Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A second United States District Judge, Brendon Hurson, has issued a preliminary injunction blocking executive orders signed by President Trump that target transgender young people and their health care, clearing the way for hospitals to provide the treatment. While the first order was limited to the four plaintiff states, the instant order is nationwide in scope. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616.115.0.pdf

The Court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that the challenged provisions of the Executive Orders place significant conditions on federal funding that Congress did not prescribe in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, such that the President's action is ultra vires, that the Executive Orders are ultra vires in that they conflict with statutory law (namely, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C § 18116, and Section 1908 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300w-7) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and that that the Executive Orders' effective ban on all gender-affirming care for those under nineteen by federally funded institutions is not substantially related to the important government interest of protecting children, such that the challenged orders violate the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Eventually we'll get you sick fucks to stop mutilating children.

[not guilty]

I like a good non sequitur as well as the next fellow, but WTF??

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I’ll try, the group of Southern Klansmen didn’t castrate the young Black man, they provided him “Gender-affirming care”

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

At least the Klan didn't bill the US taxpayers.

Reality is that we are rationing medical care in this country, so other people are dying to fund this foolishness.

[Frank Drackman]

Until "47" got back into Orifice they were doing Female/Male Genital Mutilation Surgery at US Military Hospitals, Womack Army Medical Center at Fort Bragg for one.

[Riva]

It’s not a non sequitur. The vile trans movement and its sick practices are child abuse, not medical treatment. And if the democrats want to commit political suicide promoting this obscene and unpopular agenda, I’m not getting in the way. But as for the legal merits, there are none. NO statute requires federal monies go to support this trans insanity and there certainly is NO constitutional right for parents and doctors to mutilate children. These monies were being spent not because the law required it, but because it was a policy priority of the corrupt Biden regime. President Trump has decided that such child abuse is not the policy going forward.

[Malika]

This is the same President whose administration reportedly pressured Romania to release the Tate brothers, who are being investigated for, among other things, trafficking minors? And who nominated for AG a guy credibly accused of having sex with minors?

[not guilty]

"And who nominated for AG a guy credibly accused of having sex with minors?"

What on earth are you talking about?

[Magister]

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

President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate Gaetz to serve as United States attorney general

The Ethics Committee report concluded that Gaetz had violated Florida state laws, including those prohibiting statutory rape, procurement of prostitution, and illicit drug use

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

[not guilty]

Fine. I had forgotten about Matt Gaetz.

[neurodoc]

You forgot Matt Gaetz?! Who among Trump's Cabinet nominees was more singularly "inappropriate" than Matt? (I would argue RFK, Jr. was the winner of "most inappropriate," but would allow Matt as runner-up.)

[not guilty]

Riva, have you read Judge Hurson's order? Yes or no?

[Riva]

It’s insane and this matter should have been dismissed on standing grounds alone. But as to other gross errors, there is NO statutory mandate, no legislative directive, that monies be allocated to fuel the trans insanity and NO constitutional right to have one’s genitalia lopped off at gov’t expense. Those are insane judicial fabrications. The executive certainly has discretion not to award grant monies for the study or practice of the mutilation of children (or adults for that matter, even if the adult is deranged)

[David Nieporent]

That was a longwinded "no."

[not guilty]

You dodged the question, Riva. Have you read Judge Hurson's order? Yes or no?

I promise that it won't break your keyboard to give a straight answer.

Here the President has transgressed the spending power granted to Congress under Article I. The President's authority to act "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). And when it comes to spending, the President has none of "his own constitutional powers" to "rely" upon. Id., at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring); City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 2018).

The President cannot unilaterally impose conditions on federal spending when the Congress has not done so.

[Riva]

It’s not a serious question, it’s an asinine childish remark.

And President Trump has not transgressed any congressional powers, which is somewhat ironic when it is the judiciary that is transgressing executive authority. There is no statutory policy to spend monies on child mutilation research. He is no more violating any legislative mandates by not funding that obscenity than he would be if he denied monies for the research of creative ways to sterilize minority populations.

[not guilty]

You once more dodged the question. Have you read Judge Hurson's order? Yes or no?

Criticizing the content of a document without having read it is unprincipled and just bizarre -- even moreso when the criticism consists of begging questions and ipse dixit blather.

[Riva]

Stop with the nonsense. And just to clarify, because (and I certainly don't want to be discourteous but there's just no other way to say it) some seriously f'ing stupid trolls here may opine that a case challenging an EO that limits research grants to fund or promote the trans insanity somehow has nothing to to with funding research.

But that may indirectly point to some of the standing errors inherent in this steaming pile of district court crap. No one can identify at this stage, what specific grants are at stake. But that didn't stop this judge. And we should also note that the mutilation of children encouraged by the trans cultists is NOT medical care, it is child abuse. There are, it goes without saying, no statutory mandates requiring such sick practices and denying monies to further such abuse is not beyond executive discretion.

[not guilty]

Everything you have said has nothing whatsoever to do with the separation of powers and/or equal protection issues addressed in Judge Hurson's preliminary injunction order. It's quite evident that you haven't read the order.

[Riva]

There is no separation of powers issue, unless it’s a judicial hack intruding on executive discretion.

There is no equal protection issue, There is no insane trans class given special privileges under the law to mutilate children.

[not guilty]

Riva, if you have read the order and nevertheless claim that there are no separation of powers or equal protection issues, then you are a shameless liar.

If you have not read the order, you are merely an ignoramus.

Offering your opinion that the issues presented by the plaintiffs are not meritorious is a far different thing from asserting that they are not issues. Is it difficult to comment with pants on fire?

[David Nieporent]

Bot is doing its usual talking point non-response. This case has nothing to do with the federal government funding trans research. (In fact, it has nothing to do with trans research at all.) This has to do with the federal government yanking money away from otherwise qualified institutions that also provide what they call "gender affirming care." The president has no lawful authority to condition funding on things that he or she likes or doesn't like. Only Congress can decide what conditions to attach to funding.

[Satchmo_Lives]

First, you show me where congress appropriated funds for the procedures to be paid for by taxpayers and not Biden using discretionary funds to do so, or sliding it into executive branch edicts regulations.

And don't forget Europe is shutting this shit down for lack of supporting data. But by all means keep arguing attempts by Trump to shut down irreversible procedures, and life altering procedures on children, not supported by hard science is the real problem.

[David Nieporent]

This suit is not about funding for trans procedures. This is about yanking all federal funds from entities (e.g., hospitals) that perform such procedures, regardless of who pays for those procedures. For example, if a hospital is receiving federal funds to do cancer drug trials, Trump is saying, "Stop doing trans procedures or lose your cancer research funding."

[Krayt]

To give you more credit than it's due, at least go through some kind of scientific analysis instead of just declaring it, the way a buffoon might just declare canceling all vaccines.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The science behind mutilating children? The Nazis claimed there was science behind what they did too.

[Frank Drackman]

Vee Half Vays off making you talk Vith High pitched Voice!

[Martinned2]

WTF is wrong with you?

[tylertusta]

I guess you didn't accept my offer.

[Joe_dallas]

Twelve is in favor of high quaility and effective medical and mental health treatment!

Now tell us whether you for or against the chemical and surgical mutilation of minors?

[VinniUSMC]

Nazi Martin, are you offended that TIP compared you to child abusers, or do you just support child abuse?

[Sarcastr0]

I would estimate 40% of your posts are just to call Martinned2 a Nazi.

[RedheadedPharoh]

And 99% of yours are finger wagging, harumphing, and tut tuting.

Like an ol' jobless? hen

[Sarcastr0]

Riva-bot level post, TiP.

I'm sure the tone police will be around to ding you for invoking the Nazis any day now.

[Malika]

Pretty sure the Nazi stuff was in large part considered bad because it was done against the will of the subjects. A libertarian might find that to be a big distinction.

[Ed Grinberg]

TwelveInch specifically objected to "mutilating children." Are you not familiar with the legal concept of invalid consent? Ever hear of statutory rape?

[Malika]

This is the same President whose administration reportedly pressured Romania to release the Tate brothers, who are being investigated for, among other things, trafficking minors? And who nominated for AG a guy credibly accused of having sex with minors?

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not off the hook, they're just getting to wait in the US, their home country, for the trial to actually be scheduled. At least such is my understanding.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Your point being…?

You claim to be willing to criticize Trump when he does something bad. Here’s your chance to prove it!

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think he's done something bad here. The Tate brothers have been indicted, not convicted, and they've spent, IIRC, a couple years now trapped in Romania waiting for the authorities there to get around to holding a trial.

I see nothing wrong with arranging for them to be able to wait here rather than there.

Now, if a trial gets scheduled, and some excuse is made for not extraditing them back to Romania, then there will be a basis for complaint.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think he's done something bad here.

That's the problem.

[Satchmo_Lives]

nas, so you are not in favor of bail? Got it.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Wow, what did you think you were saying ? A buffoon canceling vaccines-- right out of an opium dream and served up like an argument by a seeming adult

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe the autism statistics that Trump cited are accurate.

Anyone disagree with his conclusion that we need to find out why?

[Frank Drackman]

Mostly because in 1970, boys like Musk and myself were just considered strange, now we're "On the Spectrum". If there's a vaccine link I suspect the Tetanus shot, I probably got 2-3 a year growing up, and even in today's high tech Trauma ER's, it's part of the initial treatment for any Trauma case with a penetrating or crushing wound, do you carry your Tetanus documentation with you?

Frank

[Krayt]

Observe the goalpost shifting. The original autism vaccine concept wss mercury in it and some reaction. They removed mercury, rates continued to climb.

This guy, by the way, was working to find something for lawyers to sue over. You vaccine Big Pharma profiteer folks can stick that in your vape pen and flick it on.

At least you're still trying to tie vaccines to autism even though there is no evidence. The other fork of meme evolution has forgotten the "autism" reason for it being bad, and has just assumed some general bad undefined thing. Or profiteering Big Pharma.

Tell me, have they cured cancer already but refuse to release it? Family Guy thinks so. You're in good company!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kraft, while I agree that the criteria for diagnosis has been lowered, the fact remains that there still appears to be more of it.

I'm not saying it's Thermosol (or the mercury/silver fillings in out teeth). Nor did Trump say that.

[neurodoc]

There has been NO credible scientific evidence that links the MMR vaccine to autism. If you think there has been some credible evidence of a link between MMR and autism, please cite it. Can/will you do it, or will you keep on nattering about that which you know nothing about?

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the links between thimerosal and autism have been utterly discredited, but I am aware of no studies that address Thermosal.

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, Thermosol.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I did not say that the MMR vaccine was responsible.
I did not even say that there was more total autism.
I said that there APPEARS TO BE more.

Assuming that there actually IS more, and not just more being diagnosed, it could be caused by space lasers for all we know. (And older mothers has been suggested.)

I'm not saying there definitely is more, nor what is causing it. How in &^%#$%%#@@$%$# does that relate to the MMR vaccine?!?

[Malika]

Oh, You're
Strange.

[A Japanese Student]

Medicine is a self-regulating field. The fact that a government is trying to ban certain treatments (when performed with patients' informed consent) is definitely concerning.

[Mr. Bumble]

Care to expand on that "self-regulating"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Left to themselves, doctors only perform procedures that they get paid to perform, rather than random procedures. That's about the extent of "self-regulation".

[Malika]

That's a pretty cynical way to think of doctors. Do engineers like you only do projects you get paid to do with no thought to morality or professional standards? I mean, if we had a burgeoning Nazi movement you'd happily perform engineering tasks for them as long as they paid you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant institutionally self regulating, not individually self regulating.

As an engineer there are many potential jobs my scruples wouldn't allow me to take, and I assume that the same is true of most doctors.

This is different from saying that the engineering or medical profession would intervene to stop us from taking them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malika, if Nazis-R-Us wanted to build a building, I can see a distinguished engineer agreeing to design it for the same reason that a distinguished Jewish lawyer represented them during the Boston Bussing mess when Garrity threw them in jail for merely setting foot in the city of Boston.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Medicine ceased being a self-regulating field with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, and definitely with the Medicare Act of 1965. But 1914 was when MDs went to prison for providing treatment performed with patient's informed consent -- before that they could prescribe opiates and cocaine as they saw fit.

Although you might also wish to look into the bans on abortion and the Cumstock Acts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Parents are told "Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?". Hopefully we can agree that such claims are malpractice and any practitioner who makes them deserves to lose their license and go to jail.

And if the parents persist in the refusal to consent, they will lose custody.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the NYT article:

But rather than being treated as patients who deserve unbiased professional help, children with gender dysphoria often become political pawns.

Conservative lawmakers are working to ban access to gender care for minors and occasionally for adults as well. On the other side, however, many medical and mental health practitioners feel their hands have been tied by activist pressure and organizational capture. They say that it has become difficult to practice responsible mental health care or medicine for these young people.

Pediatricians, psychologists and other clinicians who dissent from this orthodoxy, believing that it is not based on reliable evidence, feel frustrated by their professional organizations. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have wholeheartedly backed the gender-affirming model.

In 2021, Aaron Kimberly, a 50-year-old trans man and registered nurse, left the clinic in British Columbia where his job focused on the intake and assessment of gender-dysphoric youth. Kimberly received a comprehensive screening when he embarked on his own successful transition at age 33, which resolved the gender dysphoria he experienced from an early age.

But when the gender-affirming model was introduced at his clinic, he was instructed to support the initiation of hormone treatment for incoming patients regardless of whether they had complex mental problems, experiences with trauma or were otherwise “severely unwell,” Kimberly said. When he referred patients for further mental health care rather than immediate hormone treatment, he said he was accused of what they called gatekeeping and had to change jobs.

[Sarcastr0]

You linked to an opinion piece, TiP.
That's not going to be journalism, it's going to be argumentation and anecdotes.

That's fine and all, but you seem to be offering it as generalizable fact.
Are you appealing to the authority of Pamela Paul?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You've never heard of opinion journalism?
You've claimed several times that we should rely on the accuracy of the NYT because they have standards. As the NYT says, "These guidelines generally apply to all members of the news and opinion departments whose work directly affects the content of the paper".

Opinion journalists obviously have more latitude when it comes to expressing opinions, but they are still expected to get facts correct.

[Sarcastr0]

OK I should have said that's not going to be *reporting* i.e. factually generalizable.

It sounds like you are taking the opinion as generalizable fact.

And appealing to the authority of the NYT for an opinion piece as well.

Listen, there are studies and policy reports all sorts of actual authorities to cite. And yet here you are pushing this nonsense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Offs. The NYT opinion pieces are subject to the editorial process, and they lend their authority to the opinion pieces as well.

Do you have any evidence that anything in the article is not accurate?

[Malika]

Do you have any evidence they are accurate (other than pointing to the authority of the NYT editors, which in other context I'd bet you'd scoff at)?

[VinniUSMC]

Do you have any evidence that they are not accurate, other than scoffing at TIP pointing out that you Leftists generally point to the authority of the NYT editors?

[Sarcastr0]

This is not a counter-argument; it's just ad-hominmyou Leftists generally point to the authority of the NYT editors

LOL.

[Malika]

"Do you have any evidence that they are not accurate"

Lol, what I love about My Cousin Vinnie is that his poor performing at the ASVAB self doesn't see that he's just remaking the argument I rebutted.

Dig those latrines, marine!

[Frank Drackman]

Joseph Kennedy Sr gave consent for his daughter Rosemary to be lobotomized, the "Gold Standard" at the time for Hebephrenic Schizophrenia, too bad your parents didn't do the same for you and do you guys still bind infant girls feet so they don't grow into size 14 clod hoppers?

[A Japanese Student]

I prefer having children's consent over parental consent only.

The treatments have multiple steps - psychological assessments, puberty blockers (whose effect appears to be reversible), hormones, and surgeries (usually performed to adults only). I believe the standard is to only initiate likely-irreversible ones once the child is capable of making well-informed judgment. EO appears to cover all of these, and even includes 18-year-olds who have constitutional rights to vote (and apparently, to own guns).

Physicians set their own standards using their own expert knowledge. Most follow the guidelines and help improve it. Some disagree and do not follow it. Presidents don't get to intervene in this process.

[tylertusta]

I don't think that children are capable of consenting regardless of whether the child can make well-informed judgements. I have yet to meet a 17-year old who was capable of making permanent, life-altering, life-changing decisions that fully understood the implications.

What will end the practice is when the mutilated children turn 18 and sue the crap out of the doctors, hospitals, and even parents who harmed them.

[David Nieporent]

I have yet to meet a 17-year old who was capable of making permanent, life-altering, life-changing decisions that fully understood the implications.

So I guess you're on board with Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I prefer having children's consent over parental consent only."

That's what emancipation proceedings are about...

[A Woman of No Importance]

So, per Frank, since science and parents sometimes make mistakes, they cannot be trusted and not be permitted to make decisions. But, government sometimes makes mistakes too, so I guess government can never be trusted and never gets to make decisions either. So nothing can ever happen because nobody gets to make the decision. Wait, I know -- we'll make Frank the decision maker since he never makes mistakes.

At the time, Joseph Kennedy made the decision based on the best information that was then available. The fact that we know more now than we did then is irrelevant. As more information comes in, we are *always* going to know more today than we did yesterday. That's the way it works. And the fact that in hindsight, with better data, a decision turns out to have been misguided, tells us nothing more than that humans are fallible.

So, my question to Frank -- or anyone else who wishes to answer -- is what methodology would you substitute instead? It's too early to know if, long term, the current approach to minors with sexual dysphoria will be vindicated or not. Maybe yes, maybe no, so what do we do in the meantime?

And please note what I'm not asking. I get that Frank and others here are deeply hostile to the whole concept of trans issues, so I'm not asking you to substitute your idea of good policy for those of the doctors and the parents. What I'm asking is, since you don't trust the experts, *what methodology* would you substitute in order to set public policy?

[Joe_dallas]

- woman of no importance -

Its been very well established that the current treatment pushed by WPATH and other activists organizations results in negative outcomes.

Most every european medical society has figured it out. The american woke left is one of the few still pushing the crap

https://academic.oup.com/jsm/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf026/8042063?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

[Malika]

joe-dallas, meteorological, epidemiological, medical, etc., amateur expert can't master English capitalization....

[Joe_dallas]

Frank Drackman 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Joseph Kennedy Sr gave consent for his daughter Rosemary to be lobotomized, the "Gold Standard" at the time for Hebephrenic Schizophrenia"

While Frank's comment is crude - it does show some insight into the history of the mental health professional. A long sordid history of extremely harmful discredited treatments that were considered the gold standard of their time.

[A Woman of No Importance]

So would you apply the same standard to religion? It has a long, sordid history of inquisitions, crusades, 9/11, genocide and warmongering?

And if you would not apply the same standard to religion, what's the difference? Why are you inclined to cut slack for one but not the other?

[Joe_dallas]

Your question is not relavent to the long sordid history of the mental health profession foisting damaging mental health treatments on the mentally ill.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And it's also obviously a question you're afraid to answer. You've given us your standard; we pay no attention to institutions with long sordid histories. My question is whether you apply that standard even handedly to all institutions, or only those you are inclined to dislike.

[Joe_dallas]

No - your question is simply not relevent

[A Woman of No Importance]

Whether you apply your standard even handedly isn't relevant? OK; I'm a blond so I'll buy that, but I wouldn't try telling that tale to any brunettes.

The reason it's relevant is that it's a phony standard unless you apply it even handedly. Otherwise it's just a post hoc rationalization.

[Don Nico]

Whataboutism pure and simple.

[A Woman of No Importance]

No, it's not technically whataboutism. Asking the circumstances under which a standard is to be applied isn't whataboutism, and that's the question Joe keeps dodging.

Whataboutism is an attempt to evade responsibility by pointing out the misdeeds, real or imagined, of someone else. In this case, I've happily conceded that the mental health profession has much to account for. What I'm asking is whether that standard gets applied consistently across the board.

[Joe_dallas]

A Woman of No Importance 32 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
No, it's not technically whataboutism.

Yes it is - you changed the subject to ask a non relevent question either because you didnt like the facts or because you are unable to grasp the important distinction.

[A Woman of No Importance]

So explain the important distinction. Why does your standard get applied to the mental health profession but not to religion? That's the "important distinction" I would like you to explain.

[Don Nico]

WNI,
And you think that religion is a mental disorder? Is that what you are saying?
Why don't you address J-D head on?

[Michael Ejercito]

There is a long line of cases affirming such a government power, from Jacobson v. Massachussetts to Buck v. Bell to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The instant case here has to do with which branch of government gets to do this.

[Martinned2]

...and, more importantly, why any of them would want to. There are lots of things the government has the legal power to do, but that no one should want.

[Joe_dallas]

Jap student - it may be with consent - but it is not informed consent.

https://academic.oup.com/jsm/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf026/8042063?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

[A Woman of No Importance]

*Jap*? Seriously?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nip? Gook?

[Bob from Ohio]

I think Gook was used to describe Koreans and Vietnamese, not Japs.

[Malika]

You guys get your racism straight (while whining about people calling you racist)!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Medicine is a self-regulating field."

The Ohio Medical Board [established by the General Assembly] would be amazed to hear that. They think they do.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Informed consent of pre-teens? Do you really want to go down that road? Or, are you not aware the entire discussion is about medical procedures and treatments on children?

Adults are free to choose what they wish and pay for it. This is, at least in part, about the govt funding sketchy science experiments on children. Experiments that Europe is abandoning.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, two questions. BTW, I looked up ultra vires (beyond the scope of the law...so I learned something new today).

One, the nationwide injunction versus four plaintiff states. What changed, legally, for the judge to extend the reach of the injunction?

Two, you would contend that rational basis is not correct level of review (I think). Why isn't RB the correct level of review in this instance - since it isn't about sex discrimination? (Hope I am asking the question the right way)

[Michael Ejercito]

The case was merely about whether or not the President can impose additional conditions for a public benefit created by Congress.

[not guilty]

"The case was merely about whether or not the President can impose additional conditions for a public benefit created by Congress."

That is one issue in the case, but not what the case is all about. The Plaintiffs are asserting multiple claims.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Show me where Congress created the benefit of taxpayers paying for minors to receive treatment based on the sketchy science of "gender-affirming" care. Nobody has answered the question yet. And you can't either because it didn't happen. It was new regs put in by executive agencies under Biden (or whoever the hell was in charge). Luckily he got beat back when he tried to change Title IX.

[Josh R]

The plaintiffs claim it is discrimination on the basis of sex, or alternatively discrimination on the basis of gender identity that should be subject to heightened scrutiny. These issues are before The Court in United States v. Skrmetti. The link contains the oral arguments and briefs which present both sides of the argument.

[Commenter_XY]

Yep, I remember the blog posts.

[not guilty]

"One, the nationwide injunction versus four plaintiff states. What changed, legally, for the judge to extend the reach of the injunction?"

Perhaps the most important distinction is that in the Washington lawsuit, according to page 51 of Judge King's order, the plaintiff states did not request a nationwide injunction. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459.233.0_2.pdf

Even where the subject matter is the same, different district judges may reach different conclusions regarding the proper scope of an injunction. A judge's reasoning should appear in the text of the order. The general rule is "that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs." Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994), quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). In granting a partial stay of injunctions in Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571, ___, 137 S.Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per curiam), SCOTUS opined:

Crafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948 (3d ed. 2013). The purpose of such interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the parties, University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981), but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward. In awarding a preliminary injunction a court must also "conside[r] ... the overall public interest." Winter, supra, at 26, 129 S.Ct. 365. In the course of doing so, a court "need not grant the total relief sought by the applicant but may mold its decree to meet the exigencies of the particular case." Wright, supra, § 2947, at 115.

[A Japanese Student]

Could it be related to NIH being headquartered in D. Md.?

[not guilty]

No.

[Commenter_XY]

So it is as simple as the plaintiffs just asking for the nationwide injunction, and the judge just saying 'ok' (considering overall public interest). = Perhaps the most important distinction is that in the Washington lawsuit, according to page 51 of Judge King's order, the plaintiff states did not request a nationwide injunction

How long do you think it takes to ultimately resolve? All of this stuff is under appeals.

[not guilty]

"So it is as simple as the plaintiffs just asking for the nationwide injunction, and the judge just saying 'ok' (considering overall public interest)."

Not at all. But when, as in the Washington lawsuit, the plaintiffs do not ask for a nationwide injunction, the district judge is unlikely to impose one.

"How long do you think it takes to ultimately resolve? All of this stuff is under appeals."

As I said on the Monday open thread, the Washington order appears to me to be a likely candidate for SCOTUS review. The issues are clear cut and present pure issues of law as applied to undisputed facts -- the government elected not to present any evidence in contravention of considerable documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, and neither side requested an evidentiary hearing to test any of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs. Speedy affirmation by the Ninth Circuit is highly likely.

The same is true of the Maryland order, which involves similar issues. If and when the administration appeals, speedy affirmation by the Fourth Circuit is highly likely.

