Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A federal district judge in Maryland has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from health care providers who provide gender affirming medical care to transgender minors. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616.61.0_1.pdf

The complaint in the lawsuit is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575545/gov.uscourts.mdd.575545.1.0_2.pdf

[A Japanese Student]

This lawsuit has three components, any one of which would be grounds for relief: lack of statutory authorization for withholding, Equal Protection Clause (as reverse-incorporated), and statutory discrimination claim (Bostock, as applied to Title IX, as incorporated by Section 1557; or Section 504/ADA).

There could a difference between the government not funding the care itself, and the government stripping all funding to providers. That said, the abortion cases are not a very good analogy. The plaintiffs' claims (aside from Claim 5) do not state that there is a constitutional right to gender-affirming care.

Instead they are advancing two theories at once - first, that this order was enacted with discriminatory animus towards transgender people (Cleburne/Romer standard), and second, that the order prohibits care given to transgender people but not to cisgender people, even when the procedure is medically similar. (CA4 also uses heightened scrutiny, so the government bears the burden of showing important interest.)

[Josh R]

Given the funding is based on care to minors, the outcome of Skrmetti will likely go a long way to resolving this case (but not the statutory authorization argument).

[not guilty]

If Skrmetti addresses the standard of review of equal protection claims based on discrimination against transgenders, that will have some impact on the case in Maryland. Under Fourth Circuit precedent, transgender people constitute at least a quasi-suspect class. Therefore, to withstand judicial scrutiny, the defendants must show that the challenged executive orders must be substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest. Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 972 F.3d 586, 607 (4th Cir. 2020).

There are additional issues presented by the instant case. If and to the extent that the challenged orders are based solely upon animus toward transgenders, that fails even rational basis review. Compare, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996). The burden of proof there is on the plaintiffs.

The Maryland plaintiffs include parents of transgender minors who raise a substantive due process claim based upon the fundamental rights of parents to decide on medical care for their children. That issue is not presently before SCOTUS in Skrmetti, in that the Supreme Court has not yet granted or denied cert as to parents' petition in that case.

The President cannot unilaterally impose conditions on recipients of federal funds that Congress has allocated. None of the funds received by the Plaintiffs’ medical providers have a congressionally authorized condition requiring them to refrain from the provision of gender affirming care. Neither Congress nor the Constitution has authorized President Trump to defund federal aid to providers of transgender care in the manner that the executive order purports to exercise. The President's authority to act "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Id., at 1233, quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

Incident to its spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203. 206 (1987). "It is for Congress to decide which expenditures will promote the general welfare[.]" Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976) (per curiam). The President lacks such power to impose conditions at his whim on monies allocated by Congress.

[Riva]

The funds received by these hospitals were statutorily required to be distributed for minor “transgender” procedures, or were they awarded pursuant to the insane policies an out of control former administration?

[Joe_dallas]

The equal protection is a false flag.

The specific medical procedures are banned due the harm / negative outcomes, not banned because of sex. Very important distinction. A distinction that is ignored by those wishing to cause harm.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll add understanding of what false flag means to the list of things you have special expertise in.

[Joe_dallas]

as opposed to your zero expertise.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - do you seriously want to argue that multilating minors results in positive medical outcomes

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, can't commit to anything until I work out what false flag means!

[Joe_dallas]

If you dont understand the difference between a medical procedure banned due to bad outcomes vs banned due to sex, you wont understand the false flag.

It is a pretty simple concept -

[Sarcastr0]

I can neither confirm nor deny your assumptions about what I think and why on this issue; still stuck on how to use the term 'false flag.'

Anything you can do to help me out would be appreciated!

[Brett Bellmore]

" first, that this order was enacted with discriminatory animus towards transgender people"

Like an order that people with anorexia not receive bariatric surgery, it was actually done out of love and care towards transgender people. It's not always kindness to give somebody what they want.

[Sarcastr0]

In addition to discarding all the experts for your own personal take, you also call transgenders trannies.

Truly your sympathy and lack of animus knows no bounds.

[RedheadedPharoh]

tRuST thE eXpeRts!

lmao

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, I call them "lunatics"....

When's Trump gonna fire YOU???

[Bwaaah]

Is he a federal or a state employee (or neither)?

I've long hoped he was a state employee, roughly limiting the impact of his brilliance to one loser jurisdiction. But I have new hope that he is a federal employee and somebody will ask, "What have you done for us lately?"

"Just yesterday, I wrote 10 vacuous retorts to Brett Bellmore and called 5 other people 'MAGA crybabies'." (And he may have attended a symposium this year, which might reduce the total Continuing Education Credits on a spreadsheet somewhere.)

In DOGE parlance, he'd be what they call "low hanging fruit," but only if you could scoop up at least 50 others like him at the same time.

But he describes himself as a science policy guy, and if we get rid of him, how will science be done? And what if he has a PHD? Would we really be better off with one less practicing doctor in the world?

ouch. ouch. ouch.

[Bob from Ohio]

S is a federal bureaucrat, agency unknown but something to do with research grants.

[Don Nico]

I have no idea what Brett may have said in the past. But here you pull your usual trick of dishonest distortion.
Brett did not use "trannies" in his post. Be a bit not honest in your take-down.

[Sarcastr0]

I have no idea what Brett may have said in the past. But here you pull your usual trick of dishonest distortion.
Brett did not use "trannies" in his post. Be a bit not honest in your take-down.

I didn't imply he used trannies in this particular post. Why would I imply such a stupid and easily checked thing?

English. Do you read it?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
In addition to discarding all the experts for your own personal take, you also call transgenders trannies.

Sarcastr0 12 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I have no idea what Brett may have said in the past. But here you pull your usual trick of dishonest distortion.
Brett did not use "trannies" in his post. Be a bit not honest in your take-down.

Sarcastr0 12 minutes ago- "I didn't imply he used trannies in this particular post. Why would I imply such a stupid and easily checked thing?"

In less than 8 minutes - Sarcastro gets caught in a lie

[Sarcastr0]

I know how to say 'in this post' or 'just now.'

For some reason I didn't do that.

I leave it to you to work out why.

[Joe_dallas]

You get caught lying,
The exact quote is cited
Yet you deny what you wrote.

Your Bad faith runs deep.

[Sarcastr0]

Where did I lie, Joe?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Where did I lie, Joe?

Sacastro - you rate as one of the most dishonest pricks -
I gave you the exact quote

[Sarcastr0]

"[Brett] you also call transgenders trannies" is not a lie.

You call everyone you disagree with dishonest. It's like your brand.

[Don Nico]

"English. Do you read it?"
No, Do you read it? You sure did write as if he used "trannies" in his post.
Damn, you are dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

A moment of reflection would reveal how silly your parsing of my comment is.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - Does Don Nico need to give you the same citation I did to show that you lied - Blatantly lied.

[Sarcastr0]

BLATANTLY.

Yet again, saying Brett calls transgenders trannies is not a lie. He does that.

You seem quite willing to fail at English it it'll allow you to call someone a liar.

It's kinda weird.

[Joe_dallas]

Giving your the specific citation to the exact lie you made was a waste of time.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, the citation is to me saying Brett calls transgenders trannies.

If you think it says something different, I invite you to explain how.

But in the meantime, despite your usual furious insults, it's not a lie.

It's just you being you.

[not guilty]

Brett has used the "tranny" slur in past comments. Once he said that it was simply fewer keystrokes that typing transgender.

I reminded him that he doesn't refer to his wife as a "gook" because it is fewer keystrokes than typing Filipina.

[Joe_dallas]

You condemn Brett, - yet you have zero grasp of what he points out. Typical of you inane responses.

Bottom line - the current Gender affirming care protocol promoted by leftists is a medical fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

His point is that this isn't driven by animus. He has shown plenty of animus in his posting history.

As have you.

Also weird capitalization, but that's neither here nor there.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 minute ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
His point is that this isn't driven by animus. He has shown plenty of animus in his posting history.

You have that completely backwards
There is significan long term damage with the current gender affirming care protocol. If there is any animus on bretts part, its againsts activists the promote and advocated the destructive harm. The history of your commentary shows you are in favor of perpetuating that same harm. You should be ashamed, instead you bask in the glory of defending that harm.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure do want to fight about it!

Sorry I can't satisfy your thirst for Internet posting blood. I'm too intimidated by your incredible medical expertise.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you are the one that is commenting in bad faith - Your objection is that we are pointing out your bad faith

[Sarcastr0]

My objection is you've got me super confused about false flags now!

[Joe_dallas]

Your objection is that you prefer to be a dishonest p------ instead of engaging in the discussion like a normal adult.

[Sarcastr0]

So you wrote prick above just fine, but this time you censored it.

What gives?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I welcome Rep. Nancy Mace to the chat.

[Riva]

This is another meritless action. No child, or parent has a constitutional or statutory right to have these obscene procedures paid by the taxpayers. (As an aside, medical malpractice for the child victims would be more appropriate) And there is no statutory requirement that government monies be distributed for this purpose. It was simply the insane, irresponsible policy of the former administration. This TRO, like the others, will be overturned.

And this crazy litigation will ultimately backfire on the democrats hacks and their activist allies. They’re pushing these legal games too far, like democrats always do, and a higher court will end this.

[A Japanese Student]

The fact that certain rights are not guaranteed does not mean that the President can restrict them, however. Nor is it true that Equal Protection Clause is limited to constitutionally guaranteed matters.

There is no constitutional right to enroll in elementary schools, yet it's unconstitutional to exclude undocumented immigrants from them. There's no constitutional right to receive farmers' subsidies, yet it's unconstitutional to give advantages to people of certain races. Whether the specific medical care is constitutionally protected is not relevant to the equal protection analysis.

[Riva]

Racial discrimination is pretty plainly addressed both in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment. There is no Trans Mutilation amendment and even when the Court made up a constitutional right to abortion, they didn't have the audacity to make the taxpayers fund the procedure.

[not guilty]

Actually the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention race; it mentions persons.

[Riva]

If you want to argue that the reconstruction amendments, had nothing to do with securing the rights of the democrats’ former slave population, that’s your call. But what they don’t mention and nothing in the history or traditions of this country or any other in the known universe support, is the right of mentally confused minor children to undergo mutilating surgery, or to have the public subsidize this at the behest of some radicals pushing an insane cause.

[not guilty]

Uh, Riva, you stated, "Racial discrimination is pretty plainly addressed both in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment."

In fact the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment refers to citizens and persons, with no mention whatsoever of race. Your bloviating hasn't spooked the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor.

The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1 (as well as the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause), encompasses racial discrimination, but it is by no means limited thereto.

[Riva]

Uh..Not Guilty, what I wrote was "'[R]acial discrimination is pretty plainly addressed both in the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment." It is. The whole f'ing purpose of a large part of the 14th amendment was to address democrats' vile discriminatory practices. The civil rights act speaks for itself. Now, if we can get past your attempt to distract, it is also equally plain that mutilating mentally confused minors is not in any way deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. and it is necessarily in no way a constitutional "right" to have taxpayer's fund this obscenity.

[not guilty]

Riva, you lied about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, which does not reference race, plainly or otherwise. When called out on it, you doubled down on the lie.

Own it.

[Riva]

I've defended everything I've written from your childish, distracting attacks and it is most telling that you cannot defend your position for a so-called "right" to have taxpayers fund the physical mutilation of a mentally distressed minor.

And its not just that the position is legally meritless. It's a phenomally stupid political stance. Thus, I encourage you to keep up the fight. It will ensure democrats forever remain a minority party. The country thanks you.

[ReaderY]

It is by no means clear the court will agree to treat transgender as having heightened scrutiny, and at any rate it has not done so so far. I think the most likely way for proceeding might be an APA claim, the government has not followed the review and hearing procedures Congress set out before changing regulatory policy, and a mere difference of policy opinion is most certainly not an emergency permitting bypassing standard procedures.

While a Bostock argument is plausible, it’s not clear to me that Bostock can be stretched to requiring that government pay for treatments. The ADA requires accommodation. But Bostock does not regard transgender status as a disability or medical condition. The proper analogy is arguably abortion. Even before Dobbs, government was only required to refrain from prohibiting abortion. If the abortion analogy is valid, then here as well Bostock only requires not prohibiting, and government had had no obligation to actively subsidize from taxpayer funds in a way it would if there was an accommodation requirement. It seems to me that arguably very similar equal protection arguments were made in the abortion context, and failed under a considerably more liberal court than today.

It seems to me that the filers of this lawsuit ought to make some sort of argument why Maher v. Roe doesn’t apply, and why government subsidy of transgender surgery etc. is required when government subsidy of abortion was not.

[not guilty]

"It is by no means clear the court will agree to treat transgender as having heightened scrutiny, and at any rate it has not done so so far."

Maryland is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The Court of Appeals there has ruled that transgender persons constitute at least a quasi-suspect class. Therefore, to withstand judicial scrutiny, the defendants must show that the challenged executive orders must be substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest. Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 972 F.3d 586, 607 (4th Cir. 2020).

[ReaderY]

By “the court,” I meant the Supreme Court. Should have capitalized.

[Josh R]

If SCOTUS punts the level of scrutiny in Skrmetti, then gender identity remains a quasi-suspect class in the 4th Circuit.

[Josh R]

If SCOTUS holds that the law at issue in Skrmetti meets that burden, it strengthens the argument that the withholding of funding does as well.

[ReaderY]

The law currently prohibits cisgender gender affirming care under laws against so-called “genital mutilation.” So prohibiting transgender care on the same grounds strikes me as treating transgender people similarly to cisgender people, not differently from them. Given the existence of laws against genital mutilation and their affirmation as constitutional in a cisgender context, why would treating transgender care the same way violate equal protection merely because these laws are being extended to a transgender context? How can equal protection require the law to treat people differently and require permitting to one class of people what can constitutionally be made a crime to a different class of people, just because of their status, not their conduct?

[Josh R]

The order facially prohibits funding based on its use "to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex." The order could have been written to cover all genital mutilation, but it wasn't.

Moreover, part of the order applies to hormone treatments and puberty blockers which aren't covered by prohibitions against genital mutilation.

[A Japanese Student]

Plus, the federal statute only covers non-medical procedures against external female genitalia. It does not cover mastectomy, orchiectomy, or any other surgeries. (Not to mention the fact that surgeries against minors are extremely rare.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can I demand that taxpayers give me a larger penis?
How about boob jobs for women?

What's the difference?

[Frank Drackman]

Hopefully another Judge will issue a TRO prohibiting Surgeons from amputating sexual organs of the mentally ill.

[not guilty]

Who would the parties to such an action be, Frank? Would a mentally ill plaintiff sue a surgeon who proposed to amputate his or her sexual organs against the will of the patient? Any would the hypothetical surgeon be proposing to do so before a preliminary injunction hearing could be held?

If so, that would support a TRO in state court. But what would be the basis for federal jurisdiction?

[Mr. Bumble]

Get your head out of your ass and have your sarc meter calibrated.

[Bwaaah]

A sarc meter calibrated to handle Frank Drackman? I know there's a black zone and then a red zone, but what color comes after that? Could he be pinning magenta? Ewwwww.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the mentally ill persons family and if a mentally ill person “consents” to having his heart removed that doesn’t mean the surgeon who performs the surgery isn’t guilty of murder, btw, who did your Lobotomy? (Which used to be the “Standard of Care” for many mental illnesses)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that these are mentally ill MINORS being butchered at taxpayer expense.

And the fact that a fascist judge could so rule is why judicial reform is so badly needed.

[David Nieporent]

As always, you don't know what you're talking about. This case has nothing to do with "at taxpayer expense." We're not talking about whether Medicaid has to cover these procedures.

[Michael P]

Right. In the case of at least plaintiff Goe, the injury is that a private entity canceled her appointment and declined to schedule a new one. This supports a nationwide TRO against the federal government because _______. (This judge sure didn't give a reason. I expect the other plaintiffs are in no more compelling situations, unless for some reason their lawyers listed a weak case first.)

[David Nieporent]

…because the president has no legal authority to condition the disbursement of these funds, here, there, or anywhere else in the nation.

[RedheadedPharoh]

If it has nothing to do with taxpayer expense, then why did the judge force the taxpayers to continue to cover these surgeries?

[not guilty]

Read the order, Redhead. The judge did not "force the taxpayers to continue to cover these surgeries." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616.61.0_1.pdf

[not guilty]

Actually one minor plaintiff is eligible for and enrolled in Medicaid, per paragraph 133 of the complaint.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What do you think Medicaid (e.g. MassHealth) *IS*????

It is taxpayer funded medical care.

[Joe_dallas]

As Frank Drackman notes - "Which used to be the “Standard of Care” for many mental illnesses)"

The mental health profession has a long and sordid history of promoting dangerous and harmful mental health treatments that were considered the gold standard of their time. Most all the european medical societies have recognized the harm "gender affirm care causes".

In the US, it is now only the idiot woke leftists (such as those posting here) that defend the treatment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I imagine it would be similar to the lawsuits that shut down the mental hospitals in the late '70s.

[Commenter_XY]

Yet another nationwide TRO, and no injunction bond. Interesting, I am starting to see a pattern here wrt TROs, NG. So does the country, and so does SCOTUS.

An injunction bond should be required. No matter, it will be appealed by the DOJ and in 6 days, the TRO will go away.

Would you confine the issuance of TROs to only the SCOTUS? Why or why not?

