Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

The DOGE/MAGA Party is engaged in an attempt to close multiple government departments without Congressional authorization to do it. Given that, in instances of mass staff reductions, it is a mistake to bring lawsuits on any basis except a direct challenge against the administration's power to close an agency or program such as Social Security without prior Congressional authorization. That should be the leading question in every lawsuit regarding staff reductions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Given that, in instances of mass staff reductions, it is a mistake to bring lawsuits on any basis except a direct challenge against the administration's power to close an agency or program such as Social Security without prior Congressional authorization. That should be the leading question in every lawsuit regarding staff reductions.

What about the ones that don’t involve the administration doing that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

At this point, there is convincing predicate in public discourse to support a presumption of intent to liquidate government agencies. Let that be rebuttable by per-person showings that individuals fired have been fired for documented causes particularized to their own cases.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, I guess it’s good for the fired employees that you’re not a lawyer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Care to try for substantive reply?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’ve replied as substantively as your original comment warranted. Many-—at this point, probably most—of the personnel action cases don’t plausibly implicate the issue of “clos[ing] an agency or program such as Social Security without prior Congressional authorization.” Making that “the leading question” in those case, much less suggesting that there is a judicially-cognizable “presumption of intent to liquidate government agencies” due to “public discourse” is a good way to lose those cases.

[Kazinski]

I don't know, seems to me there's about half a dozen judges in DC that are all in on the Lathrop doctrine: TROs, universal injunctions, worldwide jurisdiction.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Thank you for at least trying.

Given the predicate public statements of Musk and Trump, I find this unpersuasive:

Many-—at this point, probably most—of the personnel action cases don’t plausibly implicate the issue of “clos[ing] an agency or program such as Social Security without prior Congressional authorization.

That strikes me as obtuse, even laughable. But it does not mean I would not expect at least some courts to rule as you suggest.

It does mean if the courts will do that, then they will deny both plaintiffs, and the American people, the protection of judicial nostrums such as "elephants in mouse holes," and the all-important, "Major Questions Doctrine." If courts intend to rule that way, instead of standing as bulwarks against publicly announced raids on separation of powers, the power of the purse, and American constitutionalism generally, then an emergency need exists for the people to learn that now.

There is not time to wait until the Medicaid system is crippled, the VA hospitals are incapable to deliver care, Social Security checks stop arriving, and disastrous storms routinely arrive unannounced. After that happens, it will be too late for citizens to do anything but capitulate, and concede we had a republic, but could not keep it.

[Commenter_XY]

That is quite the Parade of Horribles, none of which will happen = the Medicaid system is crippled, the VA hospitals are incapable to deliver care, Social Security checks stop arriving

I just want to point out that disastrous storms routinely arrive unannounced is called the weather.

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

If the storms were polite, they wouldn't show up unannounced, but then the Lathrop's of the world wouldn't remained terrified and compliant.

[David Nieporent]

I just want to point out that disastrous storms routinely arrive unannounced is called the weather.

At least until recently, we had weather forecasting.

[Life of Brian]

Fascinating. I just checked a wide variety of weather forecasting tools -- including https://www.weather.gov/ and https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ -- and somewhat shockingly everything is up and operational.

Something in particular not working for you?

[Don Nico]

We still do David. We still do.

[Malika]

"everything is up and operational.*"

Awaiting Trump's sharpie!

*there he is!

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "At least until recently, we had weather forecasting."

Are you saying that if the government does less weather forecasting, then weather forecasting isn't done at all?

No. Wait. You're not saying that. You're just a TDS sufferer who can't help himself, and who reflexively writes nonsense like that.

Think before you press Submit, David. Think.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s making a joke about Trump cutting weather forecasters (of all things). How far on the spectrum are you people?

[David Nieporent]

Making that “the leading question” in those case, much less suggesting that there is a judicially-cognizable “presumption of intent to liquidate government agencies” due to “public discourse” is a good way to lose those cases.

Yes, and even if such an intent could be established, most prospective plaintiffs would not have standing to challenge it anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is why MAGA/DOGE needs to directly confront the legitimacy and power of the legal profession.

We need to challenge the legitimacy and dictatorial powers of these fascist judges -- they are a direct threat to our liberties. It is a new priesthood that is no more legitimate that the old one.

[Reallynotbob]

The refs are a direct threat to my team, which is having difficulty winning games without breaking the rules. Fascists.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed hates the constitution. Shocker.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Isn't the "such as Social Security" just the usual partisan scare story?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — No. DOGE/Trump is not normal.

[Riva]

Let’s rephrase that in a less insane way. The head of the executive branch is using his constitutional authority to manage the executive branch. About time these departments/agencies understood they weren’t separate and independent branches of government.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Congress creates them, he is supposed to manage them faithfully, not destroy them, isn't he?

[Riva]

The President manages the executive branch, not the federal courts.

[David Nieporent]

The president manages the executive branch according to the laws passed by congress and interpreted by the courts, not according to his own personal whims or desires.

[Riva]

Uh, actually he can govern according to his personal choices, within constitutional constraints, just like the legislative and judicial branches. The executive power is vested in the President and within his sphere of authority he is entitled to pursue his agenda.

[David Nieporent]

His "sphere of authority" is defined by law. Which is written by Congress in almost all cases (a few tiny bits by the founding fathers), and interpreted by the judiciary in all cases. The judicial power is vested in the judiciary.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Do you really think that Congress creates each individual employee position? Hint, it doesn't. It appropriately a sum of money with some vague and/or broad directives. Within those directives, the President has plenary powers.

[David Nieporent]

"Plenary" does not mean what you think it means. The president's powers "within those directives" are constrained by many many many other laws.

[Kazinski]

Supposedly the Trump administration defied a judges order not to deport 250 Venezuelan and El Salvadoran gang members, but here is the timeline:

"The timeline: The president signed the executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act on Friday night, but intentionally did not advertise it. On Saturday morning, word of the order leaked, officials said, prompting a mad scramble to get planes in the air.

At 2:31 p.m. Saturday, an immigration activist who tracks deportation flights, posted on X that "TWO HIGHLY UNUSUAL ICE flights" were departing from Texas to El Salvador, which had agreed to accept Venezuelan gang members deported from the U.S.
Hours later, during a court hearing hours later filed by the ACLU., Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportations and said any flights should be turned around mid-air.
"This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately," he told the Justice Department, according to the Washington Post.
At that point, about 6:51 p.m., both flights were off the Yucatan Peninsula, according to flight paths posted on X.

Inside the White House, officials discussed whether to order the planes to turn around. On advice from a team of administration lawyers, the administration pressed ahead.

"There was a discussion about how far the judge's ruling can go under the circumstances and over international waters and, on advice of counsel, we proceeded with deporting these thugs," the senior official said.
"They were already outside of US airspace. We believe the order is not applicable," a second senior administration official told Axios"

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans

[Kazinski]

The President of El Salvador sent out a Xeet, afer the landed with a message and a video of their arrival, transport, and orientation at the Prison.

"Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).

The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us."

https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1901245427216978290?t=19OZac77bELRCX10W5zuUA&s=19

[Bob from Ohio]

Thanks for the link. Answers my question about the type of plane, chartered not air force.

[not guilty]

Equity acts in personam. Even if the planes were outside of U. S. airspace, the Defendants were not. At the hearing, Judge Boasberg said that planes in the air were to be turned around, telling the Justice Department lawyer that his clients needed to be informed of the TRO "immediately."

Per 18 U.S.C. § 401:

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other as
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. [Emphasis added.]

The District Court here is not at the mercy of the Department of Justice to prosecute criminal contempts for violation of its injunction or restraining order. “[I]t is long settled that courts possess inherent authority to initiate contempt proceedings for disobedience to their orders, authority which necessarily encompasses the ability to appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987).

To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo: Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio, Pam Blondie, you got some 'splainin to do.

[Kazinski]

Don't forget the pilot.

[not guilty]

As the Turkish proverb goes, a fish rots from the head.

[Frank Drackman]

That's your upper lip

[Don Nico]

I thought that was a Sicilian proverb.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"It's a Sicilian message. It means Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes."

[Don Nico]

That also, but I have heard the "rots from the head" many times in many contexts.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Don't forget the pilot."

Were the planes going to El Salvador air force?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Was the pilot informed of the judge's order?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably not, as far as anyone knows

[Michael Ejercito]

The flights in question were already underway when the order was given.

Let me know if any flights carrying deportees took off after the order was given.

[not guilty]

As I said, the Defendants were on the ground when the judge gave order to turn the planes around.

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure if I've seen all relevant Orders yet, but if the order is that "the government is enjoined from removing members of [the class]", it's a fair question whether that order applies to people who are on board a US government airplane outside of US airspace at the time the order is issued.

https://www.lawdork.com/p/alien-enemies-act-venezuela-tro

[not guilty]

I don't think I have seen all relevant orders yet either, but at the Saturday hearing, Judge Boasberg reportedly directed that planes in the air were to be turned around, telling the Justice Department lawyer that his clients needed to be informed of the TRO "immediately." https://www.lawdork.com/p/alien-enemies-act-venezuela-tro It was not for the Defendants to unilaterally disregard that order.

“[I]n the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives,” Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 320-21 (1967), even if the order was irregularly or improvidently issued. The Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them were bound by the order once they received actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise, per Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2). Even if the issuance of the order was unconstitutional, that is not a matter for the litigants to determine. As SCOTUS opined in Walker:

As a general rule, an unconstitutional statute is an absolute nullity and may not form the basis of any legal right or legal proceedings, yet until its unconstitutionality has been judicially declared in appropriate proceedings, no person charged with its observance under an order or decree may disregard or violate the order or the decree with immunity from a charge of contempt of court; and he may not raise the question of its unconstitutionality in collateral proceedings on appeal from a judgment of conviction for contempt of the order or decree. . . .

388 U.S. at 320, quoting Fields v. City of Fairfield, 273 Ala. 588, 590 143 So.2d 177, 180 (Ala. 1962). The validity of the order cannot be collaterally attacked in a contempt prosecution.

[Life of Brian]

Judge Boasberg reportedly directed that planes in the air were to be turned around, telling the Justice Department lawyer that his clients needed to be informed of the TRO "immediately."

We may want to wait for the actual hearing transcript rather than context-free crop quotes fed to the media. This take from Bill Shipley is that the initial "immediately" language applied only to the five named plaintiffs -- which 1) makes a great deal of sense since at that time the class hadn't been certified, and 2) is fully consistent with the DOJ's later notice to the Court stating: "The five individual plaintiffs that were the subject of the first TRO have not been removed."

So this seems to be rapidly drifting into nothingburger territory.

[David Nieporent]

That may be a "fair question," but it has an easy answer: yes. More precisely, the order applied to the government, and specific individuals in the government, who were within the court's jurisdiction. It doesn't matter where the plane was.

If Melania sues Donald for divorce and the court orders Donald to turn over one of his private planes to her as part of the divorce decree, he can't say, "Ha, ha, the plane is over the ocean so you can't order me to turn it over."

[Martinned2]

It might matter where the plane was if the order was to stop removing people, rather than to bring them back. An order to stop removing people clearly has no impact on people who have already been removed. (Which, arguably, someone who is no longer within the borders of the United States is.)

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
As I said, the Defendants were on the ground when the judge gave order to turn the planes around."

A lot of ink has been spilled defending active criminals

[Malika]

Many rights and establishments of limits on government power have involved cases about active criminals. Some even Presidents!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Quick quiz:

1. Is President Trump a "criminal"?

If you can answer that question coherently (there's really no point in continuing if you can't):

2. Were all the individuals deported to El Salvador "criminals"?

[Reallynotbob]

Apparently there was one that took off afterward.

[David Nieporent]

The government claims, without evidence of course, that this plane didn't have anyone on it who were the victims of the Trump administration's misuse of the AEA.

[Martinned2]

This seems like a reasonably balanced analysis of the order and what the Trump admin did about it:

https://www.lawdork.com/p/what-the-trump-admin-did-after-the-tro

[Stephen Lathrop]

Good link. Thank you.

[Joe_dallas]

Reasonably balanced?

The article is formatted in a manner specifically designed to make it appear that AG Bondi wrote the article. It loses all credibility at that point.

[SykesFive]

That's very poor reading comprehension on your part.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. What in the world are you talking about?

2. How on earth do you think you’re in a position to complain about obscuring the authorship of internet postings?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, let's cut to the chase.

Who gets imprisoned for resistance to the preemptive TRO?

[Martinned2]

"resistance"? Really? That's the word you decided to go with?

[Kazinski]

Why not? It seems to be in popular usage.

Did someone copyright it?

[Martinned2]

Describing the President of the United States as leading the resistance is taking the Trumpist victim complex to hitherto unsuspected levels.

[Kazinski]

I don't think CXY was using the word in the copyrighted usage sense.

I do hope Trump isn't doing any resistance training, a la Harry Reid.

[Commenter_XY]

I employed sarcasm by using 'resistance'.

Still though...who goes to jail? The preemptive TRO was violated.

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

We're colonizing the term and taking it away from the Democrat judges.

[not guilty]

"Disobedience or resistance to [the court's] lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command" is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

[Bob from Ohio]

"resistance"?

Why not. The courts are the most dangerous branch now. Un-elected out of control petty tyrants.

[Malika the Maiz]

Now! Bob will revise when Democrats have Presidency!

[Bob from Ohio]

No, I said it under Biden and Obama too.

I have supported overruling Marbury v. Madison for decades.

[not guilty]

"Who gets imprisoned for resistance to the preemptive TRO?"

In the first instance, Judge Boasberg would select who (if anyone) is to be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Potential contempt defendants would include any Defendant (other than President Trump) in the antecedent habeas corpus proceeding, as well as anyone working in active concert or participation with them.

Since the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are litigants in the habeas case, the District Court would designate a private attorney to prosecute the contempt pursuant to Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987). If the penalty actually imposed exceeds six months confinement, the alleged contemnors would have the right to trial by jury. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, isn't it criminal contempt to resist or disobey the judges TRO, which I hypothetically assume happened here? I thought a judge (not just Boasberg) could haul the named parties in Court, call the bailiff, and send them all to jail for criminal contempt until compliance with the TRO is documented to the satisfaction of the Court. What jury trial?

One lesson learned early in life; don't ever mess with a judge. Am I wrong about this being criminal contempt?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Simplifying, there are two kinds of contempt of court.

Civil contempt is imposing a hardship to get someone to comply with a court order. That’s the kind of thing you’re talking about.

Not guilty is talking about criminal contempt—punishing someone for failing to comply with a previous court order.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't we have both (civil, criminal) going on here?

[not guilty]

No contempt proceedings have (yet) been instituted. There is the potential for either, but the two should not be tried together. The differences between the two for purposes of the Due Process Clause are discussed in Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988).

[Bob from Ohio]

"Potential contempt defendants"

Pardon me but keep hope alive!

[Frank Drackman]

That annoying "Family Circus" character (admittedly, every "Family Circus" character is annoying)
"Not Me"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The appropriate response would be to bring the planes back empty, after having fed the sharks.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like how the Saudis said Khashoggi
"Left the Embassy shortly after he arrived"
Which was probably true, they just left out "In pieces"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Do you have to take the Klan hood off before you post, or are the eyeholes big enough to see the keyboard?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I took typing in high school (all girls in the class) and don't need to look at the keyboard, although I do watch the screen because laptop keyboards are just slightly smaller than a spec typewriter.

So you're a "two finger" typist.
Why am I not surprised....

[John F. Carr]

That would literally comply with the order as described by some reporting. That would not comply with the oral order as quoted by plaintiffs: "[...] any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you."

[Bob from Ohio]

"these folks"

The 5 plaintiffs or the "class".

Can a judge certify a class at a TRO hearing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, drop them an a raft off the Cali coast...

https://x.com/i/status/1901658649522503816

On a more serious note, how did the judge think he wouldn't have to issue a Habeus order for each specific individual?

[tylertusta]

I wish lawyers would fly planes.

Then perhaps they would know that a judge several thousand miles away is no substitute for a lack of avgas in their fuel tanks.

Boasberg might as well have ordered them to fly to the moon.

[Frank Drackman]

No need to bullshit an excuse, every flight has to have a divert field on case of in flight emergency, asshololoc federal judge, fuel wasn’t the Ish-yew, delivering several hundred criminals to their destination was

[Bob from Ohio]

"t the hearing, Judge Boasberg said that planes in the air were to be turned around"

Was that in his written order?

[tylertusta]

Not that I can find. It was verbal only.

Edit: Of course, immediately after responding I saw John Carr's reply that pointed to a quote of the judge's oral order:

"[T]hat you shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately. "

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can't Trump simply pardon everyone the judge finds in contempt?

[John F. Carr]

He can pardon anybody in criminal contempt. He can fire or reassign political appointees in civil contempt so they no longer have the ability to comply. (Civil contempt is "you go to jail until you obey my order." Proving inability to obey the order gets you out of jail.) Doing that would lead to a regrettable breakdown of relations between two branches that need to cooperate. Along the same lines, any member of Congress can stand up on the House floor and recite classified information for the world to hear. And then the executive branch will turn down the flow of classified information.

Pardoning Sheriff Joe was different. Arpaio wasn't carrying out Trump's orders. The pardon wasn't to help Trump defy the courts. It was just a routine case of somebody who (in my opinion) deserved to be convicted getting away with it instead.

[PaulS]

None of the press releases have specifically stated that the Alien Enemies Act was applied to deport these specific people. That has been assumed. They may make an argument before a court in the future - however shallow - that they used other justification for the deportations. That would go to the idea that this court "did not have jurisdiction" - and thus was "not applicable" ie they were not defying the court's orders.

[Riva]

I wish.

[John F. Carr]

For those playing along at home, a copy of the docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/. The judge's comment about turning the planes around is not itself in the record. It is quoted in docket entry 21. The first written order stated "Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States." An updated order followed.

[not guilty]

In regard to the attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil, I have run across a very interesting federal district court decision regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i). In Massieu v. Reno, 915 F.Supp. 681 (D.N.J. 1996), the district court ruled that the subsection of the underlying statute -- which provides that "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable" -- is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to the facts of the case before the court, which involved an attempt to deport a non-immigrant alien to his native Mexico. The court sua sponte concluded that the statute is so devoid of standards that it represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/681/1618129/

The Court there opined:

That statute, by its express terms, confers upon a single individual, the Secretary of State, the unfettered and unreviewable discretion to deport any alien lawfully within the United States, not for identified reasons relating to his or conduct in the United States or elsewhere but, rather, because that person's mere presence here would impact in some unexplained way on the foreign policy interests of the United States. Thus, the statute represents a breathtaking departure both from well established legislative precedent which commands deportation based on adjudications of defined impermissible conduct by the alien in the United States, and from well established precedent with respect to extradition which commands extradition based on adjudications of probable cause to believe that the alien has engaged in defined impermissible conduct elsewhere.

Id., at 686 (italics in original).

The Court found the statute to be void for vagueness for failure to provide fair warning of what conduct is prohibited and for failure to satisfy the Due Process requirement that the legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement, so as not to permit "arbitrary and erratic" applications of the law. The Court opined:

"Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is all persons are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands and forbids." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 56, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (internal citations omitted). Thus, the void-for-vagueness doctrine, having its roots in due process, requires that prohibitory statutes define the conduct proscribed with "sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) . . .

The statute challenged here, § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA, provides that "[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable." 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i). It simply cannot be disputed, and indeed the government does not, that the statute provides absolutely no notice to aliens as to what is required of them under the statute. Simply stated, it "contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy" its requirements. Kolendar, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. at 1858 (holding that statute requiring citizens to provide "credible and reliable identification" when stopped by the police was void-for-vagueness). See also Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 163, 92 S.Ct. at 844 (finding vagrancy statute impermissibly vague because it criminalized "activities which by modern standards are normally innocent" and thereby failed "to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute"); Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. at 230, 71 S.Ct. at 707 ("statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law").

915 F.Supp. at 699-700 (footnotes omitted). Regarding the particular statute at issue, the Court observed:

The question, then, is whether § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA contains a recognized standard and whether its "language conveys [a] sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured against common understandings and practices." Jordan, 341 U.S. at 231-32, 71 S.Ct. at 708. Clearly it does not. While there may be a common understanding, in a definitional sense, of what "foreign policy" is, no one outside the Department of State and, perhaps, the President ever knows what our nation's frequently covert foreign policy is at any given time. Thus, there is no conceivable way that an alien could know, ex-ante, how to conform his or her activities to the requirements of the law. Of course, it is even less likely that an alien could know that his or her mere presence here would or could cause adverse foreign policy consequences when our foreign policy is unpublished, ever-changing, and often highly confidential.

. . . Under § 241(a)(4)(C)(i), however, all legal aliens, whether here for a day or fifty years and visiting or resident in this country, must live in fear of the Secretary of State informing them, at any time, that our foreign policy requires their deportation to a particular country for reasons unknown to them and beyond their control and, as here, merely because they are present. But the Constitution requires that aliens, like citizens, be adequately apprised of what the law requires. Section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) fails to do just that.

915 F.Supp. at 700-701 (footnote omitted, italics in original). The Court further opined that the statute fails to give the Secretary of State sufficient guidance to avoid arbitrary and erratic enforcement:

Related to the void-for-vagueness doctrine's notice requirement is "the requirement that the legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement," Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. at 1858, so as not to permit "arbitrary and erratic" applications of the law, Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 162, 92 S.Ct. at 843. Here, again, the statute fails to pass constitutional muster. Rather than providing the Secretary of State with a definite standard, § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) grants the Secretary unfettered discretion. The only conceivable standard contained in the provision would be the phrase "potentially serious." 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i). Unfortunately, the statute does not clarify that phrase. In addition, the scant legislative history is equally uninformative. In the Conference Report's only reference to the phrase, it merely states that it requires a "clear negative foreign policy impact" associated with the alien's presence or activities, but that the term "potentially serious" embodies a "significantly" lower standard than the term "compelling." H.R.Conf.Rep. 101-955 at 129 (1990). Of course, the inadequacy of legislative history does not make a law any less valid. It also does not make it any less vague. Absent definiteness and immediacy requirements, the range of circumstances that could warrant deportation under § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) is virtually boundless.

915 F.Supp. at 701 (footnote omitted).

The District Court also found that the challenged statute failed to comport with the procedural due process guaranty of the Fifth Amendment:

It is hornbook constitutional law that "[p]rocedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of `liberty' or `property' interests" recognized under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). In addition, it cannot be questioned that aliens are entitled to due process of law in deportation proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). It is equally clear, however, that aliens are not entitled to the full panoply of procedural protections afforded to defendants in criminal cases. As with all due process determinations, then, it is the task of the court to determine what process is due under the circumstances.

"The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 333, 96 S.Ct. at 902 . . . At a minimum, therefore, plaintiff must be given "notice of the case against him and an opportunity to meet it." Id. Due process, however, is not a fixed star in the constellation of rights. It is a fluid and dynamic concept that must be tailored to the circumstances of each case. Thus, in order to determine whether the opportunity afforded to plaintiff under the INA is constitutionally sufficient, this court must apply the now familiar three-part balancing test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S. Ct. at 903. Phrased in terms relevant to the case at bar, this court must consider: (1) the importance to all aliens of not being imprisoned, forced to leave the United States, and sent to the country of our government's choosing; (2) the adequacy of the hearing afforded and the likelihood that increased procedures would diminish the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty; and (3) the governmental interest, as well as that of the public, in allowing the Secretary of State to declare an alien deportable in the interests of our foreign policy as well as the increased cost of requiring additional procedures.