The relevant precedents of both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits are highly favorable to the plaintiffs. It would not surprise me at all if the government seeks to bypass plenary review in the Courts of Appeals by filing petitions for writ of certiorari prior to judgment. If SCOTUS were to grant such review and order expedited briefing, it is possible that we could get a ruling by the end of the current term. By way of comparison, in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), SCOTUS granted cert on February 28, 2024, heard oral argument on April 25, and announced judgment on July 1, 2024. The timetable here is a bit tighter, but a decision by the end of the term seems doable.

[Josh R]

Trump's case had to be resolved pronto because of the election. It would shock me if after cert is granted the case is heard in the current term.

[not guilty]

Haters gonna hate. If SCOTUS wants to issue a result oriented decision hating on transgendered folks, it can find a way to act sooner rather than later.

I'm working from memory here, but I recall reading in Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's book about Justice William Brennan asking his new law clerks, "What is the most important word in this building?" One said "justice." Another said "liberty." Another said "equality."

Brennan replied, "You are all wrong. The most important word in this building is five."

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, we are taking months, not days. Makes total sense. I am mindful of what several SCOTUS Justices have said....they want a more fully developed record to consider. They are not wrong.

[not guilty]

"Two, you would contend that rational basis is not correct level of review (I think). Why isn't RB the correct level of review in this instance - since it isn't about sex discrimination? (Hope I am asking the question the right way)"

In the Fourth Circuit, per Kadel v. Folwell, 100 F.4th 122, 143 (4th Cir. 2024), discrimination on the basis of gender identity is treated as discrimination on the basis of sex. Classifications based on sex are subject to intermediate, or "quasi-suspect," scrutiny. Id., at 142; Grimm v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 607-08 (4th Cir. 2020). Moreover, transgender people constitute a quasi-suspect class, such that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is subject to heightened scrutiny. Kadel, at 143; Grimm, at 594-96.

Intermediate-scrutiny analysis requires the government to produce an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for treating individuals differently based on quasi-suspect characteristics. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982). To succeed, the defender of the challenged action must show "at least that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 524 (1996), quoting Hogan, at 724.

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks for the clarification, I think I see the issue now.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for regulation of medical treatment on trans stuff to minors. I'm quite satisfied that the science is in that for minors gender stuff is pretty early for anything permanent to be a good idea.

But all I see on that area is assholes. Trans regulations have a legion of culture warriors who are assholes first and just pick issues where they can be an asshole and pretend it's righteousness.

It's not; you're just being an asshole.

And that's not counting the ones that think just treating a kid like the gender they want to be treated as counts as child abuse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like they say, if you run into assholes all day…

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I don't.

That's why it's notable on this issue.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Do you think Europe putting a halt to this shit makes them assholes as well?

When the left makes children receiving irreversible and unproven medical treatments a bogus civil rights issue, they are the fucking assholes. Opposition to such IS righteous. You might as well be arguing an eleven year old should be able to give informed consent to her 43 year-old teacher and anybody opposed assholes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"young people"

Children.

Biden judge wants to mutilate children.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So... what do you guys do with the transgender mice?

[Kazinski]

i hope they are breeding them with the cross species mice with the mammoth hair genes.

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-woolly-mice-bring-the-mammoths-de-extinction-a-step-closer

[Mr. Bumble]

Mammoth sized, trans mice with tusks will make for a great sci-fi movie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Don't forget the purple fur.

[Bwaaah]

Though I might be mistaken, I'm sensing a shift toward turquoise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe some things we ought not be doing.

Paging Dr. Fauci, Paging Dr. Fauci....

[Thought about __ all my life]

Worse than 'we should not do" or "we should do "is "maybe...."
It breeds hell

[Dr. Ed 2]

The "maybe" was rhetorical...

[SRG2]

"Dere are tings man vos not meant to know"

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only thing I can think of is that it might be a means of pest control. The problem with chemicals such as DDT is that DDT got into the predators that ate the mice (e.g. Bald Eagles where it made the eggshells so weak that the mother bird crushed them when she sat on them -- nearly making Bald Eagles extinct).

Making the mice all trannies means that they don't reproduce, and as long as you don't make the Eagles trannies too, this is a safe pesticide. And they don't build a tolerance to it because they aren't reproducing.

It really isn't any crazier than birth control for deer which IS being done, apparently with some success.

I'd want to make damn sure of it not affecting other animals, but IF, then.....

[Frank Drackman]

No matter how much Testosterone you pump into them, the girl mice still run like girls.

[Armchair]

Mice don't have gender. Mice have a sex. Gender is a social construct. Mice don't have such social constructs any more than they have a religion.

[Frank Drackman]

So you can't tell Mickey from Minnie? You don't have to, it's only important that Mickey can tell Mickey from Minnie.

[Don Nico]

Excuse me Armchair, my 13-year-old mini-dachshund has never has gender disphoria. Never once have I ever seen her lift her leg to pee.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CNN forced to correct its "fact check" that called the transgender mice claim false.

[Kazinski]

In future years Democrats are goung to look back at going all in to kneecap Trump in his first term and win in 2020 as a collosal mistake.

I know I'm going to get pushback about the going "all in" and going past normal opposition tactics, so here are the major instances:
-The Russiagate hoax
-The 18 month Mueller investigation
- The Ukrainian impeachment
- Encouraging the George Floyd riots (wasn't Tim Walz much more culpable than Trump?)
- Exploiting covid to relax voting rules and enforcement
- Using Social media allies to suppress legitimate news like Covid origins
- Deep state meddling like the 51 former intelligence officials trying to cover up Hunters laptop.

None of that was illegal, and I don't expect anyone to apologize or even acknowledge it.

But in future years Progrssives are going to say "If we just let Trump serve another 4 years, it would have been more of a continuation mixing policy successes, and political and personell foundering in the second term, rather than the laser focused (ok its more like an unfocused but intentional earthquake shockwave) destruction hitting Democratic institutions and the bureaucracy, but I repeat myself, now.

This was compounded by picking a 2020 candidate who had "good for half a term only" tatoored on his forehead, and a DEI hire VP that can't talk about anything without using at least 500 words without saying anything. Then they turn policy over to a buch of MMT apparatchiks that pick the 20 side of every single major 80-20 issue, like illegal immigration, criminal justice "reform", transitioning confused prepubescents, and even the internal combustion engine, kneecapping them trying to win a 2024 rematch

Trump is still sore anout 2020, and I don't know whether he will ever admit he lost or not, but he should be thankful because getting 4 years to plot his sequel was the best thing for him, and the country, and he should thank the Dems for it.

Trumps 2nd term is going to be a model for Republicans for the next half century.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and this should be an interesting open thread.

[santamonica811]

Nah. Kaz whored his integrity long ago. I doubt there will be much engagement. Such a moronic premise warrants little more than a gentle pat on Kaz's head, and maybe, "Well, bless your heart."

He's no Dr. Ed. But he can see Ed from where he is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well bless YOUR heart.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dr. Ed is not the only one who compares Trump to Andrew Jackson.

And for those ignorant of our history, Jackson had an election essentially stolen from him -- it went into the House and there was the so-called "corrupt bargain" that got us JQA as President.

His wife was a moderating influence, like Vance's wife, and the media essentially killed Jackson's wife by hounding her on the adultery allegation and after she died, he turned into the man he did....

Remember what George Santana said about history....

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed2, I'm currently holding the Norm Crosby chair in the Department of Malapropisms and I'm not planning on surrendering it any time soon, like my Mother in Law said after her face lift, "I have just begun to Fright!"
it's George SANTAYANA, you bumbling buffoon,

Frank

[David Nieporent]

And for those ignorant of our history, Jackson had an election essentially stolen from him

For those who aren't ignorant of history, Jackson did not have an election 'essentially stolen from him.' It's true that he acted like a whiny little baby when he lost in 1824, Nor, of course, did Trump, so it's not clear what the comparison is. Hillary in 2016 would be more analogous to Jackson than Trump was in any year.

Remember what George Santana said about history....

Give me your heart, make it real, or else forget about it?

No, wait, that was Carlos.

[Armchair]

For those who actually want the truth, the 1824 election was "essentially stolen" from Jackson.

Jackson had the plurality of both the popular vote (40%) AND the electoral vote in the election. The next closest in popular vote was Adams at 33%. Kentucky told its legislators to choose Jackson...they didn't listen.

This was the original "corrupt bargain" where Henry Clay (Speaker of the House at the time) sold his support to Adams for the promise of being Secretary of State. The backroom deals in many respects made Adams President, despite what the plurality of the people wanted.

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

[David Nieporent]

Jackson had the plurality of both the popular vote (40%) AND the electoral vote in the election.

As people pointed out when Democrats complained that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016: so what? That's not our system. Our system is that you need a majority of the electoral vote. Jackson didn't get it, so he wasn't entitled to be elected.

It got sent to the House. If the House was just supposed to select whoever got the most electoral votes, then there wouldn't be a need to send it to the House; we could just skip that step and award the presidency to the person who got the most electoral votes.

The House chose JQA, in part because Clay supported JQA. And yes, JQA made Clay his Secretary of State. And yes, it's possible that was part of a political deal. Again: so what? That doesn't make the election stolen, or "essentially" stolen.

And yes, Kentucky's legislature asked its congressional representatives to support Jackson, and yet they didn't. For a third time: so what? They were under no moral or legal obligation to abide by that request. Again: doesn't make the election "stolen." (Note that even if they had voted for Jackson, Jackson wouldn't have been close to winning.)

[Armchair]

"As people pointed out when Democrats complained that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in 2016:"

And Hillary said the election was "Stolen" then...despite winning the popular vote by a bare 2% and getting blown out in the electoral count.

Jackson's case was far more dramatic. He won the popular vote by nearly 8%, and the electoral vote (plurality) by 15 votes. What's more dramatic is what happened when the vote went to the House. Jackson needed 13 states to win...he already had 11 by the electoral college. Adams only carried 7 states (Crawford and Clay each had 3). Perhaps a better case could be made if Crawford, Clay and Adams all unified to get Adams over the line...but that's not what happened. LA, IL, and MD all flipped their votes in the House, voting for Adams, despite Jackson winning them in the EC.

Now yes, that's technically legal. But as a practical matter, if a state votes 1 way via the EC, but then the representative votes a different way...it doesn't look very democratic, and people feel cheated. It looks like the election has been "stolen" through legal...but underhanded...means. Just like a state could, via the popular vote, say that they prefer one candidate...but it's perfectly legal for the electors of that state to pick a completely different candidate and ignore the popular vote. And if that happens and it swings an election, people will feel the election was stolen.

[David Nieporent]

Hillary did not say the election was stolen, and did not get blown out in the electoral count. (It was one of the closest presidential elections by electoral vote margin.) Other than that, spot on.

While Jackson is credited with a plurality of the popular vote, that's not precisely accurate because (as I think someone else already pointed out in this thread) many states did not actually tabulate the popular vote, so we don't actually know how many people voted for each candidate.

And your narrative is based on both a confusion of plurality and majority and a weird focus on the electoral college, even though it didn't even reflect the vote. Maryland didn't "flip." Jackson got less than half of the popular vote in Maryland; most eligible Marylanders voted for someone other than Jackson. So not only was he not legally entitled to Maryland's vote in the House, but he had no moral claim on it either. Adams got more popular votes in Illinois than Jackson, so that citation is even stranger. And we don't know how the people of Louisiana would've voted, because there was no popular vote there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hillary did not say the election was stolen..."

She said, "You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you..."

[Armchair]

As Twelve writes...yep. Hillary did say it was Stolen.

And once you're directly wrong in one element, well, it calls the rest of David's claims into question.

In 2016, Hillary lost by more than 75 electoral votes

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that quote does not in fact say that the election was stolen.

In 2016, Hillary lost the EC by 77, not 75, electoral votes, which, at 14% of the electoral votes cast, is one of the closer president elections in American history. (You are smart enough to realize that you have to look at percentages rather than raw totals, right Otherwise you'd have to conclude that Joe Biden's victory in 2020 was a bigger landslide than George Washington's unanimous selection in 1788).

[Mr. Bumble]

"In 2016, Hillary lost the EC by 77, not 75, electoral votes, ..."

"In 2016, Hillary lost by more than 75 electoral votes..."

[David Nieporent]

Fair enough; I read too quickly. Doesn't change the underlying point, that it was one of the closest electoral college elections.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The 2016 campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was the 13th closest in the country's history..."

https://thelistwire.usatoday.com/lists/the-10-closest-presidential-elections-in-u-s-history/

[Magister]

In addition to not caring about popular vote winners, one should add that some states had no popular vote in 1824; New York in particular, which had the largest population of any state and where Jackson got 1 electoral vote.

Clay's support for Adams was consistent with his opposition to both Jackson and Crawford, the other two candidates that the House could consider, without considering whether a deal for Secretary of State was made. "Corrupt bargain" is more sour grapes from a loser, but at least Jackson didn't rally his followers to attack the federal government.

[Sarcastr0]

The system functioned as intended.

The populist mau-mauing of Jackson being successful was what the Founders did not intend or expect.

But that, too, was working well within the system.

Branding aside, there was no corruption in 1824 or 1828.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My point is that they wound up with a fire-breathing dragon, though.

[bernard11]

You mean the Twins' third baseman?

Versatile guy.

[Kazinski]

I'd be much more likely to whore my integrity if I could find someone to pay me.

But my premise works whether you hate Trump or love him, because it boils down to simply this: Trump is much more effective this time at both executing his agenda, and communicating it.

CBS instant post speech poll gave the speech an approval rating of 79%.

https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1897180359101702420?t=EIi_5hvVwy3f2HSR1yl2gQ&s=19

CNN had it at 69%

https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1897172374140936372?t=ipHIwR5fu_KIy2hc7S2Lxw&s=19

[Kazinski]

And that the Democratic response to Trump is pathetic.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1896964680331260330?t=BTsUtLWZ3RNnyg6xVZAENA&s=19

[Armchair]

"I'd be much more likely to whore my integrity if I could find someone to pay me."

Doesn't that just make you an integrity slut?

[Kazinski]

No money no integrity.

Nobody pays if you just give it away.

[Krayt]

Certainly the facetious "workarounds" to sic government on an opponent need to be emphasized: Lawyers conjuring cover stories to hide the motivations of innumerable deliberate and improper attacks using government against a political opponent.

This is rotten in and of itself, and needs to be dealt with, independent of any backfire on the Democrats.

At one point, I suggested he may have sailed off into the sunset, but Democrats had to keep up prosecutions. If they didn't and just took their football and went home when he lost, it would be obvious the prosecution was gittin' an opponent, and not their feigned disinterested concern for rule of law.

So keep up the prosecution. And, bizarrely, whether he believed he was robbed made some difference in some prosecutions, so running again demonstrated that, however facetious that itself was.

And now, shocked, shocked he ran again.

[Krayt]

Btw I was listening to CNN during the daytime, and, credit to them, they listed some attacks the Dems did on Trump, from trying to knock him off the ballots of states, to seizing vast amounts of his wealth, to get comment on it.

Good to know people are listening. The gears grind slowly but surely. Congress should consider addressing this BS.

Actually, the gears do not grind surely. People have to keep hammering scurrilous, politically-motivated behavior that does not serve the people and the spirit of their Constitution, no matter how cleverly devious the thoughts they conjure into existence try to work around it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, your case for illegitimate lawfare relies on two premises you are not entitled to:

1. That Trump is a normal politician, instead of one criminally indicted by federal grand juries.

2. That Trump is entitled by corrupt Court decree to abuse power, and to act outside the constraints of separation of powers, and to do so with impunity from criminal prosecution if he commits crimes while doing it.

The Ds are in no way responsible for either of those circumstances. No Ds that I am aware of have yet insisted they enjoy any such illegitimate powers, or should be granted them.

Your implicit notion that action by Ds is responsible for misconduct by Trump is thus a non-sequitur. Trump, as politician, and as President, has broken laws and abused political process in ways unprecedented in American political history. That has been done at his initiative; not because Ds made him do it.

Trump's misconduct has been actively abetted by a politically corrupt Supreme Court majority. That too has been in response to corrupt politics, urged and abetted by Trump, but admittedly also supported and advanced by others.

Until there is a case of a D President doing likewise, and likewise federally indicted for an attempted coup, and for flagrantly willful abuse of secrecy laws, and likewise abetted by judicial misconduct, you have no justification for a bogus comparative argument.

There is no D example to whom Trump's history and actions can legitimately be compared. That is already the judgment not only of Trump's political opponents, but also of Trump's base. The latter have shown clearly their own belief in Trump's criminal guilt, by agitating for delay and dismissal of legal charges against him, instead of for acquittal and exoneration at trial.

Public judgements today thus foretell with certainty the judgment of history: that Trump, almost certainly guilty of grave political crimes, has corrupted American politics and the American judicial system by his own choices and efforts. The case to prove it has been made far less by his political opponents than by his closest erstwhile associates, already publicly on record in astonishing numbers, with overwhelming evidence against Trump.

You should stop repeating an argument with so little justification to support it, and with so many inflammatory implications for the future of American politics and public life.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. That Trump is a normal politician, instead of one criminally indicted by federal grand juries."

There's a fundamental mistake here, Lathrop, and I see it all the time. You have to distinguish between properties of a thing, and the relations of other things to it.

That a grand jury indicted Trump at the prompting of a prosecutor, fundamentally, isn't information about Trump. It's information about the grand jury and prosecutor!

So, to rephrase this, grand juries don't normally indict politicians, but when they do, it can have two different explanations, with radically different implications.

It could mean that the politician is abnormal, leading to the indictment.

But it could also mean that the grand jury and prosecutor are behaving abnormally.

So, you need to understand, the indictment, by itself, isn't evidence of Trump being abnormal, it's perfectly consistent with him just being a normal politician, (Or at least a normally law abiding politician...) being treated abnormally, which is Krayt's thesis.

"2. That Trump is entitled by corrupt Court decree to abuse power,"

Where your basis for claiming the Court is corrupt is just that it's not ruling in a way you like. Rather circular if you ask me.

"and to act outside the constraints of separation of powers, and to do so with impunity from criminal prosecution if he commits crimes while doing it."

Trump's foes routinely mis-characterize and exaggerate the extent of the immunity ruling. Trump, if he shot the proverbial man on 5th avenue, or double-parked, or robbed a bank, would have no more immunity than you or I. The actual immunity is instead a product of separation of powers: Congress can't make a crime out of a President simply exercising the powers of his office.

Congress can't do that, because those powers, being granted by the Constitution, are categorically precluded from being criminalized by Congress. They're Article II powers, not Article I powers!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Indictment by a federal grand jury is not action by Democrats. Concede that, as you must, and Krayt's argument is already refuted. Krayt's mistaken argument about partisan lawfare is mis-aimed at Democrats.

As for any remaining quibbles you have in store, the grand juries which indicted Trump did so mainly in response to Republican witnesses, from the Trump administration.

Your own commentary here could not have been more clear. Like the vast majority of Americans, you expected that if Trump were tried, he would be convicted. Which is why you wanted his trial obstructed.

All of the MAGA arguments on Trump's behalf—and in fairness I doubt Krayt is MAGA—have been in bad faith, just as yours have been. You are MAGA, and it will be a fine day for the nation when it runs out of patience with you and your ilk.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Indictment by a federal grand jury is not action by Democrats."

That's... just quibbling. If you're chosen for a grand jury, or become a prosecutor, you forget your political affiliation and views? I don't think human beings work that way.

Sure, the grand jury wasn't internal to the Democratic party, that doesn't mean that it wasn't controlled by Democrats, and operated to Democratic party ends.

As a matter of fundamental logic, the mere fact that he was indicted is a fact about the indicting authority, not the guy who gets indicted. If you assume the grand jury is behaving in a normal and legitimate manner, this implies something about the person indicted, but if you make that assumption you've built Krayt's thesis being wrong into your assumptions, and are no longer engaged in logical reasoning, but literally have "begged the question".

[Krayt]

Here's another way to say your error, and this is built right into the Constitution because the Founding Fathers were aware of it: fishing expeditions are banned because the tyrant king would pour through his opponents' papers until he found something, anything, to tag him with. His opponents tended to be wealthy themselves, and with that many fingers in pies, almost certainly actual illegality can be found.

The ban on fishing expiditions is not because they might plant fake evidence. It's to forbid a process guaranteed to find something you can use, not for disinterested concern for rule of law, but to hurt your political opponent.

I think President Clinton might like to remind you of that.

I don't pretend this guy didn't step in it in ways that might lead legitimately to investigation, just that the sheer number of initiatives suggest it in most cases.

I've given my list of evidences various times in the past that it's politically motivated to get an opponent.

Beyond the sheer number and eternity of effort, we have:

2. When I suggested in impeachment they follow the spirit of the Constitution and not go after him for politics, I was met with oh, for impeachment, we get that honor! So, sans a Constitution forbidding to turn the power of government against an opponent qua opponent, you gleefully do so.

3. Exaggeration of claims to attempt to raise their perceived seriousness, to get him. Best example was turning the misdemeanor into a felony, a requirement so you could use a downstream law to get him. Second example was Jan. 6, which was not innocent, but not the exaggerated claim your colleagues made. This kind of stuff was then used to try to get him off a ballot in a handful of purple states, to mathematically assure loss. As a (liberal) Supreme Court justice asked, should a single state be deciding the presidency for the nation? Yet that was exactly why you did it.

4. Using monstrous payouts to force him to give up $500 million during an election. This was a related attack on opponents of the tyrant kings, where the king just flat out would expropriate the estates of uppity nobles. It is also forbidden by the Constitution.

But you facete around, and hyperbolate around, all the while angry and trying to git 'im.

So, sorry. "Golly, he did so many bad things!" as cover story for you yourselves doing so many bad things in initiative after initiative, doesn't cut it. It's just another lying cover story.

Why don't you impeach over Ukraine? It's an issue truly worthy of that level of action, and would decidedly not need a big heft from hyperbolization. It's an issue that might rise to giving aid and support to enemies.

Or just sit their sad your 37 cheesy pot shots couldn't get the job done.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, if that is intended for me, a few points.

First, I offered two principal objections to your line of argument. You have addressed neither of them.

Second, given that politics is the Constitutionally prescribed method to conduct the nation's public business, objection to impeachment on political grounds is an absurdity. Impeachment without political grounds would be more apt to be inappropriate. As for instance in the cases of many kinds of crimes which a president could commit without endangering the political system at all. The NY state charges example that.

More generally, the habit to treat the term, "political," as an epithet shows want of insight into what is, and is not, legitimate conduct in government.

Third, your charge of exaggerating the J6 offenses will not fly with me. I thought and wrote at the time that the charges actually brought were too lenient. I showed with detailed citations to Chief Justice Marshall that Trump had checked every one of Marshall's boxes for the definition of treason. It ought to be apparent now that it was a mistake not to charge Trump with treason. He ought to be charged with it now.

A defense amounting to, if the president has a big enough political base, he can't commit treason, is too dangerous to credit legally. On Trump's actual record, the only defense which a good legal argument might succeed with if presented to a jury is whether Trump's J6 conduct sufficiently linked him to overt violent action. I have already seen enough to make up my own mind on that, but I expect if Trump were tried, yet more evidence to prove overt action to advance violent conspiracy would turn up—including stuff not yet made public. For pity's sake, the nation saw Trump on television, goading the mob in real time to attack Pence. That by itself makes the case. And there is much more already known. Witnesses positioned to know still more refused to testify. They were not pressed as they would be if treason were the charge.

You contend Trump was persecuted. I insist the opposite, that his prosecution was bungled by an incompetent Attorney General who acted inappropriately—as if he were a judge already sitting on the case, and empowered to dispose in advance of every factual question. Garland would have served the nation better if he had acted to fulfill the office of chief prosecutor he actually held.

[Riva]

Who do you think convened the grand jury, submitted evidence, wrote and brought the indictment before the grand jury and signed the indictment? Can you really be this abysmally stupid? Yeah, it seems so.

[not guilty]

Uh, district judges convene grand juries. Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(a)(1).

[Riva]

Ok, conceded. But the main point of my comment is that the corrupt prosecutor is the party that brings the case and essentially controls the process. Again, the grand juries did not vindicate the lawfare, they were just used as instruments in the process. And Smith made some interesting, questionable uses of that instrument to say the least.

[not guilty]

Riva, how do you claim to know Jack Smith's political party affiliation? Has he ever declared such? Fortune magazine reported on November 18, 2022 that Smith is a registered independent. https://fortune.com/2022/11/18/merrick-garland-special-counsel-donald-trump-classified-records-mar-a-lago-jack-smith/

[Riva]

I know he’s a thug hack who participated in the gross weaponization of federal law enforcement powers against Biden’s main political opponent. What party he allegedly belongs to, I don’t give a shit.