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW see this:
https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/must-the-president-cooperate-with
This is one of several recent articles by Lucas on the subject.

[Commenter_XY]

His primer was helpful. His reco, somewhat less so. I am not a fan of 'ignoring' the Court, like Lincoln and Taney. There are many actions one can take short of outright ignoring an order that are perfectly legal, and defensible.

[Bwaaah]

First, you defended Sotomayor (yesterday). And now, you defend compliance with court orders.

It's as if you are a civil person with regard for our system of justice (while not being a doting stick in the mud). I, for one, appreciate that.

[Commenter_XY]

Common sense is breaking out across the land, lol = First, you defended Sotomayor (yesterday). And now, you defend compliance with court orders. It's as if you are a civil person with regard for our system of justice

[Michael P]

The absence of an injunction bond is sufficient basis to impeach this judge, especially on such transparently bad logic. Where does FRCP 65(c) say that "hardship" is a reason to not require a bond?

[not guilty]

"The absence of an injunction bond is sufficient basis to impeach this judge".

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Michael P?

[Michael P]

What precedent says that ignoring the plain text of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to issue a nationwide TRO for political purposes is "during good Behavior"? Please be specific.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If doing something that’s against the rules of civil procedure were an impeachable offense, every single judge, without exception, would need to be impeached and removed.

[Michael P]

What precedent says that every impeachable offense must result in impeachment and removal? Please be specific.

[Sarcastr0]

So your "the absence of an injunction bond is sufficient basis to impeach this judge" is a statement with much less heat than it appears.

[Michael P]

Not at all. I didn't say that it made impeachment mandatory. That was LTG's straw man.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s not a strawman: if breaking the civil rules is a sufficient reason to impeach why shouldn’t it be done? If it shouldn’t be done because of the implications for the entire court system, doesn’t that suggest it’s actually NOT a sufficient reason to impeach?

[Michael P]

There are lots of reasons impeachment and removal are discretionary, political decisions. I'm not going to list all of them for you, much less try to enumerate the factors that members of Congress might consider when exercising that discretion. Most of those reasons are entirely independent of "the implications for the entire court system" -- your premises continue to be flawed.

[not guilty]

"What precedent says that ignoring the plain text of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to issue a nationwide TRO for political purposes is 'during good Behavior'? Please be specific."

A district court retains the discretion to set the bond amount as it sees fit or waive the security requirement. Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 332 (4th Cir. 2013); Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 421 (4th Cir.1999).

Moreover, the premise of your question is wrong. Judge Hurson here did address the bond requirement of Rule 65(c) in deciding to expressly waive it. The district court must expressly address the issue of security before allowing any waiver and cannot “disregard the bond requirement altogether.” Pashby 709 F.3d at 332. quoting Hoechst Diafoil, 174 F.3d at 421.

[Michael P]

Did you even read those cases? Both were remanded to the district court to fix Rule 65 deficiencies, the latter specifically "because the district court (1) failed to fix an appropriate bond as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (2) failed to properly explain its injunction order pursuant to Rule 52(a)."

Fucking liar.

[not guilty]

I did indeed read the cases that I cited. The Fourth Circuit opined in substance that a district court can expressly waive the bond requirement but cannot disregard it. The Pashby court stated:

As the PCS Recipients correctly point out, the district court retains the discretion to set the bond amount as it sees fit or waive the security requirement. Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 421 (4th Cir.1999); Moltan Co. v. Eagle–Picher Indus., Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176 (6th Cir.1995). However, the district court must expressly address the issue of security before allowing any waiver and cannot “disregard the bond requirement altogether.” Hoechst Diafoil, 174 F.3d at 421. By failing to consider whether to require security, the district court erred.

709 F.3d at 332.

In the instant case, Judge Hurson did expressly waive the bond requirement:

ORDERED that the security requirement is hereby waived because Defendants will not suffer any costs from the temporary restraining order and imposing a security requirement would pose a hardship for Plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).

Don't call someone a liar without the facts to back it up.

[Michael P]

Yes, that's good reason to impeach and remove this judge. His political prejudice, overbreadth of response and disregard of actual costs show that he is not fit to continue in office.

A bare assertion that there are no costs meets neither the intent of the rule nor the precedents at hand.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
NG just hoisted you on your own petard. Own up to it, man.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Impeach Judge Doughty! See Missouri v. Biden, 680 F. Supp. 3d 630 (W.D. La.) and Missouri v. Biden, No. 3:22-CV-01213, 2023 WL 5841935, at *3 (W.D. La. July 4, 2023)(trial finds no security is necessary for issuing of the TRO without analysis).

And Judge Tipton too! See Texas v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 3d 627, 639 (S.D. Tex. 2021)(same)

[David Nieporent]

A bare assertion that there are no costs meets neither the intent of the rule nor the precedents at hand.

It absolutely meets both. The judge must address the issue rather than remaining silent about it; he did. He does not need to prepare and attach spreadsheets justifying his decision.

[tylertusta]

Come on. Even you have to know that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says is an impeachable offense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/district-court-judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-in-missouri-v.-biden

I’m absolutely positive if I went back a mere two years you’d be calling for Judge Doughty’s impeachment because he issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden admin without a security!

[Commenter_XY]

IDK why he waived the injunction bond. It cuts both ways, meaning, we should require the injunction bond for a TRO.

[David Nieporent]

Where does FRCP 65(c) say that "hardship" is a reason to not require a bond?

You apparently didn't bother to read the order. He did mention hardship, but he cited another reason first: "because Defendants will not suffer any costs from the temporary restraining order and [because of hardship.]"

And FRCP 65(c) absolutely says that the former is a reason. The latter was just lagniappe.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Pro-Tip: you actually did not find an impeachment-level gotcha when you read the rules of civil procedure for the first time.

[not guilty]

Per Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

What costs and damages do you claim that the District Court should have anticipated that these defendants would sustain if wrongfully enjoined or restrained for 14 days, XY?

"No matter, it will be appealed by the DOJ and in 6 days, the TRO will go away."

A TRO is not an appealable order. The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is appealable.

"Would you confine the issuance of TROs to only the SCOTUS? Why or why not?"

No. In most cases SCOTUS lacks original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is a court of review, not of first view. The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to maintain the status quo ante until a more comprehensive inquiry can be had. A multi-member appellate court is ill suited to that task.

[Michael P]

"The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to maintain the status quo ante until a more comprehensive inquiry can be had."

No, it's not. The purpose is to prevent "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage [that otherwise] will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition". Beyond the improper absence of a bond, this order is deficient because it fails to include the mandatory description of this harm required by FRCP 65(b)(2). Did you not read FRCP 65, did you fail to understand it, or did you intentionally misrepresent it?

[not guilty]

I have indeed read Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, and your comment shows that I read it a damn sight more carefully than you did. Subsection (b)(2) applies only to a TRO issued without notice. Here the plaintiffs certified on February 5 that their TRO motion would be served concurrently with the summons and complaint. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575545/gov.uscourts.mdd.575545.35.0.pdf The order issued eight days later on February 13, and the first paragraph of the order recites that a hearing was held on that day. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616.61.0_1.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the government is out the labor cost, the time spent defending exec action. Why shouldn't the plaintiff have to post bond for that labor cost (atty time to draft response, appear in court, etc)? Is that unreasonable?

The TRO is what it is. The only way it goes away is via SCOTUS, is that correct? They can review it, no?

[Michael P]

The TRO will also dissolve in two weeks (or less), so the federal government will presumably have to turn that Titanic around twice. And this judge calls that "will not suffer any costs". How did this guy graduate from elementary school?

[not guilty]

No, SCOTUS cannot review a district court's TRO, nor can a Court of Appeals. The district court can dissolve or modify the TRO or can extend it before it expires for a period not to exceed 14 days (unless the defendant consents to a longer extension).

The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), but no statute authorizes an appeal of a TRO.

[Commenter_XY]

I never knew that...In theory, what stops a judge from issuing a series of two week TROs 26x (to stop something for a year)?

[David Nieporent]

Because the rules only authorize a single extension.

[tylertusta]

If a Judge breaks the rules on TROs, then the answer is mandamus.

[David Nieporent]

NG, the government is out the labor cost, the time spent defending exec action. Why shouldn't the plaintiff have to post bond for that labor cost (atty time to draft response, appear in court, etc)? Is that unreasonable?

It is unreasonable, yes; in this country each side bears its own legal costs absent a statute saying otherwise. And the costs you describe are the costs of litigating, not the costs of the issuance of the TRO. (They incurred the costs you described whether the judge issued the TRO or not.)

The TRO is what it is. The only way it goes away is via SCOTUS, is that correct? They can review it, no?

No, and no. It goes away automatically after 14 days, if the judge who issued it hasn't lifted it sooner. And it is not appealable, no.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, that is some serious kind of power = TRO

Not reviewable. Not appealable. Only the issuing judge can dissolve it. It says a lot for our judiciary that the TRO is not abused constantly.

[Sarcastr0]

14 days seem a key to this that you're missing.

[Commenter_XY]

And a 14-day extension. That is a month. A lot can happen in a month, I think we can agree.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump continues to flagrantly disregard and violate the Constitution.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/5144865-whca-condemns-unacceptable-escalation-as-white-house-bars-ap-from-press-conference/

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) condemned the Trump administration for a second time on Thursday following the Associated Press’ expulsion from the president’s reporter pool due to an editorial decision.

“The White House’s decision to bar Associated Press reporters from today’s press conference with President Trump and Prime Minister Modi is outrageous and a deeply disappointing escalation of an already unacceptable situation,” Eugene Daniels, the association’s president, wrote in a statement.

“Let me be clear: the White House is seeking to curtail the press freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, and has admitted publicly they are restricting access to events to punish a news outlet for not advancing the government’s preferred language.”

The Associated Press said they were warned about the removal on Tuesday by a White House official who said the administration took issue with the publication’s decision to use the term Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America following President Trump’s recent executive order issuing a name change.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when “47” has the FBI spy on a reporters Emails like Barry Hussein did

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he should just ignore the press, as Biden did.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s like ignoring a malignant tumor, I prefer removing it, or if not possible treating with radiation and toxic chemicals

[Josh R]

Using the name "Gulf of Mexico" is like a malignant tumor? You aren't big on Freedom of Speech are you?

[Commenter_XY]

You mean the cauliflower? He is past the treatment stage. More like palliative care at this point.

[Stephen Lathrop]

MAGAs, please assume the final paragraph of Cavanaugh's comment above is accurate. On what basis can anyone conclude that Trump has not violated the 1A in a manner not merely unjustified, but actually frivolous, and likely insane.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless I missed something overnight(with “47” it’s certainly possible) He hasn’t declared himself to be Congress and passed any laws establishing a religion, restricting free speech or a free press, and where was your concern when Barry Hussein had the FBI read reporters emails? Hmmmm?????

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a 1A right to ask the POTUS questions in the Oval Office, lathrop? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have that. Do the laws of mythical lathrop-land have that?

[Mr. Bumble]

As a former newspaper man Lathrop thinks the First Amendment was only meant for the press and entitled them to special deference.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Is there a 1A right to ask the POTUS questions in the Oval Office?"

That isn't the right question, which you damn-well know. You're a fucking fascist.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, I'm sorry Jason, for asking the wrong question. 😉

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sure you are. The government admitted that it took adverse action against a news organization because they didn't like them still using "Gulf of Mexico."

That is retaliation for protected speech, which is not permitted.

Remember your flippant disregard for our Constitution when the check comes due, fascist.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, I know it has been years since we had the press in the Oval Office asking the POTUS direct questions that required more than a monosyllabic answer, so it is not unreasonable to expect a period of adjustment to a new reality. Oooopsies! No harm, no foul.

The AP probably should worry more about replacing their USAID deep state sewer money that just went bye bye.

[Dr. Ed 2]

'That is retaliation for protected speech, which is not permitted."

No, it *is* protected speech -- the President has the Constitutional right to talk to -- or not talk to -- whomever he damn well pleases.

[David Nieporent]

As usual, Dr. Ed gives the dumbass response. Nobody is saying that Trump had to answer questions from these reporters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When they preclude his talking to others?

[David Nieporent]

That not complete sentence.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the "right" question is?

[Frank Drackman]

The real Fucking Fascist was Barry Hussein ordering the FBI to search Unfriendly reporters Emails, and deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan, because that was the “Good” War.

[Josh R]

While there is no right to ask questions in the Oval Office, doesn't the 1A generally prohibit the government from disparate treatment based one the content of one's speech?

[Commenter_XY]

While there is no right to ask questions in the Oval Office, doesn't the 1A generally prohibit the government from disparate treatment based one the content of one's speech?

FTFY

[Josh R]

Please provide a citation for the government's ability to choose who gets to ask questions based on the content of their speech?

But even assuming you are right, it stinks to high heaven. It's the temper tantrum of the man-child president who wants to silence critics.

You aren't a fan of Freedom of Speech, are you?

[Commenter_XY]

This is about access to the Oval Office. Plenty of laws about that.

[Josh R]

What laws? And what caselaw on whether this application of those laws violate the First Amendment (and citations, please).

[Mr. Bumble]

Now you sound like NG.

[Mr. Bumble]

..moved

[Commenter_XY]

Duh.

Tell you what, Josh R. Go to the White House, and try to saunter into the Oval Office to say 'Hi' to The Donald and ask him a question. The DC police, Capitol police, USSS will be happy to quote chapter and verse what laws govern access to the Oval Office.

There is no 1A right to ask the POTUS questions in the Oval Office.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On the VC since the MAGA victory, percent-substantive has plunged, while time-wasted shot up. To those trends, Commenter_XY contributes more than most. Hence . . . Muted.

[Mr. Bumble]

..and so SL joins the long list of self important douche bags who employ the dreaded mute feature.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

On the VC since the MAGA victory, percent-substantive has plunged

You've never understood the difference between your long-winded insane ramblings and "substance".

[Josh R]

There is also no 1A right to a tax credit for foreign taxes paid. But, can the government refuse to give that tax credit to people who use the phrase "Gulf of Mexico"?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There is also no 1A right to a tax credit for foreign taxes paid. But, can the government refuse to give that tax credit to people who use the phrase "Gulf of Mexico"?

So you're arguing that this is an Equal Protection case?

[Josh R]

1A, Freedom of Speech.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Josh,

1: Try to gain access to the Oval Office.

2: Read your subsequent indictment.

[Don Nico]

Josh,
You complain about an access to the President that has been absent for decades. Obviously the space is very limited. And obviously no one is entitled to entry. The questions are recorded and anyone can write about what they have seen "filmed." Even I am allowed to do that

[bernard11]

Don,

The critical thing is not being able to see a video, but being able to ask your own questions.

[bernard11]

Do you not understand what a press conference is?

It's a scheduled meeting with reporters, and there is a list of who may attend.

It's not a couple of random people wandering into the Oval Office and asking questions.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a 1A right to ask the POTUS questions in the Oval Office, lathrop? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have that. Do the laws of mythical lathrop-land have that?

You are framing it incorrectly. Suppose a mayor decided to fire all black traffic cops. The question would not be, "Is there a constitutional right to write speeding tickets?" The question would be, "Is there a constitutional right not to be discriminated against by the government based on race?"

Similarly, here the question is not "Is there a constitutional right to ask questions in the oval office?", but "Is there a constitutional right not to be retaliated against by a government official for one's speech?"

The answer is not quite as simple as Jason portrays it, however; see Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich, 437 F.3d 410,419 (4th Cir. 2006).

[Commenter_XY]

David...So you're making the Jason argument; I asked the wrong question?! 🙂

I do that frequently at work, heh.

I don't see where the freedom of the press was abridged by not letting in the AP reporter into the Oval Office. There were plenty of other reporters in the Oval Office who were able to ask questions. And the AP reporter was able to see/hear/read the questions that were asked. The POTUS gets to decide who comes into the Oval Office.

[bernard11]

I don't see where the freedom of the press was abridged by not letting in the AP reporter into the Oval Office.

Of course it's abridged. Use the phrase "Gulf of Mexico" and you can't come in and ask questions. And who knows what petty BS comes next. Are reporters required to use whatever name Trump assigns to something or risk retaliation.

There were plenty of other reporters in the Oval Office who were able to ask questions. And the AP reporter was able to see/hear/read the questions that were asked.

What a ridiculous excuse. She could hear the questions??? What if she had some of her own?

[Commenter_XY]

The press had access to the POTUS, what abridgement?

[not guilty]

What Team Trump is doing to the Associated Press is asinine and petty. Speaking as someone who has litigated First Amendment retaliation cases, though, I don't see a First Amendment problem here. The Fourth Circuit case that David cited, The Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich, 437 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006), has some good discussion of the issues.

"The determination of whether government conduct or speech has a chilling effect or an adverse impact is an objective one — we determine whether a similarly situated person of 'ordinary firmness' reasonably would be chilled by the government conduct in light of the circumstances presented in the particular case." Id., at 416. I don't see that a journalist of ordinary firmness is likely to curtail his gathering of information and reporting of the news because he has been refused access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.

[bernard11]

NG,

But it may be a case of the AP being blocked from doing its job. From what are they barred next?

If you make it impossible for the AP to cover the White House, and the implication is clear that this can happen, you are abridging their rights. It makes no difference how "firm" its reporters are.

May the government, for no good reason, prevent a news organization from gathering certain kinds of news?

[not guilty]

"May the government, for no good reason, prevent a news organization from gathering certain kinds of news?"

