "And it requires New York’s DMV Commissioner to promptly tip off any illegal alien when a federal immigration agency has requested his or her information."

I think right there the state has crossed the legal line between refraining and interfering, by engaging in affirmative acts to oppose federal law.

That is not an act "to oppose federal law." Of course the state can notify someone when his or her DMV records are accessed. If the police come to my door and start asking me questions about a co-worker, I am not obligated to keep that a secret; I am free to call the guy up and say, "Hey, just thought you might want to know that the police came around asking questions about you." (I am reminded of the government's subpoena of Trump's twitter records a few years ago, when Twitter wanted to notify Trump, and tried to argue they shouldn't even have to turn over the records w/o doing so. They got heavily sanctioned for refusing to comply with the subpoena. The difference there is that there was a court order instructing Twitter not to notify Trump. That's not the situation we're talking about in this lawsuit, and in the absence of that order Twitter was absolutely free to do so.)

Secondly, the law purports to make it a state crime for a federal officer, having obtained information from the state for non-immigration purposes, to pass it on to be used for immigration enforcement.

I do think that one might be vulnerable.

A further argument is that, while the state may be entitled to refrain from assisting federal law enforcement, they can not prohibit anyone from voluntarily assisting the feds, including their own employees.

But not that one. States, like other non-individual persons, act through employees. To say that a state can refuse to provide info to the feds (absent a court order, obviously), but can't prohibit its employees from providing that info, is to say that a state can't refuse. But we know it can. When a state employee accesses government records as part of his or her duties, he or she is acting as an agent of the state, not as a private citizen.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That is not an act "to oppose federal law.""

Riiight. Just see how the law reacts the next time you get wind of the police moving in to arrest a suspect, and warn him. States are entitled to refrain from helping enforce immigration laws, aiding and abetting illegal aliens in avoiding capture steps well over the line.

[David Nieporent]

Just see how the law reacts the next time you get wind of the police moving in to arrest a suspect, and warn him

Police routinely try to argue that flashing one's headlights to warn oncoming motorists of a speed trap is a crime; courts have pretty uniformly rejected that.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because the people being warned cease violating the law. It's not like if you warn an illegal alien that the ICE are on their way, he has the option of switching to being legal.

[John F. Carr]

Case 1:25-cv-00205 in the Northern District of New York. No action yet. Here is the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69636672/united-states-v-state-of-new-york/

[Kenneth Almquist]

duplicate

[not guilty]

Eight Inspectors General whom President Trump unlawfully fired have now sued seeking reinstatement. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277385/gov.uscourts.dcd.277385.1.0_1.pdf

This claim looks to be as strong as horseradish.

[Kazinski]

Well pretty strong if you’d never heard of Myers’s or Seila Law.

Didn’t Blackman post Humprey’s death certificate the other day? His executor is dead to, but it doesn’t apply to IG’s anyway.

[not guilty]

There is no dispute that the purported firings were contrary to applicable federal statutes. Those statutes are constitutional unless and until a court says otherwise. Donald Trump is a notorious scofflaw.

If the President deems the relevant statute to be unconstitutional, he could have sued for declaratory judgment to that effect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Taking care that the laws be faithfully executed (Article II, § 3) is diametrically opposed to Trump's instant ultra vires actions.

[Michael P]

You sudden concern for the Take Care Clause is touching, although very belated.

[Sarcastr0]

Different things are different. Does it not seem to you that there could be a new issue now that there wasn't under Biden's much less radical administration?

[Michael P]

Of course you argue "that's (D)ifferent" while ignoring all the similarities and not even trying to establish that there's some relevant threshold that justifies the hypocrisy.

[Sarcastr0]

All the similarities you don't bother toe enumerate.

[Michael P]

I've listed them in the past, you just didn't care to admit that Biden broke the law repeatedly to admit and encourage illegal immigration and illegal vote-buying in the form of loan writeoffs. Declining to spend money is a much lesser sin than those kinds of things.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the short list, showing you have nothing more than partisan grievances.
That's not going to answer the mail of comparison with Trump's actions.

[Mr. Bumble]

"If the President deems the relevant statute to be unconstitutional, he could have sued for declaratory judgment to that effect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201."
Got an example of a President who did so?