[Riva]

To put it another way, the grand jury process was used (and abused) as part of the Biden DOJ’s weaponization of the legal process. It is not something that vindicates the lawfare abuses.

[David Nieporent]

The actual immunity is instead a product of separation of powers: Congress can't make a crime out of a President simply exercising the powers of his office.

Once again: with a couple of narrow exceptions, none of them relevant to the prosecutions of Trump, Congress defines the powers of the president's office. When the president violates a criminal statute of general applicability, by definition he is not exercising the powers of his office.

[Armchair]

Actually the Constitution defines the power of the President...not Congress.

Nice try though.

[David Nieporent]

"With a couple of narrow exceptions," Congress defines the power of the president. The only powers the constitution specifies for the presidency are vetoes, pardons, being CinC, receiving ambassadors, negotiating treaties, making nominations, and asking cabinet members for written reports. Everything else the president can do is something that Congress must give the president.

[Armchair]

Using that argument, you can say that Congress has no actual power.

It can make any laws it want. It can't actually CARRY THEM OUT without the President and the executive branch.

Not to mention, you forgot the "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Pretty big power.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Armchair, you should go read Julian Mortenson's 2019 paper "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative."

"Based on an exhaustive review of the eighteenth-century bookshelf, this article shows that the ordinary meaning of “executive power” referred unambiguously to a single, discrete, and potent authority: the power to execute law. This enforcement role was constitutionally crucial. Substantively, however, it extended only to the implementation of legal norms created by some other authority. It
wasn’t just that the executive power was subject to legislative influence in a crude political sense; rather, the power was conceptually an empty vessel until there were laws or instructions that needed executing."

He distinguishes this from what framers considered "royal prerogative," which describes much of the powers that have devolved on the executive through the years, and much that President Trump is now claiming.

[Riva]

The moron troll crazy Dave hasn’t yet learned that the judiciary is a branch of the government and, where presidential immunity applies, it’s because separation of powers precludes the judiciary from exercising jurisdiction. Assuming crazy Dave can read, he hasn’t read Nixon v Fitzgerald or Trump v US. Not surprising because he hasn’t yet read the Constitution. That thing that defines the three branches of government.

And he’s not alone in his fundamental misunderstanding of separation of powers. His ignorance is shared by his hive mind troll buddies here.

[Michael Ejercito]

so the use of a veto or a pardon or a nomination can violate a law of general applicability?

You seem to forget how creative prosecutors can be.

Ever heard of Rick Perry?

[David Nieporent]

so the use of a veto or a pardon or a nomination

"With a couple of narrow exceptions."

[Michael Ejercito]

I still think an argument that President Obama murdered Brian Terry will go nowhere, absent compelling evidence that he actually plotted the result.

[tylertusta]

Article II is narrow?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[tylertusta]

That certainly is a take.

Let's see how that plays out.

[Mr. Bumble]

all /ôl/
adjective

1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: synonym: whole.
"All the windows are open. Deal all the cards."
2. Similar: whole Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole.
"all Christendom."
3. Being the utmost possible of.
"argued the case in all seriousness."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

executive /ĭg-zĕk′yə-tĭv/
noun

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2.The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.
3.The branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

power /pou′ər/
noun

1.The ability or capacity to act or do something effectively.
"Is it in your power to undo this injustice?"
2.A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude.
"her powers of concentration."
3. Physical strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted: synonym: strength.
"the power of the waves."
Similar: strength

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

[David Nieporent]

Yes, yes. The president has kinda all executive power, except where the constitution says he doesn't. An empty statement, without specifying what the executive power is.

The president has the plenary authority to control the nation's flugelthraope. Is that a lot of authority or a little authority? Well, if 'flugelthraope' is the economy, then it's a lot of authority. If 'flugelthraope' is the arrangement of furniture in the White House, then it's not a lot of authority. Simply repeating ad nauseam that he controls all of the flugelthraope tells us nothing.

[bernard11]

Just to help the discussion along, here are sections 2 and 3, which describe the President's powers:

Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[Kazinski]

You missed "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".

That means any laws that Congress passes that are not self executing, must be executed by the President, so Congress itself confers more powers on the President via creating legislation that needs to be executed, using their own powers.

It is not a power of Congress to create other executives not under the supervision of the chief executive.

[Sarcastr0]

Does it mean that?

That's not in keeping with what Congress thinks, and there's some Supreme Court precedent about appointment that goes the other way as well.

Not to mention the originalist scholarship that says otherwise.

[Kazinski]

Yes it means that.

Seila Law is precisely on point, where Congress tried to create an executive agency to execute the Dodd-Frank "reforms" and protect both its budget and executive from Presidential supervision.

The CFPB legislation created an executive agency outside the President's control and the Supreme Court said that could not be allowed, although in typical Robertsian fashion not saying anymore than the bare minimum that needed to be said to resolve those facts:

"We are now asked to extend these precedents to a new configuration: an independent agency that wields significant executive power and is run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met. We decline to take that step. While we need not and do not revisit our prior decisions allowing certain limitations on the President’s removal power, there are compelling reasons not to extend those precedents to the novel context of an independent agency led by a single Director. Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control."

Even Humphreys Executor, which I doubt is still good law, said that only quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative, and not executive in nature could be protected from presidential control:

"We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named. The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted* ..."

* Actually it can be well doubted.

[Joe_dallas]

Article II doesnt exist? learn something new ever day

[David Nieporent]

I do not believe you have learned something new in about 20 years.

Article II does exist. It just doesn't say what you think it says.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ever heard of Rick Perry?

https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/08/17/ethics-dunces-abc-news-jonathan-karl-and-the-sunday-morning-roundtable/

The indictment relied upon creative interpretations of criminal law.

[Sarcastr0]

Could you tell my why you thought that'd be relevant to the discussion here?

[Commenter_XY]

David, please explain = Once again: with a couple of narrow exceptions, none of them relevant to the prosecutions of Trump, Congress defines the powers of the president's office.

Do you mean something like Dellinger?

[David Nieporent]

Well, sure, but not just that. Take as an example the EPA case from yesterday. Congress enacted the CWA act, which directed the EPA to regulate discharges in certain ways. This gave the EPA the power to issue permits to do so that satisified certain criteria.

Now, you might say that the EPA is part of the executive branch, the president is the head of the executive branch, the executive power is vested in him. But that gives POTUS no power to order the EPA to do anything other than what Congress authorized, in the way Congress authorized it. There's no "executive power is vested in POTUS so he can tell EPA to do whatever he wants." They must do what Congress said.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, that is helpful = EPA example. Now I see it.

It is not so much defining the power of the office as it is proscribing what steps will be taken wrt a specific agency where Congress has explicitly passed a law addressing it.

[Kazinski]

Right, I agree with that, the President shall take care to faithfully execute the law.

But when as in the past Congress has written laws for the EPA saying: go find pollution, and stop it.

Leaving it up to the EPA under the APA to define what is pollution and what needs to be done to stop it. Which gives President an enormous amount of power.

Just look back at the whole Waters of the United States saga, which gave the EPA and the Corp of engineers enormous power out over all navigable waters, and any stream or lake which connects to the navigable water, and then several adminstrations tried to take that enormous grant of power to expand it to also regulate wetlands and seasonal bodies of water with no surface connection to navigable waters.

So your EPA example shows both how Congress can restrict the President's power and how they can vastly expand the Presidents power in how they write the legislation.

And emphasizes my point, the more power and discretion Congress gives the administrative state, the more power they give the President.

[David Nieporent]

And emphasizes my point, the more power and discretion Congress gives the administrative state, the more power they give the President.

Oh, I absolutely agree. But the key word there is "discretion." When agencies don't have discretion in how they do something, neither does POTUS. And when their discretion is bounded (as it should always be, to avoid running afoul of the nondelegation doctrine), so is POTUS's.

[Kazinski]

That is an important point: that Congress in creating the Administrative state has vastly expanded the powers of the President, because every agency that executes the laws is exercising executive power, which is vested in the President.

[Sarcastr0]

Just because you believe the maximal unitary executive theory doesn't mean everyone does.

For now, at least, strong UE goes against SCOTUS precedent.

[Kazinski]

Congress can sharply cut back the President's authority if they wish to, but they will mostly have to do it by trimming the power of the administrative state, ie the Executive Branch.

The more power you give agencies for independent rule making the more power you give the President.

The more assertive Congress is in stating just what their intent is delegating rule making and limiting the agencies discretion then the less power the president will have.

Congress could also delegate more power to the states to reduce the President's power.

[Riva]

“That Trump is a normal politician, instead of one criminally indicted by federal grand juries.” Not actually all that convincing citing the weaponization of the legal process as proof that the victim deserved the abuse or that the lawfare was somehow legitimate.

Dizzyingly circular, in fact, and I tentatively award you the stupidest comment of the day award, but the day is early, and there’s a lot more stupidity out there so I’m not guaranteeing anything.

[tylertusta]

I think Democrats' not prosecuting Trump is going to be one of the most interesting "what if" debates in history.

I'm of the opinion that Trump would have been forced into retirement by his opponents within the GOP due to losing the nomination. But the indictments made Trump sympathetic to the populist base and he waltzed his way to the nomination.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't think they moved the needle with his base one way or the other. I'm not sure anything would, at this point. I guess we'll see.

[tylertusta]

None of that was illegal

I'm of the opinion that the FBI's FISC's warrants were illegal.

Besides the one FBI attorney that actually plead guilty to a felony, the other teams involved should be investigated for conspiracy, conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law, and false statements.

[David Nieporent]

Besides the one FBI attorney that actually plead guilty to a felony, the other teams involved should be investigated for conspiracy, conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law, and false statements.

Even if there were any factual basis for such, you realize the statute of limitations on those have pretty much all expired, right?

[tylertusta]

The SoL depends on the last time that they took an overt act to further their conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

Even if you could sweep in every aspect of investigating Trump/Russia into a "conspiracy," there's no way to argue it continued past March 2019 when the Mueller investigation wrapped up.

[tylertusta]

I consider the continued retention and use of communications gathered in the first two of Page's FISA warrants to be an ongoing crime. The continuing silence of the perpetrators concealing it are the overt acts.

[Voize of Reazon]

Silence is an overt act.
You heard it here, folks.

[tylertusta]

Federal Courts have long recognized that silence can be an overt act in a conspiracy when the goal can only be achieved through deception and concealment. See United States v. Eucker, citing United States v. Colasurdo, United States v. Freeman, Forman v. United States.

In Eucker, the conspiracy was designed to "delude the ... SEC" where a false form was filed by a co-conspirator and one of the defendant's silence while it was being prepared constituted an overt act that furthered the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, in Forman v United States, Forman was a silent partner in a business that sought to defraud the IRS, and subsequent efforts to conceal the past fraud, including Forman's silence, were overt acts.

[David Nieporent]

You can consider a dog to be a purple fruit if you want, but that doesn't make it a valid legal theory. "Not publicly confessing is an overt act" is kinda LOL, though.

[tylertusta]

"Not publicly confessing is an overt act" is not what I'm talking about.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What are you talking about, then?

[tylertusta]

In cases where silence was a considered overt act, it was alongside opportunities and duties to tell the truth, such as silently allowing a co-conspirator to file false paperwork to cover up past crimes. In the case of the FISA warrants, that duty was to the FISC. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty of candor to the court, and I believe this is also the case for agents who have sworn on the truthfulness of their statements to the court.

[Frank Drackman]

Even Poke-a-Hontas had to laugh, they should say that Warren AFB WY (150 Minuteman III silos scattered between WY, CO, and NE) is named after her or put her in charge of BIA

[Frank Drackman]

Strap Laser beams to their friggin heads and I’m in!

[Commenter_XY]

Earlier this week, 2nd Circuit allowed NY to do away with religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements. My comment at the time was the decision was the best advertisement ever for private schools.

My legal question: What stops NY from making vaccinations mandatory for all state residents, period?

[A Japanese Student]

Lack of reasonable enforcement mechanism?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is why the DOGE wholesale firings of government employees is necessary.

[Michael P]

When has reasonability ever stopped New York in the past? See, for example, https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-individuals-traveling-new-york-four-additional-states-will-be-required -- what's the reasonable enforcement method for a 14-day quarantine?

[Frank Drackman]

In March 2021, flew into Newark (and boy were my arms tired!)
getting off the plane there were the usual gate agents, but then also people with clipboards walking up to the deplaning passengers, telling them they had to "Self Quarantine" for 14 days, and handing out pamphlets from the NJ Dept of Health
"Travelers and residents returning from any U.S. state or territory beyond the immediate region (New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) should self-quarantine at their home, hotel, or other temporary lodging for 14 days following recommendations from the CDC. The self-quarantine is voluntary, but compliance is expected."
Which was tricky, because I was only going to be there for the week and scheduled to make $5,000 I mean see patients for 5 days, but being a good Citizen I complied.
I didn't leave my body for the entire week, my body on the other hand, went all over North Jersey.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

AJS, a good point. Practically speaking, how could you enforce it? We had 'No jab, No job' laws during the pandemic. So deprivation of livelihood isn't technically enforcement, but would have the same effect, I would think.

A side note...I appreciated your discussion of Japan's version of SCOTUS very much. I can see how their decisions differ, with more practical perspective. Keep posting those cases, it provokes good discussion.

[A Japanese Student]

The consequences can be anything - and that's not the difficult part. The problem is how to determine if someone is vaccinated.

COVID vaccine mandate was enforceable to some extent because people were reminded to keep records of their vaccinations. Same for schoolchildren. I don't think adult residents who have received vaccinations decades ago as infants still have the documents.

[Brett Bellmore]

We have a pretty good tracking system in the US for vaccinations. I suspect that's why the public health authorities refused to treat having actually HAD Covid as equivalent to having been vaccinated, even though they knew it was biologically comparable: Because we don't have a good tracking system for such test results, from a bureaucratic standpoint it was just much easier to act as though antibody status didn't mean anything.

It was rather unconscionable that this led them to demand that people who had already had the disease be vaccinated as though they were immunologically naive, though, since this subjected people to medical risk for no gain.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ...since this subjected people to medical risk for no gain."

Alrighty. Please give feedback on a couple of things, Brett:

1. Quantify for us all, your estimation of that "medical risk".

2. Explain why you assume "no gain". I recall studies saying natural immunity + vaccination was better than either state alone. I can't profess certainty that's the case, but think it probable. Why do you think otherwise?

[Bored Lawyer]

The current law applies to private schools as well. Only option is home schooling.

[Commenter_XY]

Could NY (or NJ where we live) pass a law mandating vaccination for all state residents (medical exemption only, like immunocompromised)? I am wondering about that.

If Buck v Bell is the precedent, then I don't see why a state cannot mandate vaccination for all state residents.

Thx for the correction = homeschooling. What stops 'Pods' (groups of parents who educate their children together) from being a private school, of sorts?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose the state could allege that it IS a private school fraudulently claiming to just be home schooling, and bring a legal action against the participants on that basis.

[John F. Carr]

I expect – I haven't researched – that taking money and advertising to the public are major differences between a school and a gang of mutually supporting parents.

Buck v. Bell applied Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld mandatory vaccination during an emergency. But the emergency part of the context is not really meaningful. Whatever the government says is an emergency is an emergency.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Could NY (or NJ where we live) pass a law mandating vaccination for all state residents (medical exemption only, like immunocompromised)?

Yes, although the relevant precedent is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, not Buck v. Bell.

[David Nieporent]

My legal question: What stops NY from making vaccinations mandatory for all state residents, period?

Nothing. That's Jacobson

[Kazinski]

They might be able to get away with it if there are no other exceptions, that's where the Covid restrictions ran into trouble, making exceptions, but excluding religious exceptions.

Then another wrench in the gears would be if Congress decides to not allow Medicaid or other federal funds to be used by the states for childhood vaccinations if the vaccinations are mandatory, or without religious exemptions.

[santamonica811]

Any thoughts on last night's Trump speech? I thought he did a pretty good job. Countless lies embedded, of course, but who really cares by this point. I thought he spoke with energy. I'm pretty confident that he didn't persuade a single undecided citizen, or any Independents or Democrats who were not already MAGA faithful. But I don't think that was the goal. This was no unifying speech...it was to energize his supporters. And I think it was very successful at that.

I thought the responding speech was excellent. And who gives a crap? No one pays attention to those, whether they are great, or okay, or sucky. Moving on.

The big losers were Democrat members of Congress. Amateur hour. Admittedly, they were in a no-win situation. Sit there passively? Does silence = approval? The huge public outburst was embarrassing. Two days from now; no one will remember or care. But to the extent you were not in MAGA and you wanted to see if there'd be anything inspirational from the Dems . . . I think you walked away disappointed.

Trump sucks. But last night was a good night for him. (Meanwhile, the price of food keeps going up, here in LA, gas prices are up more than 10% since he took office, the world hates America, the world distrusts America. And Trump is doing his best to bring us into a recession. And no one cares...at least, for now. At least my huge tax break will apparently become permanent. So, um, thanks???)

[Commenter_XY]

One thing I would like to see is a return to decorum in the Congress, and dial up basic civility. Team D did themselves no favors last night, and Team R has done exactly the same kind of performative theatrics. Both should stop that. Say or do whatever you like outside the chamber of Congress, but behave better inside it.

Maybe for a Congress-critter, being inside that chamber is no big deal. But think about the gravity of the debates and the greatness of the people who debated those issues in that very chamber over the last two centuries. In a way, it is hallowed ground; awe inspiring for the ordinary American.

The performative theatrics are something I would like to see go away, sm811.

[santamonica811]

Absolutely. A few days ago, I posted that my hopes were that the D's stay away, or show up & leave. But not boo or heckle. I felt that was, generally-speaking, done. But of course no one remembers the moments of self-restraint...we remember the outburst. Just like Dems don't remember the times Trump speaks the truth, they focus on the times he lies. (I do this too, as do most people, of course. Man bites dog. We don't say about Jeffrey Epstein, "Well, there were an average of 350 days each year when he was not sexually exploiting young girls/women.")

[Bwaaah]

"No one remembers the moments of [the Democrats'] self-restraint"

Must've been hidden behind the signs they were holding up.

I think your take on the speech is pretty on-the-mark. Your only miss is in saying, "Trump is doing his best to bring us into a recession." Though recession may be the effect of his actions, I think it's absurd to think that that's his intent.

[santamonica811]

True, re your last observation. I was speaking informally. "By throwing only long bombs, the quarterback was doing his best to give up interception after interception." Of course the QB was not intending to give up those interceptions. But, we read my sentence as, "By doing it, the quarterback was doing actions that were extremely likely to lead to [bad result.'"

I would absolutely agree with you that Trump does not actively want a recession. (But you and I probably disagree where I think: "Trump, on the other hand, WOULD be perfectly okay with a recession, if it was the result of Action X, Action Y, and Action Z...three things that Trump really wants to happen to America."

I don't think that Trump really wants Russia to invade and take over part of Poland or Latvia. But, if that is an end-result of fucking over Ukraine (Trump has never forgiven Ukraine for refusing to collude with him in manufacturing dirt on Hillary), then I fear that this is a trade-off that Trump would happily live with.

[Bwaaah]

Well now we're in agreement on everything you've said here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the difference between disrupting a joint session of Congress (Jan 6th) and disrupting a joint session of Congress (Feb 4th)?!?

Why isn't a certain Rep from Texas in jail this morning?!?

[David Nieporent]

Why isn't a certain Rep from Texas in jail this morning?!?

The Speech & Debate clause?

[Frank Drackman]

What clause allows a Representative to bring a Truncheon on the House floor?

[Bwaaah]

Are you referring to that stanchion he was yielding, Norm? That's normal precum in the Confessional chamber, in dickus, of course. (Get me excited and the Greek starts to fly.)

[Frank Drackman]

"47" spoke for nearly 2 hours, and unlike Sleepy Joe, proounced Laken Riley's name correctly. That was nice of them to escort that old Black Wine-O with the Cane (was he making a Charles Sumner reference?) out of the House Chamber, instead of the Dungeon. Was I the only one thinking of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre??

[bernard11]

Agree.

[bernard11]

Agree with XY, that is, not Frank.

[Frank Drackman]

You'll come around.

[Kazinski]

I also thought Trump didn't help much with the reference to Biden as the worst President ever, or Pocahontas.

I get it, they've been calling him a Nazi, or a Russian stooge for at least 8 years and have forfeited any obligation of conventional politeness, but it doesn't mean Trump needs to indulge himself that way.

[santamonica811]

Is it your impression that Trump was polite to Warren, and only started saying awful lies and slurs about her after he was compared to a Nazi? I think your timing is wildly off, if so.

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't read the speech yet, I generally go to bed early weekdays. Care to provide a quick list of the lies so that I can look for them when I'm reading a transcript later?

I have seen a bit of coverage of the Democrats' antics during the speech, and they didn't help themselves. That sort of thing communicates that you don't have actual arguments.

And I think they don't; They've gotten themselves on the wrong side of too many 80-20 issues, and don't seem prepared to extricate themselves.

[apedad]

FFS, don't you guys know a thing called Google?

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/mar/05/Trump-address-congress-fact-check-speech/

[Frank Drackman]

FFS, don't you know Politifact is about as accurate as the Des Moines Register Poll that predicted Cums-a-lot would carry Iowa by 4% (she lost by 13)

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't want to know what Politifact thought were lies, I wanted to know what santamonica811 thought were lies.

But, looking at what Politifact was complaining about...

"Social Security databases show "3.5 million people from ages 140 to 149 and money is being paid to many of them.""

This is typical Politifact. Were there 3.5 million people in the database from 140 to 149? The acting Social Security commissioner didn't actually deny this, and Politifact doesn't make any effort to establish that it isn't true.

Is money being paid to "many" of them? I guess that depends on what you mean by "many", but he didn't deny that, either, he just said that being in the database didn't "necessarily" mean you were getting paid, not that none of them were.

Now, I'm aware of the database issue that Politifact references, in fact I've brought it up here myself, so I'm not entirely convinced that they've established wrongful payments. But, nothing in the statement was established to be "false" by Politifact. It was their usual "implication checking", saying things that might technically be true are "false" because they don't like what is implied by them.

""We found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud.""

How nice that Politifact won't call something "fraud" until a fraud conviction has been obtained in court. I wonder how consistent they are about that?

""$1.9 billion (went) to recently created decarbonization of homes committee," which was "headed up" by Stacey Abrams."

Politifact bases their "false" on "There’s no evidence Abrams, the two-time Democratic candidate for Georgia governor, directly received any grant money or engaged in illegal behavior."

But... that's not what Trump said, now, is it? More implication checking.

""Over the past four years, 21 million people poured into the United States, many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities, all throughout the world.""

"Immigration officials encountered immigrants illegally crossing the U.S. border around 10.4 million times from February 2021, Biden’s first full month in office to January 2025, his last.

When accounting for Congressional Republicans' September 2024 "got aways" estimate — people who border officials don’t stop — the number rises to about 12.4 million."

But, Trump didn't say "illegal immigrants", and his number was accurate for the total of immigrants, legal and illegal. They chose to apply his number to illegal immigration only, though he didn't specify that.

""Illegal border crossings last month were by far the lowest ever recorded, ever.""

Half true, because there might have been lower numbers recorded before they started recording the numbers. Seriously, that's their basis for disputing it. But they do bring some math to bear, so I'll give them this one.

I'd say Politifact was batting about 25%.

[bernard11]

Here you go, Brett.

Some samples:

On the Social Security fraud BS:

A 2023 report from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general found that virtually every beneficiary who lacked a birth date had died. Of the 18.9 million people with Social Security numbers born in 1920 or earlier with no record of their deaths, the report said “approximately 18.4 million (98 percent) number holders are not currently receiving SSA payments and have not had earnings reported to SSA in the past 50 years.”

“We pay subsidies to Canada and to Mexico of hundreds of billions of dollars.”

This is utter idiocy. Does Trump not know the difference between a subsidy and a trade deficit? When I buy groceries I'm not subsidizing the grocery store. I guess he doesn't know. Moron.

“But it was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure. 38,000 workers died building the Panama Canal. They died of malaria. They died of snakebites and mosquitoes.”

Trump’s estimate of 38,000 dead is exaggerated. The accepted estimate is fewer than 6,000, mainly from injury and disease. Many were not Americans. Black workers, including many West Indians, by some estimates were nearly four times more likely to die than White workers. An earlier French effort to build a canal (when Panama was still a province of Colombia) led to the death of 22,000, many from malaria and yellow fever.

Braggadocio? No.

Remember, he's using this kind of crap to justify taking over the canal.

Read the whole thing, Brett, or don't. You won't believe it regardless, and will continue with your lame cultish excuses.

Oh, and don't claim you don't like Trump. That's laughable.

[PaulS]

I'm confused - Are you saying 500000 people over 104 received social security payments (18.9 million - 18.4 million). I think there are under 100000 people in the US over 100 years old? I guess that could be something other than fraud. As I said, I'm confused as to your point - please explain

[Bwaaah]

Me too.

