Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

Judge William Alsup is on my mind. His intemperate decision in the DOGE/Trump firings case seems, if anything, too measured. What should any judge do, if parties named to appear instead defy the Court, and do not appear? The federal judicial system will be in crisis if it cannot impose legal control over the Trump administration. All judicial relief sought by the administration, in every case, ought to be summarily refused, until full compliance has been demonstrated.

[AmosArch]

For decades we've been headed toward the cliff of financial ruin paying more and more for out of control ballooning bureaucracy and waste. Nobody, Republican, Independent, or Democrat can deny it. But now that someone finally has the courage to take the heat and try to do something about it we're fighting tooth and nail and waging war inch by inch to continue to the reckoning to leap off and plummet down the chasm to our doom. Unbelievable. We deserve every bit of punishment we are sentencing our descendants to.

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Alsup is a legal speed bump. The non-essential fed bureaucrats are gone. Can't force the Executive to rehire thousands of people. The government performs poorly, so by definition, they are all poor performers. They got RIF'ed. This happens every day in private industry. Welcome to reality.

Somewhere, somehow, I am sure there will be yet another nationwide TRO, and it will be appealed by the DOJ. Just glad this litigation is happening in first 60 days, and not after 180 days. Get it over with, keep moving on tax reform, border, tariffs and judicial expansion.

If the next POTUS wants the non-essential fed bureaucrats, s/he can hire them back.

[ReaderY]

The whole “saving money” BS is a pretext for taking political control over the civil service and turn it into the incompetent and inefficient but politically loyal civil service of a 3rd World country.

And these multibillionaire types are the greatest economic inefficiency our country has, requiring millions of dollars just to get out of bed in the morning, specializing in extracting wealth from others without giving them any value in return. They don’t deserve their absurdly outsize pay packages. They have been so wasteful and so absurdly inefficient that the net wealth of the rest of the country has declined considerably from half a century ago in real terms as a result. And one of THESE wastrels is claiming to make the government more efficient?

He’ll make government unworkable, then have as much as he can contracted out to one or other of his companies, and the net result of all this will be a lot fewer government services performed for the same money and a lot more taxpayer money winding up in his pockets. That’s efficiency? Efficiency my ass.

Having as much as the value winding up in his pockets as possible and the rest of us getting as little value as possible may be efficiency for him. But it sure isn’t efficiency for the rest of us.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And these multibillionaire types are the greatest economic inefficiency our country has, requiring millions of dollars just to get out of bed in the morning, specializing in extracting wealth from others without giving them any value in return."

And, of course, you're saying that about Elon Musk, who has revolutionized at least three industries so far... Envy much?

[Sarcastr0]

We've discussed how you think wealth is strongly correlated to merit and wisdom, but come on, man.

What's your definition of revolutionized? He's followed federal subsidies wherever they lead.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

He obviously had enough wisdom to realize that 4-7T$ a year being doled out by a bunch of corrupt idiots or ideological unelected midwits was good source of easy billions.

And I'm surprised that a sophisticated national science policy advisor like yourself doesn't see the revolutionary aspects of opening up your entire patent portfolio igniting the EV industry.

But then again, you're you, and you don't ever deal with facts or reality. They don't call you Gaslightr0 for nothing. You got that on merit!

[Absaroka]

"He's followed federal subsidies wherever they lead."

Honest question ... has SpaceX been subsidized in ways that Boe-Lock-Mart hasn't been? My sense is that yes, the USG has bought expensive launches from SpaceX, but those launches have been a flaming bargain relative to Boe-Lock-Mart.

'Musk is a jerk' and 'SpaceX has revolutionized the launch business' can both be true.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think so.

I'm not saying SpaceX has been unsuccessful in it's chosen area! Everyone I know in the space policy area, whether they like Musk or not, acknowledge SpaceX is aces.

I'm saying 2 things:
1) It's chosen area is a specifically governmental space.
2) It has not revolutionized commercial space.

[Absaroka]

"It has not revolutionized commercial space."

Say whut?::

"(fully expendable Falcon Heavy)...US$2,350 per kg to LEO ...The nearest competing U.S. rocket was ULA's Delta IV Heavy ... US$12,340 per kg to LEO"

Or for a graphical view. N.b. that's a log scale and stops in 2019. To get a recentish view, slide the date to say 2016 ... who is 1/5 the price of the nearest competitor? And that nearest competitor is from India and has made ... 7 launches to date. SpaceX has one booster that it has relaunched 26 times to date.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe it's my basic research background, but doing great isn't revolutionary.
Revolution means changed the thinking on what is possible.

Number go up (or down) is incremental. Revolutionary is not a synonym for 'really successful.'

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Relaunchable space vehicles are revolutionary.

>As of January 2025, Starship is the only launch vehicle intended to be fully reusable that has been fully built and tested.

So much so that:

>The impact of reusability in launch vehicles has been foundational in the space flight industry. So much so that in 2024, the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station initiated a 50 year forward looking plan for the Cape that involved major infrastructure upgrades (including to Port Canaveral) to support a higher anticipated launch cadence and landing sites for the new generation of vehicles.

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

I think your research background may be too basic? What do you think? So basic that you don't even know what "revolutionary" would even be?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that is why the country is going bankrupt -- we could build roads the way that the Romans did, but we don't because it would cost too much money.

It's not just what you can do but what you can do at a price you can afford doing it at!

[Absaroka]

"Revolution means changed the thinking on what is possible."

How many boosters were reused prior to SpaceX 🙂

Also disagree as far as moving a number never being revolutionary. If I'm remembering my industrial history right, Bessemer changed steel from an exotic material to a commodity, enabling steel ships and skyscrapers and what have you. The iphone just improved the $ per MIPS number a bit from room filling mainframes ... but it seems pretty revolutionary to me.

[Sarcastr0]

Quantity has a quality all it's own at some point I absolutely agree.

But I don't see that point being anywhere near SpaceX's improvement in launch capability.

Starlink, as discussed below, seems much closer to the paradigm shift I'm tracking when I hear revolutionary outside the advertising context.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just keep in mind that your view of this particular matter is very different from that of people who actually are interested in rocketry.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, my point of view comes from taking courses in space policy, and doing research and policy papers on space launch.

So don't try that dismissive I've got an idiosyncratic outsider's opinion.

It's dumb credentialism, and if you want to play that game I almost certainly have a deeper knowledge than you do about the policy and science of space launch, both governmental and commercial.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

You have all this expertise, yet you still claim the first reusable launch vehicle was incremental and not revolutionary.

You're a garbage person whose a filthy liar with no morals or integrity... Or a typical govie.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "my point of view comes from taking courses in space policy"

Again: you could be the poster child for what's wrong with higher education.

Anyway, I remember when just about every Democrat was enamored with Elon. Then he bought Twitter and said, "I'm going to make it so right-wingers can talk as freely as left-wingers." And as quickly as he did that, just about every Democrat started hating Elon.

How about you, tool? Do you remember how you felt about Mr. Electric Car Savior? (Careful...there are message archives)

[Sarcastr0]

I think arguments can stand or fall on their own, and credentialism is not useful.

Brett's the one that decided it was relevant.

I remember when just about every Democrat was enamored with Elon.
You do not. You might think so, but there was never a time he was some kind of Democratic hero.

[Bwaaah]

Here's former Democratic Congressman Dannie Shows in The Hill in 2016:

A prime example of this detachment among Democrats is the surging popularity of billionaire Elon Musk within the party. Is Elon Musk really the kind of billionaire that can win over working-class, white Americans?
[...]
Aaron Ross Sorkin, a left-leaning financial columnist at the New York Times, recently urged President-elect Donald Trump to ask Musk to advise him on job creation. This follows a call from the left-leaning, late night television host Stephen Colbert for Musk to run for president.
Vogue Magazine regularly publishes fawning pieces about Musk. But is he a good businessman?
[...]
Democrats hoping that Musk will be their billionaire answer to Trump, fail to realize he is as out of touch with that voting block as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.
[...]
While I personally admire Elon Musk, he is the darling of the New York Times and Vogue. He’s the embodiment of the new economy. He’s not exactly the guy that millions of working-class white voters rally around for president.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, you are getting your data from rocket boosters. No time to make a deep dive on data reliability (let alone rocket reliability), but some initial signs would not reassure a skeptic. The link you provided shows field marks suggesting press agentry.

Note also, Musk-controlled sources have promised some remarkable figures yet to come—such as rocket engines for SpaceX at a cost of $275,000 each, and launch to orbit costs of ~ $1,000,000. That might be great if it happens. You can see how great it could be now to promise it will happen.

Do you see any reason to trust anything Elon Musk says?

[Absaroka]

I don't trust anything he says, but it's hard not to trust what SpaceX (which in fairness is a lot of people) has actually done. And if you compare that to what the old guard (Boe-Lock-Mart) has done, it's pretty awesome.

The V2 was A)made by literal Nazis, for a heinous purpose, and was also B)a big advance in rocketry. SpaceX isn't building bad rockets just because Musk is running amok politically.

The VW bug was a pretty nifty car even if literal Hitler liked it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My critique was intended to question whether what SpaceX has accomplished has been accurately described with regard to the economics; it was not about the engineering.

[Absaroka]

"My critique was intended to question whether what SpaceX has accomplished has been accurately described with regard to the economics;"

Fine, I'm all ears. Show us your evidence.

[PaulS]

"It has not revolutionized commercial space" - I don't think Starlink existed as a product before SpaceX created it. Isn't that sort of the definition of revolutionizing an industry (commercial space)? In some ways I suspect if people realized what they were doing with this product ahead of time they would have tried to stop them.

[Sarcastr0]

OK. I think reasonable minds could find that revolutionary - that's a good one;
I was stuck on commercial launch and you make a fair point.

[PaulS]

Amazon wants to compete with Starlink - but Bezos' Blue Ocean can't make the launches work so they are hiring SpaceX to launch their satellites. Says something about how far ahead they are in commercial launch

[ReaderY]

If you’re willing to let things crash and blow up in order to see if things work, you can develop cheaper than if you’re not willing to. Especially if you’re willing to let it happen with people inside them. Tesla has had numerous fatal safety issues - self-driving programs causing crashes, death-trap software-controlled doors that can’t be unlocked when a fire burns the software, debris from exploded rockets raining down on people and buildings, and much else.

A company that valued human life over money aand didn’t start selling things when they were still half hype would have spent more and taken more time but had these sorts of issues dealt with before it let people use them. And if we had decent government regulations, Musk would never have been allowed to kill people as cold-bloodedly and callously as he has. Musk is a walking example of why government safety regulation is sometimes essential. His basic defegulatory goal is to keep the families of the people he kills from being able to do anything. Of course letting ordinary people have rights and requiring business titans to make sure things are safe before release slows down innovation.

Musk is perfectly right about that. Banning vivesection also slows down medical progess. no question progress can happen faster under slavery when you can do whatever you want experimenting on human beings and they can’t do anything about it. Musk is perfectly right about that.

The 13th Amendment was the single biggest act of government regulation we’ve ever had. Definitely an obstacle to progress. No question. Want to do anything you want to others to achieve your goals with nobody able to stand in your way no matter who you hurt? Get rid of government regulation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NO, the 13th Amendment was NOT the single biggest act of government regulation -- states had been banning slavery for 80 years earlier (e.g. MA in 1783) and the Creek Nation kept its Black slaves for another year after the 13th Amendment. And slavery was replaced by debt peonage which arguably was worse.

FAR more significant was the worker's compensation law and the concept of absolute liability for the employer when an employee got injured.

And unlike vaccine manufacturers, I do not believe SpaceX is immune for liability when its debris rains down on people.

[SykesFive]

"Flaming" is maybe not the right adjective to use for SpaceX, assuming you wanted a positive connotation.

[Michael Ejercito]

Maybe you should have been better at sports, music, or acting.

[Don Nico]

"He's followed federal subsidies wherever they lead."
Actually, that is wrong. He cut the costs of space launches by agreeing to firm, fixed priced contracts rather than the cost plus contracts that the aerospace giants are used to.
If you are going to criticize, get you facts straight.

[Sarcastr0]

Commercial space is subsidized up the wazoo. Used to be directly through $$, insurance underwriting, and personnel.

Nowadays it's R&D contracts, access to government infrastructure and obligate contracting not part of anything like a free market's price-setting.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: commercial space is not a viable market due to government demand being inflexible.
Doesn't mean it's not commercial, but it's demand curve is sloped. Makes for some perverse incentives.

Doesn't mean SpaceX isn't really good. It's competing in a rarified and counterintuitive space, but delivering the goods. My issue on this front is more the commercial space launch sector generally.

[DixieTune]

So because billionaires are overpaid and wealth concentration is a bad thing, we should insist that middle class taxpayers pay for a bloated federal workforce? How exactly does that make sense?

[Magister]

We should insist that billionaires pay at least the tax rate of middle class taxpayers. We should audit tax returns of the wealthiest, because the cost of hiring the auditors will be much less than the tax revenue recovered from the wealthy tax cheats.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We should insist that billionaires pay at least the tax rate of middle class taxpayers."

Cool, I'm sure your average billionaire would be up for a flat rate tax, too, instead of progressive taxation. In '21, Musk paid about $11B in taxes, about 5 times Trump's entire net worth. (Calculations claiming about a 3% tax rate are based on unrealized gains, not his actual income.)

This is not to say that there's not a lot of BS going on, and their really needs to be a fix for this "Take out loans on your appreciated assets and live off the loans, instead of realizing the appreciation" trick.

[Magister]

The problem is not that tax rates aren't progressive, it's that the very rich avoid paying taxes anyway. Barring some market failure, the ordinary working person pays payroll taxes, currently 15.4%. Most of them face sales tax (state and/or local) which applies to most of what they spend, which is most of what they earn. And they will probably still pay some federal income tax. Meanwhile:
New OMB-CEA Report: Billionaires Pay an Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate of Just 8.2%

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>The whole “saving money” BS is a pretext for taking political control over the civil service and turn it into the incompetent and inefficient but politically loyal civil service of a 3rd World country.

So turn it into what it already is?

>He’ll make government unworkable, then have as much as he can contracted out to one or other of his companies, and the net result of all this will be a lot fewer government services performed for the same money and a lot more taxpayer money winding up in his pockets.

That reminds me of that $20B Biden sheltered in Citibank to give out to previous WH Staffers new LLC's. Weird how you didn't use that as an example, no?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think Habitat for Humanity is a "new LLC."

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Nearly $7B for Climate United started in 2023 by an ex-Obama WH official in court right now demanding an immediate release of $3M or they have to cut staff.

An organization that had less than $100k in the bank according to their 2023 filings.

Also, Habitat for Humanity was part of Abrams USAID $2B brand new "coalition" and was not a direct recipient, no?

[David Nieporent]

Climate United, like Power Forward, is a coalition of organizations. The coalitions are new, the organizations that make them up are not.

It was not started in 2023, and was not started by an ex-Obama WH official. SpaceX and Tesla were started by a Trump WH official, though, and think of all the wasteful government money to them.

[David Nieporent]

Also, Climate United is not an LLC at all, so it can't be a "new LLC."

[Sarcastr0]

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>The Climate United Fund was formed in 2024

>Beth Bafford is the chief executive officer of Climate United. 6 She is also the vice president of strategy for Calvert Impact Capital, the lead member of Climate United. Stafford previously worked at McKinsey and Company, as a special assistant in the Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget, and as a regional field director for Obama for America.

>Climate United’s board of directors oversees the consortium’s strategy and implementation of the Biden administration’s National Clean Investment Fund awards. 8 Climate United’s board members include former Democratic Party of California chairman and California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, 9 8 Obama administration Secretary of the Department of Transportation Anthony Foxx, United Farm Workers of America co-founder Dolores Huerta, Patrice Willoughby of the Congressional Black Caucus, 10 and others with ties to the First People’s Fund, CPC, Opportunity Finance Network, and NAACP. 4

You bootlick this corrupt partisan bullshit with your nit picking. You should be ashamed. You aren't. But you should be.

[Zarniwoop]

Tesla was not started by Musk, though he likes to pretend he’s the genius who did. He leveraged having venture capitalist money and early involvement to kick out the founders (Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning).

[Don Nico]

David,
That comment is even more dishonest than S_0 or Mr ED have ever written. Man, get a life instead of posting such bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

3 name calling failures to engage with DMNs actual comment.

Don, why are you down in the slop with Magnus and Riva? What is your factual issue? DMN isn’t always right, but I’d like to see why you are so sure?

[Riva]

Well Sarcastr0 has said it. And it should also be noted that Sarcastr0 is an honorable man. Or something.

[Riva]

Well crazy Dave has said it, and Crazy Dave is an honest man.

[Life of Brian]

They're not, but I'd very much like to understand exactly how squishy fear porn climate subsidies relate to building houses.

[David Nieporent]

Because the money is being spent on things like energy efficiency for homes?

[David Nieporent]

Want to argue that Congress never should have appropriated these funds? Fine. Great. I agree. But Congress did so, and spending them as Congress told them to is not waste/fraud/abuse.

[Life of Brian]

Well, if Congress specifically instructed a specific number of dollars to be given to HFH and the other thus-far unnamed (and therefore presumptively unsympathetic) recipients, it should be child's play to track down the deets. Sorta doubt it, but feel free to surprise me.

[Life of Brian]

Was that a WAG, or did you actually track down real details? None of the bevy of garment-rending articles seem at all interested in saying what the money was for, or even how much HFH received in relation to the other conveniently unnamed members of the so-called "coalition."

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be under the impression that federal grants are just given out based on the say-so of some guy in the agency with no oversight or rules.

[Life of Brian]

You seem to be under the impression that what you just said has any bearing whatsoever on my interest in the actual details behind the cherry-picked appeal to emotion being reported.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to support Magnus Pilatus, you can't retroactively change the thesis without saying so.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

After the distributed the $20B to Citibank so there couldn't be any federal agency oversight, what federal agency had oversight over the funds?

>If you're going to support Magnus Pilatus, you can't retroactively change the thesis without saying so.

Look at the Big Balls on this guy... thinking he makes the rules for our discussions.

How do you plan on enforcing your rules on this site?

[David Nieporent]

They did not distribute the $20B to Citibank so there couldn't be any federal agency oversight; that doesn't make any sense. I don't even know what you think you mean by oversight here. They distributed the $20B to Citibank so Trump couldn't impound or misappropriate the funds.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

... and by extension the agencies under him...

Jesus dude, do you even try?

[David Nieporent]

So your idea of "oversight" does not involve looking at what the grantees are doing with the grants, but rather involves seizing the money that has already been granted?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

My idea of oversight does not include last minute disbursements of billions of dollars to private banks in the name of party cronies & ex-officials by an outgoing administration.

hbu? Does your definition of oversight include those things? To me, that seems very curious and like an attempt to avoid any oversight.

But hey, maybe you know something I don't (doubtful, but maybe) Maybe in Democrat circles secretly slushing around billions of dollars with winks & nods is "oversight". Who knows. Y'all are strange people. Barely even "people" frankly, with your anti-human beliefs.

[David Nieporent]

Okay, well, you've just told me what your idea of oversight isn't, but you haven't told me what it is. Do you understand how the process works? Essentially, Congress appropriates $X for a particular objective. The agency makes it more specific, and announces the specs. Organizations put in proposals. The agency evaluates those proposals, and awards grants to the organizations whose proposals it likes. And then the organizations spend the money in accordance with those proposals, and reports back to the agency on progress and deliverables. The agency doesn't approve each individual expenditure the grantee makes; that would be unworkable and pointless. The oversight comes in looking at what the grantee proposed to do with the money, what it did with the money, and what the outcomes were. And nothing about transferring the money to an account at Citibank in any way affects that.

[Life of Brian]

Well, I see in my absence y'all have completely abandoned the "OMG Habitat for HUMANITY" bleeding heart angle and are now just mindlessly cheering on the underlying fraudulent transfer.

Don't forget to swill beer and belch between posts!

[David Nieporent]

Well, I see in my absence y'all have completely abandoned the "OMG Habitat for HUMANITY" bleeding heart angle and are now just mindlessly cheering on the underlying fraudulent transfer.

Um, you know that Ed Martin tried to argue that something about it was fraudulent and multiple DOJ officials and a federal judge laughed at him for not having any evidence, right?

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, after claiming and then absolutely whiffing on showing any evidence whatsoever that Congress actually directed any of these dollars to HFH, are you now trying to pivot to something else to distract?

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, after claiming and then absolutely whiffing on showing any evidence whatsoever that Congress actually directed any of these dollars to HFH, are you now trying to pivot to something else to distract?

No. You're the one who made the loony claim about "fraudulent transfer." I was responding to it.

(And I made no claim that "Congress actually directed any of these dollars to HFH.")

[Life of Brian]

You're the one who made the loony claim about "fraudulent transfer."

You're the one who already cheerfully explained earlier today that the money was squirreled away at Citibank outside the normal course because something something Orange Man bad. You can't have it both ways.

(And I made no claim that "Congress actually directed any of these dollars to HFH.")

You explicitly brought up HFH in the very first post I responded to, then instructed me that "spending them as Congress told them to is not waste/fraud/abuse."

Quite a fine thing to pretend that never happened now that you apparently realize you got hoodwinked by hopeful headlines.

[David Nieporent]

You're the one who already cheerfully explained earlier today that the money was squirreled away at Citibank outside the normal course because something something Orange Man bad. You can't have it both ways.

You asked what motivated them to do something. I told you. Before he took office, Trump had been talking about impoundment. The Biden administration assumed that spending on things like the environment would likely be a prime target for Trump's impoundment. So it took action to prevent Trump from doing so with respect to these funds.

You explicitly brought up HFH in the very first post I responded to,

In response to the badly distorted allegation that the money was being given to newly created entities

then instructed me that "spending them as Congress told them to is not waste/fraud/abuse."

Yes. Spending funds as Congress told them to — not the specific payee, but the topic of the spending — is not waste/fraud/abuse.

[Life of Brian]

You can try to doll it up as much as you like, but the grants were awarded in April of last year. Clearly, the money was not intended to be, and was not, disbursed all at once in huge chunks -- that is, until the administration started "tossing gold bars off the Titanic" in the last few weeks of its sordid existence.

If this was SOP, they should have already had the money way before the election and this entire discussion would be moot. Since that didn't happen, you have the unenviable job of trying to explain how suddenly shoving it out the door is nonetheless perfectly normal and nothing to see here whatsoever.

Happy arm flapping.

[David Nieporent]

If this was SOP, they should have already had the money way before the election and this entire discussion would be moot. Since that didn't happen, you have the unenviable job of trying to explain how suddenly shoving it out the door is nonetheless perfectly normal and nothing to see here whatsoever.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Hell, I can't even get you to understand that I've repeatedly told you why they changed SOP. I mean, seriously, this is where we are in the discussion:

1. They did this thing a certain way.
2. Yes, they did, because such-and-such.
3. But why'd they do it this way?
4. Because they were worried about such-and-such.
5. I guess you won't admit that they did it that way.

[Life of Brian]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

What an impossibly cutesy thing to prepend to a post that then proceeds to either fundamentally misunderstand or deliberately distort (take your pick) everything I've said as well as try to recalibrate things you proudly blurted out before you realized you needed to recalibrate them.

At this point you're left trying to defend the position that 1) yes, Virginia, actually they DID break protocol and shoveled the money out the door to try to keep it in their hot little totally non-fraudulent hands after they received some rather... unexpected news on Nov. 9, while 2) that breaking of protocol was completely totally and utterly on the up and up and may not be questioned. I don't envy you in the slightest.

[David Nieporent]

At this point you're left trying to defend the position that 1) yes, Virginia, actually they DID break protocol and shoveled the money out the door to try to keep it in their hot little totally non-fraudulent hands after they received some rather... unexpected news on Nov. 9, while 2) that breaking of protocol was completely totally and utterly on the up and up and may not be questioned. I don't envy you in the slightest.

I am an optimist, so I'll try to speak slowly and loudly one last time, using small words, in the faintest of hopes you can grasp this:

1. They. Normally. Don't. Give. Out. All. The. Grant. Money. At. Once. Because. There's. No. Need. To.
2. There. Was. Need. To. Here. Because. They. Correctly. Feared. Trump. Might. Try. To. Steal. The. Funds.
3. None. Of. This. Has. The. Slightest. Thing. To. Do. With. Fraud.

I apologize that some of the words I used were as many as three syllables.

[Riva]

This is essentially the problem. You view executive branch employees and agencies as somehow separate from the authority of the elected individual who constitutionally controls the executive branch. This bureaucracy is not a separate branch of government. And the executive is not under the supervision and management of the judiciary. This warped, unconstitutional (that would be illegal) arrangement has worked to the left’s advantage for decades. So much so that you somehow think it is beyond challenge. You’re wrong and some misbehaving judges will not stop reform. Which seems badly needed in the judiciary as well, in addition to a few impeachments.

[Joe_dallas]

ReaderY 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"The whole “saving money” BS is a pretext for taking political control over the civil service and turn it into the incompetent and inefficient but politically loyal civil service of a 3rd World country."

The civil service has been " incompetent and inefficient but politically loyal civil service " for the better part of the last several decades.

[damikesc]

The plus of the spoils system is that SOMEBODY was responsible for what the bureaucracy was doing. Now, NOBODY is. It has not improved efficacy or reduced corruption.

[Bob from Ohio]

"pretext for taking political control over the civil service"

Yes it is.

"incompetent and inefficient"

You think the current civil service is competent and efficient?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would engage this point with you if I thought you actually knew anything about the civil service and what they do. But on this subject you are only capable of repeating Trump administration talking points, so I won't waste my time.

[Joe_dallas]

Alpheus W Drinkwater 15 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I would engage this point with you if I thought you actually knew anything about the civil service and what they do. But on this subject you are only capable of repeating Trump administration talking points, so I won't waste my time."

Drinkwater - Maybe its news to you but Its been true for several decades prior to trump entering the political scene

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, as almost always, what you say is not news to anybody, because it is not news. Stuff made up and offered without any sign of provenance is never news.

[Joe_dallas]

SL did you miss the part where Adrinkwater made an inane comment

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh good, another commenter with absolutely no knowledge of the federal civil service except what he hears on Fox News. How enlightening!