There is dictum in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (affirming passport restrictions on travel to Cuba) indicating:

[T]he prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen's opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.

There has been some discussion from SCOTUS in the context of reporters' access to jail or prison facilities or inmates. In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 834 (1974), the Court opined, "The Constitution does not . . . require government to accord the press special access to information not shared by members of the public generally."

In Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 15 (1978), Chief Justice Burger's plurality opinion states, "Neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information within the government's control."

Justice Stewart's opinion concurring in the judgment in Houchins states:

The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not guarantee the public a right of access to information generated or controlled by government, nor do they guarantee the press any basic right of access superior to that of the public generally. The Constitution does no more than assure the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors. Accordingly, I agree substantially with what the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE has to say on that score.

Id. at 16.

[bernard11]

As usual, the discussion ignores the most important point.

Is banning the reporter for not using "Gulf of America" the act of a rational person, or is it a tantrum thrown by a petulant child, who can't stand not getting his way on everything, including the absurd "renaming."

I think discussing the legalities rather than the substance is giving Trump a huge break, because now there's endless BS about that, much of it uninformed, instead of discussion of what the whole incident tells us about Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
MAGAs, please assume the final paragraph of Cavanaugh's comment above is accurate. On what basis can anyone conclude that Trump has not violated the 1A in a manner not merely unjustified, but actually frivolous, and likely insane.

Like Duh - Trump is not banning the reporter from reporting
No 1A violation

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Alternatively, begin with a premise that the Press Freedom clause is intended to protect all the operations of an institutional press, not just one reporter at a time.

The founders had discovered by innovation that an institutional press is qualitatively different. It empowers more political insight, and more political influence, than could be achieved even by the same people working as individuals.

After exploiting that insight to revolutionize this nation's government in ways destined to be influential world-wide, it is hardly surprising the founders went out of their way to protect the institutional press Constitutionally. Even today, almost two centuries since its founding, the AP must be accounted as near the very top of this nation's institutional press hierarchy.

Under that premise, see if you can come up with some interpretation with benign implications for press freedom in Trump's conduct to target the AP.

I will be interested to consider any reply you have to offer, except one which challenges Constitutional protection for an institutional press. If you insist on that, save your effort and don't reply.

[Riva]

You should calm down. You don’t have to support every meritless crazy legal claim against the Trump administration. It’s only been a month. You’ll drive yourself insane at this rate.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL at Riva telling anyone to calm down.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's always calm. Your comments are increasingly unhinged though.

[Cokaw86761]

Major Life Events for the Average Democrat:

Age 4: Win first prize in anal sex lessons at Montessori Pre-K
Age 8: Dad comes out as gay; Mom's first nervous breakdown
Age 10: Mom embarks upon 3 decade long addiction to prescription medication
Age 12: Lose virginity to local gang-banger hand selected by Mom, who watches
Age 13: First Abortion; Family reunites at Applebee's to celebrate
Age 17: College visits; Inquire at registrar about courses in BDSM and Holocaust studies
Age 22-24: The Starbucks Years; 13 more abortions
Age 25-32: Realize that abortions decrease food stamp and welfare payments, and have 7 children with 5 different men
Age 33: Sign up for an Obamaphone
Age 35: First fraudulent disability claim
Age 40: Navigate to the Washington Post; register first account
Age 42: overcome disgust, marry soy boy, become birthing person, squeeze out non binary child
Age 45: Join Antifa, attack police
Age 47: Stage fake hate crimes, cry when caught
Age 51: Make false rape accusations, get hailed as hero by left

[CountmontyC]

Trump and his people are merely trying to stop the spread of misinformation on the subject. I was told for the last 4 years that misinformation wasn't protected by the First Amendment. Why is it ( D)ifferent now?

[David Nieporent]

I was told for the last 4 years that misinformation wasn't protected by the First Amendment.

You were not told any such thing, except by Trump, and he prefers to call it "Fake News" rather than "misinformation."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You were not told any such thing, except by Trump, and he prefers to call it "Fake News" rather than "misinformation."

Really? Then why was the case titled Missouri v Biden and not Missouri v Trump?

[David Nieporent]

Because some Republican state AG was angling for a position in the Trump administration? There was no claim of anything not being protected by the 1A in that case, and there was no state action.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There was no claim of anything not being protected by the 1A in that case, and there was no state action.

Really? From the SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden):

"The court then modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the defendants shall not coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech on their platforms"

"Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future."

"The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment."

"Government efforts to “dictat[e] the subjects about which persons may speak,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784–785 (1978), or to suppress protected speech are “‘presumptively unconstitutional,’” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 830 (1995). And that is so regardless of whether the Government carries out the censorship itself or uses a third party “‘to accomplish what . . . is constitutionally forbidden.’”"

Gee, it sure sounds like the case had something to do with efforts by the state (U.S. government...the Biden administration, specifically) attempting to suppress 1A protected speech.

[CountmontyC]

Biden even tried to get a misinformation board started but the backlash was so powerful he backed down.
Just in case you forgot it was called the Disinformation Governance Board and was headed by Nina Jankowicz.
Or are you spreading disinformation?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You seem to be confusing "misinformation" and "disinformation"...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So you're saying that Nieporent isn't being dishonest, and is just stupid?

[CountmontyC]

Isn't the AP spreading disinformation by continuing to call it the Gulf of Mexico when it is now officially the Gulf of America?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

it is now officially the Gulf of America

I guess that depends on what you mean by "officially". The EO only applies to U.S. federal agencies.

[David Nieporent]

Just in case you forgot it was called the Disinformation Governance Board and was headed by Nina Jankowicz.

Are you unaware that this board comprised an internal group of people tasked to facilitate interagency coordination, not an organization with any authority to take any legal action against anybody for anything?

[CountmontyC]

So they tried to get multiple agencies to root out misinformation?

[Sarcastr0]

Interagency coordination is not a transagency policy shop.

[CountmontyC]

What were they trying to coordinate? Dealing with misinformation?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The unlawful retaliation for disfavored speech continues to escalate:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/media/white-house-ap-ban-air-force-one-oval-office-gulf-of-mexico/index.html

[A Japanese Student]

According to the news, Takasu Jun-ichi, a 65-year-old attorney, will replace Justice Kusano, who faces mandatory retirement next month. Unlike in the US, where all justices have some judicial experience, only 6 of the 15 seats are "reserved" for career judges. Justice Kusano was a business-law expert; Mr. Takasu was influential in drafting the 2017 Civil Code amendment, which modernized century-old contract laws.

The Cabinet appoints the justices. For the 4 attorney seats, the Bar Association makes an informal nomination. (The 5 remaining seats are reserved for 2 career prosecutors, 1 diplomat, 1 executive agency chief, and 1 jurist.) There's no way to know the ideological leanings of justices, as most justices have no judicial experience and we don't know how those that did serve voted in cases. (Lower courts can only issue per curiams, with no individual opinions.)

[Commenter_XY]

Your Supreme Court has non-attorneys? Wow, that is really neat.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes - they are experts in specialty fields that are just as important as ordinary civil/criminal cases.

To give some examples: the other three attorney-seat justices specialized in antitrust, bankruptcy, and intellectual property before appointment. The law-professor seat is currently held by Justice Uga, who published numerous books on administrative law (and one of the few whose ideological leanings are indisputable, as he is the most liberal justice). Justice Okamura also has admin-law background, having served as the head of Consumer Affairs Agency for three years before appointment.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm quite impressed with the representation across functions: Law, diplomacy, exec agency, prosecutors. How did that come about?

When you read a Japan Supreme Court decision and our SCOTUS decisions, how are they different? Do the decisions read differently?

[Riva]

I’d run the latter through a translator and study Japanese to read the former.

[A Japanese Student]

Japanese ones are definitely shorter, even in controversial cases. The opinion starts with relevant facts, then it discusses what the lower court held, then summarizes the appellant's argument, then there's the court's interpretation of the laws. Notably absent is the detailed discussion of precedents or legislative history - which could be due to Japan being a civil-law, not common-law, jurisdiction.

The Court translates some of its decisions to English, which may be useful. Here is a civil case (where the Court held that excluding some, but not all, demonstrators from city hall grounds does not infringe freedom of speech): https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1930
And here is a criminal case, defining the elements of "abandonment" of corpse: https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1935

[Commenter_XY]

That criminal court case is rough. But I see what you mean by not having the detailed discussion of precedents/history. It sort of reads like a businessperson wrote it. But that is b/c I have only ever seen US jurisprudence, by US judges.

Thank you for giving me a 'window' into your system.

[not guilty]

There is no legal requirement that a member of SCOTUS be an attorney, only a long established tradition.

[Commenter_XY]

Do any noteworthy SCOTUS justices who were not lawyers stand out to you, NG? Good or bad. I wonder if they wrote opinions differently.

[Riva]

Look up Earl Warren. Society is still trying to recover.

[not guilty]

I don't know whether any non-lawyers have actually served on SCOTUS. The last justice not to have completed law school was Robert Jackson, a fine member of the Court who had previously served as FDR's Attorney General and who while serving on the Supreme Court also worked as Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.

[Riva]

I guess we should define “lawyer.” Someone with a legal background? (Which is turning out to be a detriment to common sense lately, as this comment section attests to). Or someone licensed to practice law? Not sure ol’Earl was licensed to practice law when he was nominated. He certainly wasn’t practicing law at the time. And whatever he did after confirmation had little resemblance to the law, but that’s another story.

[David Nieporent]

Riva's still fuming about Brown vs. Board of Education.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Earl warren was Cali AG January 3, 1939 – January 4, 1943

[Riva]

He was a politician when nominated. The governor of California, not a practicing attorney. Don’t even know if he was licensed to practice law at the time.

[Drewski]

"Unlike in the US, where all justices have some judicial experience"

While Kagan clerked for a judge out of law school, she never served as one prior to her appointment. She was nominated for the DC Circuit but didn't get a hearing. Her background was private practice, Associate White House Counsel, academia, and Solicitor General.

She took a lot of criticism for this but personally I think she's turned out to be the best justice on the Roberts Court.

[Cokaw86761]

Kagan doesn't believe there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but she does believe there is a fundamental right to vacuum out a baby's brain and call it "women's health care," for a vegan to demand vegetables at a steakhouse and call it "nutritional rights," for a convicted criminal to demand early release and call it "social justice," for a lazy stoner to get high in public and call it "recreation," and for a man to insert his raging member into another man's rear end and call it "consummating a marriage."

[tylertusta]

There's a difference between one's judicial philosophy and whether one has the temperament and intelligence to stand in judgement of another.

I say this as someone who disagrees with Kagan on most things.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh hey, another new commenter who thinks this kind of comment is cutting edge, when in fact we've seen it a million times. Yawn...zzz

[tylertusta]

Maybe not the best justice, but she's certainly shown she's capable of the position.

[Josh R]

Unrelated, but something I saw on NHK: Japan released rice from their reserves to stem near 100% increases in prices over the past 6 months. Japan has rice reserves like we have oil reserves!

[Absaroka]

I think that's really smart ... you can have e.g. volcanic eruptions that depress crop yields for a few years. In the past there have been famines as a result. Governments keeping around enough food to ameliorate that sounds like a great idea.

AD 536, AD 1315, and 1816 were examples, inter alia, so it's not like it is that rare a phenomenon.

[Mr. Bumble]

We have oil reserves? I thought Biden emptied them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think a lot of RINOs are making the fatal mistake of thinking that MAGA is going away -- it isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

CPAC has had a gay problem since 2010 -- and now it's out in the open: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/breaking-cpacs-matt-schlapp-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-a-man/

It's one thing to be gay-tolerant, another to be run by a predator....

[Frank Drackman]

Have you seen Mrs Matt Schlapp?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"In January of 2023, Mercedes Schlapp was named as a defendant in a lawsuit by a former aide to Georgia Republican Senate nominee Herschel Walker. The lawsuit accuses Mercedes of an effort to discredit the aide after his allegation of sexual battery against her husband Matt Schlapp. In response to their reporting on the lawsuit, Mercedes Schlapp publicly attacked The Daily Beast as "Satan's publication."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Academia awash in foreign funds ---
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/2025/02/12/universities_got_nearly_1b_from_mystery_offshore_donors_1090801.html

[David Nieporent]

See, even assuming the story is accurate, it does not show any "awash"ness. It says that there were "nearly $1 billion" over the last four years, or around $250 million per year, which is a trivial amount of money in terms of the amount spent on higher education.

For example, the article highlights several several-million-dollar donations in that time period to the University of Pennsylvania (because of state reporting requirements), but Penn has annual operating revenues — not including fees paid by patients to their health system — of about $6 billion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does David know the difference between encumbered funds and free cash?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Do you know the difference between fantasy and reality?

[Dr. Ed 2]

We need to impeach, convict, and then incarcerate at least 100 Federal Judges -- at least 100...

[John F. Carr]

You will need an implausibly large red wave to do that. It takes 67 Senators to remove a judge. It takes only 60 Senators to change the law so the legal basis for an injunction goes away, except for the few that are said to be on constitutional grounds. "Congress hereby ratifies Executive Orders [...] notwithstanding the Administrative Procedure Act, this law, that law, and the other law."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Please don't ask him that.

[bernard11]

What a fucking asshole you are.

What grounds do you have for impeachment, much less incarceration, other than ruling against Trump? None, you imbecile. You are literally calling for a totalitarian state.

Trumpists are dangerous fools.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump's Justice Department has struggled as it has attempted to dismiss without prejudice multiple felony charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Six senior prosecutors have resigned in succession to avoid personal responsibility for executing the dismissal. The problem is that Adams has negotiated under pressure a deal to cooperate with ICE to let its agents have access to Rikers Island prison. New York State has a law on the books which makes it illegal to assist federal agents in that way.

A dismissal with prejudice would have deprived the federal government of leverage to compel Adams to do its bidding. Dismissal without prejudice holds over Adams' head an open-ended threat to compel Adams to do anything the administration wishes from him, or face renewal of prosecution for serious felonies in a case which experts say Adams is likely to lose. The resigning prosecutors have said doing that is not defensible as administration of justice.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Six senior prosecutors have resigned in succession to avoid personal responsibility for executing the dismissal."
Sounds like a feature, not a bug.
By the way, do you have a cite for that. In an earlier post Blackman mentioned one but not six.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, do you have a cite for that. In an earlier post Blackman mentioned one but not six.

Why would you rely on Blackman?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/nyregion/danielle-sassoon-quit-eric-adams.html

In case you're going to respond "paywalled," here's the head and subhead:

Manhattan’s U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.

Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned, according to five people with knowledge of the matter.

Several hours later, three other lawyers in the unit also resigned, according to people familiar with the developments.

Unmentioned there is that Bove also suspended two of her subordinates for the crime of possibly agreeing with her.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, if it's from anonymous sources and in the Times it must be true.

[David Nieporent]

You think you're being ironic, but you're not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahaha what? Are you saying you think those lawyers might actually still be working at DOJ?

(This might be worth reading to hone next critique of conventional media sources, by a guy with better reason than most to hate the New York Times: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies)

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahaha, so you think everything published by the NYT is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I don't know who is or is not still working at the DOJ.
"Six senior prosecutors have resigned in succession to avoid personal responsibility for executing the dismissal." per Lathrop and so I asked for a cite (that statement doesn't appear to be completely true).
Then David Notsoimportant jumped in with a cite (anonymous sources) from the NYT.
Who resigned and or was suspended?

[Sarcastr0]

So you are too lazy to bother the easiest of news searchers, and will doubt widely covered facts just out of cussedness in the meantime.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hahahaha, so you think everything published by the NYT is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

You should read the link above. It’s not even paywalled!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Marc Levin put it best: it is the AG who decides which cases will be prosecuted, not USAs.

[David Nieporent]

How the fuck is it so difficult for you to spell Mark Levin's name right?

[Commenter_XY]

It was that easy to get 6(?) non-essential bureaucritters to leave? No great loss. Maybe they'll have milk and cookies today at the office to cope. Meanwhile, the rest of us say, adios.

The wheels of justice will still grind forward, lathrop. There are plenty more non-essential bureaucritters in SDNY to take their places. They'll be busy suing Hochul, James and Green, so there is work to be done.

[Josh R]

They weren't deemed non-essential. They resigned because they wouldn't be part of a corrupt quid pro quo.

[Commenter_XY]

They're non-essential, and won't be missed.

[Josh R]

You missed the point. This incident had nothing to do with whether they were essential. For even if we assume they are non-essential, this is naked corruption that ought to raise an alarm.

[Mr. Bumble]

What "corruption"?

[Michael P]

The corruption is dismissing a prosecution that was initiated because Mayor Adams got "uppity" and offended the Biden administration by talking sense.

[Sarcastr0]

A certain set of people have such envy of the race card, they try and play it themselves at the dumbest times.

[Michael P]

What does Kamala Harris have to do with this discussion?

[CountmontyC]

I want to know why a Trump DOJ exercising prosecutor's discretion is corruption but a Biden DOJ exercising that same discretion is acceptable.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is this because you don't believe it is possible for prosecutorial discretion to be exercised "corruptly"?

[CountmontyC]

You mean like deciding not to enforce immigration law so you can launder money through NGOs to political supporters?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you should first figure out whether this constitutes "exercising prosecutorial discretion." (Hint: it doesn't.)

[CountmontyC]

Are you certain? It seems they are deciding not to prosecute which is the very definition of prosecutorial discretion.