[grb]

PaulS : "I'm confused.."

A very convenient state when defending crude lies like a good Cultist! Here's my compromise: Why not ask Trump or DOGE to produce evidence of these millions of people receiving benefits at age 140-plus? That shouldn't be hard for Musk's team of frat-boy tech-bros. should it? But they won't be able to. Confused or not, you and Bwaaah will look end up looking foolish.

Remember, the initial release from DOGE contained ZERO documentation of fraud. There were errors mistaking millions for "billions". There were items over-counted three and four times. Many claims had no documentation whatsoever. But no fraud. That's for cartoon speeches & public buffoonery, not print. As Kevin Drum notes:

"This is actually a little surprising. Fraud as a percentage of federal spending is pretty small, but it still amounts to a lot of dollars. If you wanted to highlight fraud, it wouldn't be hard to find. There are new real cases of Medicare and Medicaid fraud all the time, along with some lesser known programs, and it wouldn't take much to dig them up and flog them hard on Fox News. You only need two or three to make it look like we're drowning in fraud. So why not do it? First off, Trump and Musk probably don't really care. Second, it does require actual work to root out real fraud. And third, even the MAGA crowd might be a little cynical these days about "waste fraud 'n abuse." Maybe it's just been overused."

In short, they're too lazy to expend real effort on a PR stunt. And laziness or not, they can't find these 140yr old recipients because they don't exist. You know that of course, but your slavish Cult duty is to trail behind Trump, shoveling-up his bullshit of lies and misconduct. A very demanding job! A little pretend "confusion" can only help....

https://jabberwocking.com/wheres-the-fraud/

[PaulS]

I'm not defending anyone. I am trying to make sense of this claim (from above) - I didn't make up the stats he/she/they posted them and seemed to be quoting the social security inspector general PRE-Doge. It reads like 500k people over 103/104 are paid SSI benefits - that is confusing.
"On the Social Security fraud BS:
A 2023 report from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general found that virtually every beneficiary who lacked a birth date had died. Of the 18.9 million people with Social Security numbers born in 1920 or earlier with no record of their deaths, the report said “approximately 18.4 million (98 percent) number holders are not currently receiving SSA payments and have not had earnings reported to SSA in the past 50 years.”

[Bwaaah]

"I'm not defending anyone. I am trying to make sense of this claim (from above)"

Like you (I think), I'm just looking for why bernard11's argument did not do more to disprove his theory than prove it (unless the implication is that 500,000 potentially wrong payments are an insignificant fraction of a larger number?).

[Sarcastr0]

This short podcast runs through why this number is absolutely nonsense.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/are-150-year-olds-getting-social-security-payments/id267300884?i=1000694792688

[grb]

Bwaaah " ....did not do more to disprove his theory... "

Uh huh; let's look at the timeline:

1. Prominent among the steaming pile of lies, miscounting, over-counting, and bungling that is DOGE, Musk claimed people over 140yrs were receiving Social Security. They number in the millions per Musk.

2. In immediate response, everyone involved with the program said the claim was bogus. Musk's tech-bro merry pranksters were misreading the Social Security database.

3. Three weeks later, the Liar-in-Chief highlights the claim during one of his exercises in public buffoonery.

So what's absent in those intervening three weeks, Cultists PaulS & Bwaaah? Answer: Musk producing a single example of those millions. Even one. I frankly don't understand why the two Cult Clean-up Drudges above pester bernard11 to disprove something that doesn't exist.

Let's say Musk or Trump decide tomorrow to claim rainbow colored flying unicorns are streaking across the sky. Given they lie constantly about everything, it's a real possibility. Would the Cult Clean-up Crew then demand b-11 disprove the existence of unicorns? If it involves covering for Trump's pathological lying, they probably would.

Three weeks. Zero examples. Everyone knows the claim isn't true. Among others, that includes Musk, Trump, PaulS & Bwaaah.

[Kazinski]

Its not really DOGE's function to document fraud, its their function to Red flag it.

Isn't that one of the Democrats primary complaint? DOGE shouldn't have access to the systems to properly document Social Security fraud? It should reassure you that they don't.

They have read only access to the data warehouses, which are replication or denormalized representations of operational databases.

Its up to SSA to document it, and I am sure we will hear more later, but I doubt they will or legally can release names social security numbers amounts and birthdates that fact checkers would be satisfied with, at least until an indictment, if any, has been filed, even then some of it will be under seal.

[Sarcastr0]

So unsupported bullshit is cool - it's just a red flagging exercise!

And if you want fewer sloppy lies, just give them unauthorized access to privacy-protected data!

Did you think this blank check on accuracy idea of yours through?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You realize, of course, that naming these people would be a violation of confidentiality laws.

Congress needs to pass a law giving Congresscritters the ability to look at this information.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note also, the big deal about the kid with brain cancer was a PR-style lie. It was obviously intended to counter the so-far unrebutted charge that DOGE axed research on pediatric brain cancer.

More generally, there is a record dating back to Trump's election denialism which shows that when Trump gets briefed on politically unpalatable truths, he systematically follows up with prompt public lies to the contrary. The pattern is so reliable that you can probably presume that almost any positive claim Trump makes—but especially claims which seem to come from somewhere off his usual radar—was triggered by an embarrassing fact he learned about, and is trying to suppress.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm not saying that Trump never lies. Plenty of politicians lie; Look at Biden constantly telling whoppers about his own personal history, or continuing to accuse that poor truck driver of being drunk.

Trump tends to engage in "braggadocio", self-aggrandizing lies. He seldom engages in policy lies, which are in the context of politics by far the more consequential.

I would say that Trump's critics have a track record of exaggerating how much Trump lies, and calling things "lies" just because they don't want them said.

[bernard11]

He seldom engages in policy lies, which are in the context of politics by far the more consequential.

Oh. Bullshit. He uses his lies to justify his insane policies.

[Magister]

Joe Biden "telling whoppers about his own personal history, or continuing to accuse that poor truck driver of being drunk" - those were not policy lies.

Trump has frequently claimed credit for policies he didn't have anything to do with. Trump has told huge lies to justify his preferred policies (tariffs . Trump has misrepresented his plans to get elected or garner support or distract from his failures (infrastructure week! fixing inflation on day 1! concepts of a health plan!).

[Dr. Ed 2]

SM811 -- the Dems should just have not shown up.

They didn't have to, and a couple hundred empty seats would have spoken more than they could have said, let alone did say.

But that would have involved class, which they don't have.

[Frank Drackman]

But they had those clever signs!

[Longtobefree]

Just curious; it was billed as an address to a joint session of congress. Could Mike Johnson called the session to order and passed legislation if enough democrats were left to fulfill a quorum?
Could the senate have done the same?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was the Hitler playbook, circa 1932. Look at some of his speeches, filled with hate and lies, demonizing fellow Germans, though delivered better than Trump did because he prepared himself better. While his opponents in the audience tried to act more civilized, to little effect.

[Swede425]

Way to go, Dan!
All the folks who stopped referring to Trump as Hitler after the election are just quitters.
And you're no quitter! Stay the course!

[SRG2]

Do oyu understand the difference between using Hitler's playbook and being Hitler?

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. Hitler's long gone. Playbook's still around.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Franklin Roosevelt used Hitler's playbook, and a lot more.
The NRA Eagle was *identical* to the nazi eagle except for the swastika in its claws.

Both used public works and similar heroic imagry of it. Etc...

[David Nieporent]

The NRA Eagle was *identical* to the nazi eagle except for the swastika in its claws.

I invite anyone to google image and see that it in fact this is not true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, walk down the street and look at the one on the old Post Office -- it IS identical. The NRA Eagle wasn't consistent, and because of the physics of stonework and 1930s technology, the masonry ones more resembled Hitler's.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Using phrases like "poisoning our blood" and "vermin" invites the comparison. How can it not?

[Frank Drackman]

Actually Hitlers speech to the farm workers at the 1934 Nurnberg rally could have been taken from any DemoKKKrat or Repubiclown Candidates speeches from the last 50 years, all about having no separate classes of society, everyone having to work hard, loving peace, their homeland, people don't get "White Collar" jobs until they've done "Blue Collar" jobs first, thanking Veterans for their service. Only part that's 1/2 way "raceist" was Hitler's Stephen Miller, Julius Streicher,
"A Society that does not protect its racial purity will perish"
Ironically, it's happening in Israel right now.

Frank

[Martinned2]

I guess the people of Greenland are free to do with their country as they please, but Trump is going to get them one way or another...

[SRG2]

BBC's fact check:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3ylpd2n9no

[Don Nico]

SM,
It was great theater. American can be proud of our ability to produce spectacle.

The Democrats game plan was well known (publicly announced) in advance and Trump played them every chance he could typically ending with his mean grimace.

But I agree with you that Trump was energized and completely unflustered by th protests.

[Josh R]

Joint addresses by the President are meaningless, in substance and politics.

That being said, I was struck by the very little amount of time spent on foreign policy. There was only a brief mention of Zelensky and the Middle East without mentioning Hamas.

[Kazinski]

Pretty close to my thoughts.

In fact you seem pretty close to whoring your integrity.

But gas prices are very close to the bottom of the range they've been in since 2021, nationally. Trump has no control over the factors that make California gas prices higher than anywhere besides HI and AK.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASREGW

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators....have you ever watched UK's Prime Minister Question hour? Well, since 1990 I have, on occasion. And I must say, I rather like it. There is a lot of extemporaneous back and forth. It can get pretty spicy, too.

Should the US do something similar, a weekly POTUS Question Hour where for a specified time period, members of the House and Senate get to ask questions directly of POTUS Trump, or his designate (VP Vance?), live and recorded. In UK, sometimes the PM's bring cabinet secretaries to answer questions relative to their area (example, POTUS Trump brings SecDHS Noem to answer border questions, and she answers the question).

Would a structured format like PMQ work in America?

Would the country benefit from that, listening to the unfiltered, direct interaction between Congress and the Executive?

Speaking for myself, I would like to see this happen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, the President is not a member of Congress...

The Constitution states that the President must advise Congress of the state of the union -- and before Woodrow Wilson, it was a written letter that he mailed to them.

[apedad]

I'd like to see the President give the SOTU from the Oval Office.

The drama - from both sides - is ridiculous.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about just submit it in writing?

[Longtobefree]

Say five items accomplished?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The media wouldn't cover it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If there were Question Time for American Presidents:

The last Republican President who wouldn't embarrass himself was Nixon. Possibly George HW Bush, if it was a topic he actually knew about from past experience.

Of the last Democrats, except when Biden is having a "bad" day, I can't think of one who would not be good at it, except perhaps JFK.

[Frank Drackman]

When was the last time Parkinsonian Joe wasn't having a "Bad Day"?? I'm still shaking my head at this nugget of wisdom from last years SOTU ("47"'s was more of a "STFU")

"Lincoln — Lincoln Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal,” Biden said, both botching her name and using a term considered politically incorrect by most Democratic officeholders.
“That’s right, but how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals???? —”

and that mind you, was when Morning Schmoe Scarborough said Biden was "The best Biden ever"

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Everyone should take a look at Obama's hours-long confrontation with Republican leaders over Obamacare. Obama single-handedly took on a roomful of Rs, and when it was over they were jostling each other to get out the door first. "That was fun," said Obama to their retreating backs, "We should do it again soon."

[Frank Drackman]

as the late great Tony Soprano said ""Remember when?" is the lowest form of conversation" (right up there with "Check out the Tits on that one!")

[Mr. Bumble]

Bada bing!

[Commenter_XY]

Dan...Is that a 'Yes, we should' or 'No, we should not'? And why?

[Dan Schiavetta]

We should have Question Time. Unfortunately it developed (like all British procedures) through unwritten custom, based on what works and what is desirable, whereas we are confined to a series of what-must-be-done-and-what-can't-be-done rules written in 1787.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once again, that pesky old Constitution.

[John F. Carr]

Congress does have the ability to summon cabinet members to discuss their departments. Nothing in the Constitution says such an appearance has to be an empty spectacle.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eric Holder was in contempt of Congress...

[Bwaaah]

"Nothing in the Constitution says such an appearance has to be an empty spectacle."

No. We can thank tradition for that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both Obama and Clinton would have lost their tempers, and Carter would have gotten lost on his own. I'm not sure about Johnson but my guess is he would have lost his temper too.

But the thing about the Parliamentary system are the shadow governments, that you not only have an opposition prime minister but an entire cabinet, and this is considered legitimate.

[Martinned2]

Yes, Congress should definitely arrange for the President (and other senior government officials) to participate in debates. The difficulty is that, both constitutionally and practically, this will tend to amount to a cross examination rather than a debate, which holds very little appeal for someone who isn't legally required to turn up there.

But it would be good to put the President on the House floor where he stands for the State of the Union, and create a format that is more of an exchange of views or a debate than a cross examination.

[Mr. Bumble]

No need. We now have X for that.

[Commenter_XY]

See, you and I agree here = But it would be good to put the President on the House floor where he stands for the State of the Union, and create a format that is more of an exchange of views or a debate than a cross examination.

Or a long-format discussion, ala JRE.

[Mr. Bumble]

All of that assumes good faith of the parties involved.
What it would turn into is a version of confirmation hearings with bloviating all around.

[John F. Carr]

In the UK the Speaker of Parliament has some respect and can take action when insults start flying. We have no comparable official in the United States.

[Bwaaah]

The Speaker of the House called for decorum last night, and when he didn't receive it, summoned the assistance of the Sergeant at Arms. The effort was successful, in no small part with the help of the cane-wielding offender (Rep Al Green), who compliantly moved out without a touch from his escorts.

I was frozen for a moment there, wondering how that would turn out. It looks like decorum is still a thing in the Congress. (And thankfully so, I think.)

[grb]

Bwaaah : "The Speaker of the House called for decorum last night..."

Two Points :

1. Personally, I don't agree with opposition theatrics during a presidential address to Congress, regardless of which side is which. Those theatrics are pointless and rude.

2. However I do see great humor in a Trump flunkie defending decorum and standards today (against the Democrats). Odds are said-flunkie will sneer at said-standards thirty-times while defending Trump for every one time "standards" are a useful cudgel against the Dems.

[Bwaaah]

"However I do see great humor in a Trump flunkie defending decorum and standards today (against the Democrats). Odds are said-flunkie will sneer at said-standards thirty-times while defending Trump for every one time "standards" are a useful cudgel against the Dems."

Are you sure you've pegged "said-flunkie" correctly? Does that make a difference to you?

If it amuses you to see a person defend decorum, it suggests to me you're a pretty snotty person.

[Sarcastr0]

You post wild anti-Dem and pro-Trump stuff, lament the plight of the white man, insult everyone who doesn't support Trump from me to DMN.

Then get huffy when people call you MAGA.

[Bwaaah]

I don't recall having posted pro-Trump stuff. I certainly never "lamented the plight of the white man." And though I post "anti-Dem" stuff, I don't think any of it is "wild."

Any cites? Or are you just full of shit?

[myself]

The difficulty is that, both constitutionally and practically, this will tend to amount to a cross examination rather than a debate, which holds very little appeal for someone who isn't legally required to turn up there.

That's what happens in Parliamentary democracies, and it kinda works.

The difference between that and the congressional arguing that happens in the US is the people involved in the arguments are the ones who matter.

Who gives a crap what Mike Johnson thinks? He's not setting administration policy, he barely sets legislation. But have Trump have to go out against the leader of the opposition and justify his policies? Now that would keep the administration in line.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Now that would keep the administration in line."

Have you been in a coma since 2016?

[myself]

Apparently yes. Are you telling me that the US switched to a Parliamentary democracy in 2016?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, just amazed that you could think questioning Trump will keep him "in line".

[myself]

I have no idea how Trump would react, but it's more the point that in a Parliamentary democracy the PM needs to be able to withstand that kind of questioning.

So a Trump-like figure would have a tough time getting nominated to lead his party, and if he somehow got selected he would not last under regular hostile questioning from the opposition leader.

[SRG2]

Almost no US politician would agree because almost to a man and women they are chickenshits when it comes to being properly challenged by a questioner.

What PMQ and ministers' questions require is that the cabinet ministers really need to be on top of their brief - literally. I don't see US cabinet ministers being able to do that, or wanting to.

Nor am I sure that American politicians would be capable of acting with the necessary decorum as opposing to putting on a performance for their constituents (see every televised committee hearing.).

Finally, almost all the time in Question Time there's a sense that they're political opponents not enemies - there can even be a degree of clubbishness. Again, I don't see this in the US.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I agree with your points. But should we have it?

We don't do it today in the US. It is a practice from UK I would very much like to see here. I just wonder how that happens.

[SRG2]

But should we have it?

Yes. Having politicians answer publicly is a good thing.

[myself]

Yes. Power should always be paired with accountability.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would have reigned in Obama...

[John F. Carr]

Before taking questions one must be elected. It would be nice to have a candidate who could have a proper discussion of issues with his opponent.

I remember George H. W. Bush in a debate saying something like, "Is it time to bring out the one-liners?" We have over 30 years of decline in quality of discourse since then.

[Bwaaah]

Fake news. (whole lines started to slip away by 2015)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Attention all college administrators -- this is how you deal with radical leftists disrupting an event:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/video/rep-al-green-interrupts-trump-address-congress-digvid

You only have to throw one out to quiet the rest.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed pretends to be at a university, and yet he does not know that in fact you do not only have to throw one out to quiet the rest; campus speech disrupters routinely choreograph their disruptions for maximum effect. The first person or small group of people gets disruptive and is thrown out, and as soon as order is restored, the next person/small group does the same, and so on.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like the Waffen SS did when one of their Soldiers was shot by a Partisan, execute the villagers one by one until they gave up the Sniper.

[Michael P]

Then you prosecute them all for conspiracy against rights, and send them to federal prison for ten years.

[not guilty]

"Then you prosecute them all for conspiracy against rights, and send them to federal prison for ten years."

Michael P, imagine that you are a United States Attorney drafting such a conspiracy indictment for presentation to a grand jury. Riddle me this:

Who are the conspirators (whether indicted or not)?
What was the conspiratorial objective?
Whose rights were sought to be violated, and what specific rights?
When did the conspiracy begin? When did it end?
What facts evince the manner and means of the conspiracy?
What overt acts were committed, and by which conspirators?

Stamping your feet and kvetching, "Somebody did something that I didn't like!" doesn't feed the bulldog.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd hope that the attorneys in the Jan 6th persecution kept good records and plagiarize.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P.

[Martinned2]

Free speech FTW!

[Ed Grinberg]

Sorry, Martinned2, but disrupting someone else's speech doesn't count as "free speech."
You know who regularly disrupted their political opponents' speeches? The Brownshirts. According to Wikipedia, "[their] primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, ..."
Say, isn't there a VC commenter who regularly accuses you of being a "Nazi"? Maybe he's onto something...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fair is fair -- I am going to call Trump on that girl who got hit in the face with a volleyball and brain damage as a result.

I've NEVER seen anything relative to sex differences in head injuries. I don't see how a male player wouldn't have been as badly injured.

Volleyball is not supposed to be a contact sport -- it's often a coed game.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why you're not a real Dr, Dr Ed2, and since you're obviously a bit addled yourself, I'll draw you a Diaphragm, with closed captions, so maybe even you can understand.
You See, the Brain is protected, by what we Medical Professionals call, "The Skull", and the Brain floats in a fluid, that we call, "Cerebrospinal Fluid".
Men, on the average, have much thicker Skulls than Women, yourself for instance.
and you've obviously never seen a competitive Volleyball game, because nearly every point is decided by a high speed "Spike"
OK, you've got a point, that a women's Spike could cause the same Brain damage as a man's, I've had a few TBI's myself (Much better now though)

Frank

[grb]

Four Points :

1. As happened repeatedly in the past, "Doctor" Frank Drackman has made a blundering hash of a simple medical question.

2. In fact, women's skulls are slightly thicker on average, though individual variation in thickness means the opposite is often true.

"According to a new imaging study of 3,000 people using the latest in imaging analysis techniques, women's skulls are thicker than men's, and both shrink slowly in adulthood. The average skull thickness for men is 6.5 millimeters, and the average for women is 7.1 mm. The average front-to-back measurement is 176 mm for men and 171 mm for women, and the average width is 145 mm for men and 140 mm for women. These detailed results could help in the design of more effective devices for protecting the head in vehicle collisions and other accidents, the researchers say."

https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/01/Study-Womens-Skulls-Thicker-Mens-Wider-Might-Affect-Protection-Design.aspx

3. I hesitate to highlight this fact, predicting (with sadness) that Ed will use it in some way to placate his inner demons, women-wise.

4. And as happened ALWAYS in the past, Frank's comment is worthless.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was actually going to ask how women could fly fighter jets which have high G forces if Frank was right, which I didn't think he was.

And I still maintain that a male player her size & weight would have been equally injured -- and that it's poor sportsmanship to spike the ball directly into someone's face -- male, female, or confused -- it's still a human being and this is poor form.

My "inner demons" come from time in a profession that is (a) over 90% female and (b) continually complains how the profession discriminates against women. The profession...

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "I was actually going to ask how women could fly fighter jets..."

Before that, Ed, you'd have to consider whether less than one millimeter in average skull thickness makes any difference whatsoever in flying jet planes. I doubt it does, but (unlike Frank) make no pretense of any medical knowledge. And if distinctions that minute were important, you'd have another issue : Individual variation in skull thickness would make sex irrelevant anyway. You would have to scan the heads of every potential pilot, male or female.

As for spiking, any serious volleyball lay in my far distant past. Yet I have a vague memory of the rush from a fully vicious spike. What we excuse (myself included) to enjoy a Sunday full of football is much, much worse than anything found in most any other sport, boxing excluded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

College boxing was banned, memory is in the 1930s, in response to fatalities -- and I'm not a fan of football.

It's been decades since I played volleyball, but I remember the tactic to spike the ball into a hole where the other team wasn't...

[David Nieporent]

College boxing was never 'banned.' However, the NCAA did stop sponsoring it, in 1960 rather than 1930. Is there a reason you're too lazy to so much as do a single google before posting anything?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the Democrats are stupid -- well, OK, but I think they are being quite stupid to emphasize "democracy."

We live in a republic, not a democracy, and I don't think that the Democrats would want to live in a democracy, not with Trump.

A democracy is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. A democracy would have enabled Trump to order the execution of all the Democrats present last night -- a majority vote and they are taken out and shot. The French Revolution was a democracy.

In a republic, minorities have rights, and if I were them, I'd want to emphasize that.

[David Nieporent]

The U.S. Is Both a Republic and a Democracy

[SRG2]

The US is the only country I know where a significant proportion of the population thinks that it's a republic not a democracy.

This staggering degree of ignorance is almost inexplicable. Nowhere else do you get people of any political stripe saying such ignorant garbage - and resisting correction. but I do not think it is accidental. There is definitely a political agenda behind those who promote such ignorance.

Why Dr Ed specifically is so ignorant on the matter, I don't know. But it's of a piece.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just like "Shimmer".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Article IV, Section 4 -- "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

Ben Franklin reportedly stated "a republic if you can keep it."

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and republic and democracy mean the same thing.

[Martinned2]

A democracy is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority.

You say that as if that would be a bad thing. Isn't that literally the whole governing philosophy of Donald Trump? ("I, The Donald, am The People")

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a dark side of populism and some o f us know that.
Huey Long was the example of populism on the left.

[bernard11]

Huey Long was sui generis.

[A Japanese Student]

Supreme Court of Japan issued yesterday a ruling in Unification Church dispute. The opinion is not published yet, but news reports say that the church lost.

The government is in the process of seeking a judicial dissolution, alleging abusive practice and financial exploitation by the Church. Government subpoenaed the Church, which it refused. A court imposed a civil penalty of 100,000 yen (around $670) for disobeying subpoena. Church's defense was that it could only be dissolved for criminal behavior, not actions simply constituting civil torts.

Judicial dissolution of religious corporation is rare, but not unprecedented. Aum Shinrikyo was dissolved in 1996 for using biological and chemical weapons to murder dozens. Another corporation was dissolved for fraud in 2002.

[Commenter_XY]

What does dissolution mean in Japan?

For example, are all Church assets confiscated and sold at auction?

[A Japanese Student]

Most significant impact would be loss of tax exemption. The corporate charter will govern how the assets would be transferred. (See Religious Corporations Act §50, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3898#je_ch6at14)

[Commenter_XY]

Article 51-4 is rough. No appeal.

Does dissolution mean all church buildings, etc are liquidated?
I don't know Japan tax law, what's the significance of losing the tax exemption?

