Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Trump, Putin and Zelensky have agreed to a limited first phase of a ceasefire:

WASHINGTON − A call between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin ended with a limited agreement for Russia and Ukraine to cease attacks on energy infrastructure but stopped short of a U.S. proposal for a temporary truce.

"The United States said Russia had agreed to an energy and infrastructure ceasefire. After Moscow and Kyiv agree to stop hitting each other's power plants and electric grids, negotiators would move on to a potential halt in fighting on the Black Sea − and then to a full ceasefire and peace agreement in the 3-year-old Ukraine war, a White House statement said."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/03/18/trump-putin-ukraine-ceasefire/82512876007/

This seems along the lines of Zelensky's proposal in talks with Rubio last week:
The US's top diplomat has said that he sees promise in Ukraine's proposal for a partial ceasefire to end the war with Russia, ahead of talks in Saudi Arabia between US and Ukrainian officials later on Tuesday.

"I'm not saying that alone is enough but it's the kind of concession you would need to see in order to end the conflict," US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday.

Kyiv is expected to propose an aerial and naval truce with Russia during the negotiations in Jeddah.

Russia has previously rejected the idea of a temporary ceasefire, saying it was an attempt to buy time and prevent Ukraine's military collapse."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4gldd5ljo

I was hoping faster progress would be made but it seems both Putin and Zelensky want to take small steps first.

Trump just needs to be ready to apply more pressure on whatever side seems to be dragging more if progress grinds to a halt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, can you suggest steps Trump should take to apply pressure to Russia to force a compromise which Ukraine can endorse? Try to keep in mind that Russian subjugation of Ukraine would be one of the most unpopular foreign policy blunders in American history. Polls show American public support for Putin in low single digits.

[Kazinski]

Well personally I am surprised its not zero, but there are always a few idiots.

I certainly hope Ukraine isn't subjugated, but I think that is more likely without a peace agreement, than with one. Oftentimes there is a long fight then a sudden unexpected collapse, as happened just recently in Syria.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Um . . . about my question? The one addressing steps to take to pressure Russia toward peace.

[Commenter_XY]

Overt, or covert? = steps Trump should take to apply pressure to Russia to force a compromise which Ukraine can endorse

[Kazinski]

Give Ukraine more weapons, and do more to cut off Russian oil sales to Europe.

I've actually said that a few times.

But I certainly don't think anywhere near time for steps now while they've made one concrete step and are talking about other steps like ending the war in the Black Sea.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When do you suppose the time will arrive to do the right thing?

[Kazinski]

When there has been no further progress in the talks for at least a month.

Right now its been one day since the first breakthrough.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So you favor a 30-day window to let Russia do its worst, while support for Ukraine from the U.S. continues to be withheld. I am having trouble seeing that as good faith negotiation on behalf of a just peace, or equity for Ukraine. Were you unaware of the historical context of my question?

[Kazinski]

Well now I have said I favor an immediate total ceasefire.

And I have said below:
"I would expect both Russia and Ukraine would stop hostilities outside the front lines, especially attacks on civilian targets in cities."

And I'm glad Trump resumed military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine March 11, before ceasefire talks started with Russia.

But if you want to argue against a cartoon version of what you suppose Trump and supporters of his peace plan are proposing go right ahead.

[Josh R]

Can we at least conclude your earlier claim that Putin accepted a proposal for European troops in Ukraine was wrong?

[Kazinski]

Why would we conclude that?

They've been talking just a few days, and haven't reached an agreement on a general ceasefire yet.

Next topic is a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.

[Josh R]

You posted weeks ago that Putin had already agreed to European troops in Ukraine. After the call to Trump, he said that is not acceptable.

[Kazinski]

Russia has already rejected the idea of a temporary ceasefire too, yet they are talking about it now.

From the US today link above:

"Russia has previously rejected the idea of a temporary ceasefire, saying it was an attempt to buy time and prevent Ukraine's military collapse".

[Josh R]

SFW if Russia might agree to European troops in Ukraine down the road. You said they did so weeks ago.

[Kazinski]

You don't get that sometimes leaders say different things in public than privately? Of course there will be preconditions that have to be negotiated before he will agree to it publicly.

From the BBC March 20th, Maybe they are just as gullible as I am believing Trumps lies:

"The UK is hosting a closed meeting on Thursday of senior military leaders from the "coalition of the willing", as they draw up plans for a proposed peacekeeping force for Ukraine.

More than 20 countries are thought to be involved.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is expected to attend on Thursday afternoon after first visiting Barrow, where he is due to lay the keel of one of Britain's next generation of nuclear-armed submarines.

Plans for a Western-led peacekeeping force for Ukraine are said to be moving to an operational phase."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62z1w1y2neo

[Josh R]

You don't get that sometimes leaders say different things in public than privately? Of course there will be preconditions that have to be negotiated before he will agree to it publicly.

You know for certain that Putin has already agreed to European troops in Ukraine and is just playing diplomatic games at this point. Cut the shit. You have no idea if that is true or not.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, Europe relies on RUS oil and gas. Cutting off RUS oil/gas sales to europe is a non-starter. The oil simply goes to India, or asia. Addressing the shadow fleet that moves oil around to evade sanctions would be more effective. Time (and delays) in port from extended safety inspections and manifest checks cost money.

The ceasefire agreement covers energy infrastructure. Not water and sewer, not bridges or tunnels or roadways or dams. There is plenty of infrastructure that could be hit to cause considerable RUS civilian pain.

The readouts by US, RUS are encouraging. Can they effectuate confidence building steps (refrain from attacking energy infrastructure)? We'll see. Hopefully the parties can find a way to stop the killing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Europe is reliant on Russian energy, and that is the result of a long series of really bad decisions, which will not be undone in a day. Decisions here, such as Biden crippling our capacity to export LNG. Decisions in Europe, such as decommissioning and deliberately demolishing perfectly functional nuclear plants.

But we really should be about undoing them. We have a LOT of really bad long term decisions we need to be undoing, but this is close to the top of the list.

And the start of undoing them in Europe is getting in the way of Russian energy exports enough that European politicians feel the pain, and like the flatworms they are, react to it.

[hobie]

It's just Spain that's still being a dick about accepting Russian natural gas. They then shuffle some off to Belgium and Netherlands. And that's actually 93% of all Russian gas to Europe. Everyone else is off it. So it is a negligible bargaining chip.

[Commenter_XY]

Hungary (and others) also get NatGas from RUS, proving yet again that countries do not have morals like people, they have interests.

NatGas is the achilles heel for europe; Reagan specifically warned about this back in the 80's. Brett is right about bad decisions being made along the way.

There is no easy or painless solution.

[Frank Drackman]

Only one guy in Dallas shot JFK (OK, for you Conspiracy Idiots, maybe "A few guys") That's all it takes

[Bwaaah]

What? To shoot a famous character waving from the back seat of a roofless car as it slowly inched along a pre-publicized route through a city in 1963?

I don't know how anybody could've pulled that off.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how people call Oswalds Rifle "an old Italian Bolt Action Rifle" in 1963 it wasn't that old, and being Italian Military Surplus, certainly hadn't seen much use, Mannlincher is a quality manufacturer, and it obviously worked. The 6.5 Carcano round is also very pleasant to shoot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"being Italian Military Surplus, certainly hadn't seen much use,"

LOL

[ThePublius]

""being Italian Military Surplus, certainly hadn't seen much use,"

LOL"

There are many military surplus rifles that have had ZERO use! I have an SMLE made in 1926 at the Lithgow, Australia arsenal that was never issued, and never fired except for the proof firing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How old was the ammo though?
Of what quality was it?

Boy Scouts get .22 ammo from the Army for rifle classes, but the ammo is (or was) junk. Lots of misfires and bullets not going straight. 20 year old Italian ammo that wasn't stored properly, umm...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Compare three shots from a bolt action rifle (where you have to reacquire the target after every shot) to eight shots at a slightly greater distance but at a stationary target.

Oswald was a better marksman -- that's all...

[Kazinski]

Actually Brent Crude is at 70bbl which is a post covid low, so there seems to be some slack in the market, especially coming into spring and the end of the winter heating season.

[hobie]

You're gonna see a lot of slack over the next year

[Kazinski]

Yeah, i saw that oil traders are worried about a recession in China.

I saw Powell today on TV and he said he sees no indication of a US recession.

“I will say there’s no evidence or no reason to think that the US economy is in, or in some kind of, short-term risk of falling into a recession,” he said. “Having said that, though, there’s always a meaningful possibility that an economy will fall into recession. I don’t think that possibility is elevated at the current time.”

[hobie]

Naw, there's no recession coming unless someone does something really, really stupid. But, for at least the next two months as far as I can tell, we won't be raising your gas prices

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sink a Russian tanker. Make it look like Chechens did it.

Sink a Russian tanker where it does a lot of environmental damage.

[Frank Drackman]

Then a US Ship mysteriously gets sunk, maybe even a Carrier, what then General Patton?

[Dr. Ed 2]

President Eisenhower would have done it.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I have not studied the present sanctions enough to suggest how they could be made much tougher. I do think that Mr Putin does not see enough incentive negotiate a broad ceasefire or an end to this war. It looks like his plan is to talk and shoot simultaneously, until American support of Ukraine stops.
Trump got much less from Putin than he thought that he'd get. He does have to increase pressure on Putin, but the hard part is find a way to do so without driving Russia even closer to China.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Trump could trust the CIA, and if it were competent, having it blow up a Russian power plant or two comes to mind as an option.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, Genius move X-lax, good thing we don't have any power plants or an open society where people can get right up close to vital industrial sites.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Our vital industrial sites and power plants are better secured than you might think.

[Joe_dallas]

good point on the geopolitical issues associated china and russia which run much deeper and vastly more significant than russia and ukraine,

[Commenter_XY]

Putin holds all the cards, Don Nico.

[bernard11]

Only because Trump passed him some under the table.

[Don Nico]

No, he doesn't. Putin must already be shakig that Germany has decided to rearm.

[Don Nico]

Not really bernard. A very weak Biden policy assumed the mere arms supplied to Ukraine would put him at a disadvantage, but the sanctions were weak. Putin has had little motivation to negotiate.

[ReaderY]

Why would he do that? It seems pretty clear the goal is to get Ukraine to accept a compromise that Russia can endorse.

[hobie]

The first thing agreed upon, before any compromises are discussed, should be the immediate release of the 20,000 kidnapped children. But I see yesterday that Krasnov has inexplicably ceased the tracking of the stolen children right at negotiation time. Ukraine has to deal with two lying snakes at the table

(free article from NY Times:)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/politics/trump-ukraine-abducted-children.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5E4.-PeE.nJ5Z-GgtGJmz&smid=url-share

[Armchair]

Let's play devil's advocate here for a second.

A full ceasefire would be preferable. This just prevents the electrical grids from being hit. Unfortunately, Ukraine's electrical grid has already been heavily hit. Russia's is largely intact. Now that Ukraine is attacking into Russia, its electrical grid is at risk.

Russia may be worried that if the power goes out in Moscow, people would start opposing the war. Meanwhile, it's already done a great deal of damage to Ukraine's grid.

[Don Nico]

That seems accurate. Putin does not see enough pressure to agree to a full ceasefire.

[Kazinski]

True, but what's interesting is it was the Ukrainians who first floated the idea of just a partial ceasefire, last week.

The date of the BBC article was March 11.

The advantage to Zelensky is that if Russia violates even this limited ceasefire then he was proven right, and should start receiving more aid to put more pressure on Russia.

I would expect both Russia and Ukraine would stop hostilities outside the front lines, especially attacks on civilian targets in cities.

[David Nieporent]

True, but what's interesting is it was the Ukrainians who first floated the idea of just a partial ceasefire, last week.

I think it's overwhelmingly likely that this was just an attempt to kiss Trump's ass in the desperate hope he wouldn't entirely sell them out.

[tylertusta]

I doubt that Ukraine could do sufficient damage to the Russian energy grid to cause disruptions around Moscow.

A cease fire gives Ukraine an opportunity to rebuild its own energy grid.

[Armchair]

"I doubt that Ukraine could do sufficient damage to the Russian energy grid to cause disruptions around Moscow."

Eh, they did just launch 300 drones at Moscow. Take out a substation here, a transmission line there, and you get take out power pretty well.

[tylertusta]

I'm not convinced. Russian air defenses are only going to get beefed up around critical sites.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What no one is doing yet with drones is something similar to the graphite bomb -- BLU-114/B -- that shorts out power plants.

[Absaroka]

Transmission lines and substations, not power plants. In fairness, power plants attach to transmission lines, but the vicinity of the power plant is likely to have good AA defenses, and be accessible for repair.

The Brits did it in WWII with balloons trailing wires.

[shawn_dude]

And if you knock out enough of the peripheral power infrastructure, you can force the plant to degrade service or shut down without engaging with the more serious defenses.

[Absaroka]

Indeed. I wonder about other long linear targets like above ground pipelines and railroads. Seems like you could make a drone that would do enough image recognition to set down on one with a shaped charge and give them the death of a thousand cuts. Kinda hard to defend a few hundred mile long target.

Must be harder than I'm imagining.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Russia needs to be worried about 20 years of UKE terrorism.

[shawn_dude]

Why?! Trump is going to give Ukraine to Putin in the hopes that Putin will become his BFF and welcome him into the global dictator club.

[ducksalad]

An alternate, more cynical explanation. The agreement between Putin and Trump is that once the Ukrainians surrender, Putin gets all the southeastern provinces, while Trump gets control of the resources and infrastructure in the part that retains nominal independence. In a spirit of cooperation the two men have agreed not to harm each other's interests in the spoils to come.

[David Nieporent]

Ribbentrop-Molotov 2.0

[Bob from Ohio]

It was Molotov-Ribbentrop.

[ducksalad]

They also invented the telephone before that Bell guy.

[Bwaaah]

Like when Bush Junior went into Iraq to get oil. Because everybody knows how much Americans love the spoils of war.

That Trump really knows how to play the game to win, eh?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Chief Justice Roberts rebuked President Trump for demanding impeachment of a judge because Trump disliked the judge's opinion. Commenters of many political stripes have rallied to endorse that rebuke. I wonder if Justice Roberts has it right.

I too think as Roberts said that a subordinate judge should not be impeached for a politically disfavored opinion, because the proper remedy in such a case is appeal to a higher court. But what happens in the case of the Supreme Court, from which no appeal is possible? I challenge commenters to think of a hypothetical Supreme Court opinion which would justify impeachment of the Justices who voted for it. To make it interesting, explain on what constitutional theory you justify an impeachment.

[Commenter_XY]

Impeachment is a political act. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House (n=218) votes for. There is no grand constitutional theory, lathrop. Just raw power politics. Sorry to burst that bubble.

The opinion itself is irrelevant.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Most people, and most politicians, think otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Until they encounter something they REALLY don't like, anyway.

To be clear, I think talk of impeaching judges in the current context is empty venting, because there's no way you would get a conviction in the Senate of a judge who was 'merely' getting in the way of Republican policies, no matter how egregious their behavior.

Impeachment IS a political matter, and conviction will only follow it if the conduct offends both parties.

[Frank Drackman]

It's not getting a conviction in the Senate, it's putting the Judges Tit through the proverbial Legal wringer.
And like nailing Cicero's hands to the doors of the Senate, getting the message to the rest of the gang. (And going Full Roman, maybe Fulvia/Bondi can stick her hairpin into his tongue)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

If you know for an absolute fact you're being acquitted, it's a foam rubber lined wringer.

[DixieTune]

No more so than was imposed on Trump both times. What's the difference? The statement is made either way

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly -- it is time to make it clear that this is not acceptable.

[tylertusta]

majority of the House (n=218)

Small nitpick: A majority of members present provided a quorum exists.

[Commenter_XY]

True. I stand corrected! 😉

[ducksalad]

His question, XY, was not about the constitutional mechanics. It was about what you would feel is adequate justification. In other words, what are your principles.

Sounds like you're in favor of removing "the other side" from all federal offices for no other reason than having the 2/3 votes to do it.

The same 2/3 vote can expel a member of Congress. If your side gets 2/3 majority, would you feel equally justified in simply expelling all the remaining Democrats from Congress?

Maybe the better question is, do you merely favor it, or are you licking your chops in anticipation?

[Commenter_XY]

ducksalad, go back to what I said. Impeachment is a political act. Any impeachment justification for the House is whatever they can get away with, politically.

Do I personally think Biasberg should be impeached? No, not with the facts in front of us, presently. Might that change? Yes, it could change, if new facts come to light.

There are not 67 votes in the Senate to remove Biasberg, so to me, it is performative theatrics.

[ducksalad]

No, not with the facts in front of us, presently

Just to clarify which facts you're talking about:

Do you mean that if you were a representative, you would not vote to impeach because you don't think the current evidence against "Biasberg" is strong enough?

Or do you mean that if you were a representative, you would not vote to impeach because of the fact that there aren't 67 votes in the Senate?

What I'd find reassuring is the first statement uncontaminated by repetition of the second.

[Commenter_XY]

Both statements are true. 😉

[bernard11]

So, just to pin you down.

A judge has made a ruling the Republicans hate. Regardless of how strong the case of the litigants he ruled for, you think it's perfectly fine for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, assuming they have enough votes.

Is that right?

[ducksalad]

Bernard, it could be even worse than that.

It could be that future Senator XY isn't even interested in the judge's decisions. It could just be that his side has 67 votes and they want to do something arbitrary and capricious just for the sheer joy of pissing on your ideas about having reasons and justifications and all that pansy liberal crap.

Pick a name out of a hat and impeach. The prosecutors' complete case could be four words, "fuck you, that's why", not even directed at the defendant but instead at the 33 senators in the minority.

And as XY relishes pointing out, that would all be constitutionally legal.

[Commenter_XY]

It would be perfectly constitutional to do as you write. I started my original response with: impeachment is a political act.