[Michael P]

Apparently not, because courts are not fans of lawsuits that seek advisory decisions rather than resolve actual cases or controversies. There might be something in the Constitution about that, come to think of it.

[David Nieporent]

While I am not clear on the procedural mechanism NG proposes for the reason I stated in my response to him, a declaratory judgment is not an advisory opinion. Sure, one can't just trawl through the U.S. code gathering laws one doesn't like and then sue for DJs that those laws are unconstitutional/unenforceable/etc. But if there's an actual controversy — one intends, concretely and imminently, to do X — and there's a specific law that makes X illegal, it's not an advisory opinion to ask for a DJ.

[Mr. Bumble]

Awaiting ng's reply.

[not guilty]

No, I don't an example of a President who sued for declaratory judgment as to the constitutional validity of a federal statute.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, they're history. And won't be coming back. The POTUS gets to decide who works for him. These 8 ain't.

How fast does this case get adjudicated? Years?

[not guilty]

The issues are simple and straightforward. If the plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction ordering reinstatement, that can be determined within a few weeks, and an order granting or denying such relief is appealable as of right to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court could take months to rule.

[David Nieporent]

If the President deems the relevant statute to be unconstitutional, he could have sued for declaratory judgment to that effect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

Wait, I'm not clear on that one. Who would the president have sued in such a situation?

[not guilty]

He could have sued the Inspectors General themselves, which would have ensured adversity, just as the dismissed IGs have sued President Trump.

Of course, the President could have simply complied with 5 U.S.C. § 403(b) and given the required notice and statement of reasons to Congress.

[A Japanese Student]

Actually, does it? The law doesn't prohibit IGs from being dismissed, but only specifies that a certain procedure be followed. It's not a for-cause law like in other cases.

I do wonder what would be the best way to rein in those firings. Can single-head agencies be subject to party restrictions, so that Republicans can't serve under Republican administration, and vice versa? Can Congress require the government to pay prospective salaries they would have otherwise received until the end of term if the President fires them? Can Congress establish a special grand jury in DC that acts like an inspector general, with authorities to prosecute civil or criminal cases in the name of the United States but acting independently from DOJ?

[Armchair]

"Actually, does it?"

It does. The crux there is the 30 day waiting period. It means once the President decides they need to be fired, they can't be dismissed for 30 days.

Perhaps you think "well, it's just a waiting period, they can still be dismissed." The question becomes "well, what about a 60 day waiting period? 90 days? 365 days?".

A waiting period like this acts to prevent the President from being able to fire people.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, everybody enjoying the new, minimalist site style? Really reminds me of the early days.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glich?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, for about 45 minutes all the style components of the site were absent. Still functioned, though.

[Frank Drackman]

Pitchers and Catchers report to camp this week!!!!!
OK, it's been freezing cold in the A-T-L, but only 33 days until Opening Day?? that can't be right,
but it is (actually it's wrong) First game is March 18, Dodgers/Cubs, but not in Wrigley, not in Dodger Stadium,
but at the Tokyo Dome, in uh, Duh, Tokyo Japan,
Would love to see Ohtani use Blondie's "Atomic"
as his "Walk Up Music" think anyone would notice??

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

An interesting essay on my favorite Substack, "The Upheaval""

American Strong Gods
Trump and the end of the Long Twentieth Century

The thesis is that Western elites, waging war on the strong beliefs and loyalties that they diagnosed as the cause of the world wars, have waged war on everything that actually holds society together and makes it function.

"The anti-fascism of the twentieth century morphed into a great crusade – characterized, ironically, by a fiery zeal and fierce intolerance. By making “never again” its ultimate priority, the ideology of the open society put a summum malum (greatest evil) at its core rather than any summum bonum (highest good). The singular figure of Hitler didn’t just lurk in the back of the 20th century mind; he dominated its subconscious, becoming a sort of secular Satan, forever threatening to tempt mankind into new wickedness. This “second career of Adolf Hitler,” as Renaud Camus jokingly calls it, provided the parareligious raison d'etre for the open society consensus and the whole post-war liberal order: to prevent the resurrection of the undead Führer.