[Commenter_XY]

Where was the corruption?

[Sarcastr0]

The quid pro quo is obvious. The resignation letter also provides good points on how there was no reason to drop the charges.

For a deeper cut, check out this utter lack of any pretense of anything like justice being involved:

Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove coached Mayor Eric Adams' attorneys on what to argue to the office of Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove in order to get the charges dismissed.
After receiving the argument he himself drafted, Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove send a memo ordering the charges of corruption be dismissed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/nyregion/adams-lawyers-justice-department-dismissal.html

[Commenter_XY]

So the corruption is in the DOJ. Good thing we have a new AG. 😉

[Sarcastr0]

"Emil Joseph Bove III (born 1981 or 1982) is an American attorney serving as the acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He is a former assistant United States Attorney and was a member of Donald Trump's legal defense team."

The call is coming from inside MAGA, simpleton.

[Commenter_XY]

So Bove works for the DOJ, correct? You call him corrupt. His new boss, AG Pam Bondi, on the job less than a week, after a procedurally protracted and lengthy confirmation hearing, will doubtless fire Bove for malfeasance, if you are correct.

'inside MAGA' - That sounds conspiratorial. Do tell.

Quid pro quo...this for that. Can you tell me what the 'this' is? What is Mayor Adams providing as 'this'?

[Sarcastr0]

after a procedurally protracted and lengthy confirmation hearing, will doubtless fire Bove for malfeasance, if you are correct.

Bove's been on the job as Acting since 20 Jan, so he's basically the entrenched Deep State, and certainly acting without the Admin or Bondi's knowledge and permission.

Can you tell me what the 'this' is? What is Mayor Adams providing as 'this'?
It's right down this thread.
Or there's another thread all about this.
Or just Google anything about Mayor Adams in the past day or 2.

Don't be lazy - look it up.

[Josh R]

This "this" is (at least) allowing ICE agents onto Rikers Island.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you tell me what the 'this' is? What is Mayor Adams providing as 'this'?

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but are you retarded? This is spelled out in literally every discussion of the issue, including the comment at the top of this thread.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm beginning to wonder what exactly was in the "red pills" they've all proudly taken...

[Commenter_XY]

So 'this' (the quid) is allowing ICE access to Rikers Island. I see. That isn't much of a deal. Clearly, Mayor Adams should've held out for more.

Like I said, you all get to make your case to AG Pam Bondi. If there is actual malfeasance, she is the one who will fire Bove, and press charges. But she might not agree with you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why would she fire Trump's own lawyer for doing Trump's bidding?

[Sarcastr0]

you all get to make your case to AG Pam Bondi

We get to make our own judgement.
Even if the AG decides to allow a corrupt bargain, that doesn't mean it's legit.

[bernard11]

AG or not, Ms. Bondi is hardly an ethical exemplar - probably one of the reasons she was appointed - and is certainly a Trump toady.

I don't know if your comment is serious or just another gloat. Either way, it's obnoxious.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't know if your comment is serious or just another gloat.

I’m actually pretty confident that you do.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it was naked INSUBORDINATION.

[bernard11]

Why are they non-essential, XY? Because they wouldn't behave unethically when Trump told them to? Don't give me that "elections have consequences" crap you resort to whenever Trump does some crappy thing.

Besides, do you even know what they do?

Do you think the federal government shouldn't have prosecutors at all?

[David Nieporent]

Why are they non-essential, XY? Because they wouldn't behave unethically when Trump told them to? Don't give me that "elections have consequences" crap you resort to whenever Trump does some crappy thing.

C_XY was so traumatized by missing out on a funeral in 2020 that he has transferred his PTSD to anything to do with covid mitigation measures, including some people being briefly ordered to stay home because they weren't essential workers. So now in the IKYABWAI? style familiar to all MAGA people, he thinks he can just go around saying "nonessential" instead of making a rational argument in favor of anything Trump does.

[Commenter_XY]

They are non-essential because they are easily replaced, bernard11. There are plenty of bureaucrats in SD-NY waiting in the wings.

[Bob from Ohio]

America does not suffer from a lawyer shortage.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't bother learning what they do, so you don't know if they are easily replaced.

You just say it over and over.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, the problem is that it is the SOVEREIGN District and that must change.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Non-essential to the corrupt actions of the Administration.

Don't even bother to refute it. You know it, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Learn to read and comprehend. C-XY doesn't claim they were dismissed (reports are they resigned) but only that they were non essential.

[Frank Drackman]

The Corruption was charging Adams on some piss-ant bullshit, coincidentally just after he asked Sleepy Joe's help with the 3 million Ill-legals in his City

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stephen, at worst, this is a plea bargain writ large.

Persecutors do that on a daily basis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It is not, in fact, a plea bargain. One easy way to tell is that the bargain doesn’t involve a plea.

[tylertusta]

The new administration is not obligated to follow the prosecutorial preferences of his predecessor. The SDNY prosecutors seemingly think that they're special and independent from the the decisions made by the DOJ.

Resignations are definitely required if they cannot follow directives from above.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, SDNY has though themselves utterly independent of both Justice and the president for decades. A fifth branch of government, DOJ being the 4th.

Time to teach then differently.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Teaching them to ignore the rules of professional conduct and risk discipline is certainly a choice that will have no bad consequences.

[tylertusta]

Quite the contrary. If they feel they cannot lawfully or ethically support the positions of the United States government, then they need to enter a new line of work.

I'm very happy that this is the lesson being learnt.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They don't seem to require any lessons. They believed the position of the United States government is unethical in this matter, and rather than disobey the AG they resigned.

I note how you've pivoted to this subject, instead of whether or not what Trump's Justice Dept. is doing here is actually ethical. That seems like the more interesting question. Perhaps it's perfectly fine, I don't know.

[tylertusta]

They believed the position of the United States government is unethical in this matter, and rather than disobey the AG they resigned.

Yes, that was the lesson. They are demonstrating that they have learned it.

I note how you've pivoted to this subject

I have nothing to say on that topic, which is already in the process of being discussed further above. Feel free to comment up there if you wish, but I am not obligated to discuss the topics you wish I had written about.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You certainly aren't, but then I'm left to wonder why you chose to reply to Lathrop's comment about the ethics of the administration's action with a comment about DAs following orders. I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to defend the administration's actions here.

[tylertusta]

why you chose to reply to Lathrop's comment about the ethics of the administration's action with a comment about DAs following orders

That's not hard to divine: I wanted to talk about the acting USA and AUSAs resigning over a conflict with the DOJ, and I felt like replying at the top-level comment so I could branch it off onto a segue.

But please: go ahead and infer something about my particulars all you want- I'm sure you're validating your view of people you disagree with anyways, and I won't rain on your parade.

Like the New York Times editors, you're here to tell us what the real story is all about. So opine away.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...which is why Trump is so keen on using his pardon power like a sword.

Sadly, it does not extend to state bar discipline actions.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, SDNY has though themselves utterly independent of both Justice and the president for decades. A fifth branch of government, DOJ being the 4th.

Whoops! Bob just accidentally admitted that the prosecution of Adams was not weaponization of the justice system by Biden!

[Bob from Ohio]

Never said it was, its the Trump and J6 ones that were.

[Zarniwoop]

Another letter related to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre - Hagan Scotten’s resignation letter:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25536146/hagan-scotten-resignation-letter.pdf

[David Nieporent]

That would be #7. He — and one of Sassoon's other AUSAs — had been "suspended" by Bove for the purpose of "investigating" him because Bove thought (incorrectly, according to this email) that Sassoon had indicated he had already also refused to try to dismiss the charges. But of course now he did, and quit.

Trump couldn't care less whether Emil Bove (or anyone else) is corrupt; he revels in corruption. But what he does care about is whether someone makes Trump look bad. We'll see if Trump thinks Bove is doing that here.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I just saw some reporting that one prosecutor has agreed to file the motion so everyone in PIN doesn't need to be fired/resign. This strikes me as understandable, but a very bad idea, and a very big risk for that lawyer.

[David Nieporent]

a very big risk for that lawyer.

Hey, that logic helped keep Bork off the Supreme Court!

[David Nieporent]

Reuters reports that corrupt and unethical Emil Bove held a meeting with all the career prosecutors in the public integrity unit today and gave them an ultimatum of one hour to decide which of them would file the motion to dismiss, with the implication that if someone didn't step forward, they'd all be fired.

So this guy — again, a career prosecutor — stepped forward to protect the others, after they discussed all resigning en masse. I understand the gesture, but I also think it's a bad idea, and they should've all resigned.

Frankly, if I were the guy, I would file a motion saying, "Although this case meets no legal criteria for dismissal, as part of a political quid pro quo between the defendant and the White House I have been ordered to move to have this case dismissed." And the same moment I pushed "submit" on the SDNY's ECF system, I'd email my resignation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah I get that they all have careers and families and bills to think about, but if Bondi/Bove and co are acting like this now, not even four weeks into the new admin, over Eric fucking Adams of all people, it's not going to get better. They're going to be in that same meeting again when they want someone to indict AOC for obstruction of justice because she posts about people's rights vis a vis ICE. Or when they want to communicate some other quid-pro-quo to some other corrupt official/democrat or republican.

[Zarniwoop]

There's storied precedent, though:

During a single evening on Saturday, October 20, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked.[2] Bork stated that he intended to resign afterward, but was persuaded by Richardson and Ruckelshaus to stay on for the good of the Justice Department.[3][4]

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

[SykesFive]

The letter suggests Scotten generally supported Trump and was even willing to make some excuses for him. This is not a case of liberal prosecutors trying to handicap Trump but rather serious lawyers following professional rules.

[hobie]

Prosecutor Hagan Scotten resigned:

Three tours in Iraq; two bronze stars; 1st in his class at Harvard Law; clerked for Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C Circuit; clerked for John Roberts on the Supreme Court.

This is the supposed swamp creature you want to replace with Q-Anon?

[ThePublius]

Where did 'Q-Anon' come from?

[Commenter_XY]

The woodchipper goes brrrr....Elon's Amazing Autists (affectionately called The Hairy Balls Bunch) identified the next department to be fed to the woodchipper and converted top wood chips.

Week 1: USAID
Week 2: CPFB
Week 3: Department of Education (they already got the notice)

Any guesses on which department is next to be fed to the woodchipper and converted to wood chips (next week)? I vote the IRS. Dare you to disagree. You lawyers and law professors all pay too much in taxes. Help is on the way. 😉

Legal question: The DoEd administers student loans, grants, etc. Where would that function devolve to? Before 1979 (DoEd created 1979), how were student loans handled?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Before 1979 (DoEd created 1979), how were student loans handled?"
Were they needed or could a summer job and a part time job while attending school have paid tuition.
As I have mentioned before in 1967 tuition at a NJ college (most were formerly Normal Schools and Rutgers was the only state university) was $75.00/semester. Easily managed by most without a loan.

[Frank Drackman]

Auburn 1982 was just under a thousand a year(I went all year) of course you needed a place to stay, food, and somebody had to pay for Pat Dyes bar tab, like the Idiots who talk about how cheap gas was in the 60’s, nobody ever thought college was cheap, unfortunately it was the only place to take the required pre med classes

[Josh R]

Before getting to that legal question, does Trump have the power to shutter agencies created by Congress (that's different than the question about firing individuals)?

Then, will Trump attempt attempt to shutter functions being provided by these agencies or simply continue them elsewhere? For example, who is going to pick up the work of the CPFB? If no one, is that legal?

And if even all of this legal, I have hope that the people will not be happy with the results. Or perhaps, they aren't happy with egg and gas prices.

And one more thing (he said as smoking his cigar), I heard a story that Trump is not happy with the pace of ICE arrests.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m not familiar with the agencies that produce Eggs or Gasoline

[Commenter_XY]

I'm not happy with the pace, either. = ICE arrests

Tom Homan talks a good game. He needs to get better results, IMO.

[Mr. Bumble]

Geez, it's only been three weeks. FWIW ICE will now have a presence on Riker's Island in NYC to deal with incarcerated illegals.

[Commenter_XY]

The Donald made this his signature campaign issue. There are north of 10MM illegal aliens in this country. We need to see 3K-5K deportations daily and use every means at our disposable to make that happen.

I am somewhat unimpressed with Tom Homan. He talks a good game, but needs to deliver. At the end of Q1, we'll see. Sec Noem can help here too.

[Frank Drackman]

First of all, nobody knows how many Ill-Legals are here, that's the problem with being Ill-Legal, could just as easily be 30 million, Second of all, what you aren't seeing are the "Self-Deporting" who suddenly realize May-He-Co isn't as bad as Guan-tan-amo, and the ones who decide to stay home and not come here in the first place. Third of all, maybe having the ones who do remain stay in New York, California, and Illinois is the first step to turning those States "Red" in the next Erections.

Frank "Guan-tan-amo, guajira Guan-tan-amo, Guan-tan-amo......"

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, even after being fed to a woodchipper, wood chips remain. There are some essential (for now) functions and a few CPFB employees will be retained (for now) to do them.

No need to burn all the wood chips, yet.

The Congress is free to act at any time. I agree with you. They aren't acting = POTUS Trump right-sizing the fed bureaucracy.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress not acting doesn't mean laws no longer work.

[Commenter_XY]

Congress is free to legislate, or sue. Congress has chosen neither.

I don't hear a big 'hue and cry' in Congress (or the country) complaining about right-sizing government, and making govt expenditures more transparent.

In the meantime, until the Congress makes another choice, the DC spending sewer is getting drained, one stop at a time.

Maybe you can tell me:

Legal question: The DoEd administers student loans, grants, etc. Where would that function devolve to? Before 1979 (DoEd created 1979), how were student loans handled?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eisenhower established the Department of Health, EDUCATION, & Welfare in the 1950s...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No sir. Eisenhower gave his proposal to create it to Congress, and Congress established it via statute and appropriation. Can you understand that distinction, and thus perhaps understand the reason why many of the things Trump is doing now is problematic?

[Sarcastr0]

Congress DID legislate. That's the appropriations bill that was passed last year.

There is not 'hue and cry' requirement for duly passed Congressional laws to function.

Did you forget elementary civics? I ask again, what the fuck is wrong with your brain?

[Josh R]

The lawsuits are being brought by individuals impacted by Trump's orders. Those lawsuits will argue that Trump went beyond his powers under existing law.

[David Nieporent]

The lawsuits will prevail, and Trump cultists will have a tantrum about lawfare and activist judges, and Dr Ed will try to gin up a lynch mob for those judges.

[Sarcastr0]

I am coming to believe the smart money is that most of these moves will be struck down, the striking down will be sustained, and that Trump won't defy the courts.

But some of these many many lawless actions will slip through, and the law will be changed towards more executive power in a few little ways.

[DixieTune]

If we really wanted to make it happen fast, all Trump would have to do is ignore posse comitatus and use the military.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And MAGA wonders why I give them the "Roman salute"!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That would lead to very unfortunate outcomes for scum like yourself.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Legal question: The DoEd administers student loans, grants, etc. Where would that function devolve to? Bef

You’re this close to getting it!

So far the “layoffs” are just firing the people on probation, so the Department of Education isn’t actually going anywhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, I am admittedly a slow learner. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit! After 40 years my Poultry Science degree is finally reverent. You know the hardest thing about testing Chickens for the Flu? Getting the little swab up their noses!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it true that the test is a PCR type test and is there an effective vaccine available for this flu?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, and Yes, the difficulty is drawing the vaccine into Chicken-sized syringes, and getting the Chickens to not peck you while you give it to them.

[Moderation4ever]

I would think that there is the problem of number of vaccines needed. Chicken flocks are quite large. I think the reason for killing whole flocks is in the end it is cheaper and more effective.

Interesting, related story, many years ago the Milwaukee County Zoo was hit with a bird virus. The MC Zoo killed most of its bird population retaining and treating only a small number of rare birds that could not be easily replaced.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the USDA part of the problem?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14391213/egg-prices-shortage-farmer-avian-flu-Greg-Herbruck.html

[Commenter_XY]

potential fuel for the woodchipper = USDA

[ThePublius]

There are in excess of 100,000 employees of USDA, for less than 2M farms. In 1950 there were about 6.5M farms in the US, with 50,000 USDA employees.

[David Nieporent]

Surely the amount of farm output is more relevant than the mere number of fars.

[Bwaaah]

What will we do without the USDA's Christmas Tree Promotion Board?

[Commenter_XY]

We will somehow have to suffer along. I don't do xmas trees anyway, lol.

[Absaroka]

I wouldn't do those kinds of things, but FWIW it may not be using taxpayer money (from the link): "An assessment on producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees finances the program, which is administered by the Christmas Tree Promotion Board, under AMS oversight. The initial assessment rate is $0.15 per Christmas tree cut and sold domestically or imported into the United States. Entities that produce or import fewer than 500 Christmas trees annually are exempt."

There are a number of these kind of producer things (didn't VC cover a raisin one a few years ago?). They exist to do generic marketing, and doing them under government aegis prevents free riders.

Like I said, I wouldn't do them (they do cost a lot of consumers .15 a tree, after all), won't lament their demise, but it's not like this is a big step towards a balanced budget.

[Bwaaah]

Agreed. The aspect of the program that I find most objectionable is that participation is compulsory for growers over a certain size. ("You WILL pay for us to do marketing for you.") And when I look at it now, I see that they have an exemption for "organic" growers. So that's some government imposed marketing fees *and* some religion wrapped up in one program, by my take. (I'm salty that way.)