Political argument =/= Legal argument....different rules, different motivations.

What we know presently about Judge Biasberg, and his rulings, isn't enough to impeach, IMO. Yet.

Now, if Senator XY knew there were 67 votes to remove, you can take to the bank that Senator XY would be quietly talking to his House friends. And btw, with 67 votes, why stop at 1?

[Bwaaah]

Bernard11: Do you promise to never, never ever, ever ever, try to impeach a judge?

Anyway, C_XY makes no such promise. He reserves that option, for whatever he deems sufficient cause.

[Commenter_XY]

See, this is where they hate reality.

Reality: Impeachment is a political act, not legal. Whatever the majority of the House says is impeachable, is impeachable, for whatever motivation (and there will be multiple motivations). The Senate can remove, or not remove, for whatever motivation (and there will be multiple motivations).

That's it.

[Josh R]

How about the norm that you don't impeach judges merely because they issue a decision you don't agree with?

[Bob from Ohio]

A bad norm.

[Josh R]

A bad norm in a totalitarian regime.

[Bob from Ohio]

I see you prefer your tyrants to wear black robes.

[Josh R]

The judiciary is not a monolith, Trump is.

[Area Man]

Depends. I would have been okay if the majority in Dred Scott had been impeached and removed. I can think of a few other truly heinous court decisions that would have warranted impeachment and removal from federal judges. The idea that disagreement should never be a ground for impeachment is silly. Should it be rare? Sure. But not never.

[David Nieporent]

There is an anti-canon: Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Trump v. U.S.. Nevertheless, in the absence of any corruption, I don't think impeachment would be appropriate.

[Josh R]

How do you distinguish between impeachable and non-impeachable disagreements?

[Magister]

As a practical matter, if two thirds of the Senate was such as to be horrified enough by a decision then the Supreme Court would probably not make that decision; per Mr. Dooley, they follow the election returns. And even less legislative sentiment would suffice to pass new legislation addressing many decisions which could be overruled by statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I challenge commenters to think of a hypothetical Supreme Court opinion which would justify impeachment of the Justices who voted for it."

Ruling that the House can't impeach on any basis they want would be a great candidate, and the theory is, obviously, that the House CAN impeach on any basis they want, and the judiciary need to be clear about that.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Why go full theoretical ?
There are corrupt judges, there are Obama and Trump judges, adn with Roberts own Presidential Immunity ruling , Roberts looks very bad by giving this one-man (unofficial) opinion.

Our cirremt legal hierarchy gives the real power to the LOWEST levels of law. This is not a flaw. It just makes a normal person ask: Why when the Pres does something it is up in the air but when a low tier judge says something the world has to stop spinning?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I disagree -- the District dictators (I refuse to call them "Judges") deserve to be impeached for making their decisions unappealable.

I think that Roberts ought to be glad that we haven't reverted to Trump Law and Trumping much as we reverted to Lynch's Law and Lynching 250 years ago with the British.

[not guilty]

Uh, District Court judges did not make temporary restraining orders unappealable. Congress did that by omitting TROs from the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1292.

[MoreCurious]

You've made it pretty clear that you despise federal judges and that the power of the judiciary needs to be reigned in for the good of the republic. What system, if any, do you propose to replace the current system?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's start with limiting the jurisdiction of a judge to the actual district. And then stop ruling on political questions.

We simply can't have 680 independent Presidents of the United States. Locke, Jefferson and others warned about this -- if this isn't stomped on, and soon, we WILL have anarchy and the first thing that will involve is judges being murdered. I don't think that we want that. Do we?

Right now this is only happening to Trump, but what if some pro-gun district court judge in Texas was to overthrow Massachusett's or New York's gun laws on the same grounds, i.e. that some Texan may drive in these states.

[David Nieporent]

Let's start with limiting the jurisdiction of a judge to the actual district. And then stop ruling on political questions.

You're using legal terms you don't understand.

[Dr. Ed 2]

|/dev/null

[Absaroka]

Syntax error!

It's fine to pretend to be a computer expert, but please get the syntax right, as explained to you a couple of weeks ago. Incorrect syntax is very jarring to us crotchety old computer types.

[Life of Brian]

Speaking of crotchety old computer types, that's CHR$(7); "?SYNTAX ERROR" 😁

[Absaroka]

What OS/shell is that?

I presumed Ed was thinking of some unix flavor. FWIW my desktop linux gives:

$ |/dev/null
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `|'

The pipe operator requires input from somewhere. If you supply some input then you find out that /dev/null isn't an executable:

$ ls | /dev/null
bash: /dev/null: Permission denied

[Life of Brian]

Applesoft BASIC, circa 1979 (before it supported lowercase).

Clearly that one didn't land. 😂

[Absaroka]

"Clearly that one didn't land"

Never did apple or basic (or windows) ... various mainframes and then unix when the server farm era came along to replace the mainframes.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, definitely one of those IYKYK things. I cut my teeth on the home computing wave in that era, back when byte counting was a thing and people did amazing things with a few KB of RAM.

[Bwaaah]

I think what Ed means is something like cat /dev/stdin >/dev/null.

Anyway, I cut my teeth on Radio Shack TRS-80 Level I BASIC. Level I BASIC error messages were the worst (from trs-80.org):

"Level I BASIC had three error messages: HOW?, WHAT?, and SORRY."

"HOW?" and "WHAT?" were nearly useless. But "SORRY" was like a flip of the bird. If they had just done a universal "NO!" I don't think there would have been much lost.

[Absaroka]

"I think what Ed means is something like cat /dev/stdin >/dev/null."

Yeah, I'm busting his chops because he started his 'I'm a techie' cosplay three weeks ago like this:

Ed: Autireply daemon |dev null
Me: It's /dev/null
Ed: it's |/dev/null (which is kinda funny, because of course that's a syntax error)
Me: long explanation of why his syntax is wrong

And here he is, making the same pretense of being tech literate while making the same no-he-isn't mistake as then. Ed ... does not learn from his mistakes.

[Bwaaah]

This one caused the appearance of a tty hang:

$ ed > /dev/null

And this one successfully accomplishes nothing:

$ ed < /dev/null >/dev/null

I think that's fitting.

[David Nieporent]

Now you're speaking my language!

[MoreCurious]

You might want to go back and re-take the first year of law school. All your questions should have been answered then.

[DixieTune]

Yeah, of course you can always appeal. But these district judges don't care if their decision ultimately stands. The point is to prevent Trump for implementing his policies. If the appeals process went more quickly, it might work, but it doesn't, and SCOTUS doesn't have 5 judges who are willing to take things and rule quickly. Roberts is the "let it percolate" type.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If a Supreme Court justice proclaimed a constitutional right to kill an innocent human being, that justice should be impeached for attempting to deprive persons of life without due process of law.

[Joe_dallas]

Roe c wade

[not guilty]

Many, perhaps most, fertilized ova naturally fail to implant and are washed away with the menstrual flow. Do the females in your household, if any, give their feminine hygiene products a Christian burial on the chance that one may contain a microscopic "innocent human being"?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, many potential humans end up the red stain on a Tampon, or the brown stain on the sheet, as in your case.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Where are your citations to federal court decisions?

Everyone who isn't deliberately killed will die anyway. If the murderous nurse doesn't poison her elderly patients, they'll still die. So why all the fuss about deliberate killing as opposed to other causes of death?

[Riva]

Explain on what constitutional theory the S.Ct., let alone one hack chief justice, has any f'ing say on the matter.

[ducksalad]

Riva, explain on what constitutional theory the president has any f'ing say on the matter.

[Riva]

The president represents the executive branch and can communicate with Congress. The president is also the victim of an out of control judiciary badly in need of reform. Impeachment is a political matter and Roberts represents Jack shit (and shit just left), and the Supreme Court as a body has no constitutional advisory power. Can I help you with anything else?

[ducksalad]

Irrelevant word salad.

[Riva]

That the judiciary has no business intruding on the prerogatives of the political branches is not irrelevant. It is fundamental. And a judge that decides to assume a role in politics should is no longer acting as a judge.

[MoreCurious]

That's a pretty good response for a middle-school pupil, Riva. Thanks for confirming what we've long suspected.

[Riva]

The judiciary is not a political branch you imbecile.

[ducksalad]

Repeating irrelevant word salad doesn't make better. And MoreCurious is wrong, you're not even middle school level.

You have a false belief that the Constitution says the impeachment power is shared by the political branches. False, it is reserved to Congress alone.

It doesn't matter which branches are political, no matter how much you quack about it.

[Riva]

I didn't claim the impeachment power was "shared" you dunce. Impeachment is a political process. Obviously the chief executive, the party vested with executive power and subject to the unconstitutional actions of the judiciary can communicate such to Congress. But the judiciary plays no role and the S. Ct. has no business expressing any casual opinion on this process, even less so one irresponsible chief justice. If you still can't understand, sorry that's the burden of being a monumental imbecile, nothing I or anyone can do about that.

[ducksalad]

1. You're making up a non-existent rule that only the political branches can have opinions and communicate them.

2. "the party vested with executive power". Impeachment is not an executive function, no matter how often you say it. And any branch, or for that matter any person, could be subject to unconstitutional actions at the hands of any of the branches.

3. You're childishly obsessed with this word "vested" like it has magical properties. That clause merely means that whatever executive power there is, lies with the president. It doesn't define what the executive powers are.

[David Nieporent]

3. You're childishly obsessed with this word "vested" like it has magical properties. That clause merely means that whatever executive power there is, lies with the president. It doesn't define what the executive powers are.

And, of course, he pretends that the judicial power isn't vested in the judiciary.

[Riva]

"You're making up a non-existent rule that only the political branches can have opinions and communicate them." It is fundamental that the S.Ct. cannot issue advisory opinions, dufus. And nothing I wrote suggests the chief executive is empowered to impeach any official. That is all in your broken little mind. Now go away.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court didn't issue anything — it's an opinion, not an Opinion — so the fact that the Supreme Court can't issue advisory opinions is irrelevant. John Roberts issued his personal opinion, which all Americans are entitled to do.

[Riva]

I was responding to the Ducksalad's comment crazy Dave. As for opinions vs Opinions, not sure what the f you're saying. What the f do you think issues from the S.Ct.? F'ing editorials? And yeah, no shit, the court didn't and couldn't issue any opinion or Opinion like Roberts' obnoxious irresponsible comments. If he wants to make a statement from the Court, he should do it legitimately, in case in which the Court has jurisdiction. Otherwise he should shut the f up on matters that are out of the purview of the judicial branch.

[MoreCurious]

Riva: Does your brain hurt when you write garbage like you've written in this thread?

[Josh R]

The Supreme Court as a body has no constitutional advisory power.

Roberts did not issue an advisory opinion on the law because he did not claim impeachment for disagreeing with a decision was unlawful. He merely remarked it was a bad idea.

[ducksalad]

Every single person in the country can have, and express, opinions on what Congress does. They can even have opinions on whether stuff is illegal.

I would say the only thing Roberts can't do is claim his opinions have special priority because he happens to be a federal judge.

[Josh R]

Roberts is defending the institution of the judiciary. That seems perfectly fine to me whether you think it is of higher "priority" or not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Temperament. They held that against Bork.

[Riva]

Kinda still seems he was giving his advice in an opinion. Or we can clean that up and just call it an advisory opinion. A bad, half assed opinion from an ass that should keep his mouth shut because the institution of the court can only speak on matters within its jurisdiciton, but an advisory opinion nonetheless.

[David Nieporent]

Riva having a tantrum because someone had the temerity to challenge his fascist idols.

[Riva]

Now do Russian collusion fraud again

[David Nieporent]

Bot's malfunctioning again; whenever its programming runs out it just retreats to the oldies but goodies. Hunter Biden! Pallets of cash! Benghazi! Monica Lewinsky!

[Dr. Ed 2]

We've long known that Roberts was comprimised.

[Area Man]

"I challenge commenters to think of a hypothetical Supreme Court opinion which would justify impeachment of the Justices who voted for it."

Dred Scott. Ahistorical, results-driven drivel. Every one of the Justices in the majority should have been removed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Benjamin Robbins Curtis resigned from SCOTUS over it.

[Kazinski]

His didn't make the national news but it did get some attention locally in Washington:

"Two alleged members of a Venezuelan gang were arrested by agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Spokane County. How they apprehended the suspects, however, has sparked significant controversy.

Kayla Somarriba, 25, filmed the confrontation and the arrests on her phone, according to KOMO News. Somarriba was inside the car driving with her husband, Jeison Ruiz-Rodriguez, and his brother, Cesar Ruiz-Rodriquez, when ICE agents stopped them. The two men failed to exit the car, per the ICE agents’ request, thinking a search warrant was required. ICE agents then shattered the car window and opened the door. There were approximately 12 ICE agents involved in the arrests."

And a little background information on the two men:
Jeison, Cesar and others were accused of allegedly threatening to kill a cousin of his outside an apartment complex.

"Jeison, originally from Nicaragua, was on the verge of obtaining his green card through his marriage to Somarriba, a U.S. citizen, according to The Spokesman-Review. Cesar is allegedly undocumented, but was in the process of obtaining a work permit and a social security number. He was arrested a year prior and was charged on suspicion of burglary and theft."

I am wondering whether incidents like that one, and the well publicized deportation flight of TdA to El Salvador and their arrival, is going to hasten the rate of self deportations, both so they are not barred from reentry for 10 years, and to avoid being sent someplace they don't want to go.

[Commenter_XY]

FAFO. Adios Jeison, Cesar.

I hope the takedown, busted windows, and armed screaming ICE agents with guns drawn, is publicized far and wide, and seen by every illegal alien in America.

It will encourage them to make the right decision, which is to leave this country now.

[DixieTune]

Summary executions would work better. Make these illegals fear meeting Jesus, or as they say, Hay-Seus!

[Commenter_XY]

Nope. No summary executions. That is a teeny tiny step too far.

[windycityattorney]

Way to go out on a limb for opposing summary executions. So brave.

I am waiting for the MAGA state's to deputize armed bounty hunters as they keep promising to do to help Trump to round up immigrants; pull a stunt like this and get shot by a tan US citizen and that person to not be charged because of the strong self defense laws those state's also have.

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time. Thoughts and prayers.

[Michael P]

That's still much more than commenters here have done with respect to the anti-Musk domestic terrorism that leftists are organizing and promoting. Several leftist commenters below are standing behind that terrorism.

[windycityattorney]

It won't be me. I don't support arson and vandalism of Tesla dealerships nor random property destruction of privately owned Tesla vehicles. Its immature but importantly isn't very effective.

If people want to show their disdain, there are plenty of non violent means to employ like a simple boycott. Ya gotta hit the fascist oligarch where it hurts; in the stock price [checkbook]. Europe is showing the way and perhaps Canada now to. Slumping sales will hurt, people abandoning X will hurt.

That being said, property crimes are just that. Arrest those responsible and punish them. Elevating that to terrorism is a fool's errand just because Musk is Trump's largest financial supporter and Trump's DOJ and FBI are run by feckless morons. That's a slippery slope we don't need to go down but likely will.

[Absaroka]

"Its immature but importantly isn't very effective."

I think it is very effective - in making middle of the roaders swing to the opposite side.

When people think Musk, they can think 'He's the guy who laid off my cousin Joyce right after she worked so hard for that promotion', or they can think 'He's the guy whose businesses are getting torched because he's trying to cut government waste'.

The midterm races will be starting up soon enough ... I encourage people to think about how they want their preferred party to be perceived by swing voters between now and then.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WindyCity -- these are hate crimes and terrorism -- they are trying to terrorize Tesla owners into selling them. Or do you oppose hate crime enhancements? It's a legitimate view.

[David Nieporent]

"Tesla owner" is not a protected class.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What NoMind can't comprehend is THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND hate crime enhancements.

[David Nieporent]

Finally some self-awareness from Dr. Ed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't support arson and vandalism of Tesla dealerships nor random property destruction of privately owned Tesla vehicles. Its immature..."

Immature is laughing at farts. This is criminal. You don't think the KKK burning down the homes and businesses of black people who registered to vote (you know, property crimes) was terrorism?

"Ya gotta hit the fascist oligarch where it hurts; in the stock price.."

Why don't you just make solid arguments that convince people that he's a fascist oligarch, and they shouldn't vote for people that put him in power? You know, like a democracy? Your comments about European governments punishing him financially for his political activity seem more fascist than anything Musk has done.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The person instead will be charged with a violation of Federal law.
And the sanctuary states do NOT have strong self defense laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Eisenhower would have deported her as well.

I say arrest her as an accessory and let her rot in jail for a few years on trumped up charges like the Jan 6 folks. Fair is fair...

[DixieTune]

Jeison should have been removed immediately due to his crimes. Marrying a U.S. citizen should not give any special consideration there.

[David Nieporent]

Marrying a US citizen can entitle one to lawful status and subsequent naturalization, but until one has taken that final step of becoming a citizen, said marriage gives no protection against deportation for significant crimes. If one actually is guilty of them.

[John F. Carr]

An arrest warrant allows a law enforcement official to break into the house where the subject lives. It does not allow breaking into a third party's house. What does the law say about non-residential places?

[Commenter_XY]

Sigh, even terrorist wannabes here in America play the race card...

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/405580

Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested over his involvement in campus protests against Israel at Columbia, accuses both the Trump and Biden administrations of “anti-Palestinian racism”.

Ship him to Syria. Today.

[Frank Drackman]

Not so fast, he has an appointment at the Saudi Embassy

[Commenter_XY]

Thanks Elon, for bringing our astronauts home, after a lengthy wait.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/03/boeing-starliner-crew-safely-splashes-down-in-spacex-dragon-crew-capsule/

[Dan Schiavetta]

As usual, failures that could have been avoided if he'd paid more attention to NASA's experience. And luck, in that the astronauts didn't die, and also didn't mind being up there for nine months instead of 8 days. Not something to thank him for.

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

It's Elon's fault Biden's NASA stranded those NASA astronauts for 8 months?