This doctrine of prevention grants enormous moral weight to ensuring that open society values triumph over those of the closed society in every circumstance. If it’s assumed that the only options are “the open society or Auschwitz” then maintaining zero tolerance for the perceived values of the closed society is functionally a moral commandment. To stand in the way of any possible aspect of societal opening and individual liberation – from secularization, to the sexual revolution and LGBTQ rights, to the free movement of migrants – was to do Hitler’s work and risk facilitating fascism’s return (no matter how far removed the subject concerned from actual fascism). It was established as the open society’s only inviolable rule that, as Reno puts it, it is “forbidden to forbid.” Thus a strict new cultural orthodoxy was consolidated, in which to utter any opinion contrary to the continuous project of further opening up societies became verboten as a moral evil. Complete inclusion required rigorous exclusion. We are familiar with this dogma today as political correctness."

Trump and a number of other populist leaders/movements represent the failure of this dogma, the resurgence of strong loyalties in the face of unsustainable anomie. He views this as largely inevitable, because the old world order simply is incapable of sustainably motivating people to defend it.

[Sarcastr0]

This appears to be saying that populist authoritarianism is on the rise in America, as it was in Europe after WWI. And that liberals are to blame.

Is that your take?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I take it as saying that popular nationalism, and strong group loyalties, are on the rise in America and across the world.

This can, but doesn't have to, manifest as authoritarianism.

He's saying that the former Western liberal consensus had identified group loyalties as a necessary and sufficient precondition for the horrors we saw in the early to mid 20th century, and had set out to abolish all strong group loyalties as a way of preventing such horrors from happening again.

But in so doing they'd created an unsustainable system by removing a critical factor in maintaining stable societies.

Now that factor is rushing back in due to the unsustainability of the resulting world order.

While the strong group loyalties are capable of manifesting in an authoritarian manner, they're sufficiently natural and inherent in mankind that the very effort to suppress them itself was trending towards authoritarianism, part of what created the backlash.

[tylertusta]

The nod towards nationalism is probably a good one.

An analogous phenomenon was the rise of nationalism before and after WWI, especially among the empires in Eastern Europe. The old imperial powers of Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottomans could not sustain themselves in the face of populations unable and unwilling to abide the ongoing oppression- oppression made in the name of prevent the horrors of the Napoleonic Wars, mind you!

Fascist and authoritarian powers rode the wave of nationalist sentiment into power in a handful of countries, but that does not make nationalism into fascism nor does it make it authoritarian. The Greeks should have a country for themselves, and it's not authoritarian or fascist to say that. It starts to become problematic once you start demanding the countries of others to become your own as the Germans started doing in the interwar years, but we've gone so, so far away from that today that it's considered impolite to demand basic border controls and expulsions of migrants trying to game the system in order to gain entry!

Our friend's reply to you- his contrivance that mistakes nationalism with authoritarianism- is pretty much a perfect example that the author is trying to discuss: in defense of what the author calls an "open society," our friend's attacks anything that threatens it with the rhetoric of anti-fascism. I don't think our friend even realized he proved the author's point!

Anyways, thanks for posting this, Brett. This was an enjoyable read. Unfortunately it will go over the heads of those predisposed to hate anything right of Antifa as our friend's comment demonstrates.

[Bwaaah]

There's a lot of compelling rhetoric in that analysis.

The verboten is no longer strictly verboten. Trump, and the degree to which people willingly tolerate him, is living proof of that. Of course, the verboten is unchanged for devout Democrats. But dissenters, particularly ones situated in intellectual-class institutions, now know the greater world does not support their doctrine-enforcing colleagues who have meted out punishments for years (especially ramped up in 2020) while normal leftists, even if sympathetic, stayed silent in fear of their own positions.

It would be nice to re-establish it being normal to stand up for colleagues who are being bullied by intolerant, ill-spirited peers. Indeed, such a redefinition of normal can only exist in the context of new loyalties and persuasions that don't align with contemporary Democratic cultural orthodoxies. That would be perceived as a fracture in the current orthodox view, but for everybody else, it would be the reconstitution of the voice of a moderate left.

Can you call yourself a Democrat and not wish for the demise of Donald Trump? For the orthodox, that is the shibboleth of the moment. Any Democrat who says it's OK to not have a major problem with Trump is a person who has not only caught up with the present, but a person who is seriously equipped to cope with the evolving project of the U.S. republic. The rest, including the current DNC guard, are members of a large special interest group that has little tolerance for the U.S. project, and as little tolerance for diversity of opinions.