[damikesc]

Being asked "Tell us what you did this week" has led to meltdowns. Nobody has EVER commented on just how effective the bureaucracy is at doing anything at all.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn. Government bad.

[David Nieporent]

Assuming for the sake of argument that your financial analysis is accurate, your comment ignores two things:
1) Firing federal employees is not about staving off financial ruin. You could eliminate 100% of them and it would only make a small dent.
2) Trump has no legal authority to "do something about it." It's Congress's job, not the president's, to decide how much money will be raised and spent. Every fascist leader claims that existing government is too stupid/cowardly/weak to do what needs to be done, and uses that as an excuse for seizing power.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

IKR? Just the other day Trump was declaring that if Congress doesn't bend to his will he is going to implement his policies, he said, and I quote:

"I've got a pen and I've got a phone - and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward."

Trump is just moving the ball forward.

[Joe_dallas]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 3 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I've got a pen and I've got a phone -"

I dont recall many leftists complaining when obama said something similar.

Congress may have authorized the spending, Though its doubtful that Congress barred the executive branch from performing any level of due diligence to determine the money was spent as authorized. Leftist complaining about Trump's executive actions seem to be omitting the later.

[Joe_dallas]

To clarify my point -
Congress authorizes spending - Most every spending bill authorizing spending on projects that meet specified criteria. As president of the executive branch, he is required to ensure that the spending meets that specified criteria and thus has the legal authority to perform that act.

[Sarcastr0]

Most every spending bill authorizing spending on projects that meet specified criteria

As is generally the case when you say stuff not about accounting, this is not true. In fact, you have it backwards for the most part.

The usual is for the appropriation bill to only say what offices are funded at what level money goes to. The programs and criteria are set by the office, with Congressional oversight.
You do a bad job, Congress comes in next year and cuts you.

There are Congressionally mandated initiatives, but those are the exception.

[Joe_dallas]

I just picked the inflation reduction act of 2022 , though I could have linked any and most every spending bill.

Sarcastro - Care to point out where there is not any "criteria" for how the money is spent!
The test of the bill completely rebuts your response -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/text

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the usual spending bill. Look up an omnibus appropriations act.

But Congress does have it's patterns, and this bill does include appropriations with criteria to be specified by an office, not Congress:

"SEC. 21002. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts otherwise available (and subject to subsection (b)), there are appropriated to the
Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September
30, 2031 (subject to the condition that no such funds may be
disbursed after September 30, 2031)—
(1) $1,000,000,000 to provide conservation technical assistance through the Natural Resources Conservation Service;"
...

Similar discretionary appropriations appear at the programmatic level:
SEC. 23001. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM RESTORATION AND FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS.

SEC. 23002. COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR NON-FEDERAL FOREST LANDOWNERS.

etcetera.

[Joe_dallas]

You just confirmed my point and rebutted your point
Congradulations

[Sarcastr0]

Care to go into more detail on that?

"Most every spending bill authorizing spending on projects that meet specified criteria."

What are the Congressionally specified criteria for "conservation technical assistance through the Natural Resources Conservation Service;"

[Joe_dallas]

Is your reading and basic knowledge that pathetic that you dont even understand what you are arguing?

You cherrypicked one tiny section of a spending bill that has multitudes of requirements, limitations, etc or what ever similar term to "criteria".

Every spending bill has some form of criteria

[Sarcastr0]

Your performance deserves a summary.

You, originally: "Most every spending bill authorizing spending on projects that meet specified criteria."
I dispute this.

Your followup: "Care to point out where there is not any "criteria" for how the money is spent!" [you provide a nonrepresentative example.]
I do so.

You: "You just confirmed my point and rebutted your point
Congradulations"
I ask you to go into more detail.

You: "You cherrypicked!"

I count 4 different goalposts.

You are as usual claiming expertise in something you don't know anything about.

I DO know about Congressional appropriations, and you are full of shit.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Your performance deserves a summary.

You, originally: "Most every spending bill authorizing spending on projects that meet specified criteria."
I dispute this.

Sacastro - Are disputing that spending bills dont have criteria on how the money is spend? Seriously ?

Your argument is simply inane
At least your consistent with your inanity

[Sarcastr0]

I dispute the "most every" part.

Which you left out in your rewrite.

You don't know Congressional appropriations. You shot your mouth off, like you do. And here you are, trying to retcon what you said, and throwing insults and new goalposts at the issue.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro -
Do spending bills have criteria on how the money is spent ? or do spending bills not have criteria on how the money is spent?

You are arguing the later shich clearly shows how stupid your argument is

[Noscitur a sociis]

I dont recall many leftists complaining when obama said something similar.

Imagine what a state you’d have to be in for the subtlety of Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 to go over your head.

Oof, Sonja_T Joe_Dallas. Distinctly oof.

[Don Nico]

"Every fascist leader"
Name calling proves nothing except your inability to make a coherent argument

[damikesc]

"1) Firing federal employees is not about staving off financial ruin. You could eliminate 100% of them and it would only make a small dent."

Every single cut has the exact same complaint. Cutting spending is impossible because there is ALWAYS some impacted group who wishes to bitch about a cut.

"Every fascist leader claims that existing government is too stupid/cowardly/weak to do what needs to be done, and uses that as an excuse for seizing power."

Given the "Resistance" bullshit in the bureaucracy in Trump's first term, this is necessary. The bureaucracy is NOT the group in charge.

Remember, a big reason for the first laughable impeachment was that Trump did not agree with the foreign policy of the bureaucracy, as if their opinion on the topic meant a damned thing.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The first impeachment of Trump had nothing to do with Trump not agreeing with the foreign policy of the bureaucracy. (There was some testimony about the foreign policy of the United States during the impeachment hearings, but of course Trump was the final arbiter of U.S. foreign policy while he was in office.)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

[damikesc]

Why did Vindman forward the complaint?

Because Trump went against the establishment.

[David Nieporent]

Why did Vindman forward the complaint?

Because he became aware that Trump was doing something potentially unethical and illegal and an honorable person does not bury such a thing?

[myself]

Given DOGE's gutting of the IRS they've likely increased the deficit more than anything.

[damikesc]

How is staffing as compared to, say, 2023? Numbers, please.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it is time to start throwing Federal Judges in jail.

Make something up -- that's what they are doing.

[DixieTune]

I was thinking of the military throwing them out of helicopters.

[Frank Drackman]

Like that guy in "Scarface"

[Nelson]

This isn’t Russia. Well, not yet.

[not guilty]

"I think it is time to start throwing Federal Judges in jail."

Dr. Ed 2, suppose you were drafting a criminal complaint seeking a warrant for the arrest of a federal judge. Which judge(s) would you seek to arrest? What statute(s) would you allege to have been violated? What supporting facts would you allege?

Please be specific.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be fair to Dr. Ed, he was up front that he doesn’t think the jailing should have any connection to an actual crime.

[not guilty]

It is still worthwhile to inquire as to whom he is blathering about.

[DixieTune]

It's in bad faith.

“Here, the terminated probationary employees were plainly not terminated for cause,” Bredar wrote in a 56-page opinion. “The sheer number of employees that were terminated in a matter of days belies any argument that these terminations were due to the employees’ individual unsatisfactory performance or conduct.”

That very well may be true, but the fact that a huge number of people were fired doesn't prove, especially at the TRO stage, that the terminations weren't for cause.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't the point of "probationary" employment that you don't have any job security at all? I was under the impression that probationary employees could be let go without cause.

In this case, the cause is simply that the government needs to reduce it's workforce.

[DixieTune]

The fact that there are this many probationary employees makes me think that Biden's handlers intentionally hired tons of unnecessary employees in the waning days of his administration

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They were cooking the unemployment books. A significant amount of all jobs created during Biden were federal or to illegals.

Hardly any real Americans benefited during the Great Biden Depression.

[David Nieporent]

The quality of VC commenters has really gone downhill since even a few years ago. I guess when Musk decided that what Twitter needed was more Nazis, leading to the result everyone who was paying attention to the social media industry knew would happen — it would be flooded with Nazis and most other people would leave — the Nazis got bored that they weren't getting engagement and decided to pollute other spaces.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/200/368/147.jpg

[Don Nico]

"quality of VC commenters has really gone downhill"
Your ranting prove the point.

[VinniUSMC]

The quality of VC commenters has really gone downhill since even a few years ago.

Yeah, with people like you leading the way. TDS really did a number on you.

[damikesc]

Odds of him bemoaning Trump not being there in 5 or so years when he is not the Republican bogeyman du jour?

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of the reason there are so many probationary employees is that many of Biden's *appointed* employees went over to civil service jobs so that Trump couldn't replace them. I know of specific individuals in ED that did that. They just didn't do it quick enough (there was a significant pay cut involved.)

[Drewski]

"the cause is simply that the government needs to reduce it's workforce."

Funny that the notices, which must provide the agency's reasoning, don't say that. If you're correct, the firings are illegal for improper notice anyway.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, the whole point of "probationary employees" is that they remain at-will untill the probation period is over. At that point, dismissal or lay-off must be for cause.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would suggest you research the subject a bit before commenting. Your comment here is incorrect. All dismissals must be for cause except under some very limited conditions. There is less protection, but not none, as this administration seems to think.

[Don Nico]

I accept the correction at face value.
However, my research did indicate that their employment is at-will; that they do not have the same due process rights, meaning they can be dismissed without the same level of justification or procedural safeguards as career civil servants. While they can join a union where applicable, their representation rights are more limited than career employees.
Even so, government workers have more protection that probationary employees in most organizations, including GOCO facilities.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, that was Congress' choice, for better or worse. I can accept making the fed government smaller and more efficient. The way to do that is not to send out tens of thousands of form letter emails to probationary employees saying they are all being terminated for poor performance. That's just lying. And illegal.

[Don Nico]

I have always hated the form letter or email notices. That is simply chicken-shit management. I agree with you that it is a sign of dishonesty.

[Krayt]

Will "you aren't needed actually" be a cause?

Mass layoffs happen in industry all the time. Welcome to the club.

You live in a distorted fantasy world because you can force your customers to pay, and run up the credit card backing your debt not with stuff but the legal power to force your customers to pay more.

[Krayt]

"But government isn't to profit!"

Correct. Let's stop the asinine game of this unholy alliance of forcing people to pay with incontinent spending and hiring.

As tech progresses, all things get more efficient. Governmenr bloats, tying its spending not to rational analysis of need, but on how much it can borrow based on growing GDP, productivity increases from the private sector they piggishly inhale.

[Sarcastr0]

Brainless libertarianism.

Did you notice all the no work that went into figuring out what the fired people did and determining if they were needed?

No. You just went into some techno utopian nonsense.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Will "you aren't needed actually" be a cause?"

The critical question is who gets to determine who and what is needed? Under our system it is Congress, not the President.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

" I was under the impression that probationary employees could be let go without cause."

That impression is incorrect. They have less protection, but not none. If you want to fire a probationary employee for, say, poor job performance, there still has to be documentation of that specific individual's poor performance. What you don't have to do is show where that employee had previously been warned about specific performance concerns, which is required for longer term federal employees.

That's for poor job performance. For other types of infractions there are other rules. For instance for falsifying government documents, any employee can be fired for the first infraction. Of course the infraction must be documented.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The Courts are demonstrating why they need to be ignored.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your comments here are demonstrating why you should be.

[Don Nico]

Right now you have a pointless worry. OPM will make formal request to the agencies, which the appointed leaders are obligated to comply with. On that basis a more orderly RIF will proceed. Any of the laid off works on probation will be looking for a new job if they have a brain in their head.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sounds like magic.

[Don Nico]

I don't know what you mean. There is no magic. If the positions are unfunded under the CR or which they could be in FY26, I expect they can be laid off. I expect those who are reinstated, would still feel threated and mighty seek more secure employment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — My theory, however naive, is that to get rid of Social Security, Congress is going to have to do more specific legislating than simply to defund adequate staffing. All those pesky obligations will not go away for want of clerks to answer the telephones. Not much of the budget gets expended to pay the phone clerks.

Of course, if the power of the purse does extend that far, then we can look forward to a liberal rampage to defund the lower federal judiciary. One Supreme Court should be able to do the whole job. Especially after a liberal congress packs it with about 1800 judges variously distributed. See? All nicely Constitutional. Keep paying the disused lower court judges until they die, or not, depending on what the new Supreme Court says.

People like to say, "Elections have consequences." DOGE/MAGA bad-faith attacks on government itself loom larger than that. A lot larger. Even liberty bells with cracks in them reverberate when you whack them. DOGE/MAGA would be wise to stop whacking this one.

[AmosArch]

Call me old fashioned. But I think Presidents should at least actually sign the legislation they are 'signing into law' and not need a machine to do it for them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

President Joe Biden sat hunched at the head of the table. He puzzled over his daily brief, now delivered in the form of a sound book for toddlers. "A is for Afghan—A is for—A is for—A is for—A—A—A—A is for Afghanistan." It drove his aides crazy, but they also knew the sacrifice was worth it. For the moment, at least, this diminished man they had taken to calling "the commander in corpse" would be too occupied to follow up on his latest obsession: filming a "hot sex tape" with Dr. Jill. Among the senior advisers, only Hunter had taken it seriously, but the first son had other things on his mind today."

https://freebeacon.com/satire/exclusive-the-most-explosive-revelations-from-jake-tappers-new-book-about-bidens-decline-part-1/

[David Nieporent]

I guess it's funnier than the Babylon Bee, for what that's worth.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Jake Tapper doesn't work for the Bee though, and he's doesn't intend to be a clown.

[David Nieporent]

Um, stupid, Jake Tapper didn't write that.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Uh, yes. This absolutely has to be true:

>"Dunkirk," Hunter said, slapping the table with authority. "We can do what they did in Dunkirk." He had recently seen the Christopher Nolan film, he explained.

Except they left off "did a bump of coke then tweaked the topless trannies titty before shouting ..."

[myself]

That's like saying skinnier than a sumo wrestler, for what that's worth.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm even more old fashioned, I think the Representatives and Senators should actually have to read the legislation before voting on it. I'd even do like they did with Nero, put a clause into every Bill mandating the immediate Public Execution of every Representative/Senator voting for the Bill (talk about your "Poison Pill") and requiring them to also vote to remove it to avoid umm, "removal" themselves.
And if the subject of the legislation isn't something specifically authorized in the Constitution (in writing, not some "penumbra") it should be declared Unconstitutional forthwith.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

But I think Presidents should at least actually sign the legislation they are 'signing into law' and not need a machine to do it for them.

So, goose quill and iron gall ink? No fancy machines like ballpoint pens?

[Armchair]

You seem to have a lot of trouble with what the word "sign" means. You denied it even existed in the Constitution.

[Absaroka]

'Sign' could mean a range of things:

-must be signed by hand in blue ink
-must be physically signed by hand, with autopen, or with a rubber stamp
-can be electronically signed, a la DocuSign
-can be verbally or implicitly approved

DMN is at the permissive end of that scale, you are at the other end. I don't think anyone can be sure unless you litigate it to the SC. Depending on their whim of the day they could decide any point on the scale was the One True Way, and that would be it. I sure wouldn't bet they would reject DocuSign, or that they wouldn't require a quill pen and inkwell.

(my vote is to back farther than 1776 ... wax seals. Right after the oath at inauguration we could have the outgoing president take the official seal off and ceremonially put it over the neck of the incoming one, who showers with it on until the next inaguration)

[Sarcastr0]

You give this argument too much credit. It's not about the philosophical question of what a signature signifies.

It's special pleading to try and yell about Biden some more.

[Michael P]

You got suckered by lies that lots of people told you were lies, and your leaders refused to remove a vegetable from office simply because the people acting for him did the things they like. Now you're left defending the idea that the president could sign "at the city of Washington" a pardon for six criminals while he was in vacation in the Virgin Islands. You misidentify the argument that gets too much credit.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL this just keeps getting bigger and bigger in the right-wing dumbosphere, eh?

Soon Biden will have been wandering naked through the white house and America was lead by Susan Rice in a Marx mask or something.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, pardons don't need to be signed, either. I'm certainly not endorsing a Trumpian view that they can be done in the president's head, but there is no formal procedure specified in the constitution. There are good reasons for the formalities, but as long as they are communicated, they are constitutionally valid even without those formalities.

[Joe_dallas]

Are you now agreeing that declassification of documents can be made via an oral statement.

[Sarcastr0]

The MAGA thesis is they can be declassified by *thought* with no statement at all.

You're moving the goalposts.

[David Nieporent]

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the claim that it could be done secretly in the president's head. Which is why that's what I said.

[Krayt]

If the oral is to tell an aid to write it down, sure.

Not claiming he did it weeks or months later, only when legal problems appear. The best case you could make at that point is bad management. The worst? An exercise for the reader.

[Magister]

The 2022 pardons have become another big thing, but while the pardons say December 30th, 2022, there are lots of Twitter posts saying they were signed December 22nd when Joe Biden was not in the Virgin Islands. I doubt any court's going to throw out a pardon because they were signed in advance.

There may be a lot of projection (essentially, future whataboutism) going on in anticipation of a scandal over Trump not actually doing the work of presidenting.

[Magister]

You might have been more convincing if you hadn't insisted that Biden was a vegetable in 2020, and then had to go all pretzel to explain how he kicked Donald Trump's ass in debates ("ooh, they gave him some performance enhancing drugs", "well, he was in the Senate so long he's a formidable debater from muscle memory"). Trump talked up Biden's abilities in the lead up to their 2024 debate. I've had experience of relatives with dementia; I would have loved for them to speak as competently as Joe Biden in the 2024 debate (which for the record was more than competent enough to finish the remaining months of his term in office).

So fuck off with your "lies that lots of people told you were lies" when it was all your lies spouted for partisan reasons; you didn't and don't care that Reagan was more incompetent from dementia at the end of his second term.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you reaching back 40 years? Trump is more incompetent from dementia right now. Have you seen his insane rants about Canada or the EU?

[Joe_dallas]

DN - now a doctor
yet actively participated on this blog in presenting biden as mentally sharp- Hmm!

[bernard11]

DN - now a doctor

As much of one as you are.

[Magister]

They view Trump's incompetence as a feature, not a bug, but more importantly I'm not sure that it stems from dementia rather than his malignant narcissism or his many character defects. (Joe Biden said garbled stuff back in the 1980s, as I recall, and clearly not from dementia.) Reagan was competent before he had dementia, even though in my view his actions throughout were very bad for the country.

It is true that one of my favorite 2020 entertainments was mash ups of Fox News hosts saying things like "he doesn't remember people's names or know what city he's in" followed by a cut to video of Trump not remembering people's names and not knowing what city he was in.

[David Nieporent]

He gave a speech to the DOJ today in which he said that newspapers and tv stations criticizing him is illegal. He is mentally ill.

[Magister]

You said dementia and now mentally ill, but couldn't it just be an ambitious legal strategy, or his treasonous nature, or non-dementia stupidity? We have no baseline of a better Donald Trump to compare to.

[David Nieporent]

If he were merely making bad legal arguments like John Eastman, it could be one of those things. But he's doing it ranting-and-ravingly. I could also add the whole 51st state thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The seal was a ring.

[Armchair]

I mean...it "could" mean a range of things. But if you show up at a bank with a check, and the signature field doesn't have anything there. And you say "oh, they implicitly approved it'....I don't think the bank is going to cash it.

But more importantly, an actual in-person signature can head off...unfortunate issues.

Let's give a hypothetical. Congress sends a bill to the President. The President says..."Let me think on it a couple days". The next day, an aide comes by and says "Mr. President, what did you want to do about that bill." The President absentmindedly responds something like "yeah, yeah..." and waves it off, turning away and saying "later". The aide doesn't hear the last part, interprets as the President approving the bill, puts it under the autopen and submits it to Congress. Later, the President goes "OK, on further thought, I'm going to veto that bill". But the staff goes "Mr President, you already signed it. It's law." The President says "I did NOT sign it." Congress however, loves the fact it didn't get vetoed and won't return the law.

What happens in such a case? Is this a major constitutional issue?

[Drewski]

There's no fool like an old fool, I guess. Who gives a shit? If the President needs glasses to read legislation, that's fine; if they need a wheelchair to walk, that's okay too; if they need autopen to sign things then who could possibly care? You need a hobby.

[Michael P]

"if they need a wheelchair to walk"

I have some bad news for you, chief.

And lots of people not only could, but should, care if a president is unable to execute the duties of the office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most people who'd benefit from using a wheelchair to walk use a walker, instead; It's less awkward.

[Kazinski]

Looks like Schumer has caved on the reconciliation bill because the GOP called his bluff. Hard to bluff when you don't have the cards.

But next order of business will be the reconciliation bill, which won't likely have enough spending cuts to cut the deficit below a Trillion.

Should there be a tax increase to provide some revenue to go with the spending cuts, and if so what would the tax increase look like (keep in mind making the 2017 tax cuts permanent is baked in, so that would be the starting point)?

[AmosArch]

I think they're on to something with a billionaires only tax. But obviously we wouldn't be able to levy it on the conservative billionaires and the ones who openly oppose it since they'll just up and leave. So how about a billionaires only tax for the leftwing billionaires that claim to be all for it?

[Thought about __ all my life]

Maybe you read so much news you miss the big stuff

10,000 millionaires left France last year - CNN
IN any country in the world , if you attack the wealthy they leave physically or they do what transnational corporations do and put it outside the reach of any nation.

And why does Reason act as if Congress isn't wealthy ??????
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmakers-millionaires/
More than half of those in Congress are millionaires, data from lawmakers’ most recent personal financial disclosures shows. The median net worth of members of Congress who filed disclosures last year is just over $1 million.

[Krayt]

How about billionaire voluntary donations for all those who think the government is doing such a grand job?

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of trying to put someone else's money there, grrrr! Grrrr!

I suppose that will come around right as they leave for Europe. If California lets them leave with anything at all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

France isn't a nice place to live anymore.

[santamonica811]

My friends--who have known me for decades--often ask me why I don't change my party registration to Democrat. I mean, I agree with them on 80+ percent of social issues. And, on things like defense, Dems in Congress tend to vote to support the military...even if I suspect that their hearts are not in it.

The reason is: The national Democratic party sucks. I mean, it's 2025, and what does it stand for? It's against Trump (a good thing, since Trump is a lying and evil sack of crap), but it's not against him enough to risk shutting down the government on principle??? I always mock Trump for being such a big pussy that he ran and hid, after being humiliated by Harris in the first debate. But at least that made political sense. The Dems allowing the Republicans to fuck over our country with little more than a pathetic whimper? Well...I don't think that profile in courage should be rewarded by any voters.

Shame on Schumer. (Schame on him??)™
He's a politician I've actually rather liked over the years. Nope...he's politically dead to me now. I guess I'll spend the next 4 years looking for Republicans who have the integrity and backbone to stand up to Trump, and/or for Democrats who have the courage to stand up to their own [insert ironic quote marks] leadership.

I plan on being very disappointed over the next 4 years.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you Irish, sm811? You sound like you're feeling a little blue. Commenter_XY has the fix. Use St Germaine elderflower liqueur. Don't pinch pennies on the whiskey, either. Enjoy this one. 😉

https://www.theirishroadtrip.com/irish-maid-cocktail/

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always been turned off by Schumer's 'resting evil face', to say nothing of the fact that he's on the opposite side of too many drop dead important issues, such as gun control. But I'm not particularly shocked by his caving here.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats have chosen the wrong side of too many 80-20 issues, and it has severely depleted their political capital. And the situation is rather different from prior shutdowns.

There are a number of points that make this a bad time for the Democrats to cause a shutdown.

1. They're losing their stranglehold on the media, which means that they can no longer count on Republicans getting blamed when Democrats cause a shutdown.

2. Trump has gotten enough control over the executive branch that there wouldn't be any Washington Monument syndrome to make the shutdown seem worse.

3. Republicans are more unified than they've been in a couple generations, so the odds of them rapidly caving are poor.

4. The public is currently in favor of reducing federal spending.

The bottom line is, instead of the Republicans caving at the worst possible moment, he was looking at a shutdown HE would be blamed for, and which had the potential for a controlling fraction of the population to have time to notice that... they weren't missing the things that had been shut down!

[Armchair]

5. This is a continuing resolution. Doing a fillibuster on a continuing resolution to simply protest is pretty silly

[Krayt]

And blocking it trying to force an unpopular (or only partly popular) addition is what got Republicans in trouble over and over, blamed for shutdowns.

Here, the shoe is on the other foot. CRs are no grand thing, but at least pols can hide behind same old thing.

[jb]

Also: Trump is doing a heckuva job crashing the economy on his own. A shutdown where any of the blame might attach to Democrats would just allow Trump to try and distract from who gets to own this delightful new economic regime.

[Frank Drackman]

It actually took more courage for "45/47" to not debate Kums-a-lot again, as the "Conventional Wisdom" was that you have to debate again after a poor performance.
That's when I knew "45" would be "47", a second debate would have just been more of the same, Lame Stream Media harassing "45" and Kums-a-lots annoying Cackles (and Cankles)
Best 2 DemoKKKrats right now are surprisingly Stuttering John Fetterman, and AOC, he's got the balls to support Israel, and she's clearly only a Liberal because it's in style (and she is continuing the DemoKKKrat tradition of doing what the average Schmoe goes to jail for, hiring Ill-legal Aliens

Frank

[DixieTune]

Yes. Harris did not win that debate. If anyone did, the media did with their fact-checking BS.

[damikesc]

Indeed. Harris needed to have a big moment at the debate. She did not have that. "Winning on points" is an utterly irrelevant thing.

[Armchair]

If the entire point of your party is just to "oppose Trump"...as opposed to stand for something else.

Maybe there's a problem.

[Sarcastr0]

With the wholesale destruction of institutions and economy and the Pas Americana, it's pretty dumb to demand 'why aren't you FOR anything?'

There is a Democratic Party platform. You can look it up.

But current events favor harm prevention and mitigation.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pas "
Pax

[Thought about __ all my life]

A silly post for sure. Those social issues CAUSE the ppor state of our country. Trans, gays, abortion, divorce, violence....and you want a lovely country. Ask yourself: Does a young American soldier want to die so Dylan Mulvaney can be considered normal !!!!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

He, and others like him, believe young Americans SHOULD die so Dylan Mulvaney can pretend everyone thinks he's a real actual woman.