915 F.Supp. at 703-704. After a detailed discussion of each of the Eldridge factors, id., at 704-706, the court concluded that § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i) is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied:

In the final analysis, this court is convinced that a balancing of the appropriate factors tips well in plaintiff's favor. Absent a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the Secretary of State's unreviewable and concededly "unfettered discretion" to deprive an alien, who lawfully entered this country, of his or her liberty to the extent exemplified by this case is, in this court's view, unconstitutional. Accordingly, this court now holds that § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i) is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied.

Id., at 706-707.

The court further found that the challenged subsection of the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. Id., at 707-711.

The jurist who wrote the Massieu opinion is then-District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry -- Donald Trump's sister.

[Kazinski]

Thats nice, so what precedential value does the opinion of a single district court judge have, even if its the Presidents sister?

[not guilty]

"Thats nice, so what precedential value does the opinion of a single district court judge have, even if its [sic] the Presidents sister?"

Such an opinion has the persuasive force of its reasoning, which in this case is a tour de force. The late Judge Barry may as well have written a template for current plaintiffs to tailor their briefing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here. On appeal, the Third Circuit (in an opinion by Circuit Judge Alito) concluded Judge Barry lacked jurisdiction, reversed, and directed her to dismiss the complaint.

[Commenter_XY]

"hornbook constitutional law"

What is that?!

(this was a GREAT post, NG)

[Noscitur a sociis]

A hornbook is a basic treatise; hornbook law means a fundamental, axiomatic precept.

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

[Kazinski]

Speaking of a tour de force Justice Jackson had this thought in Youngstown Steel, this is prong 1 of his 3 part test:

When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Justice Jackson, maybe my favorite Justice all-time, and typically incisive.

Problem is, DOGE/Trump has zero express or implied authorization from Congress. Just getting elected (or appointed without confirmation) does nothing to fulfill Justice Jackson's precondition. An election is not blanket authorization for everything which might follow.

It is the activities themselves which have to be authorized. If it took separate Congressional actions to establish a number of government departments, Justice Jackson's standard implies separate Congressional authorizations to dismantle each of them. Maybe for the sake of legislative economy, Congress could target them all in one bill.

Thus, nobody will be able to object in principle if Congress takes up the question whether to dismantle Social Security, and decides to do it. Nor is anyone much worried that could happen. See how my point invokes Justice Jackson's wisdom?

[Kazinski]

Well since we are specifically talking about the pending deportation of a green card holder for espousing support by Hama which is authorized by Congress, then Social Security doesn't come into it.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if you're right about the application of law here (you are not), there is no combination of legislative and executive authority that lets the executive defy a court order.

You get to appeal it, but you don't get to defy it.

A President is not a king, and Congress can't make them one.

[Malika]

"A President is not a king"

They're working on that.

[Riva]

The more relevant observation is that district court judges are not co-heads of the executive branch.

[Reallynotbob]

But they do wield Article 3 power, just like SCOTUS does. Congress and the Executive enabled that structure long ago.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Wrong deportation case.

[Riva]

No, this case has no persuasive force and zero presidential value because Not Guilty left out a small detail from his case citation. It should read 915 F.Supp. 681 (D.N.J. 1996), rev’d and remanded, 91F.3D 416, 420 (3rd Cir. 1996). Yes, that’s right, the injunction issued was dissolved, the matter was reversed and remanded.

[not guilty]

Riva, I have cited the Third Circuit decision -- which did not reach the merits of the District Court order -- elsewhere on this thread. Of course a district court's decision has neither "presidential value" nor precedential value.

Judge Barry's reasoning on the merits is sound and persuasive. I did not discuss the portions of her opinion regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies -- which the District Court said was not required, while the Court of Appeals said was required.

Have you read either the Third Circuit opinion or the District Court opinion? Yes or no?

[Riva]

No, you didn't properly cite anything. The injunction was dissolved and the matter was reversed and remanded. The proper citation is Massieu v. Reno, 915 F. Supp. 681 (D.N.J.), rev’d and remanded,91 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 1996). I just reviewed your original post, where does it note this exactly?

[not guilty]

As I said, I discussed the Third Circuit opinion elsewhere on this thread -- in a different comment. The reversal was on jurisdictional grounds and did not address the merits of the District Court's decision.

Once again, have you read either the Third Circuit opinion or the District Court opinion? Yes or no?

[Bob from Ohio]

"did not address the merits of the District Court's decision"

If there was no jurisdiction every word on the "merits" was just, in effect, a law review article.

If a lawyer cited the district court like you did, he or she would be sanctioned for misleading the court.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t believe not guilty suggested that the case was binding precedent (which it isn’t); he said that it was interesting (which it is).

[Riva]

It was reversed you clown.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A fact that I believe I was the first person here to note.

That doesn’t make it uninteresting, except to the extremely uncurious.

[Riva]

It makes it about as relevant as one of your comments, except to the extremely ignorant.

[neurodoc]

That she was the sister of Trump, who in 2016 became POTUS after receiving a majority of the elector votes, is completely irrelevant. So too is it irrelevant that she was in on the family's tax fraud schemes and resigned from the bench when ethics of it all began to close in on her. (A real multi-member crime family!)

[not guilty]

It is relevant only to the extent that the MAGA cult can't dismiss what she wrote as the musings of "a Trump hating judge." Judge Barry was appointed to the District Court by President Reagan and to the Court of Appeals by President Clinton.

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

What are Senate "blue slips" and how do they influence judicial appointments?

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I don't know about the precedential value of that opinion (none, evidently), but did you know the last administration used the very same rationale for a Jew ban? Yeah, I know. How quickly they intentionally forget.

https://2021-2025.state.gov/announcement-of-visa-restriction-policy-to-promote-peace-security-and-stability-in-the-west-bank/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20State%20Department%20is,civilians'%20access%20to%20essential%20services

I didn't hear the anguished howls of protest when it was Jews and their families who were targeted. I didn't see preemptive rulings from judges, either.

[not guilty]

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say:

Tu quoque now!
Tu quoque tomorrow!!
Tu quoque fo'evah!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C-kBVggFrs

[Commenter_XY]

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

A real (D)efender of democracy. 😉

[not guilty]

And the godfather of today's Republican Party.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, here is a followup question for our back and forth. The 3rd Circuit overruled Judge Barry on jurisdiction. Say I agree with Judge Barry; she makes a compelling case that the law (INA) is over broad.

How do you get around the jurisdictional issue?

[not guilty]

The Third Circuit declined to reach the merits of whether 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i) is unconstitutional because Mr. Ruiz Massieu had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking injunctive relief. Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 417 (3d Cir. 1996).

Mr. Khalil's habeas corpus petition does not seek a declaration of facial unconstitutionality of the statute. https://clearinghouse.net/doc/156820/ Neither does his amended petition filed on March 13. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.638260/gov.uscourts.nysd.638260.38.0.pdf (The amended petition, however, does ask the Court to declare that Respondents’ actions to arrest and detain Petitioner violate the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.)

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that, only way Wallace won re-erection in 74 and 82 was with the (redacted) vote

[Malika]

Imagine the lack of self-awareness to post this in reply to a charge of tu quoque!

[Josh R]

That's the point C_XY! If you believe Khalil's deportation is lawful, you must also believe it is lawful to deport aliens who support settler violence in the West Bank.

[Commenter_XY]

The law is the law, Josh R. If it was good enough for The Cauliflower, then it is good enough for POTUS Trump.

[Josh R]

As Nieporent noted, Trump has set a new precedent (deportation) that you should not like.

[David Nieporent]

You've been tricked by C_XY. Nobody was deported under that order. It was about denying visas to non-resident aliens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So let's deport her too.

[Riva]

I hesitate to take your word on the interpretation of any case since you routinely misinterpret the facts at issue and transform dicta into holding, Or you just flat out misrepresent the matter.

[Bob from Ohio]

Massieu v. Reno, 915 F.Supp. 681 (D.N.J. 1996)

Isn't it common for honest lawyers to also cite a reversal?

[ReaderY]

I think the District Court is wrong here. What in the world does Mathews v. Eldridge have to do with anything here? Mathews v. Eldgridge only apply where Due Process rights have relevance. But aliens have no constitutional right - no life, liberty, or property interest - in entering or remaining in this country. They have no due process right not to be subjected to arbitrary or erratic enforcement in deciding whether they can enter or stay. Due Process has nothing to do with it. Nor does non-delegation. Congress can delegate its foreign policy powers to the Executive. This is simply a foreign policy power. The Executive is entitled to behave in a manner the courts might consider arbitrary or erratic in foreign policy matters.

Are feints and strategems illegal in war? Do American generals have to give the enemy clear notice of their intentions and follow regular orderly rules in deploying their troops and formulating their battle plans? The whole idea that foreign affairs has to have anything to do with Due Process, that it requires anything like the regularity or clear rules principles of domestic matters, is simply nonsense.

[not guilty]

Aliens "have no due process right not to be subjected to arbitrary or erratic enforcement in deciding whether they can enter or stay. Due Process has nothing to do with it."

As to an alien lawfully present in the United States, that is just plain wrong. "Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).

[Kazinski]

For those still in the bunker the NYTimes printed an opinion piece finally admitting what we all knew,: its an overwhelming certainty that Covid came from a lab leak, and that the NIH did its best to cover it up.

We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html

This just a few days after it was announced that German intelligence knew with 80-90% confidence in 2020 that it was a lab leak:

Germany's foreign intelligence service believed there was a 80-90% chance that coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab, German media say.

Two German newspapers say they have uncovered details of an assessment carried out by spy agency BND in 2020 but never published.

The intelligence service had indications that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been carrying out experiments where viruses are modified to become more transmissible to humans for research, they say."

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o.amp

I guess its old news by now, but if the NYT and BBC think its still topical, then I guess its worth a mention.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Other than trying to whitewash Trump's deadly bungling, what worth do you see in those still-equivocal opinions?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You have to attack the New York Times to defend your position?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — From what I could see of it, that was not the opinion of the NYT. Perhaps the paywall display deceived me, but it looked like an Op-Ed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, sorry about that, I won't pay past the paywall to find out.

[Malika]

It was definitely an Op-Ed.

[Juliana Frink]

"...what worth do you see in those still-equivocal opinions?"

Oh, of course. To quote the most corrupt woman in the history of the world: "What difference at this point does it make?"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Other than trying to whitewash Trump's deadly bungling, what worth do you see in those still-equivocal opinions?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!"

[neurodoc]

Why was it in the interests of the US to cover up Chinese culpability, if indeed we did?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Neurodoc — Few if any who criticize the China lab origin tale do so on the basis of support for Chinese interests. Speaking for myself, I recognize an apparently still-urgent sense of interest from MAGA acolytes to exonerate Trump bungling.

Given that both contingencies could be true at once—and there can be no reasonable doubt about the Trump bungling—it's hard to see anything but stupidity in reopening the controversy, except on the basis of highly persuasive evidence. Such evidence still has not been produced. Not even the previously unpersuasive pile of slight evidence has been much added to.

Reiterations from other sources of previous unproved presumptions do nothing to advance the substantive scientific argument. It is apparent that some folks think reiterations advance a political argument. That is all there really is to this; it is a story about unwisely persistent political anxiety.

[Kazinski]

Because it was a US NIH grant that paid for for the gain of function research that created the "novel coronovirus".

Fauci and Fauci's actively participated in trying to head off the lab leak theory

https://oversight.house.gov/release/new-covid-select-memo-details-allegations-of-wrongdoing-and-illegal-activity-by-dr-faucis-senior-scientific-advisor/

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/new-emails-reveal-faucis-communication-with-researcher-tied-to-wuhan-lab-under-scrutiny

Not to mention the NIH had to correct Fauci's testimony to Congress when he falsely claimed the research was not gain of function research.

WASHINGTON (TND) — The National Institutes of Health has confirmed the veracity of a letter it released which appears to contradict Senate testimony from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, according to a Rutgers chemistry and chemical biology professor.

Fauci repeatedly insisted during a May Senate hearing that the NIH “has not ever, and does not now fund, gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not to mention the NIH had to correct Fauci's testimony to Congress when he falsely claimed the research was not gain of function research.

Your other cites turned out bogus. Maybe that one is more promising. Care to put some meat on those bones?

[tylertusta]

My understanding is that Congress barred the use of NIH funds for GoF research in China, but the NIH director did it anyways. When covid broke out, that same NIH director was behind efforts to conceal the origin of covid.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why was it in the interests of the US to cover up Chinese culpability, if indeed we did?

Nice false premise you've got there. Nobody claimed that it was in the interest of the U.S. Most cover-ups aren't.

[Commenter_XY]

We Were Badly Misled You About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Fixed the headline for The Old Grey Hag.

[Bwaaah]

Use the passive voice for the sins of your friends, and the active voice for the sins of your adversaries. "Let's consider what happened" vs "Let's consider what they did."

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s like a Jenga tower of stupid.

Op-ed columnists are not the voice of the Times, and the Times is not the “We” who are in charge in your Birchean fantasies.

[Armchair]

For those who followed the news, especially at the beginning of the epidemic, it was fairly clear that the most likely source was a leak from a Chinese lab. A couple key elements present themselves.

1. The source of the infection in a major city which just "happens" to have a major research lab that researches the exact disease, but where the source animals that were closest were hundreds to thousands of miles away.

2. The presence of the Furin Cleavage site, which was unique for SARS-CoV-2, but of a motif that was commonly seen in biochemical manipulations of viruses.

There are other elements that indicate the lab leak was most likely, but these are the key ones that should be understood.

[Commenter_XY]

After Dr Robert Redfield (CDC Director) publicly stated it was a lab leak (circa 2021), the discussion on Covid-19 origin was over (to me). He actually is a virology expert. He played with some nasty pathogens when he served in the US Army. If there is anyone's opinion I am going to listen to wrt origins of Covid-19, it is his.

He wasn't wrong about that.

[Absaroka]

Isn't he saying that it was a lab leak in North Carolina, not Wuhan?

(I'm not going to do a deep dive, or a shallow one ... if anyone has, what's the explanation for it getting from NC to Wuhan?)

[Jmaie]

2019 Military World games, some U.S. troops from NC attended and the theory is that a nearby American lab could have been the source.

[Malika]

"For those still in the bunker the NYTimes printed an opinion piece finally admitting what we all knew"

The New York Times publishes all kinds of opinion pieces. They're not official pronouncements on anything.

[Bwaaah]

Correct. That's how they retain their position as "the paper of record" without having to admit the record. And that's how people like you can go your whole life trying to discredit anybody who floats the lab leak theory, regardless of its credibility. It's all about sticking to your side, amiright?

[Malika]

You're an idiot. Papers have editorial pages which are distinct from their reporting. To the extent the NYT claims to be the "paper of record" (it's cute you think I must have to champion the Times, are you Ann Coulter? that would explain the skeletal femininity you exude) it's clearly referring to the latter. But, hey, keep banging on that keyboard, you do it enough you might reproduce a line from Shakes!

[David Nieporent]

For those still in the bunker the NYTimes printed an opinion piece finally admitting what we all knew,: its an overwhelming certainty that Covid came from a lab leak, and that the NIH did its best to cover it up.

Yeah, that's not right at all. For one thing, there's nothing in the op/ed that actually cites anything establishing a lab leak at all, let alone with "overwhelming certainty." (The editorial is actually saying that the NIH tried to push a narrative, not that the other narrative is true.) For another, the author is not the NYT "finally admitting" anything, but an editorial from a single person who has been pushing that theory for years.

[Malika]

This is a distinction our hacks are, of course, unable to make, let alone appreciate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As an aside, not saying anything about the merits of the piece, but this is why I read the NY Times. It often tells me things I don't want to hear. Can you imagine such a counternarrative appearing on Fox News?

[Sarcastr0]

The VC post contrasts to this thread interestingly.

Not even the pretense of pretending that commentary is the same as reporting. Hardly any engagement with the content at all, actually. Just NYT bashing.

[neurodoc]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/technology/elon-musk-x-post-hitler-stalin-mao.html

Is there a conflict between being fascistically inclined at the same time as representing oneself as a libertarian?

Does anyone see Musk as in any way(s) admirable? More admirable than this co-president, the Dotard--in-Chief as the N. Koreans styled him? What ways?

[Frank Drackman]

Give me 4 years to think about it

[SRG2]

Is there a conflict between being fascistically inclined at the same time as representing oneself as a libertarian?

Musk, like many self-proclaimed "libertarians" on the actual right, is an asymmetricl libertarian. He believes in libertarian principles for himself, but not for all others

[Commenter_XY]

Re: 1798 Alien Enemy Act

Under this law, what is a 'predatory incursion'?

The way the law reads, you don't need a state actor. The conjunction 'or' does quite a lot of work. Then you run into 'by' and that is where the doors seems to slam shut (to me). But maybe not. Here is the relevant text of the law.

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

What is the hypothetical argument to get around ... by any foreign nation or government?
How does a cartel 'morph' into a state actor for purposes of summary deportation?

[ReaderY]

I think the Islamic State is an example of a de facto state that isn’t a de jure one yet I think was functionally a state and a government. So I think there needs to be a functional test, not just a formal one. Other examples come to mind. The Barbary Pirates (of “the shores of Tripoli” fame) had a de facto government that controlled territory. In general, I am willing to accept the idea that if Congress authorizes war or a military response, that means that it has determined that it is dealing with something to big for normal law enforcement etc. to apply.

But these gangs don’t pass any of these alternative tests. They are not a functional state or government, and Congress hasn’t authorized war or the use of military force against them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

no, Congress did -- the GWOT.

And remember that we never recognized the Confederacy as anything more than a rebellion.

[David Nieporent]

no, Congress did -- the GWOT.

Congress did no such thing. People mocked you for this stupidity in the last thread. Why are you repeating it again?

And remember that we never recognized the Confederacy as anything more than a rebellion.

What does that have to do with the proverbial price of tea in China?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

115 STAT. 224 PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001
"IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons."

[John F. Carr]

The war that never ends.

[Frank Drackman]

Not when you admit literal Moe-Hammad-Atta jr to Columbia

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and? In other words, Congress authorized force (a/k/a declared war) against Al Qaeda and those associated with Al Qaeda. Not against "terror."

[Riva]

The president explains that quite clearly in his EO. I invite you to read the detailed rationale. It concludes “TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

I suspect most if not all ranting here have never actually read the proclamation.

[not guilty]

Riva, doofus, Tren De Aragua is a criminal gang. It is not a "foreign nation or government."

And for you of all people to complain about commenters discussing a document that they haven't read shows truly remarkable chutzpah.

[Riva]

As noted above, just another rant from someone who never read the EO. Here is what the EO explains:
Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.
TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus. TdA grew significantly while Tareck El Aissami served as governor of Aragua between 2012 and 2017. In 2017, El Aissami was appointed as Vice President of Venezuela. Soon thereafter, the United States Department of the Treasury designated El Aissami as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. El Aissami is currently a United States fugitive facing charges arising from his violations of United States sanctions triggered by his Department of the Treasury designation.
Like El Aissami, Nicolas Maduro, who claims to act as Venezuela’s President and asserts control over the security forces and other authorities in Venezuela, also maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists. Maduro leads the regime-sponsored enterprise Cártel de los Soles, which coordinates with and relies on TdA and other organizations to carry out its objective of using illegal narcotics as a weapon to “flood” the United States. In 2020, Maduro and other regime members were charged with narcoterrorism and other crimes in connection with this plot against America.
Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. Indeed, in December 2024, INTERPOL Washington confirmed: “Tren de Aragua has emerged as a significant threat to the United States as it infiltrates migration flows from Venezuela.”

Unless you would now like to apologize and concede that president has made a proper finding under the law, please do me the kind favor of shutting the f up

[not guilty]

Yes I have read the EO, thank you very much. It reminds me of Governor Al Smith's famous comment: no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

Tren De Aragua is a criminal gang. It is not a "foreign nation or government."

As Abraham Lincoln cannily observed, if you call a dog's tail a leg, a dog still has only four legs.

[Riva]

Which is to say you have no substantive response to the finding (which you obviously never read and apparently still haven't) but still can't manage to shut the f up. Maybe you could deceptively cite more bad case law to support your position?

[Josh R]

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) you are right and TdA is state sponsored. That would still greatly limit the use of the Alien Enemy Act to other applications.

[Commenter_XY]

How so? The EO states this is a predatory incursion by a state sponsored actor. Seems tailor-made for the Alien Enemies Act.

What other applications is this limited to?

[Josh R]

It's limited to people supported by state sponsors of terrorism. No matter what Trump says, that's a very small number of people.

[not guilty]

The Alien Enemies Act can only be used in the event of a declared war, or an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government."

Those are legal terms of art. Neither Donald Trump nor any other president gets to make shit up as to what they mean in service of hatemongering.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"person or organization"

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

The government at issue is Venezuela.

[Commenter_XY]

Leaving aside the partisan wrangling about applications thereof....I speak, of course, of The Autopen.

Should we even allow this, as a general proposition?

I am coming to the conclusion that no, no POTUS should utilize an Autopen for signing an official document.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why?

[Commenter_XY]

The potential for abuse is too high, IMHO, just as a general proposition. The Autopen is a recent phenomenon, so maybe not such a strong precedent.

An Autopen for somebody in a procurement position, who is physically signing contracts, in an agency setting is one thing. The Autopen could (in theory) be a reasonable workplace accommodation for carpal tunnel. With the prevalence of digital signatures for legal docs, that rationale goes away. What if the POTUS injured their writing hand playing golf? Is an Autopen Ok then? Well, if you say yes, you open the door. Maybe the POTUS lets the bill become law without a signature.

We got by for a long time as a functioning Republic without a POTUS using the Autopen. I have misgivings about a POTUS, any POTUS (including 47), making routine use of an Autopen. Not having the Autopen to execute official documents seems the lesser of evils.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if having a single deified ruler who can rule at his whim is a bad idea.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Welcome to the anti-Federalist team!!!! George Mason was right. Hamilton wanted an elected King. He wrote it that way on purpose. It's why the anti-Federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights, to restrain the elected King.

[David Nieporent]

The potential for abuse is too high, IMHO, just as a general proposition. The Autopen is a recent phenomenon, so maybe not such a strong precedent.

The autopen is not a recent phenomenon, and what "potential for abuse"?

With the prevalence of digital signatures for legal docs, that rationale goes away.

What distinction do you imagine between an automatic signature and an automatic signature?
​
​
Also: I reiterate that the vast majority of documents under discussion do not need to be signed at all, so the use of an autopen is a total red herring. The only constitutional mention of "signing" is for bills, but a bill becomes a law whether the president signs it or not, except at the end of a congressional term when congress adjourns. (I suppose there's an edge case: if an emergency bill is sent to the president that takes effect immediately — most don't — and he signs it, it goes into effect that day; if he doesn't sign it, it doesn't take effect until day 10.) Pardons do not need to be signed to be valid. Executive orders do not need to be signed to be valid.

[Riva]

A corrupt, brain addled Big Guy acting as president is, however, a relatively recent phenomenon.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s back this year.