"Fascists." "Authoritarians." "Nazis." "Racists." "Xenophobes." "Homophobes." "Colonists." "Genocide supporters." "...[and more]." Very few people these days substantially manifest any of those personas. And yet the orthodox left asserts they are surrounded by those kinds of people (and most VC commenters are treated as substantially manifesting most of those personas). That's desperate rhetorical overreach from a huge but ideologically insular special interest group. It's morning in America, and it's OK for people to gravitate toward what they believe (excepting doing so through unlawful behaviors).

Let those nasty intolerant people continue to stand, increasingly together at one side of the room, as a reminder of what illiberalism looks like and who doesn't want you to have your way. But if you want to work harmoniously with them, the first thing you can do is STFU.

[CronosTruth]

What's on my mind?

Youtube Lawyers, like LegalEagle, give us lawyers a bad name and are cringe.

[Sarcastr0]

I use YouTube for sitcom retrospectives, video game reviews, and sendups of past Tumbler weirdness.

YouTube politics is *all* cringe.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Well you've certainly convinced me!

Let me guess, he said something you found politically offensive?

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Herald reports (paywalled) that former US Attorney for Massachusetts Rachael Rollins has been promoted from "special projects administrator" to "executive director" at Roxbury Community College. Per CommonWealth Beacon, "Rollins is working on a new program geared towards formerly incarcerated people, with a focus on women of color." Her initial salary of $96,000 has been raised to six figures.

Rollins was a self-described progressive prosecutor. Then she torpedoed her career. Based on press reports her conduct violated the Hatch Act and 18 USC 1001 (false statements to officials). The federal government appears content to let her go without charges as long as she goes peacefully. A state bar investigation is said to be in progress. With severe discipline on the table she may have difficulty finding work as a lawyer.

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/education/rachael-rollins-lands-job-at-roxbury-community-college/

(Edited to merge last year's and this year's reporting.)

[ThePublius]

MAHA

[Mr. Bumble]

More on the Kennedy Center:

Ric Grenell Reveals Kennedy Center’s Financial Crisis – No Cash, No Reserves, Just Debt as Institution Dives into Financial Turmoil
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/ric-grenell-reveals-kennedy-centers-financial-crisis-no/

[David Nieporent]

There are in fact honorable people in the Trump administration. Well, except that being honorable forces them to resign from the Trump administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/nyregion/adams-prosecutor-danielle-sassoon-profile.html

The letter she submitted is pretty amazing, including the Wire allusion in footnote 1:
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24535586a908999e/3801d435-full.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say "Insubordination"????

[David Nieporent]

I can, yes, but I don't know why I would here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She's pregnant....

[David Nieporent]

You're mentally ill.

[John F. Carr]

I was expecting resignations in response to Trump's ending the January 6 cases. They didn't come. It looked like the Justice Department was getting used to Trump. So Ms. Sassoon's resignation is a bit of a surprise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sassoon's resignation doesn't surprise me.

""I understand my duty as a prosecutor to mean enforcing the law impartially, and that includes prosecuting a validly returned indictment regardless whether its dismissal would be politically advantageous, to the defendant or to those who appointed me,"

Am I the only one noticing this -- even though it was a political decision to indict the ham sandwich, now it has been done, prosecutorial discretion can no longer be exercised by the Sovereign District of New York.

What's really telling about her is that she is on the list of the "15 Hottest Freshmen: at Harvard, F-04. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/3/17/the-15-hottest-freshmen-when-dean/

It's insubordination, and I think she thinks it's self-serving. She can write her own ticket as the woman who stood up to Trump.

[David Nieporent]

What's really telling about her is that she is on the list of the "15 Hottest Freshmen: at Harvard, F-04. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/3/17/the-15-hottest-freshmen-when-dean/

Out of purely morbid curiosity, I will bite: in what way is that "telling," and what is it "telling"?

[Absaroka]

Here's an example of an expert prediction: Clifford Stoll in 1995 on the future of the internet. One sample:

"We're promised instant catalog shopping—just point and click for great deals. We'll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet—which there isn't—the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople."

(and some of his other predictions seem spot on)