I wouldn't do it.

[Moderation4ever]

To my knowledge government cannot impose a fee or tax without legislation. So, your beef should not be with the people doing the work, the bureaucracy but with Congress, a state legislature, a county board or a city council.

[Bwaaah]

"So, your beef should not be with the people doing the work,"

I didn't say I had a beef with the people doing the work. And I don't.

I'm just expressing my opinion about the program. So you're beef is probably about other people's beefs.

[Bwaaah]

And to your point, 7 U.S. Code § 7411-7441 seems to be the legislation that authorizes the USDA to create "Marketing Boards" that perform marketing functions. 7416 (a) (1) provides for assessments to be "paid by first handlers with respect to the agricultural commodity produced and marketed in the United States."

Somehow, they (the Christmas Tree Promotion Board) have translated "first handlers" into "first handlers who are not little producers and not organic producers." So Congress authorizes them to levy assessments, and somehow, apparently by implication, the power to choose whom they don't impose those assessments upon.

Like I said, I wouldn't do that.

[Moderation4ever]

Again, there is a question of size. In the article the author talks about 6.5 million birds that were culled. That is a lot of birds to vaccinate. Especially as the birds are typically held for only 2 to 3 years in a commercial operation. Now if as the author suggests the latest flu is more resistant to biosecurity and culling, maybe vaccination is the route. But that a big cost and who will cover that cost. I suspect farmers will be looking to the USDA for financial support.

BTW - I have always used local producers for my eggs. I pay a premium, but I am still paying about the same price as before about $5/dozen.

[Mr. Bumble]

" But that['s] a big cost and who will cover that cost."
...and who pays the cost of replacing the flock?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Columbine high school councilors help a female student fill out paperwork behind the parents back declaring the student homeless so she could move in with a groomer.

When confronted with evidence including a letter about the student kissing the teacher, the principal told the mom that "Ms. Kearney takes interest in helping kids navigate their sexuality."

The principal still has a job.

[Frank Drackman]

Sad when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are the reasonable people in the room.

[Commenter_XY]

You should have taken the deal.....The First Axe Falleth

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/13/trump-administration-tells-federal-agencies-to-fire-probationary-employees.html

What I said when the extremely generous buyout offer was made: The first offer is invariably the best offer, so take it.

[Sarcastr0]

What would you say if a company fired all it's newest and youngest employees, regardless of what they did or how good they were?

[Michael P]

Clauses in union contacts that require that kind of tenure-based preference in layoffs should be illegal.

[David Nieporent]

Why?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm that it happens all the time, especially with Unionized companies.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, your question was pure gold and I want to thank you for that.

Do you belong to a union? Have you ever? Sounds doubtful. That you do not even comprehend the experience of millions of your fellow citizens who are (were) union members is not surprising. As I said, pure gold.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course I belong to a union, and you changed the subject.

[Frank Drackman]

International Brotherhood of Assholes?

[RedheadedPharoh]

You should be mad as hell at the unions for forcing this action.

[Don Nico]

I'd say that is a very common practice. (I am assuming that you actually meant "laid off" rather than firing for cause.

[Sarcastr0]

So do you think it's a good policy for the business's future health?

It doesn't seem like that to me.

[Bob from Ohio]

Government is a business now?

[Don Nico]

Bob, if you prefer "enterprise."

[Sarcastr0]

It certainly is not, but if you see a material difference in that distinction as applied here, I'm all ears.

[Bob from Ohio]

I get it, its not a business when that makes your point but it is a business when that makes your point.

They are getting rid of the probationary employees because they can without going thru long civil service procedures. No business has to comply with such rules.

Of course a business might very well get rid of younger employees first because the older ones are black or over 40 and they don't want to get a discrimination charge.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to ask how I can make analogies between government and business about some stuff but not others, I think you need to review how analogies work.

And you're still hiding behind 'well, it's easy' and saying nothing about the fact that an institution, whether company or government, eating it's seed corn, is a bad idea.

[Bob from Ohio]

The seed corn is rotten anyways.

[Commenter_XY]

What Sarcastr0 fails to realize is we actually need a much smaller crop, and the rotten seed corn will not be needed.

That blindness (or lack of realization) is why they are stunned at the speed of the woodchipping, helpfully aimed by DOGE.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, no one has examined the seed corn, so you have no idea.

Commenter, you talk about the extraordinary unprecedented speed of executive actions and then wonder why all the TROs and people saying laws were broken.

[ThePublius]

If companies laid off older employees and kept younger, newly hired ones, you would complain about that, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I would. Why would you think that's some kind of own.

Arbitrary criteria are dumb.
Fire people based on some kind of examination of what they do and how well they do it!

[Don Nico]

"Fire people based on some kind of examination of what they do and how well they do it!"
In that, I agree with you. But it takes work, discipline and a modicum of courage.

[ThePublius]

First, there's a difference between firings and lay offs. Legal issues vary by state. Union contracts alter things.

I never suggested 'arbitrary criteria.' Layoffs are typically executed along business and organizational lines, not according to individual performance, for legal and liability reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying the criteria in this case are not arbitrary, or are you saying it's all good because it's legal and that's all that matters?

I can tell you're defending it, but I'm unclear what's your argument as to the wisdom of this move.

[Don Nico]

Sometimes it is. Sometimes not.
I would say that it is better to manage out poor performers than to rely on seniority driven layoffs. Unfortunately that requires more efforts on a routine basis than many first line managers and their next level up are willing to take.

[Absaroka]

"that requires more efforts on a routine basis than many first line managers and their next level up are willing to take."

Sounds like those managers might be good candidates for replacement 🙂

(not disagreeing with your point, BTW ... changing organizational culture is really hard)

[DixieTune]

Unions are welfare for useless boomers.

[Frank Drackman]

Just ask Tucker McElroy for his Union card and see what happens.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the deal didn't apply to probationary employees.

[bernard11]

The first offer is invariably the best offer, so take it.

So when you go to buy a car you immediately pay sticker price, because it's the first offer.

More amusingly, I knew a guy who said that he regarded his tax return as simply an initial offer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Public service announcement:
Need some extra cash to buy your significant other a Valentine's gift (or maybe just some eggs)?
Check tour jewelry boxes and draws for broken or unused jewelry as gold is approaching $3000/ounce.
https://www.silverrecyclers.com/Calculators/gold_calculator.aspx

[santamonica811]

Bumble,
Why the dramatic increase in gold prices? With diamonds, I can make educated guesses about when/why the market works, since there is (a) a huge surplus of diamonds, (b) it's being held by essentially a monopoly, and (c) therefore, the number of diamonds in the open market can be easily controlled, to a large degree.

Not so with gold, I think. I know nothing about the gold biz (other than watching "Gold Rush" on TV sometimes), but only X amount is taken out of the ground each year, and some is used in useful items (teeth, plating on mechanical devices), some in jewelry, some in coinage, and some--I guess--stockpiled and stored away in a few dozen vaults scattered around the world. The only explanation I can logically come up with on my own is that there are recent inventions or innovations, and now people are saying, "Shit, we equipment makers need XX more tons of gold each year than before" . . . and this greater need is driving up the prices.

Other potential common market conditions (eg, Alaska had a 10.5 earthquake and that destroyed all the gold mines there; a previously-unknown volcano destroyed all the gold mines in S. Africa...so now the amount of available gold is only 1/3 of what it was in years past.), don't seem to be at play. Rather, the high prices are motivating even more small-time players to get into the prospecting biz, so the net amount of gold being produced has even inched up a bit more.

If there were a worldwide depression or recession, then frightened people often run to gold as a safety net. But this increase didn't happen during Covid. It's the last 18 months, I think. I can't come up with a psychological or cultural-anthropological reason either.

What am I missing? Why is the price of gold skyrocketing? (Up from about $1,800 in those last 1.5 years)

I assume that Dr. Ed got one of his 2-dozen doctorates in precious metals, so hopefully he'll chime in with some interesting observations.

[Mr. Bumble]

I am not a "gold bug" and have no idea what the rhyme or reason for this climb is about.
I only started to follow it when I had some broken jewelry to sell as a result of settling an estate. My guess is that it is being driven by big players much as some other metals (think copper) but like other markets it's hard to determine exactly just what the driver is.

[Frank Drackman]

Marxist Stream Media in a meltdown over Sec Def Hedgesex's comments that You-Crane joining NATO or getting it's pre-war borders back are "Unrealistic"
In other news the Secretary said Jerry Nadler is fat, Amy Klobuchar is ugly, Mayonnaise is disgusting, Lamar Kendric is short, and Jaylen Hurts really wanted to go to the White House (free Popeyes!)

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

The faster the UKR/RUS war ends, the better. The SecDef is delivering a much needed dose of reality to NATO.

I pray the meetings today with VP Vance, SecState Rubio, UKR representatives, RUS(?) representatives go well today, and they can find a path to an armistice. The killing would end.

[Zarniwoop]

The SecDef is delivering a much needed dose of reality to NATO.

You mean the part where Hegseth made the "rookie mistake" (per Sen Roger Wicker, R-Miss) of giving away the US's negotiation position before even sitting down with the Russians? That should be a "You're Fired!" offense from Mr. Art-of-the-Deal, but it won't be, because he got hired for his chin not his brains.

https://www.newsweek.com/pete-hegseth-roger-wicker-russia-ukraine-war-2031379

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, that was dumb = rookie mistake

No, the part where SecDef laid down the hammer (no UKR in NATO, increase your spend asap), followed by VP Vance warning that EU is separating from the US in terms of values vis a vis free speech, religious freedom.

I hope the meetings today were fruitful. It would be good for that war to end and for the killing to stop.

[bernard11]

Why should we try to get Ukraine to cede territory to Russia? So they can start another war and try to take more a few years from now, when they've rebuilt their army?

I suggest you read this by someone who actually knows something about war, military and political history, etc. It's titled "This Is Not Appeasement, It Is Worse."

The meat:

In the last few days, the US has made concession after concession to Russia before any formal negotiations have even started. Trump has said that Putin should be allowed back into the G7, Defense Secretary Hegseth has said Ukraine should be kept out of NATO and the US forces will not provide any security guarantees for Ukraine. The US has also made it clear that Russia will be allowed to keep most/all of the Ukrainian lands it has seized, while at the same time making no new promises of aid to Ukraine.

In other words—Trump is helping Putin—at exactly the time Putin needs it most. If you have not noticed (will write more about this in the weekend update), the Russian army is really struggling right now. Its advances are slowing and its losses are extremely high. In fact, what Trump seems to be doing is offering a hand of friendship and support to Putin, when the Russian dictator and war criminal most needs it.

The Great Negotiator. What a fucking joke.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, do try to keep up.

UKR does not have the manpower or the equipment to dislodge 100K+ RUS troops from the 4 provinces in the east, or crimea. They are lost. We have been told for 3 years by dumbasses like your cited author (and numerous others) that RUS was washed up and beatable....as RUS ground out bloody victory after bloody victory on the ground. RUS continues to advance, as a human meatgrinder. There is not a lot to negotiate when you don't have a very strong hand, and UKR has a weak hand. That is reality.

UKR is not a vital US national interest. It is not even an EU vital interest. It is time to stop the pointless killing, and turn off the open-ended money spigot to corrupt UKR generals who resell US weaponry on the black market and pocket the proceeds. Did I mention that UKR is corrupt AF and an unworthy partner.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You've been dooming for 3 years, and Ukraine has held one. Why should anyone listen to you?

2. Russian expansion is absolutely part of America's interests.

3. "corrupt UKR generals who resell US weaponry on the black market and pocket the proceeds" is straight out of Putin's propaganda. You're still drinking from the RT spigot?

4. Your rhetoric is no longer 'Ukraine aid is provoking Russia, and we shouldn't do that!' to 'Ukraine was always doomed.'
This shift in your facts is a sign of bad faith.
You've admitted you have a grudge against Ukraine for their actions against the Jews in WW2. So no surprise you'll flip your facts on a dime so long as you argue for them to get ripped up.

[David Nieporent]

UKR does not have the manpower or the equipment to dislodge 100K+ RUS troops from the 4 provinces in the east, or crimea. They are lost.

The Taliban didn't have the manpower or the equipment to dislodge American troops from Afghanistan. The mujahideen didn't have the manpower or the equipment to dislodge Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The Vietnamese didn't have the manpower or the equipment to dislodge American troops from Vietnam.

[bernard11]

XY,

I do keep up. You don't, but just repeat silly opinions and make unjustified accusations.

As for my "dumbass author", it's safe to say he knows at least 100 times what you do about these matters.

And of course, you are not remotely interested in what anyone who disagrees with you has to say, no matter how knowledgeable. You're still basing your think on 17th Century events.

[Josh R]

I feel like I am in Bizzarro World.

Vance complains about Europe tilting towards tyranny while the Trump administration kisses Putin's ass and far-right European politicos.

[Cokaw86761]

Only white countries are told that they have no right to remain white and must allow themselves to be replaced by foreigners. No one demands demographic replacement of India, China, Japan or Nigeria. Anti-racist is code for anti-white.

[Sarcastr0]

Funny how these white nationalists keep popping up here, eh?

[Commenter_XY]

Elvis left the building, and David Duke's cousin appears to have entered.

[Sarcastr0]

They're your bedfellows, chief.

[Bwaaah]

You're not even big enough to admit agreement.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Does this mean you agree with the original statement? I thought better of you, for some reason.

[Bwaaah]

Commenter_XY offered what I viewed as an unfavorable take on Cokaw86761's original comment. I have an unfavorable take on the original comment, and found C_XY's remark to be humorously agreeable with my view.

Sarc had an unfavorable take on C_XY. And I had an unfavorable take on Sarc. (It seems that I almost always do.)

But this is my long-winded way to address your question: I don't like the original remark. In my view, he's channeling alleged race war bullshit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ah, I see now. I have XY muted, so missed the full thread. I'll shut up now.

[Bwaaah]

There was a moment of welcome light in the possibility that you thought better of me. If I misunderstood, please don't ruin it for me.
LOL

[Frank Drackman]

So you're also one of those Felchers who thinks he's hep calling everyone "Chief"

[bernard11]

This is interesting.

To my mind a "felcher," or maybe "felsher," was a sort of amateur or semi-pro doctor in the shtetl who provided basic medical services when a physician was unavailable or too costly.

Skill and quality of treatment varied very widely, from homicidal to pretty decent.

Apparently, the meaning has changed. Who knew?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Its the same guy. If you scroll up you'll see his signature style of obsessing over gay sex.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Muted him on his first post.

You can't fix stupid.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, same. The repressed-homosexual style performative loathing of gay male sex is a dead giveaway. He should try pr0nhub instead of the VC if he needs to get some tension released.

[Estragon]

It’s the voltage guy again. Old persona got muted too much and wasn’t getting enough engagement to fuel the dopamine. Only non-engagement can make them go away.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't keep them straight. I feel like they're all into gay stuff to some extent or another.

This is not JesusBlonde OR DixieTune, it's some other dude?

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's your problem, you can't keep guys straight.

[Estragon]

My personal opinion is that this is one individual running several handles at once. As the older handles start getting grey boxed to the point of reduced engagement, they get swapped for new names.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Columbo.

[Ska]

Columbo is never that direct.

[Frank Drackman]

Sir, is that an Armani Jacket? it is? that's really a beautiful Jacket, off the Rack? that's the thing with good material, even off the rack and it looks Tailor made, now Mrs. Columbo, a lovely woman, lovely woman, but when she picks my jackets, she goes for the cheap material, you could have Versace himself measure you, and it'd look awful, now I notice you said you weren't wearing your Jacket the night of your wife's murder, which I thought was odd......

[bernard11]

Good job, Frank.

[John F. Carr]

A judge has ordered State, USAID, and OMB not to implement certain directives related to Executive Order 14169. This is the foreign aid shutdown order. The money must flow. No stop work orders. As often happens when Trump is involved, irreparable harm was found even though only money is at stake (money is ordinarily an adequate remedy at law). The shutdown of funds is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The order does not bind Trump, who is outside the APA.

This is a temporary restraining order with no expiration date given. The judge expects expedited briefing on a preliminary injunction.

AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Trump, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69627654/aids-vaccine-advocacy-coalition-v-united-states-department-of-state/

The judge observed that if the government spent 90 days reviewing contracts, as Trump ordered, the appropriations would have expired before the review completed. "Funds would literally be unspent" – one of the scariest phrases anybody living off the government can utter. I remember a grant program where recipients were graded in part based on how successful they were spending all the allocating money. The performance metrics were not met. The spending metrics were.

[Sarcastr0]

Execution benchmarks are the responsibility of the program manager, not the grantee.

I also don't know what 'grading' grants recipients means. You don't get a grade at the completion of your period of performance.

Finally, the whole point of "Funds would literally be unspent" is those funds are the appropriations law. So the administration is ordering illegal things.

[DixieTune]

When Trump is involved, Democrat Party judges are always able to find "irreparable harm" and "arbitrary and capricious."

[David Nieporent]

As often happens when Trump is involved, irreparable harm was found even though only money is at stake (money is ordinarily an adequate remedy at law).

I am pretty sure that money after the fact is not an adequate substitute for AIDS medication.

[ThePublius]

Why is the US taxpayer responsible for AIDS in other countries?

[David Nieporent]

Because Congress said so.

If you want to abolish all foreign aid, then forthrightly say that and make the case.