[Riva]

Not sure there are any emails or witnesses that identify anyone other than O'Joe as the Big Guy but don't keep it to yourself if a new laptop comes to light.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Pardons do not need to be signed to be valid. Executive orders do not need to be signed to be valid."

No, but they DO need to be done by the President, and his signature serves as evidence that's the case. Trump is saying he has some evidence Biden's staff were doing a lot of these without Biden being aware, and just using the autopen to make it look like a Presidential action.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump is saying he has some evidence

FFS

[Joe_dallas]

There are good indications that Biden was only marginally aware of what was being done. At this point every generally agrees that oral statements will suffice to effucate a pardon or EO.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Pardons do not need to be signed to be valid. Executive orders do not need to be signed to be valid."

This is imprecise. Pardons and executive orders don't have to be issued via a signed document. But if there is a document purporting to issue an executive order or pardon, with a blank space for the President's signature, such a document wouldn't indicate that a pardon or EO was issued.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Maybe they don't have to be signed, but they have to be the actual decision of the actual President. That's what the signature is for. To prove that. In the Biden case, there is NO evidence that he, personally, decided to issue these pardons.

[David Nieporent]

Sure there is. He was president. The pardons were issued by him. In the months since then, he has never spoken up to say that he didn't make the decisions. That's evidence.

If you want to posit a mass conspiracy, go ahead, but it won't get you far in court.

[Armchair]

"Why"

See the hypothetical below. What if the autopen is used, but the President didn't actually approve it? What's the result?

[Longtobefree]

More interestingly, what's the remedy?

[John F. Carr]

In olden times a person unable to write his own name could make a mark that would serve as a signature. A witness might be required.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were wax seals -- I've seen a few on old Royal documents.
I believe the King wore his seal as a ring.

[Absaroka]

"In olden times a person unable to write his own name could make a mark that would serve as a signature"

Apparently you still can:

"Regarding a signature by mark or symbol, the classic example is the handmade “X.” But, another mark or symbol can be used, including the image from a signature stamp bearing a facsimile of the signer’s signature or the printed name of the signer.

In some jurisdictions, there is a specified procedure to follow in conducting a notarization of a signature by mark, such as the need for one or two witnesses and noting of the use of a mark in the notarial certificate. In other jurisdictions, the notarization of a signature by mark is handled as the notarization of any other signature."

Heck, I do it without notarization whenever some place has one of those 'sign with a finger' credit card machines ... the scrawl I come up doesn't look anything like my signature. I gave up trying and just swipe a finger. For DocuSign I just take the one they suggest, which looks better than anything I can write with a mouse.

[Krayt]

What's the point it? A signature rubber stamp is oddly more honest because everyone knows it's fake. What is an autopen trying to do?

Maintain a cool cachet of a physical signature? Or do they imagine some metaphysical transferance where that's what the law requires? I guess our robot overlords will inform us of what laws they sign some day, as they decrease the workload.

Or is it deeper, more like transubstantiation, where a thing becomes a different thing in its being, regardless of its mere physical garb to our secular eyes? Like a voodoo fetish doll, much stronger than a look-alike, a clone that becomes the real thing so whatever happens to one happens to the other.

That famous people use one to sign photographs for fans doesn't help the case any as the fan wants the real deal, and would protest the fakery, the famous person trying to get away with something squirrely. Probably their assistant did it, to add insult to injury.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Autopens were around before printable .jpeg files.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think he needs to legally. But it might be politically prudent for Biden to videotape and release an announcement where he says that he in fact intended all these pardons.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think he needs to legally. But it might be politically prudent for Biden to videotape and release an announcement where he says that he in fact intended all these pardons.

You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Your proposal would satisfy absolutely none of the MAGA loons; they'd just shift their conspiracymongering to the position that he was forced or tricked or whatever into recording the video,¹ and that he had no idea what he was saying when he recorded it.

¹I am pretty sure that "videotape" isn't really a thing anymore.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy St Patrick's Day VC Conspirators! Hope you find a shamrock, and a pot of gold (in whatever form that may be) in your lives today. No holiday would be complete, without a good dessert.

If you have a spare bottle of Guinness, these brownies are quite good.

https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/guinness-brownies/

Tech notes
Bring to simmer, but do not boil Guinness.
The overhang matters, you need to lift out the brownies en masse
I am agnostic on espresso powder

[Kazinski]

You do know St Patrick's day is the closest thing we have to White Pride day, don't you?

But everyone seems to enjoy themselves anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

On the contrary, the difference between Irish and white is why white pride is not a thing but St. Patrick’s day is.

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

I don't get it. What's the difference between Irish and White?

[Sarcastr0]

It's similar to the difference between gay people generally and repressed gay dudes who can't stop posting about gay buttsex.

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

I don't get it. Can you elaborate? I'm open to understanding your perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you're not open to anyone's ideas. You're too off your noodle for that.

But for others, white is the superset that shares little in common culturally across it.
Irish-America is a subset that shares plenty of cultural heritage.

For instance - there's lot of Irish foods. White foods are...anything that's not too spicy?

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

But no one applies the same nuance to "blacks" and "hispanics". So that argument doesn't make sense.

Does it have to do your personal experiences you shared (re: gay butt sex)? You may not realize this, but blacks can be gay too.

[Sarcastr0]

To take one of your two examples, African Americans share plenty of culture. MLK, Malcolm X; there's a food tradition. TV shows. Black twitter used to be incredible.

Recent African immigrants aren't part of that demographic and have cultures all their own.

When my office used to do outreach, we had separate initiatives for each of those groups. Even that was pretty reductive for African immigrants, and we were working on that.

But whites, not being a subculture, don't have the same push. What specifically white cultural heroes are there? What's white food?

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

Wait, so "White" means all White people, but "black" only means "African American"? What about "hispanic"? Is that only Mexican American?

>But whites, not being a subculture, don't have the same push. What specifically white cultural heroes are there? What's white food?

How is Irish-American not a White subculture in the same way african american is a black subculture?

Why are you deliberating "mixing your metaphors", so to speak, that is your degrees of generalization to be more precise?

[Malika]

I think Irish is a subset of White, but it wasn't always that way, the Irish were treated as some lesser ethnicity a lot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think Irish is a subset of White, but it wasn't always that way, the Irish were treated as some lesser ethnicity a lot."

1. Just because an ethnicity is made up of white people doesn't mean that they're not treated as a lesser ethnicity.

2. Sure, Irish is a subset of white, just like African-American is a subset of black.

[not guilty]

I am told that my ancestry is predominantly Irish. My late, second wife was of Italian descent. I once bought a cookbook entitled "The Great Recipes of Ireland." She kidded me about what a thin volume it was. (I had to agree.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Better than "The Great Recipes of Britain", to be sure. My sis bought me a British cookbook once, and what ghastly things to do to good ingredients! (Though I do rather like bubble and squeek.)

By contrast, the recipes in by book of Irish pub food have been superb.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm as Irish as I am Hungarian, but my Irish side didn't really go in for the ancestral culture things, so I feel more cultural connection to Hungarian recipes.

But I do love plenty of Irish food.
Soda bread.
Irish stew.
Corned beef and potatoes.
Colcannon.
Irish bangers

Almost said Rumbledethumps, but that's Scottish.

[Malika]

I'm glad you said potatoes and not cabbage.

I hate it when people try to tell me potatoes are a "starch" and not a vegetable. They're a veritable super-vegetable when you look at nutrients. And is there any vegetable more tastily versatile than potatoes?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, I do love my cabbage. But nothing beats spuds.

That's my leftover go-to. Used to be fried rice, but nowadays I make a hash.

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

Are you Irish-American, or are you White? You seem to be arguing those are distinct and one is not a subset of the other.

[Commenter_XY]

This year, I am cooking the corned beef in my Instant Pots (plural). That is my innovation for this year. Just the Costco Morton's brand. I do cabbage (and/or cauliflower), not potatos, though.

[not guilty]

I did an appeal from the rape conviction of a black defendant where the evidence at trial involved DNA analysis. The State's expert testified as to what portion of the African American population had a DNA profile comparable to that of the accused.

I pointed out to the appellate court that the witness did not explain what alleles indicated citizenship and/or nationality.

[Jmaie]

Was at an Irish friend's house for St. Patty's day dinner, her take on cabbage was brilliant. Instead of the usual soggy mess she cooked hers separately. A pound of bacon in 1" segments rendered until crispy, add a chopped onion until soft, finally a head of cabbage, shredded.

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

>A pound of bacon in 1" segments rendered until crispy, add a chopped onion until soft, finally a head of cabbage, shredded.

That sounds awesome. I'm going to ask my wife to make that tonight.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I pointed out to the appellate court that the witness did not explain what alleles indicated citizenship and/or nationality."

Did it work?

[not guilty]

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, but did not comment on my observation regarding the DNA expert's testimony.

[Malika]

"I don't get it."

And that's its problem!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or French-Canadian and English-Canadian?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that some people wear Orange today????

[Frank Drackman]

I'm wearing Orange and Blue, and I'll be amazed if any of you Poindexters get that reference

[Malika]

Auburn got beat by 'Bama in their last game. They're not going to win the tourney.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s what they said about Ohio State after the Michigan game

[Malika]

Don't get me wrong, Broome is a beast. But they are not going to win this.

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

On the court, FL is playing the best ball. They're 5-1 against Auburn, Bama, and TN.

I think AU will make it to the Final Four, and if Florida isn't there, then they got a chance for it all.

[Malika]

Holy crap, Gay Butt Sex Guy does know some things.

Florida has a great chance to win. I would also say St. Johns or Duke (if Flagg is in shape to play). Also TN.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Bruce is going to give you a ring to match your Pearl Necklace

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, try not to jump around when they play "Jump round"

"I'll serve your ass like John McEnroe
If your girl steps up, I'm smackin' the ho
Word to your moms, I came to drop bombs
I got more rhymes than the Bible's got Psalms
And just like the Prodigal Son, I've returned
Anyone steppin' to me, you'll get burned"

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

Every day is White Pride day.

[Ska]

More like stay the fuck away from the subway and dodge people in plastic hats. Sort of like New Year's Eve, but with a more focused group of participants.

Everyone is Irish on St. Patrick's Day - except for black people and Italians.

[Martinned2]

When I lived in Dublin (20+ years ago) we all watched the parade on TV. The inner city had basically become unlivable for a day or two, because of all the American tourists.

[Frank Drackman]

What about the “Black Irish”? Jeez, am I the only culturally sentient one here?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've spent the last week curing a brisket to make the corned beef; The corned beef prices at the grocery store were absurdly high, (And wasn't even real corned beef, just a trimmed piece of brisket with a spice pack!) and I'd lucked into some cheap brisket some months ago, and had it handy in the freezer. It's now out of the fridge, and will be going into the slow cooker in a couple hours.

I just need to head out to the store after breakfast to pick up some leeks.

The brownie recipe sounds interesting, and I do have Guinness, (Some is going in with the brisket!) but I'm on the keto diet right now, (Have lost 15 pounds so far; Visible abs by summer or bust!) and my wife is really down on sweets right now after seeing her A1C. So it would only be my son eating them.

Might try the recipe anyway, that boy can polish off a batch of brownies so fast it's scary.

[Commenter_XY]

It is worth it. They freeze well, btw. You and wife can splurge around Memorial Day and have one. Celebrate your abs once again, lol.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Green beer is just as tasty as regular beer, assuming the lighting in the bar is dark enough not to tell the difference.

Green potato salad, though, is gross.

[Brett Bellmore]

My son has given the brownies a 5 star review, including the use of espresso powder.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m half Irish half Jewish, I want to get drunk and beat somebody up, but then I feel guilty about it. There’s more of us out there than you think

[Martinned2]

Lá Fhéile Pádraig shona daoibh go léir

[Martinned2]

David Allen Green has been arguing for some time now that a constitutional crisis isn't when the government (passionately) disagrees with a court judgment, but when the government intentionally disobeys a court judgment/order. He has now written about this deportations case:

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/03/oopsie-the-word-that-means-the-united-states-has-now-tipped-into-a-constitutional-crisis/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I argue a Constitutional crisis is when fascist judges deliberately subvert the democratic process.

Time for pro-forma impeachments.

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

It only makes sense that if Article III judges attempt to usurp Article II powers, they should be ignored, at a minimum, impeached at a best.

[Martinned2]

Reactions like that is how democracy and the rule of law die.
(Not to mention the English language.)

[David Nieporent]

I argue a Constitutional crisis is when fascist judges deliberately subvert the democratic process.

Time for pro-forma impeachments.

This is retard mad-libs. It's a collection of random words that make no sense together.

[Martinned2]

And now he's published a sequel: https://davidallengreen.com/2025/03/understanding-what-went-on-in-court-yesterday-in-the-us-deportations-case/

[Commenter_XY]

Baruch Dayan Ha'Emet: (former) Rep Nita Lowey.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/nita-lowey-longtime-jewish-us-congresswoman-and-mideast-peace-advocate-dies-at-87/

May her soul be bound up in the bonds of life.

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

[ReaderY]

The Trump administration has begun defying court orders. Deported immigrants are in many ways a very logical place to begin, as the Administration probably thinks that once out of the country, that’s that and there’s nothing to be done. After all, courts don’t have the authority to order people back in. And once the idea that court orders don’t have to be taken seriously gains acceptabce, it can be applied to other things. Like the Reinland reoccupation, like the euthanasia program, one starts small and them builds up as the concept that the old order’s no-nos aren’t no-nos anymore gradually gains acceptance.

So what can be done?

[Commenter_XY]

Is it criminal contempt? Then enforce it.

Ultimately, isn't that the answer? If you don't comply with a TRO, there is a consequence to that. Effectuate the consequence.

[ReaderY]

How?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, in the latest imbroglio, Judge Boasberg could appoint a private counsel to defend AG Bondi (and other named parties), and conduct a jury trial for criminal contempt (if I understand NG cite upthread). Do you even need a jury trial for criminal contempt, could it be a bench trial (why not)?

I've noticed that the fed docket can move very, very quickly when sufficiently motivated needed, and time is of the essence. You couldn't have a trial in less than 30 days? In DC, there is an especially motivated ample jury pool (if needed). And this hypothetically is an 'open and shut' case of criminal contempt.

If you rapidly effectuate the consequence, the behavior rapidly changes. That is all I am saying, ReaderY. It comes down to the willingness of Judge Boasberg to pursue that option, right?

[not guilty]

Judge Broasberg could appoint a private attorney to prosecute alleged criminal contemnors. The accused contemnors would qualify for appointment of defense counsel only if indigent.

Since 18 U.S.C. § 401 authorizes confinement exceeding six months, there is a Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996). The accused can waive a jury trial in writing if the government consents and the court approves. Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(a).

[Commenter_XY]

See, to me, that is the route for Judge Boasberg to go. Hold the trial. Quickly. Make the judicial enforcement process work, as intended.

OTOH, the political and legal fallout from initiating a trial would be tremendous.

Still though, ReaderY posted the question: What to do?

[John F. Carr]

Trump can pardon criminal contempt. If the plaintiffs can find a way to invoke civil contempt Trump's powers are reduced.

[Commenter_XY]

We have both going on, hypothetically.

So prosecute criminal contempt and invoke civil contempt. What stops Judge Boasberg from doing that?

[John F. Carr]

At this point it is not clear who, if anyone, is a proper subject of a contempt order. The plaintiffs want the judge to find out.

In an ordinary criminal case an organization can be punished for the collective inaction of its members. Example based on a real case in Massachusetts. XYZ Corp. had to report a hazmat spill. It didn't. Lots of finger pointing. The person whose job was reporting hazmat incidents was never informed. No individual is liable. The corporation is still liable. But you can't charge the federal government with a crime.

[David Nieporent]

Civil contempt can only be used to compel compliance with a court order. An order that cannot be complied with cannot be the subject of civil contempt. While "the plane was over the ocean" is a nonsense bullshit argument, "the prisoners are no longer in U.S. custody" does actually prevent compliance.

[ReaderY]

Exactly. That’s the problem.

[Frank Drackman]

Judge might want to “clear his calendar” for his own impeachment trial

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or you throw the judges in jail. At some point, you have to consider this.

Send the judges to GitMo.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's buying a ticket good for going straight to the Supreme court in record time, or at least is trying to. That's what is going on here.

[Commenter_XY]

That's fine, Brett. Gets the case over with, quickly.

Then again, SCOTUS might take a very dim view of a fed dist ct judge issuing a yet another nationwide TRO (and a preemptive one, at that). Hard to predict that aspect.

[not guilty]

XY, if you are referring to Judge Boasberg, he did not issue a nationwide TRO. He provisionally certified a class consisting of "All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua and its implementation". The relief granted is accordingly applicable only to members of that class.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Which applies nation wide. Ergo, it's a universal injunction. Also, how does a Judge certify a class action before any appearance or filing by the Defendant????
You call that due process?

[David Nieporent]

1) Setting aside that it's a TRO rather than an injunction, that's not what "universal [nationwide] injunction" means; a class action is the alternative to such an injunction.
2) "Due process" is a right of people, not the government.
3) What on earth are you talking about? The government had appeared before the class action was certified.

[Frank Drackman]

If only the Constitution had a Provision for removing a POTUS for illegal activity, we could call it “Low Crimes”, wait, that doesn’t sound right, “Bad” Crimes, and maybe throw in Misdemeanors, maybe the House could bring charges with. 3/4 vote, nah make it 2/3, actually majority would be good, then have the Trial in the Senate, with Chief Judge of the Surpremes officiating……
Nah, would never work

[ReaderY]

As was said of President Clinton a few decades ago, “It was a very low crime that he committed, and not a high crime at all.”

[Life of Brian]

The Trump administration has begun defying court orders.

Per my earlier post, this doesn't appear to be the case at all.

If you have information that clearly supersedes the factors I mentioned, feel free to share it. If you're just reading headlines, you may want to consider doing less of that.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see how "They didn't defy the initial order" has any bearing on the question of whether they defied the subsequent order.

[Life of Brian]

Sure. Has someone offered any evidence that they defied the subsequent order (I take it you mean the second TRO at 7:25pm Eastern)? The entire fracas I see appears to be based on the first TRO.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Like the Reinland reoccupation"

Ah, the obligatory Nazi comparison. No Niemöller quote?

"like the euthanasia program"

Holland or Canada?

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

Ok, so this is getting troublesome, there are actual Congresspeople arguing to just ignore the courts now.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1889337281518969102

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's about time -- and about time to start doing it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The subtle wit of Reply
Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 again proves too much for some people.

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

Do you think I'm being too nuanced?

[Frank Drackman]

I like AOC, give her time and she’ll be one of us

[SRG2]

Ah, the holy sacrament of whataboutism...

[Super Scary]

"whataboutism"

Also known as "Noooo, don't pay attention to my hypocrisy!"

[dwb68]

Courts issue unappealable orders (TROs) like telling the government to pay 2 billion, or turn planes around, and in a shocking, shocking, not at all completely predictable turn of events, the Trump admin has a Jacksonian "let them enforce it" moment.

Lawfare has its moments, but all this haphazard lawfare against the Trump admin is going to have a very predictable backlash against the Democrats and the courts.

Remember boys and girls: bad facts make bad law: Who wants to die on the hill of bringing criminals back into the country or sending 2 billion dollars to corrupt NGOs?

For their own sake, appellate courts need to rein in out-of-control forum shopping and district judges issuing unappealable and unworkable TROs. The judiciary is in fact the weakest branch. They need the consent of the other two branches of government to function. These unworkable and unappealable TROs will soon be predictably ignored, because the judiciary can't dictate to the executive branch (it never had this power).

And also, the ACLU and progressive left filing these lawsuits should be careful what they wish for: *probably* Trump is overreaching with the 1798 law he's using to deport people (Please don't pretend Biden and Obama never used their pen and phone). But there *WILL BE* 7 democratic senators and enough democratic house members to give Trump this power, because illegal immigration is not popular right now, thanks to Biden.

You have to pick your battles. Deporting 300 dangerous gang members to El Savador, or a pro-Hamas agitator arent it.

The lawyers for Kahlil might win in court, but then Trump will cast this as Democrats-for-Hamas terrorists, and push through a bill that does grant him this power.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Deporting 300 dangerous Federal Judges comes to mind....

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

>Who wants to die on the hill of bringing criminals back into the country or sending 2 billion dollars to corrupt NGOs?

Well obviously Democrats do. They are going to the mat for those 168 murderers. Heck, that's 1680 votes they won't get in the next election.

[Malika]

Upholding the law often involves unsavory defendants. But don't let that get in the way of your fascism.

[dwb68]

Bad facts make bad law because judges are no more immune to twisting the law against an unsavory defendant than anyone else.

[Sarcastr0]

So you are rooting against the rule of law, and for it to be trumped by personal preferences and politics.

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

What's going on by these judges isn't "Rule of Law". It's Trump Law.

[Malika]

Yes, it's Trump skirts the law a lot.

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

No, lol, dummy, that's not Trump Law.

Trump Law is him doing the exact same things as his predecessors but it's unconstitutional because the judges just know he has hate in his heart. That "improper animus" is used by activist Democrat judges for awhile now to create the law they want or to forbid otherwise lawful actions that they don't want.

[Bob from Ohio]

"personal preferences and politics"

Its the federal judges who are doing that.

[ReaderY]

The Fuerher upholds the law.

Did you expect otherwise?

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Fuerher upholds the law."

Second Nazi reference today! Well done

You know there have been other dictators. Ides of March was just two days ago. Try a Roman reference for a change.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Upholding the law often involves unsavory defendant

I suppose some fans of Trump v. U.S. agree with this sentiment. Ha ha. Sob.

People who want to read up on the Alien Enemy Act related story have lots of options, including on this blog as well as Steve Vladeck, Heather Cox Richardson, and Chris Geidner at Substack, which avoids concerns about paywalls. Paywalls are avoidable by doing a search for archived copies.

I found one Washington Post article of particular interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/16/alien-enemies-act-venezuela-el-salvador-prison/

The headline alone is suggestive:

Trump sends more than 200 alleged gang members to prison in El Salvador

The administration won’t identify those moved — or say whether the Alien Enemies Act, which briefly sped up some deportations, played any role.

We also have fun with qualifiers:

The Justice Department has said that most, if not all, were serious criminals, but they did not release their names to publicly so that claim could be independently verified. Some of the gang members deported were members of the MS-13 gang tied to El Salvador, and the proclamation Friday does not appear to include them.

Broken eggs (now more expensive)/omelets and all that.

There is also the nature of some of the places these people (sic) are being sent:

Human Rights Watch has documented torture, forced disappearances and a lack of legal recourse in Salvadoran prisons, as well as poor access to food and water. The organization has reported instances in which inmates are systematically beaten and forced to confess that they are members of gangs, according to Juan Pappier, Americas deputy director for the group.

The whole thing also has a prudential quality for those who consider legality or morality of a tiresome nature.

Trump blocked immigration reform. Those who, big picture, want a better situation here should not trust him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alien Enemies Act

[tylertusta]

Judge Boasberg's order to redirect airplanes already in the air blows my mind. He's trying (hopefully unintentionally!) to get a bunch of people killed.

If there was ever a reason for someone to ignore a TRO, it's when abiding by it puts yourself and your passengers at risk of death or bodily injury all because a judge orders you to fly beyond the amount of fuel in your tanks.