I always knew you were low-information, but this is getting ridiculous.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes it is, didn't you hear the NASA Suits yesterday "We could have brought them back earlier but bla bla bla"
We're expecting these Idiots to get us back to the Moon?

Frank

[MoreCurious]

For once you raise an interesting question: Why are we planning to send humans back to the Moon when robots can accomplish whatever humans can and for a lot less money? (Same with Mars, by the way.)

[Frank Drackman]

At least my questions are interesting and not stupid, like yours. It's because we didn't send men to the Moon to dig up some bullshit Moon Rocks (Wow! the Moon's really old! and with extremes of over several hundred above and below zero fahrenheit, no protection from Cosmic Rays, no detectable life, who'd a thunk it???)
We sent men there to Hit a golf ball, drive a car, and probably (redacted) and stick an Amurican Flag in the ground (which was put together at the last minute as the NASA Eggheads hadn't thought that a flag wouldn't really fly in the vacuum of the lunar surface)
And what would "Star Trek" have been like with a crew of Robots??

Frank "Live Long and Subsist"

[MoreCurious]

I see you're still a moronic jerk, Drackman. Just when we thought you might be moving on from your typical adolescent drivel, you prove to us that you're trapped in middle-school.

[Bwaaah]

He pretty much nailed that one. Your contempt blinds you.

[MoreCurious]

Contempt for Drackman? No, pity would be a more accurate word. It's hard to grasp that anyone can be as clueless as he is. (Well, maybe Riva.)

[Thought about __ all my life]

You need to pose for the 'ungrateful' entry in a dictionary.
IF it was people you cared about...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dan, it was Boeing's spacecraft that had the helium leaks and which had to return back to Earth EMPTY -- not Musk's. It was Boeing who left them in orbit and two fewer people going up on this SCHEDULED MUSK RUN that gave the two seats for these two guys to come home.

This isn't controversial and this isn't complicated.

[Swede425]

LOL! This guy.
"No need to thank him, anybody could've done it and done it better".
Go key a Tesla, you petty little child.

[Nelson]

As a Trumpkin, you might want to be more self-aware about calling anyone a “petty little child”.

[Joe_dallas]

Magnus comment on Low information is spot on!

[Bwaaah]

Dan:

Did you notice, as Elon's Dragon capsule splashed down yesterday, the NASA spokesperson doing the coverage seamlessly pointed out that the capsule had "splashed down in the Gulf of America?"

Nothing for nothing, Dan, but your leaders aren't leaders. They're followers. You should be very skeptical.

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the litigators: Is litigating like playing tennis, or investing?

https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/barry-ritholtz-how-not-invest

In this podcast transcript, the analogy of tennis players was put forward. A pro tennis player wins by scoring points. The rest of us lose by unforced errors. Investing is exactly the same.

As I read the transcript, I wondered if litigating cases in court was the same. Do the best litigators 'win on points' and the 'so so' litigators lose by making unforced errors in court? Is that how it really works?

Is it a fair analogy (tennis players to litigators)?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a litigator, but one would hope, anyway, that actual litigators frequently win and lose simply because they happen to be on the side the merits favor or disfavor.

Trial outcomes can be right and wrong, after all, in a way a tennis score isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, relative ability of tennis players could compare to relative merits of both sides.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Usually cases aren't won, they're lost. One side forgets to do something, or does it poorly. No matter what lawyers tell you, it doesn't take genius; it's more a matter of being organized.

With a jury, it's more of a crapshoot. You can have the better case, and do a better job, and still lose. Or vice versa.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so the analogy is a fair one...a litigator makes unforced errors that screw themselves. I thought the analogy by Ritholtz was a pretty good one, I had never related those three (tennis, investing, litigating) before, but it makes sense.

[Ridgeway]

At least among more competent litigators, I think the "mistakes" stem from their client either lying or forgetting to tell them something important, that leads them to take a path that (had they known the rue facts) they would not have taken.

The other issue I have seen personally is litigators practicing outside their comfort zone and just fundamentally misunderstanding the law or the relevant issues. I am not a litigator, but was closely involved in a trademark license dispute. The other attorney (who I think specialized in PI cases) kept going on about the First Sale doctrine, even though the goods at issue were not being directly resold -- they were just an additive to the final product. In doing so, he missed what I thought was a much more viable defense (that he needed a reasonable period of time to sell down his inventory of finished goods, and that such a provision was implied in the contract). He ended up not only losing, but his client had to pay our attorney fees, which were well into 6 figures.

[Commenter_XY]

So that PI litigator made unforced errors in a trademark license dispute. That would make sense....why'd he take the case?!

I almost hate to ask this: How do those 'mistakes' happen (their client either lying or forgetting to tell them something important)?

[David Nieporent]

At least among more competent litigators, I think the "mistakes" stem from their client either lying or forgetting to tell them something important, that leads them to take a path that (had they known the rue facts) they would not have taken.

Heaven forfend! A client would never lie!

[Commenter_XY]

David, have you been on the other side? Meaning, you're the better lawyer, you're scoring points, and watching the other guy make unforced errors. What does that feel like? Do you see that often?

[David Nieporent]

I love it when it happens in written submissions. When it happens in court — well, I've never been a big fan of cringe TV/movies, and so I'm not really a big fan of that. Unless I really personally dislike my adversary, which is not typically the case.

[not guilty]

XY, your question was addressed to David, but please allow me an observation. I have long said that I would rather see a skillful lawyer on the other side of a lawsuit. A bad lawyer often would create additional work for me.

[David Nieporent]

A bad lawyer often would create additional work for me.

I don't find that so much for lawyers. But pro ses, ugh.

[Commenter_XY]

I really appreciate you and David sharing your perspective on how it actually works, in reality. Makes me regret not going for law, though.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Okay but that is a very jaded and unamerican view of justice.
I was on a couple juries and I thought the lawyers not very good.

New York Law School Review
" Too much of legal education is currently devoted to faculty preferences at the expense of what isbest for the school and its students. Too many law schools try to become attractive to students without the hard work of improvingthe substance of their education. Too many activities are hollow, directed to improving ranking, but not focused on the actual education of students. "

[Dr. Ed 2]

As a janitor -- actually as the advisor to undergrad students -- I had the occasion to observe the Hampshire County (MA) Public Defender bench (contracted lawyers) and would say that I could do a better job drunk than any of them sober except that there was one whom I never did see sober....

I can't speak to law school because I decided not to go, but I can't believe any of those schmucks actually earned an undergrad degree.

[David Nieporent]

I was on a couple juries and I thought the lawyers not very good.

Obviously some lawyers really aren’t very good — but also, people have a distorted idea from Hollywood of what everyday lawyering is like. Real lawyers would do a much better job if someone had scripted the trial for them!

[Magister]

Is there any profession that isn't presented in film and television as much better (and of course much better looking) than in everyday life?

[not guilty]

"Is there any profession that isn't presented in film and television as much better (and of course much better looking) than in everyday life?"

The clergy, perhaps? Hypocritical, avaricious and self-righteous preachers and priests is a pretty common trope on the screen.

[Magister]

But that's not the common representation of clergy; it may be a fair complaint that clergy doing an ordinary job are not common incidental characters. I was more thinking of characters who do their job honestly and typically display greater ability than their real life counterparts; there are after all plenty of sleazy lawyers in film and television.

[Bwaaah]

Hospital dietician. I've never seen 'em gussy one up.

Sometimes there's material you can't really work with. Hospital dietician. (Nothing intended against 'em.)

[David Nieporent]

To a point, I agree with you. But most professions, we just don't see a depiction of their work at all. There aren't a lot of shows portraying the daily work of CPAs or architects, say. For medical dramas, they don't actually show surgeries and such (you might catch a brief glimpse of an operating room, but for obvious reasons they quickly cut away, or only show the doctors talking to each other and not the surgery itself). Nobody is going to get off the couch after watching an episode of Grey's Anatomy or Chicago Med or whatever and say, "Oh, so that's what doctors do."

But for lawyer shows, they depict trials. I think only cops might be similar in terms of the purported details of their workday being portrayed.

[hobie]

You'd be Blackman-level if your strategy was to fuck up less than your opponent. Nine times out of 10 things are all hashed out in discovery and with motions. Motions are merely persuasive writing exercises

[Frank Drackman]

You mean every private Attorney doesn’t have a Paul Drake?

[Riva]

Darts?... no too much skill. Tic tac doe.

[windycityattorney]

In state criminal law; it's often the facts (admissible and presented in court as evidence) that decide the case. Many cases have bad facts (for the defendant) so its very difficult if not near impossible to overcome but sometimes the jury or judge just doesn't like the state's witnesses and finds the defendant not guilty anyway.

We can't argue jury nullification anymore but some people are so insufferable (or cops so cocky and arrogant or lazy or whatever) nobody cares what happened to them or perhaps they simply won't give that person any benefit of the doubt. If the finder of fact thinks the State's main witnesses aren't credible; they can ignore their testimony. Not many unforced errors decide outcomes but when it does its usually on the State over promising in opening argument and under delivering during the trial. Juries seem to not like that.

Its certainly possible for defense attorneys to also have unforced errors (usually due to lack of experience) but they are usually more cautious. Just my observation from practicing in a state court.

[Commenter_XY]

Is it even possible to coach a client to be more 'likeable' on the stand?

[windycityattorney]

Yes, if they are really terrible, you simply don't call them. There is a jury instruction [not sure how well followed in practice] that says a defendant has a right to testify or not and their choice not to testify can't be used against them because the State carries the burden of proof on each and every element of the charge against them.

Some cases they have to testify. If they are...problematic...you keep it as short and sweet as possible. Limiting scope of direct simultaneously limits scope of cross [by the prosecutor]. Good prosecutors know how to bait the defendant to get them to have an outburst or whatever to make them look bad. Conversely, good defense attorneys know how to do the same to state witnesses.

[Bwaaah]

Just speaking less can go a long way for most of us, maybe not in likeability, but pretty surely in outcome.

[Commenter_XY]

This was an interesting document that was released (JFK files).

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/157-10014-10137.pdf

There is a lengthy discussion on the merits and difficulties of using assassination as a tool to effectuate policy. There is a historical aspect to it....it is fascinating to me how the various people perceived what was happening around them.

Hopefully, some enterprising techie is making a searchable DB by converting the pdfs to something more useable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think Castro did it, and I can't say why.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you considered Stupidity?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is it in your dissertation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Absolutely NOT!!!!

[apedad]

(continuing a discussion from yesterday)

SRG2 21 hours ago
Sotomayor's observations in Tharpe make clear how process is so much more important than justice in the American legal system.

Stupid Government Tricks 20 hours ago
Ritual over justice.

SRG2 19 hours ago
Precisely so.

apedad 18 hours ago
But in a society, how do you get to justice without ritual?
Feels?

SRG2 17 hours ago
The issue is not that, the issue is that ritual or process become more important than justice. If all the rituals are followed and processes are complied with, the result may still be unjust, and in the US system, typically that rituals and processes have been properly carried out is enough to bar any considerations of justice.
Worse, some legislation, notably AEDPA, is designed - fapp intentionally - to make justice more difficult to achieve.

apedad 16 hours ago
You addressed that ritual 'may' lead to injustice but you didn't answer the question.
How do you get to justice without ritual?