[DixieTune]

Schumer reminds me of Shylock for Merchant of Venice.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's hardly fair to Shylock.

[David Nieporent]

Brett responds to an antisemite.

[VinniUSMC]

You and Brett respond to Leftists all the time. So, what's your point? You're going to stop interacting with martin, JFree, mtrueman, etc? Or do they get a pass?

[David Nieporent]

You and Brett respond to Leftists all the time.

"Leftist" and "antisemite" are not parallel ideologies. If by "leftist" you mean "Stalinist" or something equally odious, then I certainly do not respond to them by endorsing their odious views, as Brett did above. ("Antisemitic stereotype of Schumer." Brett: "No, Schumer is not an antisemitic stereotype; he's worse than than that.")

[VinniUSMC]

Potayto, potahto.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Hard to bluff when you don't have the cards.

Add poker to the ever-growing list of stuff Kazinski with utmost confidence does not understand. But, please, Mr. Kazinski, it is a simple game to learn. Won't you have a seat?

[Kazinski]

Maybe what I should have said, and its more accurate, its hard to bluff when your opponent Jas the cards.

Its also hard to bluff when you have a tiny chip stack, and can't make the stakes high enough for your opponent to care.

[Thought about __ all my life]

But that misstates the chips. Schumer doesn't care about the price of eggs or the state of schools...he wants votes.

[VinniUSMC]

It's hard to bluff when your opponent has the nuts.

Also, when you have no cards, you can't bluff. Because you clearly have no cards, so you aren't even playing the game. I suppose they could be a trans-poker player.

SL doesn't know half as much about anything as he thinks he does.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Kazinski, did your friends in your Car Club call you "The Kruiser"??? I'm not great at Poker either, I can never figure out who the sucker is at the table, people are always inviting me to play though, they even offer to look at my cards and tell me how to play them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm terribly at poker, too. Back in college the president of the college chess club was my roommate, and we'd alternate at chess and backgammon.

He'd usually smoke me at chess, though on occasion I could pull off a draw. But he was terrible at backgammon. I think he didn't quite understand that games of chance had strategy, too.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Backgammon can be a deadly trap for folks who know something about the game, but less than a skilled opponent knows. Problem is, the same moves from the same board position can be either a blunder, or brilliant, depending on how well the player making the moves understands board positions, timing strategies, and betting tactics, and knows how those fit together.

Thus, a lesser player can see an opponent make moves the lesser player justifiably understands as mistakes (because they would be mistakes for him), and then attribute to bad luck an ensuing loss his opponent engineered by superior grasp of strategic play and betting tactics.

For an expert player, that dynamic makes backgammon a hustler's dream. It's almost as if the better the hustler plays, the more incompetent he looks to the mark—insanely lucky, maybe, but incompetent. In a situation like that, a mark struggling from behind is apt to suggest increasing the stakes.

[Commenter_XY]

Should there be a tax increase to provide some revenue to go with the spending cuts, and if so what would the tax increase look like (keep in mind making the 2017 tax cuts permanent is baked in, so that would be the starting point)?

Answer: Depends on the tax, and how you define it. But in general, there should not be a tax increase. There isn't a revenue problem, there is a tremendous spending problem.

[Krayt]

Spending is tied not to rational analysis of need, but to whatever they can get away with borrowing, tied to a percentage of the GDP.

As we saw during the Internet boom, the government found itself with a balanced budget. "Well, that doesn't buy as many votes as we could", so they ramped up spending, in a few years back in the red approaching the GDP fraction.

I don't expect tarriffs to result in a windfall (indeed, we've borrowed > $1 trillion just shy of 6 months this FY, a new record!) but if we do get a balanced budget, I expect these pols to just ramp up the spending again.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I keep saying that it's all for nothing if we don't get a balanced budget amendment.

Seriously, holding a constitutional convention to get that and a few other things (Such as locking down the size of the Supreme court!) should be a top priority at this point. The federal government is broken, structurally, and even if you can duct tape it back together for a few years, a permanent constitutional fix is needed.

Fortunately, once you ignore the constitutionally dubious language attempting to control the subject matter of a convention, it appears to me that enough states have now called for one. So all that's really necessary to get the ball rolling is a Congressional vote declaring the threshold met, and setting one up.

[Stella Link the dog]

"That's why I keep saying that it's all for nothing if we don't get a balanced budget amendment."

Then it's all for nothing because you're not going to get a balanced budget amendment, whatever that amendment might look like.

"[I}t appears to me that enough states have now called for one [convention]. So all that's really necessary to get the ball rolling is a Congressional vote declaring the threshold met, and setting one up."

I've tried finding out which states have "called" for a constitutional convention and exactly how many of those states have made effective "application" but I haven't found any succinct accounting. Do you have such a thing or can cite to such a thing?

Note the language of the Constitution: ". . . on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments . . ."

Passing legislation or a resolution in a State's legislature, it should seem, is not sufficient; application is required (to congress, surely), the method of which is not specified. It is certainly unclear from this language that a State can be prohibited from rescinding an application. It is further unclear if an application to Congress that a convention be called specifying the subject matter of the convention should be considered an effective application for the calling of a convention that may propose amendments on any subject matter. Finally, I see no reason to think that Congress could not "call a convention" to propose amendments only on a specified topic.

[David Nieporent]

I've tried finding out which states have "called" for a constitutional convention and exactly how many of those states have made effective "application" but I haven't found any succinct accounting. Do you have such a thing or can cite to such a thing?

As is almost always the case, check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Stella Link the dog]

Thank you, that is helpful.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Passing legislation or a resolution in a State's legislature, it should seem, is not sufficient; "

If Congress wants to avoid a Convention, Article V has enough ambiguity to allow them to get away with not having one, which is in fact a defect in Article V, which should have left Congress out of the matter of conventions entirely, and simply declared that any amendment ratified by enough states with identical language would be valid without any action at all on Congress' part.

But I'm analyzing what Congress could do if the majority WANTED a convention to be held.

"Finally, I see no reason to think that Congress could not "call a convention" to propose amendments only on a specified topic."

It is, per Article V, "a convention for proposing amendments". It's very purpose is to itself decide what amendments are needed. I am very confident that, if it ever ended up in litigation, the Supreme court would decide that the Convention can originate any amendment it damned well pleases. (Except, of course, one abridging the equal representation of states in the Senate...)

[Stella Link the dog]

"It is, per Article V, "a convention for proposing amendments". It's very purpose is to itself decide what amendments are needed."

That doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. It is unclear if an application to Congress that a convention be called specifying the subject matter of the convention should be considered an effective application for the calling of a convention that may propose amendments on any subject matter.

"But I'm analyzing what Congress could do if the majority WANTED a convention to be held."

Maybe. Perhaps what they might try to do. Question about what congress wants: do they want a convention likely to impose term limits? Or, anti-corruption rules with teeth?

"I am very confident that, if it ever ended up in litigation, the Supreme court would decide that the Convention can originate any amendment it damned well pleases."

First it would have to decide that an application for a balanced budget amendment convention (for example) is an effective application for a convention about anything the convention participants damned well please. With all those conservative justices being blackmailed, or being leftist moles, I wouldn't be so confident.

[Krayt]

I have fantasies about a convention, with a balanced budget amendment.

But looking how pols create modern constitutions around the world, they start fine aping the Bill of Rights, then start inserting self-empowering holes big enough for a Superheavy.

Nope. Don't wanna risk it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

More fundamentally, Bellmore fails to discern a critical twist in his own reasoning. Article V is a constraint on government, not on the jointly sovereign American People. Their power is exercised at pleasure, and without constraint. And only legitimate sovereign power can decree a constitution. No branch of government can do that.

Thus, any notion that Congress, or the Supreme Court, could empower a convention of limited powers, or with a limited agenda, runs head-on into the contrary contrary notion that a convention which does not access sovereign power is no constitutional convention at all. The history of the present Constitution examples the notion that once in session, the members of a legitimate constitutional convention are free to draft any provisions they please, to lay before the jointly sovereign People to ratify, or not.

Bellmore wants a sham convention, thimble rigged to his specifications, with every political notion he opposes ruled out by government power. To do that would be no less a coup than to just take over the administrative power permanently, by ordering the army to gun down anyone who says otherwise.

Bellmore thinks of himself as a libertarian. He never learned the notion of political liberty is, first-and-foremost, a matter of keeping the form of government an open choice for the people governed to decide from time to time at their pleasure.

[Sarcastr0]

Spending is tied not to rational analysis of need, but to whatever they can get away with borrowing, tied to a percentage of the GDP.

You do love to start from a made up premise based on your ideology.

Any evidence for this? Congress sure seems to ask my agency to justify it's spending a lot!
So does OMB.
And then there are the GAO and IG audits,
and Congressional inquiries/reports/briefings.

It sure doesn't look like what you claim - it looks to be based on need and value.

[Davedave]

Far be it from me to sound like I'm agreeing with the nutwingers here, but in at least one sense government spending is always - at least at anything like current wealth levels - going to be as much as can be spent. That doesn't mean it's being indiscriminately splurged around, though, but that the demands on government far outstrip the available funds.

The nutwing partisans here want to pretend that government spending that helps people is a bad thing - some of those people aren't even straight, white, and Christian! - but that doesn't mean they're wrong about government spending increasing to match the available funds.

[bernard11]

There isn't a revenue problem, there is a tremendous spending problem.

Why do people insist on repeating that idiotic argument. Rhetorical question. I know why.

Because they don't like the things the government spends money on, hence those things are, to them, wasteful, like scientific research, education, public health, and so on.

We in fact do have a revenue problem, not least because Republicans can't think of anything to do except cut taxes.

[Commenter_XY]

Fed receipts increased, post 2017 TCJA. That is a fact.

[Brett Bellmore]

We insist on repeating it because if at any time in the last few decades the federal government had simply stopped increasing its per capita spending, revenues would have caught up with the spending in a few years and eliminated the deficit. We had a persistent deficit only because every time revenues went up, the government increased spending.

[Sarcastr0]

Your tax position shows that don’t care about deficits,

You may be lying to yourself as well as everyone else, but this is not just not a crisis, it’s pretext. An excuse for you to support breaking rules and process.

[Frank Drackman]

Who needs a tax increase with the introduction of the "Gold Card"?? and they should increase the annual fee for the Green Cards also.

[A Japanese Student]

Introduction of the Gold Card requires a statutory amendment, and it is outside the scope of reconciliation.

[Frank Drackman]

You Japanese are so smart, too bad you couldn't figure out Nuke-ular Weapons.
Sorry, just busting your (tiny) Jap Balls, it's an Amurican Tradition, like Seppuku with you guys,
but gotta ask, 125 million Japanese, and not one really successful Rock and Roll band,
OK I know about Tokyo Jihen, Sabbat, I mean a mainstream one, like the B52's or the Stones,
For years I thought the "Ting Tings" were from Japan, so disappointed to learn they're Engrish
do you ever get tired of people asking you to say
"The Lazy Yellow Lab Leaped over the Brown Leaning Lion"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"125 million Japanese, and not one really successful Rock and Roll band,"

They've got Kitaro, who is a favorite of mine.

[Jmaie]

Not my style of music but Love Bites has serious chops (especially their drummer).

[VinniUSMC]

Babymetal! Ok, not traditional "Rock and Roll".

Seriously though, worldwide recognition isn't necessary to be considered "successful". Would a Japanese rock and roll band be bothered that some ignorant American named Frank didn't know them?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Vinni "USMC" (Unlimited Shit & Mass Confusion? was my experience with the Marine Corpse) or was it "U Signed the Mothereffing Contract"??
Just busting balls, my oldest daughters in the Corpse, what can I say? She was an abused child, the youngest was smart enough to fly with the Air Farce
and you're actually using the term "Ignorant" correctly, are you sure you're really a Marine?
and just to advance out of the opening, I'll give both sides
"You know the Marines are just a Department of the Navy"
"Yes, the "Men's Department", Squid!"
"Squids shit all over Marine Life"

Frank "Sorry Vinni, looks like your shot record was lost in the flood"

[Bwaaah]

You are truly the Master of Horribleness. I have a friend with a severe case of Tourette syndrome, the coprolalia kind. Your composition is richer than his, but his choice of time and place make you look like Mr. Appropriate. I walk and talk with him in the city, and as people go by, he screams the worst possible utterances at them. They give me a look, the apparent friend of the asshole, like, "What the fuck is wrong with you?" I think that's why I can be so amused by you...I get to watch it without getting shit for it.

An interesting thing I learned as I walked along with my friend: almost all of us are Frank Drackmans inside. How'd I learn that? Every one of his utterances was not just bad, but the most obvious and worst possible thing to say. How would *I* know what the most obvious and worst possible thing is to say? Because I'm an expert in that. We're all experts in that.

Imagine walking down the sidewalk with my friend, and seeing an oncoming Indian woman dressed in a Saree with a red Bindi (dot) in the middle of her forehead. That Bindi might as well be shooting out laser beams. What's a pejorative term for those people? DOH! I thought it before he even said it.

Look! Here comes a Japanese guy!

[Frank Drackman]

You're thinking of "Dot-head" which is distinct and separate from "Rag-Head" or the rarely heard anymore, "Zipper-Head",

[Bwaaah]

"DON'T TELL ME WHAT I'M THINKING!!!" ™

[Kazinski]

I don't think its outside the scope of reconciliation because it raises revenue.

But I also think its the sort of proposal that could get bipartisan support too, if for no other reason than the people who can spend 5 million on a visa are the kind of people that make campaign contributions too.

[A Japanese Student]

Any increase in revenue in this case is incidental to the amendment to INA establishing a new visa. I doubt reconciliation can enact such changes.

[Kazinski]

Not so. Because the primary purpose of the Gold card proposal is raising revenue It is definitely in order for reconciliation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The question of who becomes a citizen, and on what basis, is properly reserved for the sovereign, not for the government. That means it ought to be done constitutionally, and certainly not by Congress, or the President.

[Kazinski]

Congress has specifically been granted the power in the Constitution Article 1, Section 8.

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,

And To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

[David Nieporent]

Congress has specifically been granted the power in the Constitution Article 1, Section 8.

Part of Lathrop's problem is that he fails to understand that, even to the extent that his talk of a "sovereign people" isn't just philosopical masturbation, that said people have delegated their power to the government, and that until they undo that delegation they are in fact bound by the government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I discuss notions relating to sovereignty from time to time, but they are mostly not my notions. I am usually channeling political theory relied upon by the founders, as I have repeatedly illustrated with citations.

Thus, in American constitutionalism the notion of joint popular sovereignty has a dual character. Citizens are at once subjects of government, and masters of it. Which status applies depends on whether circumstance puts the citizens' actions in an individual capacity, or a collective capacity overtly purposed with an eye to control government.

Your notion that there has been a permanent delegation of sovereign power to government, which then controls all sovereign power until some comparable re-delegation occurs, is present minded, not historical. I have quoted you founders' remarks to the contrary, which given the actual texts of American founding documents, you really should not have needed.

I take your repeated insistence against evidence as proof of ideological commitment to contrary ideas. Your advocacy cannot be a valid critique of a history about which you seem to know little. Because you have done that repeatedly, I have even attempted to steer you to authoritative sources which could broaden your historical insight. So far, no sign you have engaged.

You like your ideology. Like many ideologues, apparently, you dislike paying attention to anything which might challenge you to think otherwise.

As you know from my prior comments, I do not insist you credit my remarks. But I remain baffled why anyone generally interested in these issues would not at least explore dispassionate works by experts justly regarded as the world's best—or on what basis you disregard on-point quotations from primary sources of unquestionable relevance and authority.

[Krayt]

BTW, I thought the gold card already existed. I seem to remember some program from decades back, where people coming in worth at least $10 million took the fast lane.

It was elitist of course (grrrr!) but financially sound as it guaranteed they could carry their own weight and not become wards of the state, not to mention business formation creating economic dynamism.

Was that real or just a proposal that went nowhere?

[Brett Bellmore]

The EB-5 Investor Visa.

[A Japanese Student]

You actually have to invest money, though. I don't think INA authorizes process where you can pay money to Treasury in exchange for visas:

"an alien [who is allowed to enter US under commerce treaty], and the spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join such alien; (i) [solely for international trade]; (ii) solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the alien has invested, or of an enterprise in which the alien is actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital; or (iii) [who is Australian]" - 8 USC 1101(a)(15)(E)

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't suppose somebody who's buying a visa much cares who they have to make the check out to.

[jb]

Why would you want a gold card where you had to pay millions of dollars as a fee when you could just make an investment instead and ideally not just get your money back eventually, but make a profit?

[Armchair]

"Should there be a tax increase to provide some revenue to go with the spending cuts, and if so what would the tax increase look like (keep in mind making the 2017 tax cuts permanent is baked in, so that would be the starting point)?"

Let's see...

1. Remove the tax exemption for US University endowment funds. They can pay tax on their financial gains like the rest of us do. That'll bring in some money

2. Remove the tax exemption on muni and other similar bonds. If Treasuries can be taxed, I see no reason for munis not to be.

[DixieTune]

The problem is not the tax exemption, as non-profits in general have that too. The problem is that they are not required to spend 5% of their endowment on their mission the way other non-profits must.

So they can just hoard money.

If you remove the tax exemption on munis, taxes will have to go up on the local level. You can argue that's a good thing to get the federal government out of the subsidy business, but it means that taxpayers won't save money in the end.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not so sure that's true: One of the 'advantages' from a local political perspective of federal subsidies, is that you can reap the political benefits of the spending locally, while diffusing the political costs, so that a higher level of local spending becomes politically attractive.

Get the federal government out of the subsidy business, and the taxpayers probably WOULD save money in the end, because less spending would be politically feasible.

[David Nieporent]

The problem is not the tax exemption, as non-profits in general have that too. The problem is that they are not required to spend 5% of their endowment on their mission the way other non-profits must.

That is the rule for private foundations, not "other non-profits."

[Commenter_XY]

No way to #1. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
#2, I would go the opposite direction, make treasuries exempt. 😉

[tylertusta]

I'm in favor of tax increases on people who have law degrees.

[Dr. Ed 2]

$5000/month license to do anything in a Federal Court.

[tylertusta]

I could get onboard with modified income taxes for holders of active law licenses.

100% for the top income bracket.

[Bob from Ohio]

You forget who writes laws.

[tylertusta]

I haven't forgotten. It'll never happen, but a man can dream.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ds seem on the verge of a fateful error, with Schumer leading the way toward empowering DOGE/Trump. Sclerotic Democratic Party leadership seem incapable to distinguish the welfare of the nation from leaders' personal interests to block reform agendas favored by intra-party rivals.

If ever there were a time to exert the power of the purse, now is it. The Ds, of course, do not currently enjoy the power of the purse. Nor any actual power in Congress, save a power to demonstrate that alternative policies, if openly proposed and vigorously backed, will prove popular. That the more-progressive part of the Democratic Party have begun doing with success, generating massive turnout even in red states for townhall-type meetings to challenge DOGE/Trump.

Citizens who attend should hear in unmistakable terms that the nation is in crisis. The Democratic Party position should be that while DOGE/Trump's reckless sabotage of government continues, the administration should get no money for anything else. Then let the Rs do their worst to own the crisis, by extreme measures to exact the funds they need to gut the programs the people most rely upon.

Schumer's awful, contorted, and cowardly notion to cooperate instead with the administration ought to mark a breaking point for failed Democratic Party leadership. Go to the the people themselves instead, while defying the Rs to depend on a base they justifiably distrust.

Republican leaders have already shown they are too frightened to stand up and address that base in person. They advise their rank and file to hold no in-person meetings with constituents. That is a crisis for the Rs which the Ds—for the good of the nation—must exploit, not pass by.

[santamonica811]

We were writing posts at about the same time. Your post was a more-thoughtful and more-articulate summation about how I feel about the crisis America is facing . . . and about how I feel about the Dem leadership's role in caving in and permitting it.

[Krayt]

I think they are still shell shocked. There are ways to fight back with loss of power. They did so in term one. And quite effectively.

Here they may be a bit more scared. The nation pondered their arguments and rejected them. Not by much but enough that kicking that wound might not be the best idea to shift the bar back.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, importantly, the Republicans have been hugely strengthened by Trump finally fixing a long standing problem: The GOP had a lot of popular positions that weren't getting it nearly the political support they should have, because nobody expected them to actually deliver.

By actually carrying out his campaign promises, the voters no longer view the GOP as the bait and switch party. That makes the party base much more motivated.

[Josh R]

Is it possible that a government shutdown would be blamed on the Democrats thus undermining the anger now aimed at Republicans?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not only possible, it is presumptively why Schumer caved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Screw the Washington monument:

1: Shut down Air Traffic Control.
2: Shut down the CAN & MEX border crossings.
3: Shut down Instant Check -- ANYONE can buy a gun.

Actually just the third would work -- put gun purchases totally on the honor system with a reminder that illegal purchases could be subject to future prosecution -- but announce that anyone would be able to purchase a gun as of Saturday (or whenever).

Call it the Schumer shutdown and run ads in Blue states about how their Senators want criminals to be buying guns. Have someone in a police uniform saying "Call Senator Warren & Markey and tell them to fund the IBC system so that felons can't buy guns."

This is the way that the left has been playing politics for the past 30 years and it's time that we play by the same rules.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed2, did you get a Nobel prize for your Perpetual Motion Machine of Stupidity?
1: Shut down Air Traffic Control? I've got 2 flights this weekend, to provide Medical care for our Nation's Veterans, maybe if you were one (when's the last time you thanked one, and I mean in person, and materially, not that bullshit "Thank you for your Service!")
2: Umm, you do, (obviously you don't) know that thousands of "First Responders, Veterans etc" that work in the US, live in May-he-co or Canada or Vice Versa(met one recently, he said his neighborhood in Puerto Nuevo is way safer than when he lived in Chula Vista) Nurse that I know's son is doing a Pediatric Anesthesia Fellowship in Toronto but lives in Buffalo, how's he supposed to get home for the weekend? and back to work?
3: "Anyone" already can buy a gun without any background check (In most states, Check your local laws) or required forms, and it's not even Ill-Legal unless you tell the guy you're a convicted Felon, and the knucklehead sells you the gun anyway.

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is the way that the left has been playing politics for the past 30 years and it's time that we play by the same rules.

Great plan— maybe that will make the Republicans as successful as the Democrats are now!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

"generating massive turnout even in red states for townhall-type meetings to challenge DOGE/Trump."

All with matching shirts and professionally printed signs coming in on busses at the same time!

They didn't cut the USAID money fast enough, imho.

[Brett Bellmore]

From CNN: Are Dems being paid to show up at town halls?

"As GOP lawmakers prepare for a week of raucous town halls during a late-February congressional recess, some are dismissing the massive crowds, casting them as the efforts of well-funded liberal groups paying protesters to pose as members of a grassroots movement.

They have not offered evidence to support the claim, though – and Democratic organizations say they’re just racing to keep up with what they insist is an organic uprising fueled by opposition to Trump. "

I think the media are just a little credulous about these denials, the Democrats do have a long history of astroturfing these things, but the Republicans do need to produce the receipts, not just make claims.

[David Nieporent]

the Democrats do have a long history of astroturfing these things

[Citation needed.]

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

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

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's 'best-of-all-possible-worlds-except-for-liberals' complex is somehow getting even worse since Trump's election.

[bernard11]

You're full of shit.

[santamonica811]

Can posters here who live on the MAGA right, here at the VC, help me come up with justifications for the latest bullshit of calling a day "not a day" in order to evade the law's reach? I have faith that you can do it. But it's such a miserable use of power, so I'm secretly making up a list of people here who will defend it. Please don't disappoint me. I can't imagine any Democrats defending it. I can't imagine any Reagan Republicans defending it. Nor any Independents. But, surely, there are at least a few Trump supporters here that think it's perfectly justifiable, yes?

[Kazinski]

Its probably been something in the rules committee playbook for a while that they trot out when they need it, sounds like something cooked up back in the Sam Rayburn era.

I can't see the current crew on either side of the aisle coming up with that on their own.

[Brett Bellmore]

I could wish you'd provided a bit more context. But I found something at the NTU.

"But U.S. law also includes an expedited process for Congress to consider a privileged joint resolution to terminate a national emergency. Such a resolution must be brought to the floor within 15 calendar days and voted on within 3 calendar days. If successful, the underlying national emergency would be terminated, as would the IEEPA tariffs.

Congress should embrace this process as a way to exercise its constitutional authority over tariffs and international trade.

Instead, tariff supporters opted out of the statutory 15-day and 3-day voting deadlines for a joint resolution by changing House rules to read, “Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.” This language makes it much more difficult to subject the tariffs to a vote. "

I can't really defend it, it's garbage. All I can say is, remember the "nuclear option"? It was the exact same kind of garbage, so unless you were outraged at the nuclear option, what's your complaint?

But, as I said, that's not a defense of this sort of garbage, it's just asking why you can't be bothered to have a single standard for garbage.

[Krayt]

"Calendar days are not calendar days"

Reminds me of an EU regulation. Regulators gotta regulate, so they defined jelly as made with fruit.

"But what about carrot jelly?" asked carrot jelly makers, their livelihoods under assault by the cavalier beknighted.

"Uhhhh, carrots are now fruit!"

[Ed Grinberg]

just asking why you can't be bothered to have a single standard for garbage.

Oh, but you see, they are, by definition, the good guys, while their opponents are, by definition, the bad guys. Which relieves them of necessity "to have a single standard." Easy-peasy!

[Bwaaah]

This is a chance for DMN to explain to us what "calendar day" means, and to feel like what people mean when they say things is like what he means when he says things. Alas, there's little cause for him to step in here, as there's no need to justify institutional obfuscation of language.

"Call it now...heads, I'm right, and tails is heads."

[A Japanese Student]

Not a Trump supporter, but:

Congressional Review Act (and similar Congressional review statutes) can be amended or repealed unilaterally by one House to the extent it regulates that House. Although they are codified in the United States Code, if it conflicts with the Rules of a House, the Rules supersede.

The reason these statues exist is not for the House, where amending rules and passing bills are done by majority votes. It is targeted at the Senate, where changes to standing rules require two-thirds vote (absent nuclear option). Senate is still bound by Section 1622's text notwithstanding House's "reinterpretation" (amendment), but House has the right to refuse consideration.