[David Nieporent]

a judge orders you to fly beyond the amount of fuel in your tanks.

You are, of course, just making this up.

[tylertusta]

You are just a lawyer, so I don't expect you to understand things like "planes fly on fuel, not hopes, dreams, and TROs" and "if no fuel, plane fall out of sky and people die."

Apparently Judge Boasberg doesn't understand this, either, else he wouldn't have given such a boneheaded order. At the very moment the Judge reportedly gave his verbal order to turn the planes around and fly them to the US, N278GX was already 75% of its way to Honduras. N837VA wasn't far behind.

Even if the crew of those two planes were on a conference call with Judge Boasberg to listen in on the hearing so they could immediately change course, it wouldn't have mattered.

Physics doesn't care for your feels or a Judge's lack of understanding of fuel states.

[David Nieporent]

You are, of course, just making up your claims about how much fuel the planes had.

In any case, did the pilots defect to El Salvador and relinquish ownership of the planes to the Salvadoran government? If not, they presumably… put more fuel in the planes, and then brought them back. Which would have been substantial compliance with the order, if they had brought the passengers with them when they did so.

[tylertusta]

You are, of course, just making up your claims about how much fuel the planes had.

You are, of course, full of shit and talking about things you do not know about. The planes were refueled at least once, probably twice before returning to the US.

In any case, did the pilots defect to El Salvador and relinquish ownership of the planes to the Salvadoran government

Are the contracted civilian aircrew now supposed to resist the El Salvadoran police, and how are they expected to do that?

Maybe they should inform them of Judge Boasberg's verbal order?

I'm sure the local police will recognize Boasberg's jurisdiction in El Salvador. They'll get right on that.

[David Nieporent]

Are the contracted civilian aircrew now supposed to resist the El Salvadoran police, and how are they expected to do that?

Are you suggesting that the Salvadoran police (or military) were going to storm the plane and yank the people off of it, if the pilots had said, "Sorry, we have new orders to bring them back"? Or surround the plane and not let it take off?

Maybe they should inform them of Judge Boasberg's verbal order?

Maybe so, yes.

But of course all of this continues to be a stupid red herring on your part, for two reasons:

1) I have no idea why you're focusing on the pilots. I presume someone in Washington discussed the flight in advance with the Salvadoran government; the pilots didn't just show up and say, "Surprise! We've got some people for you, whether you want them or not!" Assuming that it was negotiated in advance, the same people who had those discussions would've been the ones to inform El Salvador that it wasn't going to happen.

2) Trump people have been all over the news/social media bragging about what they did. Not once have they suggested, "Oh, it just wasn't possible to bring them back; we had no choice but to leave them there" as a defense of their actions. They've smirkingly said that they didn't have to obey the judge, not that they couldn't.

[tylertusta]

-

[tylertusta]

(Re-replied due to needed edits):

Are you suggesting that the Salvadoran police (or military) were going to storm the plane and yank the people off of it, if the pilots had said, "Sorry, we have new orders to bring them back"? Or surround the plane and not let it take off?

They could have done any of those things, yes.

Maybe so, yes.

Are you saying that Judge Boasberg has jurisdiction to order the El Salvadoran police to do anything here?

I have no idea why you're focusing on the pilots.

Even a lawyer should understand that pilots fly airplanes.

I presume someone in Washington discussed the flight in advance with the Salvadoran government

Absolutely. These are coordinated with the countries' involved before the planes even take off.

...the same people who had those discussions would've been the ones to inform El Salvador that it wasn't going to happen.

Informing them is one thing. Effectuating it is another, and it exemplifies the limits of Boasberg's reach.

They've smirkingly said that they didn't have to obey the judge, not that they couldn't.

Depends on the timing. They don't have to obey an order on class standing that wasn't made, or for people who voluntarilty are deporting.

[Jmaie]

How sure are you that those planes couldn't fly 1,800 miles in single leg?

[Jmaie]

Make that 1,600 miles...

[tylertusta]

Very sure.

Commercial planes don't fly with max fuel unless you're going max range as the extra weight burns extra fuel. You carry enough fuel to go as far as your destination + some extra for diversion or delays in landing.

In the case of the ICE flights going to El Salvador, they stopped in Honduras for refueling.

[Jmaie]

It is true that commercial airliners don't always fly with full tanks, do you have specifics as to how much fuel these planes *were* carrying on the way down? Refueling on the way back just means they didn't start with enough for a round trip (which the A320 is easily capable of).

[David Nieporent]

do you have specifics as to how much fuel these planes *were* carrying on the way down?

Of course he doesn't. This is just pulled out of his ass as a fake excuse.

[tylertusta]

These were contracted flights flown by Global Crossing Airlines. I see no reason why they should deviate from standard industry practice.

[Kazinski]

Did they stop in Honduras on the way there or the way back?

[tylertusta]

N278GX flew direct back to Texas after the El Salvadoran stop. The other has no publicly available flight path and may have been direct back as well.

I imagine the Honduras stop was primarily to offload deportees there.

[ReaderY]

If they didn’t have enough fuel to go back, they could have landed somewhere and refueled, and then they woild have had enough.

[tylertusta]

"Turn around the airplanes" is stupid from an aviation perspective.

"Bring them back after refueling" isn't.

[David Nieporent]

You are either arguing in bad faith or out of ignorance of how to interpret a judicial order. If the judge says, "I want the prison produced from the prison where he's being held, immediately, no delays," he's not saying, "Don't stop for gas on the way even if the prison transport van needs gas." And Boasberg was not saying, "Don't refuel even if you need to."

[tylertusta]

So, not immediate?

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, there is this thing called "refueling."

[tylertusta]

And where exactly was that supposed to happen? A320s aren't capable of mid-air refueling.

[David Nieporent]

You just said that they refueled in Honduras. Don't you even read your own comments?

[tylertusta]

And what happens as soon as the plane touches the ground in a foreign country?

(A lawyer trying to opine on aviation matters should know this)

[David Nieporent]

They turn off the fasten seatbelt sign?

[ReaderY]

If they are doing this to enable them to come back, they are reasonably complying with the court order. As far as the country they land in is concerned, the passengers stay in the plane so there aren’t any customs issues. They refuel, maybe they remove some garbage and pick up more cans of Coke or something, they take off. It happens. Unscheduled landings are a thing and there are protocols for dealing with them

[tylertusta]

The problem is one of jurisdiction.

If you're in a US-flagged airline you're considered on US soil. Things get hazy once you enter another country's airspace. However, once you are wheels down in another country, you are no longer on US "soil" and are fully subject to the foreign country's laws.

Refueling and taking off are done entirely with the permission of the foreign country. For commercial passenger flights (Delta, Southwest, American, etc.) this isn't a big deal as permission is granted as a matter of course.

For government flights it's different: governments can and have refused US flights to enter their airspace due to them carrying deportees.

(Customs regulations aren't really applicable here).

[not guilty]

"You just said that they refueled in Honduras. Don't you even read your own comments?"

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

[tylertusta]

As tylertusta said: "And what happens as soon as the plane touches the ground in a foreign country?

(A lawyer trying to opine on aviation matters should know this)"

[ReaderY]

They could have found a nearby place to land and refueled on an emergency basis. It happens.

[tylertusta]

Assuming that they are permitted to land, and assuming that country they landed in would allow them to refuel.

Mexico has previously denied landing for deportation flights.

[David Nieporent]

This would be literally the opposite of a deportation flight; it would be a reportation flight. (Okay, that's not a word, but you get the point.) If there's a problem, Bondi, or Noem, or Rubio, whomever, gets on the phone to the Honduran government and says, "We've got a situation here where we have to bring this people back to the U.S. and we need to refuel. We're not trying to trick you into taking them." (To be sure, Trump has squandered 150% of his credibility with foreign leaders at this point, but I suppose Rubio should still have some.)

I repeat: this is a fake issue. There is no way that the logistics couldn't be easily worked out, and the administration itself hasn't cited them as a reason.

[dwb68]

Ah well, of course you are making up this nonsense about gravity and aerodynamics. Federal judges can order planes to do whatever they want!

[tylertusta]

This whole thread is a wonderful example of lawyers who:

A) Think that they know how aviation works when they don't
B) Think that judges have more power than they actually do- at least when it comes to Trump.
C) Think that foreign countries accede to the demands of DC judges on how they police air travel within their own borders.

I am greatly enjoying this.

[dwb68]

Cynical me thinks the flight details were leaked to highlight this and get the Dems to pick a fight they are destines to lose.

[tylertusta]

I can see how the administration wants to pick this fight. AEA, TROs, and class standing all rolled into one!

[David Nieporent]

It's also a wonderful example of you being utterly full of shit.

[Voize of Reazon]

A) Think that they know how aviation works when they don't

An interesting observation from someone who, earlier in the thread, seemed to think that A320s burn avgas.

And while I'm here ...

If you're in a US-flagged airline [and outside some other country's airspace] you're considered on US soil.

Subject to US law, but not "on US soil". A baby born on a US-registered aircraft in international airspace does not acquire jus soli citizenship.

[tylertusta]

An interesting observation from someone who, earlier in the thread, seemed to think that A320s burn avgas.

A turn of phrase. I did not look up the exact type until after I wrote that, not that it matters for the context of this discussion.

[Voize of Reazon]

There are still some flyable DC-6s around, but that wouldn't have been my first assumption.

[tylertusta]

When I wrote that, I was thinking of a story I read a while back where short-haul flights across the border to Mexico used piston engine props instead turoprops or modern airliners.

I can't find the article now, and it appears that IAO exclusively uses modern commercial jets now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"An interesting observation from someone who, earlier in the thread, seemed to think that A320s burn avgas."

Military JP4, the primary USAF fuel between 1951 and 1995, was a 50%-50% mix of gasoline and kerosene. Jet B, now only used in frigid Northern Canada, is (essentially) 70% gasoline.

It would smoke more and have less power as it is tuned for the particular fuel, but the real issue is gasoline lacks lubricating qualities.

[not guilty]

I know very little about how aviation works. I know a good bit about how contempt for violation of a court order works.

As the first President Roosevelt famously said:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

These blog comments attract a curious number of dilettantes, who have never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, who nevertheless fancy that they know something about how the law operates.

[Frank Drackman]

Highschool Baseball Coach paraphrased TR’s words when our last game of the season determined if we’d make the CIF post season or not (we didn’t) not quite as good as the Saint Crispin day speech (we lost that one too) but hey, he was trying!

[Sarcastr0]

tylertusta, you're making a ton of factual assumptions to get to where you want to go.

Maybe those will turn out to be right. Or maybe they will turn out to be plausible enough to avoid a contempt finding.

But you sure are not covering yourself in glory throwing a bunch of assumptions at the wall and then acting like you're the only expert that matters *in this thread about a legal proceeding*

[tylertusta]

Maybe those will turn out to be right. Or maybe they will turn out to be plausible enough to avoid a contempt finding.

If you read all of the way up to the top of this thread where I jumped in, I'm talking about the practical matter of safely flying an airplane in attempting to comply with the judge's orders.

Pilots have a saying: "Aviate, navigate, communicate." Those are the priorities for flying planes that are drilled into pilots when they go to flight school and in the order that they are prioritized.

Boasberg's ordering that planes be immediately turned around without him knowing what their fuel state was is a boneheaded thing to do. For a species that prides itself on preciseness of language, perhaps the lawyers here should understand what being precise means in this situation, so protests of 'just refuel them on the ground' or 'emergency landing in Mexico' are conceding that immediately 'turning planes around' is unrealistic and unfeasible.

Judge Boasberg can issue all of the orders that he wants, but his gavel in DC is no substitute for a tank full of gas over Central America.

But you sure are not covering yourself in glory throwing a bunch of assumptions at the wall and then acting like you're the only expert that matters *in this thread about a legal proceeding*

Not that I'm conceding anything, but it's fitting to read this from you.

Turnabout is fair play with the VC comment section today.

[Sarcastr0]

You do not have the facts to make a statement about the logistics. It's all suppositions *you are making*.

Which makes it useless.

[tylertusta]

"You do not have the facts to make a statement about the logistics"

If you don't care to contribute and only seek to complain, then why bother hitting "Submit?"

[David Nieporent]

Boasberg's ordering that planes be immediately turned around without him knowing what their fuel state was is a boneheaded thing to do. For a species that prides itself on preciseness of language, perhaps the lawyers here should understand what being precise means in this situation, so protests of 'just refuel them on the ground' or 'emergency landing in Mexico' are conceding that immediately 'turning planes around' is unrealistic and unfeasible.

The problem is not merely that you don't understand how court orders work, but you don't even know what his actual order was. Here's what he actually said:

You shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.

Emphasis added.

[David Nieporent]

Er, I just checked the other comments in the thread, and weirdly, not only do you know what he said, but you yourself quoted it. So I don't know why you're pretending he said something different.

[tylertusta]

I'm not pretending otherwise. Judge Boasberg's oral order, taken literally, demands immediate compliance. The last sentence, which I'll quote back to you:

But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.

A plane continuing to fly to its destination is not immediately complying with the judge's order.

Even Judge Boasberg's oral order conveys three examples of immediate compliance.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know if you're just playing dumb here. "Immediate" does not mean "Snap my fingers and the world changes as though I were holding the Infinity Gauntlet." It means "As soon as actually possible." If the plane needs to refuel so that it doesn't crash into the Gulf of Mexico on the way back, then stopping to refuel is still immediate.

[tylertusta]

I never thought I'd being arguing with a lawyer who maintains the word "immediate" doesn't actually mean immediate, but here we are.

If Judge Boasberg didn't mean immediately, then why did he say it? He didn't say "as soon as possible " or "feasible." He said immediately.

In fairness to Judge Boasberg, he probably was unaware of considerations like fuel, aircrew rest, maintenance, and the cooperation of foreign countries. He may have even thought that the planes had just taken off and were still in US airspace.

Despite your preemptive protests to the contrary, he seemed to have thought that he can snap his fingers to get a plane carrying someone back into the US, notwithstanding that it's not so simple. His orders, neither oral or written, convey nothing other that he wants to retain jurisdiction and have anyone covered by his TRO returned immediately.

Considering that the Judge only today whined to the government that they didn't follow a TRO that wasn't given, I'm not convinced that Boasberg even knows how airplanes fly.

[Sarcastr0]

You are taking a tendentious parsing so you can argue impossibility.

It’s laughable.

[David Nieporent]

If Judge Boasberg didn't mean immediately, then why did he say it? He didn't say "as soon as possible " or "feasible." He said immediately.

I already explained to you what immediately means. "Why did he use a word that I don't understand?" is not a compelling argument.

And he did not order that the people be produced in his courtroom immediately; he ordered immediate compliance. If the administration gave the order to its people immediately, that would satisfy his order.

And, again, this is all bullshit on your part. The government at no point has claimed that it was impossible to comply. Just that it was unwilling to do so.

[tylertusta]

And he did not order that the people be produced in his courtroom immediately; he ordered immediate compliance

What a stupid dodge. An order for the Trump admin to 'turn planes around' just means 'just tell the Trump admin to turn them around and let the chips fall where they may?' Come on.

I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if the government's interpretation of the order was to drop somebody off in El Salvador and walk them up north, but since the DOJ told the Trump admin immediately it's OK.

The government at no point has claimed that it was impossible to comply. Just that it was unwilling to do so.

A red herring.

The government said that it complied with the order by not removing the five named individuals. Ergo, the government doesn't need to inform the court about impossibility to fulfill an order that they already complied with!

This whole thread is about a judge's putative ability to order planes to turn around in the air, not whether the government is making the argument in this case.

[David Nieporent]

This whole thread is about a judge's putative ability to order planes to turn around in the air, not whether the government is making the argument in this case.

The fact that the government isn't making the argument in this case, even though it would be a winning argument that would avoid any sanctions and a constitutional crisis, is evidence that the argument is bullshit.

What a stupid dodge. An order for the Trump admin to 'turn planes around' just means 'just tell the Trump admin to turn them around and let the chips fall where they may?' Come on.

Why do you keep lying about this when the order has been quoted here more than once, including by you? There was no order to turn planes around. The order was "those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished" Turning the planes around was one example he gave of how to accomplish that; it wasn't the order itself.

[DixieTune]

Boasberg is a traitor who deserves a Zyklon B shower.

[Armchair]

What happens if the Presidents doesn't actually sign a bill, but a machine does?

Let's posit the following hypothetical situation. Congress sends a bill to the President's desk. The President says "hold on to it for a bit, I may want to veto it". Two days later, an aide approaches the President while he's busy and asks "Mr. President did you wan to sign that bill that bill?" The President goes "Yeah yeah" then turns away and says "later." However, the aide misinterprets this, takes the bill, puts it under the Presidential autopen, and sends it to Congress. Congress is thrilled, they got through a controversial law without a veto.

The next day the President goes, "OK, I want to veto that bill". The Aide says "Mr. President, you signed it into law already". The President responds "I did NOT sign it, that law is invalid, bring it back!" Congress says "No, the law is signed". The President responds by bringing a lawsuit to the SCOTUS to invalidate the law.

What is the proper response here? What happens to the law? If the aide says (truthfully) he heard the President approve signing the law, what's the recourse?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Constitution says "approve" not "sign."

It doesn't specify HOW the PRESIDENT does this as long as it is the POTUS doing it.

[Armchair]

Eh... not really. Here's the text.

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it."

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed,
Here’s your Sign

Frank

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution says "approve" not "sign."

It actually says sign. Is there nothing you can't get wrong?

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Can we have Mr. Ed start commenting here instead? These back and forths with "Dr. Ed" have jumped the shark.

[Sarcastr0]

For a long time I thought I'd never block Ed he was just too funny.

But he's gotten more desperate for attention now that there's others about as crazy as he is hanging around.

It's gotten sad. I have him on mute on and off now.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s so sad you believe anyone cares

[A Japanese Student]

My guess is that enrolled bill rule applies here as well. Also, I'm not sure how the President can sue in this case. What would be the cause of action?

[Armchair]

Another party had usurped the President's constitutional duty to sign the bills.

[A Japanese Student]

That's not an agency action under APA, and I'm not aware of a statute that waives the sovereign immunity. (Unless Ex parte Young applies to the federal government as well?)

[Armchair]

This is a little bit above just the APA

[tylertusta]

Depends on what the bill is about. If the President in his personal capacity is subject to its terms then he would have personal standing.

[Commenter_XY]

Recourse: The POTUS goes to Congress (sheepishly), and asks for an expedited legislative 'do over'.

[Armchair]

Congress says "No"

[Commenter_XY]

Then the POTUS just invested trillions into his On-The-Job Training.

[John F. Carr]

Some state constitutions limit bills to a single subject, or require a law to be reenacted in full rather than amended by striking and adding words. In such states the first order of business of a new legislative session can be re-enacting the state code as it appears in the official printed edition, thus ratifying any procedurally unconstitutional acts of the prior session. That bill is on a single subject, recodification, and sets out in full the text of the new law.

[Armchair]

Follow up to the previous hypothetical.

Rather than an aide being "mistaken" and using the autopen, the aide deliberately uses the autopen and submits the bill to Congress, despite knowing full well the President did not intend to approve the bill (and intended to Veto it instead). Congress won't give the bill back, and says it's law now.

What recourse is available to the President.

[Josh R]

Argue to the courts that he did not sign the bill.

[Armchair]

How's that argument go?

"Judge, I did not sign that bill"
"Well Mr. President, the signature matches all your other signatures on bills"
"Well Judge, I use an autopen. They all match"
"So, Mr. President, you didn't use the autopen on this bill, but you used the autopen all the other bills"
"Well, Judge, I didn't personally use the autopen, I just told someone to do it"
"So....Mr. President, how are we to tell which signatures are yours and which aren't?"

[Josh R]

Mr. President, how are we to tell which signatures are yours and which aren't?"

Testimony from his staff and others.

[Armchair]

"Testimony from his staff and others"

So...the staff...including the one who apparently lied...gets to say which bills the President signed and which he didn't?

So, if two staffers say the President signed the bill, one staffer says he didn't see him sign the bill, and the President says he didn't sign the bill, was the bill signed or not?

[Noscitur a sociis]

“By me telling you.”

This would be an especially strange line of questioning for someone working in the federal court system, where manuscript signatures are virtually never used.

[not guilty]

"What happens if the Presidents doesn't actually sign a bill, but a machine does?"

The bill becomes law unless the President vetos it within ten days (Sundays excepted) or Congress adjourns before the ten day period expires. Why does this question keep occurring on this site?

Article I, § 7 of the Constitution states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

[Armchair]

"Why does this question keep occurring on this site?"

Because the question keeps being avoided. It's telling you didn't answer the hypothetical situation.

Can the President veto a bill which has been "Signed" already?

[not guilty]

"Can the President veto a bill which has been 'Signed' already?"

If within the applicable ten day period he returns it with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, I don't see why not. The operative language is that (except for the pocket veto) "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it[.]"

The stupid "Autopen" meme is the reddest of red herrings.

[Malika]

His King is an idiot, he's gotta have something.

[Armchair]

" I don't see why not. "

Huh...that's an interesting interpretation. A President can veto a bill that he has already signed, so long as its within 10 days. Let's see how that works.

January 16th: Congress presents bill Alpha to President Democrat
January 17th: President Democrat signs bill Alpha into law
January 20th: President Republican comes into office
January 21st: President Republican vetoes bill Alpha, as it's within 10 days. Bill Alpha is no longer law...

Not sure I agree with that interpretation of the Constitution.... But it's an interesting idea that ng has.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Unless the staffer auto-pens it on the 10th day. And what is the President instructed the staffer to VETO it?

[David Nieporent]

The bill becomes law unless the President vetos it within ten days (Sundays excepted) or Congress adjourns before the ten day period expires. Why does this question keep occurring on this site?

By the exact same commenter!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Suppose that while the president is waiting to veto the first bill, Congress also passes a bill to recognize a new, popular federal holiday. At the signing ceremony, our nefarious aide substitute the second bill for the first one in the president’s little folder, and the president signs it without reading it. What happens?

[tylertusta]

This whole discussion of a Schrodinger's Law amuses me to no end.

[Armchair]

"What happens?"

Well, my first instinct is the same thing that happens to anyone else if they sign a contract they didn't read. It's valid.

On the other hand, signatures can be null and void if there is fraud or misrepresentation involved. If there's a public ceremony specifically about signing one law, but the aide surreptitiously slips a different bill into the folder, an argument can be made that there was misrepresentation going on.

[Sarcastr0]

What if the President declares that he was "elected to lead, not to read" and then selects a policy by just choosing a number and pointing at it without reviewing it, thus condemning Springfield to a pollution dome?

[ReaderY]

This is a non-issue. I hope courts issue sanctions for making a frivolous argument.

It’s like claiming the Constitution only protects the “press” when ink is physically pressed onto paper and only protects “speech” when it is audible within the physical range of the speaker (i.e. recordings are neither “press” nor “speech.”) we’re well past the point where courts should even tolerate this bullshit. He knows it, which is why I doubt he’ll ever try to argue this in court, just make speeches to rile his followers into action like he did over the 2020 election.

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

President Trump ('45 & '47) declared last night the corrupt last minute pardons by Biden's staffers were null & void.

I think he's got a strong case. Those people need justice. Real justice, not that fake Democrat stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump declares a lot of things. If the DoJ goes after pardoned people, that sure does make Biden look smart for shielding folks from the mad king.