SRG2 15 hours ago
I don't know and so i didn't answer. But I wonder why you seem more concerned about that than about the US's prioritizing ritual and process over justice.

~~~~~~~

I'm not prioritizing ritual/process over justice, I'm just saying justice doesn't exist without ritual/process.

Without ritual/process then it's just Feels, e.g., I think that guy stole my car so I'm going to beat the shit out of him, i.e, vigilantism.

KKK hangings come to mind.

[Sarcastr0]

I am having some trouble in the distinction between process and ritual in this discussion.

It looks like ritual is just the part of process someone doesn't like.

I'm all for streamlining process - there are lots of ways it can become bad. But you need a process for interrogating your procedures to make sure you don't knock down a fence that was there for a reason.

[apedad]

I use ritual and process synonymously.

[Sarcastr0]

I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud arguing the preliminaries of the discussion, but that still doesn't seem right to me.

Both are actions done in an order, but ritual has a metaphysical or at least psychological meaning and procedure might not.

This is the same as when the right says this or that principle are a religious belief. It's a collateral attack by assuming no utility.

When I prep a management instruction for signature, there's a ton of requirements that go into that.
Some are pretty great and make sure the needed info is in there and my leadership knows where to look so the review will be efficient.
Some of it is more ritualistic - making everything look exactly the same because humans assume ordered similarity means a certain level of quality. But that still matters! Take that out and you ignore how humans work.

Of course either of those can become cruft that serves neither purpose.

[Commenter_XY]

Connotation is the word you were looking for = but ritual has a metaphysical or at least psychological meaning and procedure might not.

When I daven, I follow a set ritual.
When I get up in the morning, I follow a set ritual (coffee first!).

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, you need a defining code to pair with ritual to obtain justice. I think you are right; one must use process (ritual) to obtain justice via the Courts.

Otherwise, you leave the administration of justice to individual actors, and the harshness or laxity their moral code.

[Frank Drackman]

Been to a few have you?

[Bwaaah]

As the saying goes: we are a nation of laws. Apedad correctly nails the importance of process as the foundation of our system of justice (and of any system).

We know, as humans, our ever-present inclination to seek personal advantage. So we fabricate a system of justice, a set of rules, and subordinate ourselves to that system as a hedge against the greater injustice we would find in the unbridled pursuit of personal advantage.

Deliberative consensual processes for creating rules, and consistent, equal application of those rules *is* our way of systematically reaching toward justice. But SRG2 thinks it more expedient to short-circuit the process and go straight to "justice," as if that's a distinct destination. It is, in his head, as it is in each of us, and in the head of Donald Trump, and Chuck Schumer, and Kahlil Mahmoud, and Vladimir Putin. SRG2 reveals himself to believe in some kind of absolute notion of justice, as if it could be defined in any way other than his own. His unshakeable clarity around "justice" reveals him to be a fool who knows not our differences, and cares less as a result. (Sarc is also stuck, unsurprisingly, trying to reconcile any system that could thwart his unbounded notion of justice.)

As President Trump teases the edges of our laws (like so many other opportunistic players), SRG2 leaps to undermine the systematic application of laws through the judiciary. Those rules, those systems, are the bulwark that undergirds our meaningful existence as a nation with a shareable notion of justice. SRG2 is a boundless fool.

[SRG2]

When process thwarts justice, then what?

You're hidng behind process, it seems.

[Commenter_XY]

Then U R hosed = When process thwarts justice, then what...

[Bwaaah]

"Then U R hosed"

Quite true. It's just that, statistically, you're [much] less likely to be hosed by the process than you are by people who lack regard for process.

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

Who do you think is agitating or coordinating the current ongoing Democrat terror campaign against Tesla owners, Tesla dealers, and online influencers like DataRepublican, Owen Shoyer, etc?

Pissy Democrats still at State? Pissy Democrats at the CIA? Or maybe it's a bunch of pissy Democrats getting caught up in another social hysteria like they did when they started transing their kids.

Finally, why do so many on this board diminish and even advocate the domestic terrorism being done in their name?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I think the DOJ is for a change interested in finding the answers to questions like that. Which is good.

I'm not happy that my expectation of an uptick in domestic terrorism as a result of Democrats being out of power is coming true. Hopefully it will be accompanied by an uptick in domestic terrorism prosecutions.

This isn't just about the Democrats being pissed at being out of power, though. It's about their being terrified that their whole infrastructure for laundering tax monies to their covert political activities is threatened.

If Trump can cut the pipeline from the federal Treasury to left-wing causes and groups, it will work a sea-change in American politics.

[Sarcastr0]

my expectation of an uptick in domestic terrorism as a result of Democrats being out of power is coming true

It isn't. You were wrong about it from before inauguration, and changing the goalposts followed by confirmation bias doesn't change things.

You think you live in a political thriller.

[Life of Brian]

Inconveniently, Forbes has a very nice summary of all the recent incidents of "confirmation bias" against things Tesla.

Oh, and here's another pesky article about a recently-created website that "displays names, addresses, and phone numbers of Tesla owners on an interactive map and uses an image of a Molotov cocktail as its cursor." Clearly the sort of thing that happens all the time.

[Commenter_XY]

Is the cursor incitement?

[apedad]

The only thing that anyone is terrified about are Republicans once Trump is gone from office (which in the big picture is not a long time from now).

No one can fill his shoes and the Republicans will fall apart.

#ETTD

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Apedad, Trump has always been a better advocate than leader -- he is grooming Vance to be the President while he is chief cheerleader.

[DixieTune]

Domestic terror prosecutions isn't enough. Large scale killings of these people is what we need. I was thinking a Tiananmen Square type response from the military.

Would any of the pro-Palestinian protesters do so if they knew soldiers would summarily shoot them?

[Commenter_XY]

DT, can we just deport them instead of killing them? Ammo is expensive enough, no need to waste perfectly good bullets.

[Dr. Ed 2]

🙂

[Armchair]

Tesla Owner Repents And Vows To Vote Democrat After Having Car Torched

LAS VEGAS, NV — An awful Republican-voting Tesla owner has repented of his evil ways and vowed to vote Democrat in the future after having his Cybertruck destroyed by a Democrat activist.

The campaign to protest Elon Musk, DOGE, and Donald Trump by destroying other people's property and terrorizing drivers is expected to raise awareness of how awful Republicans are. Experts also say the miraculous change of heart for this Tesla owner, Brandon Powers, is undoubtedly the first of many to come from such acts of righteous property destruction.

[Magister]

The number of Tesla incidents is much fewer than the number of police injured in the January 6th insurrection. There is no indication that anyone is organizing this vandalism, but we know who agitated and coordinated the January 6th insurrection.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason why the cops killed themselves? That they couldn't live with basically innocent people going to prison....

[David Nieporent]

Did it ever occur to you that every word you type is an embarrassment to the human race?

[Magister]

174 police were injured at the January 6th insurrection; a minimal standard for being a decent person is recognizing that a human being is more valuable than an automobile.

[David Nieporent]

Who do you think is agitating or coordinating the current ongoing Democrat terror campaign against Tesla owners, Tesla dealers, and online influencers like DataRepublican, Owen Shoyer, etc?

They're obviously false flag attacks by MAGA.

[apedad]

One good thing - that we can all agree on - is the Trump DOJ is continuing to enhance Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) processing.

DOJ just posted this newly upgraded FOIA search tool: https://www.foia.gov/wizard.html

[Sarcastr0]

I'm very down with this, but I very much doubt it was created only in the last 2 months.

[Life of Brian]

With you when you're right, however rare. This was first archived in October 2023.

[grb]

apedad: "One good thing - that we can all agree on - ...."

My candidate is getting rid of the penny, but I'm not sure we'll get there....

[Thought about __ all my life]

Okay, let's REALLY be open-minded here

"Shor, described by Levitz as "the most influential data scientist in the Democratic Party," refutes the theory that voter turnout would have helped give Harris the edge.

"The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of the roughly 1.6+ points],""

[Armchair]

The two parties (Democrat and Republican) have inverted their bases.

Generally speaking, higher educated, higher income people turnout to vote more. Even in low turnout elections. Lower educated, lower income people turnout to vote less. Especially in low-turnout elections.

Used to be that Democrats would have a major edge in the low-income, low education group, while the GOP would have the advantage in high education, high income individuals. So, low turnout elections would favor the GOP, high turnout the Democrats.

That paradigm has flipped. Democrats are now the high-income high education party. The GOP dominates the low-income, low-education group. So now, higher turnout favors the GOP.

[DixieTune]

The GOP also now dominates the middle-income, middle-education group. The Dems now have the white, college educated elite and the ghetto blacks and Hispanics, along with a sprinkling of sexual deviants.

[SRG2]

The two parties (Democrat and Replican) have inverted their bases.

FTFY

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for "judge" Boasberg.

[SRG2]

So what.

[DixieTune]

I didn't either, but if I was on his jury for a treason trial, I'd "vote" to convict.

It's too bad the U.S. no longer uses a gas chamber for the federal death penalty. Boasberg has a very gassable looking face, much like his ancestors who were strangers in the land of Egypt.

[SRG2]

Treason is defined in the Constitution. How does what Boasberg did fit the definition?

Your anti-Semitism is noted.

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

He was part of the cabal illegally spying on an incoming and sitting President.

Roberts appointed home to that role on the FISA court which is why hes going to bat for Boasburg.

[SRG2]

Still not treason.

[David Nieporent]

If he can call heterosexual judge Paul Engelmayer gay, I guess he can call goyish judge James Boasberg Jewish.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out the one who died for your Black Soul,
hey, that's not what I believe, it's what you believe.
And didn't you know that the most Anti-Semitic Demographic Group are the Spooks? aren't you afraid of being mistaken for one?
Oh you ARE one? my bad, too bad about Jackie Robinson.
Oh, and the US hasn't never used the Gas Chamber for a Federal Execution since 1956, but in your case I'd be glad for an exception to be made.
See, I used the Passive Voice instead of the Indicative, because I don't want to give the impression I have the power to decide how you leave this Moral Coil, I'll leave that up to the Big Guy
Frank

[DixieTune]

I was once a Jew, and left the people when I realized how disloyal of a lot they are, at least in the diaspora.

People sometimes ask me if I'm Jewish, and I tell them, no, I'm Greek. No one ever questions beyond that.

[SRG2]

Cool story, bro

[Bwaaah]

DixieTune: "I was once a Jew"

Interesting. Surprising. (I don't know.) Anyway, I have my own take on such things.

If you really were once a Jew, then you are still a Jew.

Just saying.

[DixieTune]

Nah. I don't subscribe to the nutcase halachic definition. I subscribe to the "Do I believe in God, follow any of Judaism's dictates, or participate in any cultural traditions?" If the answer is no, I'm not a Jew.

[Bwaaah]

Well, there we go. You just learned that you're a Jew to me, and I learned that I'm not a Jew to you.

[David Nieporent]

You just learned that you're a Jew to me,

If you choose to believe any of the things he said.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, if. Color me skeptical.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I did not vote for "judge" Boasberg.

You are posting this repeatedly.

Putting aside the silly "judge" bit, he was nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. Both were elected one way or the other by the people. Elon Musk, to cite someone you referenced in another thread, was not submitted to a confirmation process.

[John F. Carr]

You don't vote for kings.

[David Nieporent]

Now, this is even more obviously a bot. It just repeats the same post over and over again, word for word.

[EllaWilson]

"There is no power above them [the Courts] to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself." - Yates

[SRG2]

"There is no authority that can remove them, "

Not true.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"There is no power above them [the Courts] to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself." - Yates

That would be Robert Yates, writing as "Brutus" against the ratification of the Constitution.

Judges are controlled in numerous ways.

If a judicial decision interprets a statute, the legislature can pass a new law. Congress has done so repeatedly.

A judicial decision also can block one way of doing things. The government can do the same thing, in a different way.

Judges are not allowed to break the law. Judges have been convicted of crimes. Ultimately, judges can be impeached and removed. A few have been. Others were pressured to resign.

Congress has passed ethical rules limiting judges.

Ultimately, constitutional amendments can be ratified, and multiple Supreme Court rulings were overridden that way.

Finally, judges don't have the power of the purse or the sword. If the government doesn't follow their commands, they are somewhat at a weak position though sanctions can be attemped.

[Kazinski]

There is a real danger to the judiciary in this confrontation, as Randy Barnett observed on X:

"This lesson used to be taught to every law student on the first day of Constitutional Law—or whatever day Marbury v Madison is taught: How Marshall brilliantly claimed the duty of judicial review without mandating Jefferson do something he might well have refused to do."

The judiciary doesn't have a huge stick, the House isn't going to impeach Trump, let alone the Senate convict, nor is the DOJ going to enforce any contempt actions.

And the Supreme Court just said the President is immune from criminal prosecutions for official acts, all of these acts are clearly official.

We talk a lot about the importance of the President not overstepping his bounds in maintaining the separation of powers because the office has so much inherent power.

But its also just as important for the Judiciary to not overstep its bounds, because it has so little.

It has more to lose in a confrontation than the presidency.

[Sarcastr0]

Randy Barnette has become…less than scholarly of late.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0, in only 7 words, sizing up the intellectual merit of Randy Barnett.

Anyway, there's a roach crawling across the corner of my bedroom and my wife insists that it does restaurant reviews. If anybody's interested in a roach that does restaurant reviews, let me know. I may have something.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Still using your personal spelling.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, I have some kind of brain problem specific to that name only I think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Judges don't have the power of the purse???

[Armchair]

51 Former Intelligence Officials Insist Biden Never Once Used An Autopen

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a stunning blow to Trump's dubious claim that former president Joe Biden signed his last-minute pardons with an autopen, 51 former intelligence officials have come forward to testify that Biden never once used an autopen and that all his signatures are legitimate.

"Oh yeah, they're all totally legit. I personally witnessed Biden signing the pardons with my own two eyes," said former CIA Director John Brennan to reporters. "You have to believe what former intelligence officials say. That's in the Constitution."

The 51 former intelligence officials have drafted and signed a letter verifying the authenticity of every Biden pardon, especially any pardons that apply to the 51 former intelligence officials.

"It's our patriotic duty to come forward, and America's patriotic duty to accept exactly what we say without question," said another former intelligence official whose job at the CIA was to bring coffee to other former intelligence officials. "You can trust anything said by a former intelligence official. Just hear how official and impressive 'former intelligence official' sounds. This is common sense."

[Commenter_XY]

Expertly trolled. LMAO.

[windycityattorney]

Now do the DOJ's arguments on deporting Tren De Aragua to El Salvador.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Don’t quit your day job.

[Bwaaah]

As many hopefully know, New York City is among the safest big cities in the U.S. But like all U.S. cities, crime is a significant problem. After many years of declining rates of crime, the rates began to rise again with so-called "criminal justice reforms" that most significantly included an attempt to end what was absurdly called "mass incarceration." (People are only incarcerated one at a time, with individual consideration, and never en-masse.)

New York state amped up its let-em-out-of-jail policies around 2012 (letting about half its prisoners out of jail). And then, in the 2020 Summer of Madness, Democrats across the country launched into a shaming campaign against civilian policing, describing its practices as inherently racist. They emphasized the harmfulness of policing. As crime spiked and criminals had a field day, those politicians asserted that their anti-policing position was justified by history, and that less policing would lead to a more "just" world.

In my periodic review of NYPD's crime statistics I offer these recent metrics below about the problem of crime, a problem Democrats [understandably] don't like to talk about (except to always say how it's getting better). For those who think the Summer of Madness crime spike has passed, murder in New York City is up 19% over 2019, and 29% over 2010. Fortunately, that's only about a hundred more victims (of murder) per year in New York City. Across the country, that number is in the thousands.

But for those who think crime is a rare event, consider felony assaults which are now up a whopping 72% in New York City over 2010, at 20,522 [felony] assaults in 2024. That's around 12,000 more people [feloniously] assaulted last year than in 2010.

Here are the 2024 stats, vs 2019 and 2010:

  Murder_________ 2024: 375  vs2019: +19%  vs2010: +29%
  Rape___________ 2024: 1736  vs2019: -1%  vs2010: +28%
  Robbery________ 2024: 13276   vs2019: +24%  vs2010: -16%
  Felony Assault__ 2024: 20522  vs2019: +42%  vs2010: +72%
  Burglary_______ 2024: 10659  vs2019: +21%  vs2010: -31%
  Grand Larceny__ 2024: 42917  vs2019: +12%  vs2010: +27%
  G.L. Auto______ 2024: 5389  vs2019: +161%  vs2010: +37%

Democrats rarely talk about the real downside of releasing violent criminals from jail: a very significant increase in the victimization of the civilian population. Yet they still like decarceration because they think it helps "Black" people. The truth is that it helps "Black" criminals, and disproportionately hurts "Black" people. This is an example of how practically warped, and destructive, their ideological principles can be.

(Data source NYPD HERE)

[Bwaaah]

(Beware of Sarcastr0's routine protests; he uses junky data sources including the FBI's overall data which aggregates a changing hodgepodge of subordinate reporting agencies and definitional differences.)

[Commenter_XY]

So every day, in NYC, there are ~ felonious assaults, or roughly 1 assault every 30 minutes.

That sounds very rare, 1 assault every half hour. /sarc

[Commenter_XY]

56 felonious assaults daily

[Bwaaah]

56 assaults today. 56 assaults tomorrow. Eventually, it starts to look like a lot of assaults. (But those are just numbers.)

The NYTimes did positive spins on crime for the past couple of years. Now that they consider Eric Adams to be in Trump's pocket, I would expect them to have a more sober take on crime. But it's not that simple for them. In their lore, behind every Black person in jail, there is a tragedy of history.

So it is that a liberal has to act as a scale of justice, weighing in one hand the tragedy of history, and in the other, a steadily increasing pile of dead bodies (and assaults, and thefts, and what-have-you).

It's easy to figure out which way the scale will tip when you understand the weight of history in the mind of a contemporary American liberal.

(This is not intended to dismiss the significance of history, nor to understate the materiality of a steady stream of crime victims.)

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe it's one guy, like that woman who's getting raped every 17 minutes

[Bwaaah]

Wait...is that one guy, or is that one super-hot chick?

[Life of Brian]

Thanks for this. At a high level, the numbers seem to show a bubble of robbery/burglary in the 2010 time frame that had deflated to a significant degree by 2019 -- any thoughts on what was behind that?

[Bwaaah]

I have little-to-no expertise in crime or what drives the statistics behind it. I started harping on the issue of crime in 2020 when lawlessness became very noticeably more common on the streets of NYC. (I am excepting the "protesty" kind when I say that.) Up until then, I took a wait-and-watch perspective about decarceration. But I admit great skepticism at the wisdom of freeing half of our jail population as we did. I think much credit goes to ankle-monitoring in having prevented much worse outcomes than we're seeing. But the message from Democrats of, "We have no idea why crime went up recently" is a great example of how easily partisans can play stupid when it comes to their party's weaknesses. ("Ssshhhh. We let the criminals out of the jails.")

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fewer people carrying cash? Less cash around?

[Ed Grinberg]

Democrats rarely talk about the real downside of releasing violent criminals from jail: a very significant increase in the victimization of the civilian population. Yet they still like decarceration because they think it helps "Black" people. The truth is that it helps "Black" criminals, and disproportionately hurts "Black" people. This is an example of how practically warped, and destructive, their ideological principles can be.

I fully agree with everything you said.
The fascinating question is: So, how come large majorities of black people all across the country continually vote Democrat? Don't they see what Democrats are doing to them?