[A Japanese Student]

51-4 only applies to orders naming a liquidator after dissolution is ordered. Dissolution itself can be appealed, and it would automatically stay the order. (§81(5))

As noted earlier, its properties would be transferred to another person named in the corporation's charter. Not sure if the charter's text is a public information. Unless they forgot to add it in their charters, liquidation is unlikely (assuming they can pay damages from other lawsuits). If the church continues to operate as unincorporated association, I believe donations would be subject to gift tax.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmm... outside of the Catholics and a few other denominations, all US churches are independent entities, I presume registered under 501(c)(3). Here are the relevant Massachusetts laws
https://www.mass.gov/lists/mass-general-laws-c180

I am surprised that each unification church isn't independent for this very reason, to limit liability.

[John F. Carr]

When corporate charters were more strictly regulated the state could file a writ of quo warranto against a corporation exceeding its authority. If a corporation's acts were mostly unauthorized it could be involuntarily dissolved. In the 19th century corporations had a specific purpose. A company chartered to operate a toll bridge could not get into textiles. Now corporations are authorized to do anything that's legal.

[A Japanese Student]

Here, capacities of corporations are still technically restricted to ones in the charter (Civil Code §34, Companies Act §27). It doesn't have to be specific - you can include things like "any other business incidental to ones listed above".

Unification Church dispute doesn't involve ultra vires acts, however. The theory is that the church's decades-old practice of persuading adherents to donate tremendous sums of money (which devastated not only them, but also their families who are not followers) is a tortious act supporting dissolution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Very interesting...

The Unification Church, aka "the Moonies", own the Washington Times newspaper and other legitimate businesses through subsidiary corporations.

They're not the only cult with a history of doing this -- 30 years ago there was a group called "the way" or something like that which was targeting UMass undergrads in the dorms and doing the same thing.

I remember them being discussed in staff meetings as a problem, and then I stopped dealing with freshmen and I don't knowing what became of them. But it is a real issue and I am not sure what legal recourse there is here.

[Frank Drackman]

"47" doesn't ask for my advice, but he should have pointed out that almost every current "Women's" Weightlifting record is held by men.

[Mr. Bumble]

Six weeks since Trump's inauguration and not a word about the former president. Are the Dems and the media practicing Damnatio memoriae with regard to Slo Joe?

[Frank Drackman]

Hasn't been much word about Sleepy Joe since last July, DemoKKKrat Media turned into Vinny Barbarino, "Who?", "What?", "Where?".....

[Martinned2]

As long as Trump keeps mentioning him in every other sentence, I don't think we have to worry about Biden being forgotten.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/04/trump-joint-address-to-congress/trump-biden-mentions-00212915

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess you missed the point.
It's the Dems who want to erase him from history.

[myself]

Why would anyone be talking about the former President who has zero intent of running again?

[Stephen Lathrop]

myself — Hilariously obvious. Never mind that Biden left office with an economy The Economist called, "The envy of the world." Nothing in that prevents Trump from lying that Biden left the economy an atrocious mess, and thus insulating Trump from blame for the stupid mismanagement he knows he wants to inflict.

[Armchair]

Europe: "We're going to help Ukraine!"
Also Europe: "Hi Russia, here's billions of dollars for oil and gas, please don't use it to attack Ukraine"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/european-union-spent-more-russian-fossil-fuels-than-ukraine-aid-2024

I'm sensing Europe might not be completely committed to Ukraine....

[Martinned2]

At least we're not actively siding with the Russians, so there's that.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-war-in-ukraine-military-aid-package-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelenskyy/

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2025/03/04/germany-s-merz-pushes-for-immediate-approval-for-3-billion-aid-package-for-ukraine_6738817_143.html

[tylertusta]

Wake me up once we start giving military aid to Russia so they can invade Ukraine.

[SRG2]

Nah, we're just giving comfort to Russia, not aid - yet.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Would it surprise anyone if Trump started sharing with Putin intelligence on the disposition of Ukrainian forces?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but only because he'd be afraid of getting caught, and that would be a bridge too far for some conservatives. But I just an alert on my phone a short while ago that he is ending the sharing of intelligence info with Ukraine.

[SRG2]

He would do so the way he leaked intelligence to Russia forcing the extraction of a CIA asset = by having a private meeting with the Russians with no western news sources, and relying on Russia's interpreter.

(It's staggering that supposedly patriotic Americans gave Krasnov a pass on this.)

If he did do this, it would be treason - if there were witnesses. And possibly he could defend himself by arguing that Russia was not an enemy.

Give the impossibility of a treason conviction were he to leak. the best course of action should it be found out that he had leaked Ukraine intelligence on troops to the Russians, the most appropriate remedies would be impeachment followed by assassination.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So the assassination of JFK was legitimate because he "leaked" the U-2 photos of the missiles in Cuba?

The President can release anything to anyone and the ONLY permissible response is impeachment. Anyone involved in an assassination plot should be executed.

[SRG2]

What matters is what is being leaked and to whom. Leaking Ukraine troop movements to Russia would be a terrible and unpardonable act.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But not much different than being aware of Russian troops massing against Ukrainians, and withholding that information from the Ukrainians. Which Trump has announced he is doing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"followed by assassination"

You are becoming utterly deranged.

[SRG2]

Really? Right-wingers have called for the summary execution of opponents - and Mike Pence - with no condemnation from the likes of you.

Remember this? https://19thnews.org/2024/11/trump-liz-cheney-shot/

Did you call Krasnov deranged? Or when the right people are being summarily executed, it's (R)ighteous.

When I present you with a situation where execution would normally be the penalty - for committing treason - if a formal remedy would be unavailable, why not an informal one?

Further, you cannot believe that Trump would commit an act of treason by leaking Ukrainian troop moves to Russia, so why whine at the impossibility?

[Bob from Ohio]

Whatever dude. You're acting just like Donald Trump. Congrats!

[SRG2]

Nope. I provided a hypothetical. But apparently you can't read. Or ot may be that you're used to Krasnovian English, where you only notice keywords - the words in bold, thus,.

Krasnov: "many people have told me that hostile alien spaceships are beaming down illegal immigrants, I don't know"

SRG: "If Krasnov commits vile acts of treason and isn't punished, he should be assassinated:

[Commenter_XY]

Arm, the problem is that UKR would never, ever pass muster of the Weinberger doctrine (a common sense guideline for when to intervene militarily) -- for the US, or europe for that matter. In brief, the Weinberger doctrine states:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved. -- UKR is not a vital national interest of America or europe, you can stop here

U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. -- neither the US nor europe will push RUS out of UKR

U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives. -- US has ruled out troops in UKR

The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress. -- UKR doesn't have that level of support in America, or europe

The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Judging by recent UK and FR comments, not even europe wants troops in UKR, unless there is explicit US backing. Something like NATO-lite. Well, thankfully, that isn't happening. SecDef Hegseth made clear any european troops in UKR are not doing so under a NATO umbrella, and forget about article 5.

POTUS Trump has the outlines of a plan to get an armistice in place and stop the killing. I don't see realistic strategic alternatives, and 'let's shovel tens of billions more doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome' is not a strategy. We are not going to war (see above).

Question: What concession is obtainable from RUS?

[David Nieporent]

Every time you open your mouth, you do more to convince me that we should send troops to Ukraine.

[Don Nico]

How many from your family will volunteer?

[tylertusta]

He's more than willing to send you and me before his own kids.

[David Nieporent]

I am going to publicly come out and say that I do not support sending American 8th graders to fight in Ukraine (no matter how much time they've played Fortnite.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why not? It happened in the Civil War...

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, you're not a eighth grader, so when will you be going?
If you make it back I'll be sure to thank you for your service.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for your candid (or did I mean candyass) reply

[Commenter_XY]

Send your children and grandchildren, David. Not mine.

UKR is not worth a single American life. Not one.

UK and FRA want a US backstop if they station troops there. That is NATO-lite. No way.

[David Nieporent]

Every time you open your mouth, you do more to convince me that we should send troops to Ukraine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Right after France and England who are much closer.

[Don Nico]

When there is a formal armistice, American will have workboots on the ground extracting Ukrainian minerals.

[David Nieporent]

Even to the extent that's true — and I would assume that most of the labor force would be local, not American — so what? When more Russian tanks roll up to the armistice line, what are those workboots going to do, throw clipboards at them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the mid 19th Century, the British East India Company had its own army of about 250,000 soldiers.

[Don Nico]

Go away and study the history of armistice lines in Europe. Comeback after you've written a 1000 word report.

[bernard11]

Who's talking about US troops?

Why is this relevant?

By the way, Trump has now cut off even intelligence cooperation with Ukraine. I guess the traitor got a call from Putin about it.

[ThePublius]

"By the way, Trump has now cut off even intelligence cooperation with Ukraine."

If you try to think about this objectively that actually makes sense.

Trump is trying to end the war. He's negotiating with both parties to the way separately. He is also trying to defuse the situation. He can't very well be taken seriously, as a negotiator, by Putin if he's simultaneously supplying Ukraine with intelligence (or arms).

I know I'm not going to convince any of the Trump haters of anything, much less that Trump isn't a Russian asset, isn't in Putin's pocket, and so on. But time will tell. Let's see where this thing leads, and when this war will be over. I know that without Trump this would have gone on much longer and many more would die. Before Trump no one in the U.S. was seriously trying to end it, we just kept funding it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure you'll back up a deal where Ukraine becomes effectively a Russian puppet as amazing art of the deal.

[ThePublius]

Why do you say that? I have never advocated for that, nor even indicated that I support it. I want Ukraine to be independent and free, and most immediately I want the killing and destruction to end.

What would you do? What do you think the U.S. should do about this war, if anything? Do you think it's possible to mediate a peace without talking to both parties to the conflict? Do you think mediation would be possible while communicating hate and contempt for one party, and while militarily helping one party?

[Sarcastr0]

You've supported Trump to the hilt through every reversal and sudden mind-change.

You and TiP and all those pretend that the status quo ante didn't exist. It did; it was, if not stable, at an equilibrium that was holding Russia at bay.

Not that's over. Trump ended it. So what do I want? Nothing; it's wrecked. There is plenty I would have wanted, but nothing doing.

[ThePublius]

"You've supported Trump to the hilt through every reversal and sudden mind-change."

That's B.S, and insulting that you presume to know what I feel, know, and support.

I am not sure what you're trying to say, but you think that the ongoing war, death, and destruction is something of an equilibrium?

[Sarcastr0]

Your peacenik act does not do wonders for your credibility as an obligate Trump supporter.

You don't seem interested in hearing criticism of Trump on Ukraine from me or DMN so not sure why I'd bother engaging with your pacifist take.

Some wars are righteous.

[ThePublius]

It's not an act. I think this war is terrible, it's at a stalemate now, not unlike the trench warfare of WWI, and people are dying every day. I think all war is bad. It must be engaged at times, such as stopping Hitler, but this thing in Ukraine - there's light at the end of the tunnel. Putin keeps Crimea and the Donbas, or the Donbas gain independence, a DMZ is established, and U.S. mining operations in Eastern Ukraine help to maintain a peace. What's so bad about that?

The death and destruction from this war is simply heartbreaking, on both sides.

[SRG2]

And Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO, right?

[ThePublius]

NATO membership for Ukraine is a touchy issue. Putin certainly doesn't want it. Perhaps someday, but at this point it could destabilize peace talks. Note that Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine, and doesn't want NATO on its doorstep.

[Sarcastr0]

Peace in our time redounds to the agressor.

If it were on our soil and our war, my calculous might be different. But Ukraine has chosen to fight.

Your condemnation of their struggle does not impress.

Your kowtowing to Putin re: Ukraine and NATO is also a very revealing position.

Is there anything Putin wants you won't give him in the name of peace?

[David Nieporent]

NATO membership for Ukraine is a touchy issue. Putin certainly doesn't want it. Perhaps someday, but at this point it could destabilize peace talks. Note that Russia has been invaded multiple times through Ukraine, and doesn't want NATO on its doorstep.

1) NATO is already on its doorstep. The Baltics and Scandinavia. Plus Poland wrt Kaliningrad.
2) NATO poses no threat to invade Russia.
3) I fail to see the relevance of the fact that Russia was invaded through Ukraine. Pretty much every non-island country that was ever attacked was attacked through its neighbor. That doesn't give a country any special claim on said neighbor.

[SRG2]

NATO membership for Ukraine is a touchy issue

So your peace solution is, Russia keeps Crimea, Lugansk and Donbas, U:S gets minerals currently owned by Ukraine for a 75% doscount or so, and Ukraine gets nothing - not even the comfort of NATO membership providing a measure of security. And you favour Krasnov's pressuring Ukraine to accept what is in effect a surrender.

A group of people break into your house and occupy some of the rooms. The police say, we've worked out a deal. They won't occupy any more rooms, and we'll take some of the family silver to reward us for helping you deal with them. Okay?

Such a deal.

[ThePublius]

I didn't say anything about Lugansk. What Ukraine gets is the security of having U.S. mineral extraction enterprises on its Easter border. Oh, and the killing stops.

[SRG2]

So the US mining somehow protects Ukraine? All Russia has to do is not attack the mines if it decide it wants the rest of Ukraine.

You want Ukraine to make all the concessions. Ergo you're pro Russia.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“You and TiP and all those pretend that the status quo ante didn't exist.”

And the status quo ante ante was holding Russia at bay. Until it wasn’t.

Biden didn’t have an exit strategy. Trump does. Unfortunately it’s the wrong one.

But Trump is the only one proposing an endgame that doesn’t involve getting hands on with Russia.

I think going the only way out is to threaten to take decisive action and be prepared to back it up, but no one wants to do that.

[Don Nico]

S_O,
Once again you get asked, "what would you do?" You never answer except to try to weasel out with another criticism. It sure is easy to criticism when you have nothing to offer.

[Sarcastr0]

READ:

"Now that's over. Trump ended it. So what do I want? Nothing; it's wrecked. There is plenty I would have wanted, but nothing doing."

Now quit catching momentary idiocy whenever you see my name.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There is plenty I would have wanted..."

In the past three years between the latest incursion and when Trump "wrecked" it, have you proposed anything that had a realistic chance of resulting in anything other than a meat grinding stalemate? IIRC you were in favor of Biden's structuring of the aid in ways to avoid "provoking" Putin, initially avoiding giving HIMARS and other weapons.

[Don Nico]

You say Trump ended it. That is not happening. But fine, go back to your bubble

[bernard11]

Trump is definitely a Russian asset.

I don't mean he is necessarily a paid asset in the espionage sense, just that he is valuable to Putin, possibly on a volunteer basis, or on spec.

[ThePublius]

Your clarification is not what it means to be an asset, at least not in the vernacular. He's not trying to help Putin "win" this war.

If Putin realizes some benefit from the ending of the war, which should be self evident, so be it. Likewise, Zelensky will likely realize some benefit from the warr ending.

[Sarcastr0]

What would Trump be doing differently if he were trying to help Putin win the war?

[Don Nico]

He would not have invited Z to the White House; he would have cut off aid on Jan 20. He'd feed all intelligence information directly to Mr P; etc.
So the answer is plenty

[David Nieporent]

He invited Zelensky to the White House to demand his surrender and manufacture a public pretext to cut Ukraine off. Why exactly is that something that Trump wouldn't have done if he was trying to help Putin?

As for intelligence, who says he isn't?

[Sarcastr0]

People on here smarter than I predicted there would be a manufactured blowup. Which it was, and which went off perfectly to provide an excuse for what Trump had been gesturing towards for a while.

Trump would have lost some support if he acted too soon, of course.
Might still have acted too soon.

I like that you had to go to 'feed Putin intelligence.' That's kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel!

But as someone who didn't vote for Trump but now spends all their time defending Trump and Putin on here, I don't think lack of good arguments phases you much these days.

[Don Nico]

How am I defending Trump or Putin? You certainly like to lie and make things up. Typical gaslighting.
You don't have good arguments hence your dishonesty and baseless russia-baiting.

[David Nieporent]

He's not trying to help Putin "win" this war.

How can you tell?

[ThePublius]

You guys are so galvanized in your partisanship and Trump hatred that you can't engage in a logical discussion of this topic.

[bernard11]

I realize it's not what "asset" means in the vernacular sense, where it is connected with espionage and whatnot.

OTOH, as I tried to make clear, I was using it in the same sense as one might say, "John is a great asset to our company. He's done some things that really helped us."

So it is with Trump. He's always eager to help Putin.

[Don Nico]

"eager to help Putin" You have not demonstrated that.
He is eager to reestablish a dialog that is essential to stabilize the strategic confrontations with the BRICS countries. Our last nuclear arms control treaty expires in less than 1 year. There have been no discussions/conversations or negotiations about that for at least 3 years. It is about time that we start talking again.

[Josh R]

Trump is, as always, only eager to help himself.

[Don Nico]

That I agree with. He plays so that he wins

[David Nieporent]

"eager to help Putin" You have not demonstrated that.

No, Trump has demonstrated that.

[Don Nico]

No David. That is your projecting. Give a concrete specific, except that he is willing to speak with Trump. And that is a necessity if the nuclear control regime is not to collapse completely.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no deal yet, of course, only stopping support for Ukraine. That should by itself be enough to demonstrate what side Trump's on.

But to take a scenario that's pretty strong, but hardly the worst it could be...if Trump ends up supporting a deal where:

-Putin gets full recognition of all the land he's occupied in Ukraine,
- and some other lands besides,
- Ukraine completely demilitarized,
- all sanctions lifted,
- eastern Ukraine recognized as part of Russia.

Would that count for you as Trump eagerly helping Putin?

[Stephen Lathrop]

One tendency of ongoing Ukraine conflict, negotiations, and alliance-shifting, is toward a new world nuclear power balance. The risk is a balance more dangerous for the U.S. than exists now.

Problem is, in the new Trump foreign policy scenario Western Europe MUST confront and stop Putin's aggressive agenda. It has no choice. It must practice nuclear deterrence on its own, or accept likely conventional invasions and takeovers of multiple nations.

That suggests major European financial support to keep Ukraine fighting—notably more money than Ukraine has had thus far. So ambition for a prompt peace imposed on Ukraine by force is probably unwise. Even if the Ukrainian regime were to collapse, one likely outcome would be ongoing partisan resistance to Russian takeover—conflict intense enough to keep Ukraine a flashpoint for renewed regional fighting.

Worse, that scenario suggests loss of U.S. control over questions of nuclear initiative in a newly fraught and war-like Europe. Europe's new default nuclear defender would likely become France.

At least for the present, it is not obvious that France would pay much attention to the Trump administration. France would structure nuclear deployments and strategies newly designed to fulfill its own vision of a more-powerful military role, and a more influential policy position. Whether Germany could remain complacent during a French ascendancy, or would instead seek nuclear arms of its own is a corollary question.

Nothing about European defense restructuring, however, would limit to Europe any catastrophic consequences of a nuclear exchange, if one happened. If general nuclear war breaks out in Europe, the U.S. would be massively targeted during the first strike, just as if it had initiated the conflict.

Thus, by trashing defensive alliances against Russia, Trump's ill-judged policy will put the U.S. in the worst possible nuclear strategy position. The result would be unchanged vulnerability, combined with loss of planning, initiative, and control.

While the U.S. remained as physically vulnerable as ever, it would hand to France a more-active role to decide questions of war and peace. Along with that would go whatever feeble capacity might exist to exercise saving nuclear war-fighting policy in advance of a crisis, or during one.

The net result would be a world still governed by fearsome principles of nuclear deterrence, but featuring less predictable policies and military actions. Peace would be challenged more often, and by more various happenstance.

Chaotic tendencies in multi-polar world affairs have long been counted among the least manageable aspects of nuclear risk. Adding additional complexity to the mix will only make that problem worse, maybe exponentially worse.

I suggest the Trump administration would be wiser to pause and think, before throwing away a dominant world position it already holds, to influence questions so fraught with existential risk.

[Kazinski]

We will soon find out.

If the deal he is negotiates with Putin and Zelensky is fair reasonable then it blows that nonsense out of the water.

Fair isn't the actual metric because fair would restore Ukraine's borders, but its not a reasonable expectation based on Ukraine's leverage. And it not reasonable to suppose augmenting Ukraine's offensive capability to take all their territory back is compatible with peace negotiations.

I expect a ceasefire mostly along current lines, except a Ukrainian pullback from the small slice of Russian territory in Kursk.

I don't think negotiations to get their territory back will be fruitful while Putin is in charge.

And there is pressure on Trump to deliver at least that.

[grb]

Kazinski : "And it not reasonable to suppose augmenting Ukraine's offensive capability to take all their territory back is compatible with peace negotiations."

Actually, it's reasonable to assume the United States (leader of the Free World pre-Trump) would support a country fighting an invasion by a common enemy. It's reasonable we'd help supply our ally as long as he wished to fight for his freedom. And it's reasonable to assume we'd welcome the chance to denigrate Russia's military by that support.

But what am I saying? Trump must grant his dreamboat hunk Vladdy everything he desires because ..... wait for it ..... his "dismay" over Ukrainian dead. And on cue, every Right-winger immediately starts sobbing copious crocodile tears over all those Ukrainian dead. If it wasn't for those "poor Ukrainians", they wail, we wouldn't have to stab Ukraine in the back (while giving Russia the exact deal they want).

All of which is very strange. All those Right-wingers loath Ukrainians and hold the people & country in total contempt. Strange how their concern - so well hidden until now - is forcing them (forcing them!) to whore for Russia.

[Kazinski]

"Actually, it's reasonable to assume the United States (leader of the Free World pre-Trump) would support a country fighting an invasion by a common enemy. It's reasonable we'd help supply our ally as long as he wished to fight for his freedom."

Then why didn't Biden, and Zelensky's stalwart European allies provide that aid then before it turned into a stalemate grinding down both countries.

We are 3 years into the war and suddenly its Trump's responsibility to win it?

[grb]

Let's get one thing out the way : You're rubbery "logic" blaming Biden for Trump's betrayal is. just. plain. pathetic. Granted, the Cult hands out its achievement ribbons for effort alone, but you still need to do better work, weaseling-wise.

Now, four points :

1. Biden (and the Europeans) heard two opposite criticisms from opponents of the war/Putin supporters. First, he was doing too much and would drag the West into WWIII. Second, he was doing too little for effectiveness. Strangely enough, some people played both sides of this game (which testifies to their sincerity or lack thereof).

Personally? I don't know. Some caution was clearly required by the stakes but maybe the U.S/Europe were excessively conservative. Biden clearly pursued a Frog-in-the-Boiling-Water strategy, and that was good enough to stymie the Russian army and bring a stalemate on the battlefield. His judgement may not have been absolutely pitch-perfect, but I find your snipping over this unconvincing.

2. Who claimed it was "Trump's responsibility to win it"? That's just the Cult in you randomly spewing out excuses. All we ask is he continue to support an ally fighting an invasion from this country's enemy. All we ask is he not chase after that dreamboat Vlad (his Daddy) like a simpering lovestruck tart.

3. This is what Putin wanted. This is what he's been waiting for. This is the moment he's been pacing himself to meet. His bitch sits inside the Oval Office and will do anything for a single soft word of Russian approval.

4. Ukraine's hope has never been to conquer Russia. Like most overmatched combatants who found success, it looked for a war of attrition. The one thing it couldn't survive was wavering support from its allies. Needless to say, that includes a U.S. President who's a flouncing Russian whore.

[Kazinski]

I agree with #1. Biden did as much as he thought he could, but it wasn't enough.

And it was probably Putin's accurate assessment of Biden's level of commitment and risk comfort that induced Putin to invade in the first place.

But Trump campaigned on ending the war and getting a ceasefire. You have a different view, but you lost.

You can hardly blame Trump for pushing for a ceasefire on day 40 that he promised to get on day 1. And you can't claim he sandbagged Zelensky strong arming Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire that he knew Trump was committed to.

Zelensky hasn't been forced to give up 1" more of Ukrainian territory than he has already lost. He's upset Trump won't commit to.deploying US troops in Ukraine to give him more leverage. Or Nato membership (that Biden wouldn't give him either), or nuclear weapons that nobody wants him to have.

Did Trump promise any of that?

No, and its ridiculous to think he ever would.

He promised to end the war, and stop subsidizing it.

And you want the war to continue, but that was litigated in the election, and lost.

[grb]

First, it's pointless to argue over the timing of Putin's invasion. Your opinion is possibly true, though I suspect the reality is much more complicated. Instead, I want to focus on these:

Kazinski : "But Trump campaigned on ending the war...."
Kazinski : ".... promised to get on day 1...."
Kazinski : "He promised to end the war, and stop subsidizing it."

So what? Trump says a dozen imbecilic things every day. Why are these sacrosanct? If what he's doing is wrong, it's wrong. We all heard his boasting bullshit he could end the war in a day. The small number of people who didn't let that flow over them like all of Trump's other pandering & lies understood it meant selling out to Putin. But most people didn't. Are you confident the American people will embrace Trump betrayal of Ukraine and fawning obsequiousness to Putin? I don't think they will.