[SimonP]

How is an unchecked HIV epidemic in other countries in the national interest?

[SimonP]

Let me put this in terms that a simpleton can understand:

Imagine that you're rich, but your neighbor is poor. You both own your own homes and have nice, big yards out front. You're able to maintain your own home to your satisfaction, you pay a gardener for some nice landscaping, you pay someone to tend to your lawn. But your neighbor is having a rougher time. They need a new roof, a new paint job, and their yard has gone to seed.

You're concerned, somewhat, about how your neighbor's property impacts your own. The unkempt lawn means that you get more weeds, which the lawn keeper can handle, while the unsightly state of the property arguably impacts your property's value negatively.

So what do you do? Obviously, your neighbor's property isn't your business, you have no obligation to help them out. But you figure that if you pay a little bit extra to have your lawn person take care of their property, you can help free up some resources so that they can take better care of their house, or maybe even feel like they should keep up their house. It's not a big investment, you can easily afford it, and the ultimate benefit to you might well be exactly what you want, which is a nice, neat neighborhood.

That's condoms for Gaza.

[Bob from Ohio]

Except the "neighbor" is 3,500 to 6,000 miles away

[Noscitur a sociis]

As a wise man once said

Now, when you talk about the planet, it is so big out there. We’re here, they’re there. It's like they're our next-door neighbor, right? In terms of the universe. Miss Universe, by the way—made a great deal when I sold it. Oh, did I get rich. It was a great deal. You know, they broke my choppers on that.

[SimonP]

I see even my "simpleton's take" was still over your head.

[DixieTune]

I love how the media is applauding Sassoon's "courage." Because it takes a lot of courage to leave a job making $170,000 and walking into an easy 7 figure partner job at some NYC biglaw firm.

[SRG2]

I love how the cultists think that the DoJ's request to drop the prosecution of Adams was perfectly legitimate.

[DixieTune]

I don't think that at all. I think Adams is your typical corrupt DEI Democrat and belongs in prison, although I do think he was targeted by Biden and Garfinkel due to speaking out on immigration.

I'm only pointing out that Sassoon will be fine. I'm not seeing any real courage here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha, so now a politician who wins an election is DEI. Just represent yourself honestly and call him the n-word. You know you want to.

[DixieTune]

Projecting much?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Waiting for your explanation how Adams, who ran for office and was elected by the people, can be considered as DEI. The only possible explanation is that you call any black person in any capacity as DEI.

I'm sure I project about as much as the next guy.

[DixieTune]

We all know the parties pick the candidates, not the people, irrespective of whatever sham "primaries" are held.

Adams would never have been picked had he been white.

[Frank Drackman]

I love how the cultists think the DOJ's request to prosecute Adams was perfectly legitimate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AFTER a maternity leave...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's because she's a Republican, and she knows what they (MAGARINOS) do to Republicans who defy "The Leader".

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't see how the DOJ gets out of this jam without Trump just pardoning Adams. Some attorney is actually going to need to sign their name to a motion, and likely do an oral hearing in front of the judge, where they have to somehow both 1) assert a good faith basis for dismissing the prosecution without prejudice 2) comply with their duty of candor to the court (among other things). Given the public statements (including from DOJ) about why this is happening, that's a tough lift. And then there is the little problem of the Court declining to dismiss due to the government's representation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cue Judge Emmet Sullivan.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean, one difference is that the DOJ asserted there that Flynn didn't actually commit a crime. Which, while completely inconsistent with prior DOJ approaches to 1001 prosecutions, was not totally insane and something defense lawyers had been advocating for years. That's a good faith basis and I think Sullivan was wrong to deny the motion in that case. (I also think mandamus relief from the DC Circuit was wrong too, but that's a different thing)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is the goal to force the Bidenites to defend the initial indictment?

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't think you see the issue: defending the indictment on the merits is really easy. Finding a good faith reason to dismiss that is consistent with the rules of professional conduct is not!

[Michael Ejercito]

"Because I say so" is a good enougbh reason within the rules of professional conduct.

Of course, ethics encompasses more than rules of professional conduct.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Because I say so" is actually not good enough to satisfy their duties under the rules. If it was, it would have been done already, even if grudgingly.

[not guilty]

"Is the goal to force the Bidenites to defend the initial indictment?"

No. If the government moves for a Rule 48 dismissal, which party will defend the bringing of the initial indictment? The defendant damn sure won't do so.

[John F. Carr]

As I write this nobody has stepped up to take the heat.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69197936/united-states-v-adams/

Why can't the last man standing simply state the facts? The Attorney General has decided not to prosecute the case at this time based on the President's statement that it is unfair to prosecute somebody seeking election. The judge can take it from there. Case remains open and the prosecution starts missing deadlines. Case dismissed without prejudice. Case dismissed with prejudice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No one wants to say that because it would severely limit their ability to prosecute public corruption. (Or other things, think an indictment might be imminent? file to run for local office immediately, now DOJ can't prosecute you!)

Also, saying the reason doesn't get you out of answering the judge's questions about other WH/DOJ motives.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I hear Rudy's available?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Is his license still in good standing? Because that would be an option, make him a Special Assistant US Attorney and he can do it. But.... woof would that be sketchy as hell.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Can you say pretextual? I knew that you could!

[John F. Carr]

The motion has been filed. The document bears the signature of Emil Bove and was filed by Edward Sullivan, Senior Litigation Counsel. It also bears the name of Antoinette T. Bacon, Supervisory Official, Criminal Division. Earlier reporting indicated that a large meeting in D.C. had found an unnamed lawyer willing to play the role of Robert Bork.

Footnote 1: "The undersigned attorneys from the Department of Justice have replaced AUSAs from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as counsel of record in this case. The Department of Justice will handle this matter and any related decision-making in the future."

[Bob from Ohio]

"duty of candor "

AUSA: The Deputy AG ordered us to dismiss. Why? asks the judge. AUSA says here is the instruction letter, it has his reasons.

Seems candid.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So I don't know if you were aware of this, but each individual lawyer has ethical obligations that are personal and independent of the organization in which they are a part. Those obligations include: filing motions that have a basis in law and a duty of candor. Now, to obtain a dismissal without prejudice of a defendant the government needs leave of court. Typically to obtain leave, the government needs to have a good faith basis to do so. These include evidentiary or proof problems, problems with the legal theory, a need to do more investigation, etc. They don't have that here. So simply reading the Bove memo is not compliant with the obligation to being motions with a sound basis in law. If they want to actually get the case dismissed using a good faith basis...they can't actually tell the court why they're doing it. That violates the duty of candor. So no, just reading the memo does not get the individual lawyers out of the jam.

[David Nieporent]

So I don't know if you were aware of this,

I mean, we know he isn't.

[Commenter_XY]

Would the judge simply accept the letter, with no argument? Does that sort of thing happen often?

What if the judge says, "Nope. The case stays. Prosecute it."

What then?

I know the exchange above with JFCarr and LTG is important, which prompted my questions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What if the judge says, "Nope. The case stays. Prosecute it."

What then?

A great question without a clear answer.

[Commenter_XY]

Can a judge compel a prosecutor to try a case?

Has that ever happened?

[Mr. Bumble]

Emmet Sullivan tried.

[David Nieporent]

He did not. Since Flynn had already pleaded guilty, there was no case to be tried. All that was left was sentencing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, that one’s actually a pretty easy question. Flynn had already pled guilty at the time of the motion to dismiss, so all remained was to sentence him. A judge can clearly do that without the participation of the prosecution. That’s not really true for the trial itself.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also the legal merits of the dismissal request, hypocritical as it was for DOJ generally, were more defensible.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s difficult to see how. The federal rules of evidence do allow judges to call and question witnesses on their own, but I am skeptical that a conviction based exclusively on evidence os obtained would hold up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t know what happens if the court refuses a dismissal with prejudice. But I think what could happen in this case is the judge denies the motion to dismiss without prejudice and is basically like: look you’re trying or pleading out this case for real or I’m going to impanel a jury and let jeopardy attach/granting the first defense motion that seeks dismissal with prejudice. And the latter will stick because there would be evidence that the defendants substantial rights were violated.

The true problem here isn’t dismissal, it’s dismissal with an open threat to bring charges later unless a quid pro quo is followed through on. I think the court is equipped to deal with that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A fair point.

If they wanted to push it, I suppose they could file a superseding information charging a single misdemeanor count, thus leaving most of the conduct chargeable even if he got acquitted on that. Obviously the legal system isn’t really well-equipped for this scenario, since most of the relevant actors through most of our history have chosen to conduct themselves in a way that didn’t require these questions to be answered.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They could have also done a favorable plea in the first place.

People keep saying he has dirt on other high level Dems. If that were actually true, he wouldn’t be talking to media and they would have never done the Bove memo. They’d do a plea to much lesser charges in exchange for testimony prior to sentencing.

[Ridgeway]

I'd also think (but don't know for certain) that the judge could order the DOJ (or SDNY USA office) to produce a prosecutor to try the case, and then sanction to DOJ (or the USA office) for not complying (maybe after a show cause hearing).

Just spitballing though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Typical remedy if plaintiff doesn’t show up to trial is dismissal with prejudice with prejudice.

Same is true in the vast majority of criminal/state initiated cases: think traffic court where cop doesn’t show up.

The remedy is dismiss with prejudice and discipline referrals.

[John F. Carr]

The only time when a judge really cares about having a case prosecuted is in cases of criminal contempt where the judge's authority is the victim. Some rules of procedure allow for outside counsel when a prosecutor doesn't step up to try a criminal contempt case.

A reluctant prosecutor will present a losing case. Why go through the motions? The real choice the judge has is whether charges can be refiled later in the year. (The quiet part: whether charges can be refiled if Adams doesn't do what Trump wants.)

[John F. Carr]

My state's courts have refused to rule out the possibility entirely, yet the answer in any particular case is always no.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Yeah, we could see this one coming a mile away."

Sure. That's why many of "we" thought it essential this guy didn't get back into power.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/predictably-trump-dojs-dropping-of-mayor-adams-case-triggers-resignations-by-sdny-u-s-attorney-and-public-corruption-prosecutors/

(H/t David N)

However, It is appreciated that some voices of principle are left. Per an article in the NYT:

Manhattan’s U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.

Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned, according to five people with knowledge of the matter.

Several hours later, three other lawyers in the unit also resigned, according to people familiar with the developments.

Rachel Maddow wrote a good book along with a podcast involving the investigation of Vice President Agnew by the Nixon Justice Department. It was a symbol of professionalism.

https://booksinaflash.com/book-summary-bag-man-the-wild-crimes-a-brazen-crook-in-the-white-house/

Finally, it is time for Gov. Hochul to exercise her power and remove Mayor Adams. It is a serious move and generally, I would not think it a good idea to remove a democratically elected mayor of a major city. Especially my own. But, things have gone too far now.

The people should not have to be stuck with a puppet of Trump for the rest of the year.

[DixieTune]

Your thoughts on what is essential would ring a lot less hollow if Biden's DOJ wasn't one of the most corrupt ever.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This action by Trump's DoJ2 has already exceeded that level in a single stroke.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People keep saying this about Hochul, does she actually have that power?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I checked and she see has been more open to the idea recently.

https://gothamist.com/news/will-gov-hochul-remove-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-i-need-some-time-she-says

The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-5717

[DixieTune]

I don't know the specifics here, but New York state law has way too many exceptions for cities with "a population of 1 million or more." NYC has been granted a lot of autonomy that cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, and Syracuse don't have.

[Estragon]

I believe the last time it was used against a NYC mayor was the 20s or 30s but it does in fact look like something she can do. Cuomo the younger also talked about this at times during his clashes with Bill DeBlasio.

[Bob from Ohio]

Gentleman Jimmy Walker

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ah. The time between the end of football season and the beginning of baseball Spring Training.

More time to watch movies. I saw some of Greer Garson recently. She made her debut in Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

One charming film is Mrs. Parkington, one of many films where she co-starred with Walter Pidgeon.

[Estragon]

Polar Bear back in town! The beginning of Spring training is always the best time of year to be a Mets fan… nothing has gone horribly wrong yet!

[Krayt]

Eating breakfast out, omlet with cheese, mushrooms, and raw onion. Grilled, yuck!

Man, that bite was a mouthful of onion!

It occured to me if this site had .sigs, I'd be changing mine to:

"Damn, that was a mouthful of onion!"

[Don Nico]

Last week, universities were informed that federal government would not pay overheads greater that 15% on NIH grants. Most (if not all) universities assume that similar orders will apply to grants from all agencies. For R1 universities the loss of overhead revenue is being estimated by their administrations as between several tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. A collection of the richest R1's is suing.
I heard it said yesterday on campus that the universities will NOT want the government to conduct an in-depth examination (audit) of their records during discovery. And many R1 charge no overheads to grants to foundations, even though the government demands that it not pay more than the lowest rate charged to any organization. My colleagues argue that the universities will argue to settle before discovery.
Clearly, 15% is unreasonably low just as present rates of >60% are high. So I'd guess that a settlement in the range of 35% to 45% seems likely. That would cost Harvard or Yale or MIT a few tens of millions of dollars.
What say those of you with experience in this sort og litigation?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I struggle to understand how these universities have a lawful complaint, since when do the recipients of free money have a claim against the people giving them free money?

Surely they don't have some legal right to have the taxpayer subsidize their organizational bloat.

[David Nieporent]

I struggle to understand how these universities have a lawful complaint, since when do the recipients of free money have a claim against the people giving them free money?

Since Congress expressly outlawed exactly what the administration is attempting to do here.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Congress passed a law that said NIH grant overheads must be greater than 15%?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Trump previously floated this idea in 2017 (although he said 10% then), and Congress wasn't happy, and has included in every annual NIH appropriations bill since then a provision forbidding NIH from changing the overhead approval policies from those in effect in the third quarter of 2017 (i.e., before Trump proposed the change).

[bernard11]

I talked to a friend of mine in Birmingham about this a day or two ago. The UAB medical center there is the city's largest employer and contributes massively to the local economy.

Its overhead rate is around 40%. It stands to lose tens of millions as a result of this order. The whole state will suffer, and Britt is squealing like a stuck pig, .

The 34% of Alabamians who voted for Harris have my sympathy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like the universities are the ones squealing.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Why do you feel the need to insert your dog-like urination of a non-sequitur in the middle of an interesting exchange between 2 serious people?
On a subject that you know nothing about? Is there any other kind?
I know you're desperate for attention but can't you take a hint?

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck you very much for your thoughtful contribution.

[Don Nico]

Bernard, the UAB rate is relatively low. But yes, the amount lost to the school would be very large.

[bernard11]

It's an excellent school, which does a lot of good research.

To hobble it financially is an act of idiocy.

The same no doubt could be said of many other institutions as well. I always thought that the American university/research system was a crown jewel (and the eagerness of foreign scholars to come here substantiates that), but the Trumpists seem to hate it, and want to throw away a major American asset.

Of course there are abuses, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, and let's bear in mind that the cost of wiping out petty corruption may be more than the corruption costs.

[Don Nico]

as you point out, the restriction would have to be in evey authorization or Omnibus Bill.

However, my question to litigators is whether the plaintiffs should agree to a settlement.

[Moderation4ever]

I suspect that the colleges and universities will just learn to incorporate the cost into the grant. They will find some line in the grant and increase it proportionally.

[Don Nico]

I doubt that will work in a manner consistent with cost accounting standards. As direct charges most of those items would be explicitly non-allowable direct costs.

[ThePublius]

I'd like those universities to explain why they have different overhead rates for government grants vs. private institutional grants. (The government rates are higher.)

[Don Nico]

The government is explicit that it may not be charged higher rates. That is one reason why the universities have a weakened case.

[John F. Carr]

I heard one reason some durable medical goods are so expensive is the requirement that the government pay no more than other customers. When the government is a big customer prices are set based on what the government is willing to pay. The company would love to sell you a wheelchair at half price but it's illegal.

[ducksalad]

You'd have to look at the details.

Sometimes the private grants are phrased along these lines: "The BFD Foundation gives an unrestricted donation to the University of Northern South Dakota, in recognition of the past contributions of Prof. Wanklefleck in cellular biology."

So technically, there is no statement of work, no legal commitment to do any future research or anything at all, and thus no overhead, anymore than there would be for a scholarship donation.

Now it could that Prof. Wanklefleck just can't resist putting on his resume that he got a prestigious BFD grant, and the university knows that if the money is used to benefit his work, the BFD foundation is likely to donate again. Skirting the law? Maybe, IANAL.

Another route is to have BFD Foundation give a grant for an expensive piece of equipment, e.g. atomic force microscope. Pure equipment grants, even federal ones, typically have no overhead. That enables Prof. Wanklefleck to take the microscope off his NIH grant application and load it up with stuff that gets charged full overhead.

However, if they are real research grants with deliverables or performance measures then you are absolutely correct that it would be an issue.

[Don Nico]

All excellent points, especially regarding outright gifts and provisions of equipment (although there is such an overhead for the first Nk$ at many DOE labs and maybe at some universities). For an NSF MRI grant, it would make a difference if the equipment were an outright purchase or if it involved making by the grantee.

[Commenter_XY]

I think I'd like to see discovery and an audit, Don Nico. I bet it would be illuminating.