[Bwaaah]

Interesting question, with many answers, the correct one being a combination of many answers.

Even decarceration has an important spiritual benefit to it. It offers a notion of forgiveness and another chance for the children, the parents, the friends of so many people. Incarceration is common enough, especially among black urban dwellers, that this softening of the system has a distinctly valued, ethical, high-minded component. As Barack Obama said, "Everybody deserves a second chance." (Unfortunately, he was talking about people who already had five or more chances. Everybody knows imprisonment is an expensive, often destructive, last resort, and it is not typically imposed without great reason.)

Also, party affinity comports significantly with culture, history, and aspects of self-identification and feelings of group affiliation. Black people, in particular, have a prevalent history of self-identification by race. (And they tend to look askance upon black people who eschew that group identification.) When you look at the major statistically-varied-from-median characteristics of black populations in the U.S., such as lower education, lower two-parent households, lower employment, lower wages, the Democratic message is always on point for every major issue: "You are the victim here, and for that, we offer more money, more money, more money." But don't make the mistake of believing that a majority of black people believe those messages. They don't. But it's still a more affirmative brand than one that asks, "When will you start taking care of yourself?"

Also, FWIW, not all black people vote Democrat, and the ones who eschew that tradition are a formidable bunch of influencers regardless of party stats.

[Don Nico]

The shock that Trump delivered to the EU prompted the proclamation from the EU Commission of a plan to invest 800 billion Euro in EU armed forces.
With calls for nuclear weapons programs in Germany and Poland, what do people think of the talk of German rearmament by the likely new German PM Merz?
Certainly one thing that would frighten Mr Putin is a rearmed Germany.

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

Good. They need to be able to defend themselves.

[Josh R]

Once all the Germans were war like and mean, but that couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then.

[Don Nico]

Wake up Josh.

[David Nieporent]

This is the second time you've completely missed this cultural reference.

[Don Nico]

So what.

[David Nieporent]

So you look foolish for responding to it as if it were a statement of belief.

[Armchair]

WWII (what you're alluding to) was 80 years ago. Anyone who fought in it is pushing or over 100 years old (or more likely passed away). The German leaders at the time are long dead.

How long do you hold the sins of the father against the son? Or grandson? Or longer?

To put this in context, 80 years before WWII was the US Civil War. Should the US have not allowed the Southern States to provide troops for WWII, because of the US Civil War?

[Josh R]

FFS. Read Nieporent's comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Japan was far worse than Germany and it isn't now...

[Josh R]

JFC people. I was not expressing my opinion. Click on the link and have a good laugh (from the GOAT satirical songwriter).

[Don Nico]

Then say what you mean and mean what you say.

[David Nieporent]

Double JFC. You misunderstood a cultural reference, and instead of saying, "Oh, now I get it," you're trying to pretend that it wasn't one.

[David Nieporent]

Japan was "far worse than Germany" about what?

[Commenter_XY]

It is a bad idea, quite honestly = give nukes to Germany, Poland

[Longtobefree]

Depends on their range - - - - - - - -

[Don Nico]

We don't have to give anything. The German could build a few nukes in several months.

[Commenter_XY]

We don't want more proliferation, IMHO.

[Don Nico]

I agree with that, but Germany does not care about my opinion.

[Martinned2]

Who knew that putting a lunatic in charge of the US might have consequences?

[Martinned2]

Speaking of which:

EU slams the door on US in colossal defense plan
United States arms-makers are being frozen out of the European Union’s massive new defense spending plan, which aims to splash the cash for EU and allied countries, according to defense spending plans released Wednesday.

Also left out — for now — is the United Kingdom.

“We must buy more European. Because that means strengthening the European defense technological and industrial base,” said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in announcing the Readiness 2030 program.

In a bid to strengthen ties with allies, Brussels involved countries like South Korea and Japan and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in its program that could see as much as €800 billion spent on defense.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-freeze-us-multi-billion-defense-plan-arm-makers/

[Bob from Ohio]

"could see as much "

But won't.

[Don Nico]

That all sounds like a good plan for Europe. They should be grateful to Mr Trump for shocking them into it.
Now Germany does not have to built Volkswagons for industrial resurgence. They can build tanks.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To use tanks on today's battlefields offers a huge economic advantage. All the tanks deployed will have to be replaced promptly. Potential for manufacturing profits looks better in tanks than in almost anything else.

[Don Nico]

UK is in pitiful shape. There is no reason to bail them out.
But seriously, the Cash splash in the EU will have to come out of the hide of EU social welfare programs; hence it will wantthat cash spent in Europe to clash back some in taxes.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
The EU should have made this decision 20 yeats ago.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Paul Krugman's new Substack is interesting.

He includes a music video at the end of his entries.

The latest is a cover for familiar song. The band is pretty good.

https://foxesandfossils.com/

[Satchmo_Lives]

They sounded great. I have always loved the song.

I don't get covers that give the song the exact same treatment as the original. What's the point?

[tylertusta]

I see the thread was restored. What happened?

[SRG2]

DOGE deleted it but Boasberg issued an emergency TRO and it was restored

[Commenter_XY]

ROTFLMAO....nice!

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

Something for the other patriots to think about....

Many of the commenters on this board are "serious people" like practicing or formerly practicing lawyers.

Look at how unbelievably biased they are. They would be the same way if they were sitting on the bench. The current judges are no different then these hyperpartisans who goal seek every legal analysis of theirs here.

That judge who usurped the military command to demanded all trannies be let back in the military because "fitness requirements have long been used against mmmarginalized groups"? That's just another not guilty, or captcrisis or David neiropent. Just has partisan. Just as biased. Just as low information.

[Ed Grinberg]

"According to a familiar adage the legal realists equated law with what the judge had for breakfast." (source)
Of course, it isn't supposed to be this way.
I once attended a talk by Justice Scalia. He talked about a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court during his tenure. The defendant had burned the U.S. flag during a protest. In his speech, Justice Scalia made it clear that for him there were few things one could do that were worse than burning the U.S. flag. But, because he believed that the law (the First Amendment and prior Supreme Court decisions interpreting it) required reversing the conviction, he so ruled.
Scalia was an honest judge. How many others like him are there?

[Ed Grinberg]

More on this, from the document ML quotes below:
"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps."

[Bored Lawyer]

A while ago, Elon Musk made a gesture that was accused of being a Nazi salute. "He's literally Hitler." Musk denied it.

Yesterday's NY Post featured this article:
Columbia janitors claim they were illegally forced to scrub swastikas then were attacked, trapped by anti-Israel mob as civil rights probe launched
https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/us-news/civil-rights-enforcement-agency-opens-probe-into-columbia-university-over-janitors-trapped-and-attacked-by-anti-israel-mob/

Here are a few tidbits:

Hours after President [Minouche] Shafik issued her statement [that the university had become ‘unsafe for everyone‘], an antisemitic mob assaulted two janitors inside Columbia’s historic Hamilton Hall, calling them ‘Jew-lovers,'” the two complaints for both men recalled of the Hamilton Hall takeover in April last year.

It all began around November 2023, shortly after the bloody Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel sparked a war. Racist and antisemitic graffiti started to pop up, scrawled all around Hamilton Hall — and the campus’s janitors were forced to clean it up.

“Mr. Wilson recognized the swastikas as symbols of white supremacy,” Wilson’s complaint alleges. “As an African-American man, he found the images deeply distressing. He reported them to his supervisors, who instructed him to erase the graffiti.”

“No matter how many times Mr. Wilson removed the swastikas, individuals kept replacing them with more.”
Wilson lost track of how many swastikas he had to scrub, but his colleague Torres, who is Latino, pegged it in the dozens and eventually reached a point where he had enough, his complaint said.

In one instance, around Dec. 6, 2023, Torres and Wilson observed masked protesters storm through Hamilton Hall chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and scrawling swastikas as well as other obscene graffiti in the building.

Now let's see. People repeatedly scrawl swastikas, take over a building, assault minority workers (one was black, the other Latino), and call them "Jew lovers."

What do you call that? (Hint. Starts with an N and rhymes with Yahtzee.)

[Commenter_XY]

You mean, they are not mostly peaceful protesters? 😉

[VinniUSMC]

Average Leftists?

[Bwaaah]

Defenders of the Oppressed!

[Martinned2]

It sounds to me like the US has a real neo-Nazi problem.

[Bored Lawyer]

A keffiyeh-wearing Nazi problem.

Bigger problem is the fellow travelers who support and permit this behavior. Had the Columbia administration cracked down on it, things would be much different.

[Martinned2]

A lots-of-different-clothes-wearing Nazi problem.

[David Nieporent]

What do you call that? (Hint. Starts with an N and rhymes with Yahtzee.)

False flags by MAGA, of course.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, there were many MAGA at Columbia this past year.

Lose the TDS.

[David Nieporent]

No, I've been reliably informed that everything that happens is a false flag. J6 was actually the FBI and antifa. So obviously the Columbia protests were MAGA.

[Bwaaah]

Now do you.

[tylertusta]

DOJ asks DC Circuit for stay of Boasberg's order to produce information on the flights in the Venezuelan gang case:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.37.0_2.pdf

[tylertusta]

Boasberg delays his demand for information on the flights by one day.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.38.0.pdf

[Life of Brian]

To begin, the Court seeks this information, not as a “micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition[],” id. at 2, but to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.

Methinks he doth protest too much. The record is already clear that two flights took off and were outside US airspace prior to the written TRO, and to my knowledge the government has made no representation that either flight was complete before then. And as far as I know it's undisputed that the initial verbal enjoinment, to the extent he still believes he has the authority to do that, was broader than the final written TRO. So given all that, I'm having a hard time seeing how more fine-grained operational details of the flights/handoffs would affect any of his contempt analysis.

[tylertusta]

I agree; the government says that the Judge has all of the information he needs for contempt despite Boasberg's order for more information.

It's evident that Boasberg doesn't agree that removal from US territory constitutes removal for the purposes of his TRO, but him getting additional information on the flights' timetables from the government doesn't add anything to this, at least not that I can think of.

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

He needs to pass the information along to his daughter so they can work out the legal defense for the criminal terrorists and get them back in the country.

[David Nieporent]

His daughter isn't a lawyer, you retard.

[windycityattorney]

It could be that the Judge needs the details to determine whether anybody at the DOJ violated his order; to further determine who could potentially be held in contempt. Making a complete record on these matters wasn't optional for DOJ. The court issued an order and the DOJ refused to comply. Refusal to comply opens up possibility of contempt. The DOJ filing above is unnecessarily hostile. Instead of simply complying with the court's order; they call it an unnecessary fishing expedition. The judge has already decided its not a fishing expedition and expects compliance so this remark was, frankly, unprofessional and perhaps a bit risky.

This has all the hallmarks of Emil Bove and Todd Blanche in front of Judge Chutkan in the DC case against Trump. And look whose names appear on the signature line. Their absolute arrogance gives them away.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, yes -- another brick in the wall of "the president isn't a king, but any random forum-shopped federal judge with a burr in his saddle sure as hell is."

He seems to want a showdown, and may well get one.

[windycityattorney]

Why isn't DC the appropriate place to litigate decisions of agencies whose headquarters are in DC? I've stated elsewhere, in govt, shit rolls uphill. The lowly ICE officer who loaded the plane in Texas is just going to say he was following orders from a superior. So you follow the chain of orders til you get to the top and the person who initiated the order. Because its those same people at the top who can tell their inferiors what to do and how when the Judge orders something from their agency or dept.

[Life of Brian]

Have to say it's pretty interesting that the your only apparent disagreement with my post was the "forum-shopped" part. Maybe "forum-shopped judge" wasn't the best turn of phrase, but you snipped "judge" in your response so it seems like we're even.

DC may well be the correct court, but Boasberg was not the assigned emergency judge* on the 15th.

Even without going down the path of what his daughter just happens to do for a living and indulging the polite fiction that he didn't already know the case was coming, it's clear enough he went out of his way to catch it.

* Had to use the Wayback link because yesterday the entire preceding Q1 schedule was memory-holed, and the current live version shows only the final two weekends of the quarter. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[tylertusta]

Boasberg, as the Chief Judge, has the authority to take cases like this for himself.

[Commenter_XY]

The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before
certifying the class action in this case. That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues.

Whoa. Biasberg is probably so pissed.

[tylertusta]

I posted his order in response to the government's motion up above.

He is pissed.

[David Nieporent]

And rightly; their arguments are not only frivolous, but contemptuous. (Not in the legal sense of that term, but in the sense of them expressing contempt for the judge.)

[not guilty]

The defendants are still playing hide the ball regarding Judge Boasberg's orders. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.47.0_2.pdf

Today's order recites:

In an ex parte pleading delivered shortly after today’s deadline, the Government again evaded its obligations. It submitted a six-paragraph declaration from the Acting Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Harlingen, Texas, Field Office, the contents of which the Government has informed the Court may be disclosed. After four paragraphs of identifying information, he repeated the same general information about the flights: “On March 15, 2025, two flights carrying aliens being removed under the AEA departed U.S. airspace before the Court’s minute order of 7:25 PM EDT, and before the Court’s oral statements during the hearing.” Decl. of Robert L. Cerna, ¶ 5. He then stated, “I understand that Cabinet Secretaries are currently actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets privilege over the other facts requested by the Court’s order. Doing so is a serious matter that requires careful consideration of national security and foreign relations, and it cannot properly be undertaken in just 24 hours.” Id., ¶ 6 (emphasis added).

This is woefully insufficient. To begin, the Government cannot proffer a regional ICE official to attest to Cabinet-level discussions of the state-secrets privilege; indeed, his declaration on that point, not surprisingly, is based solely on his unsubstantiated “understand[ing].” Although its skepticism concerning the suitability of such privilege expressed in yesterday’s Order remains, the Court at a minimum requires an official with direct involvement to swear that deliberations of the privilege’s invocation are ongoing at the level Cerna attests. It further expects such deliberations to be concluded by March 25, 2025, which only exceedingly good cause may excuse.

The Court ordered the following:

1. By March 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Defendants shall submit a sworn declaration by a person with direct involvement in the Cabinet-level discussions regarding invocation of the state-secrets privilege;
2. By March 25, 2025, Defendants shall submit a declaration indicating whether or not the Government is invoking the privilege;
3. By March 25, 2025, Defendants shall file a brief showing cause why they did not violate the Court’s Temporary Restraining Orders by failing to return class members removed from the United States on the two earliest planes that departed on March 15, 2025; and
4. Plaintiffs may file any response to such brief by March 31, 2025.

The issuance of an order to show cause by a federal district court is an extremely serious matter. The individual defendants in this lawsuit include three cabinet officials. If the government does not produce a responsive declaration regarding invocation of the state-secrets privilege by tomorrow morning, the judge will be well within his authority to order those cabinet officials to resume their discussions within the friendly confines of the D.C. Central Detention Facility.

[SRG2]

US erases evidence of Russian war crimes.

US ‘deletes evidence’ of Russia’s kidnap of thousands of Ukrainian children

An international effort to trace and rescue tens of thousands of children kidnapped from Ukraine to Russia and prosecute those responsible has been crippled by the US state department’s deletion of evidence.

Cui bono?

[Commenter_XY]

Fire the IT person for Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab, for failing to backup the DB.

[SRG2]

Agreed, assuming it wasn't backed up.

[M L]

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. "

[SRG2]

Ironic that the right cheered the overturning of Chevron deference.

[tylertusta]

Chevron deference was about constitutional questions?

[Bored Lawyer]

I see you don't understand Chevron and it's implications.

[SRG2]

Chevron applied to the Executive interpreting legislation, correct? And the overturning in Loper Bright said that, no, it's up to the judicial power, correct? Courts are required to exercise their
independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Correct? But it seems that ML - and by implication Tyler and you - think that when it comes to constitutional questions, the judiciary should not exercise their independent judgment. This is, at least on its face, inconsistent, hence my noting the irony.

When it comes to regular legislation (with possible ambiguity) courts should exercise independent judgment, how much more, as the rabbonim would say, should they exercise independent judgment with respect to the Constitution? From Marbury: "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" - and you will concede that the Constitution is part of the law (as indeed, it states.)

But wait! The APA by directing courts to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions without differentiating between the two, makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes, like agency interpretations of the Constitution, are not entitled to deference.

(My bold)

I reserve a specific comment for later.

[tylertusta]

Your inclusion of me into your little fantasy says a lot more about you than me and my views.

[SRG2]

Oh fuck off. You dived into a thread to challenge my comment.

You could of course merely have said that I was wrong, and that in fact you did not hold the views I have attributed to you, in which case I would have apologised, blamed DOGE, and moved on. But no, you preferred the injured self-righteousness. route,

[tylertusta]

I rest my case.

[SRG2]

You must find my client not guilty
Order in the court!
Nemo dat quod non habet
Volenti non fit injuria

Yes, I too can post irrelevant courtroom phrases

[Martinned2]

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. "

Clearly the alternative of putting Trump alone in charge is much better!

[David Nieporent]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty."

[Riva]

In light of this judicial insurrection, President Trump has 2 possible courses of action. He can just acquiesce to this gross judicial overreach and his bog administration down in years of appeals (which is the real goal of these nonsense lawsuits since the democrat activist litigants and the judges know it's all bs); or he can ignore these out of control judges and let the activists pursue whatever remedies they think they have. Since the courts are operating illegally and infringing on executive authority, I say ignore them, they have no remedies because they have no real cases.

[tylertusta]

As of now he's choosing the former.

That won't stop the bleating about the latter happening, however.

[SRG2]

his bog administration down in years of appeal

They get expedited PDQ, so no.

But "bog administration" is a delightfully approprisate slip. Good job!

[Riva]

All the TROs/orders (not sure how many, I've lost count) are getting expedited review? Who knew? I guess only you, try not keep such bombshells to yourself.

[not guilty]

TROs are not getting expedited review -- except to the extent that Courts of Appeals are quickly deciding that no federal statute authorizes appeals from TROs. (The first task of any federal court is to determine its own jurisdiction.)

Whether to expedite review of a preliminary injunction or of an order of summary judgment issued by a District Court is left to the discretion of the appellate court.

[Riva]

Why are you commenting?

[not guilty]

Why am I commenting?

One reason (among many) is to correct bullshit from the MAGA cult commenters. As Mark Twain (may have) said, it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

[John F. Carr]

According to a fundraising email that just landed, John Eastman's appeal of his disbarment recommendation is being heard today. May justice prevail.

[SRG2]

You know the joke of the young attorney out in the sticks trying his first case in the old days, sends a telegram back to his partner. "Justice prevails" and the partner replies, "Appeal"

[Satchmo_Lives]

I just watched a British TV show called Escape Artist starring David Tennant as Will Burton(love the guy). It brought up a few questions about the British legal system I thought some of the big brains on here could explain.