As for "sandbagging", the Oval Office ambush was a disgusting disgrace. Sure, Zelensky knew he was talking to Putin's man, but he expected basic minimal courtesy. You should try to work out what kind of illness in Trump's dysfunctional broken mind led to that petty malice.

Again, Trump can support an ally fighting an invasion by a vicious foe. It's not a damn law of physics that he has to be Putin's toady and Ukraine's betrayer. Even in his MAGA base, only the tiniest percent will care. He has no core belief or principle forcing this ugly policy because he has no core belief or principle at all. So try to slide out from behind your election pledge shtick and explain it.

As for Ukraine and NATO, my eyes roll up whenever I hear it. Remember friendly little inoffensive Sweden? It barely squeezed into the club after two years of frantic effort. There has never been any chance Ukraine could get a unanimous vote on NATO - not just because of the organization's other Russian toady, Orban, but multiple other countries too. Every time you've heard someone use Ukraine-NATO as the (a) cause of war, (b) obstacle to end the war, or (c) objective for its conclusion, it's all been so much bullshit. Putin knew that before he invaded; it was Ukraine's general turn to Europe and the West that enraged him, not NATO membership. Zelensky is saying what he has to for his country, but he knows it now.

[Kazinski]

Kazinski : "But Trump campaigned on ending the war...."
Kazinski : ".... promised to get on day 1...."
Kazinski : "He promised to end the war, and stop subsidizing it."

Look, I get you are astonished that a politician would ever make a good faith effort to keep his campaign promises, its very rare.

But if you take into account what happened last month and the timeline it should be no surprise that Trump came down like a ton of bricks on Zelensky.

Feb 6. The UK Telegraph floats Trumps Ukrainian Special envoys plan to use UK and other EU peacekeepers to provide a security guarantees for a ceasefire.

Feb 12-14 General Kellogg apparently gets approval at the Munich Security conference to proceed

Feb 18 Rubio leads a delegation that meets with the Russians and apparently gets the go-ahead on the peace keepers.

Feb 24 Macron comes to the Whitehouse in a hastily arrange trip, Trump announces Putin has okayed UK and EU peacekeepers, Macron and Trump openly talk about French peacekeepers.

Feb 27 Starmer comes to the Whitehouse and again they talks about UK peacekeepers.

Feb 28 Zelensky comes to the Whitehouse and says he doesn't like the security guarantees its futile to talk to Putin. Everyone gets mad and Zelensky leaves after Trump tells him to go away until he is ready for peace.

March 3 Zelensky says peace is very very far away. US announces Ukrainian aid is being suspended.

March 4th Zelensky announces he's ready for peace, ready for whatever steps Trump wants next.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Look, I get you are astonished that a politician would ever make a good faith effort to keep his campaign promises, its very rare"

Oh, for God's sake! Multiple examples:

1. Trump "promises" he'll end high grocery prices his first day. Most people treats this like typical DJT B.S. What they don't realize is his entire economic agenda is one perverse inflation-generating machine. Accordingly, prices have started to rise. Promise broken.

2. Trump "promises" to balance the budge, massively cut taxes, and not touch Medicaid. He's broken the last promise by endorsing the House bill. He'll break the first promise by default with an atomic bomb explosion of debt. And he'll break the tax promise dozen times over before he's done. Because no one has ever pandered on the campaign trail like Trump just did. If he addressed a convention of ethnic Pole left-handed albino pipefitters in Chattanooga, he promised an ethnic Pole left-handed albino pipefitter tax cut.

What drives Trump to stab Ukraine in the back isn't a sacred binding pledge; he's breaking promises right & left. And it isn't concern for Ukrainian war dead; he couldn't care less. And it isn't any core belief or principle; he has none. And it isn't national interest; that was Biden's policy.

At best, it's petty malice and a sicko child's desire to break everything in sight. That's what your Cult duty obliges you to defend. That, and Trump-Vance's juvenile cartoon theatrics in the Oval Office meeting. If you can convince yourself there was some "principle" involved there, you completely lost in Dear Leader Idolatry. You might as well get in line for your Kool-Aid now.

[David Nieporent]

If you try to think about this objectively that actually makes sense.

And Benedict Arnold was just trying to shorten the war, so his actions made sense.

[Don Nico]

Regardless of what you protest, you effecively do not care how many Ukrainian die and that the have basically lost a generation of young men.

[David Nieporent]

And regardless of what you say, you couldn't give a fuck about Ukrainian lives. You've been promoting Putin's propaganda about this war for three years. Your crocodile tears about Ukrainians fool nobody.

The decision as to whether Ukrainians are willing to die to defend their country is up to them, not me. If they decide the cost is too high and want to surrender, then fine. But if they want to fight to defend their freedom, I am not going to pretend to know better than them.

[Don Nico]

"promoting Putin's propaganda"
What utter bullshit being fed by someone who actually demonstrates little knowledge of details of events in Ukraine over the past 20 years.
Just because one did not buy the failed forign policy of Mr Biden, that does not make some pro-Putin, pro-Xi, or pro-the Ayatollah.
You and your ilk have been trapped in Bidenesque propaganda which has seen global security decrease year after year.

Lose the attempted mind-raping shtick. It's pathetic.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, DMN Loves him some Biden.

You've reliably posted whatever story RT is pushing this week.

And then you claim anyone who calls you on it are being deceived by the Western Media Bubble.

It's textbook.

[Kazinski]

Well, I have noticed that Don has been very skeptical of Ukraine, and I've disagreed with him about it.

And I have never said a kind word about Putin in my life.

But I think its time for a ceasefire and the killing to stop.

And now Don and I are basically on the same page about ending the war. Although I don't know if he agrees with me that if Putin does not negotiate in good faith we should provide Ukraine more weaponry, and few restrictions on its use, as Trump's envoy General Kellogg has already proposed.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what Putin not negotiating in good faith would look like. The issue is Putin not living up to whatever he agrees to — at which point it would be too late.

[myself]

Ok.... you've made an argument that the US shouldn't send troops to fight in Ukraine....

Now can you talk about a policy that someone is actually suggesting?

[Martinned2]

So have we figured out yet who is the head of DOGE? Because the President and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia seem to think it's Elon Musk, but that can't be right, because various government laywers have told a range of courts that he's just a special government employee with no more power than any other white house staffer.

Rule of Law FTW!

[John F. Carr]

I understand Amy Gleason to be the director and Elon Musk to be an advisor she often listens to.

[Estragon]

“… to that end, I have created the brand new Department of Governmental Efficiency, DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.”

[Bob from Ohio]

I hear Trump lies a lot. Now you rely on something he said?

[SRG2]

Do you deny that he lies a lot?

[Kazinski]

Yeah that's actually how the whole Czar thing works, they are special WH assistants (or VPs) that are given special, but not formal authority from the President to manage their assigned area of responsibility, and don't need senate confirmation.

I thought the first one was a drug Czar in the 80's, which is a pretty cool position, and a good time to be it, if you think about it.

But it turns out FDR started the whole Czar thing, during the war, that doesn't seem as cool.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting comment posted by Antifex, just two days ago.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/03/monday-open-thread-95/?comments=true#comment-10940562

Consider the situation: An aggressive dictator marches across an agreed-upon border to seize the territory of a democratically governed country, with ambitions of taking it all. The democratic country, while deeply corrupt, does not embrace the dictator’s ruthless “ends justify the means” ideology. Some Americans view the dictator’s conquest as another domino falling, making further warfare inevitable. Meanwhile, the victimized nation had received guarantees of aid from the U.S.—only to see those promises later revoked. Do you support the victim against the dictator?

I am, of course, talking about Vietnam. I fully understand the perspective of ardent pacifists and American isolationists who see both the Vietnam War and the war in Ukraine as examples of reckless U.S. intervention. I also understand the neoconservative position—the instinct to always hold the line against aggression when American interests are at stake. What I struggle to grasp, however, is the logic of those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda while chanting “Give peace a chance,” yet now demand unwavering support against Putin.

For many on the left, it is an article of faith that Vietnam was an unjust war in which the U.S. had no business intervening. But is there any way to justify the stark contrast between the pacifist stance on Vietnam and the call for active defense in Ukraine—aside from sheer tribalism? I am genuinely interested in hearing from someone who holds these views and can walk me through the reasoning behind why one is a "bad" war and the other a "good" war.

[tylertusta]

What I struggle to grasp, however, is the logic of those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda while chanting “Give peace a chance,” yet now demand unwavering support against Putin.

The difference is that after 2016, the left soured on Russia due to their perceived role in getting Trump elected. That was an unforgettable original sin.

It was never about peace as a first principle, even during Vietnam. It was also about politics and power.

[David Nieporent]

The difference is that after 2016, the left soured on Russia due to their perceived role in getting Trump elected. That was an unforgettable original sin.

Still telling this lie, I see.

What I struggle to grasp, however, is the logic of those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda while chanting “Give peace a chance,” yet now demand unwavering support against Putin.

1. As I explained in response to the post yesterday, a key difference is that 60,000 Americans haven't died in Ukraine. That kind of soured lots of Americans on a war they initially supported.

2. "Those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda" are, in great measure, dead right now. The Vietnam War ended for the U.S. more than 50 years ago. The people supporting Ukraine are almost all different people.

[ThePublius]

"The Vietnam War ended for the U.S. more than 50 years ago."

In another 56 days it will be exactly 50 years since the war ended, so not more than 50 years at this point. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. I said ended for the U.S. Our last troops left Vietnam in 1973.

[ThePublius]

Ah, right you are. This month it will be 52 years. Wow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, don't forget the SS Mayaguez -- 12 to 15 May 1975.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayaguez_incident#Khmer_Rouge_seize_the_Mayaguez

[David Nieporent]

I did not forget about it, any more than I forgot about the Pueblo incident, or the downing of KAL 007, or for that matter the Maine. I just don't know why you're bringing it up here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Names of the KIA are listed on the Vietnam wall and this is considered the last battle of that war.

[Kazinski]

That's not true, I had friends still stationed there in 74.

In fact I had a draft number in 73, so I was following very closely.

Who was evacuating the embassy in 75, flying the helicopters, getting all the high ranking officials out in 75 if we didn't have troops there?

They may not have been technically "combat" troops, but they were there.

[Don Nico]

"60,000 Americans haven't died in Ukraine. That kind of soured lots of Americans on a war they initially supported."
What complete nonsense. What the hell are you smoking?

[Sarcastr0]

You failed to read the comment being replied to again, looks like.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You really don’t think that the Americans getting killed in Vietnam affected the way people felt about the war?

[Kazinski]

There was no perceived role of Russia getting Trump getting elected.

It was made up as an excuse for Clinton losing.

After all its well documented that Bill Clinton got 5x as much in speaking fees from Russia, $500,000

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

As Russia spent on ads to help Trump get elected:

A Russian firm spent $100000 on Facebook ads. Trump spent $0 on TV ads for the first 202 days of his campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/07/a-russian-firm-spent-100000-on-facebook-ads-trump-spent-0-on-tv-ads-for-the-first-202-days-of-his-campaign/

[Sarcastr0]

There was no perceived role of Russia getting Trump getting elected.

My dude, we were all there. Do you expect anyone to believe this shit?

[Kazinski]

Now I can't speak for the gullible, but I know that 63 million ballots cast for Trump, and the 304 electoral votes, and the decisive voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania who put Trump over the margin of victory had nothing to do with 100k in Facebook ads.

If it does make you feel better it is likely that the nonstop coverage Trump got in the Primaries from MSNBC, CNN, and yes FoxNews.

We are supposed to believe that 100k swamped the 600 milllion Hillary funding advantage had over Trump.

"Clinton and her allies, including her joint committees with the Democratic Party and the super PACs supporting her, raised more than $1.2 billion for the full cycle, according to the last reports filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. Trump and his allies collected about $600 million."

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-clinton-campaign-fundraising-totals-232400

[Krayt]

The opposite is also puzzling. "Better Red than dead!" was a chant by 60s communistic youths. And now it's adopted by Trump and his supporters.

People on the far left would argue the US had no right to intervene. If I were in a nation losing its freedom, and saw people living safely in the US argue philosphically they should leave me to my fate, screw you!

For practical reasons (money, lives) you might not want to. But for philosophocal reasons you self-disable as I'm drowning. Ahem. Screw you.

And now the shoe is on the other party's foot.

I suppose France should have let England crush us. Saving lives is that important, yo!

[Don Nico]

You are deluded by your own projections.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I don't understand is why no one is expecting the UN to deal with this. Why not have the Blue Helmet Brigade in there making both sides behave themselves?

What has the UN done that is useful -- this century???

[David Nieporent]

Well, if for no other reason than that Russia has a veto on UN activity and it therefore cannot make "both sides" behave itself even if it wanted to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Putin doesn't want a peace settlement?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Putin doesn't want a peace settlement?

He wouldn't rather see the UN than Nato?

[David Nieporent]

He would rather see the UN than NATO, precisely because the UN can't take any action without his approval. Which means that while the UN could force Ukraine to behave itself, it cannot force Russia to do so.

No, Putin doesn't want a peace settlement. He wants a ceasefire that lets Russia keep everything it has gained during the fighting and rebuild Russia's strength.

[Don Nico]

When you get appointed to the US diplomatic corps, let me know. I might consider what you think about how the war in Europe might stop.

[Sarcastr0]

Grandstanding that DMN isn't an expert when you're offering the latest from Scott Ritter or whoever is kind of a laugh, no?

I mean, you've stooped to defending Ed.

[Kazinski]

Everyone keeps asking, or at least I do, what is your plan for changing the current stalemate that's killing thousands?

I'm not hearing it.

What is the plan for stopping the war, other than Trump's?

Trump said he'd get a ceasefire on day 1 in the campaign. Did you think it would be something different than an immediate ceasefire then negotiations?

[Thought about __ all my life]

Logically, you are sick and perverted if after getting your way about pretending to be not the sex you actually are-- that you are much worse off. AND THEMS THE FACTS

Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health

" It is also urgent that all organizations that had disseminated the incorrect conclusions publicize the fact that the conclusions have now been corrected, and that any treatment guidelines or recommendations based on the original finding are promptly updated to reflect this new information."

If you have a sickness/perversion you don't need to feed it. You need to see it the way 99% of humanity does. YOu are born a male or a female, PERIOD

[John F. Carr]

Last year Pro Publica got the names of members of Georgia's maternal mortality board. The board is supposed to be an apolitical body that aims to improve health care outcomes for pregnant women. As state officials see it, Pro Publica got members to leak confidential reports and used those reports for an article attacking abortion restrictions. Georgia disbanded the board and reconstituted it with secret membership.

https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-maternal-mortality-committee-members-names-not-released

[Dr. Ed 2]

I had real problems with a Pro Publica study on maternal mortality from sepsis in Texas and their claim that the Texas abortion law caused an increase.

One of my main issues was their presumption that hospitals are as clean today as they had been in 2018 and everything I have seen/heard is that hospitals have not yet recovered their staffing levels (headcounts) that they had pre covid. This being both nursing and cleaning staff, and the emphasis that hospitals had on controlling hospital-based infection (e.g. MERSA) isn't around anymore.

Hence, I asked, was the higher mortality merely coincidence, and was it even statistically significant? Hence, I asked, what was the mortality for non-maternal sepsis (e.g. appendectomies) and did it remain constant which would then indicate that their conclusion (Texas' new abortion law) and not dirtier hospitals was the cause.

While polite, their response was that they had no intention of looking into this. And I don't care if it is abortion or accidental drowning, shoddy research is shoddy research...

[SRG2]

Krasnov's clear position as a Russian asset leads to consideration of who else might be either a Russian asset or was appointed because Russia wished it so, to internally weaken the US.

Vance: not an asset, but doesn't need to be. Will do what Krasnov tells him.
Gabbard: asset
Hegseth: unclear, but unqualified, and from what we know of his publicised past, there will likely be unpublicised deeds, which could lead to his being compromised, Had the benefit of the doubt until he was now unable to say that Russia invaded.
Rubio: clean. And, it seems, now powerless.
Bondi: clean. I mean, she's corrupt, but within the normal range of political corruption, and isn't wrecking the DoJ
Patel: clean. But will wreck the FBI if he can, which the Russians won't mind at all.
Ratcliffe: clean. 100% loyal to Krasnov, so no need for him to be compromised

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agree. And I think over the next four years your evaluations will be vindicated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Joe McCarthy was drunk.
What's your excuse?

And Putin is a product of the American left, particularly Bill Clinton.
Had he gotten Russia's nukes alone, but better done what Trump proposes to do to the Ukraine, things would have been a lot better now.

[SRG2]

Putin is a product of the American left,

Which makes it all the more surprising that so many on the right seem to approve of him

[grb]

SRG2 : "Which makes it all the more surprising that so many on the right seem to approve of him"

Ed's "reasoning" is pretty common on the Right. After all, these are the same people who insist the Nazis were left-wing. Somehow they never notice that everyone who embraces Nazism worldwide is hard-Right. And they pretend other people won't notice that too. Pretense is absolutely essential inside the Right's hive mind. As with lies, they're addicted to it. Cut-off a Right-type's lies and he's soon showing the same symptoms of a crack-addict late with his fix.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It wasn't like they called themselves the National Socialist Party, which is where Nazi comes from (in German).

[grb]

Sigh. Here's some elementary history, Ed: The Nazis were Hitler's party, as various factions discovered on the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler was ignorant and agnostic on grand economic theory. His passions lay elsewhere, in dreams of battle, conquest, and carnage. The early Nazi Party contained a stew of economic visions including full socialism. Hitler didn't care, as long as the message appealed to disgruntled voters. The final decision on the Nazi Party's economic policy was made after Germany's great industrial oligarchs opened their wallets and cut a deal with Hitler. They accepted some Party direction in exchange for a seat at the table and their own security.

Meanwhile, Fascism in other European countries likewise held to no single economic vision. A communist or capitalist country is what it is via its economic vision. There is no economic vision central to Fascism.

(hope that helps)

[SRG2]

You must believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, as was East Germany.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Joe McCarthy was drunk.
What's your excuse?"

Dr Ed from the top rope!

Completely nails your derangement.

[bernard11]

Nor are Americans being drafted to go fight in Ukraine.

[apedad]

Supreme Court denies Trump administration request to cancel $2 billion in foreign aid

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 emergency ruling Wednesday refused to halt a judge’s decision ordering the Trump administration to immediately release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments owed under existing contracts.

It hands a loss to the administration in the first time that Trump’s efforts to drastically reshape federal spending, agency by agency, have reached the high court.

The Justice Department quickly went to the Supreme Court after (U.S. District Judge Amir) Ali’s order, warning the administration couldn’t comply so rapidly and asking for an emergency intervention.

“The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings. “The government is undertaking substantial efforts to review payment requests and release payments. Officials at the highest levels of government are engaged on this matter.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5177420-supreme-court-blocks-trump-funding/

So....what is Trump going to do now?

[SRG2]

From the link: Alito "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,”

Soapy Sam, you dishonest POS. Reframe: "Does the Executive have the unchecked power to deny the Congress of the :United States the authority to allocate taxpayer dollars? ‘No,’ but a minority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise"

[Commenter_XY]

Comply with the law, and file an appeal. Four justices telegraphed their willingness to take the case.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what is Trump going to do now?"

He should have checks mailed. No wires, ACH transfers etc.

[John F. Carr]

Pay in pennies.

The judge might not like that option.

[Bob from Ohio]

200 billion pennies! Only 250 billion +/- in circulation

I like it!

[Bwaaah]

"Give us a break. We're making the pennies as fast as we can."

[Stephen Lathrop]

My guess, Roberts flips the other way next time, and gives Trump discretionary power to not pay out on future contracts.

[Don Nico]

SL,
Congress will assure that FY25 recission and the 2026budget make sure that there are no monies to send.

[bernard11]

More on Trump lies:

“We’ve spent perhaps $350 billion [on Ukraine], like taking candy from a baby. That’s what happened. And they’ve [the E.U.] spent $100 billion.”

Trump’s numbers are wrong. The United States has appropriated $183 billion, according to the inspector general for Ukraine aid. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which tracks support for Ukraine, says the United States and the European Union have provided roughly the same amount of military aid, while the Europeans have provided far more nonmilitary aid than the United States — $73 billion vs. $52 billion.

Another lie used to promote policy.

[David Nieporent]

Even the fact check overstates things. It's true that the U.S. has appropriated $183 billion, but it hasn't actually spent all of that yet.

[David Nieporent]

Uh oh, get ready for another Blackman tantrum. The Supreme Court refused to stay an order of the district court that Trump doesn't get to refuse to spend money just because of Elon Musk's whims. Over a strong dissent by Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, SCOTUS lets the district court order go into effect. (Roberts had issued an administrative stay last week while SCOTUS considered the matter, but now votes — along with Barrett — not to issue a full stay.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

[SRG2]

Alito: "Nationwide injunctions are fine for me but not for thee"

[tylertusta]

Four is enough to grant cert when this comes up on appeal.

I think district court judges had best enjoy their current way of using TROs while they can.

[grb]

But is four enough to overturn the Constitution and written law? From the dissent :

"The court’s decision amounted to “judicial hubris” that “imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers,” Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in dissent."

But that “$2 billion penalty,” is congressionally appropriated funds already paid out by the grant recipients to contractors. The plaintiffs in the case were mostly seeking to obtain the release of funds to cover expenses they had already spent.

Alito and the other three don't discuss the core constitutional issues in their dissent. How could they? On what basis? Unless you want to make the constitutional provision that Congress appropriates money absolutely meaningless, this was an easy call. Easy, that is, unless the Constitution is irrelevant to your thinking. With Alito, it's all politics, all the time.

[tylertusta]

Four may be enough if there is no majority for an opinion in what is called a plurality decision. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_decision

That being said, don't assume that this decision tips the hand of all of the Justices for the merits.

The other five Justices may have only denied the stay on procedural grounds but may have a very different view on the merits later. After full briefing and oral argument the Court may also reconsider the appropriateness of the district court's TRO.

[apedad]

"Alito and the other three don't discuss the core constitutional issues in their dissent."

This decision was just about the TRO not the main issue (which I agree with you on).

[grb]

Yet the dissent quote above DID reference the main issue, not the TRO. The shot about "$2 billion penalty on American taxpayers" had nothing to do with legalese on restraining orders or any other procedural matter. It was politician Alito speaking on political priorities for his President.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Will Blackman, like Alito, be "stunned"? It will add to his hatred of Roberts and Barrett. And, after Trump thanked him just last night!

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, David.

[SRG2]

--------

[John F. Carr]

The Mayor of Boston is testifying to Congress today on her sanctuary city policy. For this brief performative spectacle the city has budgeted $650,000 for legal advice.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/wu-boston-immigration-sanctuary-congress-prep/64032713

[ThePublius]

I'm watching this right now. What a joke. Mayors conflating illegal immigrants with all immigrants, repeating tired tropes like illegal immigrants commit few crimes than legal residents, and can't give a answer to a question.

Mayor Wu says Boston is the safest major city in the U.S. due to its strongest gun laws in the U.S. - which is bullshit.

[bernard11]

I listened to some of it.

You're right that it's a joke - GOP reps posturing and bloviating and yelling at the panel, no time for detailed answers, etc.

A ridiculous showing of non-seriousness by The Republican reps. But what can you expect when Jim (see-no-evil, hear-no evil, super-smug asshole Jordan) is involved?

[Mr. Bumble]

Only $650,000? Denver budgeted $2,000,000.

[Bwaaah]

I took a look at the hearing. The posturing is cringeworthy.

[ThePublius]

Today is Ash Wednesday. Mayor Wu is sporting her ashes in Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile LA is still sporting ashes thanks to mayor Bass.

[bernard11]

Or maybe she is just a devout Catholic?

Not possible, per Publius.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Ash Wednesday to all who celebrate.

I think Senator Slotkin's response was pretty good:

https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2025/03/04/read-elissa-slotkin-response/

I shared the general sentiment of the replies to the allegation of a "stolen" election in 1825. There was no majority. It went to the House. Adams + Clay roughly (though that was not the test) had the support of 1/2 of the electorate. And, overall, the popular vote was anti-Jackson. Crawford voters were often wary of Jackson.

And Clay supported Adams [Clay would soon be the leader of the anti-Jackson resistance], so he made a logical Secretary of State, which at the time was a semi-president in waiting.