[Bored Lawyer]

On my mind, though not a legal issue. My wife's car is a van, 2023 Honda Odyssey. Someone bumped the front. Should be just a minor fender bender, at most $ 100 to fix, if we would even bother. But the car comes with all kinds of electronic safety devices, that sense the cars ahead and to the side, tell you to brake or slow down. I.e., a smart car.
Guess what, the bump threw everything out of alignment and it needed to be recalibrated. Cost? $ 850. The guy who fixed it told my wife he lives in Florida, but travels to NJ one week a month just to do these kinds of fixes. Very lucrative.
So the more computerized gewgaws we have, the more expensive the fixes are.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree it is very irritating, but I feel the sensor features are worth the money so I would bite the bullet.

[Bored Lawyer]

We were not given a choice.

[Mr. Bumble]

The days when you could order a car with the options you choose are long ago and far away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be happy it wasn't hard enough to deploy the air bags.
I had a similar experience with a windshield. Had a stone chip, able to be repaired and my insurance picked it up; no charge to me.
Then a crack developed which couldn't be repaired. New windshield.
Should have been a few hundred bucks at most, but no. Because it has crash avoidance etc. cameras they had to be realigned. Total bill $1200.
No wonder insurance rates are so high.

[Longtobefree]

Hence the adage, 'learn to code' - - - - - - - - - - -

[Commenter_XY]

BL, I'd think about swallowing hard and taking the van to a dealership. The electronics packages in the Odyssey are temperamental. Ask me how I know... 🙂

[Bwaaah]

I knew it was all going to shit when I first had to "re-boot" a toaster. Now it takes 6 minutes for my cable box to turn on.

The cost of features can be expensive. The cost of reliable features is more expensive and often prohibitive. At least you [seem to] find some value in those features in your car.

[bernard11]

I agree the whole "smart appliance" business has gone too far.

I bought a new dishwasher a few years ago. It has some sort of system whereby you can control it from your phone. I wasted about fifteen minutes trying to install the app, make it work, etc., before I realized that was stupid. I have no need or wish to operate the dishwasher from my phone. I load it up, put in detergent, and turn it on. That's it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulation on realizing that you DON'T need an app for that (whatever that is).

[Ca]

Re: Maine firearm waiting period law.

Judge L Walker, US District court chief judge, has placed a temporary injunction against a new state law implementing a firearms waiting period.

Is there any sober non-biased legal analysis of this decision?

[Frank Drackman]

That the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed? WTF do you think waiting is?

[Longtobefree]

"shall not be infringed"

(did you have to submit this post for a review during a waiting period?)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Is there any sober non-biased legal analysis of this decision?

Well, there's the injunction itself.

https://wgme.com/resources/pdf/df042dff-7f87-444e-9961-d535d7a4286c-InjunctionGranted.pdf

[RedheadedPharoh]

Good news for the anti-reformers, pro-corruption types. Judge Tanya got the DOGE/Musk case, so we can already predict the outcome. An unappealable, ex parte, national injunction banning Musk and DOGE from any federal property and also blocking all of Trump's nominees from accessing their staff.

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Red Diaper Baby? Nice. I am sure the draw was random.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it make much difference in DC?

[DIsrobing]

Here's what's on my mind.

When did this place become such a shithole?

I used to avidly read the site at its various homes and now I checked in and I see that there is some disgraceful hack from Top 200 law school cheering along the ongoing destruction of the government and the constitution.

What the fuck is wrong with you platforming such a shithead?

[ThePublius]

If you think that Trump, et.al., are destroying the government and the constitution, then maybe you're the shithead. Ever consider that?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did you take the red pill?

Ever wonder what was in it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why would anyone conjure up such a delusion when you, a lying sack of shit, are already here?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm sure you can find a safe space at some government sponsored site like CNN.

[Bwaaah]

1) It's not "shithole," it's "Mr. Shithole"
2) You seem to fit right in
3) To which "disgraceful hack" are you referring?
4) De-platforming is going out of style; you probably are too

Anyway, welcome back (speaking as one douche bag to another).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How many "Top-200 law school" conspirators do you think there are around here?

[Bwaaah]

I was hoping he would clarify by saying something about hair style.

[wreckinball]

What self respecting libertarian doesn't desire more government?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Axiom: The weaker a President is, the more executive orders he issues. Congressional statutes create lasting change. Executive orders are farts in the wind.

The only thing that allows Trump any power at all is the cowardice of the Republican majority in Congress. Even if they agree with the aim of things the President is doing, they have a constitutional duty to jealously guard their Constitutional power. And that means when the President disobeys a Congressional statute or appropriation, or tries to assume a power that is reserved by the Constitution to the legislative branch, they take action. They swore an oath to do so.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The weaker a President is

Yes, I've been struck by how little impact the White House has been able to have on much of anything these past four weeks. It's rarely even in the news.

[Bob from Ohio]

"cowardice of the Republican majority"

in the Senate not busting the filibuster

They can't pass laws regarding any of these orders. The Dems won't allow it, not spending cuts, not program elimination, not protection of children from mutilation, not anything.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As you rightly pointed out when Obama tried to change immigration law via executive order, the inability or unwillingness of Congress to act doesn't give the President carte blanche to assume legislative power.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That is precisely why the cleansing cannot just end with Trump, and has to include all of his sycophants too.

They are all complicit in the willful violation of our Constitution and laws.

[ducksalad]

I think >50% aren't cowardly at all, they really do love this stuff and never did particularly care about exercising any constitutional authority of their own. One could spin it as being good team players, or as them being only interested in the title, perks, and stepping stone to higher office.

Out of the remainder, yeah, a lot of them are hoping for judges, preferably Republican appointees, to do the "dirty work" so that they can have their authority back without having to openly defy the Prez.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, you are probably right. I had just read an article about one of my Senators, Thom Tillis, who apparently was set to vote against the Hegseth appointment but caved when threatened with being "primaried." Not really the same thing, but I had political cowardice on my mind.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>they have a constitutional duty to jealously guard their Constitutional power.

Which is why they continually dump their power off onto unelected and unaccountable "independent agencies" and create false constructs like "mandatory spending"...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

" U.S. Park Service deletes trans references on Stonewall Monument page"

Following Trump’s executive order recognizing only two genders, the page for the National Monument now describes an “LGB” milestone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2025/02/13/stonewall-transgender-lgb-national-park-service/

I didn't want to recognize the Mets losing to the Dodgers in October but still happened.

[Ska]

I wonder if there are some gay people secretly applauding that change considering the T faction basically hitched themselves to the success of the gay people who did the work.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Speaking of the Park Service, the Trump administration has frozen almost all the hiring of seasonal rangers at all US national parks. The huge majority of rangers you meet when traveling to national parks are hired seasonally, and they do most of the work during busy tourist season. Don't count on our national parks having all accommodations open, or in some cases having any facilities open at all.
It's almost as if they haven't thought through all the repercussions of their actions.

[Frank Drackman]

Good! They just get in the way telling you not to feed the Bears, and if you don’t already know the story of Obsidian Cliff, not like some guy in a Smokey Bear (didn’t he used to be Smokey THE Bear?) Hat is gonna make you smart. National Forests are much better because you can actually shoot and do things there

[tylertusta]

It appears that the days of the United States subsidizing European government spending through defense are coming to a close.

European Union countries will be able to significantly increase their spending on defense under a plan announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, von der Leyen said she wanted to trigger an emergency clause that would allow governments greater leeway so that military expenditure would not be counted in their tightly controlled budget deficit limits.

“I will propose to activate the escape clause for defense investments," she said. "This will allow member states to substantially increase their defense expenditure.”

Von der Leyen demands trigger of emergency clause to massively boost defense spending

This should not have come as a surprise that requires the use of an emergency procedure. There have been multiple signs that was was coming over the past 15 years, yet government and voters are lazy on addressing it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What could possibly go wrong there?

[tylertusta]

The risk here is that Europe still manages to to provide for its own defense and Russia starts snatching up territory.

That isn't a near-term risk, of course. Russia is still mired in Ukraine and won't be in a position to exert hard power on anybody else anytime soon.

[Commenter_XY]

RUS tanks and artillery took a major hit in UKR. I don't have a feel for RUS production and replacement rate.

[tylertusta]

Compared to the prewar situation, Russia's tank inventory is in a tough spot where they're nearing the bottom of what they can pull from deep reserves. Artillery isn't in as bad of a shape, courtesy of being able to stay relatively safe behind the lines and away from direct fire engagements.

But even if the war stops tomorrow, Russia's ground forces are still sufficient to roll over the Baltics with ease and to seriously threaten Polish territory.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me get this straight: They've struggled for several years with Ukraine, but they'd roll over the Baltics with ease even after their war with Ukraine has bled them dry?

[Absaroka]

Population of Russia: 147M
Population of Ukraine: 38M
Population of Estonia: 1.3M

In the initial invasion in 2022 Russia occupied an area roughly equal to Estonia's total area. The Ukranians could trade space for time; the Baltics don't have that luxury.

Russia v Ukraine is a lopsided contest, but Russia v Baltics (without NATO) is lopsided on steroids.

[tylertusta]

The army of Estonia has a grand total of 4000 active duty troops and would rely heavily on conscripts in wartime.

They have no air force worth mentioning, and they gave much of the little heavy equipment they have to Ukraine. The other Baltic states are in a similar situation.

[hobie]

Since Trump called out dwarfs and handicapped people as DEI hires for air traffic controllers, I started to think:

Wouldn't handicapped parking places rank as non-merit based affirmative actions? Unequal treatment? Just because you're black or gay or handicapped, doesn't mean you should get special privileges

[Bwaaah]

You're partially correct. Just because you're black or gay doesn't get you handicapped parking privileges. But hey, in Facetia, any dumbass shit goes amiright?

[ThePublius]

Again, your twisted logic, hobie. I'm sure Trump wouldn't object to dwarves and handicapped people getting handicapped parking. We do handicapped parking in the U.S. because it's the right, moral, compassionate thing to do. It has nothing at all to do with DEI, affirmative action, or anything else.

Maybe you don't understand what affirmative action means. Did we discriminate against handicapped people in the past, and now special parking is supposed to correct that in some way? Ridiculous.

[Sarcastr0]

We do handicapped parking in the U.S. because it's the right, moral, compassionate thing to do

The administration and it's supporters do not believe the US should do things because they are right, moral, or compassionate.

See: USAID, and asylum laws, and the way we're treating our allies, and the 'A' in DEIA that's getting scrubbed.

[ThePublius]

Yes, they are doing things because they are right, moral, or compassionate.

USAID is an enormous money sink and money laundering operation, to the benefit of Democratic, leftist causes. In addition, they spend enormous amounts of taxpayer money on projects that as ridiculous it defies credulity.

For example:
"Trade assistance to Ukraine paid for models and designers to take trips to New York City, London Fashion Week, Paris Fashion Week, and South by Southwest in Austin."

"The agency spent $2 million promoting tourism to Lebanon, a nation the State Department warns against traveling to ‘due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, unexploded landmines, and the risk of armed conflict.'"

And it goes on and on and on, and has been known and reported on for decades. Finally, thanks to Trump and Musk, we are doing something about it.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know what USAID does, it appears. Just what you've been told to believe.

Look at their budget - what they actually spend money on, not random anecdotes you got from Joni Ernst's propaganda mill.

[ThePublius]

Lost cause, Sarcastr0, you are a true believer, I KNOW USAID is a racket. I've read congressional reports on it from long before Ernst was involved, and now Musk and his wunderkids are uncovering all of the waste and corruption.

If you have evidence that USAID is not funding leftist media like Politico, et.al., let me know, I'm all ears. And if you can justify these wacky programs, likewise. Like, why are they spending money to teach Moroccans how to make pottery? They've been doing it since 6,000 B.C. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Cry havoc and let loose the DOGE of war!

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I don't believe this. I don't think you've long studied USAID and knew it was a racket. Because 1) you've never mentioned it, and 2) that's not true.

Link to the Congressional reports you've read. And I don't mean press releases. I mean reports.

Last week I went to usapending.gov and see what they spent the bulk of their money on last quarter. It was AIDS relief. And vaccinations. Both in Africa.
Right, moral, compassionate things. Not money laundering, you brainless stenographer.

[ThePublius]

I thought you were trying to be a kinder, gentler Sarcastr0 this year. What's with the insults? Just make your argument.

Here's a link:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc123537/

[Sarcastr0]

"Wastebook 2012"

Have some self-respect.

[Absaroka]

A few examples of where you disagree with the report would be helpful.

I glanced at it and one of its complaints was that SNAP eligible foods weren't all, shall we say, basic nutrition. So I hied off to amazon and entered 'snap eligible' as a search term.

"Ferrero Rocher, 48 Count, Premium Gourmet Assorted Hazelnut Milk Chocolate ... Gift Box" is eligible. So is Starbucks Nitro Cold Brew Coffee in a can.

...

[Absaroka]

...Or the item titled "Oklahoma keeps unused airport open to collect federal checks". He footnotes the various items - there are over a thousand footnotes. Here's the one for the airport story. It does sound a little sus: "Oklahoma Aeronautics Commissioners prolonged the life of Lake Murray State Park Airport in Ardmore on Thursday despite the request of the state Tourism and Recreation Department — and the commission’s own director — to close the rarely used airstrip....Their concerns included giving up the ability to accept $150,000 in federal money each year, in the form of non-primary entitlement funds, that can be transferred to other airports. Roughly $1 million has been received since 2001, not including $600,000 in the bank that probably will be transferred next year."

[David Nieporent]

If you have evidence that USAID is not funding leftist media like Politico, et.al., let me know,

That's… not how it works. (How would one supply evidence that USAID wasn't doing something?) Setting aside the loony-tunesness of claiming that Politico is "leftist," USAID is not "funding" Politico. We went over this one two weeks ago; why are you still repeating it?

Repeating talking points about Moroccan pottery without actually reviewing the actual grant is pointless, and also this was an old talking point a decade ago. Maybe it was wasteful. Or maybe it's not being characterized accurately, in terms of its purpose or function. You don't even seem to grasp what USAID is for.

[David Nieporent]

USAID is an enormous money sink and money laundering operation, to the benefit of Democratic, leftist causes

USAID is a tiny fraction of the budget, is not a "money laundering operation," and does not act "to the benefit of Democratic, leftist causes."

[ThePublius]

"The American people have rightly been appalled at the outrageous expenditures Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been exposing at USAID, which not only demonstrates the striking wastefulness of our government but also an ingenious public relations strategy by the Trump administration.

When Americans learn that their tax dollars are going to fund egregious projects around the world, it lays a foundation for the public relations framework needed by the Trump administration to bring American public opinion along on the necessary journey of restructuring the government. It makes people’s blood boil."

https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/16/the-genius-of-the-doge-exposures/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=act_eng&seyid=51616

[MoreCurious]

Earlier today there was at least one exchange of back-and-forth retorts along the lines of: "You lied!" "No, you lied!" "But you lied more!" "But you can't even read!" Discourse like this occurs regularly and frequently on this blog, but other than here, the last time I heard conversations at this level was in middle school.

Wouldn't it would be nice if the idiots who insist on engaging in this childish behavior would simply go away so the VC could return to its roots as a place for the discussion and debate of legal issues by people in the legal profession? (If I were in charge, I'd insist that no one could comment without first showing proof of a law school diploma (even Cooley Law School.)

[David Nieporent]

even Cooley Law School.)

Surely not South Texas College of Law, though!

[MoreCurious]

Surely that can't be a jab at any particular conspirator, can it?

[David Nieporent]

Why, does that apply to any of them? I had no idea. I just picked a school totally at random.

[ducksalad]

1. Professor Volokh has been letting non-lawyers comment, even way back before the Washington Post days when he was personally moderating content.

2. How sure are you that the offending commenters aren't lawyers....

[MoreCurious]

Drackman? Dr. Bob? The Pharoh [sic] guy? Michael P.? Mr. Dallas?

I'd make a small wager that watching Law & Order reruns is about as close as any of them ever got to a law school. In fact, their level of writing sometimes makes me wonder if they ever made it out of high school.

[Frank Drackman]

You know who didn't go to Law School? or College either?, Abraham Lincoln, other POTUS's who practiced Law without going to Law School, Only John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan, and Garfield.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Most of the time it is actually pretty easy to tell who is and isn’t a lawyer.

There have been plenty of excellent non-lawyer commenters over the many years I’ve been coming here, and some of the lawyers are not so great. But if you were going to use one tool to class up the place and get it back to the point where Supreme Court justices were reading it, that would be a good start.

[Frank Drackman]

How do you know I'm not "Big Brain" Brett? or Sammy "The Knife"? or Clarence "Frogman" Thomas? or even the Chief Judge himself?

[Absaroka]

Sometimes I wish there was some kind of a quota or something. If each commenter was limited to 10 a day or 30 a week or whatever, people would have to decide which points were most important to them.

Here is the count by user for this thread as of a half hour or so ago:

Commenter_XY 47
Sarcastr0 33
DavidNieporent 30
FrankDrackman 25
Mr.Bumble 22
LawTalkingGuy 16
notguilty 14
Dr.Ed 13
JoshR 13
ObviouslyNotSpam 12
MichaelP 12
BobfromOhio 12
Joe_dallas 12
DonNico 10
Bwaaah 9
DixieTune 8
AlpheusWDrinkwater 8
tylertusta 8
RedheadedPharoh 8
Nosciturasociis 7
JasonCavanaugh 7
ThePublius 6
WuzYoungOnceToo 6
bernard11 6
Riva 6
CountmontyC 5
AJapaneseStudent 5
MoreCurious 4
ducksalad 4
JoeFromtheBronx 4
Estragon 4
Moderation4ever 4
Zarniwoop 4
hobie 3
JohnF.Carr 3
Absaroka 3
Cokaw86761 3
StephenLathrop 3
ReaderY 3
Longtobefree 2
BoredLawyer 2
SimonP 2
Ska 2
wreckinball 1
DIsrobing 1
Ca 1
Krayt 1
MichaelEjercito 1
SRG2 1
TwelveInchPianist 1
Drewski 1

[Bwaaah]

Tell me I have to limit my remarks to important ones, and I'll shut up.