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

Bear with me here:

Suppose those were auto-penned w/o Biden's approval. Are those still valid pardons?

[Commenter_XY]

The answer is yes, they are valid pardons, b/c you will never get an elderly man with a poor memory to testify under oath to demonstrate otherwise.

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

That's an answer to a different question, but thanks for contributing.

[Commenter_XY]

It actually is not. The pardon power is absolute. You'd never know with certainty which pardons were signed by hand, or by Autopen. Because you'd have to ask the elderly, well meaning man with a poor memory.

I personally think we should not have Autopen. Too ripe for abuse.

[tylertusta]

Conceivably you could have a witness to the events attest that the President issued the pardons.

Consider what if the former President is actually deceased instead of just mentally infirm.

How would a defendant otherwise prove that his pardon exists?

[Kazinski]

The evidence is pretty compelling its the autopen, at least clear and convincing.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not aware of any actual evidence coming to light as of yet. But even if you're right, you are asking the wrong question.

But you know that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No actual evidence that the pardons exist? Bummer for the people who thought they were pardoned.

[Malika]

Why would Trump testify?

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, I'll not suppose anything.

Because y'all are trying to pretend something is true when it's not established at all.

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

There's plenty of contemporary evidence to raise suspicions and to investigate.

[Martinned2]

He also declared a chunk of the US national debt null and void. How is that working out for you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I saw that just now. It's going to be an interesting fight. Which, hopefully, will end with the autopen being reserved for stuff that has no legal implications, like letters to kids who do well on the SAT.

[hobie]

Guess that makes that extra round of gratuitous stimulus checks Trump insisted have his signature as an election sop null and void.

[tylertusta]

This is allegedly why the DOJ's Pardon Attorney was escorted off of the premises on Jan 21st. Not because of Mel Gibson.

[John F. Carr]

If Trump thinks the pardons are invalid he can have the recipients criminally charged. The burden is on a criminal defendant to prove that he has been pardoned. There was a case a couple years ago where a defendant thought he had been pardoned by Trump and the Justice Department thought not. He made his offer of proof. The courts rejected it. Trump had announced a desire or intention to grant a pardon and didn't follow through.

[SRG2]

I think he's got a strong case.

Of course you do, because Dear Leader said it so it must be true.

[David Nieporent]

He has no "case." Presidents "declare" pardons to be void in much the same way that Michael Scott declares bankruptcy.

[hobie]

"I legally declassify documents just by thinking it"

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or at least by taking actions consistent with declassifying them.

Imagine a situation where a normal President thought it was in the public interest for the public to know some piece of classified information. So he divulges it during an Oval Office address. Nobody would argue that he committed a crime by divulging the information without declassifying it first.

[hobie]

"Nobody would argue that he committed a crime by divulging the information without declassifying it first"

Sigh...

[ReaderY]

If you tried not taking so many drugs, your thinking might come out less strong, but it would have a greater relationship to reality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo,"

("If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first).")

Nuke Gaza....

[A Japanese Student]

[deleted]

[Frank Drackman]

Problem with Japanese Executions is you feel like doing another one an hour later

[not guilty]

The way I heard that joke is that the problem with going to a Chinese brothel is that an hour later you're horny again.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Almost makes me want to un-mute the commenter you're reacting to.

[Jmaie]

I did. Wasn't worth it. Back to muted.

[David Nieporent]

For the record, if you just open a page in a Private/Incognito/whateveryourbrowsercallsit window, you won't be logged in so you'll see a comment without having to either unmute/remute or log out/log back in. It saves a few seconds over either of those options.

[Dan Schiavetta]

For some reason, half the time when I go onto this site, I'm not logged in (something I'm not aware of until I try to comment). So I end up reading muted commenters, often.

[Jmaie]

Thanks, although if I'm reading the conspiracy I'm not in that big a hurry...

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks?

[Bwaaah]

In space, no one can hear you scream.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you back to that one again, sigh....nuke gaza? Can't do that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We are on the cusp of a second civil rights movement.

[Martinned2]

One can only hope

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

You're not hoping since it's to defend and protect White Normal people.

The kind of people you hate and want replaced.

[A Japanese Student]

Interesting development in a litigation from death row. In Japan, inmates receive the notice of impending hanging just hours before execution. The public - including victims and their families - do not get to observe the process and only get informed through post-execution press conference. Inmates sued.

Today, the High Court reversed the district court's dismissal of the case. The District Court employed Heck v. Humphrey-like approach and held that the litigation is barred by the death sentence previously imposed. The High Court reversed because an injunction barring same-day notice can be implemented in a way consistent with a capital sentence.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The discussions of other nations that have the death penalty sometimes focuses on a handful of nations.

It was noted once on one of the threads on this blog that many nations on the books allow the death penalty. Fewer use it. Japan is often skipped over in the discussions.

Meanwhile, four executions are currently scheduled in the U.S. for this week. The LA execution was temporarily blocked but a court of appeals judgment changed that.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/upcoming-executions

[Malika]

No Michael P, Twelveinch, Life of Brian, etc., today. Just the D team of Drackmans, Gay Butt Sex Guy, Ediot.

Is defending King Dotard getting to be too much for the smarter MAGAs here? I know it must be exhausting, the guy is a flip flopping dolt. Imagine waking up, seeing what that nut said last night and thinking "oh, crap I guess I should think of a way to defend this..."

"I love the poorly educated!"

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

Malkia, who were you before Nige?

The oldest Nom De Plume of mine that I can recall is "SamGompers". I can't remember what I was using during the volokh.com days. I think SamGompers was WAPO days. I've been waiting to reveal that because I vaguely recall Sarcastr0 being moved that I colonized one of his hero's namesake.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Malkia, who were you before Nige?"

He was Queenie, not Nige.

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

Oh, yeah that dipshit. Are you sure they aren't all the same?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Are you sure they aren't all the same?"

No but his posts don't resemble Nige's

[John F. Carr]

Last week the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided two cases on the rights of nonresidents to bring guns into Massachusetts. Two New Hampshire drivers got into accidents in Massachusetts. Both of them had guns. Neither had a Massachusetts gun permit. The guns were in the passenger compartments so 18 USC 926A did not block state prosection. The men were charged with violating Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10, which has an 18 month mandatory minimum sentence. Both cases were assigned to the same trial court judge, who dismissed the charges on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Judicial Court granted review to decide what effect Bruen had on this situation.

One driver goes free. He was charged under the old law that, post-Bruen, imposed impermissible conditions on getting a Massachusetts gun permit. Commonwealth v. Donnell, SJC-13561.

The other driver is screwed.

Specifically, we address whether the current nonresident firearm licensing scheme violates the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or the rights to travel and to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.

The SJC held that Massachusetts' new "shall issue" permitting scheme was facially compatible with Bruen. The defendant did not apply for a license and could not complaint that it might have been unconstitutional as applied. Commonwealth v. Marquis, SJC-13562.

I think this is constitutionally correct under modern precedent. The Constitution cares little about the severity of punishment. If the government can fine you a dollar it can also lock you up and throw away the key. Can the government fine you a dollar for failing to say "please?" before carrying a gun? I think it can.

I remember visiting a friend in a more gun-friendly state and thinking "I could go to jail at home for just looking at that shelf." (Constructive possession.) Attitudes towards guns vary a lot. Massachusetts used to post signs at the border warning of the mandatory minimum sentence. I haven't seen those signs for decades.

[tylertusta]

The Constitution cares little about the severity of punishment. If the government can fine you a dollar it can also lock you up and throw away the key

In theory the 8th Amendment would prevent that. In practice however...

[Dan Schiavetta]

My very Irish American friend Erin, fellow music major, never wore a bra (this was 1977) except on St. Patrick's Day. She didn't want people saying "Erin Go Bragh-less". True story, folks.

[Commenter_XY]

She probably isn't looking quite so good, 48 years later, Dan. 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

IIRC she wasn't that busty. (For really busty girls going braless was a bad idea even at age 19.) But yes, bras do have their uses.

P.S. Ever notice how girls can take their bras off without removing their blouse/sweatshirt? I was fascinated by that, especially when they pull it out through a sleeve.

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, there are many, many things that women do as a matter of course that I find fascinating. That is not a negative at all, it is a part of their alluring nature.

[John F. Carr]

I have seen a series of pictures of a man taking off his vest without removing the jacket over it. Topologically speaking a vest is a bra.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Bra Day to all those who celebrate.

[Malika]

Is St. Patrick's Day DEI?

[Commenter_XY]

Potentially, if St. Patrick was confused about his gender identity. 🙂

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

I'm sure some Leftist historian will find "proof" that St. Patrick was either:
a.) Black
b.) Gay
c.) Gay married
d.) Transgender

Or whatever the Minority Du Jour is that they're trying to normalize and mainstream.

[Malika]

Pretty sure Irish is a minority group, but thanks for proving my point Gay Butt Sex Guy!

[Bob from Ohio]

Patrick was not Irish.

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

Listen, I know why I call other people gay or fag as an insult.

It's fucking gross, shameful, they have shortened, miserable lives filled with suffering, molestation, and STDs. So painting someone with those things is clearly an insult.

Is that why you use it as an insult too?

[Malika the Maiz]

I call you Gay Butt Sex Guy because you’re clearly obsessed with gay butt sex.

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

So it's not you trying to denigrate me?

You and Sarcastr0 both have been all upon calling me a homo today.

Maybe you aren't nige afterall, but Sacastr0's sock puppet.

You both are pretty fucking stupid. So it could work.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m pretty sure it’s [gay butt sex] [dude], not [gay] [butt sex dude]. They’re not mocking and denigrating you for being gay, they’re mocking and denigrating you for your obsession with with gay sex.

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

Do you guys not see how transparent your operation is?

If I criticize George Soros, well I'm a jew hater.
If I criticize grooming, well I'm secretly obsessed with human shit and gay or I hate grays or both.
If I criticize trannies, I'm secretly a tranny and hate trannies.

These are all just juvenile tactics meant to silence others is if there is no valid criticism or alternate legitimate positions to yours.

If I say:
"30% of the current generate identifies as LGBTQ, it used to be 2%, the data suggests something is systemically engineering this, and that's worth investigating",
You people say "Why are you so obsessed with gay butt sex?"

If I say:
"We spend more on AIDS each year than we do on cancer and NASA combined, that doesn't make sense - priority-wise for a society".

You say "Why are you so obsessed with gay butt sex".

If I say:
"That Soros funded effort to install ideologues as Secretaries of State and District Attorneys is clearly harming these areas where these people are operating."

You say:
"Oh my god, you're such a Jew hater".

If I say:
"I don't think Shakespeare is a reminder of White Supremacy".
You people say:
"Omg, you are SO racist!"

No one really gives a shit about these accusations you people constantly lay on others. They are only tools to silence criticisms of your subversion.

I'm only bringing up the gay sex thing because I love throwing back in their faces that they think gay sex is just as gross as the rest of us do.

Even though my appeals to hypocrisy have as much power as your accusations of racism/anti-semitism/whatever-ism, and I don't believe they'll stop using fag as slur (tbh, I won't either, I can't think of worse thing to call someone) I still think it important that we surface and center their hypocracy on this subject because its just so funny.

I also love their stupid, fact free trope that's been installed in their tiny bird brains about people who don't care for gays are secretly gay themselves. Think about how stupid that is. If I don't like black gangbangers, am I secretly a black gangbanger? If I don't like child molesters, am I secretly a child molester? Or is homosexuality literally the only human phenomena that fits this obviously dumb model?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Happy to clear this up for you: people don’t accuse you of being antisemitic because you criticize George Soros, they say it because you do things like accusing the U.S. military of fighting for “Israel/Globohomo/ForeverWar(tm)”. And they accuse you of being obsessed with gay sex because, well, you post obsessively about gay sex.

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

Not wanting permanent war is now an antisemitic position.

Nice...

>And they accuse you of being obsessed with gay sex because, well, you post obsessively about gay sex.

So you're a Soros defender and a liar too. Noted.

[hobie]

With abortion now thoroughly untouchable in a majority of states (sorry, boys. better luck next time), I was wondering where all the fear and loathing would get redirected by you hayseeds. For awhile it looked like teaching about American slavery and racism (1619 etal) was going to get negroes back on top. But it looks like gays are once again de jure

[Super Scary]

"With abortion now thoroughly untouchable in a majority of states (sorry, boys. better luck next time)"

Oh the horror! States are making decisions for themselves instead of relying on the fed!

[Malika]

I mean, it's a special recognition of an ethnic group...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

To make it DEI, you need to celebrate it with Irish marijuana.

But seriously, what is your definition and how are you applying that definition?

If any special recognition of an ethnic group is DEI then that waters down the concept quite a bit, which would make compliance with DEI mandates a lot easier and less annoying.

To be fully DEI, we'd have to spend not only today, but all days rending our garments and repenting of our institutional Hibernophobia.

[Malika the Maiz]

Thanks for stepping in it!

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/01/defense-department-identity-months-axed-010416

[ducksalad]

'On Friday, Trump called “upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this [Black History] month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.”

Asked Friday if agencies that had called off Black History Month activities should reinstate them in response to the proclamation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters “the president is leading here at the White House.”

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment.'

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Thanks for stepping in it!"

It's flattering that you think I'm President Trump, but I'm not.

Perhaps you think that, just as your appointed role is to *denounce* everything Trump does, I have the opposite role, of *defending* everything Trump does. But I haven't played the role you assigned me (e. g., I think Trump has to spend the money Congress appropriates unless Congress authorizes him to do otherwise or the law is unconstitutional, etc.).

Where we differ, I suppose, is that I don't see Trump as the focus of evil in the modern world. To you, failure to join in the Two-Minute Hate looks like unqualified support of Emmanuel Goldstein.

As I said, if DEI is simply about honoring the contributions of particular groups of Americans, it would be excellent. If that's all it was, then I guess we were all just making up the struggle sessions and all the rest of it.

[hobie]

Lately I've been pimping handicapped parking spots as being woke. Why should all these fat rednecks be treated specially because of physical differences and not on pure merit and achievement?

[tylertusta]

A Catholic Holiday is DEI?

[Malika the Maiz]

Recognizing big groups can’t be DEI! lol

Thanks for making my point

[tylertusta]

I'm not sure you had a point to make at all.

Also- why the switching of accounts?

[John F. Carr]

March is Irish History Month.

[not guilty]

I recall a greeting card with a picture of a red haired man dressed in green. The inscription on his shirt read: "I drove all the snakes from Ireland, and all I got was this lousy t shirt."

[ThePublius]

"Is St. Patrick's Day DEI?"

I don't know, is a mosquito DEI? Who knows? Who cares?

St. Patrick's Day is not a Federal or otherwise civil holiday. The banks are open, the mail is being delivered, the courts are open. And so on.

We don't need anyone's permission or any ordinance or government decree or declaration to celebrate. O.K.?

[hobie]

"Who knows? Who cares?"

Exactly. If Bubba Gump Shrimp want's to hire all hillbillies, let 'em. Who gives a shit?!

[ThePublius]

Meaning, what?

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

Guys, the Left has solved all of our problems has been working down the list are at, checks notes:

Decolonizing Shakespeare's birthplace. After all, Shakespeare is arguably the most famous playwright in history and since he's "White" (not British-White, which would make it okay, apparently) it's an awful reminder of "white supremacy".

https://www.gbnews.com/news/shakespeare-birthplace-decolonised-white-supremacy-concerns-stratford-upon-avon

You can't be anti-racist and read Hamlet guys...

Reason #2832442 I'm so glad Trump won.

[Malika]

"Now, the trust is now "decolonising" its collection of artefacts to "create a more inclusive museum experience"."

Lol

Now, this idiot is relying now on this source!

[SRG2]

Your #1 reason: Trump is a white authoritarian male.

[ThePublius]

I was sure you could somehow work Trump into this.

[SRG2]

You may not have noticed but MP mentioned Trump in his post and it was that to which I responded.

[apedad]

Google Faces Potential Breakup and the Sale of Its Google TV Streaming Players, Under Trump Administration Pressure

The tech giant Google is once again under scrutiny as the Department of Justice (DOJ) reaffirmed on Friday its proposal to force the company to divest its popular Chrome browser, a move that could have ripple effects across its ecosystem, potentially leading to the sale of its Google TV division and Android platform. This latest development comes as part of a broader antitrust battle initiated under the Biden administration, now gaining renewed momentum under President Trump’s leadership. . . .

Analysts suggest that forcing Google to sell off Chrome might trigger a domino effect, potentially requiring the company to divest other interconnected divisions, including Google TV and even the Android operating system. Google TV, which powers streaming devices and smart TVs, relies heavily on its Android infrastructure and Google’s search ecosystem for content delivery and user experience.

https://cordcuttersnews.com/google-faces-potential-breakup-and-the-sale-of-its-google-tv-streaming-players-under-trump-administration-pressure/

I'm not 100% convinced that Google has done anything illegal.

Sure it's tying its various platforms together but that doesn't make it a monopoly - and it certainly hasn't restricted other companies in any way.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a judgement call, and I'm not going to weep for Google.

Decent chance they're doing monopolistic stuff.
Also a decent chance Trump is specifically targeting them. But I'm not without more able to say that's what's going on.

Could even be both!

[Kazinski]

I'm generally against antitrust enforcement against companies that have achieved its market share through just being better than everyone else.

I remember the decades of antitrust investigations against IBM, which then lost its market edge to Microsoft and Intel.

Then the investigation and actions against Microsoft and possible spinoff of IE, to the point where Microsoft rescued Apple so there would still be another competitive platform.

Then Google eclipsed Microsoft, at least in the browser and search engines, so now its Googles turn, although there is still investigation of Microsoft, and they at least for now have a higher market cap than Google.

Acquisitions are another matter, and I do question things like Facebook acquiring Instagram.

[SRG2]

From The Bulwark
Trump Brought African-Style Political Thugs to the U.S.

ONE OF THE GREAT HEARTBREAKS of the Trump era for me is seeing my expertise as an Africa analyst become relevant for understanding political trends in America. For example, when I read Jonathan Rauch’s essay on Trump’s aspiring patrimonialism [I posted about tihs a while ago - SRG], a political system in which personalist rule stands in for state institutions, I nodded in recognition of one of the continent’s dominant political features.

When assessing risks to a country’s political stability or the endurance of a dictator’s power, one of my first questions was always, “Does he have guys?” They can be anything from a hyper-loyal faction of regular security forces to a specially commissioned “presidential guard” recruited from a particular ethnic group to a rag-tag gang of young men armed on the cheap and on the down-low.

I was similarly horrified by reports that Elon Musk’s private security force now has federal law enforcement authority via the U.S. Marshals Service. While the marshals sometimes contract with private security companies, Musk’s political power, not to mention his egregious conflicts of interest, makes the apparent deputization of his team highly unusual and dangerous. It’s unknown how many officers are now de facto federal agents, but that point seems irrelevant.

But all this wiull be approved by the cultists here. "You can't trust government forces, but you can trust those personally loyal to Dear Leader" will be their implicit attitude.

[apedad]

Trump would love to have the power like the Iranian supreme leader.

The supreme leader . . . is the head of state and the highest political and religious authority . . . (above the president). The armed forces, judiciary, state radio and television, and other key government organizations such as the Guardian Council and Expediency Discernment Council are subject to the Supreme Leader. According to the constitution, the Supreme Leader delineates the general policies of the . . . Republic (article 110), supervising the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive branches (article 57). (wiki)

[David Nieporent]

That is how the current MAGA loons view Trump, based solely on 15 words: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." (They're upset that they can't cut one of those words out.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

They want to cut the first two, and add one in its place, "All . . ."

[ThePublius]

It's amazing how you guys know what Trump wants, how his supporters view him, and what his supporters want. You must all be telepathic or something.

Note that saying these things you are implicitly admitting that there's no evidence for those things in reality. You just know them.

[SRG2]

It's amazing how you guys know what Trump wants, how his supporters view him, and what his supporters want. You must all be telepathic or something.

No. We have brains, eyes, ears, education, and historical awareness.

The cultists who infest here and elsewhere make it very clear.

[ThePublius]

You missed the point. You can't possibly know what's in someone's head.

[Sarcastr0]

The cycle of 'Trump doesn't mean what he seems to!' and then Trump doubles down and you lot switch to 'Trump meant it and it's good' has become basically a cliche now.

[SRG2]

You can be pretty confident based on their words and deeds.

I will bet that at some point soon you will post something that indicates that you think you know what's going on in someone else's head.

[Krayt]

If someone's behaviors match historical bad guys, that's cause for skepticism, if not concern. Yes, he could be an honest Good Guy, but the best case should not be assumed. Keep an eye out.

Most of you were war hawks in previous decades. You worried when some Democrats looked easily on the USSR, though most, and the powers that were, were in full throated support of containment.

'member when Ted Kennedy supposedly ran off to warn the Premeire of the USSR about how Reagan was the real danger? How outraged you were? Some of you are old enough, probably most.

Where'd that guy go?

[David Nieporent]

It's kind of more amazing, after 10 years of him being an extremely public figure with no filter, that you don't know what he's thinking.

[Kazinski]

If you are concerned about it then you should support Trump's effort to cut the size and scope of the Executive branch.

We have 50 executives in 50 states that are capable of taking up the slack, and are mostly more responsive to the people.

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

The CIA/Soro's actually has the commentors and bots on reddit up in arms over those gang bangers being deported.

lmao, wtf. I don't see how there is any coming back from the harm the CIA has caused to a significant minority of America's population.

I do, however, wish they will continue their Childfree agenda. Fuck liberals, they shouldn't have children anyways. They'll just use their children to virtue signal and they'll be in their graves before their kids commit the expected/traditional LGBTQ suicide. (statistically speaking, of course).

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.machall.com/comic/66#gsc.tab=0

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

I'm sorry I don't read manga or watch anime. I'm heterosexual.

[SRG2]

CIA/Soro's

^^^ An anti-Semite speaks

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

Wow, that's such a powerful accusation. I better self-censor and go visit Auschwitz so I can instill in me that GOY DO NOT CRITICIZE ANY JEW or it's anti-semitism! Which, like racism in the 90s, homophobia in the 00's, being White in the 2010s', transphobic in the 2020's, IS LITERALLY THE WORST THING A PERSON COULD BE!

Here's a preview of the next "no no opinion" that the CIA will attempt to eradicate... Bureacratphobia. That will be the next designed moral panic. "Oh my gosh, you don't want a govie dictating how much water you shit in?!!? You're a bureaucratphobe! You awful person! I bet you still have a gas stove! You caveman!"

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I’ve noted, George Soros is both a real person who does real things subject to legitimate criticism, and an antisemite’s boogeyman. It’s not hard to figure out which side you fall on!

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

No offense, but he does do some horrible shit. The only reason you guys go to the mat defending him is because the opposite political tribe doesn't like him.

Here is a billionaire who subversively meddles in countless countries, including ours, all over the world and has gamed our grant/aid system so much so that he gets 100x leverage on his money to do this subversion. You people defend him to the hilt and try to silence any criticism of him from the Right.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEwgmuxKccI/?hl=en

Let's not forget that ominous message from Soros Jr..

[Noscitur a sociis]

The only reason you guys go to the mat defending him is because the opposite political tribe doesn't like him.

I defy you to find even a single instance of me defending George Soros. And I’m pretty sure it’s the people opposite me politically who like him.