I am not going halfway on trans issues. The anti-trans policies are both cruel and wrong on their merits. Plus, generally unconstitutional though like Plessy v. Ferguson, this Supreme Court is likely not to recognize it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (decided March 5, 1934): a pre-“switch” case where Roberts, writing the opinion, sides against the “Four Horsemen”, upholding the New York Milk Board’s setting of maximum and minimum prices, being that milk prices were important to public welfare, no violation of Due Process (maybe OT, but look up the bio of Bronx native Jimmy Savo, a mime popular with Italian Americans of my grandparents’ generation; his family was too poor to afford Grade B milk, used powdered instead, and as a result he didn’t die in typhus epidemic, and that was just the first example of how “hard luck made him a star”)

Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (decided March 5, 2003): upholding California’s 1993 “three strikes” law (two previous “serious” felonies results in indeterminate life sentence) against Eighth Amendment attack (this was one of several such laws nationwide at the time; Mark Alan Stamaty did a cartoon “debate” where the candidates try to outdo each other -- “TWO strikes and you’re out” -- “ONE strike and you’re out” -- “NO strikes” -- the other candidate is nonplussed and says, “NO strikes?” and she loses the election) (in another debate, the two candidates keep jumping up and down saying “Death Penalty! Death Penalty! Death Penalty!” -- and the one who pauses momentarily to take a breath, loses the election)

The Merino, 22 U.S. 391 (decided March 5, 1824): deals with forfeiture of several ships holding slaves; interesting because as to two of the ships the Court seems to be saying that the 1800 Act prohibiting U.S. ships from carrying slaves from one country to another doesn’t apply to slaves who were already sold, they being at that point merely passengers being transported to their owners

Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (decided March 5, 2007): individual citizens have no standing to contest state supreme court’s revision of redistricting plan

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (decided March 5, 2003): statute requiring registration of convicted sex offenders was not punitive (technically) and therefore was not ex post facto

Anders v. Floyd, 440 U.S. 445 (decided March 5, 1979): District Court should not have stayed state court prosecution for murder after abortion of 25-week-old fetus; remanded to see how state court proceeding turned out and what kind of instructions are given as to “viability”

Ohio v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 641 (decided March 5, 1973): Ohio precluded, by its long acquiescence, from contesting Kentucky’s claim that its border extended to the far side of the Ohio river; Court notes that its original jurisdiction is basically equitable, not legal (i.e., it can fashion whatever remedy or use any common law theory it wants to)

Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (decided March 5, 1968): no warrant needed for search of robbery defendant’s impounded vehicle (while closing windows, found registration card showing car belonged to victim)

McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (decided March 5, 1990): Eighth Amendment violated by requirement that jurors find mitigating factors precluding death penalty only beyond a reasonable doubt (Marshall writes opinion for a 6 - 3 Court)

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (decided March 5, 1984): Pawtucket, R.I. nativity scene did not violate Establishment Clause; was part of city display with secular elements such as Santa and his sleigh (this case was the birth of the “reindeer rule”)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As to the death penalty, South Carolina is scheduled to shoot someone (legally) this week. As executions go, the firing squad might be the guy's best option.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/04/08/the-return-of-the-firing-squad

[See, e.g., a statement from Professor Lain, who has an upcoming book about lethal injection. Bio noted: She served in the military to get the benefit of the GI Bill.]

https://urnow.richmond.edu/features/article/-/19220/from-army-to-academia-law-professor-recounts-military-experience.html

[Dan Schiavetta]

The guillotine is more humane than the firing squad. I think that's the next step.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trouble with you is that you don't think.

[ducksalad]

Maybe:

https://www.straightdope.com/21342318/does-the-head-remain-briefly-conscious-after-decapitation-revisited

[ThePublius]

I think firing squad is the best way: sure, certain, quick, inexpensive. Perhaps even better would be one of those pneumatic bolts they use to dispatch cattle.

BTW, France used the guillotine right up until 1977.

[Dan Schiavetta]

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, intracardiac injection of a certain drug (I forget which) results in death within 2 seconds.

[ThePublius]

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being used for executions. Why not? Could it be the intracardiac injection? (Which could be quite difficult and painful in itself, no?)

[Frank Drackman]

Vince was able to do it to Mia with Lance's little Black Medical Book

[Brett Bellmore]

You might technically be "dead" in the sense that your heart is stopped, and you can't be revived short of an emergency heart transplant, but there's a big difference in practice between that sort of "dead" and not being able to suffer. Shut down somebody's heart and they've got a good (OK, not really good as such.) 20 seconds of conscious thought left. Certainly enough time to notice that they're dying.

Put a bullet through somebody's brain, though, and it's capacity to function gets shut down faster than nerve signals propagate, so it is in effect subjectively instantaneous.

[Don Nico]

Gangsters have known that for a long time.

[not guilty]

I think Lynch v. Donnelly nativity scene was the case where they mayor reportedly quipped that the ACLU was jealous because they couldn't find three wise men and a virgin in their entire organization.

Actually scripture does not tell us the number of wise men. They bore three gifts -- gold and frankincense and myrrh -- such that folklore has come to refer to three visitors. And the visit did not take place in the manger, but at Mary's house in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:11)

[myself]

No talk of the laughable legal justification for Trump's tariffs?

Until now, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, had been used mainly to impose emergency sanctions on foreign dictators or suspected terrorist groups.

But the Trump administration argues that the illicit global fentanyl trade and immigrants at the Mexican border both qualify as "unusual and extraordinary" foreign threats to American national security, justifying Trump's use of emergency powers under IEEPA.

Even if you could somehow use that to justify tariffs against Mexico, doing the same against Canada is laughable, especially when Trump can't give those justifications any more than lip service before going on about the trade deficit and wanting to annex Canada.

I understand the courts granting the executive branch some leniency when it comes to defining an emergency, but if that's the stuff you're letting go then it's clear they won't question any emergency declaration. If so, what's the point of the legislative branch? Just how much can the executive do just declaring emergencies everywhere?

[tylertusta]

I make a habit of never arguing with myself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

myself — Alas, your sensible concern lags the times we live in. Quite a while ago—while no one was paying much attention—American constitutionalism got stripped down to include little more than remnant tatters—just the stuff which can be defended by the impeachment power, actually. All else is mostly gone.

Separation of powers is a fading memory. Except among the military, senior government officers scoff at oaths of office. A notion that an oath could constrain a Supreme Court Justice is not deemed worthy even of discussion—more an embarrassment to anyone who would mention it than otherwise.

Of course junior civil servants may take their oaths seriously. Their superiors welcome that, as a field mark to facilitate dismissal targeting.

Except in one peculiar instance, where oaths get no traction, norms are for suckers. The peculiar exception is a newly-maturing norm; citizens are just now learning it normative to expect as a matter of course near-instantaneous reversals of solemn-looking pronouncements by members of Congress, or of the Cabinet. Mastery of that new norm is achieved only after every sign of bewilderment has been set aside, to be replaced by knowing acceptance.

Normatively, folks in office show us there is nothing shameful in swearing fealty to honor this week, and replacing it with opportunism by tuesday next. That should be accepted as generous condescension, honoring the political sophistication which an office holder perceives among particularly attentive citizens.

[RedheadedPharoh]

They are something like 40+ national emergencies, many have been going on for decades.

That whole system is terribly flawed, and no one really cared until now.

[myself]

Were any used to launch a trade war against the US's closest trading partners with which they had a free trade agreement?

Surely, if Congress meant the relevant law to enable that they would have made it explicit. If only the court had some kind of doctrine for dealing with major questions like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody got good recipes to use up dud chia seeds?

I've been enjoying chia pudding lately, just mix a can coconut milk, a bit of vanilla extract, artificial sweetener, and a quarter cup of chia seeds, and by morning they swell up and turn it into something with the consistency of tapioca pudding, that's basically carbohydrate free with a lot of fiber.

But these chia seeds I bought at the local farmers market don't swell up! And I've got a lot of them...

[Mr. Bumble]

Feed your chickens

[ducksalad]

Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

It might come to that.

[Commenter_XY]

Pressure cook the chia seeds. Then they will swell up.

[ForeignNerd]

Trump has managed to attract a substantial number of follows among the Volokh conspirators. I applaud those who have held firm to their never-Trump convictions, but if we got more rants from Josh it will severly limit my enjoyment of the blog.

[Mr. Bumble]

If so, you won't be missed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Recently some formerly thoughtful commenters have adopted Trump's juvenile bullying style.

[Bob from Ohio]

"adopted Trump's juvenile bullying style"

Yes, David Nieporent and Sarcasto, for instance.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Can you find an example?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Riva-Bot"

Use of "janitor" and "bookkeeper" as slurs.

[ThePublius]

Yea, mostly liberals, yourself included.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for raising the civility level, TP.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your comrade SRG is calling for Trump's murder up thread and calling multiple people Russian spies or dunces. Civil!

[SRG2]

I did not call for Trump's murder. Stop lying.

As for civility, it should not replace honesty.

[Bob from Ohio]

You just used a fancy word for murder.

[SRG2]

But I presented a number of conditions beforehand. I did not call for Krasnov to be killed. I said, if he handed over Ukraine troop movements to Russia - which you must think he will not do - then he should be impeached and if no charge of treason were levied, then he should be assassinated. It is all contingent on the initial action which he has not done and you believe he won't do. If X then Y tells you notning about Y if X is untrue. This is basic logic.

Or perhaps you suspect that Krasnov would hand that over...well?

[grb]

SRG2 : "As for civility, it should not replace honesty"

Trump's bootlickers (uncivil, but accurately descriptive for the degree of abject hypocrisy & dishonesty evinced during their regular Cult duties) demand "civility".

Yet they're Trump bootlickers! What degree of incivility matches that regularly shown by their day-glo-orange deity? Let's take an example: The T.B. most vocal on this "civility" front is ThePublius. He's the one whose undies seem twisted the tightest. So I waded thru his Monday comments, looking to see how he reacted to the decided "incivility" of inviting a foreign leader in the White House for a cartoon stunt ambush before TV cameras.

Unsurprisingly, his concept of "incivility" didn't extend that far. He did his Cult duty without a second thought. Apparently Zelensky invited this very public rape by the way he dressed. Thus, "civility" per MAGA. It's always a one-way street.

[ThePublius]

There's nothing uncivil about that comment.

[Sarcastr0]

"I know U are but what am I" is within what you consider civil.

I'll be sure and take your perspective under advisement when next you lament the tone around here.

[ThePublius]

Hey, you know what? Stop reading my stuff, O.K.? You're starting to come across like you're stalking me.

[Sarcastr0]

I've posted 18 times. 7 were to you (8 now) over 2 back-and-forths.

But thanks for the feedback; I can feel the civility.

[ThePublius]

I'm puzzled about what you consider uncivil, and how my comments fit into that. Honest.

Why don't you give your definition of civility in the forum, 0r incivility, just so we can establish a baseline, please.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche plainly misuses the term "civility," as you correctly discern.

Don't waste your time with him. I may have a problem with civility, but you certainly don't. (As I pointed out in another post: Sarc trolls, but unknowingly. Indications are that he actually believes he's adding to the discussion.)

[Armchair]

Well, Sarcastr0 considers saying "fuck off" repeatedly to be civil.

Maybe if you consider a little quiet antisemitism, he thinks you'll be civil. Remember to criticize Israel for defending itself.

[Bwaaah]

"Not the greatest technique to tone police, [Sarc]"

No lack of civility in ThePublius, all b.s. in Il Douche.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for wining. nyahhhhhh.

There was nothing uncivil about ThePublius's remark, nor did he change the civility index by making it.

Among the many differences between you and me is that you usually don't know when you're trolling. nyaaahhhh.

[John 4]

What happened to this place? I had only been reading the OPs every once in a while for about a decade and only recently have started checking out the comment sections. This used to be a fairly respectable, libertarian-leaning blog. From under what rock did some of these freaks crawl out? Did Mr. Blackman draw them in?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting article analyzing Rehnquist papers:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/john-roberts-william-rehnquist-documents-biskupic/index.html

[apedad]

Kentucky Distillers’ Association responds to Trump tariffs: ‘Hard-working Americans … will suffer’

Kentucky Distillers’ Association (KDA) on Tuesday said retaliatory tariffs would have “far-reaching consequences across the state.”

“That means hard-working Americans — corn farmers, truckers, distillery workers, barrel makers, bartenders, servers and the communities and businesses built around Kentucky bourbon will suffer,” the statement, from KDA President Eric Gregory, said. “As a distinctive product of the United States, bourbon cannot be made anywhere else in the world. It truly is America’s only native spirit. Bourbon jobs are American jobs, and we grow bourbon jobs by opening markets across the globe.”

Gregory’s statement alleged that distillers in the Bluegrass State produce 95 percent of the global bourbon supply and are responsible for more than 23,000 jobs and $2.2 billion “in salaries and benefits.”

https://thehill.com/business/5177886-kentucky-distillers-trump-tariffs-bourbon-beshear/

Kentucky; FAFO
#leopardsatemyface

[Bob from Ohio]

The threat to those jobs etc. is the over-expansion of supply by the distillers. Dozens and dozens of new craft distillers. Brown-Forman, a major distiller, cis cutting its work force by 12%, announced before these tariffs.

Demand for spirits is falling in the US, Canada not buying is a balance sheet footnote.

[Malika]

Trump has talked about serving a third term. He's also talked about being a king.

Trump supporters here, you can't see why that worries many people? Or are you for that? If Obama did the same you'd just say "oh, he's just trolling, no worries?!"

[Dan Schiavetta]

"That's just Trump being Trump" is the weakest rationalization I've ever heard.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The world doesn't revolve around your feelings, dude.

Liberals have careened from one moral panic to the next for years.

The sky ain't fallin', Chicken Little

[ducksalad]

Maybe we could sharpen up the question a little bit. If and when he takes some concrete action toward getting a third term, will you be for or against?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

This is a silly question.

Who would be opposed to a lawful action towards a third time?

[ducksalad]

Being for or against something isn't the same as whether it's legal or illegal. You're not even trolling well.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

If he can lawfully have a 3rd term and takes steps towards it or if he takes lawful actions towards making a 3rd term lawful, then are you really expecting people to start hyperventilating?

[Dan Schiavetta]

He already contemplated declaring martial law to stay in office and cancel an election for his successor . Don’t you remember ?

[Don Nico]

Obama just had his third term. He did not age well.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One thing from last night's speech: Trump still wants Greenland.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/trump-congress-speech-state-of-the-union-ukraine-golden-dome-greenland-panama.html

“And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it.” Then he added, “One way or the other, we’re going to get it,”

[Dan Schiavetta]

Juvenility + ignorance + great power = disaster

[Moderation4ever]

The United States should start by addressing how it treats its citizen in existing territories before we look to add any additions. Our countries needs neither the Panama Canel nor Greenland. We have access to both and we are not burdened with the responsibility of ownership. Let's leave it that way.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Obsession with size
Is a feeble disguise

[Don Nico]

Do not need the Canal; we only need to control the Canal.

[Commenter_XY]

It has to happen (talk), but it isn't legal, is it? = Direct talks and negotiations with hamas wrt American hostages.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-1st-us-holding-secret-direct-talks-with-hamas-to-free-american-hostages-end-war/

[John F. Carr]

Ordinary citizens should not get involved in negotiations with a designated terrorist organization. Authorized government employees can and sometimes should.

[Commenter_XY]

JFC, I agree...you have to talk. In this case, we want our people back.

[ducksalad]

"No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel”, “training”, or “expert advice or assistance” if the provision of that material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General."

As long as Rubio and Bondi approve it's OK. And Trump has the authority to order Rubio and Bondi to approve.

[RedheadedPharoh]

There's a story I saw once about a guy posting recipes on reddit. Turns out, some redditor took issue with one of recipes and started e-stalking the guys every comment, insulting and denigrating his tastes and recipes. So after a month or so the guy finally got fed up and dug into the stalkers post history.

After a page or two of comment and submission histories it became clear that the stalker was an avid member of /r/drinkyourownpiss

Could you imagine? Being stalked for months by a guy who drinks his own piss.

Now when you see a prolific commenter with pretty insane views or spectacularly dumb comments like Sarcastr0 or Malik, or David or that whinging Dave S fella, just think those dudes were probably alone in their Prius a few years ago with a mask on.

Or picture them at a table with a mask with a mouth hole to eat without removing their mask.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a totally macabre basis, while urine (unlike feces) is sterile to you, i.e. doesn't contain anything you aren't already infected with, I can't see how it can't be lethal.

Urine is how your body disposes of harmful waste products, e.g. urea which comes from the digestion and breakdown of proteins. Doubleunplussgood things happen if you don't get rid of that.

Drinking a little bit of urine, gross but whatever. But drinking all of it -- without distilling or something -- I don't see how that's not fatal.

[John F. Carr]

Urine varies in concentration.

Think of salt water to make the example less gross. You can drink a lot of water with a small amount of salt in it, say a part per thousand. By the time concentration gets over 1-2% you are better off not drinking. Sea water is nominally 35 parts per thousand salt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Urine varies in concentration, but since the chief point of generating it is to dispose of waste products, drinking it is generally at best stupid.

[ThePublius]

And now for something completely different, which I doubt many here will care about, and I probably won't receive any replies; sincere replies that is.

I have started collecting Handloading handbooks of late. One great frustration is that the editors and publishers of these 'update' them and remove old information. Well, a lot of that old information is really useful! For example, I sought out and found an older version of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, for, as one Amazon reviewer put it, "This 4th Edition is 100 pages less than the 3rd Edition." Yes, I found a 3rd edition.

M biggest disappointment, though, is that the cartridge reloading handbooks cull older cartridges, and also don't include data for ALL of the powders that are applicable. For example, the 38 Short Colt is a fun cartridge to load, and is compatible with firearms chambering 38 Special and 357 Magnum. You can still buy new brass and load these up with a nice, light charge, like 2.5 grains of Bullseye under a 125 grain lead bullet. But the only place I've found load data for this cartridge in print is in my 43 year old NRA Handloading book, and only two loads at that. Frustrating.

Why do they do that? Why not just keep adding and adding data with every new edition, update it for new tools and techniques, but keep the old stuff in there!

Anyone else care about this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's worse with electronic resources because all copies of the old one outright disappear (sort of) -- and hence there are no longer true primary sources.

[ThePublius]

True. I'm a high-tech kinda guy, but for reloading data I really want something in black and white, on paper. Hornady has a reloading data app which is pretty nice, but I don't trust that it won't change without notice, and there's no traceability or logging or revision control.

[ducksalad]

I wouldn't even know which end the powder goes in, but the same problem is common in engineering design tables and data books for electronic components.

On paper handbooks some of it is just a desire to save printing costs. But I also suspect that when it's material that has a safety aspect to it, our lawyer friends share part of the blame. The publishers don't want to risk being held liable for old data taken by people who are long gone.

Anyway, that's why for old engineering tables, equipment manuals, data books, and even catalogs there's a lot of people who hoard ancient paper versions. Every once in a while I have to explain to my wife why I still want to keep my 1979 Texas Instruments data books.

[ThePublius]

I think I still have my Texas Instruments TTL Data Book - the one with the yellow cover. 🙂

[ducksalad]

Youngster. IIRC correctly they went to yellow soft cover in the early 80s. I've got one of the late 70s orange hard cover editions.

[ThePublius]

Maybe mine was orange, not yellow. It was a hard cover.

[ThePublius]

What's bad, too, is verifying a load for a bunch of ammo I reloaded like 12 years ago, where I noted the details - powder, charge, primer, bullet - but I can't find where I got that data! Frustrating!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can't you reverse engineer it -- take apart a load and weigh the powder, see what primer and bullet you used?

[ThePublius]

Well, yes and no. It's not necessary except to verify the powder type and charge. Primer doesn't matter, and bullet can be ID'd from outside. In any event, I don't have a collect for pulling a 38 caliber bullet.

[ThePublius]

"Collect" should be collet.

[John F. Carr]

I talked to a founder of a biotech startup about why Trump's money moves had him worried. It's not because he gets a lot of money from the federal government. The industry depends on grants to universities for the research that gets spun off into startups. No company is going to pay somebody to sit around in a lab experimenting with the protein he works with.

How much research should we expect industry to do? Is the Bayh-Dole Act too generous?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- or we should attach the profits from the research.
Basic research funded by the US taxpayer leads to Big Pharma's big drugs that the US taxpayer neither receives profit from while having to pay top dollar for.

[Brett Bellmore]

" No company is going to pay somebody to sit around in a lab experimenting with the protein he works with."

Certainly not while the federal government is willing to foot the bill, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Nonsense. The basic research market is not saturated by federal dollars.

Because there is no market. There is no business plan for 'lest screw around with this protein and see what happens.'

They days of Pasteur and Bell Labs are over.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

You should be telling Mr. Carr that.

[Brett Bellmore]

There IS a market for, "I've got reason to believe this protein will have clinically valuable effects, let me see if that's true." Which is admittedly more directly related to profit than just screwing around and seeing what happens.

I actually LIKE my research to have some reason to expect useful results. Lightning strikes occasionally, but much more often if you stick up a pole in the middle of a thunderstorm.

[Sarcastr0]

Even before the profit motive, you're describing applied research. i.e. research with a technology in mind.

Even that is on shaky ground when it comes to funding, due to its high risk and long timeline.

(There is some semantic churn on the specific line I drew, but this is an operable definition for this discussion)

I actually LIKE my research to have some reason to expect useful results
You like to eat your seed corn, then. Without a scientific predicate for your applied research you're shooting in the dark. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is actually building a foundation, you just don't know for what.

Another thing basic research does is leapfrog. Technology development is going to be incremental - it's on a road. But basic research isn't!
Opening up a subfield full of new questions is also full of new unthought of applications.
You leave that behind if you only seek application.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "The days of Pasteur and Bell Labs are over."

Nice line. Aside from the facts that the person is dead and the institution is gone, what EXACTLY do you mean by that? (That's probably too much to ask of you.) Of what fundamental change is it that you purport to speak?

[Sarcastr0]

The low hanging fruit of transition from basic to applied is gone.

The business case Bell Labs or those winemakers had is no longer viable except for in lucky and rarified circumstances.

The environment of inventions falling out of basic research quickly and easily may return if we get another microchip-level breakthrough. But there's nothing on the horizon.

[Bwaaah]

There was never "low hanging fruit" in either basic research or in the application of it. It was always long, hard, uncertain and haphazard, for Pasteur and for Bell Labs, then and now.

Your assertion, however poetic, is bullshit.

For better or worse, most major innovations occur by mistake. Yes, billions of dollars can buy you a lot of tries and a lot of mistakes, and you get to pick your favored problems. But fortunately, mistakes happen everywhere, usually at relatively low costs (you don't even need an IRB to make a mistake, to observe an unexpected effect, or to infer potential value in future applications).

Consider that discovery and innovations in materials sciences abound around the world, amid the myriad of arcane industrial processes that underlie the global economy. Government funding is not essential to all that innovation. (AlphaFold is a high profile example of a unique commercially-funded approach to protein folding; it brought to that field what decades of government-funded research failed to produce.)

You know what makes me cynical Sarc? The fact that when we centralize scientific research funding in an institution that's run by politicians, we can end up with something like the National Science Foundation using billions of taxpayer-funded research dollars to advance non-scientific-research DEI initiatives.

Knowing you, and believing that you contribute to those government-funded scientific research efforts, is additional cause for cynicism. You lack any of the intellectual modesty that characterizes serious scientific inquiry. You're like Al Gore, creator of the internet and speaker of lofty things.

[Sarcastr0]

There was a microelectronics boom for 20 years - the 1970s to the 1990s.
Major innovations have some serendipity in their generation, but you get less serendipity in the applied space. By design.

No one is arguing government funding is essential to *all* innovation, but if you want to innovate as quickly as possible, having a foundation of foundational research is pretty clutch.

"AlphaFold is an AI system developed by Google DeepMind."
DeepMind being funded by students who met at university, building off the foundations of AI work done at universities with federal funding.

"Government funding is not essential to [worldwide materials sciences] innovation" is pants-on-head crazy. Quantum materials; topological materials; high entropy alloys; 2D materials. Years of dedicated foundational research before *any of them* had a potential application come out.

I'm sure there are some examples of tech that doesn't have a strong pillar of federally funded basic research under it. But you haven't found it.

And then you go off on DEI. Not that it's on topic. 'federally funded research is bad because woke' sounds like a parody. You just can't help yourself.

[Bwaaah]

Did you click my link? Do you defend BILLIONS of "scientific research" dollars being spent on non-research crap like that?

You can run. (And you do.) But you can't hide.

I don't dismiss that government funded research produces real results. But the overseeing institutions (NIH, NSF, university administrations) have become fat and have moved off point, away from science and into social engineering. They're doing dumb-ass shit like that DEI stuff (shown by my link) while slugs like you say that's just the talk of a white supremacist.

It's so easy to see what aspects of government fuel the revulsion of taxpayers. You are a perennial defender of the offensive, and as a person who personally profits from it, you don't even have the humility or presence of mind to STFU. Your voice, so shamelessly resonant (in a half-assed way), is helpful to my cause.

[Sarcastr0]

I have plenty of thoughts. But I'm not going to engage you on DEI. You're fucked in the head with resentment about it.

And it's a completely separate issue from the utility of funding basic research.

I did engage with that part of your discussion - how you start well after the enabling basic research is done and thus see only the applied privately-funded part.
You miss the whole picture.