(Plus, "Congressional review" is a joint resolution that the President can veto. Both Biden and Trump (during the first presidency) vetoed CRA disapproval. It is more of a tool to permanently discard predecessor's regulations than a tool for stopping executive overreach.)

[Frank Drackman]

Remember when John Roberts said the Osama-Care Tax wasn't a Tax? but a "penatly"? but then if you don't pay it you get in trouble for not paying a Tax. It's like that.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, since this is a legal blog, let me apply some knowledge acquired here. In making the argument, it doesn't imply my personal approval. You are now Judge sm811.

Your Honor, Under the Constitution; Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2; Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

So, constitutionally permitted to change the House rules. It is not unconstitutional (or illegal). That is important.

What we have here, Your Honor, is a case of utilitarianism applied to domestic politics, and that is not illegal, either. But it sure can be unsavory. Our US history is replete with examples of applied utilitarianism (i.e. Japanese detentions in WW2, civil war, treatment of indians, etc.). All perfectly legal at the time, unsavory though.

The House has redefined the meaning of day in context to one rather minor Emergency declaration by the POTUS. On the scale of applied utilitarianism to politics in US history, this is a speck. No foul, and no real harm.

In fact, it is the rough and tumble of politics, and probably not even a justiciable question.

Summing up: This is utilitarianism at work. It ain't unconstitutional. It ain't illegal. Those are the guardrails we have under the law. Politics ain't always moral (see examples), but is utilitarian. And politicians answer for that, not judges. sm811 (Your Honor), that's the argument(s).....how do you rule? 😉

I personally believe it is a very cynical maneuver of a constitutionally granted power. I don't like it, it reflects our times. The ultimate solution is to persuade others to vote them out.

[santamonica811]

XY,
I have no doubt that it's 100% constitutional. As you noted in your brief (LOL), the House gets extraordinarily-wide latitude in terms of making its own rules. Judge SM811 would rule the same as any other judge...that it's permissible. Human Being SM811 would find it sleazy and repugnant, and morally indefensible.

[Commenter_XY]

I've been attending the VC law school for a while now. Had to test drive my legal skill and acumen (LMAO). Thanks for indulging me. 😉

[DixieTune]

It's not justifiable. But neither was interpreting "without due process of law" to mean "a substantive right to bugger another man in the arse."

What goes around comes around.

[Zarniwoop]

Sadly, I think one failure is in 50 USC 1622. It doesn’t specify that failure to meet the assorted deadlines automatically terminates the alleged “emergency”.

If there were a provision that does that, it shouldn’t matter if one chamber passes a weird “a day is not a day” rule. Alice in Wonderland internal timekeeping wouldn’t effect the passage of real time, of 15 real calendar days, and poof goes the “emergency”.

In a way, I think the ability to play this sort of game supports the notion that the tariff powers have been unconstitutionally delegated to the executive branch. IMHO, a defensible constitutional minimum might be along the lines of “delegation of a core Art I power automatically expires unless emergency actions are specifically ratified the Legislature”.

[VinniUSMC]

So vague, much outrage.

You could have provided a link to what the fuck you're talking about. Then again, praising SL for "thoughtfulness" doesn't exactly speak well of your own. SL is logorrheic.

[santamonica811]

My bad. It was such huge news that I did kinda assume that everyone would automatically know exactly what I was talking about. I should have given the details...or, at least, provide one or two links.

[Bob from Ohio]

"calling a day "not a day""

An old custom. In the 19th century when they used to pass a lot on the last day of a congress, sometimes they would literally stop the clock in the chamber.

[Kazinski]

The US Russian talks on a ceasefire have started, and while its early, there are 3 hiccups already.

First Putin doesn't want Trump's Ukrainian special envoy at the talks, they see him as too close to the Ukrainians:
"In a paper for the America First Policy Institute, which was founded to promote Trump’s policies, [General Kellogg] suggested that to end the war the United States should arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses, thus ensuring that “Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement.”

Second, Putin seems to want to push the Ukrainians out of their Kursk Oblast incursion before the ceasefire so they won't have any territory to trade. I pointed out a week or so ago that having negotiations when the fighting is going on can intensify the fighting, and stall the talks, as both sides try to improve their bargaining position.

And Third, Trump has already started looking for leverage points, by allowing a banking waiver to expire that allowed Europe's purchases of Russian oil. Although I did see a report that China and India have been paying in Crypto currency to access Russian oil, so that won't stop it completely. But I suppose Europe itself can ban Russian oil purchases whether or not they use alternative payment methods.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, if one truly wants to put a crimp on RUS oil revenue, you need to address the shadow fleet of ships carrying oil to RUS customers. Nobody gets paid until the oil is offloaded at a certain place at a certain time. The ships eventually have to come to a port, where safety inspections can occur, and manifests are scrutinized. Delays cost money.

It doesn't do diddly today, or tomorrow; but, after 3-6 months, the cumulative impact is substantial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sink a few. Aren't there terrorists we could sponsor?

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, you're very much the shoot 'em up type. This isn't some group of local gangbangers. It is RUS, a nation with global capabilities and reach.

Coordinated grey zone activities (see above) are a better alternative here. Nobody dies from a safety inspection in port. They are perfectly legal under intl maritime law. Ships are the Achille's heel.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Umm, ports are in territorial waters.
The country buying the oil will prevent it from doing so by flunking the tankers? Right....

[Bob from Ohio]

"It is RUS, a nation with global capabilities and reach."

Yes, but these ships are not flagged, owned or crewed by Russians. They are called "grey" or "shadow" ships because they are not directly connected to Russia. Its a way to avoid sanctions.

Sinking may be extreme but seizing a few and taking them to admiralty court to be "condemned" and the cargo sold is easy enough.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Sinking may be extreme but seizing a few and taking them to admiralty court to be "condemned" and the cargo sold is easy enough."

Seizing them WHERE?

On the high seas? That's either an act of piracy or an act of war against the flag they fly, arguably both.

And if you do it in the territorial waters of a third nation, that's an act of war against that nation as well.

So where you gonna do it? And it isn't like the countries whose territorial waters the ships are in (to deliver the oil) are going to do it.

Now leaning on Panama, which flags a lot of them, well Trump *is* doing that....

[Frank Drackman]

Certainly, you just go online, Google "Terrorists" use Paypal or your Apple Wallet, and Voila! a team of Terrorists are on the way.
Umm, been a while since I needed a team of Terrorists, maybe it is that easy.
Again, you've never played Chess, because Pooty Poot thinks 5 moves ahead, wouldn't surprise me if he sinks a few ships just for an excuse to keep fighting.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other side -- and yes, I am thinking in Cold War terms here -- has essentially closed the Suez Canal. I like to think that we have a CIA that is capable of more than just trying to overthrow the US government, i.e. Trump 45.

[Frank Drackman]

Went through the Suez Dec 1990 on my way to the Gulf Wah, western bank lush green, eastern desert, we passed a spot that still had burned out Egyptian tanks from the Yom Kippur Wah, we mooned some natives we thought were flipping us off, turned out they were trying to do the “Peace” sign
Frank

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Are there any terrorists we don't sponsor? That's a better question.

[Kazinski]

Oil tankers are pretty messy when they sink, even when they are supposedly empty.

[Frank Drackman]

it's a big Ocean. Bullions and Bullions of Fish (redacted) and (redacted) in it

[Frank Drackman]

Hmm, maybe we should do that with all of the Fent-a-nol that's on ships at US Ports

[SRG2]

if one truly wants to put a crimp on RUS oil revenue, you need to address the shadow fleet of ships carrying oil to RUS customers.

This shadow fleet?
US vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, that shadow fleet.

[SRG2]

Did you read the article?

US pushes to remove references to sanctions and Russia’s war in Ukraine from a Canadian draft statement

The US has rejected a Canadian proposal to establish a task force that would tackle Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, according to reports last night.

No criticism of the US for not doing what you want them to do?

[Commenter_XY]

SRG2, it isn't time for grey zone activities, yet. Let's see what comes of the ceasefire proposal. If those efforts don't bear fruit, that grey zone activity I described can be turned on and off at will; assuming all partners agree.

[Armchair]

Kaz,

The bigger problem is this. The Russians don't want a ceasefire if they're winning. And they're currently winning.

[Nelson]

That’s an awfully broad definition of “winning” you’ve got there.

When you have to import North Koreans, it’s not exactly a sign that your war efforts are going swimmingly. Of course being ground to a halt by a country with a small percentage of your wealth and population gave that away years ago.

[Armchair]

"But I suppose Europe itself can ban Russian oil purchases whether or not they use alternative payment methods."

Option 4. Give Ukraine the weapons to destroy Russia's oil pipelines and tankers directly.

[tylertusta]

You may have read that I previously proposed giving Ukraine some of our soon-to-be-retired Los Angeles-class attack subs. Those would be perfect for hunting down their fuel tankers.

[Kazinski]

Leon Panetta seems more optimistic:

"Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday that President Donald Trump deserved “credit” for making a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine a possibility.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy both expressed openness to a 30-day ceasefire since Monday. Panetta told “CNN News Central” host Boris Sanchez that Trump would need to “stand strong” against Putin and use “leverage” to end the war."

[Sarcastr0]

If you're reaching that far for your appeals to authority, that should tell you something.

[Stella Link the dog]

Well, if Trump's approach leads to an enduring ceasefire and peace with reasonable terms, he will deserve some credit. Peace at any cost, though, that would suck.

[Kazinski]

Yes, what would the former White House Chief of Staff, Former CIA Director, and Former Secretary of Defense know about dealing with Putin and the Russians?

Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy when the person is a subject matter expert.

I suppose if I told you my Dr. said smoking is bad for, then you'd claim I was just appealing to Authority.

[Armchair]

I think a ceasefire is a good idea. I think diplomatically, it works very well for Trump and Ukraine. It puts them in a more advantageous position with regards to the third parties.

And if Russia refuses a ceasefire, on current lines, it better justifies the US using other, more aggressive options to "help a ceasefire along"

[Sarcastr0]

"The State Department has quietly terminated a contract that was in the process of transferring evidence of alleged Russian abductions of Ukrainian children—a potential war crime—to law enforcement officials in Europe, two people familiar with the situation tell The New Republic."
https://newrepublic.com/article/192790/trump-kidnapped-ukrainian-kids-nixed-contract

Peace talks is not how I would characterize what's going on.

[Stella Link the dog]

"terminated a contract that was in the process of transferring evidence of alleged Russian abductions of Ukrainian children"

I've recently been wondering if Ukraine would insist upon a resolution of that issue (not only the criminal aspect, but repatriation/return) as talks begin, or proceed. Is the Trump Administration capitulating to the Russians even before negotiations really get started? That would be very depressing though I guess nobody should be surprised.

Also been wondering if pressure might be applied to the Russians to contribute resources to ameliorating any of the damage that their aggressive invasion has caused. Probably I already know the answer to that and it is also depressing an unsurprising.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab"

Yale has a $40 billion endowment. Yale has a $761.4 million budget.

I think they can employ a person or two to transmit some info.

[Armchair]

A useful article on the problems with the Democratic party.

"The Democrats have become and remain today a “Brahmin Left” party. “Brahmin Left” is a term coined by economist Thomas Piketty and colleagues to characterize Western left parties increasingly bereft of working-class voters and increasingly dominated by highly educated voters and elites, including of course our own Democratic Party. The Brahmin Left character of the party has evolved over many decades but spiked in the 21st century.

It has not escaped the notice of many Democratic-sympathizing analysts that this ever-increasing education polarization—Brahminization—of the Democrats presents existential dangers to the party. Not only might the continued desertion of working-class (non-college) voters fatally undermine the Democrats’ electoral formula over time, the party’s fundamental purpose is being rapidly obliterated. What does it even mean to be the “progressive” party if the most educated and affluent voters are your most enthusiastic supporters? What does it mean to be “progressive” if working-class voters think your party mostly represents the values and priorities of those educated and affluent voters not their values and priorities?

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-democrats-brahmin-left-problem

[Malika the Maiz]

You might want to read something about the history of the progressive movement in the US before you try to be cute with the air quotes and what does it even mean stuff. Hint, it’s not the Labour Party or the populists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malka, the Populist Era is often confused with the Progressive Era because (a) they were concurrent and (b) Progressive happened in cities.

[Malika the Maiz]

Given the rural/urban divide was one of if not the most salient ones in our history at the time that’s a huge distinction to miss. If Armchair spent less time reading “liberal patriot.com” and more reading professional historians he might have caught that. But hey, Dear Leader’s loves the poorly educated!
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-loves-the-poorly-educated-and-social-media-clamors-idUSKCN0VX2DE/

[Armchair]

You do know I'm directly quoting from the article, right?

Perhaps not. Perhaps you should read it, in its fullness.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you’re the poster of a dumb article? Also, try putting passages inside quotation marks if you want to signal you’re quoting something. It’s a thing with us well educated folks.

[Bwaaah]

The author, Ruy Teixeira, correctly spelled out the unfolding basis of Democrat losses before they actually unfolded. See "The Five Deadly Sins of the Left" (from 2020).

With enemies like you (and Sarc, and SRG2, and...), I don't need friends.

[tylertusta]

He also co-authored one of the most influential political books in the past 25 years: The Emerging Democratic Majority

He has since changed his mind on that book and has spent the last few years trying to get the Democratic Party out from the black hole it's been finding itself drawn into.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll skip the subsantive critique, since this 'the other party out of touch' an old and projection-filled trope that both side's partisans haul out every once in a while.

To be fair, I don't think there's a lot of analysts whose advice for the Democratic Party is very good. Including myself.
But at the very bottom of that stack is right-wingers giving advice. Like the American Enterprise Institute.

The right wing media ecosystem is not made to give advice to the right, it's meant to validate and rationalize stuff for the right, while insisting they're the only credible media out there.

So if your gut is that this is the bestest opinion ever, that's just your priors getting lovingly polished.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s all very myopic. The Democrats lost the last election. They won the one before it. The GOP didn’t change then, they doubled down and in a different environment won the next time. There’s a lot of armchair quarterbacking that’s silly.

[Sarcastr0]

It does feel like there's a realignment coming across both parties. That's a prediction I've been making for 20 years, though. And I have no idea what it'll look like.

This is why I leave the political instincting to others.

[tylertusta]

The right wing media ecosystem is not made to give advice to the right, it's meant to validate and rationalize stuff for the right, while insisting they're the only credible media out there.

Yes, just like the left's media ecosystem does. Nothing new there.

Just because you feel that they're concern trolling doesn't mean that they're wrong. For what it's worth, I've found that all media is at its best when it's critiquing the other side.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically, it's easier for you to spot your opponent's mistakes, because you're not committed to agreeing with them, but harder to spot what they're getting right, because you are sort of committed to disagreeing with them.

[Sarcastr0]

Your idea of what liberals are thinking and doing is utterly fictional, so you're kind of a counterexample to this theory.

[tylertusta]

It's disappointing to see people who went to law school dismiss other positions out of hand merely because of which platform the argument was published on.

[Armchair]

Ruy Teixeira is not "right-wingers giving advice. " Here's part of his bio from Wikipedia.

"Teixeira left consulting after several years and took a government job at the Economic Research Service, where he studied labor market issues, chiefly the so-called skills mismatch between low-skilled and high-skilled workers. From there, he moved as a visiting fellow to the Brookings Institution, where in 1992, he published the book The Disappearing American Voter, focusing on voter turnout. Afterwards, he moved to the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, to start a political studies program. In 1994, Teixeira went to work at another think tank, the Economic Policy Institute, to direct their politics and public opinion program, and he stayed there until 1999.

In 1999, he moved to the Century Foundation's Washington office, where he is a senior fellow, and in 2003, he became a senior fellow of the newly formed Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and co-chair of President Barack Obama's transition team.

Teixeira has also been a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, where he co-directed a joint Brookings-American Enterprise Institute project on political demography and geography, "the Future of Red, Blue and, Purple America", and wrote a series of reports with William Frey on the political geography of battleground states in the 2008 election. In July 2022, he left the Center for American Progress,[1] joining the American Enterprise Institute as a nonresident senior fellow focusing "on the transformation of the party coalitions and the future of American electoral politics".[2]"

That's not "right wing". That's the hallmark of a classic Democrat. The problem you have is when anyone who critiques your position is instantly labeled as "right wing" and disregarded, your position becomes immune to criticism. Anyone who bothers to is "No True Scotsman".

[Sarcastr0]

Do you know what the American Enterprise Institute is?

[Bwaaah]

"Guilt by association!" declares the government employee.

[tylertusta]

There are two trends that have accelerated the Party's leftward drift:

The first was the electoral massacres of moderate and conservative Democrats over the past fifteen years. The result has been that the left wing finds itself with more control over the Party than it has ever had, and there are fewer and few voices arguing caution.

The second is that the conscious choice of the Party to court young college educated voters means that those parties bring their policy preferences with them. That in turn means that the batshit insane policies of academia have even greater influence on the party. This is why Senator Sanders- who isn't even a Democrat!- was able to get 45% of the primary vote in 2016.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yawn. Do you think there are a lot of moderate-liberal Republicans? RINO has long been a thing. And Democrats have been courting young college voters for decades.

[tylertusta]

I'm speaking of the dying spasms of the New Deal Coalition.

It was an intentional choice of Democrats to stop seeking moderate and conservative voters while doubling down on the left-wing insanity.

[David Nieporent]

The first was the electoral massacres of moderate and conservative Democrats over the past fifteen years.

What electoral massacres of moderate and conservative Democrats over the past fifteen years?

The result has been that the left wing finds itself with more control over the Party than it has ever had,

I do not think the left wing would share that assessment.

[tylertusta]

What electoral massacres of moderate and conservative Democrats over the past fifteen years?

The wipeouts of 2010 and 2014.

I do not think the left wing would share that assessment.

They also overestimate their appeal to the working class and underestimate the scope of their control of institutions.

[Armchair]

"What electoral massacres of moderate and conservative Democrats over the past fifteen years?"

Remember the Blue Dog Democrats? That coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats? In 2009, they had 54 members. Today they have 10.

[Bwaaah]

Blue Dog Democrats. They were the part of the party that emphasized fiscal responsibility. It's no wonder their ranks are almost gone. For Democrats, increased spending _is_ the only responsible approach to a problem.

[Commenter_XY]

Arm, I see something somewhat different. What Piketty described was a set of generally higher income people whose political, social and cultural mores, attitudes, beliefs and observed behaviors are at variance with the plebes. They have (and are) increasingly disconnected from the plebes. Call them elites, if you like. But it is more along the lines of beliefs and behaviors.

Case in point: The Epstein client list and P Diddy lists are completely bipartisan. That is a subset of people who are representative of what Piketty was describing.

I don't see a brahmin left problem, I see a disconnection problem.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "Epstein client list." It's a crazier-than-Brett-Bellmore's-conspiracy-theories conspiracy theory. Epstein was a pedophile (or a ephebophile, more accurately), not a pimp.

[Frank Drackman]

Me-eth Think-eth You-eth do-eth Protest-eth to-eth much-eth

[Brett Bellmore]

According to his victims, he was both.

[David Nieporent]

That is not correct.

[David Nieporent]

There was, I think, one that made a bunch of wild accusations that were not corroborated by anyone. The only people who actually got sued were Dershowitz, and that was such a bad lawsuit that the person had to drop it and run away, and Prince Andrew, who settled, likely to avoid the spectacle of a royal being attached to this whole scandal. The victims' lawyers even went after Epstein's bank on an incredibly tenuous legal theory; do you think they just decided not to go after all these supposed "clients" of Epstein's?

[Armchair]

Ah, the classic Nieporent full denial technique. It's been corrected so many many times in the past.

[Joe_dallas]

The "epstein client list" or what ever term you wish to use is the list of people that he shared / participated with on his excursions.

Just because commentator did not use the legally correct term or the term you prefer does not mean that Epstein did not have a list substantially similiar to the list commentator described.

[David Nieporent]

I am not talking about a "legally correct term." I am talking about the underlying concept. Jeffrey Epstein recruited and used underaged girls for sex. For himself. He was not running a brothel. He was not procuring underaged girls for rich/famous people. (I am not saying that it never happened even once. Who could say that?) I am saying that he didn't have "clients" (in the non-business sense) and so there is no "list" of them. There is no database, ledger, book, computer file, diary, journal, etc., in any format, containing a bunch of names of people who were having sex with these girls.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "I am not saying that it never happened even once. Who could say that?"

lol. That's a weakness of yours, David. You routinely make that kind of absolute, definitive, purportedly incontrovertible remark.

Who could say that? You, David. You.

[Joe_dallas]

you are only fooling yourself

[David Nieporent]

Um, remember how Trump promised a release of the Epstein files and there hasn't been a "client list" released? It's because you're too much of a fool to realize that there isn't any such thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Care to explain the numerous friends / acquintances, etc that flew with him on the lolita express. As you say "Conceptionally" that is the "epstein list" you deny existing.

you are not fooling anyone except yourself

[David Nieporent]

Care to explain the numerous friends / acquintances, etc that flew with him on the lolita express.

Rich people with planes take friends and acquaintances and Supreme Court justices on plane rides. What more explanation do you need? What do you think that proves about people having sex with underaged girls? (You do realize that the plane was not actually called the "lolita express," right?)

[Joe_dallas]

DN you keep getting caught with you usual attempts at deception and deflection

[David Nieporent]

Bookkeeper_joe once again, whenever called out on one of his fabrications, speaks entirely vaguely and never presents a single actual fact. Tell us more about how Justice Jackson misrepresented the holding of a case that she never stated the holding of.

[Davedave]

"“Brahmin Left” is a term coined by economist Thomas Piketty"
Thomas Piketty is an 'economist' in exactly the same way Hitler was: that is, not at all, but very good at Nazi propaganda. Who the fuck cares what drivel he's come up with these time to encourage his far right followers?

[Kazinski]

Encourage his far right followers?

He is a leftist professor calling for a global wealth tax:

"His 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a progressive global tax on wealth."

Its hard to think of two ideas more repulsive to the "far right" or more likely to be embraced by the far left than global taxes, or wealth taxes, and he managed to merge them into one proposal.

[Davedave]

He's a neo-Nazi, so couldn't be further from the left. He is talking about confiscating Jewish property, using some very flimsy codewords. This is absolutely clear from his written work, and even more clear from interviews he's given.

His most famous work is a widely debunked work of pseudonomics, dedicated to 'proving' old-fashioned antisemitic conspiracy theories are actually true. It might as well be subtitled 'How the Jews are Jewing you'. He's a nasty piece of work.

[Frank Drackman]

I know those "Are you 4 Imprint certain?" commercials are annoying, I think that's the point. (Especially since they improved the actors pronunciation, the first time I saw one I thought she was saying "Are you Boring Prince Sirhan?) When Mrs. Drackman said she was certain she didn't want to fly home to see her parents next weekend, I asked "are you 4 Imprint certain". She laughed so hard, she missed me with her Jimmy Choo

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think we should start treating Team Hamas like we did Operation Rescue 40 years ago.

If you block access to an abortion clinic, you are facing serious criminal charges. Why can't we do the same for blocking access to a university?

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump is pardoning those Operation Rescue types.

[Frank Drackman]

OMG Someone's PRAYING!!!! in front of a "Women's Health Clinic"!!!!!(and Treblinka was a "Jewish Rest Home") where's SWAT?!?!?!?!?!??!?

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's an email I once sent to Prof. Volokh (I never got a response):
From a 2001 article:

...we can see the same dynamic at work in those current laws aimed exclusively at demonstrators outside abortion clinics, but not at any other kind of demonstrators. How this kind of blatant discrimination can prevail in a society that is supposed to abhor “discrimination” of any kind, and in which the status of any other kind of demonstrator is practically sacrosanct, is a question that surely must give us considerable pause. Where abortion clinics are concerned, it is the pro-lifers who are almost automatically perceived as “violent” (while the violence of abortion itself goes unremarked). Evidently, pro-lifers, by virtue of the position they take, do not enjoy the same First Amendment rights as everybody else. It is considered perfectly legitimate to curtail their rights...

Is there anything to this? Are abortion protesters singled out for "special treatment"? And if so, why / how are the courts allowing such discriminatory laws to stand?
______________________________________________
As the author notes, abortion protesters get "special treatment."
Now, if the "pro-Palestinian" (but really pro-Hamas, as you said) protesters are actually "blocking access to a [certain part of the] university," you're 100% right -- they can be arrested / prosecuted. The problem is that the university authorities usually don't want to. That's right: the same university authorities that'll come down hard on you for saying / writing something "politically-incorrect" will take no action when Team Hamas rampages across campus, screaming their genocidal rhetoric, setting up illegal encampments, blocking access to buildings, occupying buildings, harassing people, threatening people, assaulting people, etc., etc.
(I'll leave you to make your own conclusions about the caliber of people running our "elite" universities.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you block access to an abortion clinic, you are facing serious criminal charges. Why can't we do the same for blocking access to a university?

Because there’s a statute prohibiting the former, but not (generally speaking) the latter.

[Malika the Maiz]

As King Trump’s tariffs cause everyone’s IRA to spiral, will MAGAns buy backyard chickens as advised by his agriculture vizier and use the ever increasing egg values to buy Dear Leader’s favored cryptocurrency? Or will they pray harder on their Trump/Lee Greenwood Bibles?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Well, unlike government dependents like yourself, many patriots have long been into sustainably providing their own food from their own lands or local food sources.

If you grabbed a random sample of 3 or 4 people in my orbit, at least 2 have chickens and the others are probably buying from others in our social network.

The fact that you trotted out backyard chickens as some sort of gotcha just shows how out of touch with Normal America you are.

Obama's presidency was when many people started to get an inkling of the slow burn Marxist revolution that was beginning to finally gain steam. So many of us patriots been doing this for years. That's why the counter culture is all about trad-wives, homeschooling, homesteading, and tighter communities.

[Malika the Maiz]

About 11 million US households have chickens out of about 130 million total have chickens. You’re the definition of not normal.

The gotcha in my trotting out chickens is to point to how laughable that is as a strategy from King Trump’s national agriculture vizier in dealing with nationwide egg prices, but maybe you were poorly homeschooled and missed that?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So 10% of the population isn't normal for backyard chickens, but 1% of the population that accidentally or on purpose ingests feces and sodomizes other men is normal.