[Sarcastr0]

I should start a count of the number of people who call you a liberal. But I'd have to unmute a lot of people.

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

*tussles hair* aren't you virtuous little Democracy Defender! You don't tolerate outside opinions either!

Good for you!

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

>As I’ve noted, George Soros is both a real person who does real things subject to legitimate criticism, and an antisemite’s boogeyman. It’s not hard to figure out which side you fall on!

^^^

[Noscitur a sociis]

(Accurately) charging you with antisemitism isn’t a defense of George Soros.

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

There's a voice recording of an FAA executive (DIE, naturally) telling minority applicants that he will email them the answers to the air traffic control qualifying exam.

Everyone is already worried when they see two black pilots, now we gotta be worried if he see them in the tower too.

Apparently, people's lives must be sacrificed at the alter of DIE now.

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't an FAA executive, it's decade-old news, and this was an entrance exam. (Which doesn't make it right, but drastically changes the consequences.)

[ThePublius]

No, it's not old news, while it happened in 2014, it's in the news now - this month - and thus many people are just finding out about it now. The question I have is why is this guy still working at the FAA? Was what he did criminal? We have his identity, and the receipts, in emails and voicemails.
Maybe Trump will have something to say about that. I think he should be fired and prosecuted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14459979/listen-audio-DEI-sharing-answers-air-traffic-control-entry-exam.html

[David Nieporent]

No, it's not old news, while it happened in 2014, it's in the news now

Did you read your own link?

"When the voicemail was leaked by a whistleblower and featured in a 2015 Fox Business report the FAA came under pressure to investigate."

[ThePublius]

Of course I did. It happened in 2014. The voicemail was in 2014 and the email is dated 2014.

But, what's your point? Are you just picking nits to refute what I've said?

[Sarcastr0]

The Daily Mail reported it recently.

Other than that, is there any reason why "many people are just finding out about it now?"

[ThePublius]

No! The reason many people are just finding out about it now is that some news outlets are reporting it now. Is that so hard to understand? Plus, there's a new sheriff in town, which changes the context.

[Sarcastr0]

How does Trump being in office in 2025 change the context of something that happened in 2014?

[ThePublius]

That's an exercise left to the student. 🙂

[Noscitur a sociis]

Davis Nieporent said it was decade-old news. The fact that it was covered until the news in 2015 thus seems relevant.

[ThePublius]

I don't fully understand your sentence there, as in "until the news in 2015." What does that mean? But, current reporting on something that happened 11 years ago doesn't necessarily make it old news, but it does make it current reporting: a matter of fact.

[Sarcastr0]

current reporting on something that happened 11 years ago doesn't necessarily make it old news

Yes, it does.

Beyond the semantics, here is the nut question: what is the relevance of a single 2014 act to things today?

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

Given the rash of deadly air disasters, which may be the fruit of DIE past, buttresses Trump's efforts to root out this deadly ideology from our critical systems.

[Noscitur a sociis]

*in the news

But, current reporting on something that happened 11 years ago doesn't necessarily make it old news, but it does make it current reporting: a matter of fact.

The fact that it happened a while ago doesn’t necessarily make it old news. The fact that it was covered in the news a while ago does, by definition.

[SRG2]

Old news doesn't become new news when it gets re-reported.

[ThePublius]

Yes, it does. Context matters.

[David Nieporent]

Of course I did. It happened in 2014.

So it happened in 2014 and was reported in 2015, but somehow you think there's a definition of "old news" that this doesn't fit?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I was flipping through the channels and had a "hey! it's that guy" moment. Mothering Sunday, based on a book by Graham Swift (recommended), was on & a major character was played by the young Charles on The Crown.

Olivia Colman and Colin Firth also was in the film.

I only saw a few minutes of the film, but it looked pretty good.

[ThePublius]

The tolerant left:

Woman Wearing MAGA Hat Denied Service, Threatened with Baseball Bat at Indianapolis Jazz Club.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/03/16/woman-wearing-maga-hat-denied-service-threatened-with-baseball-bat-at-indianapolis-jazz-club-n4937972

If I were that woman I would have stood my ground and if the bartender hit me with the baseball bat I would have unholstered and shot her. FAFO.

[ThePublius]

You can't threaten people with a baseball bat for asking you questions when they tell you to leave a bar. That's an assault. Just wielding a baseball bat with the strong implication that you will strike someone if they don't comply with your verbal command is an assault. This bartender should be charged (but certainly won't).

[SRG2]

You can't possibly know what's going on in someone's head. You can't know for sure what the barman's reasons were, etc. etc.

[ThePublius]

There's video. I watched it. Did you?

[SRG2]

That doesn't show what's going on inside their head.

Earlier:
You: You can't possibly know what's in someone's head.
Me: I will bet that at some point soon you will post something that indicates that you think you know what's going on in someone else's head.

[ThePublius]

The bartender (he or she? I can't tell) SAID she was ejecting the person for wearing a MAGA hat. That is without question, except by you.

[Stella Link the dog]

"she was ejecting the person for wearing a MAGA hat"

Why is that a problem?

When someone is asked to leave private property for any legal reason, refusing to leave is trespassing. It's legal to ask anyone to leave for any reason so long as the reason is not an illegal one (race, religion, sex, and the like). If a bar owner wants to ban pug dog owners or Yankees fans (and why wouldn't they?) there's no law against it is there?

Whether the bartender made an illegal threat or not is a separate question. I can't find the video linked in the article (PJ Media!), perhaps because I don't have a facebook account, don't know.

[SRG2]

Yet again, you're assuming that what they say is what's going on inside their head, an approach you rejected earlier. and that I approved of.= and. further, bet you'd adopt in other cases.

You continue to show that I was right and that you're a fuckwit. Of course, what's actually going on inside your head is not fuckwittery but the only evidence we have is that you are indeed a fuckwit.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would I watch it?

If you're seeking liberals being dicks to MAGA people and canvas the nation, you will find it.
It's called confirmation bias. Not a great way thing base any kind of response on, policy or emotional.

Seems like you're looking for reasons to be violently mad at liberals. Hope you're not psyching yourself up for something!

I expect I could find the reverse of MAGA being dicks to liberals no problem as well.
Rolling coal was a thing in like 2014...is that breaking news I can use to get mad at the right?

And then there is the President currently targeting any person or organization he has any issue with by abusing his authority. That bit doesn't seem to bother you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can't threaten people with a baseball bat for asking you questions when they tell you to leave a bar.

In Indiana (as is the case in every other state I am familiar with), you can use force if reasonably necessary to terminate a trespass. Responding to that force with deadly force of your own is illegal. But I’m sure your cellmates would be duly impressed once you explained what a tough guy you are on the internet.

[ThePublius]

What constitutes a trespass? The place is a place of public accommodation, and the patron had only been there for moments. If the bartender wanted them out and they refused, they could have called the police, not resorted to means that could result in grave personal injury. And nowhere are you required to submit to grave personal injury.

[Absaroka]

"What constitutes a trespass?"

Not leaving when the owner, or designated representative like a bartender, tells you to leave. If you are carrying a pistol and weren't aware of this, I advise you to get training, or at least read any of the books on the legalities of self defense.

Moving from legality to practicality, you are innocently eating your burger when a patron objects to your hair color and tries to pick a fight ... the smart move is to apologize for your parent's choice of your hair color and leave. Abandoning a burger is a lot cheaper than even the one hour consultation with your lawyer after a defensive shooting. You won't have to buy a new gun while yours is in the evidence locker for 2 years, etc, etc.

There are people who argue that one should not back down in such cases, that doing so leads to more civic disorder as bullies aren't challenged, etc. Fair enough. But it is incurring huge personal costs and risks for the good of society, if that is your view. If you are that altruistic, go for it, I guess.

IMHO the smart move is to use force if and only if it is needed to save an innocent from grave harm, **and there is no other option available**, including retreat.

[ThePublius]

That's sage advice, thank you, and what I actually practice. I should have been more specific about the baseball bat wielding bartender: if I could get out without getting bashed, I would. If I couldn't, and thought I would be seriously harmed, I would respond with force.

[Sarcastr0]

TP then: "If I were that woman I would have stood my ground and if the bartender hit me with the baseball bat I would have unholstered and shot her. FAFO."

TP now: "if I could get out without getting bashed, I would."

Not a very adroit backpedal!

[ThePublius]

I'm not backpedaling, just adding detail. I do, indeed, carry, just about daily, but the last thing I want to do is shoot somebody. So, I avoid places and situations where that might happen, and also don't carry if I'm going to a "licensed establishment" or the post office or courthouse or social security office. It makes you think, and I think it makes you safer. But, I will protect my dog from an attacking dog, and myself from an attacking dog or person, or carjacker, etc. I don't live in the safest city in the world. Two shootings within a mile in the last week. Granted, those are almost always drug transaction related, and people who know each other, but occasionally there's a random attack, car jacking, or a house break-in. So, maybe a backpedal on the bar thing - I likely wouldn't be carrying entering a bar.

[Noscitur a sociis]

but the last thing I want to do is shoot somebody

Could have fooled me!

[Stella Link the dog]

"I likely wouldn't be carrying entering a bar."
Surprising to me, it's generally legal in Indiana to pack while in a bar. Not so in Texas (with exceptions) or Florida, or NY, or Michigan. Surprising to me, you can in Wisconsin if you aren't drinking yourself. Looks like the designated gunsel law.

That covers the states in which I have resided. Results based on two minute cursory internet search.

[Absaroka]

I reckon if you are safe to operate the car (designated driver) you are safe to operate the gun. Not only are guns simpler, but it will hopefully stay in the holster, whereas the car will presumably come out of its parking space for the drive home.

(My state prohibits guns in any place where the Liquor Control Board prohibits under 21 year olds, so you can't carry in a liquor store, in addition to bars)

[Kazinski]

In Washington you can carry in bars that also allow children in the sit down dining area, just as long as you stay in the sit down dining area.

As I explained to my friend who is a long time bar owner, anywhere kids can go in your bar and grill then people carrying can go.

It had never come up before and he didn't know, and Washington became a shall issue state in 1962.

[ThePublius]

Say the hat wearing person just stood there, said nothing, and didn't leave. You're saying the bartender can bash them with a baseball bat? Really?

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

If it's a MAGA hat yes, if it's a BLM hat then no.

Come on Publius, you know how this game works.

[Stella Link the dog]

"You're saying the bartender can bash them with a baseball bat? Really?"

Probably not. But, if the earlier poster is correct about Indiana law, some force may be permissible. I suspect care would be in order by both parties as it would be good to avoid becoming the bartender reasonably accused of using excessive force and it would be good for the trespasser to avoid using excessive force (perhaps any force) in response to reasonable force.

[Sarcastr0]

No swears, so talking about political violence up to murder is CIVIL?

IIRC you often have the lawyers on here correcting you about what's a true threat and what's you being a snowflake.

You really seem like you live in fear of liberals, and fantasize about a violent confrontation.

Fuck off, psycho.

[Commenter_XY]

TP, you'll have to forgive Sarcastr0's grouchiness.

You see, Sarcastr0 is under a lot of pressure right now b/c he has to send his weekly productivity email to Elon, and is stuck at #4. He is straining to come up with #5. Fortunately, he has until 11:59pm EST to think of #5. 😉

[Super Scary]

"Yes you have to bake me a cake. No I don't need to serve you beer." *swings bat*

[Commenter_XY]

Private establishment, private owner. The establishment can tell anyone to GTFO. Now, with the publicity, this place will probably learn the hard way that half their clientele voted for POTUS Trump, and some of them will leave.

Red or blue doesn't matter so much; green matters a lot.

[Sarcastr0]

Just talked to a researcher who said from what they can see the bird flu threat is diminishing for this season.

It didn't manage to mutate to human to human during peak flu.

[tylertusta]

I hope that is the case. A nasty strain of the bird flu is just a roll of the dice away from being very, very bad.

[ThePublius]

Egg prices:

Jan 21: $6.55/doz
Today: $3.45/doz

Progress.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eggs-us

[Sarcastr0]

Trump save egg.

[M L]

Step 1. Trump said egg prices would come down but they haven't! OMG REEE!!

Step 2. So what, who cares about egg prices?

[Brett Bellmore]

And I built some roll away nesting boxes, so my chickens' egg eating habit is dealt with. Back to getting 3-5 eggs a day.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A kidney transplant specialist and professor at Brown University’s medical school has been deported from the United States, even though she had a valid visa and a court order temporarily blocking her expulsion, according to her lawyer and court papers.

Dr. Rasha Alawieh, 34, is a Lebanese citizen who had traveled to her home country last month to visit relatives. She was detained on Thursday when she returned from that trip to the United States, according to a court complaint filed by her cousin Yara Chehab.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts ordered the government on Friday evening to provide the court with 48 hours’ notice before deporting Dr. Alawieh. But she was put on a flight to Paris, presumably on her way to Lebanon.

In a second order filed Sunday morning, the judge said there was reason to believe U.S. Customs and Border Protection had willfully disobeyed his previous order to give the court notice before expelling the doctor. He said he had followed “common practice in this district as it has been for years,” and ordered the federal agency to respond to what he called “serious allegations.”

Customs and Border Protection did not respond on Sunday to questions from The New York Times about why Dr. Alawieh had been detained and deported. Lebanon is not included on a draft list of nations from which the Trump administration is considering banning entry to the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/us/brown-university-rasha-alawieh-professor-deported.html

Doonesbury yesterday had a comic comparing Vice President Al Gore's government efficiency campaign with the reckless Elon Musk version. There should be a careful way to do these things.

The idea we are talking about needing to be worried about stopping flights midflight is somewhat insane.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Rasha Alawieh, a physician specializing in kidney transplants and professor at Brown University, also told Customs and Border Protection agents that while visiting Lebanon last month she attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and followed his teachings “from a religious perspective” but not a political one, according to an official report on her interrogation by an immigration officer." Politico

Oh. I bet he her cousin didn't mention that!

Was she deported or denied re-entry? Not the same thing.

[Bored Lawyer]

So she only follows Nasrallah "from a religious perspective." Meaning, she approves killings infidels in the name of Allah?

The judiciary is embarrassing itself. The notion that the US must allow entry to foreign supporters of terrorism is risible.

[tylertusta]

I wonder what her thoughts are of the Israeli Air Force's attendance during the funeral.

[ThePublius]

That was beautiful, man! Did you see the video?

[tylertusta]

I did. I'm more interested in Rasha's thoughts, however.

[Sarcastr0]

It appears that Bored Lawyer is supporting defiance of a court order because he doesn't agree with the order.

He's pretty MAGA these days, though more sober about it than many on here...I wonder his thought about Trump going after law firms?

[Bob from Ohio]

"supporting defiance of a court order "

There was no defiance of a court order. See the UPI article posted below.

All the articles discus "deportation" but she was denied re-entry.

Do you think she is a good risk to live in this country?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People can watch John Oliver's segment on betting on YouTube.

A court hearing could and should have clarified the situation before she left the country, including the facts and if "deportation" legally is involved. The coverage repeatedly uses "deport" but also other terms.

Here is the cousin's complaint:

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25587827-habeas-petition-on-behalf-of-rasha-alawieh/?embed=1&height=600&title=0&onlyshoworg=1

The latest is that the judge found she left the country before the government was informed of his order. The immediate hearing was therefore cancelled. No "embarassment" by the court is shown.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/03/17/judge-Trump-professor-deportation/8741742191350/

[Kazinski]

Visas are issued with the proviso that they do not guarantee entry to the US, its part of the terms and conditions of issuance.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Whatever the rules are, a process should be in place to ensure they are properly followed.

[Kazinski]

Well the standard is for any reason.

They don't have to give a reason, but generally they do.

Here are the common reasons:

Previously worked illegally in the US
Suspected of overstaying their visa
Suspected of having ties to terrorist or criminal organizations
Previously overstayed a visit to the US
Don’t have sufficient funds to support themselves during their stay in the US
Inadmissible by Health: anyone with a “communicable disease” or “physical or mental disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to [the person] or others” or “a drug abuser or addict”)
Being convicted of a criminal offense
And suspecting you won't return when your visa expires.

[Commenter_XY]

Denial of entry =/= deportation

[TwelveInchPianist]

And yet so many media articles claim she was deported. This looks more like deliberate dishonesty than sloppiness.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Deportation is the process of removing a noncitizen from the U.S. for violating immigration law."

https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process

She landed at the airport and was removed from the country. The term is being used in a reasonable way in the news articles. I will leave it to others to parse its technical legal usage.

[The usage is open-ended. For instance, Fox News used it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-deported-brown-university-doctor-attended-hezbollah-chiefs-funeral-supported-terror-leader ]

The difference is of limited relevance. People supporting the move would be okay with her being "deported" in a legal sense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She never technically entered the US.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And Fox News was involved in "deliberate dishonesty than sloppiness" when using the term "deport"?

It is unclear if she "never technically entered" the U.S.

A judicial order spoke of the chance of her being "removed from the United States" and being "removed from the District of Massachusetts." And the chance of his order being violated by "sending her out of the United States."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25589133-sorokin_filing/

The hearing scheduled to help clarify was ultimately cancelled.

[David Nieporent]

I haven’t looked at a map lately, but I am pretty sure Logan International Airport in fact is in the U.S.

[ThePublius]

That's picking a nit, dishonestly. You can arrive at JFK and yet not be admitted to the U.S. It's what's called a port of entry.

[David Nieporent]

"Legally admitted to the U.S." and "entered the U.S." are not the same thing.

[Commenter_XY]

Denial of entry has different legal implication than deportation. That is why it matters.

[apedad]

Full 11th Circuit upholds Florida age limit for gun buys, rejecting NRA challenge

A law preventing Floridians under the age of 21 from buying rifles and other long guns will remain on the books after a divided en banc 11th Circuit on Friday dove deep into the history of America’s founding to reject the National Rifle Association’s claim that the law is unconstitutional and out of line with historical gun regulations.

In an 8-4 ruling, the Atlanta-based appeals court found the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act constitutional, upholding a Florida federal judge’s decision despite three fiery dissenting opinions by Donald Trump-appointed judges.

The law, which was passed after a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, prohibits people under 21 from buying a long gun but does not ban them from receiving them as gifts.

“[T]here is only the most superficial and insignificant similarity between these historical and modern policies,” (Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew) Brasher wrote, accusing the majority of reading an age limit into the Second Amendment.

https://www.courthousenews.com/full-11th-circuit-upholds-florida-age-limit-for-gun-buys-rejecting-nra-challenge/

I like how you can use or reject the historical record depending on whether it fits your agenda.

[ReaderY]

I seems pretty clear that historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to buy arms. Under Bruen, that should settle the matter. I agree that the dissent is basically saying you can only strike down a firearms restriction when there is a historical restriction EXACTLY like it. But the Supreme Court soundly rejected exactly that proposition in Rahimi.

[ThePublius]

"I seems pretty clear that historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to buy arms."

I don't think that's so, at all! Define historically, first, then look at all the states where you can currently buy a rifle at 18 (including New York and Massachusetts).

[Bob from Ohio]

"historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to buy arm"

Historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to vote or enter into contracts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to buy arms,"

I'm guessing this is either fairly recent history, or by 'recognized' you mean something like, 'Nobody tried to violate it, so it's existence wasn't established by litigation.'

Reading the opinion, I see two glaring problems.

1) They rely VERY heavily on the age of majority being 21 at the founding. But the age of majority is now 18! (26th amendment.) So at best their reasoning only applies before that age.

2) They identified no law at all restricting gun purchases under the age of 21. Not just an identical law, none at all. In fact minors could buy guns at the time, just not on credit, because they in general could not buy anything on credit. There wasn't even a law making this limitation specific to firearms purchases.

Rahimi did roll back Bruen, even if they didn't admit that they were rolling it back. But not remotely this far.

[Kazinski]

No, the age of majority is not set by the 26th amendment, just the voting age.

The age of majority is up to the states. In Mississippi its still 21, Alabama and Nebraska its 19.

And famously Lincoln was hired out by his father as a common laboror until he was 21, so it was hardly a new development.

"Until he was 21 years old, Lincoln's father had rented him out to neighbors in rural Indiana at a price of 10 to 31 cents a day, to labor as a rail splitter, farmhand, hog butcher and ferry operator.

The father collected the son's wages. Lincoln was in effect an indentured servant, a slave. He regarded his semi-literate father as domineering and himself without rights."

https://www.newsweek.com/abraham-lincoln-childhood-slave-456333

And that probably included the right to buy a gun without permission.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I seems pretty clear that historically, folks under 21 lacked a recognized right to buy arms.

Let's look at that reasoning:

"First, minors generally could not purchase firearms because they lacked the judgment and discretion to enter contracts and to receive the wages of their labor. Second, minors were subject to the power of their parents and depended on their parents’ consent to exercise rights and deal with others in society"

So, the presumption that they lacked the rights protected by 2A was predicated on the fact that those under 21 years of age were "minors" who were prohibited from entering contracts and/or directly receiving their own pay for working. But since NONE of that is true anymore it is pretty clear that the reasoning on which those definitions and prohibitions were based is no longer valid.

[Sarcastr0]

The dynamics of guns jurisprudence are really interesting to me.

Gorsuch has this vision for rights jurisprudence. Clean, originalist, first principles.
He got a bunch of justices to go along with him for 2A with Bruen.

Problem is it's a break from precedent, and originalism being what it is, what you end up with isn't simple; it's a subjective mess.

Now, our judiciary is very good at taking a subjective mess and, over time, turning it into something operable that takes into account a lot of perspectives.

But that is slow, not very predictable about exactly where it will end up, and generally going to be quite alloyed by pragmatism.

Gorsuch seems pretty cool with being patient. But nevertheless I do wonder if he is pleased how his project is going. Certainly not everyone on the Court is!

I wonder if we'll see the same history and tradition test show up for other rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Problem is it's a break from precedent, and originalism being what it is, what you end up with isn't simple; it's a subjective mess."

It's a break from recent precedent. Keep in mind that gun control as we know it today was essentially unknown in the US before Jim Crow. Which was understood even by the people who perpetrated it to be an attack on rights!

[Absaroka]

I took a quick glance at the decision, and it is talking about founding era discussions about requiring militia service from 18 year olds, and someone asking 'but how can we require them to show up with a gun, since we don't let 18 year olds buy guns' and the reply was 'their parents can buy them the required gun'. If that's accurate, that's a bit of an originalist problem for striking down an under-21 purchase restriction.

(my personal gut sez 18 for everything, but that's me)

[Sarcastr0]

It's a break from recent precedent

It's a break from ALL precedent. This is a new doctrine. No previous gun case on the 2A need apply.

That's going to cause churn, and it is not in keeping with the original meaning as Will Baude has researched.
But from my non-originalist point of view, such breaks from founders' intent and lines of precedent are not an issue, and it's definitely something SCOTUS has the authority to do.

But it's not a way to get a directed result. Which is how you use originalism. And why you're frustrated with the outcome.

[Bob from Ohio]

"as Will Baude has researched"

So it is in keeping with the original meaning then.

[Kazinski]

Gorsuch? "He got a bunch of justices to go along with him for 2A with Bruen."

Thomas wrote Bruen, Gorsuch didn't write an opinion, although Kavenaugh, Alito, Barrett wrote concurrences, and Breyer a dissent.