[Bwaaah]

As I said, I don't dismiss the value of government funded research.

You dismiss the decadence of using scientific research dollars to fund racial social projects.

I understand you, Sarc. And you need to misunderstand me, as you always purposefully do, in order to propagate not the scientific endeavors (which I endorse), but racial social projects which I dismiss as being beyond the scope of science.

Race, for you, is always within scope, in everything that people do. So you make up bullshit like me having a race problem, when race is your existential crisis, not mine. My crisis, in this case, is the degradation of science by infection with political ideology.

Look the other way, Sarc. Pretend there's nothing to see here.

[Sarcastr0]

And now you're ONLY posting about DEI.

As a reminder of how far you've wandered, this was the original question: "How much research should we expect industry to do? Is the Bayh-Dole Act too generous?":

You have a problem. DEI officers don't think about DEI as much as you do.

I guess we're done here.

[Bwaaah]

Your typical false wrap-up.

Billions of science research dollars are being spent on non-scientific social projects. And you can't speak about that, beyond merely dismissing me with canned demagoguery.

I'm not your problem, Sarc. And you hiding your head in the sand doesn't solve your problem, which has nothing to do with me.

[Bwaaah]

We have witnessed, particularly over the past 5 years, increasing and numerous overt examples of corruption of our processes of scientific inquiry, review and publishing. For anybody who has been watching, that corruption has manifested in academic research departments, in journal editorial boards, in professional associations, and elsewhere.

Fortunately, that recent pattern of corruption of science occurs only in research related to certain issues of concern. All those corrupted "scientific" issues have to do with particular sensitivities of the American political left.

At the publishing end of research, that corruption has prevented the publishing of relevant, essentially undisputed research. In some cases, that corruption has resulted in the significant misstatement of research findings. And those misstatements have been repeated and amplified not only by political actors, but by government actors including career government employees.

Our distinguished government administrator of science, Sarcastr0, like almost everybody on the American political left, has stood silent to those many, repeated denials of honest research.

Silent about the corruption of science. Silent. About all of it related to those issues.

(and you act like I'm interested in Trump or DEI)

[grb]

Bwaaah : "Fortunately, that recent pattern of corruption of science occurs only in research related to certain issues of concern..."

Hilarious! Someone with a modicum of self-awareness would notice science is "bad" only when it vexes his political biases. If said person had any respect for William of Ockham, he would decide it's far more likely his tiny little brain & crabbed outlook is the problem, not a conspiracy of thousands upon thousands scientists spread over dozen of fields. Seeking out the real solution to this issue, said person would look for a mirror.

But I imagine Bwaaah's handlers forbid messy thinking like that. And he's such a good obedient child. He always thinks only what he's told to think.

[Bwaaah]

My handlers? You still talking to a Trump-head? Ya got anything?

[Commenter_XY]

Bayh-Dole Act needs a revamp, it was passed 45ish years ago. The technology has changed, development cost has changed.

[not guilty]

It looks like five members of SCOTUS have refused the Trump Administration's request to bend over and grab their ankles, while four members acquiesced.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-foreign-aid-usaid/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Member of Congress died:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/sylvester-turner-dead.html

[tylertusta]

I was not familiar with Rep. Turner until now, but his passing is unfortunate. He and I would not agree on much politically but I respect someone who served our nation.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Becoming a federal politician is the easiest way to build generational wealth in America.

They don't serve us, we serve them.

[Armchair]

Sad and unfortunate...it happens though.

[Frank Drackman]

One of the DemoKKKrat Black Congressional Caucasians dropped dead after "47"'s Speech last night, can't wait for the Conspiracy theories.

[Moderation4ever]

HHS Secretary is touting the benefits of Cod Liver Oil in treating the measles. I sure hope Bill Cassidy is regretting his decision to support Kennedy.

[grb]

"As a measles outbreak expands in West Texas, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, on Tuesday cheered several unconventional treatments, including cod liver oil, but again did not urge all Americans to get vaccinated. In a prerecorded interview that aired Tuesday morning on Fox News, Mr. Kennedy said that the federal government was shipping doses of vitamin A to Gaines County, the epicenter of the outbreak, and helping to arrange ambulance rides.

In a fuller version of the interview posted online that night, Mr. Kennedy acknowledged that vaccines “do prevent infection” and recommended that unvaccinated residents of the county get the shots, but cast it as a personal decision.

Texas doctors had seen “very, very good results,” Mr. Kennedy claimed, by treating measles cases with a steroid, budesonide; an antibiotic called clarithromycin; and cod liver oil, which he said had high levels of vitamin A and vitamin D."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/health/texas-measles-outbreak-kennedy.html?

RFK Jr was a trolling pick, just like Matt Gaetz. An anti-vaxx tin-foil-hat freak to head HHS and pedophile to run the Department of Justice. How fun is that! What an entertaining way to own the libs!

Everyone always knew RFK Jr would cause unnecessary death, they just didn't expect it to happen so soon. And we're seeing exactly what was expected from a conspiratorial loon like him. People predicted he'd sabotage public healthcare using half-measures & half-truth - and here it is for all to see: Lead with third-tier treatment measures; gush over folk remedies like cod liver oil; follow-up with a few grudging words on vaccines, but quickly add it's everyone's "personal decision". So what if children die.

In comments that seemed to refer to conventional measures against measles, Mr. Kennedy said, “We’re going to be honest with the American people for the first time in history about what actually — about all of the tests and all of the studies, about what we know, what we don’t know. We’re going to tell them, and that’s going to anger some people who want an ideological approach to public health.”

Meanwhile, the outbreak shows no signs of slowing, according to data released on Tuesday by Texas health officials. Maybe RFK Jr can help arrange hearse rides.

[Kazinski]

It was interesting that the Democrats picked Elissa Slotkin to give the official response, not someone from the Bernie-AOC-Warren wing and not even a minority.

Someone that invoked Reagan 4 times in the speech as a model, which admittedly Trump falls well short of.

And didn’t even use the words climate or warming. And one very cursory reference to the environment.

Looks like the Democratic leadership wants to pivot toward the center, or at least appear to when addressing a national audience.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the Dems, known for their cohesiveness and sticking to long-term strategies, are absolutely amendable to this analysis.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Looks like the Democratic leadership wants to pivot toward the center...."

Let's divide this into its factors:

1. The opposition response to a SOTU-ish address is a worthless, thankless, meaningless task, not worth a bucket of warm spit. We always hear the party out of power gave their speech to an "up & coming star", but please view that with skepticism. Few want the job.

2. Therefore, don't read major trends in this pointless throwaway speech.

3. But the Dems are in hunker-down mode right now. They want to avoid any trip wire issues until the dust settles. For example, the Right now has greater freedom to torment the small number of trans people with full sadistic glee. It will be just like in the good old days, when they could target blacks, women, gays, Hispanics & Jews with absolute impunity. People like me have a hard time understanding the Right's sadness all that has been taken from them.

4. And remember : Per all likely odds, 6-8 months from now Trump's approval ratings will be buried so deep you'll need Jules Verne to find them. The DOGE bullshit will have imploded, the economy will be trashed, Trump will have run out of cheap stunts, and he'll still be chasing after Putin like a heavily-made-up coquettish tart.

Bless their hearts, my Dems will have recovered their voice by then.

[Kazinski]

But there is good reason to think that party leadership would want to move to the center somewhat at least on the surface: The GOP has unambiguously moved to the right, that leaves some gettable votes in the center that they may not get if they double down with their lurch left over the last 4 years.

Us rightwingers are well familiar with a party where the base is out front of the party leadership, and the leadership keeps moving to the center with candidates like McCain and Romney because they think the base has nowhere else to go. That went on quite a while until the base seized firm control of the party finally, and most of the centrists and grifters left.

It may well be that's what's happening with the Dems, and it wouldn't be the first time, its what Clinton did in the 90's to regain the Center when Reagan took the GOP further right.

I don't doubt that regardless the Dems have an excellent chance of retaking the House in two years, but they just lost 4 senate seats and the Senate could be out of reach for a few cycles unless something more than just a typical off year readjustment happens.

[Brett Bellmore]

"a party where the base is out front of the party leadership, and the leadership keeps moving to the center"

I don't so much disagree with the general sentiment; The base of the GOP has long been at odds with the leadership, which had assumed they could do as they pleased because, what alternative did the base have?

But you "get out in front of" somebody by going further than them in a direction you're both going, and it's never been, in my life anyway, the case that the Republican base and leadership were headed in the same direction with the base further ahead. Not at the national level, anyway. Happened in a number of states.

Here's the way I see it: For a long while in the early to mid 20th century, the Democratic party had an unbreakable lock on Congress. Except for the 80th and 83rd Congresses, Democrats were in control for half a century! They lost control of the Senate for 6 years during the Reagan administration, but held onto the House until the '94 election.

Since then things have been ordinarily competitive, similar to the period before that long Democratic stretch. (Democrats experience this kind of competitive politics as deeply abnormal, having formed their expectation of uninterrupted rule during that half century.)

The result was that, for many decades, the only way a Republican member of Congress could get anything for their constituents was with the help of the Democrats. This bred a sort of Stockholm syndrome into the national GOP. It was a foundational assumption that the only way to get ahead was to not irritate Democrats!

The national GOP is only now starting to get over that. The Republican base was never suffering from it.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz versus Brett on the Democratic Party's inner desires.

It's vibes versus vibes.

Who will win?

[David Nieporent]

Us rightwingers are well familiar with a party where the base is out front of the party leadership, and the leadership keeps moving to the center with candidates like McCain and Romney because they think the base has nowhere else to go. That went on quite a while until the base seized firm control of the party finally, and most of the centrists and grifters left.

You know that it was Republican voters who nominated McCain and Romney, right?

[Kazinski]

Surely no democrat is going to argue that the party apparatus has no power in picking the candidate.

But really it was more campaigning in the primaries as rockribbed conservatives, then not then not only moving to the center in the general election, but moving more to the center in office. And I am mostly talking about Senators there, but both Bushes fit the bill too, as well as the McCain, Romney campaigns.

And I have no clue what Sarcastro's point is. Two guys expressing barely informed opinions about politics is probably the most unremarkable thing in the world, but Sarcastro feels the need to remark, which would be fine if he was expressing his own opinion, but otherwise pointless. Its not like Democrats never express opinions about Republican interparty dynamics either.

[Sarcastr0]

2 conservatives with a lot more confidence than insight have diametrically opposed ideas of how, exactly, Dems are bad.

Are you not amused?

[Bwaaah]

Different people. Different perspectives.

A gnat can have trouble reconciling that. Maybe one will read your remark, and be amused.

[David Nieporent]

Surely no democrat is going to argue that the party apparatus has no power in picking the candidate.

If it did, Trump wouldn't have been nominated once, let alone three times.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dan's daily Supreme Court cases included Ewing v. California.

Does anyone know what happened to Gary Ewing? I listened to the oral argument again & his lawyer made it out as if he wouldn't last a few years, given his health. That was over 20 years ago.

[Noscitur a sociis]

According to this site, he died in 2012.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/lockyer-v-andrade-20th-anniversary/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thanks.

[Frank Drackman]

Stealing Golf Clubs? that's a California crime, Fo Sho'

[tylertusta]

The DC Circuit has stayed Judge Jackson's order that Dellinger be reinstated as Special Counsel in a two-paged order.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25552101-dellingercadcord030525/

[grb]

An architect's life is one of frustration. Take me for example. One of my recent jobs was for the Church and I admit the project was rewarding and the Fathers fine people to work with. Still, part of me yearns to let my hair down (what's left of it).

https://www.dezeen.com/2025/03/05/snohetta-museum-of-sex-expansion-miami/

[santamonica811]

The Museum of Sex???*

(*I feel like there should be an "entrance fee" joke here; but I'm still working on it. So far, all I've got is: "It's an unusual building. It has no specific exit . . . but does have a front and rear entrance.")

[Magister]

Not a "turns out size does matter" joke based on "Museum of Sex expansion"?

[grb]

Skyscrapers are commonly described as phallic and some, like London's Gherkin, have a decidedly sex-toy-look. But flowing biomorphic forms from parametric design programs have made yonic similes frequent too.

Yet often the terms are wrong. Not architecturally, but from the perspective of female anatomy. When a soccer stadium by the late Zaha Hadid was described as vagina-like, this intervention was needed:

"You approach the grand entrance of a house. The jambs of the tall door are carved with ornate arabesque filigree. Its arched top is capped with an elaborate keystone. Beyond the door is a long central hall with walls of warm smooth varnished oak. In this analogy, the door is the vulva & the hall the vagina."

I get overheated just typing that! But - hey - I'm an architect....

[Mr. Bumble]

Any thoughts on the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago?

[apedad]

No but Family Guy did point out the difference between the Washington and Obama Monuments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk_0QNE1kw

[Mr. Bumble]

Haven't watched Star Trek TNG in a very long time and was never a fan, but from what I remember of it the Obama Center resembles a Borg ship.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Any thoughts on the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago?"

I'm abrim with thoughts on Obama's library. Here's a few:

1. Presidential libraries have traditionally been a mediocre genre of architecture. For a while, JFK's was considered the best but Pei's design is just a one-note thing. The turning point was Clinton's, which was quite good. W Bush released a short-list of architects and all except one were stellar. But he picked that one and a blah building was the result.

2. Obama's architects are pretty great, but I don't think the design one of their best. This is mainly do to the tower form, which is a little bit arbitrary and overwrought to my eye. Nonetheless, the overall design is good - particularly how it interacts with the city and site.

3. And the site involved a lot of fighting. It was a much-degraded Frederick Law Olmsted park with a six-lane road cutting off the waterfront. The Library's design rerouted the road, opened up the way to the lake, and added overall planting. But some preservationists fought just to fight. Fortunately, they'd chased Lucas' Museum of Narrative Art out of Chicago to "preserve" a massive parking lot, and no one wanted that experience again.

4. Meanwhile. Teddy Roosevelt is finally getting a library of his own in North Dakota of all places. It's design is great and by the same sex architects above. (they're Norwegian in origin BTW)

5. Biden worries me, but we'll see. Trump doesn't, because I'm sure it'll be a hilarious trashy kitsch farce...

https://www.snohetta.com/projects/the-theodore-roosevelt-presidential-library

[Sarcastr0]

Visited Finland. Tons of architects getting called out and interesting innovative building styles making use of interesting materials.

Does Scandinavia take their architecture particularly seriously in the current day, as compared to other countries?

[grb]

Past & now, the term “Scandinavian Design” has always commanded respect. One of the early Modern masters was the Finnish architect Alvar Aalto (with his wife Aino). He was known for an undercurrent of sensuality & warm despite his modernist rigor. The other great Modernists such as Mies, Corbu & Wright all had a blind spot or two, but Aalto didn’t. That made him more influential when the profession sought to regain its bearings after the post-war doldrums.

I used to get a yearly publication called “Living Architecture” which covered Scandinavian architecture and design. Each issue would have new exquisitely-designed warm comfortable homes, old stave timber churches from the Middle Ages, the latest designs of furniture, tableware & flatware, office buildings that always found extra richness beyond bare commercial necessity, and grand noble houses that were a little more earthbound than their aristocratic counterparts to the south. It was all of a piece, old and new. You really can’t praise Scandinavian design enough.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.
I imagine Biden's will be one of those post mounted libraries, you sometimes see on suburban front lawns, located at his Delaware beach house.

[not guilty]

Haters gonna hate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/nyregion/sam-nordquist-murder-transgender-hate.html

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, those "LGTBQ*" are some vicious animals

[Commenter_XY]

Samantha Power better start looking for a lawyer....

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/usaid-fraud-doge/2025/03/05/id/1201622/

[grb]

Hilarious. Habitual liars make a vague statement about unconfirmed charges without a single detail on a trash website.

And you go all trembly with excitement! They're lying to you XY. Don't you care? This is no different from Trump's 140yr olds getting Social Security. I'll never understand why you Cultists enjoy being constantly treated like chumps, dupes, and fools by your own side.

[Commenter_XY]

RIP 538....Nate Silver's baby now aborted. After several notable predictive misses, the market delivered a verdict. 538 is dead.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, is that what happened? I was assuming that the site was just glitching.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, creative destruction = 538. Better pollsters have emerged, and obsolete (and wrong) ones die off.

No great loss...plenty of other poll aggregators out there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I just got used to using their graphs; Not so much because I thought they were unimpeachable, but you can't do good comparisons over time if you keep swapping instruments, you know what I mean?

[Commenter_XY]

I do. Data Viz matters.

[Frank Drackman]

Nate predicts a 50.2% chance that 538 will survive

[David Nieporent]

For the record, Nate left 538 two years ago, when his contract was up. And no, ABC shutting 538 down has nothing to do with your imagined "predictive misses."

[ThePublius]

Don't leave us hanging, David, what was the reason ABC shut it down?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.niemanlab.org/2025/03/fivethirtyeight-is-shutting-down-as-part-of-broader-cuts-at-abc-and-disney/

From Nate Silver himself:
"I think there are really only two options to provide an adequate incentive for the hard work of keeping a comprehensive public polling database:

Either you need to have an upsell — most of the data is free, but premium features and/or models require a subscription; that’s basically what we’re doing.

Or you need to have some sort of not-for-profit structure. If a university or nonpartisan nonprofit out there wants to maintain a consortium of public polls, I’m happy to have those conversations and contribute ideas (and possibly data). Although there are some benefits from duplication — everyone finds some polls that others miss, and everyone has slightly different standards — there are also diminishing returns to this."

[ThePublius]

Thanks.

[Frank Drackman]

"Polling guru Nate Silver has revealed his final prediction model for the 2024 presidential election – and has concluded the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is “literally closer than a coin flip.”
In Silver’s model, Harris won the Electoral College in 50.015 percent of the 80,000 simulations, giving her a razor-thin lead.
“The race is literally closer than a coin flip: empirically, heads wins 50.5 percent of the time, more than Harris’s 50.015 percent,” Silver wrote on his Substack page on Tuesday morning.

Since Harris won the Electrical College 0%, Silver was only off by %50.015 (He's another idiot who doesn't understand "Significant Figures" (pronounced "Figgers" in the South, yes, like that "other" word, so be careful out there!)

[ThePublius]

This is interesting and potentially frustrating.

One may renew their U.S. passport online. When you do, as soon as you submit your application your current passport is cancelled. You can't use it for travel even if it hasn't yet expired. Normal passport renewal times are 4 to 6 weeks.

Why is that? Why cancel the passport pending renewal? I don't get it.

[Frank Drackman]

Because they're from the Government and they're here to help you, they just need to know a little bit about you for their files.
Guy I used to shoot hoops with was dual Amurican-Israeli Citizen, so had 2 Passports, always wanted to have the cool Israeli one, but didn't want to put up with the hassles of Dual Citizenship.

Frank

[ThePublius]

I'm also an Irish citizen, but haven't applied for a passport.

What are these hassles of which you speak?

[Life of Brian]

For a conventional renewal you have to send in your current passport with the application and it's "cancelled" before returning it to you by drilling a hole through it, so I'm not seeing the conceptual difference.

If you're wondering why they can't make better use of the slack time for an online renewal, I'd imagine a primary concern is not being able to precisely predict when the new passport will arrive, and ending up with a corner case where both are still active. And if they guess conservatively to try to prevent that overlap, you could head out on a trip with the old one and find it's canceled when you return.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. That does beg the question, though: why do they ever expire?

I know, the picture could be too old to be useful as ID, but they use biometrics as well, I think.

Also, I know you can get a second passport book. I wonder if you could not just keep one and use it until the new one is issued?

It seems to me that a passport should be continually valid. I don't have plans to travel for the next 6 weeks, but what if an emergency arises, like a relative passing away in the UK?

[David Nieporent]

There are procedures for getting passports on an emergency basis. (Who knows if Musk fired all the people responsible for processing those, of course.) You have to do it in person, not online (or via mail, for kinda obvious reasons), and you have to prove your need for it. There's actually super-rush (e.g., attending a funeral like in your hypo), urgent (need to travel for any reason in the next two weeks), expedited (~3 weeks) and regular (~6 weeks).

[grb]

ThePublius : "Thanks. That does beg the question, though: why do they ever expire?"

Consider the alternative : Trump lies on national TV because the Social Security database doesn't completely purge names of people no longer receiving benefits. Righties continue to make hay over states not striking names off their voting rolls after people move. This, despite those same groups launching a lying QAnon-style jihad against the very group trying to assist that cleanup.

I would think it an important safeguard to let passports time out.

[ThePublius]

Thanks. That was a very helpful reply - not!

[ThePublius]

As for the tangent on the social security database - I know people, including one close relative, who continued to deposit SS checks after their elderly parent had died, in some cases for quite some time! It happens. I don't know how widespread it is, of for how long people get away with it, but I know, for a fact, that it happens.

Regarding passport and license expirations: why don't marriage licenses expire? That might save couples lots on divorce lawyers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Marriage licenses do expire.
Do Marriage Licenses Expire and What Happens If They Do?
Jan 15, 2025When a marriage license expires without a ceremony, couples must submit a new application to the relevant local authority, such as the county clerk's office, and pay a non-refundable fee, typically ranging from $25 to $100. This process includes providing valid identification, proof of age, and documentation of any previous marriages ...

https://legalclarity.org/do-marriage-licenses-expire-and-what-happens-if-they-do/

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. I meant once you're married. What if a marriage license need be in effect during the marriage, and was good for ten years. If you want to split you just let it expire. 🙂

[David Nieporent]

I just came across that same rule yesterday when starting the online renewal process. Since I had overlooked that my passport had already expired, it doesn't actually impact me, but I thought it was strange as well.

[ThePublius]

Indeed, mine had already expired without me noticing.

Fortunately, in MA, one's License to Carry is such that it's good for 90 days past expiration, a grace period; and, if you've applied to renew before the expiration and receive a receipt for your renewal application[1], it's good indefinitely, until you receive a new license or a denial.

[1] I applied to renew three weeks ago and still haven't received a receipt!

[ThePublius]

BTW, did you have any trouble with the picture online? I took and tried about six times and it kept getting rejected for shadows, none of which existed. Finally, I took off my suspenders and a virtually identical pic was immediately accepted.

(I also think the $130 fee is excessive. Like my Massachusetts drivers license, $50 plus $10 for my motorcycle endorsement. Let's see, that's $1.08 per month for the passport, $1/month for the drivers license, $1.39/month for the license to carry....)

[David Nieporent]

I didn't have any technical difficulties, but that list of requirements was silly. You can smile, but not too much. Really?

[ThePublius]

Yea, I look like a corpse in my pic! Trying not to smile too much, have a neutral expression, etc. 🙂

[John F. Carr]

The Trump administration dismissed without prejudice the Biden administration's lawsuit demanding that Idaho emergency rooms offer abortions. According to the filing voluntary dismissal with consent of all parties is self-executing and terminates the preliminary injunction without action by the court. An appeal of the injunction is pending before the Ninth Circuit. This should be dismissed as moot soon. A 2023 panel decision in favor of Idaho was vacated by the en banc court. The Supreme Court did not make a precedential decision in the case. So the next District Court judge in the Ninth Circuit will be writing on a clean slate.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64862956/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/

[John F. Carr]

The Merit Systems Protection Board ordered reinstatement of all recently terminated probationary USDA employees who received a form letter stating "The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest." The letter did not explain the alleged performance problems. The mass firing probably does not comply with the principles of 5 USC 2301 (incorporated by reference in 5 USC 2302(b)(12)). The number of employees subject to the order is probably over 5,000.

This is the system working properly. The board specifically assigned the job of reviewing government employment actions is reviewing government employment actions.

https://osc.gov/Documents/PPP/Formal%20Stays/Order%20on%20Stay%20Request%20(no%20cert%20plus%20errata).pdf

[Voize of Reazon]

Any guesses what authority President Trump will claim allows him to dismantle Education by executive action?

[David Nieporent]

FYTW.

[Voize of Reazon]

Since the question was about How, not Why, I think that would have to be FYTH.

[grb]

Fentanyl seems the standard go-to excuse. It would be no more absurd here than with Canada. Trump's supporters expect to be told lies. Indeed, they seem to take masochistic pleasure in the act. The GOP-led Congress is spineless, soulless, and emptied of principle or thought. The Dems are still in recovery-mode.

Thus Trump will probably lie even more extravagantly for sport. In the short term, the courts are the last bastion where honest, reason, rules & law prevail.

[Sarcastr0]

“I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement.”

Trump did it out of respect for the President of Mexico, who is working hard on giving Trump so many good things.
Later.

What a masterstroke!

[Voize of Reazon]

Actually imposing tariffs would hurt American voters, who would then hurt Republican candidates, so he doesn't do that, but a state of constant uncertainty will be just as effective to discourage offshore investment. It's more clever than I would have credited him, which means someone else thought it up.