I wonder how numbers and stuff work in your world. They don't seem to work the same way they do in this world.

[Malika the Maiz]

This is really refuting the weirdo charge!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Aren't you just so precious! Playing "big boy" with the grown ups. It's so cute.

ttfn!

[Malika the Maiz]

The grown ups like to keep turning discussions to ingesting feces? Keep digging, weirdo!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It's what homo's do you ignorant twit.

Do you need a nap or something?

[Malika the Maiz]

Nothing in this thread was about “homos” until you brought it up, weirdo. It was about the economy, agriculture policy and such. But we remember you and your weirdo fixations. Different handle, same weirdo.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>but 1% of the population that accidentally or on purpose ingests feces and sodomizes other men is normal.

This was you fucking idiot.

[Malika the Maiz]

Holy Weirdo Idiot, Batman!

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 29 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
So 10% of the population isn't normal for backyard chickens, but 1% of the population that accidentally or on purpose ingests feces and sodomizes other men is normal.

[Frank Drackman]

Get a room you 2!

[ThePublius]

You don't have to keep chickens to buy local eggs. Where I live, on the South Coast of Massachusetts, there are many people around who keep chickens and sell the eggs. There are a couple of farms nearby, including a local brewery, and some neighborhood folk, who keep chickens that produce many more eggs than they themselves can consume, so they sell them. They are much, much better than supermarket eggs; I don't know why, it must be what they feed the chickens. And the price doesn't bounce around as much as supermarket prices. You pay a bit of a premium, but it's well worth it for the quality, the taste. Nice, rich, dark orange yolks. Delish.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“In my orbit” “our social network”

Is there a reason you seem to be consciously avoiding the word “friend” here?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Yes, because I have many people in my social network that I don't necessarily consider friends.

We're friendly, but more like acquaintances. Do you have any of those? If you did, you'd understand that you can have people in your orbit that you aren't necessarily friends with.

Well, maybe you don't. Maybe your orbit is so small everyone is like best buds. If that's how you like life, bully for you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I understand that. I also think you don’t have any actual friends.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

k, thanks for sharing your diary entry for today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Kind of giving the game away here by equating “long been into sustainably providing their own food from their own lands or local food sources” with keeping backyard chickens. (Obviously pretending that you have friends is also a tell.)

But hey, it’s a free country. If pretending you’re living in the Turner Diaries online helps distract your from thinking about the “homos” (however briefly), go nuts!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I've got backyard chickens, and I assure you that it's neither sustainable, (You can't keep a flock of chickens going entirely off a 1/3 acre backyard, and be doing anything else with it.) nor economical. We do it as a hobby, and to know where our eggs come from, but use commercial feed bought in 50lb bags. Likewise with our garden; It might be quite extensive for the size of our yard, but we'd starve to death if we actually had to rely on it.

And I'm generally fine with that, though I certainly wish we had enough land to do more; I became an engineer so that I WOULDN'T have to continue doing farm labor!

[damikesc]

Egg prices are lower than when Trump came to office.

Outside of that one tiny error, your point was splendid. Really. It was.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The gay Democrat judge hearing the tranny military case is on record as saying this:

>“Identify for me a single other time in recent history where the military has excluded a group of people for having a disqualifying issue, because I can’t think of one,” Judge Reyes asked.

Never before has the military excluded a class of applicants for having a disqualifying issue... in her mind.

This why these changes to the DSM are so tragic. Reyes is clearly mentally ill and a deranged lunatic. But because of activists in the 70s insisted people like her are "legally" normal like us actual Normals.

Now look where we are 50 years later. She's claiming having male soldiers who have to spend, literally, four hours a day dilating their surgically inverted penis or the wound will heal over doesn't impede military readiness and then usurping the military leadership to enforce her own personal vision of what our military should look like.

These judges are out of control and have caused infinitely more harm to our democracy than any protester on J6.

[Malika the Maiz]

Nothing normal about you, weirdo.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

If you have to spend hours each day dilating a wound so it doesn't close over, are you fit to be deployed to the battlefield?

[Malika the Maiz]

Probably not, but that doesn’t make you less of a weirdo (or, as you like to call yourself perhaps, like most weirdo folks in recent history, counter culture) which was all my comment offered.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Oh, so you weren't engaging in discussion like an mature, functioning adult you were denigrating and attacking commenters like a child or a Sarcastr0.

My bad. I'll be more careful next time reading your comments and place them in the proper context.

[Malika the Maiz]

No, I was laughing at you, weirdo. I should think you’d recognize that given how much it must happen to you.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

*tussles hair* oh bless your heart, it's so cute when you try to talk to grown ups.

[Malika the Maiz]

Where’s a grown up? I’m laughing at you.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Bless your heart.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, 1: it's "Blay-us yo Hot!", and 2: in the South, you say that prepare to have your teeth kicked in (or out? I've been able to avoid Teeth Kickings, partly because I never say "Blay-us yo Hot")

[Stella Link the dog]

"Oh, so you weren't engaging in discussion like an[sic] mature, functioning adult"

That's because you, pendejo, didn't start the conversation lika a "mature functioning adult." You are the one who wrote:
"This why these changes to the DSM are so tragic. Reyes is clearly mentally ill and a deranged lunatic. But because of activists in the 70s insisted people like her are "legally" normal like us actual Normals."

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It's social commentary, Stella. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. Do you want to file a complaint with the NCIDF?

[Stella Link the dog]

"It's social commentary" Bullshit. It's not commentary at all, it's just self-indulgent puerile wanking by a dimwittted pismire.

"I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings." You are flattering yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Identify for me a single other time in recent history where the military has excluded a group of people for having a disqualifying issue, because I can’t think of one,”

Flat feet? Myopia? There are a long list of medical issues that disqualify you from military service, or at the very least combat positions.

[Michael P]

Yeah, that sounds like something one of the dimmer commenters here would write. I also thought people on the left knew all about the Group W bench.

[Frank Drackman]

Group W? Where they put you if you’re not moral enough to burn villages rape/kill women and children? The mother stabbers, mother rapers, father stabbers, FATHER RAPERS! and the meanest nastiest ugliest one came over towards me and said “Kid, what did you get?” I said “I didnt get anything I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage” he said “what were you arrested for kid?” And I said “littering”
And they all moved away from me until I said “and creating a nuisance” then they moved back, shook my hand and we had a great time talking about mother stabbing and father raping…..

[Absaroka]

Bone spurs!

MEDICAL STANDARDS FOR APPOINTMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR
INDUCTION INTO THE MILITARY SERVICES (that's a random copy from 2018/2021 from the internet archive; the link I followed to a current copy got a 404).

Couple of points: there are lots of things that disqualify. Migraines and history of anaphylactic shock, for example. There are lots of conditions that can be managed in normal times. A career as a payroll specialist or clerk/typist in the military might not ever be any more stressful than the civvy street equivalent, but OTOH they might just put you ashore on an island and then not be able to adequately resupply you for an extended period (Guadalcanal) or they might be handing rifles to cooks and sending them out to buy time (Pusan Perimeter, Ardennes), etc. If you need an epipen for your peanut allergy, that's OK in civilian life, but the military might not want you.

In fairness, the criteria can be subject to ... ad hoc variances, depending on the needs of the service. E.g. you are supposed to have each eye correctable to some level, but I read a bio once where a guy with a glass eye who goes for a Vietnam era physical secure in the knowledge he will be failed for the glass eye. When he gets to that station and tells them he has a glass eye, they just stamp 'Pass' on the form and he goes off to VN (and I expect did great things if I was reading his bio).

[Brett Bellmore]

In times when the military can recruit enough warm bodies, they take a "why should we bother" attitude towards any complications that they could probably find some way to work around when short on warm bodies.

Being trans for whatever is at best an unneeded complication.

They met their recruitment quota for 2024, and recruitment really started spiking after the Presidential election; In December they got more recruits than they'd gotten in 15 years. Again in January.

[Sarcastr0]

Being trans for whatever is at best an unneeded complication.

This kind of thing is a policy in search of a justification.

Another example of hostility to trans people being the primary point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, recruiting trans was a policy in search of a justification. They have no upsides for military readiness, and numerous downsides. They only started recruiting them in the first place for ideological reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't change the subject. It's telling that you switch to some past grievance.

These people are here now and apparently otherwise working fine.

You want to kick them out despite that. Citing some murky and unsupported 'complication.'

[Bob from Ohio]

apparently !

How do you know? You are thankfully not at DOD anymore.

You think under Biden complaining about poor "trans" performance would help an officer's career?

[damikesc]

None are beneficial to the core occupation of the military. Killing people and breaking things. They are incapable of doing any. So, we get to pay for their surgeries and hormones --- and get no benefit out of them whatsoever. Yes, we need more of that.

And targeting recruiting towards them tends to kill recruitment numbers.

[Stella Link the dog]

"recruitment really started spiking after the Presidential election; In December they got more recruits than they'd gotten in 15 years. Again in January."

What I can find quickly about this is that the Army got 350 recruits daily in December, the highest in any December in 15 years. The Army's goal, best I can tell, is 81000 for 2025 so the best December in 15 years may or may not prove to be significant. Couldn't find anything on January, but didn't look real hard.

Looks like they expect 30% of this year's recruits to be either physically or academically unqualified before going to preschool: the Future Soldier Prep Course which was begun in 2023. It looks to me, judging from what is reported about the the Future Soldier Prep Course pilot program in 2022, that a significant majority of those who enter the course may be able to meet qualification requirements rather quickly with pretty small improvements: " In the fitness track, 87% of students graduated within their first three weeks of the course, with an average weekly body fat loss of 1%." So, perhaps the people who attend the "Prep Course" may be only slightly unqualified. That's good, I think.

[CountmontyC]

Bad eyesight.

[David Nieporent]

Flat feet? Myopia? There are a long list of medical issues that disqualify you from military service, or at the very least combat positions.

Those are generally individual assessments of a person's fitness, not a blanket exclusion.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, they are a blanket exclusion but an individual assessment if you fit the category. Do you have bad eyesight? Then you are excluded

"Trans" is the same. "Trans" are excluded. Are you "trans"? Then you are excluded.

[Magister]

Myopia, flat feet, bone spurs (one that never gets mentioned by the cult members), etc. all affect whether the individual is able to serve. Being black or a woman used to disqualify people from military service, and not because of their ability to serve; transgender people do not intrinsically have an inability to serve.

[Bob from Ohio]

"do not intrinsically have an inability to serve"

Yes they do. Severe delusion means they have impaired judgment if not outright mental illness. What other things do they imagine?

"bone spurs (one that never gets mentioned "

Nor asthma by Biden supporters.

[Magister]

Although it's not actually true, "no atheists in foxholes" would mean that most* soldiers hold delusional beliefs. Not really disqualifying.

(Excluding the ones who agree with your delusional beliefs, obviously.)

[Brett Bellmore]

It is inherently a bad idea to hand weapons to people who have an extremely elevated suicide rate.

Further, the transgender tend to have elevated medical requirements such as for regular hormone treatments.

Additionally, you really do not want an emergency medic discovering at the worst time that the contents don't match the cover, so to speak.

All the differences between transgender and regular recruits are negatives. Every single solitary one.

Would you find a way to make do anyway if you couldn't get enough normal recruits? Sure. But we have no reason to do that.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, man. You've already decided, and this is all post-hoc rationalization.

[damikesc]

I'll note you seem incapable of refuting any of it.

[Stella Link the dog]

When I enlisted back in 1969, my uncorrected vision was 20/600 correctable to 20/20. When I got my Sport Pilot certification* back in 2012, it was 20/25. Perhaps things are different now and people with correctable "bad eyesight" are no longer accepted, but I'd bet that the army still issues GI eyeglasses in basic training.

* Sport Pilot is ridiculously easy.

[Absaroka]

The previously link doc, inter alia, says:

"5.4. VISION.
a. Current distant visual acuity of any degree that does not correct with spectacle lenses to at least 20/40 in each eye.
...
c. Current near visual acuity of any degree that does not correct to 20/40 in the better eye"

specific jobs, e.g. pilots, can have more stringent requirements, of course.

There are many blanket restrictions. Just a few:

"History of airway hyper responsiveness including asthma, reactive airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, after the 13th birthday"
"absence of both testicles, current undescended testicle, or congenital absence of one testicle not verified by surgical exploration."
"current or recurrent plantar fasciitis."
"prior burn injury involving 18 percent or more body surface area"

It's a 50 page list.

[Stella Link the dog]

So, myopia and other vision issues are not disqualifying.

I don't remember the exact rule, but my recollection from so long ago is that one couldn't get into army flight school without uncorrected very good vision but once in and qualified, you wouldn't get dumped if vision subsequently deteriorated though still correctable.

Thinking about this stuff, I seem to have a vague memory that a missing forefinger might have been disqualifying but that may have just been a rumor.

[Absaroka]

If it can't be corrected to 20/40 it is.

"once in and qualified, you wouldn't get dumped if vision subsequently deteriorated though still correctable"

I have heard that for at least some navy/air force pilots. The calculus is a little different if you already have the $10M in training, I suppose. It might also matter whether you fly F-15's or KC-135's??

[Frank Drackman]

1969? What does that make you in “Dog Years”? 500?

[Kazinski]

It wasn't that long ago having a uterus would exclude you from the military, or restrict you to very a limited role.

[Frank Drackman]

Which is a shame, and I'm saying that as the Father of 2 XX military Pilots (OK, whether the Air Farce is "Military" is debatable) but they're the exception, they don't want to get Pregnant, or fuck any Military guys (tried to get them to try Island Lesbos without success) or have the "Addadicktomy", it's crazy, they joined the Marine Corpse/Air Farce to fly airplanes and both services do every thing they can to keep them from doing that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Next time you’re at a general social function, refer to yourself as a “Normal” (capital N) while complaining about how society stopped considering homosexuality a mental illness 50 years ago. It would hopefully be eye-opening and you might reevaluate your stance on what is and isn’t normal.

[SRG2]

Republican Voters Want Authoritarianism
Remember “All politics is local”? That maxim has not been correct for a generation. At some point, about 30 years ago, all politics became national.

And when that shift happened, the mores of the Southern Bourbons—of the illiberal South—spread like a virus. The Good Republicans of the Northeast and the West became infected by it. They adopted the grievances and attitudes of the South. They became primed for authoritarianism.

When a genuine authoritarian appeared and took control of the national party, these voters were at first repelled. They hung on out of simple partisan loyalty. But they quickly found that they liked it. They discovered that he was the one they’d been waiting for.

Original FT article here: Why the Maga mindset is different
Usually, analysis is done at national level, but by drilling down to different political parties in the latest raw data, I find that on everything from attitudes towards international co-operation, to appetite for an autocratic leadership style, through to trust in institutions and inward- vs outward-looking mindset, Trump’s America is a stark outlier from western Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere. In many cases, the Maga mindset is much closer to that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey.

I sippose some cultists will argue that Trump isn't an authoritarian - but if he wasn't, you wouldn't be in the cult.

I was surprised at the strength of the data, tbh. But it's unambiguous.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

What's more authoritarian:

1.) Wanting large independent agencies that are unaccountable to voters making law and subverting society for their own ideological purposes.
2.) Not wanting to not have large independent agencies that are unaccountable to voters making law and subverting society for their own ideological purposes.

How about:

1.) Wanting a large, powerful central government that oversees a command economy
2.) Not wanting a large, powerful central government that oversees a command economy

Or:
1.) Wanting to censor and ban speech that the government deems "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation"
2.) Not wanting to censor and ban speech that the government deems "misinformation" or "disinformation" or "malinformation".

These articles are just so stupid. There's nothing more authoritarian than a Big Government Democrat. In fact, they have demonstrated themselves to be the greatest threat to human freedom, liberty, and flourishing humanity has ever seen.

[SRG2]

There's nothing more authoritarian than a Big Government Democrat.

The analysis says you're wrong.

[Michael P]

From Stalin to Mao to Hitler, the most authoritarian and tyrannical people in recent history have been more like Big Government Democrats than like Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if YOU say so.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

HE and HISTORY say so. So you know, REALITY says so.

[Stella Link the dog]

"HE and HISTORY say so."

Well, if you say so.

Pendejo.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"From Stalin to Mao to Hitler, the most authoritarian and tyrannical people in recent history have been more like Big Government Democrats than like Trump."

In the sense that they were competent and knew how to accomplish their purposes, then yes.

[VinniUSMC]

Nice own goal.

You really thought that was a smart response? Man, I feel bad for you.

[SRG2]

Hitler was on the right, as everyone knows but right-wing authoritarians like yourself deny, presumably on the grounds that Hitler was a bad man...because he lost.

[Michael P]

Hitler joined a socialist worker's party. He ran a socialist worker's party. They were so strongly opposed to Communists because they were going after the same crowd of supporters.

[SRG2]

You must think that East Germany was a democracy and that North Korea still is,

[Frank Drackman]

Like the US, East Germany was a Republic, have you ever paid attention to the "Pledge of Allegiance"??

[LawTalkingGuy]

Weird that Hitler was put into power by the conservatives. Why would they do such a thing?

[Sarcastr0]

And any time you see a Hitler fan today, the world over, they're all conservatives.

It is a mystery how that big liberal has only right-wing fans!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Any sufficiently large right-wing Twitter account will have reply guys that have Hitler or Heydrich avis agreeing or expanding on the point.

Oh and then there are all the holocaust deniers and other fascists that somehow manage to get on Tucker’s podcast or Rogan.

[Sarcastr0]

All false flags, I'm sure.

[Stella Link the dog]

"All false flags, I'm sure."

Brett, is that you?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

BREAKING NEWS!

Analysis by authoritarian says the other guy is the real authoritarian!

Film @11

[SRG2]

Yoiu have no evidence that the company setting the original questionnaire nor the two journalists are themselves authoritarians.

Why is it that you authoritarians are such gutless chickenshits unwilling publicly to acknowledge your own political beliefs?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They're Democrats, so it's definitional.

I just realized you linked to a paid post on the Bulwark.

lmao, you better get hundreds more to sign up for that nonsense now that they lost their USAID grift.

[SRG2]

The Bulwark is on the anti-Krasnov right. Except, definitionally for your cultists, anyone who's not a member of the cult is on the left.

Is the FT on the left? Only relative to you cultists.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Neocons are not and never "right" despite them appropriating the label.

They were always just Big Government PermaWar types.

[SRG2]

LOl. As I said "definitionally for your cultists, anyone who's not a member of the cult is on the left."

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It's just history. William F. Buckley Jr. "the father of modern conservativism" was a DC elite who didn't want to be excluded from the social circles, so he came up with palatable-to-liberals neutered version of conservativism. That's where the David Frum's, Bill Kristol's, etc.. all stem from. "Conservatism, Inc." I think they even got called or called themselves for awhile.

They're "conservative", but never too conservative to not be invited to the DC Ball. Why do you think The Bulwak got USAID dollars, while any real pro-America conservative group like True The Vote got years of political oppression and tyranny by federal agencies?

Then they systematically ostracized and otherized real actual conservative icons like Bircher or Buchanan.

Even mentioning "Bircher" now is like hitting the politically correct tripwire, but this is the historical truth.

Not having a real opposing party in Washington is why DC is such a vile corrupt evil shithole now that's the greatest threat to human freedom and flourishing mankind has ever seen. The Uni-party. It's humanity on display: pure power, corruption, greed, and selfishness.

So there you go, your history lesson for the day.

Sincerely,
Dr. Big Balls, Esquire.

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think The Bulwak got USAID dollars,

The question is why do you think The Bulwark got USAID dollars?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Is the FT on the left? "

Of course it is, just like the WSJ.

[damikesc]

Well, the Bulwark thinks things. I know when I want to know what Republicans think, the pro-Democrat Bulwark is the first source I'd go to.

[SRG2]

Fuckwit, Bulwark is on the anti-Trump right, and its members fitted nicely into the GOP before it was taken over by the cult leaders and his cultists.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

This tranny case is just so revealing.

This idiot gay judge is making reddit and twitter level arguments from her bench.

>“I assume you would agree with me with the following: The answer to suicide ideation caused by discrimination is not further discrimination, right?” the judge asked.

So, in order to get trannies to stop wanting to kill themselves, you have to let them serve in the military?

If you want to kill yourself because of what others think about your lifestyle, then guess what? You have a fucking mental illness.

And apparently, the military discriminating against those who refused the COVID gene therapies isn't discriminating against a class over an medical issue.

Does this moron post on this board? This is the stupid shit that David fella might argue, or Sarcastr0, or even that preteen Malika. This is on part with some of Somin's open borders arguments. Like mindblowingly stupid.

[SRG2]

This tranny case is just so revealing.

As is your use of the word "tranny"

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

In as non-authoritarian way as possible, can you define to me the approved words and opinions I am allowed to have?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You’re allowed to say whatever you want. But people can think you’re an asshole based on what you say. And people thinking you’re an asshole isn’t authoritarian. You actually don’t have a right to be liked!

[SRG2]

Precisely so. But obviously Magnus Flatus can't recognise the distinction.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Well, if I'm not liked it will trigger suicide ideation which means YOU HAVE TO LIKE ME as part of my therapy, which the burden of my mental health isn't between me and my therapist but on all of you.

So yes, I actually do have a right to be liked, because if you don't then I will have suicide ideation which violates my rights.

This is all based upon Judge Ana Reyes logic in the military tranny case. I also can't be discriminated against if I decide to die for Israel/Globohomo/ForeverWar(tm) by joining the US military.

[SRG2]

I actually do have a right to be liked, because if you don't then I will have suicide ideation which violates my rights.

Genuinely witty!

[Z Crazy]

Let me make it clear.

Its immoral and unethical to exclude persons from military service for things that are not their fault.

However, the Constitution makes the President the commander-in-chief, and one inherent power is to exclude a person or persons from military service for any reason whatsoever.

The judge is wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

one inherent power is to exclude a person or persons from military service for any reason whatsoever.

Is that a penumbra or an emanation?

[Michael Ejercito]

It makes sense though.

The president is the commander-in-chief, so how can Congress or a court allow anyone to exercise military power without presidential consent?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It would be interesting to see Trump try to order all black people out of the military, in the same way he ordered all black customers out of his casino.

[Michael Ejercito]

Why would he?

[VinniUSMC]

Because Dan's a Jersey Shore level intellect.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Your point was, that he could do that if he wanted to. Well, he can't. Not as a practical matter and not as a matter of law.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Constitution tolerates sone unethical acts

[Sarcastr0]

You have indeed taken to arguing 'hey, it's probably legal' as though that's a defense for abuse of process and other immoral or illiberal activities.

[David Nieporent]

Why would he do any of the things he's done?

[VinniUSMC]

The same way Dan refuses to serve black people. I heard it from a guy that said it happened 40 years ago. Definitely true.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ordered all black customers out of his casino."

Never happened. The story from ONE guy was black employees, not customers. No other evidence.

[santamonica811]

To be fair: Trump had a well-documented history of discriminating against black people at his buildings, and paid a huge fine to settle the case. He doesn't have a ton of core beliefs. But one he has always held is antipathy towards black people, brown people, and people from the Middle East (excepting Jews).

[damikesc]

I'll note this "Well-documented history" has not been provided.

[santamonica811]

Yes. You can Google it easily enough. And, for those who want to continue to whore their integrity for Trump; you can proudly say, "Hey, Trump agreeing to a Consent Decree is not the same as admitting to the racial discrimination." [For the rest of us, it's case closed, of course. We don't give a shit if he officially admitted to it or not. We care only that a legal determination was made that it occurred.]

[David Nieporent]

What makes the story even more Trumpian is that his response to the government was to try to sue them for bringing the charges against him. That failed of course, because that's not a thing one can do. But he did it anyway. (That is, he brought the suit; it was tossed.)

[Sarcastr0]

Tons of people in the military now are in the military, doing military things, exercising military power, without Presidential consent.

He doesn't even know who they are!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Congress certainly can as part of its enumerated powers to raise an army and provide a navy combined with the necessary and proper clause. The president, even with the commander-in-chief power l, couldn’t reenact don’t ask don’t tell or outright ban gays and lesbians from serving because there is a statute that prohibits that.

[apedad]

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 14:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; . . .

C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S makes the rules.

POTUS / CINC is suppose the execute the rules.

[Michael Ejercito]

Generally, any rule that allows someone to exercise military power against presidential will is unconstitutional.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The constitution is unconstitutional! Who knew!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha ha "Generally." A sort of Tom Swifty.

[damikesc]

Trans is 100% their fault.

They could get help. Slicing off body parts and taking drugs is not a fix.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thomas and Gorsuch want to revisit or overrule McDonnell-Douglass burden-shifting. My initial reaction was skepticism. I assumed it was more pointless contrarianism from them about well-settled precedent. But, the question presented actually presents the issue of whether burden-shifting is compatible with Rule 56. And unlike their other theories, they raise some really good points about the tensions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-427_l5gm.pdf

Even so, it’s still amusing that right-wing judges who have traditionally been hostile to plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases have now warmed to the idea of blowing up decades of employer-friendly Title VII/employment law precedent when claims are brought by members of the country’s dominant religion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congress deciding to punt on defending its turf in the face of Trump's malign, stupid, illegality [his actions are a mixture of bad, illegal, and stupid] is an abject failure of legislative power.

I noted agreement with Josh Marshall's take at Talking Points Memo regarding what Senate Democrats should do. I oppose Schumer's announced path. Ultimately, however, the buck stops with those in charge. Republicans control Congress.

Their path down the road to Trump toadiness is something to behold. What a pathetic exercise.

[Sarcastr0]

The CR includes impoundment-allowing language.

It's an extremely obvious trick.

I hear Schumer turned off the phones at his DC office.
I think for all his electoralism, he may find himself in a Boehner-type situation; a leader without a critical mass interested in following him.

But the Senate is different; who knows.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Schumer knows the Democrat judges got his back and will ignore any language in the law like they've been ignoring the Constitution.

This "outrage" is a fake as Dylan's tits.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But the Senate is different; who knows."

Yes but Schumer is the classic finger in the wind cautious pol. He never sticks is neck out. There are already enough Dems who have committed to vote with him or he wouldn't be doing it IMHO.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Federalist 51 is potentially one of the most freezing cold takes from the founding era at this point.

