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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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

[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

[myself]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The seal was a ring.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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."

[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.'

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Commenter_XY]

I did not say INA defines rights, David, I said INA describes the limitation on rights of aliens.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So now you're a "rule of law guy"...

[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.

[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."

[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?

[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]

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?)

[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...