He played a standout junior barrister and people asked him why he hasn't gone for the "silks." I take it junior doesn't mean the same as it does here. Lawyers don't need to petition the state to become senior partners at their firm. Also, what is meant by "silks" literally and what is meant metaphorically.

In a high profile case he was chosen by the defendant's attorney to try the case. It didn't seem to be a case where the defendant's atty specialized in tax or copyright and needed a criminal lawyer. The other atty oversaw the case. Burton asked him why he didn't choose a silk.

Lastly, Will Burton's firm represented the crown in the prosecution of the murder of Burton's wife (he was not allowed to help). Is this a common thing England where private firms are called to be prosecutors? How common is it in the states, if at all? I don't mean hiring outside help, I mean run the whole show.

Anybody see the 2pt. miniseries? What did you think? I liked it quite a bit.

[Bored Lawyer]

In Britain, there are two kinds of lawyers, solicitors and barristers. The latter appear in court and argue cases, what we in America would call trial lawyers.
Among barristers, there is a senior level called King's Counsel (or Queen's Counsel, when you know who was on the throne). They get to wear silk robes and sit further up near the judge, hence the nickname Silks.
It's pretty archaic, and here I think making one lawyer sit junior to the other side could be a violation of due process. But then again, they wear wigs, so what do you expect.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"In Britain, there are two kinds of lawyers, solicitors and barristers."

Perfectly explained. Thank you!

So the senior barristers can be for the defense or be called, or ask, to be King's Counsel. Interesting.

[Martinned2]

Criminal barristers usually do both prosecution cases and defence cases. Cab rank rule, they take whichever case comes first.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Martinned, thank you. It was mentioned in the series and I didn't quite grasp it. Passing over cases when it was your turn was frowned upon.

What is meant by "your turn."

You answered.

[grb]

Satchmo_Lives : "I just watched a British TV show called Escape Artist ..."

I'm in the midst of rereading Sarah Caudwell's quartet of mysteries centered on young barristers practicing in Lincoln's Inn & narrated by a Hilary Tamar, a professor of medieval law. On the one hand, they're good frothy fun, full of delightfully silly characters doing delightfully silly things. On the other hand, you learn almost nothing about English law since our barristers are forever distracted. But there is regular stuff on British tax planning, which quite unexpectedly makes for high comedy.

One caveat for our thread Righties, since the poor dears are so gender-insecure these days : Professor Tamar is a sexual mystery. Aside from the name "Hilary" (which swings both ways), you can scour all four books and never determine male or female. My case was apparently typical : I read deep into the first two mysteries with the unconscious assumption "she" was a she. Others decided male from Page One. This was definitely a tactic of the author, though her aim was, well, a mystery.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440212316/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Satchmo_Lives]

How tedious to read an entire novel where the author chose to not use a singular third person pronoun in any form for a main character(?).

While I guess one can define an intense dislike of 17 year old boys in the locker room with our 14 year old daughters, and a desire to see the same daughters compete on a level playing field, as being gender insecure, I do not.

I am reminded in 2017 of an under 15 FC Dallas Soccer Academy team beat the USWNT 5-2 in a warm up for the USWNT match against Russia. AN UNDER 15 team made up of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women's team in the world. So no, it is not fair to have the same boys play against girls their own age. If that makes me gender insecure by your definition, I won't lose sleep over it. I promise.

[Riva]

Don't know what show or book you're referring to. Don't care. But interesting that you side is finally prepared to admit there are only 2 genders.

[SRG2]

I'm halfway through e2 and am much enjoying it. It also took me back to the days when I had pretensions of becoming a barrister.

A silk, as Bored Lawyer notes, is a KC/QC. They are obliged to specialise, so some very senior barristers have never taken silk as the don't want to specialise.

All barristers are private. When the Crown prosecutes, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) instructs a barrister, rather than having its own barristers.

Some barristers prefer to prosecute, others prefer to defend, but plenty do both, as Martinned notes, and it explains the competitive conviviality, I recall when I was sitting in on a case, the prosecutor (an old acquaintance of my father's) and the defence barristers were all getting robed or disrobed in the same room, chatting idly, etc. (FWIW it was normal in those days to go off to the pub for lunch. One beer (20 fl oz) was considered entirely normal. No food carts!)

[Satchmo_Lives]

Thanks SRG!! Gave me a little nuance.

The exact scene occurs in the series. Burton and the CP are congenial, but doing a little dick measuring while donning their robes and wigs.

For God sakes, would all of Great Britain ditch the effing wigs. It might be cool if it was an actual wig that looked like real hair. It would be like 17th-18th century fancy dress (in the British sense). Instead it looks more like some kind of cap--maybe an albino coon tail.

PS: I hope I didn't reveal any spoilers before you saw it.

[SRG2]

Indeed not!

I just finished it. First, I thought they were going to get the alibi witness to admit after acquittal that it was a lie, and they were going to threaten her with a perjury charge unless she testified against Foyle for perverting the course of justice.

Second, once they took it up to Scotland - where the laws and procedures are subtly different from England and Wales - I guessed that the Tennant character would kill Foyle (though I didn't immediately guess how), would be tried, and the verdict would be "not proven" - for dramatic purposes there is no point in moving the crime and trial in Scotland where all the prior action was in England unless you intend the verdict to be "not proven".

There is an old line, that "not proven" means, "go away and don't do it again".

[Stephen Lathrop]

The beer bit reminded me of an old lawyer/politician I knew in Idaho, in the 70s. He nurtured competing vices: a drinking problem which made liquor obligate if he was to function; and a sense of punctilio which forbade drinking before noon.

Naturally, rival lawyers preferred to face him before the lunch break. After two martinis at lunch, my friend became almost formidable in the court room.

But once, by chance, a case came up that my friend got tried to a successful conclusion before the lunch break. His hands had been trembling visibly throughout. The baffled prosecutor hastened to interview a juror, to see if he could discover what accounted for so swift an acquittal.

"What made you believe the arguments of such an obvious drunk," the prosecutor asked.

The answer came back, "A drunk? We didn't know he was a drunk. We felt sorry for him. We thought he had one of them diseases."

For better, for worse, or maybe irrelevantly, it was likely a Mormon jury. Pretty much all the lawyers, whether Mormons or not, confessed inability to analyze the dynamics of Mormon/alcohol factors in criminal trial outcomes.

Whether a case involved Mormons on a jury, or a bench trial with a Mormon judge, or Mormon lawyers for either side, or an allegedly drunk Mormon defendant, or combinations and permutations, almost everyone thought presence of alcohol likely influenced the outcome. But nobody hazarded any explanation to say how.

[John F. Carr]

Mahmoud Khalil's habeas petition has been transferred to the District of New Jersey. Judge Furman declined to dismiss the case in part out of fear that Khalil would disappear before a new petition could be filed. The order against deportation is still in effect. The new docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69755532/khalil-v-joyce/.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. The opinion and order directing transfer is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.638260/gov.uscourts.nysd.638260.78.0_1.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

Poetic justice that Judge Furman will sit in judgment of the hamas homie. There is a God in heaven. Khalil will be going home to Syria, eventually.

How long before Khalil plays the 'Dat Jew is out to git me' card? He already played the racist card; I was offended that Khalil accused Pres Biden of being a racist in his letter. You can say many things about Pres Biden (and I have!), the man is not a racist.

[not guilty]

"Poetic justice that Judge Furman will sit in judgment of the hamas homie. There is a God in heaven. Khalil will be going home to Syria, eventually."

Huh? Judge Furman (an observant Jew) is the transferor judge. I don't know whether a transferee judge in New Jersey has yet been assigned.

[John F. Carr]

Peanut's legacy: New Hampshire HB 251 allows squirrels and raccoons to be kept as pets if a wildlife rehabber determines the animal could not survive in the wild.

https://gc.nh.gov/lsr_search/billText.aspx?id=263&type=4

Of course opponents are warning of the resulting public health catastrophe.

I know somebody, not a New Hampshire resident, who was told by a rehabber to raise an abandoned baby squirrel by herself because it was too old to go to rehab. I suspected keeping the squirrel under such circumstances was illegal but never prosecuted. The squirrel died before maturity leaving nothing but fleas and memories.

[M L]

Next up is the activist Judge Chuang.

Trump and DOGE find millions of wasteful spending through USAID and try to stop it. Chuang says NO, the waste and fraud must stay!

Chuang is the same guy who issued a laughable decision blocking Trump's "travel ban" in 2017.

No surprise that Chuang is a longtime Democrat donor and leftwing activist. From powerline:

"Judge Chuang : social justice warrior and servant of the Democrats

He served the Obama State Department on “special assignment” when Congress investigated the Benghazi attack. He was in charge of providing legal guidance to the Department in connection with Congress’ investigation of that attack.

When President Obama nominated Chuang for a judgeship, a nice reward for running interference for the Democrats on Benghazi, Senator Grassley, hardly a firebrand, accused him of having been instrumental in stonewalling Congress. Chuang could not garner 60 votes for confirmation, a rare occurrence for a district court nominee even in these times..."

And from Breitbart:

"Chuang had a long left-wing résumé before he was nominated to the federal bench in 2014 by President Barack Obama, who preceded Chuang at Harvard Law School. Like Obama, Chuang became an editor on the Harvard Law Review. During his tenure, the journal took an interest in Critical Race Theory, republishing several articles from its archives, including “Whiteness as Property,” which argued affirmative action had a racially “redistributive” function."

[David Nieporent]

Trump and DOGE find millions of wasteful spending through USAID and try to stop it. Chuang says NO, the waste and fraud must stay!

At least you've stopped claiming billions.

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

"The swarm of violent attacks on Tesla property is nothing short of domestic terrorism. The Department of Justice has already charged several perpetrators with that in mind, including in cases that involve charges with five-year mandatory minimum sentences," Bondi stated in a press release.

Which Democrat judge do you think is going to declare an unreviewable TRO against this action?

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, for all we know, some of the "activists" perpetrating these attacks might be "Democrat judges" (and prosecutors).
Check out this post by Mark Steyn:
Six years after that 2017 Charlottesville rally, the Commonwealth of Virginia decided it was going to retrospectively J6ify the day and drag people into court just for being there: Perambulating while MAGA.
Unfortunately, at least for countries that believe in the rule of law, there were a couple of problems with that.
A week ago today, the judge heard oral arguments on the motion of Peter Frazier, attorney for defendant Jacob Joseph Dix, calling for the entire Albemarle County office of Commonwealth's Attorneys to recuse themselves on the grounds that they're prosecutors with a pretty obvious conflict of interest:

Mr. W. Lawton Tufts ("Tufts"), the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney prosecuting this case, personally helped lead, organize, and advocate for the counter-protestors who physically—and in certain cases, violently—resisted Defendant and his Co-Defendants during the events of August 11-12, 2017. A self-proclaimed "anti-racist activist," he acted as a liaison between organized counter-protest groups and local law enforcement prior to that fateful weekend.

So the man supposed to be representing "the people" in prosecuting Mr Dix was in fact out on the streets that day facing down Mr Dix and "picking a side", as Judge Padrick put it.
Somewhat to my surprise, the judge granted Mr Frazier's motion, and dismissed the entire county attorneys' office from the case.
But then again the recently appointed Judge Padrick is only hearing the case because, after another motion by Mr Frazier, the entire bench of Virginia's 16th Judicial Circuit has had to recuse themselves - because Chief Judge Charles Worrell and his wife Kathryn ("I kind of do hate white people") Laughon had also been out on the streets of Charlottesville that night as activists for the other side.
I congratulate Mr Frazier on getting the entire prosecutors' office and slate of judges removed from the case. But the fact that he had to file motions to force these bums to do what they should have done themselves speaks very poorly for the integrity of US justice - as does the presence of judges and prosecutors in street protests.

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

This is why these judges deserve no respect. In classic Leftist tradition, they infest an institution then wear it's previously hard-earned dignity as a skin suit as they subvert and undermine our country.

[grb]

Trump on Canada in an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Tuesday:

"You're tougher with Canada than you are with some of our biggest adversaries. Why?" Ingraham asked.

"Only because it's meant to be our 51st state," Trump replied, adding Canada is "one of the nastiest countries to deal with."

He's mentally ill. Sick in the head. His mind is broken. Trump is a wack-job loon.

[myself]

Trump's greatest trick is being incoherent enough that no one can tell if he has dementia.

[Paladin_44]

They even named a coin after him...

[myself]

So this is insanely messed up:

On Monday, his wife, Johanny Sánchez, learned Caraballo was among more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants flown over the weekend to El Salvador, where they are in a maximum-security prison after being accused by the Trump administration of belonging to the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

[...]

Ali David Navas Vizcaya had been in U.S. detention since early 2024, when he was stopped at a U.S.-Mexico border crossing where he had an appointment to talk to immigration officers.

[...]

On Feb. 3, Caraballo went to an ICE office in Dallas office for one of his regular mandatory check-ins with agents handling his asylum request.

He was “apprehended and released” after illegally crossing the southern U.S. border in October 2023, according to Department of Homeland Security documents provided by his wife. The documents said he was a “member/active” of Tren de Aragua, but offered no evidence to support that.

An Venezuelan immigrant, undocumented but trying to go through the asylum process, is instead sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.

[windycityattorney]

Called it. In a thread earlier this week. It was suspicious that some (or many?) of the people on the flights to El Salvador weren't already in prison before being rounded up and sent (since they are murderers and rapists and terrorists aka the worst of the worst). But when on parole they do have to keep tabs on their asylum case and let ICE officials know where they live etc... and check in.

So just wait for them to show up and then bag and tag em. It was all so simple! Guess what you get when appointing people to positions due to loyalty and ability to mindlessly carry out orders rather than competence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"rather than competence"

He's gone from the US, seems competent to me.

[myself]

They sent a probably innocent person following the asylum process to the bad kind of Central American prison.

So they're incompetent immigration hardliners or competent fascists.

I'll let you choose which description to use.

[Bob from Ohio]

Everyone "following the asylum process" is a fraud, economic migrants only.

The wife even admitted it:

"She thought the sacrifice would be worth it. Her husband had been working as a barber since the age of 13 and was hopeful he could find a new start in the U.S., escaping poverty wages and Nicolas Maduro’s ironfisted rule in Venezuela."

So, vaya con dios to him

[myself]

Nicolas Maduro’s ironfisted rule does sound like potential grounds for asylum, though that should be for a court to decide.

But if not, the penalty should be deportation, not an El Salvador prison.

So I'll go ahead and put you down for "competent fascist".

[grb]

myself : "So this is insanely messed up"

Three Points :

1. Up and down this thread, these people are all called "illegal aliens". Obviously that's not true. Some (if not many) were legally following the (legal) asylum process.

2. This a PR stunt for the White House. It was fabricated for MAGA base entertainment. The Administration's only concern is providing yuks & yeehaws for its core supporters. They probably score "bonus points" if the person sent to a hellhole Salvadoran prison is totally innocent - like running over granny in one of those video games. Far from being concerned over possibly committing an injustice, they've treated the whole thing as a joke.

"The White House X account on Monday posted a video of migrants being handcuffed and sent away, to the soundtrack of the 1998 Semisonic hit “Closing Time,” a song that’s often associated with the end of a party. “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here @CBP,” the White House posted, with musical note emojis—a reference to the song lyrics.

In addition to the “Closing Time” video, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a high-production video from Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele on Sunday that showed alleged gang members escorted off deportation flights and transported to a megaprison at night, where their heads were shaved. The White House also posted a video in February of migrants shackled before they boarded a deportation flight, with the caption: “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight.”

3. No one can possibly believe this Administration did any due diligence whatsoever with these people. There are accounts of people taken just because they were present when a target was arrested. There are multiple accounts of people "disappeared" into a brutal Central American prison only because of a tattoo common to gang members & non-gang members alike. This White House doesn't care if they're wrongly condemning an innocent man to a hellish term in prison. Given it's just entertainment for Trump's dupe base, innocence is irrelevant.

[David Nieporent]

Was surprised to learn that Trump was right and that Ted Cruz's dad did kill JFK.

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

You should credit the bluesky account you stole that from.

Have you no shame?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Any clarity on the second spitter?

[Martinned2]

Isn't free speech great?

Etats-Unis : un chercheur français refoulé pour avoir exprimé « une opinion personnelle sur la politique menée par l’administration Trump »
(...)
Le gouvernement français a déploré, mercredi 19 mars, l’interdiction d’entrer aux Etats-Unis puis le refoulement d’un chercheur français venu assister à une conférence, parce qu’il avait exprimé une « opinion personnelle » sur la politique américaine en matière de recherche.
(...)
Selon une source diplomatique à l’AFP, l’incident est survenu le 9 mars. Ce chercheur dans le domaine spatial aurait subi un contrôle aléatoire à son arrivée, au cours duquel son ordinateur professionnel et son téléphone personnel auraient été fouillés. De même source, des messages évoquant le traitement des scientifiques par l’administration Trump auraient été trouvés. Il lui aurait été reproché des messages « qui traduisent une haine envers Trump et peuvent être qualifiés de terrorisme ». Son matériel professionnel et personnel lui aurait été confisqué et le chercheur aurait été renvoyé en Europe le lendemain.

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/03/19/etats-unis-un-chercheur-francais-refoule-pour-avoir-exprime-une-opinion-personnelle-sur-la-politique-menee-par-l-administration-trump_6583618_3210.html

[John F. Carr]

Immigration officials thought the contents of her phone included terroristic threats. The FBI decided whatever was there was not worth prosecuting. I don't know what to think.

[Martinned2]

Criticism of Trump is terrorism now. Congratulations!

[Kazinski]

I read the translation, but it didn't say what the alleged statements were, so hard to make a judgement without seeing them, but I'll
say what I think would be reasonable guidelines for visitors to the US:

If its no more than just criticism of US policy or Trump, then that's not incompatible with behavior we should expect from guests.

However if they express a desire to participate in civil disobedience, or a demonstration that could be expected to cause a disturbance which would require police intervention, then I would say that's incompatible with behavior expected from a guest, even though those expressions would be fully protected under the constitution.

[Martinned2]

Being married to a US citizen with wrongthink is also terrorism!

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-deportation-georgetown-graduate-student-00239754

According to Suri’s petition for release, he was put in deportation proceedings under the same rarely used provision of immigration law that the government has invoked to try to deport Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student and green card holder who led pro-Palestinian protests on campus. That provision gives the secretary of State the power to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines that their continued presence in the U.S. would threaten foreign policy.

Suri has no criminal record and has not been charged with a crime, his petition says. His detention and petition have not been previously reported.

Suri’s lawyer, Hassan Ahmad, argued in his petition that Suri is being punished because of the Palestinian heritage of his wife — who is a U.S. citizen — and because the government suspects that he and his wife oppose U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.

[Bob from Ohio]

Posting gibberish now I see.

Well, more so than usual I mean.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, the Natives were really getting restless at that Black MD Congressman's "Town Meeting" last night

[Kenneth Almquist]

Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian, was detained for nearly two weeks under inhumane conditions before being allowing her to return to Canada. I hardly know what to say. For those who claim that DOGE is necessary because the United States is broke, why did we pay to feed and house her, even under inhumane conditions? Doesn’t that seem a bit inefficient?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/canadian-detained-us-immigration-jasmine-mooney

[Bob from Ohio]

She illegally entered but expected special treatment because she is a pretty woman.

Her treatment was not "inhumane" either.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "She illegally entered but expected special treatment because she is a pretty woman"

Three Points :

1. Nothing in the story suggests she "illegally entered". You just made that up.
2. So you're giving Ed competition in the Incel department! Good to know.
3. Her treatment was "inhumane" to those with humanity. Leaves you out I guess.

[Satchmo_Lives]

1. I imagine she was detained for working without a visa. She isn't going to say that and The Guardian surely isn't going to press her on it. They need her to be sympathetic. The timeline seems her visa was revoked because her employer worked with hemp. Then she found another job and was trying to get the visa restored. She said she was told she could work from Canada in the interim. She did not say she was working in Canada.

2. Yeah, because it is impossible to believe some women think they can get away with some things because of their looks without being an incel. No cop has ever let a beautiful woman off with a warning after she batted her eyes.

3. It was cold and she was given a thermal blanket. Sounds just like Auschwitz to me.

[grb]

1. From the story : "my work visa, which had been approved months before and allowed me, a Canadian, to work in the US." If you want to challenge that, please go ahead. Until then, nothing in the account supports you or Bob. But keep trying! Maybe you'll get lucky on the Shakespeare-Monkeys-Typewriters principle.

2. Get away with what? You're still coming up lame there. Maybe you should produce something she was trying to "get away with" before blaming it on her appearance, ya think?

3. Auschwitz, huh? That's your case?

Here's the NYT on the story :

"Ms. Mooney was applying for a TN visa, which allows professionals from Canada and Mexico to stay temporarily in the United States. She initially applied for one last year for her other marketing job, but she said that it had been rejected because the company’s letterhead was missing from her documents.

She said she had successfully reapplied about a month later at the San Ysidro border crossing, but when she tried to return to the United States at the end of November, a U.S. immigration official at the airport in Vancouver revoked her visa. He explained that her application had not been processed properly, she said, and raised concerns over one company that was employing her that sold hemp-based products.

ICE officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. Neither did the White House, which has made President Trump’s executive orders governing immigration a centerpiece of his return to power."

[Satchmo_Lives]

1. Hey dimwit. Her visa was revoked and she was back in the US.

He claimed I also couldn’t work for a company in the US that made use of hemp – one of the beverage ingredients. He revoked my visa, and told me I could still work for the company from Canada, but if I wanted to return to the US, I would need to reapply.

Get your visa in order BEFORE you come back. Not hard. Why wasn't the Guardian specific on dates? Was she here for months still getting a paycheck after her visa was revoked? Did she fly in for just one day and was busted?

2. I didn't claim she tried to use her looks for an advantage. I was rebutting the point one is an incel if they believe some beautiful women will try to use their looks to get an advantage--see my example. Work on reading comprehension and get back to me.

3. The only reason she gave for "inhumane treatment" was being cold and being given a blanket. Grow up and learn to comprehend a one sided account scant on facts and heavy on emotion.

[grb]

God you're stupid. Mooney had a work visa in her hands. It was issued by the government of the United States of America. It gave her permission to enter the country and work therein. That's what EVERY account says. Are you fucking blind or brainless?

One bureaucrat didn't like the work another bureaucrat did. Which one was right, who can tell? But I'd like see you explain how Mooney was supposed to anticipate this mess. Given you don't have the reading comprehension skills of a grade-schooler, that would be a fun spectacle to watch.

And while you're at it, try and get to the heart of the matter: A women crosses the border with an official work visa issued by the official U.S. government. How does she end up in prison for two weeks? Even if the second bureaucrat was right about the first, how does she end up in prison for two weeks?

[Armchair]

"1. Nothing in the story suggests she "illegally entered". You just made that up."

An ICE spokesperson told Newsweek: "Jasmine Mooney was detained March 3 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for not having legal documentation to be in the United States. Mooney was processed in accordance with the 'Securing Our Borders' Executive Order dated January 21. All aliens in violation of U.S. immigration law may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the U.S., regardless of nationality."

https://www.newsweek.com/jasmine-mooney-immigration-lawyer-2046328

You should apologize to Bob from Ohio for saying "you just made that up". An ICE spokesman on the record said she did not have legal authority to be in the US

[grb]

He did make it up. Try actually reading the details on the case. Given what I have to deal with here, I tried to lay them out in the slowest simplest way possible right above. You should be able to manage. I think. But if you need more assistance, I'm willing to help.

I'm good that way.....

[Commenter_XY]

Jasmine is a little hot. 😉

[grb]

She is attractive, to be sure. But unlike the frustrated individuals above, I didn't look at her pic and decide she was some wanton hussy trying to "get away with something".

And the details of her case make it obvious she wasn't trying to get away with anything - by looks or any other stratagem. Instead she was the victim of pure Kafkaesque lunacy. Strangely enough, multiple commentators above couldn't follow those simple details, even after I added other sources.

Perhaps they were distracted by her looks......

[Bored Lawyer]

And old poem includes the line "Wednesday's child is full of woe."

Seems to apply to today's open thread, which keeps disappearing and appearing.

[Satchmo_Lives]

The weird thing is I could see the comment tally going up. I just couldn't join in the fun. I figured EV got tired of the uneducated rubes fouling up his board and just blocked us from commenting. Thankfully not.

[David Nieporent]

I had to restart my browser entirely to get it to show me the comments even after the thread was back up.

[dwb68]

If Tesla is the enemy now and Democrats are back to driving 8 cylinder Tundras, can California go back to refining gas to lower prices?

[grb]

Electric cars continue to sell in greater numbers than ever. Almost every brand selling EVs experienced massive growth in the first quarter of 2024. Tesla’s sales, however, took a step back. We take a look at the state of the industry.

https://www.greencars.com/news/almost-every-brand-except-tesla-is-selling-more-evs

[Satchmo_Lives]

Cool. Lets see if manufacturers continue to offer an average of 12% incentives on the price of the vehicle (average is 7%). Or, they were getting rid of excess inventory after Biden incentives/mandates.

[Commenter_XY]

EVs are ~20% of the US market; Tesla has ~52% of the EV market, nobody else is close. Net net: There is Tesla, and then everyone else (for EV). Elon will be Ok.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What is your source for this? Everything I can find says that EV’s are more like 8%, and that Tesla’s market share has continued to decline in favor of Rivian and the major auto companies, and is now at 44%.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, that 20% is insanely high. The above link supplied by grb says 7%.

[Commenter_XY]

Did you actually read grbs link to the end? Go back and re-read. You'll see that Tesla has a 51.5% share.

JD Power and a few other data providers routinely survey the industry. They (JD Power) are the the 'silver' standard. Nielsen is the 'gold' standard for measuring automotive purchase intent.

[SRG2]

This too funny.

Minnesota lawmaker behind ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ bill accused of soliciting minor

Minnesota state Sen. Justin Eichorn (R) was arrested on a federal charge via a criminal complaint for soliciting a minor on Monday, authorities said, hours after he introduced a bill proposing “Trump derangement syndrome” (TDS) as a form of mental illness.

Bloomington Police Department detectives had communicated with Eichorn, who was under the assumption he was talking to a 17-year-old girl, police said. Undercover officers began communicating with the legislator on March 17, according to a Justice Department release.

"I note that Eichorn does not appear to be a drag queen.

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

>Undercover officers began communicating with the legislator on March 17, according to a Justice Department release.

Conveniently a day after his sponsorship of a controversial bill the Deep State/Left didn't approve of.

Neat trick. Totally coincidental *wink* *wink*

[Magister]

Really neat trick in that he communicated with undercover officers over several days before his arrest, and therefore before sponsoring that bill.

[Kazinski]

Moved.

[not guilty]

The criminal complaint charging Sen. Eichorn, along with the supporting affidavit, are here: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-03/25-mj-142_eichorn_complaint_packet.pdf The affidavit is highly incriminating. Per 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) the mandatory minimum sentence is ten years confinement.

Conveniently a day after his sponsorship of a controversial bill the Deep State/Left didn't approve of.

Neat trick. Totally coincidental *wink* *wink*

And that is germane just how?? (Keep in mind that Pam Blondie's Justice Department brought the charge.)

[Commenter_XY]

NG, thank God the DOJ doesn't look the other way, anymore, and just sweep it under the proverbial rug = Keep in mind that Pam Blondie's Justice Department brought the charge

You have to wonder....this wasn't the first time, I bet. He just got caught this time.

I don't care who it is (white, black, Rep, Dem, lib, conserv)...the people who prey on children (even teenagers) are sick. In a just world, Eichorn will be put into the general prison population. Justice will be done with extreme prejudice.

[Satchmo_Lives]

"You have to wonder....this wasn't the first time, I bet. He just got caught this time."

I have become extremely cynical regarding the DOJ. I just want two questions answered. Is there anything in his digital history that supports his actions here? (What if this really is his first such encounter?) Was he baited by the FBI, or was he seeking out these kind of interactions? Even if he was baited, I am not defending the idiot pervert. I am only questioning the motives of the FBI.

I am hoping they wrapped this arrest up in few days from first encounter to arrest because they had already been alerted to his activities.

I hope for a little grace in trying nuance my distrust of justice is not a defense of his actions.

[Commenter_XY]

Time will tell. The digital stuff will come out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Judge Ana C. Reyes [whose Wikipedia page has a picture of her doggie] handed down an opinion yesterday in Nicholas Talbott et. al. v. United States et. al. , which "blocked President Donald Trump’s anti-trans military ban, including “Executive Order 14183—Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” as well as a similar policy issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth."

https://substack.com/inbox/post/159382910

Her final words:

The Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes. We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect. For, as Elmer Davis observed, “[t]his nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.”

The Court extends its appreciation to every current servicemember and veteran. Thank you.

[Kazinski]

So I have a hypothetical for you, what do you think the practical consequences would be if the Trump Administration put out a statement that due to the plethora of legal cases that they will not be complying with any TRO's from Federal District Court Judges, that purport to restrict the core executive powers of the Adminstration, until they have been confirmed by a 3 Judge Court of Appeals panel or the Supreme Court?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"We are breaking the law too much. We can't keep up with all these judicial orders. We will follow the law when we think it's appropriate."

[Commenter_XY]

Practical consequence: Scorched earth in Senate. No more unanimous consent, no nothing. Senate screeches to halt. Tax reform becomes iffy (very bad). House will be in an uproar, but bills will pass.

Nothing will change substantially in the electorate. People, some of them here, who hate POTUS Trump will still wish Crooks had not missed. That isn't changing. Highly doubtful there will be a huge crop of new OrangeManBad haters. Why? Most people are disengaged, politically. They won't really give a shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

She cited the Hamilton musical! So hip and cool.

[not guilty]

She could easily have cited Justice Holmes's observation in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921): "Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic."

Transgendered folks were allowed to serve in the armed forces during part of President Obama's second term, not allowed to serve during (most of) President Trump's first term, and again allowed to serve during President Biden's term. If the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice were serious about litigating rather than merely resting on conclusory, ipse dixit assertions, they could easily have compared military performance during the Trump I interregnum to the periods before and after.

I suspect that they didn't do that because they feared they would find no relevant difference.

[not guilty]

The District Court's Memorandum Opinion regarding transgender service members is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.89.0_1.pdf

The government got outlawyered here. The Plaintiffs submitted evidence supporting their claims; the Defendants inexplicably did not. The granting of a preliminary injunction accordingly comes as no surprise.

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

This is the second judge to complain that the elected officials didn't first seek permission from the unelected bureaucrats before implementing policy.

That seems counter to "democracy" as I understand the term.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thanks. The substack link also has a link to the opinion. I quoted the substack's summary, so cited that link.

One of the bloggers here once cited Chris Geidner & someone wondered why he didn't link an opinion. Geidner makes a big effort to include links and sometimes screenshots.

Erin Reed provides useful links regularly as well.

[Kazinski]

I've been pretty dismissive of talk about a civil war but NBC news has new poll out that when you dive down in the crosstabs you see that there are two large demographic cohorts that have almost nothing in common, and such a huge gulf of understanding between them that some sort of conflict is inevitable. Here are the net approval ratings on selected current topics:

Issue Cohort_A Cohort_B
Trump +41_____-38
Vance +36______-38
Musk. +33______-40
DOGE +31______-39
GOP +25______-35
Zelensky -5______+53
DEI -40______+31
Dem Party. -58_____-4

I would hope that such stark differences won't lead to violence, but it may come to that.

Cohort A is White Men, no Degree
Cohort B is White Women, with a Degree

If it happens it will be a short war.

[Commenter_XY]

Those two cohorts should marry each other, and work out their differences. 😉

[hobie]

When men a lot smarter than us have, for the last half century, instituted policies that stabilized our society and our racial hatreds, it's natural to fear civil war when those bulwarks are torn down

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

lol, get a load of this guy.

[Josh R]

Big winner: Zelensky. Big loser: Democratic party.

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

The mastermind behind some of the organized Tesla Domestic Terrorism was a middle aged White woman high school music teacher.

The hell we live in today is the fruit of the Marxist Feminism.

[David Nieporent]

You know that "Marxist" does not mean "anything I don't like," right?

[hobie]

As always, it's been amusing watching you hayseeds change your principles daily, depending on the latest outrage or instructions. I know I'm safe in my neighborhood. But are you safe in yours'? If you had the ability of self-reflection, you'd be concerned on where your fellow white neighbor hayseeds' daily hatreds are being directed on any given day. Could be you

[Armchair]

Time for everyone's most exciting game: Truth or Babylon Bee Headline!

Here are two headlines. One is True. One is from the Babylon Bee. You get to figure out which is which.

1. A New Jersey law now requires parents to identify their newborn child as Lesbian/Gay, Straight, or Bisexual. It also asks them to identify their newborn as Female, Male, Transgender Male, Transgender Female or GenderQueer.

2. An Imam at a mosque in the UK recently opened services with an acknowledgement of the indigenous Britons who inhabit London. Imam Kahlife Kakhir spent a short moment at the beginning of his prayer to recognize and remember the former inhabitants of the land which had been appropriated to build the mosque

Which is real...which is fake news...

[Satchmo_Lives]

I got it right only because I know damn well Muslims don't give a shit about multicultural coexistence.* That left the "however improbable" as the answer.

I don't think that is necessarily bad. I think we would be better off as a homogenous solution of many soluble substances. Now I need to check if NJ really did that.

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

Preview: They did. It's law.

[David Nieporent]

As should be expected from the source, that is not actually a law. No NJ law requires parents to identify their child's sex/gender/gender identity/term du jour.

[Satchmo_Lives]

They might have, but it was not intentional. The law required the gender-identity question to be included on health questionnaires. They didn't exempt questionnaires for children.

Do you a family history of colon cancer?
Do you have a family history of diabetes?
Do you still get morning wood?
[Gender questions]

Has your child had the MMP vaccine?
Does your child sleep well?
When was the last time your child saw a doctor?
{gender questions]

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but the bigger point is this: the health providers are required to ask; the parents are not required to answer.

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK. I see.

I have never really thought about it, but those questions from a doctor can't possibly be compulsory. Even though I kind of thought they were to receive service up until this very moment. I thought if I didn't want to answer, they didn't need to treat me (non-emergency).

"Sir, you didn't answer any questions on family history."

"It's private" probably wouldn't work."
"I am adopted" probably would.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The upshot is that hospitals are asking parents if their newborns are gay, and if they identify their newborns as male, female, transgender, genderqueer, etc.

No matter how ridiculous one side is, the other side is always "hold my beer!"

[Satchmo_Lives]

NJ passed the law that the gender data needs to be collected on health questionnaires (do you have family history of prostate cancer etc). Why? Go ask them why they need to know the gender identity of people. It seems the law didn't specifically rule out the questionnaire for newborns. So, some health providers have concluded they must also ask newborns.

TBH, it asks the parents how they identify their child and I wouldn't mind seeing how many kids turn out to be trans if their parents treat them as trans from birth. A dad in the past couple of weeks said the mother treated their son like a girl since age 2. It is story where the middle school refused to play against a trans player. He wasn't bagging on the other. They are still together. He simply stated as fact he eas treated as trans since the age of two.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Shit. I really need to slow down my proof reading.

It is the story where the middle schooler refused to play against a trans player. The father wasn't bagging on the mother. They are still together. He simply stated as fact he was treated as trans since the age of two.

[Armchair]

So, now that it's becoming abundantly clear that COVID came out of a lab in Wuhan China, as we all knew it was....

Are we allowed to call all those people who denied it could be true (and continue to prevaricate about it) "Covid deniers"?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-it-can-be-told/

[David Nieporent]

It is not, of course, becoming abundantly clear; there is no new evidence. Again, for the slow: the NYT editorial that sparked this did not show anything of the kind. The actual topic was that the government was pushing the idea that the lab leak story couldn't be true, when they didn't have the evidence for that. But not having evidence to disprove it does not actually prove it.

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

That's some pretty spectacular bootlicking, David. Even for you.

[Armchair]

Looks like we got Covid denier #1. Perhaps you should ask China to increase your paycheck.

[David Nieporent]

More IKYABWAI? from MAGA, who pretended that it was just the flu.

[Armchair]

Tell us David...where do you think COVID came from? Your personal opinion.

Was it leaked from a lab in China? Or...do you "just not really know for sure".

[Bwaaah]

"Oh. I'm sorry. What is a wet bar, David. A place in Wuhan where Chinese people go to eat infected bats. That's the question we were looking for: What is a wet bar? Your turn again, David."

"I'll take Things the U.S. Government Said for 50, Armchair."

[Bwaaah]

(No Bwaaah, it was "wet market.")

[Josh R]

Neiporent is correct. The government lied when it claimed that it was very unlikely COVID originated in a lab. There continues to be honest disagreement about where it did come from.

[Armchair]

"There continues to be honest disagreement about where it did come from."

Sure....and there's "honest disagreement" as to whether Biden really won the 2020 election, or if "election shenanagins" shifted the vote from Trump to Biden.

[Josh R]

Got any citations for your claim there is no doubt it came from the lab?

[Satchmo_Lives]

They absolutely had evidence the lab leak theory could be true, and lied. That is different than just not knowing, or not knowing for sure.

You keep pushing the thought they didn't lie because they didn't know for sure. They lied when they said it couldn't be true. If I tell you I know something and I don't, it is a lie. They accepted inconclusive science as fact; "the evolution of the virus proves it could not have been man made." There were respected epidemiologists AT THE TIME saying it was man made

David, this isn't ignorance on their part and you know it. Add in all the surrounding facts of doing gain of function in THAT lab. The NIH was indirectly funding it. Fauci having his reputation on the line. It all adds up to stinking to high heavens.