[tylertusta]

Now that Senate Democrats caved to pass the CR, they're facing intense backlash from their left flank. Some headlines from this morning:

AXIOS: "House Dems go into "complete meltdown" as Schumer folds"

HUFFPO: "‘Slap In The Face’: Democrats Rage At Chuck Schumer After His Shutdown Fold"

WAPO: Schumer to vote for GOP bill to avert shutdown; some Democrats bristle at his decision

The DailyKos's userbase are apoplectic. Contributor posts have been made titled "COWARDS" and "Chuck Schumer has pushed me out".

I bring up the left's reaction because it provides a preview of what happens next. In order to prove their left-wing bona fides, Congressional Democrats- especially those in the Senate- are going to be looking for some kind of victory in the near future. In the past this meant escalating the judicial confirmation wars such as when Democrats filibustered Gorsuch's nomination to seek catharsis (this had the unintentional side effect of them losing the filibuster so they were unable to block Kavanaugh and ACB when the chips were down).

As of now it's unclear how they will do this or what their method of signalling their opposition to Trump will be. They may pick up on some scandal that the press fluffs up, or they may vent their spleens on Trump's nominees.

[David Nieporent]

Now that Senate Democrats caved to pass the CR,

Do you have access to tomorrow's newspapers? ("Early Edition" was a good TV show.)

[tylertusta]

Do you have access to tomorrow's newspapers?

My apologies for the phrasing. It is expected to pass later today.

POLITICO: House Democrats stew over Schumer's capitulation on GOP funding bill

("Early Edition" was a good TV show.)

I have fond memories of watching the show.

Thump. MEOW.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, good show. Interestingly the actress who played the blind woman was almost a dead ringer for my wife's cousin. I used to kid her whenever she had a blank expression on her face.

[damikesc]

Perhaps spending years decrying shutdowns as the end of the world ended up being a bad strategy for the Democrats.

Kinda hard to enable one when you've bemoaned how horrible they are for a long time.

[John F. Carr]

A couple open threads ago I mentioned that the Trump administration had dropped a lawsuit demanding that Idaho emergency rooms offer abortions. I missed the news that St. Luke's Health System, including Idaho's biggest hospital, is now involved. Anticipating that the new administration would drop the case the hospital sued in its own name, requested the same judge who had ruled in the hospital's favor when the government was plaintiff, and got a temporary restraining order duplicating the now-vacated preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction will follow soon. State law has changed since the first case and the issues on appeal will be different. Despite the previous case's trip to the Supreme Court there is still no binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69543248/st-lukes-health-system-ltd-v-labrador/

For requesting the friendly judge, see the "related cases" line of the civil action cover sheet. Listing a related case is considered good judge shopping.

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a rare misprison of felony conviction. Uber's Chief Security Officer did not report the company got hacked. Notably, the evidence that the defendant knew the acts constituted a felony came from the defendant's prior experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting computer crimes.

United States v. Joseph Sullivan, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/13/23-927.pdf

Sullivan had tried to launder a ransom payment by calling it a bug bounty payment. There was no evidence that hackers were authorized in advance to attack the company's production systems. A CFAA violation can not be pardoned by granting forgiveness instead of permission.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is that misprision of a felony so rare?

I would think prosecutors would be all over that.

[David Nieporent]

Because it's much narrower than its original concept. One can't be punished merely for failing to report a felony; one must first have had a duty to report it, or have taken active steps to cover it up, before one can be found guilty of misprision. In this case, he fit in that bucket.

[Commenter_XY]

Duty to report, so like a work supervisor who witnesses workplace harassment or a teacher who sees signs of physical abuse. That kind of duty to report, correct?

You'd think a prosecutor would want to tack on that charge whenever they possibly could to help force encourage a plea deal. It actually surprises me it is not done more often.

[Noscitur a sociis]

…did you read David Nieporent’s comment?

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I did. Hence my question.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Then I’m not sure what you’re confused about. It doesn’t get “tack[ed] on” because most defendants don’t commit it. It’s also one of the less serious federal felonies out there, so it wouldn’t add a lot of leverage in most cases anyway.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Hey guys, remember when Obama started a "DOGE" and put Biden in charge?

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1900368664567619612

I don't recall the same moral panic back then as we see now. Or the Article II usurpation by Article III judges. Did some DC judge demand Obama/Biden restore that Ranger Fiddlin' Foresters website?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No one sane* objects to cutting wasteful spending in principle. Nor is that the dig on DOGE. The complaint is that they’re cutting important programs without saving significant amounts of money, doing it illegally, and lying about it. Hope this helps.

*It’s a big country and I’m sure Dr. Ed or someone will come to say that they do oppose it, hence the qualifier.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Could you point out the wording in Article II that allows the President to ignore laws and appropriations passed by Congress and signed by previous Presidents?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember when "Magnus Pilatus" (as he's currently known because he's too much of a chickenshit to sign his real name to his posts) lied? It was all of 6 minutes ago.

(I knew before clicking that it would be bullshit — and I was right — but I thought at least the words "government efficiency" had been uttered such that it would stand as a feeble gotcha. But they weren't.)

For the terminally stupid: there was no "moral panic" because Obama and Biden didn't run around dynamiting buildings, stealing appropriated money, and lining up government employees and shooting them, as DOGE is doing (metaphorically, of course).

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I've told you geriatric doofuses that I rotate my username. I've even held votes.
Magnus Pilatus is just a play off of "Big Balls". Which won my last vote.

If you knew anything about cyber security or online private best practices you would too.

But obviously you don't. Since you're putting your real name out there on some truly vile and sickening beliefs you hold and have unwisely decided to share publicly. You even share pictures of your family and children online publicly.

What are you? Stuck in 2010 back when you had a full head of hair?

[Dan Schiavetta]

As I suspected. Muted.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Thank you for sharing and signaling to all how virtuous you are. Sacastr0 will now award you 5 Good Boy points to add to your Good Boy point balance. If you accumulate enough, you can convert them to awards at any official government store, or maybe even travel privileges outside of your 15 minute zone. The totally non-authoritarian 15 minute zone mind you, it's only to Save the Planet and not authoritarian in any way shape or form.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Mute! Where is thy sting?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Magnus Pilatus is just a play off of "Big Balls".

Hahaha, did you just try google translate or something?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

No. I didn't like Magnus Pila or any other of the Latin variants. So I rolled with Pilatus even though that's probably closer to spear than ball. Magnus Pilatus rings better than Magnus Pila to me.

[Stella Link the dog]

Should have been magnus cunnu.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh my god, you are so lame. A vote! No one here cares. Muted.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Hey everyone look how SPECIAL and GOOD Sire Alpheus is! Every give him big props! He had to announce it because he desperately needs validation from anonymous internet randos!

Come on guys, give him his props. You're the closest thing he has to father figure.

[Bob from Ohio]

The "liberals" here are sure eager to announce they cannot stand contrary opinions.

I've blocked a few but never saw fit to announce it. Who cares if I can't stand certain people.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I see you have no qualms about palling around with antisemites, as long as they’re the right kind.

[Zarniwoop]

Hey, I don't use my real name because at one point long ago I didn't want potential (and later, actual) BigLaw employers to link my handle to me.

But I've also been using the same handle since law school in the early 00's and through multiple hosting changes of the VC.

"That guy who should consider pr0nhub to get his badly-needed release, instead of spamming the VC with his repressed gay fantasies" is readily distinguishable 🙂

[tylertusta]

Some new information has come out concerning the Khalil habeas petition:

He was arrested on the night of March 8th but held overnight in New Jersey until March 9th. At 4:40AM his attorneys filed their habeas petition in SDNY while he was in the NJ facility.

Khalil was then taken from NJ to JFK Airport, which is in New York. Khalil may have crossed into SDNY briefly during his travel, which may have given the SDNY judge jurisdiction.

However, if ICE took Khalil via the direct route from the ICE facility to JFK then he wouldn't have entered SDNY at all, which would mean that SDNY does not have jurisdiction under Padilla.

[Commenter_XY]

Either way, his ass is gone. Plenty more can join him.

[Josh R]

The same could apply to aliens who hate Hamas but support a two-state solution. Under a different administration, the same could apply to aliens who do not support a two-state solution.

We protect speech that is unworthy of protection because we do not trust the government to draw the line. If you think alien speech should not protected, then own up to allowing the government to kick out anyone for anything they say.

[tylertusta]

If you think alien speech should not protected, then own up to allowing the government to kick out anyone for anything they say.

You may consider me one of them. I think that aliens have reduced speech rights and should be kicked out if they say the wrong thing.

They're guests and have no constitutional right to be here.

[Josh R]

I am not OK with President Buttigieg kicking out aliens who say they support Joe Rogan. Again, the problem is the government gets to define what is the "wrong thing" to say.

[tylertusta]

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

[Commenter_XY]

BTW, it is not 'the government'. It is the SecState personally who makes the decision to revoke and deport. That is the text of the INA law.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would argue the Constitution restricts the actions of government in all areas, including how they treat aliens. Hence terms person and persons in some 14A clauses, instead of citizens. You may not like it, but 14A clearly gives all PERSONS the right to due process, whether guest or citizen.

[Bob from Ohio]

14A does not apply to the US government

[not guilty]

The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the federal government, but as to the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a corresponding Due Process clause in the Fifth Amendment applicable to the federal government.

The Fifth Amendment Due Process clause includes an equal protection component applicable to the federal government to the same extent as the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause applies to the states. As Chief Justice Warren opined in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 498-99 (1954):

We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. The legal problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat different, however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. [Footnotes omitted.]

“The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.” United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774 (2013).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The 14A Due Process Clause doesn't apply to the federal government. The Fifth Amendment version does.

The 14A as a whole does have applications to the federal government. Birthright citizenship is an example.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congress does have the power to enforce the 14A, including the Due Process Clause. So, they do play a role even there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"allowing the government to kick out anyone for anything they say."

Sure, why not.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wow, Sieg Heil!

[Commenter_XY]

The bottom line is that citizens have P&I that non-citizens do not, Josh R. INA explicitly grants the SecState the plenary authority to revoke green cards or visas and deport, on the basis that the alien's presence is inimical to US foreign policy interests.

If this is really such a big deal, the electorate will deal with it.

[David Nieporent]

INA explicitly grants the SecState the plenary authority to revoke green cards or visas and deport, on the basis that the alien's presence is inimical to US foreign policy interests.

The INA does not define what people's rights are. The constitution does.

[Commenter_XY]

It (INA) certainly describes a number of the limitations on the rights of aliens with green cards and/or visas, David. They can be tossed by the SecState.

No American citizen is deportable for this behavior. Aliens are.

[David Nieporent]

It (INA) certainly describes a number of the limitations on the rights of aliens with green cards and/or visas, David.

The INA does not define what people's rights are. The constitution does.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The INA does not define what people's rights are. The constitution does.

The law can discretionarily grant rights in various cases as long as the Constitution allows for it. I read the person's comment as merely saying something like that.

New York City passed a law allowing noncitizens "the right to vote" in local elections. It is being held up because a lower court ruled that it clashed with the state constitution.

However, without that provision, the "right to vote" in this case would turn on local discretion. Various laws discretionarily give "rights" to people. Rights can turn on statutory law.

The bottom line is (1) noncitizens still have certain constitutional rights that can be violated (2) suppressing their freedom of expression to the degree proposed is bad policy.

[David Nieporent]

The law can discretionarily grant rights in various cases as long as the Constitution allows for it. I read the person's comment as merely saying something like that.

No; C_XY is saying that since INA says the rights don't exist, they don't exist.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The comments by C_XY are somewhat confused, and the follow-up doesn't help. Oh well.

[Commenter_XY]

I did not say INA defines rights, David, I said INA describes the limitation on rights of aliens.

[not guilty]

Application of the INA to authorize viewpoint discrimination against a resident alien's speech or expression would be an unconstitutional application of the statute under the First Amendment guaranties of free expression and Fifth Amendment guaranty of due process. We have had this discussion before. As Justice Douglas wrote for SCOTUS in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 162 (1945):

[T]he First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights make no exception in favor of deportation laws or laws enacted pursuant to a "plenary" power of the Government. Hence the very provisions of the Constitution negative the proposition that Congress, in the exercise of a "plenary" power, may override the rights of those who are numbered among the beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights.

Aliens within our borders are "persons" entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws:

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 345 U.S. 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 163 U.S. 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 118 U.S. 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 426 U.S. 77 (1976).

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (footnote omitted).

It is clear that an unadmitted and nonresident alien has no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972). Once an alien is admitted and is within the borders of the United States, however, the constitutional analysis becomes quite different, regardless of whether the alien's entry was lawful at the outset, Yick Wo, 118 U.S.at 369 (due process and equal protection "provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws"), or unlawful. Plyler, supra.

[Josh R]

Eugene thought deportation of aliens based on speech that the First Amendment would protect them from criminal punishment was unsettled law.

[not guilty]

Professor Volokh has his opinion, which is entitled to considerable respect. It is well settled, however, the First Amendment does not permit government to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). as SCOTUS has repeatedly opined:

"[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. [92,] 95 [(1972)]. See also Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. [455,] 462-463 [(1980)]. "Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment." Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 648-649 (1984).

Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 229-30 (1987). It is settled that:

When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction. See Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983).

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995).

It may be "unsettled" whether the Secretary of State's summary revocation of Mahmoud Khalil's green card status because of his advocacy of Palestinian rights can survive strict judicial scrutiny. But Mr. Khali as a resident alien damn sure deserves due process before an unbiased decisionmaker with the burden of justification on the government.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the bottom line is that aliens do not have the same rights as citizens. They are guests in our country. There is no 'right to stay'.

Khalid advocated for decapitating Zionists, supported hamas in numerous rallies, harassed Jewish students (American citizens). This isn't a constitutional case, it is a personal consequences case.

INA grants SecState plenary power to revoke green card, and deport on the basis that the alien's presence is inimical to US foreign policy interests. That's it. SecState Rubio has spoken eloquently and directly to this; the determination was made.

BTW, there are hundreds more who have been identified.

[not guilty]

Khalid advocated for decapitating Zionists, supported hamas in numerous rallies, harassed Jewish students (American citizens). This isn't a constitutional case, it is a personal consequences case.

IYNA grants SecState plenary power to revoke green card, and deport on the basis that the alien's presence is inimical to US foreign policy interests. That's it. SecState Rubio has spoken eloquently and directly to this; the determination was made.

XY, what part of the Supremacy Clause do you not understand? It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the president." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 158 (1803).

If you cannot accept that basic proposition, you are no better than a result oriented scold.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I understand SecState Rubio has to uphold the law. He is upholding the law, meaning INA. That law grants him (personally) the authority to revoke green cards and deport aliens whose presence is inimical to the foreign policy interests of the US. He can uniquely make that determination, judge whatshisface cannot, indeed, must not overstep by substituting his uninformed judgment for SecState Rubio's. That is the true constitutional issue here, IMO.

If INA is good law, then Khalid (and hundreds more) goes home. Since INA has been on the books for 70+ years, it seems you'd be hard-pressed to say the law is unconstitutional. This power by the SecState has been used previously without issue.

Try as you might, this isn't a 1A free speech or free association constitutional issue. It is a personal consequences issue. Aliens do not have the same P&I or protections that citizens do; that is a stone cold fact.

Khalid, through his words and actions, did this to himself. I don't think the LA judge is going to be very kind or understanding. I certainly hope not.

[Josh R]

Amazing! NG is 100% convinced this is settled law and the Constitution protects aliens from deportation for their speech. C_XY is 100% convinced this is settled law and the Constitution does not protect aliens from deportation for their speech.

Both of you need to go back an reread Eugene's post.

[not guilty]

"Amazing! NG is 100% convinced this is settled law and the Constitution protects aliens from deportation for their speech. C_XY is 100% convinced this is settled law and the Constitution does not protect aliens from deportation for their speech."

I don't claim that all aliens are protected from deportation for their speech, First Amendment protections are not absolute. But it is well settled (for 222 years) that the Bill of Rights overrides a federal statute to the extent of any conflict and that the Secretary of State in particular is obliged to resolve any such conflict in favor in favor of constitutional protection, and it is settled that viewpoint discrimination is a pernicious form of content discrimination under the First Amendment.

As I said upthread, it may be "unsettled" whether the Secretary of State's summary revocation of Mahmoud Khalil's green card status because of his advocacy of Palestinian rights can survive strict judicial scrutiny. But Mr. Khali as a resident alien damn sure deserves due process before an unbiased decisionmaker with the burden of justification on the government.

[Josh R]

You continue to amaze if you are claiming it is settled law that the Secretary of State cannot be viewpoint discriminatory in deporting an alien based on the alien's speech.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think you were better off saying:

It (INA) certainly describes a number of the limitations on the rights of aliens with green cards and/or visas

The "a number" qualifier is important. Without it, there is a strong implication that the INA alone is what matters.

That's incorrect. The Constitution, for instance, provides overriding limits.

[Josh R]

I do not trust the electorate for speech applied to citizens or aliens.

[Ed Grinberg]

Am I the only one unable to track this comment?

[Sarcastr0]

It's about the concept and legal operation of of rights.

[Josh R]

We permit speech not worthy of protection (e.g., Nazis marching in Skokie) because we do not trust the government (i.e., the electorate, majority rule) to draw the line between speech worth and unworthy of protection,

C_XY argues that principle only applies to speech by citizens and we can trust the electorate to draw the line for aliens. I strongly disagree.

[Commenter_XY]

Congress, acting as the representative of the people, already drew the line in the INA.

You're thinking popular vote, I am thinking peoples representatives.

[Josh R]

No, I am referring to our elected representatives. Through the INA, they gave the Secretary of State the power to draw the line. I do not trust him or her. Nor should you. It's quite possible a future SoS will deport all aliens who say Israel should control all of Palestine (good thing you aren't an alien).

[tylertusta]

Depends on whether his attorneys can get his case into the 2nd Circuit.

In a previous case a district court judge ruled the statute void for vagueness. The 2nd Circuit didn't adopt it as precedent, but they also seemed amenable to it should it come up later as in here.

[tylertusta]

Additionally, Khalil's team has added Trump as a named defendant in his official capacity.

At this point I think they're throwing shit at the wall and hoping for a miracle.

Link to amended complaint:

https://www.nyclu.org/uploads/2025/03/Khalil-Amended-Petition.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

"Khalil's team"

19 lawyers! The left sure does like extremists.

[tylertusta]

The funny part is that he hadn't spoken to lawyers between his arrest and their first motion.

They were literally filing papers on his behalf without him officially 'hiring' them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The government isn’t letting someone in custody talk to his lawyers, which violates a number of rights. So yeah it’s not surprising attorneys acting on his behalf are trying to stop what’s happening so they can talk to him. The government, at least in the United States, legally can’t just disappear someone and deny them access to counsel.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They weren't his lawyers as they hadn't been hired yet.

You don't have a right to be in custody and talk to any ol' lawyer who shows up knocking on the door.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Defeat the right to counsel with this one weird trick!

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

"Right to counsel" means any lawyer off the street can meet you in jail to try and solicit your business?

Weird. I wish you were LawKnowingGuy instead of just LawTalkingGuy.

[tylertusta]

I agree. They can't disappear someone.

But it's not really a denial of access if he's detained at 8:30PM on a Saturday and attorneys file at 4:40 AM the next morning.

Lawyers aren't entitled to immediate and unlimited access to detainees on a 24x7 basis.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well in a criminal proceeding they have to be brought before a neutral magistrate within 48 hours and be able to speak with counsel. If you don’t do that and just detain someone and fly him out of the jurisdiction…lawyers don’t really have a choice.

Also he had lawyers on the phone with ICE during the arrest. So the they aren’t his lawyers because they aren’t talking to him thing is bullshit anyway.

[tylertusta]

They have to provide reasonable access, not unfettered access.

Khalil will face deportation proceedings in Louisiana by all accounts. That's where his due process awaits.

Did he hire all nineteen attorneys, or just one?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Everyone knows that lawyers can’t work with other lawyers on cases!

[tylertusta]

"Hello Mr. Person I am representing! Since we last spoke, I went ahead and on your behalf I hired a bunch of lawyers from several different large law firms to work on your case. I know we didn't talk about it beforehand but I did it anyways. Hope you don't mind the massive bill!"

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hope you don't mind the massive bill!"

pro bono radical chic lawyers

[Frank Drackman]

There were 20, but one got caught with a shoe bomb

[Bob from Ohio]

"Did he hire all nineteen attorneys, or just one?"

None, he's not paying for them silly. Lefty lawyers love to represent terrorist simps for free.

[LawTalkingGuy]

More like lawyers* like due process.

*Well good lawyers anyway. So that excludes you.

[Commenter_XY]

BfO...My question is how did 19 lawyers know about this so quickly. That wasn't accidental.

[Zarniwoop]

Out of my practice area, and I’m not familiar enough with the relevant case law, but I could see a judge not approving of the Feds playing 3-card Monty with a prisoner’s location. Something like:

As an evidentiary matter: the gov’t told Mr. Khalil’s lawyers his location. The lawyers filed a habeas petition on that basis, using the gov’t representation. They are entitled to rely on that representation in a venue determination, and the gov’t is estopped from saying “sorry, the princess is in another castle”.

[tylertusta]

You may be interested in reading Rumsfeld v Padilla since it's nearly on-point for this:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542426/usrep542426.pdf

If the government plays keep-away with a plaintiff to prevent him from filing petitions then that's a big problem.

On the other hand, I don't see that happening here.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

Putting on a Plaintiff's attorney's hat, I think this is readily distinguishable as to the timing/estoppel/"sorry your princess is in another castle" aspect.

It appears uncontested that Padilla's attorneys knew where he was located (South Carolina), based on accurate gov't information. Their filing included the SC Warden (Marr) as a custodian.

Kennedy's concurrence at p.454 gets closer to the specific facts here, though it's still not on all fours:
"In this case, if the Government had removed Padilla from the Southern District of New York but refused to tell his lawyer where he had been taken, the District Court would have had jurisdiction over the petition."

So, distinguishing Padilla, it does not describe a case where:
1) attorneys for Padilla were told by the gov't he was in custody in Location A;
2) the attorneys then very quickly filed a habeas petition in Location A based on the gov't's representation;
3) only for the gov't to say "oops, we gave you bad info, he was actually in Location B".

So yeah, I'm afraid I have to disagree as to your comment that Padilla is "nearly on-point for this".

[tylertusta]

Understood. IANAL, so you know how to read this better than I do.

[tylertusta]

Additionally, I can see the government's argument here that the plaintiffs attorneys may have been told NY, but the government person who told them that told them that told them in good faith and due to the circumstances of the detainee being literally in transit there was insufficient time to update everyone.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think anyone thinks that the person who told them NY was acting in bad faith; I think the accusation is that he was moved to LA in bad faith.

[Life of Brian]

It's not clear how the NJ->LA transfer makes any difference to the analysis, since the NY->NJ transfer is what removed jurisdiction. Per my longer post below, it seems like fairly tough sledding to argue that he was moved to NJ in bad faith.

[Zarniwoop]

Right after the part I quoted, Kennedy also discusses the "keep away" scenario as a ground for habeas venue in the district(s) from which the prisoner was removed. But that's not the situation here either.

[Commenter_XY]

So where do you think due process will occur, SDNY or LA?

[Zarniwoop]

Dunno. But the govt appears to think NJ could also be in the mix.

[not guilty]

If the proof shows that the applicant was in New Jersey when the petition was filed, the district judge in New York has the option of transferring the case to the district of New Jersey under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

[Commenter_XY]

This assumes that 'due process' in this matter even involves the fed courts. INA grants the SecState the plenary power to revoke, deport. Indeed, the SecState has indicated there are hundreds more similarly situated (meaning, they have been identified, and will be detained, deported when found).

Could this be as simple as judge saying, "Yep, the law grants the SecState the authority to revoke your green card and deport your hamas loving ass home. C-Ya, wouldn't want to be Be-Ya"

[not guilty]

XY, Do you contend that "due process of law" does not involve the federal courts?

If so, is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Commenter_XY]

Ng, no. There has to be a judicial process somewhere in the revocation and deportation process. SecState Rubio cannot just say, "Gimme your green card, and get your sorry, hamas loving ass out of this country" and then wave goodbye from the tarmac 5 minutes later while the deportation flight takes off.

Somewhere, there must be a hearing, even if pro forma. Gotta have a record. In this case, the hearing will be in LA, hopefully.

[John F. Carr]

It can't be that simple. Federal court jurisdiction in immigration cases is complicated. There is tension between constitutional rights and jurisdiction-stripping laws. Sometimes there are circuit splits. Judges want to find a way to avoid declining jurisdiction over constitutional claims. The law to be applied to the habeas petition may depend on whether it ends up in the Second, Third, or Fifth Circuit.

[Commenter_XY]

Please, oh please can Judge Ho in the 5th circuit get this case? 🙂

[Life of Brian]

As an evidentiary matter: the gov’t told Mr. Khalil’s lawyers his location.

Sharpened a bit, the exact claim in Mr. Khalil's attorney's declaration was that "one agent told his wife that they were taking him to 26 Federal Plaza."

Conspicuously absent was any sort of representation or even suggestion that he would be remaining there -- a temporary holding facility with no beds or 24-hour medical staff -- overnight. Instead they processed him and then transferred him to the Elizabeth Detention Center, which does have beds &c.

Page 1 of the MTC says the local NY based counsel, the first to appear (and who, no doubt coincidentally, moved to withdraw 4 days in), has experience repping individuals detained at Elizabeth County [sic] Detention Center, and thus presumably understands the processing flow and the underlying reasons.

Given all that, this sounds to me like a left/right hand issue on the lawyers' part, which they're now trying to fix by pounding the table and trying to make ICE's normal and expected order of operations sound like a conspiratorial hiding of the ball.

[Zarniwoop]

As an evidentiary matter: the gov’t told Mr. Khalil’s lawyers his location.

Sharpened a bit, the exact claim in Mr. Khalil's attorney's declaration was that "one agent told his wife that they were taking him to 26 Federal Plaza."