And as for precedent, can you name any Supreme Court decision its in tension with?

Its not a break with precedent if its the first time the court has ruled on the question.

[Sarcastr0]

Simplifying and originalisting our rights jurisprudence a known Gorsuch interest.

I'm presuming Gorsuch has influence beyond the specific opinions he writes.

Bruen is in tension with Heller and McDonald's 'reasonable regulation' language.

Its not a break with precedent if its the first time the court has ruled on the question.
What is the novel question you see here?

[Kazinski]

When has the court ever ruled on the right to bear arms in public?

And no there is no tension with Heller, first of all the only use of reasonable in the opinion is quoting Miller.

I think this is the passage you are referring to:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Maybe you can point out some passage I missed, but Heller was quite careful to reach only the question of whether the Federal government could ban the possession of an operable firearm in ones home.

[Sarcastr0]

You're doing the same game as with Wong Kim Ark - limiting the precedent to a narrower ambit than it has (or had). Heller was about the 2A generally (or was once McDonald came on the scene). And Bruen absolutely overwrote it, albeit without specifically overruling it.

Reasonable regulations is out, and history and tradition is in.
Neither was super clear, but one is originalist and the other isn't.

You can tapdance around if you want, but Bruen is the case people cite now, not Heller, and there is a reason for that.

[Kazinski]

No, I am not playing the same game as Wong Kim Ark, you are.

The language in the 14th amendment would without convincing evidence otherwise confer birthright citizenship.

The language in the 2nd amendment without convincing evidence otherwise protects a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even if the dicta in Heller would allow barring carrying in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings.

You don't provide any indication in Heller, or any other case to support that, so the text controls, even before considering history and tradition.

[ReaderY]

I found Marco Rubio’s Red Napkin treatment when he landed in Canada amusing.

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

Ok, so I know we got one more open thread before the tournament, but here's my Sweet 16 from my bracket:

- Auburn vs. Texas A&M
- Iowa St vs. Michigan St
- Florida vs. Memphis
- Missouri vs. St. John's
- Duke vs. Arizona
- BYU vs. Alabama
- Houston vs. Purdue
- Illinois vs. Tennessee

--- Elite 8
- Auburn vs. Iowa St
- Florida vs. St. Johns
- Duke vs. Alabama
- Houston vs. Tennessee

--- Final 4
- Auburn vs. Florida
- Duke vs. Tennessee

-- Auburn vs. Duke rematch with Auburn coming out on top!

It's our year.

[Ska]

My alma mater (undergrad) is finally back in the tournament. Only took Pitino two years to turn them around.

[M L]

If the "Biden" pardons were done by someone else without Biden's knowledge, are they effective or not?

Simple question. Obviously that's a big "if" and from what I saw it seems like the issue is a half-joking way to rip Biden over these reports about the autopen.

[Sarcastr0]

This talking point has been gone over exhaustively above.

Looks like you were late bringing the Breitbart push this time!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/17/trump-declares-bidens-pardons-of-january-6-committee-void-vacant-due-to-autopen/

[M L]

So yes or no to the question?

[Bored Lawyer]

The president has the pardon power. If someone signs his name without his knowledge, it's a legal nullity. Otherwise, every criminal could forge a pardon and get out of jail.

[Roger S]

A signature is not required for a pardon. Possibly the President could issue a pardon orally. Did Biden make an oral statement confirming or explaining the pardon?

[John F. Carr]

See Rosemond v. Hudgins. A pardon need not be in writing. President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon was most likely effective as soon as he announced it at a press briefing and before he signed the paperwork. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/227188.P.pdf. Rosemond lost because he failed to prove an oral pardon.

[Bored Lawyer]

An oral pardon is effective, assuming the president knows about it and grants it. If the president has no knowledge of the pardon -- whether oral or written -- it's a nullity.
The autopen is really a distraction. If the president decides to pardon 100 people, but does not want to tire his hand in signing 100 pardons, he can use an autopen. The key question is whether the president knew and approved of the pardon, not physically how ink met paper.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, as I say, a real signature is evidence of that approval. An autopen signature is not.

A 'holographic' will, hand written, is valid without witnesses in a number of states. An unwitnessed will printed in a cursive font? In none.

It is remarkably bad policy to accept an autopen signature as legally valid without some other evidence of validity to substitute for a 'signature' that is in reality not such evidence.

[Absaroka]

"It is remarkably bad policy to accept an autopen signature as legally valid without some other evidence of validity to substitute for a 'signature' that is in reality not such evidence."

How recently have you bought a house? For us the last time it was DocuSign all the way.

Heck, just got a suppressor (7 day approval!) and all the forms were electronic/DocuSign, no paper or ink in sight (except for when I printed the approved Form 4 for the safe deposit box).

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

>Heck, just got a suppressor (7 day approval!)

No way? For real? Last time I tried it was 6 months easy.

[Brett Bellmore]

About 10 years ago. It was "wear out your hand" all the way.

I HATE DocuSign. It's convenient, but it's convenient in a retains the formality while dispensing with the freaking POINT of the exercise sort of way. It deprives signatures of any real evidentiary value.

[Absaroka]

Well, times have changed. It sure saves a lot of fedexing, because we were a few hundred miles away from the place we were buying.

I grok your point about fraud, but ISTM it is a theoretical rather than practical objection. Do you (or anyone else!) have reports of increased fraud from e-signing? It's common enough these days that I'd expect reports of fraud to be common if there was a problem.

(not only was buying the suppressor a one trip thing (to pick it up), with all the paperwork digital, but I think the last car was an all electronic thing. We test drove at one dealer, then negotiated with several dealers via email, and e-signed the various paperwork. I can't swear we didn't actually sign any physical paper - I just wasn't paying attention - but my recollection is just showing up to pick it up. We did hand over a paper check, because we are one of the last 42 Americans who write paper checks :-). I mean, when we go to the doctor and they want the annoying 'yes I agree to privacy policy' stuff, they hand you a tablet with a box to e-sign with a finger. Things are a lot different on the east coast if you aren't encountering this all the time.)

[David Nieporent]

But, as I say, a real signature is evidence of that approval. An autopen signature is not.

Incorrect; it most certainly is evidence.

It is remarkably bad policy to accept an autopen signature as legally valid

Again: for a pardon NO SIGNATURE IS NEEDED AT ALL, so the signature cannot be either valid or invalid.

[M L]

"for a pardon NO SIGNATURE IS NEEDED AT ALL, so the signature cannot be either valid or invalid."

Not sure I follow. By analogy, a contract that is not subject to the statute of frauds can be an oral contract. It doesn't need to have a signature or be in writing. But that doesn't mean that a purported signature on a written instrument cannot be valid or invalid.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the use of autopen or things like that.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure I follow. By analogy, a contract that is not subject to the statute of frauds can be an oral contract. It doesn't need to have a signature or be in writing. But that doesn't mean that a purported signature on a written instrument cannot be valid or invalid.

I suppose I could have phrased it better: the signature or lack thereof cannot make the pardon valid or invalid.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm glad you rephrased that, because even if a signature is not required a forged signature is meaningfully invalid. And use of the autopen without authorization is best understood as a form of forgery.

"Incorrect; it most certainly is evidence."

Bullshit. All it demonstrates is that someone pressed a button.

[Sarcastr0]

It is remarkably bad policy to accept an autopen signature as legally valid without some other evidence of validity to substitute for a 'signature' that is in reality not such evidence.

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
None of these have a wet signature.

[Magister]

There isn't any kind of signature that would demonstrate Trump read it or knew what was in it, given his history with briefings.

[Brett Bellmore]

"without some other evidence of validity to substitute for a 'signature' that is in reality not such evidence."

And how do you know that?

https://youtu.be/BLQndI6AuxY?si=t8j26hxDYBQErwgx

[Sarcastr0]

"It is remarkably bad policy to accept an autopen signature as legally valid without some other evidence of validity to substitute for a 'signature' that is in reality not such evidence."

[Brett Bellmore]

You asserted that none of his executive orders had wet signatures. So I directed you to one of the many videos of Trump hand signing an executive order in front of witnesses, as has been his practice at least since resuming office.

Have the decency to admit you were wrong.

As an objective matter, an autopen signature is evidence of only one thing: That somebody with access to the autopen pressed a button. And nothing more.

That may be sufficient as a formality if other evidence of Presidential intent exists. But accepting autopen signatures as sufficient evidence by themselves opens the door to the sort of minion hijinks that are alleged to have happened here.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump signed a thing.

The thing online's connection to the thing on camera is not established.

This illustrates why this new standard you've discovered you have always believed is ridiculous and unworkable.

[ThePublius]

"Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station"

https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1901672770154672280

[tylertusta]

I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit:

"To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad. "

[Bricker1492]

Autopen and The President

In 2005, the Office of Legal Counsel generated an extensive legal analysis in response to the question of whether the President must himself physically sign a bill in order to comply with the constitutional command of Article I, Section 7 ("Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.")

The OLC concluded:

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.

. . .

"We emphasize that we are not suggesting that the President may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to the bill."

There's little doubt in my mind that if Biden authorized the autopen signature, it's as binding as if he signed it himself with a quill pen and his own blood as ink. That's not in serious dispute.

But what if the DOJ indicted a pardoned person and argued that Biden never authorized the pardon in the first place? What, procedurally, would be required to rebut the presumption of validity, if indeed it is even rebuttable? What kind of showing would the prosecution need to make to vitiate the putative validity of the autopen-signed pardon?

[Bored Lawyer]

How about no one told the president about the pardon and he had no knowledge of it?

[Bricker1492]

My question is: procedurally, how does the AUSA prosecuting a pardoned individual go about alleging and proving the claim that no one told the president about the pardon and he had no knowledge of it?

[David Nieporent]

Submitting an affidavit from the president who purportedly issued the pardon?

[Bored Lawyer]

Or the lackey who signed the president's name without telling him.

[Sarcastr0]

The hypothetical conspiracy just keeps getting wider.

[Life of Brian]

Submitting an affidavit from the president

Unsigned, natch.

[David Nieporent]

Heh.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's helpful that the article cited in the comments about the opinion regarding drawing the line at 21 for firearms has a link to the opinion. In 2025, online articles should provide such info.

Rahimi, the latest on the 2A from SCOTUS, noted:

As we explained in Bruen, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.

A new law must be “relevantly similar” and:

Discerning and developing the law in this way is “a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge.”

This provides some flexibility to the Supreme Court. The history cited by the lower court opinion as to minors was applied in a context that has changed. Someone, for example, noted those over 18 now have the right to vote.

Some of the historical analysis of the RKBA has argued there is a united whole regarding the rights of citizenship involving voting, militia service, and being on a jury. How does this factor into the "principles that underpin our regulatory tradition" in this context?

For instance, women, those openly gay, free blacks, and others were once blocked from service in the militia. Being gay was deemed to be a dangerous mental disorder. Could such a person be trusted with a gun? Changing understandings would justify changing recognition of the right to own a firearm.

SCOTUS, in opinions multiple justices who support Heller found dubious, repeatedly drew the constitutional line at 18, including in the criminal justice context. I wonder how this would apply in the context of firearm regulation.

I find the under-21 issue here a tricky issue given the various constitutional factors involved. I am open to both sides.

[Kazinski]

The head of UW Madison's DEI office got removed and is being relegated to his academic department after an audit found he was spending lavish amounts of money on his salary (364k), travel, student salaries and perks.

"In documents, Charleston justified the large increase in budget as a means of addressing pay inequities and reducing employee turnover.

But that claim is not supported when taking into consideration the compensation for similar jobs across other university units, Cramer wrote to Mnookin in early January."

"Purchases for Posse apparel totaled $37,000: The program spent $22,000 for Columbia winter coats, $4,000 for Crocs rubber shoes, $3,000 for North Face beanie hats and more than $8,000 in other apparel."

The Universty didn't actually catch this themselves, the GOP legislature started an investigation, and the University took notice when compiling the requested documents.

"The internal review began after UW-Madison started collecting materials related to a Republican request for the Legislative Audit Bureau to examine spending on DEI across state agencies. The investigation had been ongoing, but Mnookin and Isbell decided they had enough information to remove Charleston from the role. Separately, Cramer’s office had been working on base budget reviews for multiple campus units, which included Charleston’s."

https://www.smry.ai/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmadison.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Feducation%2Funiversity%2Farticle_08215b62-00ea-11f0-90ee-dfe966018df2.html

[Don Nico]

There are near infinite set of excuses for sleazy behavior

[Bob from Ohio]

In Ohio those shoes and clothing might be Theft in Office which at that level looks like a felony of the third degree [1 is least serious, 5th most]

[tylertusta]

Government response to the removal proceedings matter:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.24.0_2.pdf

They're going into a hearing later today. Gonna be a spicy one.

Maybe.

If Judge Boasberg doesn't cancel it.

[tylertusta]

Annnnnd motion to cancel hearing denied. Judge Boasberg probably livid.

[tylertusta]

DOJ asks DCCA for stay + another judge:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844/gov.uscourts.cadc.41844.01208720727.1.pdf

[David Nieporent]

That is insane. Trump's people are just making it up as they go along. Maybe they should have at least one person who knows what they're doing on staff.

[Ridgeway]

You're burying the lede. Look at the signature on that "letter"!

FRAUD!

[David Nieporent]

Heh. Good point.

[David Nieporent]

Came here to post about the government's response.

TL;DR: All we have to do is say 'national security' even in contexts having nothing to do with national security, and the president can do anything he wants because of imaginary emanations and penumbras in Article II.

[Sarcastr0]

Boasberg now asks Lee Gelernt of the ACLU is there are any other questions that should be asked, and asks him if he objects to the timing of a hearing tomorrow at noon to explain why they won't tell him the information.

Lee says "we're getting very close" to a constitutional crisis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Very close" Gaslighto?

This #$%^& judge has created one.

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

>This Court should also immediately reassign this case to another district court judge given the highly unusual and improper procedures - e.g. certification of a class action involving members of a designated foreign terrorist organization in less than 18 hours with no discovery and no briefing from the Government

Calling the judge a piece of shit hack to his face! I'm glad the good guys are in charge now.

[tylertusta]

Not quite that bad.

They're calling him a piece of shit to the Court of Appeals.

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

You're right. I missed that. Thank you for the clarification.

[DixieTune]

The fact that the half-Kenyan terrorist appointed him is proof positive that he's a POS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well it's true...

[Commenter_XY]

That motion reads like a huge middle finger to Judge Biasberg.

[John F. Carr]

The judge ordered:

As discussed in today's hearing, the Court ORDERS that by 12:00 p.m. on March 18, 2025, the Government shall file a Notice, which may, if necessary, be sealed in part, setting forth: 1) A sworn declaration that no one on any flight departing the United States after 7:25 p.m. on March 15, 2025, was removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue; 2) A sworn declaration setting forth when the Proclamation at issue was signed, when it was made public, and when it went into effect; 3) The Government's best estimate of the number of individuals subject to the Proclamation currently remaining in the United States and how many are currently in U.S. custody; and 4) The Government's position on whether, and in what form, it will provide answers to the Court's questions regarding the particulars of the flights. Such form could include in camera review or in a classified setting. If the Government takes the position that it will not provide that information to the Court under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary.

[Commenter_XY]

JFC....Judge Biasberg sounds pissed off. Some DOJ worker bees were burning the Midnight Oil last evening, and denied the pleasure of corned beef and cabbage (and Guinness).

What do you think happens here, ultimately?

[John F. Carr]

I predict nobody in the federal governent is charged with criminal contempt.

I don't know if there is any opportunity for civil contempt sanctions here. If a party is harmed by disobedience to a court order the judge can make the other party pay.

[Commenter_XY]

This case is especially spicy, given the DOJ field a motion to the Appeals Court to remove Judge Biasberg from the case. I have not ever really seen anything like this.

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

>President Trump announces the release of 80,000 JFK assassination documents tomorrow, coordinated by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. He has requested that the files remain unredacted.

Which D.C. Circuit judge is going to swoop in with an TRO to spare the "you know who's"?

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure Trump has read all of them!

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

So?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, that was my point about the whole thing: so? There are not going to be any revelations. Not to mention that pretty much everyone in those files is dead.

[ThePublius]

"There are not going to be any revelations" is something of a contradiction in terms, no? I mean, maybe we will learn something heretofore unknown. How do you know?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know. I have merely concluded that, from the fact that I do not believe that in the course of over 60 years that anything shocking would have been able to stay buried. The most likely reason why there has not been a single meaningful leak in that time is that there is nothing meaningful to leak.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, it 31 years for Mark Felt to come out.

This is far darker, and I suspect Castro.

[David Nieporent]

Mark Felt's identity was known to just 4 people. Felt himself, Woodward & Bernstein, and Ben Bradlee. Probably Felt's wife, too, so make it 5. Do you think that's comparable in scope to the investigation of the Kennedy assassination?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't particularly expect anything shocking, because I figured anything shocking has had 60 years to be destroyed. And that they were refusing to release the files to avoid admitting that somebody had burned them, an act which would fully license every conspiracy theorist to assume the worst, and actually have a point for once.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Because I’m not an idiot?

Even if the CIA actually was behind everything or whatever, do you really think that someone left a memo explaining that in the case file, and that no one bothered to get rid of it in the last 60 years?

[David Nieporent]

and that no one bothered to get rid of it in the last 60 years?

Yes; that's the same point I made about the fantasized-about "Epstein client list." If it had existed at one point, there's no reason to think it wouldn't have been destroyed by now.

[Commenter_XY]

Fani 'The Smasher' Willis having a bad hair day....

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-fani-willis-ordered-to-pay-54000-for-intentional-violations-in-trump-case

Sex and money....every time.

[Armchair]

Some further thoughts in regards to the coming autopen controversy....

1. This refers just to bills being signed into law. This is a Constitutional issue. EOs and other bits...not so much. But a President signing a bill is specified by the Constitution.

2. The question isn't necessarily (in my mind) HOW a bill is signed, but WHO is signing the bill. Whether the President uses a quill or ballpoint pen to sign the bill doesn't really matter. But if the President tells his wife or aide to forge his name on a bill...that very much matters. Now it is the wife or aide signing the bill...not the President. And that (in my opinion) would be illegitimate.

Likewise, if the President is PERSONALLY operating an autopen, then this may be a legitimate way to sign a bill. But if the President is telling an AIDE to use the autopen to sign a bill...this is a type of forgery. The aide (and not the president) is signing the bill.

3. Now, why does all this matter? I mean, if the President doesn't sign a bill, within 10 days, it just becomes law anyway... Well, it's that pesky pocket veto clause. "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

So, when does Congress Adjourn? That's an interesting question these days. But at the very least, it adjourns right around January 3rd, every year. So, all bills within 10 days before that date...are potentially invalid. The Energy Security and Lightering Independence Act of 2022....might not actually be a law. The State Offices of Rural Health Program Reauthorization Act of 2022.....May have been pocket vetoed. The Childhood Cancer STAR Reauthorization Act Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research Reauthorization Act of 2022....vetoed...

[David Nieporent]

2. The question isn't necessarily (in my mind) HOW a bill is signed, but WHO is signing the bill. Whether the President uses a quill or ballpoint pen to sign the bill doesn't really matter. But if the President tells his wife or aide to forge his name on a bill...that very much matters. Now it is the wife or aide signing the bill...not the President. And that (in my opinion) would be illegitimate.

So you think a hypothetical paraplegic president could never act on legislation? You are trying to make this far too formalist. A president who causes his name to be affixed to a bill has 'signed' it, regardless of whose muscles are used.

[Armchair]

"So you think a hypothetical paraplegic president could never act on legislation?"

There's actually a decent amount of caselaw on individuals who cannot physically sign with their hands. One item includes them making a mark on the document with a written instrument held in their mouth, in the presence of witnesses. That may also count as signing a document.

If the president is in such a state that they cannot even do that, I would argue they are physically incapable of being president.

[Bored Lawyer]

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

Although the text says he shall sign it, I think any mark of approbation, even if physically performed by someone else, should suffice. Assuming it was actually done with the president's authorization.

[Armchair]

"Assuming it was actually done with the president's authorization."

That of course is the catch-22. The signature is the mark of the president's authorization, rather than a simple verbal queue. I would be surprised if the President could hand over what is essentially a power of attorney to someone else, in order to sign bills into law.

[Sarcastr0]

You and Bored Lawyer have a good time with your fan fiction.

[hobie]

Are the Venezuelans sent to El Salvador still under American custody/jurisdiction? Or have they been completely repatriated and removed from US custody? Keep in mind that us tax payers are still paying for their jailing in El Salvador. Wouldn't think we'd pay a nickel for someone we've cleaned our hands of

[Commenter_XY]

The ceasefire is over.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/405522

Fighting resumes: IDF and Shin Bet conduct extensive strikes on Hamas targets

[hobie]

I will end the conflict in 24 hours. Only I can do this.

All hell will beak out if the hostages are not released

Afghanistan...handed right back to the terrorists
AfGazastan...handed right back to the terrorists
Ukraine

God, please let Trump negotiate something else

[Josh R]

Up to now, all of the death and destruction has not unseated Hamas. I don't see that course changing.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas will leave gaza, dead or alive.

[Josh R]

There has been no sign of that happening at any time during this war.

[hobie]

It has been reported that two Russian commanders in Kursk were intercepted as saying that they were asked to wait until American intelligence had turned.

All the signs were there:

- Putin was reluctant to freeze the war along the front line because it would ultimately mean losing part of Russia. To remove this obstacle, Trump had to ensure that Russia regained control of the Kursk region, paving the way for so-called "negotiations" to begin.

- Trump cut off arms supplies and vital intelligence sharing at the most critical moment — just as Russia launched a major counteroffensive in Kursk. As a result, hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers lost their lives, with "the worst losses in Kursk" (TIME magazine).

- Ukrainian soldiers also reported that "Russian forces in Kursk suddenly had extremely precise coordinates" for Ukrainian troop positions, logistics hubs, and ammunition depots — suggesting that "Trump’s administration was trying to hand Kursk to Russia before negotiations began as part of a secret deal."

[hobie]

“Whatever exists, he said. Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent. He looked about at the dark forest in which they were bivouacked. He nodded toward the specimens he’d collected. These anonymous creatures, he said, may seem little or nothing in the world. Yet the smallest crumb can devour us. Any smallest thing beneath yon rock out of men’s knowing. Only nature can enslave man and only when the existence of each last entity is routed out and made to stand naked before him will he be properly suzerain of the earth. What’s a suzerain? A keeper. A keeper or overlord. Why not say keeper then? Because he is a special kind of keeper. A suzerain rules even where there are other rulers. His authority countermands local judgements. Toadvine spat. The judge placed his hands on the ground. He looked at his inquisitor. This is my claim, he said. And yet everywhere upon it are pockets of autonomous life. Autonomous. In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation."

--- Blood Meridian

[Sarcastr0]

USIP, chartered by the government but an independent nonprofit, with it's own employees. Not federal employees.

DOGE broke in. Literally broke in.

There is no executive oversight power at work, this is just crimes.

[Commenter_XY]

The woodchipper go brrrrrr...USIP is now wood chips.

They failed in their stated mission. Time to close up shop.

[SRG2]

So breaking into a building and shutting down a department with no legal authorisation is acceptable to you.

[Commenter_XY]

They're an NGO.