[ThePublius]

"(If I were in charge, I'd insist that no one could comment without first showing proof of a law school diploma (even Cooley Law School.)"

Well, thank goodness you aren't in charge. Just because you don't have a law school diploma doesn't mean you are not interested in the law. And, besides, this is an 'Open Thread,' meaning it doesn't have to be about the law.

[MoreCurious]

I'm not talking about people who are genuinely "interested in the law." I'm talking about the people who have hijacked the VC and day after day trash it with their vulgar, hateful, racist bigotry.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, I hate those guys.

[Bwaaah]

As people try to avert their eyes, do you ever feel like the Elephant Man? Or is it always pretty much just pure Sinatra?

[ThePublius]

I agree with you on that. Perhaps my bias is showing, but it seems to me that the vulgarity and calling everyone with whom you disagree a liar is a phenomenon of the left and progressives. One more often sees "you lying shitbag" on here than "I disagree," or "I think you are mistaken."

I would like to see a return to civility, and no vulgarity.

[Bwaaah]

I see that "you're a liar" thing from the left and the right. But more interesting in the context of the OP is that I see it routinely from lawyers commenting on VC (and in today's discussion as typical).

Setting aside the technical challenges of implementing a lawyers-only requirement, and setting aside the seeming inconsistency of such a requirement with the general sentiments of the blog's namesake, it strikes me as a notably indiscriminate and arbitrary basis on which to shut down voices. It would eliminate some clearly reasonable and salient contributors.

And more plainly, it looks like a "shut them up" request. I think that's a horrible way to navigate the problems of disagreement, however foolish and offensive the OP may view comments as being. I think lawyers should be unusually well-equipped to tolerate (ignore?) unhelpfully contrary arguments, and generally speaking, I find them to be quite ably so.

One suggestion I'd offer is that the OP should avoid pressing a 'Submit' button when he/she is feeling annoyed and fed up.

[hobie]

I had to stop reading National Review comments over 10 years ago. It used to be only peopled by conservative intellectuals. Back then they would never suffer the mendacity and hatred on display here. Now this blog is going the same way by the same types of people. I require polite dialogue. Can anyone recommend another blog that hasn't gone to shit?

[Frank Drackman]

Says the guy who calls anyone who gets his hands dirty a "Hillbilly"

[ducksalad]

You could go over to the daily Reason Roundup thread on the other tab for a week. Then come back and you'll realize this side is still noticeably better.

But to answer your question, if I found such a blog it would be like finding a good hole-in-the-wall restaurant. Wouldn't want to ruin it by letting everyone know.

[Bwaaah]

Hobie: "I require polite dialogue."

Hobie said that. Hobie.

[tylertusta]

He's been up front that he pretends to be civil elsewhere, but here he will not be civil to anyone he disagrees with politically.

I think he's full of shit. He's just looking for new places to troll.

[ThePublius]

"I require polite dialogue."

That's laughable. You are one of the leaders on this blog at insult hurling. Try being polite, yourself, and maybe it will pay dividends.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you're talking about me. Though I do have a law school diploma, it is quite rusty. (still useful to have PhDs see JD and call me doctor lol)

I was messing about more than usual today. I will try and do better with the heat/light ratio.
I was just reflecting yesterday that I need to be more willing to not get into a reply chain as often. Cut it off at 1 or something.

Course that was my plan come the new year and so far no dice.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice of you to admit you are a douche or should we say Dr. Douche?

[BrotherMovesOn]

And, as if on cue, Bumble comes in with a seventh-grade insult to prove MoreCurious' point!
I wonder if that old coot can tie his own shoes.

[Mr. Bumble]

And as if on cue my troll comes out from the closet to snipe and then scurry back.

[MoreCurious]

SarcastrO: I'll be the first to admit that it's tempting to feed the trolls. But then I remind myself that I wouldn't waste any time having a beer or cup of coffee with Drackman, et al., so why in the hell would I waste even a minute trying to have an intelligent conversation with them?

[Frank Drackman]

Your loss

[Voize of Reazon]

In President Trump's latest tariff musings he complains of discriminatory taxes imposed by trading partners "including value-added taxes". I seem to recall he had this same complaint the last time around but it didn't make any more sense then than now since a VAT, like a sales tax, is charged on domestic and foreign goods alike.

[Steven410]

Under international trade rules, VAT can be refunded when an item is exported, but income tax cannot. In other words, the price a German manufacturer charges to its American customers does not include a cut to the German government, since the German government uses VAT and not an income tax. Thus the German company can sell at a lower price abroad than it does domestically or enjoy a higher profit margin. In contrast, the American manufacturer is taxed on its profits from a sale whether the item is sold in the United States or to Germany. In effect, VAT provides an incentive to export, whereas income taxes are neutral. This scheme was set up in the post WWII era to help European countries boost their exports and rebuild their economies after the war.

[Voize of Reazon]

Steven, you are very mistaken if you believe that Germany doesn't tax corporate profits. About 30%, which is comparable or higher than U.S. corporate taxes depending on the state.
They also have a consumption tax, VAT, charged on foreign and domestic products like a sales tax is.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A note on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Gutting it is a bad idea.

Without it, there is nobody to protect you if, for instance, a credit reporting agency takes improper action to destroy your credit rating, then approaches you via an associated company to repair the damage, but only if you sign up for substantial monthly charges to your bank account for alleged monitoring and counseling.

[ThePublius]

Consumer protection is good. The structure and organization, funding and oversight of CFPB was bad. They answered to nobody, by design.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I wonder what Trump's own credit rating is? His record on paying what he owes is . . .

[John F. Carr]

His consumer credit rating, the kind generated by a computer, may be very good. His business reputation is bad enough that he had trouble getting loans.

[ThePublius]

Trump is living in your head rent free.

[Commenter_XY]

A newly freed American hostage, Keith Siegel, thanks POTUS Trump

https://x.com/bringhomenow/status/1890359224107942065

The hamas human animals tortured and starved this American for 484 days. America should neither forget nor forgive.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Odd because it was Biden who freed him.

[ThePublius]

How do you figure that?

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Let's depopulate Gaza" Trump would not have gotten any kind of deal with Hamas. They probably would have killed the hostages. What did they have to lose?

[ThePublius]

I'm not following you. Trump has been insisting on the release of the hostages, since even before the inauguration. Hostage released, and thanks Trump. Do you have any evidence that he was released because of Biden, or do you just say that because you hate Trump?

BTW, more hostages were released this morning. Credit Biden?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They are being released per the ceasefire deal announced by Biden on Jan. 16.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but it was key negotiator, Steve Witkoff, President-elect Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, who got the deal done. Before he arrived on the scene nothing was happening.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not true. See Joe's comment below. It was a long process and beyond the capabilities of the "Art of the [Ghostwritten] Deal" guy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reportedly, the family thanked both Biden and Trump:

https://abc13.com/post/keith-siegel-niece-former-hamas-hostage-says-he-is-doing-remarkably-release/15864483/

His niece cited the long diplomacy involved:

"What we have learned over these past 15 months is that it's only diplomacy and political agreement that is going to bring the rest of the hostages home," Hanna Siegel said. "We are encouraging everybody involved to keep the ceasefire going."

OTOH, perhaps magically Trump freed the hostages by using a few tough words.

[ThePublius]

We now know that during this entire period that Biden was mentally incompetent. Might just as well credit Obama, for what that's worth.

[Sarcastr0]

We don't know that. Missed enough of a step there would be too much risk keeping him as President, but the right-wing exercise of going way farther to the point of diagnosing with Parkinson's or advanced dementia or, as you have it, full incompetence, is just the usual practice of spouting bullshit and then believing it.

That you take refuge in that to give all credit to Trump despite JoeFromtheBronx's evidence shows how petty you are.

[ThePublius]

Well, you can believe what you want, despite the fact that his own inner circle have said he was unable to fulfill his duties.

And, if you think the fact that Trump had been elected, made his 'hell to pay' remarks, and sent Steve Whitkoff to negotiate had no significant impact on Hamas' decision to agree to the deal, then you are living in a fantasy world.

Why couldn't Biden get this done previously? Why did it have to wait until January?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's not what his inner circle said. If applied in the way you would have it, it means Trump was never able to fulfill his duties.

[ThePublius]

That's probably the case. That's why he ran a basement campaign in 2019.

[ThePublius]

I was referring to Biden.

[ThePublius]

BTW, "Mental incompetency is a legal term that means someone lacks the mental capacity to manage their own affairs or participate in legal proceedings. It can be caused by a mental illness or disability. " Remember Robert Hurr declining to recommend charging Biden, as he was "an old man with a poor memory?" I'd call that lacking capacity to participate in a legal proceeding, wouldn't you?

[ThePublius]

"According to one person with direct knowledge of the talks, it was President Donald Trump's insistence that Israel and Hamas agree to the truce by the time he took office on Jan. 20, and that "all hell would break loose if the hostages were not released," that was the decisive factor."

"Still, the person familiar with the matter, who is not a U.S. official, said Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, was able to get Qatar and Egypt − the truce's other mediators − to persuade Hamas to accept terms they would not previously. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the diplomatic discussions."

"However, the person said that it was effectively the Trump factor that in the end persuaded Hamas to do the deal when it did. The person said that when Biden was president, Hamas perceived what was described as daylight between the U.S. and Israeli negotiating positions on the deal's terms and would routinely use this "daylight" to seek additional concessions from mediators that delayed getting the agreement done."

Read the whole thing:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/01/24/gaza-ceasefire-trump-israel-behind-the-scenes/77875251007/

[Commenter_XY]

Bottom line....hamas ignored the cauliflower from 12/23 until POTUS Trump was elected (11/24). That was because he was weak, and useless.

Post-election, after Pres-elect explicitly threatened hamas (and the region), the deal was done.

[ThePublius]

Agreed.

[Bwaaah]

If I am to believe that Biden succeeded in obtaining the release of hostages, then I would also believe he succeeded in obtaining the humiliation of it being done quite late, too late, in his game.

But I really believe that people who assert such a theory don't adequately distinguish success from humiliation, and the degree to which those two states of being can't simultaneously manifest, meaningfully, at the same time in one person.

I think history will note the likeness of this moment to the hostages in Iran in 1980, and more so, Biden's success in this matter will loom as large as Jimmy Carter's did/does.

I don't know who did what. I just know how it plays, and that matters. This isn't a Biden win, and it touches upon the absurd to say that it is.

[ThePublius]

-

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit, construing New Hampshire's version of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, held that the information on a driver's license is not protected from disclosure by state law. Plaintiffs were asked to show a license when returning merchandise without a receipt. Defendant stores shared that information with a company called The Retail Equation. TRE's computers help the store detect fraudulent returns. (It is not stated and not relevant whether the decision is based on newfangled AI or old fashioned algorithms.) If the license was a "motor vehicle record" sharing was illegal and the plaintiffs each get $2,500 statutory damages.

As a matter of state law, a driver's license is not a "motor vehicle record" because it is not kept in state files. No $2,500. Not yours. If Home Depot ran your license plate and shared that information you would have a better case. (But thanks to pervasive surveillance, it should not be hard for a well funded company to build a shadow DMV database.)

Smith v. Home Depot, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1086P-01A.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"reading the whole thing," the cited USA Today article notes:

"But no hard evidence to definitely prove what sealed the deal."

The selective quotation aside, we are told also that "Others say that's vastly overstating Trump's role."

If we accept the anonymous source:

The person familiar with the matter is someone who closely observed the Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage negotiations for the past 15 months, including an earlier agreement reached in November 2023. The person said that, ultimately, both U.S. envoys − Witkoff and McGurk − were instrumental in securing the deal. It was a joint effort between the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations, the person said.

Such things are drawn-out matters that require careful diplomatic negotiations. Hopefully without too many "rookie mistakes" or vice presidents who disrespect major allies by doing things such as instructing them to accept far-right groups.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/world/europe/scholz-vance-munich-germany.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today's Supreme Court history moment is the swearing-in of Justice John Rutledge on 2/15/1790. He served for a short time and resigned to become chief justice of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions.

Rutledge later obtained a recess appointment to become the second Chief Justice but mental instability and opposition to the Jay's Treaty led him not to be confirmed. He died a few years later.

Years later, Justice Charles Evan Hughes resigned to run for president, and then later was successfully confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Oakes v. Mase, 165 U.S. 363 (decided February 15, 1897): vacating judgment for engineer’s estate because negligence causing his death (a switch left open) was caused by conductor on another train who was a “fellow servant” (this was before the Federal Employers’ Liability Act was passed in 1908); Montana had a statute allowing corporate liability for acts of fellow servants but Court is bound by Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that statute violated state constitution

Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. David, 284 U.S. 460 (decided February 15, 1932): vacating judgment in FELA suit arising out of murder of night watchman by robbers; he assumed the risk, even though boss’s informant knew robbery was coming (though he didn’t inform boss) and watchman would have taken extra precautions if he’d known

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Saxon, 284 U.S. 458 (decided February 15, 1932): widow’s suit against railroad properly dismissed; brakeman last seen running beside train and then fell under it without any witnesses, but jury could not infer from testimony of boy who saw depressed footprint in soft area that brakeman fell due to softness

United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 318 U.S. 206 (decided February 15, 1943): dismisses case brought by Native American to get telephone poles off her land; it was technically no longer a “reservation” because tribe had moved to Mexico and then come back, and issue was decided by state law, which allowed poles on highway even if put up by private corporation

Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. of Florida, 284 U.S. 498 (decided February 15, 1932): IRS overstepped by classifying “nut margarine” as taxable oleo-margarine; contained no animal fat

[ThePublius]

Sous vide, anyone? Thinking of trying it. I have a large cache of USDA Prime beef in the freezer. I've heard sous vide can produce wonderful steaks. Of course, it's good for other foods, too. A friend is going to gift me a sous vide 'motor,' which I will deploy to a small cooler I have.

I'd like to hear of others' experiences with this cooking method.

[Brett Bellmore]

So far the only thing I've really done with it was eggs. Works great for those, though! I do want to try it next time I smoke a brisket, though.

My limited experience says that the most important thing is keeping the food submerged and the water circulating, because you're cooking so close to "too cool" that even a little stratification can get you in trouble.

[ThePublius]

Thanks.

[SRG2]

Best way to cook pork tenderloin, IMO. No risk of overcooking.

But DO NOT sous vide fish.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. Curious, why not fish?

[Sarcastr0]

Man Randy Barnette's been on that MAGA law prof train.

Got a 14A birthright thing of ignoring the text and getting into the weeds. Advocate dressed as an analyst.

Many such cases.

[ThePublius]

Are you talking about his editorial in the NYTimes today?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/opinion/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for the cite.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No final "e."

[SRG2]

Trump on TruthSocial today: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." (attrib Napoleon)

Bill Kristol's response: ""We're getting into real Führerprinzip territory here."

This is not how the US is supposed to operate. It was the principle by which Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia operated.

[ThePublius]

It's also how Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, and others operated.

There are bad laws and regulations and agencies, and it seems the only way to effectively contest them is to defy them. So, let's have a contest, in court, preferably SCOTUS, on many of these issues. Let's start with federal judges' TROs and national injunctions.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thomas Jefferson argued that at times a president must act to save the country even if this might violate laws. This would be an extreme act, not to be taken rashly.

He said the president would then have to throw themselves at the mercy of the people and laws to see if they accept what they did.

Trump doesn't accept that. He wants to be immune from any consequences. He also lacks judgment.

President Lincon's suspension of habeas corpus was partially defended on these grounds. Lincoln used that as an extreme case. He thought -- with Congress out of session and a rebellion threatening public safety -- he had the power to suspend.

When Congress came back into session, they accepted his decision. If they did not, Lincoln's principles would not allow him simply to ignore them. Lincoln accepted we are a nation of laws, not monarchial power based on the whims of one person.

Trump again thinks differently.

[Mr. Bumble]

...in your opinion.

[Commenter_XY]

American hostage, Sagui Dekel-Chen, released yesterday.

He was starved and tortured in captivity by hamas human animals.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-842265

When the ceasefire ends, I hope the US takes a much more active role in hunting hamas down and killing them, no matter where they are in the world. No one involved with his abduction, captivity, and torture should die a natural death.

[ThePublius]

"I hope the US takes a much more active role in hunting hamas down and killing them...."

Mossad is pretty good at that.

[ThePublius]

Why is the left hyperventilating over Trump's threat of reciprocal tariffs? They seem perfectly fair to me. NYTimes' Peter Goodman pulls out all the stops against it in this piece, "How Trump’s One-for-One Tariff Plan Threatens the Global Economy."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/business/trump-tariffs-global-economy.html

[Commenter_XY]

TDS, or WMV (Woke Mind Virus)

[bernard11]

Why is the left hyperventilating over Trump's threat of reciprocal tariffs?

Because they are a really stupid idea. "If other countries have rocky coasts should we block up our harbors?"