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Did you read the MTC beyond page 1? Per the MTC at p.7:

“Counsel filed the instant habeas corpus petition on Mr. Khalil’s behalf on March 9, 2025, at 4:41 a.m. …. On March 9, 2025, at 4:29 a.m., counsel checked the ICE online detainee locator, which indicated that Mr. Khalil was in New York. Id. at ¶ 10. At 8:30 a.m., counsel once again checked the ICE online detainee locator, which indicated that Mr. Khalil was still in New York. Id.”

This is directly supported by Attorney Greer’s declaration.

So to recap, for the hard of comprehension out there, the gov’t database provided an inmate location of NY after the habeas petition was filed. And that’s in the MTC and declaration.

It may have been incorrect/outdated. But the gov’t supplying inaccurate/outdated information is not Attorney Greer or Mr. Khalil’s fault. They filed in the proper venue according to the gov’t’s own info, from multiple sources that all led to the same result; now the gov’t is saying “sorry the princess is in another castle”. That’s estoppel territory, and it’s arguing the facts not pounding on the table.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I'm actually the guy that specifically pointed out to you the well-understood lag in the web tracker the other day. You didn't respond.

Sticking your head in the sand and calling a convenience tool that specifically says in the FAQ that in-progress transfers are not shown for security reasons and that it can take up to 8 hours for actual updates to show up a government "representation" of actual current location at the actual queried time is your choice, but in my view (and, I predict, ultimately the court's) one that doesn't pass the red face test. Inconveniently, the government cited about a page-long string of similarly situated NY cases that went their way.

[Zarniwoop]

Ope, just read the amended habeas petition filed yesterday (Mar 13).

The gov’t also had Khalil in NY - specifically at JFK - after the filing date/time of the habeas petition. See para 18:

Moreover, according to the federal government’s official records at the time of filing, Mr. Khalil was detained at 26 Federal Plaza at the time this habeas was initiated. The New York Field Office and Respondent Joyce directed Mr. Khalil’s arrest and detention in New York, New York; told his counsel that he was being taken to 26 Federal Plaza in New York, New York; and entered his location on the ICE detainee locator as being in New York, New York. At the time of filing, the detainee locator stated that Mr. Khalil was held in New York, New York, information upon which his counsel reasonably relied to identify his location. To the extent the New York Field Office and Respondent Joyce moved Mr. Khalil across state lines to New Jersey for a transitory period of time shortly before his habeas was filed, the New York Field Office prevented Mr. Khalil from communicating that information to his counsel in bad faith. Moreover, the New York Field Office then brought Mr. Khalil back across state lines to New York before then transferring him, after the filing of the instant petition, to Louisiana.

That fact is probably going to complicate the gov’t’s venue position - they should have flown him out of Newark.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The gov’t also had Khalil in NY - specifically at JFK - after the filing date/time of the habeas petition.

The problem is that New York City is split between two different judicial districts, and JFK isn’t in the one where the petition was filed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Another member of Congress died this week.

As to past members, didn't know the old coot was still alive until now (Prof. Loomis is sort of an old coot too even if he is around 50):

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/03/alan-simpson

[Michael P]

Did Sen. Simpson Twit after his death like Raul Grivalja did?

[ThePublius]

Who's writing the script for these Democrats?

"So far I've found nearly identical tweets that are almost word for word from 49 DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBERS posted within the last 12 hours!!

FORTY NINE!!!!

Do none of them think for themselves?"

https://x.com/LeftismForU/status/1900096895717986533

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit jointly coordinated communications!

[Commenter_XY]

No, cult like behavior.

[LawTalkingGuy]

A key deadline is coming up and politicians are announcing their position in concert to broadcast unity on the issue. That’s not cult like. That’s just politics. This would be a dumb criticism of republicans if they shared a similar message right before a key vote.

[Currentsitguy]

More like "Hive Mind".
Kind of reminds me of the Pod People.

[VinniUSMC]

They're not allowed to, and/or they are totally incapable of it. You've seen the outrage directed at Chuck/Zuck/Musk/Rogan/Brand/etc for daring to go off-script.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why did Russell Brand go off script?

[VinniUSMC]

Why did any of them go off-script? Answer: It's irrelevant. Any deviation from Leftist orthodoxy automatically makes one alt-right. Do you have some sort of point to make? Make it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He started becoming a right-wing when he was being scrutinized for a lot of allegations of sexual misconduct. He assumed that he would be welcomed there. And here you are reflexively defending him! Guess he assumed correctly!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do… do you think that members of congress are personally typing in a sending all tweets that go out under their names?

[tylertusta]

I know of one elected official who personally types and sends all tweets under this individual's name.

[David Nieporent]

If that’s supposed to be an oblique reference to Donald Trump, it’s not true. You can see two sets of tweets from his account — ones that are ranty-and-ravy with Drackman-level coherence, and ones that are grammatical and cite actual historical events and such. Only the first come from Trump.

[ThePublius]

The left is a bunch of violent vandals who must be dealt with - quickly and harshly, I hope. They have inflicted orders of magnitude more damage and destruction and danger of late than was ever perpetrated on January 6th, 2021.

"March 13
More than a dozen shots were fired at a Tesla dealership in Tigard, Oregon, the second such incident at that location in one week, causing damage to cars and store windows, police said."

How many shots were fired by protesters on Jan 6th? I think that would be zero.

"March 12
Protesters from Just Stop Oil, a British environmentalist group, poured orange liquid latex over a Tesla Optimus robot at a company store in London as a form of protest against Musk, whom organizers said in a statement is “throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work, jeopardising climate science and denying healthcare to vulnerable people.”"

How much paint was poured or spray by protesters at the Capitol on January 6th? I think that would be zero.

And it goes on and on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/14/tesla-boycotts-turn-violent-reports-of-vandalism-and-worse-timeline/

I'm going to stop asking "why are leftists so violent," I'm just going to say it: leftists are violent. Those who say there is just as much violence coming from the right are lying.

[Sarcastr0]

The left is a bunch of violent vandals who must be dealt with - quickly and harshly, I hope.

CIVILITY

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Gaslighto -- the left is uncivil because IT IS ALLOWED TO BE.

Let's stop allowing the left to be uncivil.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Stop trying to get him to self-censor you finger wagging douche.

[ThePublius]

There is nothing un-civil about that post. You apparently don't understand what civility in the forum means.

[Sarcastr0]

You think it's civil if there are no swears.

I think calling for a broad group of Americans whose politics you don't like to be 'delt with' is uncivil.

And you should not bring that kind of awfulness to this blog. In fact, you should realize what you are and move the fuck to Russia.

[ThePublius]

Guy who chides me for supposed uncivility uses the f-word.

Get lost, Gaslight0. You're not a moderator here, you know.

[Sarcastr0]

You want a large group, some of whom post here, 'delt with.'

Calm Hitler is still Hitler.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DztRBSHUUAAPXlH.jpg

[ThePublius]

"I think calling for a broad group of Americans whose politics you don't like to be 'delt with' is uncivil."

No, that's not right. I want people who commit arson and shoot up dealerships and vandalize property to be dealt with.

You constantly mischaracterize what I say. It's a form of lying.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So now you're a "rule of law guy"...

[Magister]

spray by protesters at the Capitol on January 6th

A number of chemicals were sprayed, not on equipment but on police, at the January 6th insurrection.

And the majority of politically motivated violence in the US is from the right.

[Zarniwoop]

MAGA has gone from bleating “back the blue” to endorsing “beat the blue”

[ThePublius]

"And the majority of politically motivated violence in the US is from the right."

That is not simply not true, it's the opposite of the truth!

[Sarcastr0]

There are studies. I linked one below.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And the majority of politically motivated violence in the US is from the right."

"There are studies. I linked one below."

Definitions are everything in studies like this. How you decide if violence was ideologically motivated. What sorts of violence you decide to count. (They excluded violence aimed at property damage, for instance, so that if you firebombed a building after making sure it was empty? Smashed windows and set fire to empty cars? Non-violent!)

So I went to look at their code book, found it had recently been taken down, but it was still available at the Internet Archive.

You had to meet at least one of the following criteria:
"1. the individual was arrested;
2. the individual was indicted of a crime;
3. the individual was killed as a result of his or her ideological activities;
4. the individual is/was a member of a designated terrorist organization; or
5. the individual was associated with an extremist organization whose leader(s) or
founder(s) has/have been indicted of an ideologically motivated violent offense. "

The first thing that jumped out at me is that almost everybody involved in the riots during Trump's first term would be excluded, because local authorities typically didn't arrest them, so no records were generated. The people setting up those 'autonomous zones' and terrorizing the people living in them? Didn't count.

The vast majority of left-wing violence occurs in jurisdictions with left-wing governments, which are largely disinterested in doing anything about it. And so ends up being invisible so far as this study was concerned. Very convenient, that.

[F.D. Wolf]

Rep. Raul Grijalva was so incensed by President Trump's dismissal of thousands of Department of Education employees, that he Tweeted a condemnation of the action several hours after he died. As a result, former Biden staffers are now pushing Grijalva as their favorite for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

https://x.com/RepRaulGrijalva/status/1900264784110768145

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet: Rep. Raul Grijalva.

May his soul be bound up in the bond of life.

[Ed Grinberg]

Oh yeah? I just looked him up on Wikipedia. Here're some of the things it lists:
- Grijalva received a 100% score from...Arab American Institute...
- In July 2019, Grijalva voted against a House resolution condemning the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel. The resolution passed 398–17.
- In 2021, Grijalva was one of eight Democrats to vote against the funding of the Iron Dome in Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

Husband of 54 years, and Father to three.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s so sad you know that

[Frank Drackman]

That made my Purim!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is common practice for such accounts to be run by staffers. Sometimes, you see a reference that notes a specific comment is an actual personal comment from the officeholder.

[Frank Drackman]

He is Risen!, umm, err... TWEETED!!!!!!

[ReaderY]

The new Ministry of Justice has identified forfeiture laws, by which it gets to seize victims’ funds based on mere allegations with the victims then having to prove their innocence in lengthy proceses to get their money back, as a vehicle of choice to go after political enemies. It had befun freezing the funds of charities such as Habitat for Humanity on grounds they defrauded the US government.

What can be done about this? Prosecutors have absolute immunity from suit. And of course they aren’t going to prosecute themselves.

One possible angle might be more aggressive use of frivolousness claims. Lawyers for Habitat for Humanity and other victims should seek the lifetime disbarment of anyone with a bar license involved in this type of retribution. They should argue thaf frivolousness sanctions are the only way that conduct that would be a crime wardanting years in jail if not done at the behest of the government itself can be deterred, so they need to be very hefty to have any effect.

In Bracy v. Grmaley, involving people convicted of murder by corrupt Chicago judge Thomas Maloney, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted for a unanimous Court that “Ordinarily, we presume that ‘public officials have properly discharged their official duties.’ Were it possible to indulge that presumption here, we might well agree with the Court of Appeals….But unfortunately, the presumption has been soundly rebutted.”

There will need to come a point where defense lawyers should start arguing that the reasoning in Bracy v. Gramley applies here as well, the presumption has also been rebutted here, and hence the government’s position should no longer be presumed to be correct in forfeiture cases of this type.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Going after Habitat for Humanity is cartoonishly evil, but also just profoundly stupid. Like who is that supposed to impress other than conspiracy-addled freaks who are too online and could easily be convinced it’s part of some leftist/globalist conspiracy or anti-social freaks who just genuinely hate good things. A lot of people of all political persuasions get involved with Habitat.

This will certainly backfire!

[Dr. Ed 2]

For a purported lawyer, this is a truly asinine statement.

Good organizations can and often do hire bad people. The Boy Scouts did...
Good organizations also go bad -- the ACLU did.
Some just lose their way -- I fear that the Maine Seacoast Mission has.

So unless you have seen an outside audit of Habitat for Humanity -- and I haven't-- you really ought not be as sure that there isn't any legitimate concern regarding them. I knew a LOT of people who never believed that the respected Scoutmasters were actually raping boys.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thank you for this. Sincerely. Nothing could prove my point better than this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You honestly believe that there aren't crooks that will rip off good people?

Forget cops, why do we need lawyers?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I believe you are a conspiracy-addled cynic who easily and constantly believes that people and institutions are constantly engaged in nefarious activities.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sometimes, people are quite sure of themselves, and people pushing back is deemed a result of ignorance and/or deceit.

People do have honest disagreements, sometimes a result of being wrong about something. Ideological conversations will have some emotion. One person responded to my disagreement in another thread as if it was some personal affront.

[Absaroka]

In the "why would recent US foreign policy change arm sales" department, Portugal drops plans to buy the F-35:

"Portugal ruled out replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president killing a potential lucrative arms deal"

[Ed Grinberg]

I'm confused. "Lucrative" for whom? Presumably, whichever private company manufactures the items in question. So, why should anyone besides that company's stockholders care?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Another Lefty shedding tears for the MIC...

From Sen. Pocahontas crying about the lack of Big Pharma profits in the Senate chambers, to this?

What a world we live in today.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Now do farmers and car companies!

[Sarcastr0]

No, foreign military sales are lucrative to the US government; it's not a contract between like Denmark and Boeing.

[Absaroka]

1)The employees at the Fort Worth factory that makes them.

2)American taxpayers that won't be amortizing the (substantial!) R&D costs with foreign sales.

[tylertusta]

Portugal drops plans to buy the F-35:

Portugal never planned to buy the F-35.

[Absaroka]

FWIW:

"Portugal has ignited a firestorm in Iberian skies with its recent confirmation of transitioning to the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet."

[tylertusta]

Like most things when it comes to big item procurement, an announcement of a selection from the Air Force or any other service branch is not a commitment to actually buy it.

We saw this with Germany and the Super Hornet 'plan' that was announced. At best it's a "we think we want it, but we need to talk to our government to actually approve the contract."

[Frank Drackman]

Like Toad in Steve’s 58’ Impala, man, what a waste of machinery!

[Dr. Ed 2]

In terms of Portugal's needs, as long as they can obtain parts for the F-16s, I am not sure it is a bad decision.

The F-16 is a capable aircraft, it lacks stealth but why would Portugal need stealth? They planing on bombing Spain?

[tylertusta]

If Portugal continues to fly the F-16s or another dated airframe, then they will be unable to contribute in an actual modern war.

[Bob from Ohio]

Joke is they won't be able to contribute in an actual modern war even if they buy a few.

[tylertusta]

If our goal is to get NATO countries to pull their weight, then them buying modern fighter jets to replace their older ones should be something we want.

[Davedave]

That isn't how it works. The whole point of the F-35, and what makes it so much better than anything else around, is its ability to act as a director and co-ordinator for other planes/weapons. You can use the F-16s to launch missiles to be directed to target by an F-35, for example. Or you can have the F-35 looking for anti-F-16-capable defences, and guiding the older planes through.

That said, the Portuguese air force is not a key NATO component. Portugal, a nation of about 10 million people, has 28 F16s. The USAF has about 850 still in service in various branches.

[tylertusta]

Actually, that's exactly how it works.

Older airframes have problems from being... well.. old. Service availability rates are correlated to airframe age and flying hours. There's only so much you can do to repair structural components that undergo g-forces, and only so much you can do to maintain systems when parts manufacturers stop making the parts. The Legacy Hornet (F/A-18A/B/C/D) has massive serviceability problems as the type winds down, and the F-16 will in turn have its own problems once LockMart stops making the type.

Many may have heard that the F-16 is rated for sustained 9g turns, but what most aren't aware of is that the airframe in turn is limited to certain g-loads for a total cumulative period of time, often in minutes or low digit hours. There are similar stress loads for lower g's as well, and airframes subjected to higher-than-approved g-loads are immediately inspected to see how much the airframe was worn down even if it's only for a split second.

This is why the US Navy retired their F-16Ns as aggressors so soon; the lighter F-16N airframes allowed instructors to constantly push the airframes to the maximum loads, but then the airplanes developed structural cracks and the type had to be retired after only a decade of service.

Every F-16 user is experiencing this (indeed, it's not anything unique to the F-16; it's a product of physics that every airframe will experience over time sooner or later)

Yes, the F-35 can talk to older NATO planes. However, that's a stopgap. NATO war planners would rather that they have more 5th gen fighters than less, and an air force that can't show up to a modern war besides being glorified cheerleaders might as well just stay home (just ask Luxembourg).

[Frank Drackman]

My daughter flys the “Viper” (nobody calls it the “Fighting Falcon”) it’s been improved quite a bit since its introduction, in a 1v1 Knife fight a good Viper driver will kill any enemy out there, and unlike the F-15C, can do the ground attack/close air support mission also

[tylertusta]

Additionally, I'm curious as to what Portugal thinks its going to do now. Instead of buying an American airplane that relies on US parts and support, they're going to buy.... what exactly?

Their only alternatives are all of the other planes rely on US parts and support, at least for the next three decades. That's a long time to be holding onto hangar queen airplanes built in the 90's.

I suppose they could buy from Russia or China, but they might as well just leave NATO at that point.

[ducksalad]

I don't think it'll be 30 years to have non-Chinese, non-Russian options for 5th generation planes. There are multiple projects already underway.

Whether they'll be competitive options isn't just a matter of technical specs. It's also stuff like whether they can trust the seller not to screw them at the critical moment on stuff like unlock codes or spare parts. Probably best not to buy from someone who openly thinks reneging on deals, even ones he made himself, is a brilliant and genius winner strategy.

[Davedave]

At the current rate of progress, the F-35 will be a generation by itself - unless the US builds something else that qualifies. Or, whatever comes along will be 5th gen while things have moved on and there are 6th gen fighters in the skies.

[tylertusta]

5th gen fighters will be the F-22 and F-35 on the high end, a mix of (probably) mediocre allied planes in the middle, and low-end 5th gen airplanes like the J-20 and Su-57.

[tylertusta]

Many of the non-Russian, non-Chinese 5th gen airplanes have integrations with US technology at some level which negates the advantages of going alone. As I said, there's no alternative to the F-35 that doesn't have significant reliance on the US and there won't be for decades.

Here's the list (it's pretty short):

The KF-21 from Korea uses the F414 engine, which is the engine from the Super Hornet.

The Turkish Kaan uses the F110 engine from the F-16 (Turkey wants to develop their own domestic engines but as the Chinese have shown, it's a multi-decade effort even if you have a large economy behind the effort).

India's 5th gen program is mired in delays and corruption (which is why they're going with the F-35).

The 6th gen programs out there are so theoretical that even their intended operational dates are just aspirational and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember when Biden was evil for wanting PayPal/Venmo transactions over $600 reported? Good times.

More than one million Americans are about to face a new level of financial surveillance. The Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced that the threshold for currency transaction reports has been lowered from $10,000 to $200 for Americans living in 30 zip codes in California and Texas.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Don't worry David, those 1M people will ALSO have their $600 venmo transfers reported since these are two different things.

I'm surprised you didn't catch that these were two different things when you were doing your comparison.

[David Nieporent]

In other words, like everything else about MAGA, the outrage about Biden was performative and fake.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Or, there are unique differences between the two that make them hard to compare?

I mean, that's what an intelligent person would conclude. But, then again, you're you and not really a member of that class of people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And they will be buried in reports -- an ATM will give you $400.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how Navy Fed lets you pick your Denomination composition, always pick the 100/50’s

[ducksalad]

Looked up the order; it covers a big swath of my county (Hidalgo, TX). Happened to miss the two bank branches I use, but covers quite a few ATM machines and casas de cambio that I've used before and will likely use again.

Note that, just like the $10000 limit, banks are being also asked to report transactions less than $200 if they think you picked a number under $200 to evade the limit. Thinking about the best response here.

Withdraw a year's worth of cash at one time, then I'm only in their records once?
Withdraw $201 over and over, just to load the FBI reports with useless crap?
Withdraw $199 over and over, just to see if FBI gets all hot and bothered about "structuring"?
Drive over to an ATM in Reynosa, withdraw $200, and drive back with it, all unreported, then tell the FBI just to make a point about how very futile and stupid this move is when it comes to shutting down cross-border trade?

[Bob from Ohio]

Or just do whatever you are doing now and don't let it bother you.

[ducksalad]

Have you always been OK with the government moving toward eliminating cash and making every transaction trackable, or is this another thing you changed your mind on recently?

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't change how I live my life just because there is an annoying regulation. Wasting time going around to a bunch of banks for no reason. Trust me, the FBI won't care no matter what option you choose because its FinCen, not the FBI. getting the reports.

[ducksalad]

Oh, I don't intend to reorganize my life around this. I was planning to visit an ATM on the way home and will still do so.

But if there's an easy, fun and legal way to inflict some unintended consequences on the regulators, why not?

[Armchair]

"But if there's an easy, fun and legal way to inflict some unintended consequences on the regulators, why not?"

Because...
1. You look like a dick
2. It helps muddle the waters for the drug dealers who are looking to clean up their dirty money.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd rather just relegalize the freaking drugs, and go back to being a free country.

[David Nieporent]

2. It helps muddle the waters for the drug dealers who are looking to clean up their dirty money.

And?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I have never been Ok with eliminating cash. Nobody should be ok with that.

[Armchair]

Nierporent is mixing and matching a couple items...as to make it seem much worse than it is.

Biden's original plan was to lower the reporting threshold for IRS 1099-K's to $600. This represented a massive burden on every normal law-abiding American. If you sold an old (but expensive) bike on Facebook marketplace, suddenly there would be a reporting requirement. If you paid back your friend for concert tickets...reporting requirement. Etc. Etc.

This current requirement is very different. It applies soley to money service businesses (Ie, check cashing places). The individual never needs to file anything, and may never even know. It's designed to catch drug smuggling and "dirty money" that has been trying to break up their cash into smaller increments. For law-abiding Americans...they'll never interact with it at all, in any meaningful way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, until the government finds some interesting use for the information, anyway.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone catch the photos of the Lunar Eclipse from the moon lander? Amazing! Oh man, I'm going, that's all there is to it, I'm fucking going.

[tylertusta]

Senator Schumer just got the kiss of death:

Trump lauds Schumer's 'guts' in backing bill to avoid shutdown

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Pi Day!

[Bwaaah]

Probably the only constant I've memorized to 4 decimal places. Happy Pi Day. (Is that a Lent-exempt comment?)

[Frank Drackman]

3.1416? It’s right up there with RU16YET, and OU812

[ducksalad]

Until there's an executive order changing the value.

[Stella Link the dog]

I recently stumbled upon this amusing video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1bX1UbCSs&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder

Sometimes when I'm watching youtube videos of old blues guys in the middle of the night youtube feeds me something completely off the wall. I wonder how they knew I would find it amusing. Perhaps they are tracking my cash expenditures.

[Magister]

That's pretty good. I had an in person team meeting with coworkers today and we met at a restaurant that did not have pie. I left early and came home and had a piece of pie.

[ducksalad]

Thanks. That video actually made a subtle point about real analysis, limits, and did it very concisely.

[Don Nico]

Sabine is quite interesting. I have started to watch her on a frequent basis.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

How do you Liberals save the planet?

- Taking a 9 SUV caravan two blocks to your speaking engagement on saving the planet. Check.
- Having a global climate conference in Bali and everyone flying there. Check.
- Clear cutting 10,000 acres of Amazonian rainforest so you can have a nice highway to your COP30 Climate summit. Check Check!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vy191rgn1o

Climate Change is totally real folks. That's why the Warmmongers are cutting down 10,000 acres of Amazonian Rainforest to talk about it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another Two Bite The Dust:

https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/second-anti-israel-columbia-protester-leqaa-kordia-arrested-by-homeland-security-for-immigration-violations/

Yes I am enjoying this...

[tylertusta]

Fled to Canada. Heh.

[Commenter_XY]

Lequaa Kordia, the hamas harpy, get her ass arrested yesterday.

Ranjani Srinivasan, a national from India, used the CBP Home App to self-deport herself to Canada. 🙂

SecState Rubio has promised nationwide arrests of foreign hamas homies and hamas harpy's. They can cheer hamas from wherever they came from.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now they are talking terrorism charges...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-investigating-bringing-terrorism-192457639.html

[damikesc]

Even better --- Rubio kicked South Africa's ambassador out of the country as persona non grata after a racist attack on Trump.

We should go ahead and pull our ambassador from S. Africa as well. They have reverted back to pure racism as government policy.

[Estragon]

That’s a pretty sad admission, honestly. I hope you can find meaning and fulfillment in your life from something that doesn’t involve the misfortune of others.

[Magister]

Did you just meet Dr. Ed 2?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Try 30 years of watching them enjoy undeserved wine and roses while I had to work 3 times as hard just because I was an American.

So yes, I am enjoying this. The schmucks are getting what they deserve, and the word is schadenfreude.

[Estragon]

Quite sad. I wonder if in your quietest, most self reflective moments, you can acknowledge to yourself that taking delight in the misery of strangers is no way to go through life.

[Magister]

Well, that would be nice, but "self reflective moment" and "Dr. Ed 2" are never going to come together. He will continue to blame his failures on other people out of racism, misogyny or some other right wing hatred of the day, rather than his own incompetence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Somebody filed a lawsuit against Nancy Mace for defaming him from the House floor. Sounds like there will be Speech and Debate clause issues.

Defamation is an exception to the First Amendment. So far courts have interpreted the speech and debate clause protection more broadly than the 1A, but there's not reason they have to.

[Frank Drackman]

Love Nancy M, trying to set her up with my oldest daughter, you know she’s Marine Corpse, Nancy went to Citadel, her district has Paris Island/Beaufort MCAS (does it? I hope so), “Developing”

Frank

[Martinned2]

Yes there is. The right of MPs and Peers to defame whoever they liked without being answerable to anyone outside of Parliament has always been an undoubted aspect of art 9 of the Bill of Rights. It would be very odd if the equivalent US rule didn’t have the same reach.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, this is art 1:

the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

[not guilty]

The complaint against Rep. Mace is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.scd.301457/gov.uscourts.scd.301457.1.0.pdfTh

The communications at issue go well beyond the immunity conferred by the Speech or Debate clause. See, Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 127-129 (1979). Rep. Mace's posts on social media, for instance, are well beyond the ambit of such immunity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What will get her into trouble are the comments she made outside of the House Chamber, to the extent she may have "published" her speech outside of the protected chamber.

She also might be in violation of ethics rules in that she is using her seat in Congress to her personal benefit in getting her ex husband investigated for a crime that the state (apparently) otherwise wasn't going to investigate him for.