[Martinned2]

Could you talk us through why that makes what DOGE did OK? (Taking all factual claims as true at this stage.)

[Commenter_XY]

The new Pres of the agency attempts to walk through the door, is barred. Uh, that is insubordination and grounds for immediate dismissal out here in the real world.

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

The guy who tried to bar them from accessing the building was fired and was barring the new President from entering.

That's what makes it OK.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1901810390323048756

[David Nieporent]

What does the "N" stand for in "NGO," C_XY?

[Voize of Reazon]

Trump has tired of attacking remnants of Biden and Obama, now he has set his sights on the Reagan legacy.

[ThePublius]

"DOGE said its staffers and acting U.S. Institute of Peace president Kenneth Jackson entered USIP's D.C. headquarters with a police escort on Monday evening amid an apparent standoff."

USIP staffers illegally refused access to the building by the new acting head, president of USIP Kenneth Jackson and DOGE staffers accompanying him.

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/18/doge-us-institute-of-peace-trump-administration

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.usip.org/about/leadership/board-directors

"By law, the United States Institute of Peace is governed by a bipartisan Board of Directors. The board is composed of twelve members from outside federal service appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, and four ex-officio members: the secretary of state (who may designate another Senate-confirmed State Department official), the secretary of defense (who may designate another Senate-confirmed Defense Department official), the president of the National Defense University (who may designate the vice president of the National Defense University), and the president of the Institute (nonvoting)."

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

Here's the letter from the board firing Mr. Moose and replacing him with Mr. Jackson.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1901810390323048756

Apparently, Mr. Moose believes that he doesn't answer to board when he's trying to Save Democracy from Fascism.

[Sarcastr0]

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter56&edition=prelim

(f) Removal from office
A member of the Board appointed under subsection (b)(4) may be removed by the President—

(1) in consultation with the Board, for conviction of a felony, malfeasance in office, persistent neglect of duties, or inability to discharge duties;

(2) upon the recommendation of eight voting members of the Board; or

(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

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

So? Are you making a point?

Are you suggesting the board of USIP is illegal?

[M L]

"USIP staffers illegally refused access to the building"

What do they have to hide?

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

You, sadly, are regurgitating propaganda verbatim.

Sad.

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1901810390323048756

If you had any integrity or shame, you'd renounce your lies. You don't, but if you did.

[Voize of Reazon]

The story is that the President removed and replaced several Board members, and the new Board removed and replaced the president (of the Institute), and the new president (the news says "acting", but the Board can remove and appoint a president at will) was the one leading the attack.
All of which might have been done in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §4601 et seq. or might not. The President can remove Board members but only in accordance with §4605(f), supposedly notwithstanding Seila Law as they are not executive branch officials.

[Absaroka]

Right up front, I never heard of USIP before this morning, and have no opinion on whether it does good or bad things, or whether the cost is warranted. But it is an interesting case study in governance.

At least in my long ago civics class, the phrase 'checks and balances' came up a lot. For probably most of human history the predominant model of governance is 'what HMFWIC wants he gets'. That's a decent method when HMFWIC is an angel, and really bad when he isn't (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, ...). In engineering terms, HMFWIC is a single point of failure.

Our sainted founding fathers deliberately went for another model: power would be shared across individuals and individuals. If any single individual or institution went rogue, the damage would be contained by the other parts of the whole. Not everyone thinks the founding fathers got it right, or likes the constitution, but if you do it's worth asking how its principles apply today.

One bug/feature of this is that quick action requires a large degree or unanimity; controversial changes take more time. If this seems like a bug to you when your party is in power, you might reflect on how you would feel about slowing things down if the last vote had switched a couple of percent and the opposing party was in charge.

To take the present example, the president gets to appoint the board of USIP over time as terms expire, subject to senate approval[1]. If a president's party controls the senate, he will get the board he wants over time, and if his party controls the House he will in time get the budget he wants. If he wants it abolished, he can get that, but these decisions require broad approval, over time, from more than one person's momentary whim.

People who currently want immediate change ought to imagine equally immediate changes in the reverse direction after an election swing. If anyone is of a religious bent, 'do unto others' comes to mind as a guiding principle. 'Good for the goose, good for the gander', 'you reap what you sow', etc. There is a lot of time proven wisdom in those adages.

For some time Brett has been saying 'The Democrats would only do X if they never planned to have elections again'. Hmmmmm.

[1]In an effort to make it bipartisan congress - which is to say us - with Reagan's approval, said that 'no more than eight (which would be halfish) of the board may be from a single party'. That turns out to be a mistake; the intent would have been better served by phrasing that as 'no more than half', lest some future president fire all but a few of the board to eliminate the bipartisan part.

[ThePublius]

"DOGE broke in. Literally broke in."

That's total B.S. Will Sarcastr0 retract this? Don't hang by an eyelash waiting....

[Armchair]

"DOGE broke in. Literally broke in."

Well....

1) The Director of USIP was fired.
2) The new Director tried to enter
3) The ex-director refused his entry.
4) The new Director left
4) The new Director came back, with the cops, to let him into the building, as the ex-director was illegally preventing the legal entry of the new director.

Memo....Fired employees have no right to keep new employees out of the building.

[David Nieporent]

1) The Director of USIP was fired.

Lawfully?

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

I'm sure some Democrat judge will say it wasn't. Probably soon before any facts are even reviewed.

They're trying to find the judge with the family member that's getting paid $$$$$$$ from USIP to file their lawsuit with. So give them some time, okay? This is an important part of the process. It ensures the outcomes you want.

[Martinned2]

Yesterday the German constitutional court decided that the scheduled parliamentary debate and vote on the proposed constitutional amendment was not unconstitutional.

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2025/03/es20250317_2bve000725.html

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2025/03/es20250317_2bve000825.html

The debate will take place today.

[Martinned2]

The new Bundestag, which was elected on 23 February and is expected to take office next week, has so many pro-Russia Neo-Nazis and pacifist leftwingers that an emergency package to deal with the Trump emergency wouldn't pass. That's why the major parties decided to pass this constitutional amendment this week, in the lame duck parliament.

[Commenter_XY]

The US has now attacked Yemen in an effort to neuter the ability of the Houthis to target USN ships, and maritime traffic heading to the Suez Canal. US troops are now in combat, technically.

When does the WPA clock start....At the inception of hostilities?

If we are attacking the Houthis as pirates, to stop piracy, then doesn't Congress need to authorize the use force against pirates? Didn't Jefferson go to Congress for the Barbary pirates?

What is the legal rationale cited by POTUS Trump to initiate this action (retaliation for attacks?).

[Martinned2]

The US has been attacking Yemen for years, and nobody in Congress every showed any interest in the WPA.

[Commenter_XY]

M2, you've probably noticed I can be a stickler for following the rules, on occasion. This is one such time. If we commit troops to battle, and we've done so now in Yemen, it is helpful to fully understand how we got here.

I also think that applying the Weinberger Doctrine is instructive. (from wikipedia) The Weinberger Doctrine asserts that:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved. --> about 15% to 20% US maritime trade flows through Suez. It is a vital US national interest to keep Suez open.

U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. --> SecDef Hegseth made clear we aren't stopping until they do.

U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives. --> Objective is clear; stop piracy. USN and USAF now obliterating bases from which they originate

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

U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress. --> I don't see a lot of support for the Houthis here in America. Quite the opposite.

The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort. --> Sadly, because of the utter incompetence of The Cauliflower and his team, we now have to bomb the shit out of the Houthis until they stop their piracy

All of this said, I would like to have Congress on record. Even if the record is a statement of support (or disapproval) for what has commenced. Something like a 'Sense of the House' or 'Sense of the Senate' statement voted into the record.

I can support the objective (stop Houthi piracy), and not like the lack of formal process to effectuate that. The Congress can, and I believe must, issue some kind of statement (or vote) when US troops are committed to battle.

And if they come out of recess to do that, so be it. My attitude is less recess, and more work wrt Congress.

[Martinned2]

I'm perfectly willing to believe that you and I agree on this point. But Congress prefers not to vote on this question, and there's no way to force them.

This is one of the ways that the US President ended up with so much power: time and again Congress finds it politically convenient to delegate power to the President, explicitly or implicitly. Generally I don't think such delegations are a unconstitutional (though delegating the power to declare war might be). But they're not wise either.

[Commenter_XY]

This is a case where Congress can and must speak on the record. Our troops are now in battle.

[SRG2]

M2, you've probably noticed I can be a stickler for following the rules

Only if it serves Dear Leader. Otherwise, you're just lying, as we've seen that to you, obeying Dear Leader is more important than the rules.

[Commenter_XY]

Correct me if I am wrong. One of us is demanding Congress go on the record (either authorize, support or disapprove) after troops have been committed to battle in Yemen. Then there is the other, who vents their spleen.

I am the one demanding Congress goes on record.

[John F. Carr]

The Attorney General of Texas criminally charged a woman for operating illegal abortion clinics. The AP reporter covering this case did not know of any similar prosecutions post-Dobbs. A New York doctor faces criminal charges for shipping abortion pills into Louisiana.

The criminal abortion law depends on violations being called to the attention of somebody who cares. In this case, a prosecutor who cares referred the case to the Attorney General who also cares. (No more evasion of Ex parte Young.) For all I know the streets of Austin are lined with abortion clinics because the prosecutor there doesn't care.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-announces-arrest-houston-area-abortionist-and-crackdown-clinics
https://apnews.com/article/texas-illegal-abortion-charge-2ffba72c1d547afa87607bd0a3c32b92

[Martinned2]

I wonder if Putin will remember to say thank you. I hear that's very important to Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

If they can possibly get to a place where a ceasefire can occur quickly, that would be ideal. The killing can stop.

[ThePublius]

Racist insanity on campus:

"Students at Cornell University can use their status as a “person of color” to be exempt from the university’s flu vaccine requirement.

“Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events,” explains Cornell Health’s vaccine requirement FAQ.

Students can send a private message to Cornell Health in order to request a non-medical or non-religious exemption for the immunization. For more information, the FAQ links to a page “especially for students of color,” which is meant to help minority students concerned about the flu vaccine requirement.
“We recognize that, due to longstanding systemic racism and health inequities in this country, individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements,” explains the page. “For example, historically, the bodies of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) have been mistreated, and used by people in power, sometimes for profit or medical gain.”

The university, therefore, considers it “understandable that the current Compact requirements may feel suspect or even exploitative to some BIPOC members of the Cornell community.”"

https://www.campusreform.org/article/cornell-offers-person-color-exemption-flu-vaccine-requirement/16344

[John F. Carr]

I looked on Cornell's web site. I did not see any requirement to get the flu vaccine. The list of requirements was typical: MMR, DPT, varicella, Meningococcal B. https://health.cornell.edu/get-care/health-requirements-new-students/FAQ

[Absaroka]

The one that seemed odd to me was tetanus. Keeping tetanus shots up to date is smart, but tetanus isn't contagious, so you aren't exposing others to risk by skipping it.

[ducksalad]

When analyzing a university policy your starting assumption should be that it's about avoiding lawsuits, rather than any free-standing ideas about safety, liberty, or even liberal ideology.

[Absaroka]

Fair enough, but what's the lawsuit going to say? 'Cornell didn't require me to get a tetanus shot and I stepped on a rusty nail'? Cornell, AFAICT doesn't require students to lose weight, exercise, avoid skydiving, or any other risky behavior. What's different about a tetanus shot?

[David Nieporent]

Just spitballing, but it might be hard to blame Cornell legally if one gets hurt while skydiving, whereas if one steps on a rusty nail lying on the ground, one can argue that Cornell shouldn't have rusty nails lying on the ground.

[Absaroka]

Well, sure, Cornell shouldn't have rusty nails or trip hazards or whatever, but how does a tetanus vaccine requirement defend against the rusty nail claim? 'OK, we left rusty nails around, but we required tetanus shots beforehand' sounds ... like not a great defense?

[ThePublius]

You know, of course, that tetanus doesn't come form rusty nails?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, in comes from anaerobic bacteria often found in dirt, and an iron nail rusting can create the sort of localized anaerobic environment they thrive in, as well as help them get through the skin.

So it really is quite commonly contracted from a puncture wound or cut from rusting iron in soil.

[ducksalad]

Abs, FWIW the university I work at does a huge amount of messaging to students on exercise and eating healthy. And again, they don't really care whether the students exercise or eat healthy. It's all about "There's this record that we told you to exercise and eat healthy".

And a layman like myself needs to occasionally remind the lawyers here: there is no such thing as a defendant winning a lawsuit. There is no possible outcome that doesn't involve significant loss of time, money, resources, and morale. The lawsuit may be frivolous but the losses are real.

[David Nieporent]

I would say that the Campusreform blog post is a total fabrication since the Cornell pages it links to do not say anything like what it claims, but to be fair to the author, it's a four year old post that ThePublius has inexplicably posted as though it were current; it's possible that the Campusreform post was accurate when posted.

[ThePublius]

Yes, sorry about that, I didn't realize it was old news.

[ducksalad]

Crooked Joe Biden got us into a real “mess” with Russia (and EVERYTHING ELSE!), but I’m going to get us out. Millions of people are needlessly dead, never to be seen again…and there will be many more to follow if we don’t get the Cease Fire and Final Agreement with Russia completed and signed. There would have been NO WAR if I were President. It just, 100%, would not have happened. Likewise, there would have been no October 7th with Israel, the pullout from Afghanistan would have been done with strength and pride, and would not have been the most embarrassing day in the history of our Country, it could have been a moment of glory. Also, there would not have been any perceptible inflation – Instead we had Record Setting, Country Destroying Inflation, like we have never seen before. Also, we would have had an impenetrable Border, with very few illegals getting in. Oh, what a difference A RIGGED & CROOKED ELECTION HAD ON OUR COUNTRY, AND THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS TO US SHOULD GO TO JAIL! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[David Nieporent]

Like I said: he's mentally ill.

[ducksalad]

This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

[Jmaie]

If you're going to draw a swastika on someone's cyber truck, presumably to label them a nazi, should you makes sure it's turning the right direction?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/deranged-anti-elon-musk-dad-scrawls-swastika-on-nyc-cybertruck-in-broad-daylight-leaving-jewish-owner-stunned-i-feel-myself-burning-inside/ar-AA1AYxXc

[ThePublius]

Progress:

Putin Agrees to Pause Attacks on Ukraine Energy Infrastructure in Call With Trump
The two leaders say they will keep working on details of longer-lasting peace plan advocated by U.S. president

https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-putin-phone-call-ukraine-russia-ceasefire-73f44bf0?mod=hp_lead_pos1

[ThePublius]

57 days; or 1 month, 26 days. Limited cease fire. Beginnings of an agreement with Zelensky, and now with Putin.

What did Biden accomplish on this front in the previous three years?

O.K. brace for the Trump haters to spin this....

[David Nieporent]

Why do you think that's a positive accomplishment?

[ThePublius]

Are you kidding? A cease fire is not a positive accomplishment?

[Absaroka]

"A cease fire is not a positive accomplishment?"

1)It's a pretty narrow cease fire, da?

2)The details matter. Chamberlain famously brought 'Peace for our time' home from Munich. Oooops.

[Armchair]

2)The details matter.

Not quite the same situation as 1938.... There hadn't exactly been a multi-year major shooting war at the time.

[David Nieporent]

Are you kidding? A cease fire is not a positive accomplishment?

A cease fire is not inherently good, no. It depends on the facts on the ground in any given situation. Sometimes a cease fire benefits the enemy. You may remember, for instance, that all the Israel haters were pushing for an immediate cease fire in Gaza after 10/7, because that would have been bad for Israel and good for Hamas.

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

It definitely would've been good for the little Hamas babies. But, as several (some very prominent even) Jewish people have been recorded on video as saying "These babies grow up to be terrorists, so (paraphrasing here) fuck them."

[ThePublius]

Why do you question whether that's a positive accomplishment? What would you prefer?

Holy cow, you are apparently suffering from severe TDS.

[David Nieporent]

I would prefer that Ukraine get the support it needs to win the war.

[ThePublius]

Define "winning"" this war? In my view, there's no winning. Only continued killing.

[Commenter_XY]

Define 'win the war', David.

Because if you think win = go back to status quo ante 2022 or 2014, then you've already lost. That is simply not going to happen.

You apparently prefer UKR civilians suffer though attacks on their energy infrastructure, instead of alleviating their suffering. And for what, some delusion that UKR magically pushes out RUS? You've had a lack of realism and perspective since the start of the conflict. At some point, do you ever think to yourself, 'Despite what I thought and my personal conviction, UKR didn't turn out like I thought it would after 3 years'.

If a deal is not cut soon (Q3, summer), there won't be a UKR east of the Dnieper river to discuss. Kursk is just about lost (heroic effort by UKR), the RUS meat grinder grinds on in the 4 provinces, pushing westward. Thousands die weekly.

We've had three years of 'your way' and it has failed. Time for a course change.

[David Nieporent]

Because if you think win = go back to status quo ante 2022 or 2014, then you've already lost. That is simply not going to happen.

Not with that attitude, it isn't.

You apparently prefer UKR civilians suffer though attacks on their energy infrastructure, instead of alleviating their suffering

I prefer that UKR civilians decide what they're willing to accept, rather than having a guy owned by Vladimir Putin or a guy still having a tantrum about Ukrainian actions 80 years ago do it for them. If they say, "Know what? We'd rather surrender and give up half our country than keep fighting for our freedom," then that's their call to make.

[Absaroka]

"I prefer that UKR civilians decide what they're willing to accept, ... If they say, "Know what? We'd rather surrender and give up half our country than keep fighting for our freedom," then that's their call to make."

Exactly so. I am at a loss to decide what makes anyone think they should make that decision for the Ukrainian people. What if France looked at the colonies and said 'the colonists have suffered enough, let's end the war on King George's terms'? Or 'Britain has suffered enough, and they won't be able to hold against Rommel at Alamein, let's hit Churchill in the face with a 2x4 so he comes to his senses and settles with Hitler'. 'Netanyahu needs to face the reality he can't win against Hamas and Hezbollah, let's withdraw aid until he comes to terms'. No one made me God.

[ThePublius]

Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia have announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines.

https://x.com/Lithuanian_MoD/status/1901901669274628371

[Absaroka]

It's almost like they share a border with an aggressive country that never signed that treaty.

[ThePublius]

Lithuania doesn't have a border with Russia. Are you thinking they are afraid of Belarus attacking?

[Brett Bellmore]

He's thinking that Belarus isn't nearly as independent of Russia in reality as they nominally are, so that bordering on Belarus means you might as well be bordering on Russia.

[Absaroka]

"Lithuania doesn't have a border with Russia"

1)We are looking at different maps:

"Kaliningrad Oblast is the westernmost part of Russia. It is a small flat province separated from the rest of the country by the Baltic Sea and two European Union and NATO members: Poland to the south and Lithuania to the north and east."

2)What Brett said ... Belarusian independence is evaporating day by day. You may recall Russian troops invading one of Belarus' neighbors from Belarusian territory a couple of years ago.

3)Those points aside, 'mainland' Russia to the Lithuanian border is eightyish miles. If I was Lithuania I'd be a lot more worried about an invasion from Russia than from Denmark or China.

4)Let's tot up the number of world leaders who have stated territorial claims to Lithuania in this century. Lessee, there is Putin and ... no one else.

[ducksalad]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania%E2%80%93Russia_border

[tylertusta]

Good for them. Such a dumb treaty.

[ThePublius]

Let the record show, that on March 18, 2025, David Nieporent doesn't see the achievement of a partial cease fire in the Russia-Ukraine war as a positive accomplishment.

SMH

[ducksalad]

OK, one fair way to describe it would be that Putin agreed to consider a proposed partial cease fire.

Another way to describe it would be that Putin rejected a full ceasefire, but tentatively agreed not to destroy the specific infrastructure Trump wants to take control of after the Ukraine capitulates.

[Sarcastr0]

"The left is a bunch of violent vandals who must be dealt with - quickly and harshly, I hope."

"If I were that woman I would have stood my ground and if the bartender hit me with the baseball bat I would have unholstered and shot her. FAFO."

No, you don't get to shake your head at some stupid knee jerk 'all cease fires are good' bullshit.

You are a profoundly violent and bloody-minded partisan, when you're not complaining people are posting swears.

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

Great comment! That will surely shame him into self-censoring!

You're doing the State's Work that's for sure. State Bless You.

[ThePublius]

Let me ask you guys on the left: what's wrong with you? Do you think vandalism of Teslas, Tesla dealerships, Tesla charging stations is O.K.? Taking shots (real gunshots) at Tesla dealerships. Good? A legitimate form of 'resistance?'

I haven't heard ANY liberals or progressives object to this stuff.

Let's hear from you. Sarcastr0, SRG2, David Nieporent - is this all O.K.? Good? Are you cheering it on?

[ducksalad]

While we're waiting for them, I've got a question for you. There were 170,633 reported arrests for vandalism in 2023. The number of incidents in which no arrest was made is undoubtedly several times higher.

1. What percentage of those 170,633 did you post an objection to?
2. For the ones you failed to object to, would it be fair to say you were cheering them on?
3. Do you believe in equal protection of the law, or do you think vandalism against Tesla is more a serious crime than vandalizing other establishments?
4. What's wrong with you?

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

Scratch a Democrat, find a By-Any-Means-Necessary Domestic Terrorist they always say...

[Magister]

I haven't heard ANY liberals or progressives object to this stuff.

Democrats loudly and repeatedly condemned violence and vandalism at Black Lives Matter protests. By contrast, the right could only briefly bring itself to condemn the insurrectionists Trump summoned and encouraged ("legitimate political discourse", said the RNC), and Trump later pardoned even the most violent ones who attacked police. Not even going to delve into the violent rhetoric and actions of the right wing, the second amendment remedies, the murder fantasies or the actual attacks they joke about.

[Armchair]

Oh, how it must be painful to be a liberal....

1. Global warming is an existential crisis. We must all switch to electric cars like Teslas!

2. Burn the Teslas! Musk is evil! Back to gas guzzling SUVs like Mark Kelly!

[David Nieporent]

I haven't heard MAGA object to the J6 terrorists. Were you cheering them on?

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

We loudly objected to the FBI undercover agitators that were terrorizing the Capitol and the innocent protestors. And of course, it was this Judge Boasburg who let Ray Epps off the hook even though there are countless videos of him ordering people to burn down the White House at the J6 rally.

Boasburg even had the gall to say something about how poor Ray Epps has suffered when he's been innocent all along.

[David Nieporent]

Why would Trump pardon FBI undercover agitators? Seems weird.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think vandalism of Teslas, Tesla dealerships, Tesla charging stations is O.K.?

Seriously, TP, you sound like you're psyching yourself up for something with all this anecdote-to-generalization rageifying against 'the left.'

Don't hurt anyone.

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit upheld sanctions against two attorneys for Arizona gadfly Kari Lake.

The district court here held that the Lead Attorneys violated Rule 11 when they filed the [First Amended Complaint] because the FAC contained baseless allegations. Central among these false and misleading allegations identified by the district court are the claims that Arizona does not use paper ballots and that Arizona voting machines are not tested.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/14/23-16022.pdf

[ThePublius]

It looks like I'm going to get my new passport on Thursday, via USPS Priority Mail, one day short of three weeks from when I renewed online. I'd say that's pretty good service. Some things still work well.