This could get interesting.

[A Japanese Student]

Assuming the congresswoman is not liable, I wonder if there are other ways to seek damages.

In Japan, the Government could be held liable for defamation by its officers (including legislators), though a precedent limits its applicability on speech made in the Diet. (https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=368) Because individual officers and employees are held harmless under State Redress Act, the Court declined to consider Speech and Debate Clause.

[David Nieporent]

In Japan, the Government could be held liable for defamation by its officers (including legislators),

The federal government has not waived sovereign immunity for defamation claims, so that is not an option here.

[Brett Bellmore]

FBI investigating fake ‘SWAT’ calls against conservative media figure

And he's not the only one in the last day. Apparently there's a massive, organized SWATing campaign going on, trying to get conservative figures killed.

On top of vandalism of, well, basically anything associated with Musk and Trump. (An idiot just attempted to burn down a Tesla charging station here in SC with Molotov cocktails, but being an idiot, burned himself down, instead.)

Yeah, I think we're going to see a big uptick in domestic terrorism this year, the left simply can't cope with being out of power.

[ducksalad]

The SWATting could be domestic terrorists.

On the hand: (1) the "conservative media figures" in this case are obscure nobodies who crave attention, (2) I can't see why any domestic terrorist would bother with (or even know about) them when there are dozens of better mid-range targets to go after, and (3) the pattern so far is that every time, no one actually gets shot.

So a fair and just default assumption is that they're Jussies until proven otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes you have to presume the possibility of hoaxes much as you do with racial slurs written on things -- sometimes it happens.

HOWEVER the better targets have security so swatting them won't work, cops and security are in contact with each other.

[Sarcastr0]

I think we're going to see a big uptick in domestic terrorism this year, the left simply can't cope with being out of power.

You were mocked when you predicted pre-inauguration violence from the left, and you have doubled down.

Now it's every story is a sign of Civil War 2.

You're becoming Dr. Ed. Seems a bad trajectory.

Also:
https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups
"the probability of a violent act of extremism in the United States being committed by a left-wing extremist was found to be 0.33, 0.61 by a right-wing extremist, and 0.62 by an Islamist extremist."

The President is calling newspapers criminal and you're all 'the left are CRAAAZY.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the bullshyte that is based on.
Not actual statistics of violence.

"Much of this research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence. In comparison to left-wing supporters, right-wing individuals are more often characterized by closed-mindedness and dogmatism (9) and a heightened need for order, structure, and cognitive closure (5). Because such characteristics have been found to increase in-group bias and lead to greater out-group hostility (10), violence for a cause may be more likely among proponents of right-wing ideologies. In contrast, in comparison to their right-wing counterparts, left-wing individuals score higher on openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, and tolerance of uncertainty (5). They are also less likely to support social dominance (11), which could lead to their overall lower likelihood to use violence against adversaries. In line with this reasoning, some studies have demonstrated an empathy gap between liberal and conservative individuals (12). Finally, according to various conceptualizations and operationalizations of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; 13–15), aggressive tendencies constitute an inherent component of this construct, with people high in RWA being more hostile toward others who violate norms than those low in RWA"

[Don Nico]

"Civil War 2"
That is what Mad Maxine Waters was ranting about today. You can find her insanite on YouTube.

[ducksalad]

Some quotes from the president today, giving a speech to his subordinates at the DoJ:

“It's very sad what they do to the Supreme Court and all of a lot of the judges that I had, if you look at them, they take tremendous abuse in the New York Times and The Washington Post, all of the different networks. They take such abuse. And honestly, they're very simply, they're afraid of bad publicity. They don't want bad publicity. And it's truly interference in my opinion, and it should be illegal, and it probably is illegal in some form,” he said.

“They're not legitimate people. They're horrible people, they're scum. And you have to know that ... And I believe that CNN and [MSNBC] who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they're really corrupt and they're illegal. What they do is illegal,” he said.

“these networks and these newspapers” were “really no different than a highly paid political operative.” “It has to stop. It has to be illegal. It’s influencing law ... and it just cannot be legal — I don't believe it's legal, and they do it in total coordination with each other.”

[Martinned2]

That sounds like exactly the person who should have unconstrained power over the US government.

[Paladin_44]

Yes, as MAGA nods its agreement...
To the barricades, I say!

[Davedave]

I like the way you think your cover is strong enough you can say things you mean, and hope they'll sound like you intend them to be ironic.

[David Nieporent]

Are you on drugs?

[Davedave]

You're saying you think Martin wouldn't approve of Trump, because he's insufficiently committed to finishing what Hitler started, like Martin wants?

I'm fairly sure that as a suit-Nazi - which he accidentally outed himself as several times on here; why do you think he mostly stopped posting under that name? - Martin is in favour of any sort of fash taking power.

[David Nieporent]

No, I'm saying you're on drugs.

I'm fairly sure that as a suit-Nazi - which he accidentally outed himself as several times on here; why do you think he mostly stopped posting under that name? - Martin is in favour of any sort of fash taking power.

What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

[Davedave]

Sorry, are you suggesting that you were unaware that a Holocaust-denigrating, wir mussen die Juden ausraten suit-Nazi is a genocidal white-supremacist maniac who makes no more than a flimsy pretence otherwise?

And you think _I'm_ on drugs? Baffling.

[Sarcastr0]

...This is getting less and less coherent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Martinned is a fairly nauseating Jew-hater and his antisemitism is, in my view, more dangerous than most of the psychos on here because he presents as normal enough that people might actually listen to him.

That said, I have no clue what the fuck you’re trying to say.

[David Nieporent]

Martinned is a fairly nauseating Jew-hater and his antisemitism is, in my view, more dangerous than most of the psychos on here because he presents as normal enough that people might actually listen to him.

In what way is he a "Jew hater"?

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, are you suggesting that you were unaware that a Holocaust-denigrating, wir mussen die Juden ausraten suit-Nazi is a genocidal white-supremacist maniac who makes no more than a flimsy pretence otherwise?

And you think _I'm_ on drugs? Baffling.

It could be mental illness rather than drugs. Schizophrenia, for instance, can cause one to have auditory hallucinations. That would also explain your posts on this subject.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More the Count of Monte Cristo

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sounds like a developing emergency need to put Justice Department personnel on notice they will be held accountable if they commit crimes ordered by their immunized boss.

[David Nieporent]

Trump can just pardon them.

[Magister]

But would he pardon them? They shouldn't count on it. He didn't pardon his January 6th insurrectionists until four years later, when he could have pardoned them in the two weeks after his and their crimes.

[Absaroka]

Yikes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The quotes provided above of Trump at "his" Justice Department underlines the constitutional crisis we are involved in.

A constitutional crisis includes a branch of government not being checked. Republicans control Congress & have the power to push back. And, no, not allowing Matt Gaetz to become AG doesn't do it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't know why people say Trump is "adept" at publicity or at messaging. He always gives the same speech, full of grievances, oblivious to the setting or the effect of his remarks or the feelings of the people he is addressing. As Obama put it, when asked in 2017 why Trump hadn't "grown into" the job of President, "he hasn't because he can't".

[Armchair]

"A constitutional crisis includes a branch of government not being checked."

So....when Obamacare was passed, that was a Constitutional Crisis? And when Biden passed his Lotta-more inflation act....that was a Constitutional Critis?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a serious response.

[Armchair]

No? I just heard that when a President takes an action, and Congress supports him, it is a branch of government being unchecked.....

[Sarcastr0]

You can't help it, but you remain unserious.

Hush now; adults are talking.

[Commenter_XY]

What an interesting conversation the adults had on 11/6.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that was a perfectly serious response. It's not a constitutional crisis when two branches of government happen to agree with each other about policy.

[Sarcastr0]

Same unserious nonsense as Armchair,

If you aren’t going to acknowledge the dynamics here, what’s the point?

[Brett Bellmore]

The dynamic is that Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, so that Congress is not inclined to block administration policy. "A constitutional crisis" ≠ "unified government".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Did that sound sensible in your head?

A government featuring majorities unified against continuation of American Constitutionalism would be the ultimate constitutional crisis. This nation is struggling right now to clarify whether that is happening.

If it is happening, the next critical question will be to determine whether the status of government is a match to the will of the jointly sovereign People.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do I have to draw you a Venn diagram?

A government featuring majorities united against continuation of American constitutionalism WOULD be a constitutional crisis. Wake me when one shows up.

All you've got now is a government majority united against continuing the status quo right over a cliff. People whose whole lives and livelihoods are the status quo, and who consequently blind themselves to that cliff, are naturally upset.

But their hysteria over the status quo ending is not a constitutional crisis.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Q.E.D.

[Brett Bellmore]

That usually follows a presentation of reasoning, you know.

[Commenter_XY]

Correct, it is not a crisis, Brett. The crisis part comes in with the performative theatrics, lol. For them, anything OrangeManBad does is a crisis of existential proportions.

I think they named it Blue Sky Syndrome. 😉

[ThePublius]

"Not a serious response" and "unserious" has become a liberal trope, just like "without evidence," here on the VK. It's funny that it's really unserious to say someone's comment is unserious! What does that even mean? It's the equivalent of name calling. If you care to refute someone's statement, do so with substance, please.

On this particular topic, I think the cries of constitutional crisis are nonsense. There's nothing that Trump or the congress are doing that even comes close to a constitutional crisis. You know what's a constitutional crisis? Having a senile, demented president whose staff was issuing executive orders, signing them with the autopen. He couldn't even recall signing some of these EOs. I wouldn't be surprised if he can't recall signing most, perhaps all of them. We should have a regulation that things signed by the president be recorded and witnessed.

Yea, add 'constitutional crisis' to 'unserious,' 'without evidence,' 'threat to democracy,' and all of those other stupid Democrat party tropes. (Yes, I said 'Democrat party' intentionally.)

[Sarcastr0]

Man calling for leftists to be 'delt with' demands to be taken seriously.

[ThePublius]

Yea, leftists who shoot up Tesla dealerships, and toss Molotov cocktails; I guess that's O.K. with you, though.

p.s. those things really did happen, last week!

[Sarcastr0]

"The left is a bunch of violent vandals who must be dealt with - quickly and harshly, I hope. "

You don't have the moral high ground because you don't swear, asshole.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think he's claiming he has the moral high ground because he doesn't shoot up Telsa dealerships and toss Molotov cocktails. Which to be fair at the very least doesn't put you on the lowest ground.

Maybe get a LITTLE more upset about your ideological allies starting to engage in terrorism, and only a couple months into the new administration? At this rate, what will they be doing by this fall?

[loki13]

I really tried to give the new administration a chance.

It was worse than I thought. Oh well. Time passes with this administration so slow. So .... so .... slow.

[Commenter_XY]

Have not seen you in a while. Hope you are well. Any good hiking? Mangoes ok? 🙂

[Bwaaah]

Glad to see you still exist. I hope you are well. (I was quite aware of your absence.)

You will find no comfort here. No matter what the administration does, this is a place to cheer it on. "All your excesses of power are belong to us now."

The storytelling from our "leaders" became so thin, so goal-motivated, so long ago that the people became deadened to all of it. Now as they hear stories of their "system" being dismantled, the "defenders" of the system don't even know if they're supposed to defend it, for doing so could possibly help The Other Guys in some way. And that's what the stories really became about: opposing The Other Guys.

At the heart of it all, it's all just stories. Amiright?

No. But that won't feel true until we all smack against the floor.

Out of the rubble will rise a sober voice that admits too all of the issues, not just some of them. And there will be some modesty about what, as a country, we can accomplish. Remember modesty? (It was the kind of feeling you might have if, for example, you believed in god, or, for example, understood the depth of your own fallibility.)

[Sarcastr0]

No matter what the administration does, this is a place to cheer it on.

Seems more like a place for you to rationalize why it's OK for Trump to be a king.

Out of the rubble will rise a sober voice that admits too all of the issues, not just some of them.
This is not historically what ever happens.

[Bwaaah]

"This is not historically what ever happens."

No shit. For most of history, nothing changes. And then, it does, unexpectedly.

You somehow imagine things getting better by basically staying the same? You are incapable of admitting that you are on a fiscally sinking ship. And despite a precipitously declining state of affairs, all you ever really pine for is the status quo. You study it. You recite it. You *are* it. And yet it's leaving you behind whether you like it or not. (Even the status quo isn't forever.)

But to your point: this probably won't unfold the way I've theorized here. I'm not at all confident of my theory. What is your theory, Sarc?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — You offer an entertainingly dynamic take on complacency. What makes you think that is wise?

[Bwaaah]

I don't know if it's wise. I believe the status quo is surely unwise. I don't mean that as an abstract generalization. I believe the U.S. Government's ballooning debt, given its current trajectory and lack of effort at correction, is very likely to become a big problem over the next few years. Standing still is a sure [big] mistake, in my view.

[Mr. Bumble]

As noted up-thread, yesterday was Pi Day.
Seems it was also "Steak and BJ Day".
https://www.holidayscalendar.com/event/steak-and-bj-day/
Also, the date of Karl Marx death.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes....

Swallow, #$&%@...

[hobie]

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

[Bwaaah]

"And that's when they realized: the creatures are even stupider than us."

[Commenter_XY]

Five years ago, the country shut down b/c of Covid, and we lost many of our individual civil liberties b/c of government actions during the pandemic. We should never, ever forget that.

A lot changed in America as a result of the pandemic.

[hobie]

I was in Portugal at the time. No one there (except maybe the English) were whiny little bitches about it. Everyone followed the rules. Consequently, we re-opened in no time. Watching big old mask-hating patriot American rednecks throwing tantrums in supermarkets was also highly amusing

[Dan Schiavetta]

hobie

Well put. America (much of it) became like its President, a whiny kid who refuses to eat his vegetables, wear a seat belt, or do his homework.

[hobie]

What these hillbillies fail to realize is that their own selfpreoccupation over others' was a big contributor in dragging it all out

[Stephen Lathrop]

hobie — That is the story of right-wing resistance to everything. For instance, the notion never dawns that if you want an end to racial unrest, attempts to suppress unrest prolong injustice, and keep unrest perpetual. Sure, drive down black enrollment in elite colleges and universities. Domestic tranquillity assured. Next up, speech suppression on campus. Still more tranquillity, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The only one who was punished was Charlie Baker who had national aspirations -- and wouldn't have been re-nominated.

What changed in America was the government becoming the enemy.
This is why so many of us cheer DOGE's wholesale firings, etc.

[John F. Carr]

The good part of Governor's Baker emergency order was the prohibition on stricter orders from local governments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bull... He could have said "no"...

https://howiecarrshow.com/grim-milestone-we-wont-soon-forget/

[John F. Carr]

The Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts State Representative Jeffrey Roy had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist who had bills before his committee. In response Mr. Roy accused the Globe of using illegally obtained documents, specifically his wife's divorce filing. That earned him an additional story explaining why it is legal to go to a courthouse, get a publicly available document, and use it in reporting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/14/metro/jeffrey-roy-lobbyist-jennifer-crawford-boston-globe/

Under state ethics rules politicians are supposed to disclose when they are sleeping with lobbyists. He did so after his wife filed for divorce. He was supposed to do it four years earlier when the affair started. When his wife says the affair started. Based on the Globe's reporting I believe her over him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't the Globe's editor live in a glass house regarding such things?

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2018-05-24/updated-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-boston-globe-sexual-harassment-story-wgbh

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trannie news in Maine.
https://mainecampus.com/category/news/2025/03/umaine-student-body-soundly-rejects-tpusa-advocate-at-high-turn-out-protest/

This is the same university where Jack Kennedy could give a speech outlining his foreign policy including Vietnam in October of 1963.

It, like the state, has gone to hell....

[ThePublius]

I always thought of the population of Maine as being fiercely conservative, and mostly Republican. I guess I was wrong. Who is voting for these idiots they keep putting in charge? Or maybe that's it, maybe it's not who's voting for them, it's who's counting the votes. Ranked choice voting is a recent enhancement to this.

[David Nieporent]

I always thought of the population of Maine as being fiercely conservative, and mostly Republican. I guess I was wrong.

Maybe your confusion stems from the fact that you mistakenly think that today's Republican Party is conservative, when it is actually Jacobin in nature.

[ThePublius]

Jacobin is not a particularly useful description of any party, since it has meaning across the entire spectrum of political thought. It's ambiguous. I'm sure there's some negative, totalitarian bit that you're thinking of when you use the term, but note it also refers to socialist and social democrats.

[Sarcastr0]

"The Jacobin philosophy [is] complete dismantling of an old system, with completely radical and new structure"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(politics)

The shoe fits, TP.

[David Nieporent]

This. In other words, these people are literally the 180° of conservatives. Edmund Burke would be punching them in the face if he were alive. They just want to burn everything down and start at Year One.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was -- before everyone moved in from Massachusetts.
Maine changed circa 1972.

The last actual Republican was Margaret Chase Smith.

[David Nieporent]

Who are you kidding? If you were alive then you'd have been calling her a RINO for denouncing McCarthy.

[Bwaaah]

Nancy and Chuck disagree!

If you thought that Republicans running in every direction like stray cats betray any sense of order, consider that Democrats trying to speak from one script defy any sense of humanity. (Unless you define "humanity" as kind words and promised monies for all human ills.)

My opinion: everybody should be looking down and seeking solid connections between their feet and the earth.

[Hugh]

86 47

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Anti-DEI goes after history ...

https://kevinmlevin.substack.com/p/the-history-of-arlington-national

https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/03/14/arlington-cemetary-website-removes-links-black-women-veterans/

[Sarcastr0]

And instead? Juche type shit.

Proposed Oklahoma social studies standards suggest ‘discrepancies’ in 2020 election
https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/03/13/proposed-oklahoma-social-studies-standards-suggest-discrepancies-in-2020-election/

[ThePublius]

That's interesting. From the linked article:

"Walters said Thursday the standards “are not set up to either support or negate a specific outcome in the 2020 Presidential Election.”

“Our standards are designed to teach students how to investigate and calculate the specific details surrounding that (or any) election,” he said in a statement. “In order to oppose or support the outcome, a well rounded student should be able to make their own conclusions using publicly available data and details.”"

I would consider it 'Juche type shit' to require teaching that there were no irregularities in the 2020 election, that everything went off normal and above board.

[Sarcastr0]

"The new proposal, which Oklahoma Voice obtained, would require that high school students “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results” including “sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends.”"

No denying that, fucko.

[ThePublius]

Nice, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[Sarcastr0]

No response to the substance, ya purge-loving cocksucker?

[ThePublius]

This is interesting. A couple of open threads ago someone told me about Yancy Derringer, the character and TV show of the same name from 1958-1959. I found it for free on Youtube and have watched a couple of episodes so far. I think it was rather well done, and interesting in a couple of ways. The occasional love interest of the Yancy Derringer character is Madame Francine, who runs the local casino. She is played by Frances Bergen, wife of Edgar Bergen and mother of Candice Bergen. She was a remarkably beautiful woman. Yancy's 'sidekick' is a native American named Kahoo-Ka-Ta-Wah - 'wolf who stands in water.' He is played by a German actor named X Brands. Interesting story behind his name. The character only communicates via sign language, which, it turns out, was the lingua franca of native American tribes at the time (about 1868). I think there are also bits of Pawnee language from Yancy; Pawnee language is dying out, unfortunately.

So, very interesting show, nice, light entertainment, for free, with interesting historical aspects.

Thanks to whoever it was who suggested it.

[ThePublius]

Ah, found it, it was Mr. Bumble. Thank you!

[Bwaaah]

Barack Obama: "We will not just be waiting for legislation...I've got a pen, and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward"

Joe Biden regarding his administration's $400 billion loan forgiveness program: "Congress gave us the authority to modify loans. [Unsaid: It doesn't matter what Congress meant by that.]"

I won't quote Trump, because he has always known and expressed no limits on his executive authority.

Observably, the authority of the President of the United States is only limited by the popular will of the people, and [thus far] the courts. The courts tend to be pretty slow. And the people have been expressing feelings of contempt for the courts in recent years. It's unclear how much patience they have left for the courts.

And the people...what of the people? "Another day, another crisis, like every day I can remember. Anyway, I have to go food shopping."

It became a bullshit system when half the people resigned themselves to the [false] belief that the other half had co-opted it for evil purposes. (This is the message of the two Parties.) It doesn't matter anymore to figure out when it became unhinged. What matters is dispelling any remaining illusion that it's not unhinged. That rule book in your back pocket, for instance, long ago lost widespread shared understanding and consensual endorsement of the people.

The republic has lifted off the ground. All our screams are repetitious and tiresome. Republics, systems, don't have ears. (And partisans don't have sympathy.)

When we lost our faith in half our fellow countrymen, what did we think we had left [in common] to stand on? All wisdom aside, it remains to be seen what could be so genuinely calamitous as to put enough us back on the same side. I wait to see, and hope it comes sooner rather than later, especially before my own demise.

[David Nieporent]

More Putin-cocksucking by Trump: he's shutting down Voice of America. "America Last" once again for Trump.

[ThePublius]

Nice language.

[santamonica811]

But, alas, accurate. 🙁

[Bwaaah]

How is getting rid of VOA so helpful to Putin?

[David Nieporent]

Voice of America, like USAID, is about diplomacy. It's about selling the U.S. and its values and vision around the world. Making the U.S. less popular is good for our enemies.

(Though of course Putin is Trump's boss, not his enemy; Trump views allied countries as our enemies.)

[Bwaaah]

You gotta be kidding me. Who do you think listens to VOA, and why? Between the White House's press communications and major American news outlets, you can get stories from various points of view. And if you want the kind of plain vanilla reporting VOA put out, BBC and CBC do pretty representative takes of the same.

Reality check: VOA has a very small audience, here and everywhere else. You know that. And yet, it's suddenly indispensable under what real theory? Gimme a break. That's the color of TDS there. That's what it is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't that word what the Reverend got booted for?

[David Nieporent]

And meanwhile, the president who supposedly is so desperate for peace is bombing Yemen.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-launches-strikes-against-yemens-houthis-warns-iran-2025-03-15/

[ThePublius]

And how would you deal with the Houthis?

[David Nieporent]

Do you mean, how would I deal with them if I believed that the U.S. was the leader of the free world and had a key role to play in protecting the liberal international order and defending our allies and their interests? Or do you mean, how would I deal with them if I routinely bragged about being anti-war and thought that nothing that happened outside our borders affected us and that we should be closed off to trade, immigration, and world affairs because the latter constituted putting our country first, and that only Jews globalists wanted war?

Because the answer is kinda different in those two contexts.

[ThePublius]

It's not inconsistent to be opposed to war and also supportive of defense.

[Sarcastr0]

Yemen gonna invade?

[ThePublius]

Were the Barbary pirates going to invade the United States?

I swear, Sarcastr0, it's like you're just looking for ways to counter and disagree with me. You are being quite nonsensically contrary.

The Houthis have bottled up shipping and have attacked Israel and many ships, including U.S. Navy ships. The Houthis oppose the Yemeni government. We are not striking Yemen, we are striking the Houthis. If we can put an end to their aggression we will do the world a favor. I don't know how you can rationally object to that.

[Commenter_XY]

A legitimate response to direct attacks on USN ships, David.

[David Nieporent]

And meanwhile, Trump has now invented an entirely new constitution which has a clause that says "The president has power to do anything he wants in the name of national security."

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lkgwrbtfw22c

Holy crap. The DOJ is arguing that the President can unilaterally deport anyone he wants without ANY statutory authority, just on his inherent authority as President over national security.

That is a terrifying claim to make and not one that has ever been recognized before in US history.

Cue Riva ranting and raving about judges.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think some people here are the sort of people who feed Gremlins after midnight after getting them wet while a bright light shines on them. They might call them names while doing so.

[ThePublius]

"A miracle has happened. The NY Times ran an oped acknowledging not only that the covid virus likely originated in a lab, but that government officials and scientists conspired to keep the substantiating evidence secret. The lab leak theory was censored on social media because of "pressure from the administration ... we shouldn't have done it.""

https://x.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1901254899008205026?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1901254899008205026%7Ctwgr%5E725840a4c1d5bccabc3a383aedc2ec071acc1024%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Famy-curtis%2F2025%2F03%2F16%2Fnyt-admits-covid-came-from-lab-with-passive-voice-headline-we-were-misled-n2409903

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html

[ThePublius]

And now for something completely different.

I bought a cowboy hat. I have many fine hats, mostly vintage fedoras, but I always wanted a nice cowboy hat, especially since now, joining a local shooting club, I may be participating in cowboy action shooting events.

It's weird, there apparently used to be a pretty standardized grading system for felt cowboy hats, a number of X's, with 10X being the highest, meaning it was made of 100% beaver fur felt. Lesser grades had rabbit fur blended in, and at the lowest end, no beaver fur at all. But in recent times manufacturers have strayed from a standard, and use their own grading system, but still using X's, even going to 1000X (which will be a hat costing $3K or more).

I bought a 6X Resistol, which is 100% European rabbit fur felt. It's made in the same factory as Stetson, in Garland, Texas.

From wikipedia:
""Based in Garland, Resistol sells about a million cowboy hats a year, ranging in price from $15 for a straw workingman's special to $3000 for a beaver-and-ermine number. The cowboy hat may be the single most resonant throwback to the glory days of the open range, the one thing that most says "Texas" to the rest of the world."

Among the celebrities who have worn a Resistol are actors John Wayne and Henry Fonda; country singer George Strait; United States Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan;[3] and legendary Dallas Cowboys' coach Tom Landry, who wore the company's trademark dress hats. Also, the Texas Department of Public Safety troopers wear Resistol hats as part of their uniform. These are made in a custom color called Textan.[2]"

There are Youtube videos of the hat making process that I find really interesting.

My 6X lists for $340, but I got if for $255 with free shipping. It's a Midnight Silverbelly, silverbelly being the color, and has a cattleman crown, meaning a relatively high crown with the traditional double crease.

Apparently pure beaver fur is better for rain and dirt resistance, and a nicer, stiffer feel. Oh, well. I can't spend $3k on a hat right now!

Anyone else into or wear a cowboy hat? I know it's unusual in New England, but I don't care. I'm sure if I got into country line dancing, or country music concerts I'd fit right in. 🙂