Your defense of mere ignorance instead of malfeasance is comical considering Fauci claimed he himself was science.

[Absaroka]

DMN, in the comment you are responding to: "The actual topic was that the government was pushing the idea that the lab leak story couldn't be true, when they didn't have the evidence for that."

You: "You keep pushing the thought they didn't lie because they didn't know for sure. They lied when they said it couldn't be true."

These seem to be saying the same thing: the government was insisting a lab leak was impossible, when they knew it was possible.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Yeah, I meant to respond to David who is arguing the government didn't really lie because they were ignorant at the time.

I was trying to say they knew they didn't have all the facts, but made an unequivocal statement anyway which makes it a lie (an intent to deceive).

I am not going to screw with it now, but thanks for allowing me to clarify.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, I meant to respond to David who is arguing the government didn't really lie because they were ignorant at the time.

Is there some other David in this thread? Because that's not at all what I said. I'm not discussing whether they may have lied; I'm discussing what they lied about.

[Josh R]

I interpreted Nieporent as saying the government lied when claiming it could not possibly have come from the lab. But he did not claim the government lied because they knew it did come from a lab. They didn't know. They still don't know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the NYT editorial "

It was an Op-Ed.

[Commenter_XY]

I much prefer the term 'Branch Covidian'.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To reference something mentioned, I do not think impeachment is appropriate for handing down horrible judicial rulings.

The answer to Dred Scott was not impeachment. An amendment was the appropriate path. Lincoln also raised the possibility of the justices changing their minds.

Realistically, that would have come with new appointments. The Court was significantly different by the mid-1860s.

Term limits are appropriate. If they were relatively short (10 years?), in theory, they could serve as retention elections. The Senate could determine if a judge should stay in.

Some argue impeachment means anything a majority of the House accepts. You can say that about other things -- the law is whatever five justices say it is. But, that goes a tad too far.

The Constitution sets forth impeachment criteria. It is not the same thing as maladministration or making bad decisions.

A discussion can be had, including regarding ethics laws, limits on national injunctions, use of three-judge panels, and more.

[hobie]

Watching Trump belittle Zelensky and the Ukrainian people and strip their protections is also amusing to me. What I like to do is pretend that all them kidnapped or exploded Ukrainian children are Jewish. That would make their lives far more valuable

[Satchmo_Lives]

I want you people to offer solutions. You must keep in mind a few cold, hard facts.

1. There are an estimated one million dead
2. Dumping more resources and more resources will continue the stalemate
3. Ukraine CANNOT, repeat for the hard of hearing, CANNOT win unless NATO directly joins in the fight.
4. Putin is winning* and can keep this up for years to come.
5. What strategy is there to employ to get the winning side to back down without concessions? "We asked nice. Can't you stop."

Maybe Obama had it right. Just let Putin have Crimea. The alternative is millions dead, trillions spent, and Putin gets Ukraine in the end because WE DO NOT WANT TO ACTUALLY GO TO WAR TO WIN. And what does it even mean if NATO decides to join? Nuclear?

*he is winning because a stalemate is winning for him

[David Nieporent]

1. There are an estimated one million dead

When your first "cold hard fact" is utterly wrong, is there really much point in going beyond that?
There are not, in fact, an estimated one million dead. Where on earth did you get that idea from? That would be an insane death rate from a war.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Sorry one million dead and wounded. That is a big difference. It is not a small mistake. I googled "dead in Ukraine war" and got the Newsweek Feb 19, 2025 issue saying one million dead...and wounded."

https://www.newsweek.com/people-died-casualties-russia-ukraine-war-update-2033371

Yeah you got me. It wasn't intentional, but you got me. It was sloppy.

Doesn't change one goddamn thing though. What do you people think we should do other than negotiate with the dominate power by offering concessions?

[hobie]

David...these are trolls. They exist to say only contrarian things whether they believe them or not. As the adults, it is our duty to observe

[Satchmo_Lives]

You still haven't offered any solution that would stop the war. I am not a troll. I asked you serious questions on how a terrible war could be stopped other than direct involvement or concessions to the greater power. You choose to ignore and say "orange man bad."

And to show your utter stupidity you compare the war in Ukraine with the Israel/Hamas conflict and think Hamas is the wrongly prosecuted entity like Ukraine.

Offer an opinion on what might work in Ukraine or STFU.

Argue all you want on how bad Israel is prosecuting the war. It has nothing to do with how to resolve the bigger problem in Ukraine. Try not to confuse the two. I know it must be hard for you.

[hobie]

Alt headline in an alt universe about Gaza/Israel:

"There's an estimated 1 million dead in Ukraine/Israel"
"Dumping more resources will continue the stalemate"
"Ukraine/Gaza CANNOT, repeat for the hard of hearing, CANNOT win unless NATO directly joins in the fight.

Not gonna continue to badger you over your self-preoccupation. Think about your fellow man and not your tribe or yourself
...once in a while

[Satchmo_Lives]

Except it is not a stalemate. NATO doesn't need to intervene for the IDF to completely eliminate Hamas. NATO* is preventing Israel from just doing it.

Now answer the fucking question. What alternatives do you offer that differ from giving the more powerful and winning side concessions to stop the war? Or, directly intervene?

You have nothing and you know it. If Obama was doing this you guys would be offering him for a Nobel which he might have earned. I mean he simply conceded Crimea.

Two non-answers from the peanut gallery. Keep it up. At least David took the time to point out my error to keep from responding.

*Not as an organization, but the individual members.

[tylertusta]

he is winning because a stalemate is winning for him

It's not even a stalemate. Russia is slowly but steadily gaining ground. This will continue until the Ukrainian army is a spent force and the front line collapses.

History is filled of examples of exactly this circumstance happening: Western Front of WW1, Western and Eastern theaters of the US Civil War, Eastern Front of WW2, and so on.

[Absaroka]

"This will continue until the Ukrainian army is a spent force and the front line collapses"

Can you flesh out your reasoning?

With the StdDisclaimer that I'm not getting any classified briefings, and both sides have incentives to fudge casualty estimates, the best open source numbers I have seen show the Ukr:Rus casualty figures to be about the same ratio as their respective populations. That seems to partly be differences in training, and partly just the expected difference between attacker and defender. ISTM if that ratio was 1:1 the Russians would have won by now, instead of importing North Koreans, and wouldn't be recruiting old men.

To be clear, I'm not saying Ukr is a shoo-in to win, but I really don't get the 'Russia is guaranteed to win' argument either; the data doesn't seem to support that.

Similarly for "Russia is slowly but steadily gaining ground". That's true enough, with emphasis on 'slowly' Some wag looked up the speed of a garden snail, and if the snail had started in the Donbas 3 years ago it would be in Poland by now[1]. Or if you compare Russian casualties/acre to acres seized, Russia will run out of soldiers long before Ukraine runs out of acres.

[1]whether that's true depends on what speed you use for snails; there is a wide range of speeds reported, but still...

[tylertusta]

... casualty figures to be about the same ratio as their respective populations...

Even if this is true, ratios only get you so far. There's a bare minimum manpower figure that you'd need to cover a certain area of the front lines.

The solution to a problem like that is either recruiting more soldiers to bring you back up to the minimum required or you retreat to a shorter defensive line, allowing you to concentrate your remaining forces.

... the Russians would have won by now, instead of importing North Koreans ...

I see this brought up every now and then as if it's a sign of Russian weakness when it's actually the opposite.

Consider this: What if North Korea withdraws their troops tomorrow? Is that better for Ukraine or worse for Ukraine?

Facing less troops is better for Ukraine.

and wouldn't be recruiting old men.

This means less than you think. Those are still 'volunteers.'

Russia hasn't resorted to total mobilization of their population. They are basically trying to win with one arm tied behind their back (for domestic political reasons that aren't relevant to this conversation).

Or if you compare Russian casualties/acre to acres seized, Russia will run out of soldiers long before Ukraine runs out of acres.

By gaining "steadily gaining ground" I'm referring to not just territory captured, but also in the race to grind down the other side's army.

[David Nieporent]

(for domestic political reasons that aren't relevant to this conversation).

Of course they're relevant! How many wars are lost or abandoned because of domestic political reasons?

[tylertusta]

The chain of events that would be needed to go from Russia fully mobilizing to Russia losing the war before Ukraine does is unlikely, which is why they aren't relevant here.

[Absaroka]

"How many wars are lost or abandoned because of domestic political reasons?"

(Almost) All of them! I mean, the Germans didn't stop fighting merely because the Red Army was setting in Berlin; they could have continued a guerilla war (and there was considerable fear they would). They stopped because the German people at large decided being occupied was preferable to fighting.

The rare exceptions would be wars of annihilation. I recall a couple of towns in Gaul that revolted once too often and Caesar simply massacred all of the inhabitants when his siege succeeded.

[Absaroka]

"Russia hasn't resorted to total mobilization of their population."

Sure, neither has Ukraine. What is your view on why Russia hasn't done that? My sense is that Putin is worried about domestic unrest if he starts sending 18 year old conscripts from Moscow and Leningrad to Ukraine. He perhaps remembers the effect the Afghan war had on the USSR. If doesn't view a WWII total war footing as dangerous, why hasn't he done so? It seems unlikely he just doesn't want to take undue advantage :-).

"There's a bare minimum manpower figure ..."
"but also in the race to grind down the other side's army"

I'm not sure I follow the contention that a 100 v 300 defense can succeed but a 10 v 30 can't.

[tylertusta]

Sure, neither has Ukraine.

Unlike Russia, Ukraine has to rely heavily on conscription of military-aged males to do the fighting. Ukraine is in a midst of a manpower crisis because they're running out of bodies to throw at the problem. Meanwhile, Russia still largely withholds their conscripts from fighting in Ukraine proper.

If you had to choose between the manpower problems akin to what the Russians face versus the manpower problems akin to what Ukraine face, you'd rather be having the problems that the Russians do.

What is your view on why Russia hasn't done that? My sense is that Putin is worried about domestic unrest if he starts sending 18 year old conscripts from Moscow and Leningrad to Ukraine.

I put more emphasis on the 1st Chechen War. The Russians had less control over media than the Soviets did, so the disastrous defeat that was the 1st Chechen War was far more prominent for the Russian people.

Also, it's called 'Saint Petersberg' now.

Russians prefering to send non-ethnic Russians in to fight is how the Russians have fought their wars since Russia existed.

I'm not sure I follow the contention that a 100 v 300 defense can succeed but a 10 v 30 can't.

Imagine that you have a 10-mile long front that you are responsible for defending. If you have only 100 men to defend it, your men will be- on average- one tenth of a mile apart from each other.* That sucks, as there are almost certainly going to be gaps in your defensive lines. Letting the enemy get into your rear is very bad.**

Your enemy has 300 soldiers. They can pick and choose where to attack, and they have the luxury of concentrating into one big ball and attack at just one part of your defensive line, or they can attack at two places at once. The chances of them finding gaps in your line are high, and once they get past you you're done.

Now imagine that instead you have 10,000 troops to cover that same 10-mile stretch, or roughly 1,000 troops per mile. The enemy has 30,000 soldiers. The upshot is that now you don't have these massive gaps in your lines. You can afford to scatter scouts around to make sure the enemy doesn't slip behind you unseen while you keep the bulk of your troops in reserve and capable of meeting the enemy wherever they go.

If you consolidate your troops to detachments of 10-men squads, that's ten miles between each squad which creates massive gaps in the front that you're supposed to be defending. 300 enemies can drive through your lines like they aren't even there to attack your rear areas.

This is known as the ratio of troops to space. A lot of ink has been spilled among military theorists on trying to continually find and refine the tactical and strategic minimum number of soldiers you need to defend a frontage.

*This is a highly simplistic version of how fronts work. Fronts aren't troops just lined up in a trench one besides the other in a linear fashion. They have depth to them which extends a dozen or more miles behind the very front edge.

**These distances/sizes are exaggerated for just this example. In reality, 100 soldiers would defend something like a single hill or a couple of hills. 10 miles is far too much distance to cover for just 100 men.

[tylertusta]

If you're interested in learning more about minimum numbers of forces, here's some light reading:

The Ratio of Troops to Space by B. Hart:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/PDF-UA-docs/Liddell-Hart-Space-1960-UA.pdf

Offense-Defense Balance, Force-to-Space Ratios, and Defense Effectiveness by S. Biddle

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-13095-5_7

US Army FM-3 (which explains the goals and methods to overextend/disappointing an enemy force while preventing the same for yourself)

https://carlcgsc.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=66069091

[tylertusta]

"disappointing" should be "dissipating"

[Commenter_XY]

so the battle line is 600 miles, and the tactical minimum is 250 men/mile. Just to patrol and hold the border properly takes 150K soldiers, and that is before mounting an attack of any kind.

UKR can't win.

[Absaroka]

Neither could Frederick the Great, then. The math proves it.

[Absaroka]

"Unlike Russia, Ukraine has to rely heavily on conscription of military-aged males to do the fighting. Ukraine is in a midst of a manpower crisis because they're running out of bodies to throw at the problem."

The demographics of the two forces are similar. Both are running out of bodies, which is why e.g. the bonuses Russia is paying keep climbing, as does the average age. And they burned through the criminals willing to go to Ukraine for a pardon.

Again, my thesis isn't that Ukraine is sailing along worry free while Russia is tottering; it is that both are hurting. My disagreement is with the notion that it is unpossible for Ukraine to outlast Russia.

"minimum numbers of forces"

There are wars which don't have fixed lines. Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Boer Wars, etc, etc. The VC/NVA didn't lose because they couldn't stop the Americans from breaking through their lines.

I just don't find your 100% confidence persuasive; time will tell.

[Absaroka]

By the way, from one of your links: "Seven Years’ War:
In the early stages, 1756-57, Frederick the Great covered his southern front of about 400 miles with nearly 100,000 men (250 men to the mile strategically) against enemy forces double his strength. Later, the enemy coalition brought its total forces in
the field up to nearly 400,000 while his total rarely exceeded 150,000 (and diminished from losses during each year’s campaign). With that total strength he had to cover an all-around frontage of about 1,500 miles (100 men to the mile strategically). Although suffering several bad reverses, offsetting his riposte successes, he succeeded in holding out until the enemy coalition dissolved in 1763"

2.6 to 1 troop disadvantage, 1500 mile front, not that different from Ukraine. And "succeeded in holding out until the enemy coalition dissolved". Should he have surrendered three years in because he was obviously spread so thin defense was hopeless?

Also, it may be that drones change things. Prior to this war you could defend what you could see from your foxhole. Drones let you see - and shoot - quite a bit farther.

[tylertusta]

2.6 to 1 troop disadvantage, 1500 mile front, not that different from Ukraine

You're confusing strategic ratios for tactical ones. I suggest you read the sections on what a tactical space ratio is and how it's different from a strategic one. Frederick the Great didn't spread his troops out to cover all of the lines. Rather, he had armies that were mobile. He besieged cities, engaged in pitched battles, and retreated when necessary.

[Absaroka]

He successfully defended that front with those troops until his opponent went home.

What he didn't do was surrender 3 years in because of advice that defending that front with those troops was impossible.

[tylertusta]

The demographics of the two forces are similar. Both are running out of bodies, which is why e.g. the bonuses Russia is paying keep climbing, as does the average age. And they burned through the criminals willing to go to Ukraine for a pardon.

They have similarities, but they also have differences. Ukraine has a population about 1/4th to 1/8th that of Russia's. Ukraine reached the bottom of their volunteer barrel before the invasion in 2022.

Meanwhile, Russia hasn't even tapped out their volunteer pool yet.

And they have North Korean soldiers helping them, which means that Russia can delay mass conscription even further.

There are wars which don't have fixed lines. Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Boer Wars, etc, etc. The VC/NVA didn't lose because they couldn't stop the Americans from breaking through their lines.

Ukraine is currently what is called a 'large-scale combat operation,' commonly referred to as conventional warfare. There are no comparisons to be made between Ukraine and various insurgencies.

As an aside, people are too enamored with insurgencies (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Boer Wars) and often don't understand what makes them win or what makes them lose. No one wants to fight as the insurgent if they can help it. Every insurgency hopes that one day they can become powerful enough to challenge their enemy through conventional forces and drive them to defeat.

[Absaroka]

"Every insurgency hopes that one day they can become powerful enough to challenge their enemy through conventional forces and drive them to defeat."

Well, that, or outlasting the will of the invader. Which isn't rare - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria, Indonesia, etc. The insurgency getting defeated is actually a bit rarer - Boers, Malaya, ???

Heck, America didn't have a prayer of defeating Britain, but we did have a chance of avoiding defeat until they decided continuing the war wasn't worth it to them.

The outcome of wars can be pretty hard to predict. What predictions would you have been making when the Germans, or Napoleon, were in the suburbs of Moscow (well, Napoleon was downtown!), or during Mao's Long March? Lots of confident predictions about wars over the years that turn out to be wrong.

[tylertusta]

Not rare.

Victory Has a Thousand Fathers: Sources of Success In Counterinsurgency

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG964.pdf

[Absaroka]

Table S.3, page xx: of 30 cases studied, 22 wins fro the insurgents, 8 wins for COIN.

I'm not going to tot them up - there are hundreds going back to Rome - but Asprey's 'War in the Shadows' has a lot more insurgent wins than losses. In any event, I'm not contending that 'Ukraine must win' or 'Ukraine would definitely win a guerilla war'. My objection is to the notion their chance of winning is 0%.

[tylertusta]

Why would you ever want to look at pre-WW2 insurgencies when comparing to the modern day?

[Absaroka]

Well, human nature - the willingness to suffer to obtain self determination - hasn't changed in recorded history. But if you prefer your 30 examples with 22 successful insurgencies, I'm OK with that.

[tylertusta]

I wouldn't exactly call it rare. There's a reason why Ukraine hasn't resorted to insurrection instead of conventional conflict, and I've already told you why.

You can think that insurgencies are somehow relevant here, but they're not.

You do you, buddy.

[David Nieporent]

History is filled of examples of exactly this circumstance happening: Western Front of WW1,

I mean, half a million fresh American troops had just been sent to the front lines. Do you anticipate an analogous relief effort in favor of Russia in this conflict?

[tylertusta]

The failed German offensive that started the spring of 1917- culminating in the disastrous 2nd Battle of the Marne- was the beginning of the end as far as German high command was concerned. The offensive destroyed the last pool of manpower that Germany had to wage offensive operations while also destroying their last real reserves. After the battle it was an inevitability that Germany would ask for terms, and this would ideally occur before Germany itself was invaded.

The AEF was still only starting a buildup by the time of the 2nd Battle of the Marne with somewhere around 20k troops in France by then. The British and French armies were still not spent forces and were able to make good losses from their own nations and from drawing on their colonial troops.

Do you anticipate an analogous relief effort in favor of Russia in this conflict?

Yes. North Korea is doing that right now albeit on a smaller scale than the American intervention in WW1.

[Kazinski]

Greenpeace RIP.

Greenpeace must pay more than $650M in case over Dakota Access protest activities, jury finds

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/jury-reaches-verdict-in-trial-of-pipeline-company-s-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-spokesperson-says/ar-AA1Bgidi

[hobie]

A lot of Jews in Greenpeace's ranks. A lot. You're sounding like a Palestinian protester

[Bored Lawyer]

There are a lot of Jews in the loony bin, too. Your comment is nothing but a false accusation of antisemitism. There is nothing particularly Jewish about Greenpeace.

[hobie]

Remember how Trump said that all the Jewish people - and by inference their children - are no longer Jewish because they vote liberal? Do you remember how he insulted the Jewish people in our nation that way? Of course you do

Also, do you remember when Trump said that Catholics and Baptists are no longer Christian because they supported the least among us? Of course you don't because he never said that. All he said was the Jews were shit

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump said no such thing. He complained that Jews were not supporting him, on which he was right.

And, frankly, he has been better for Jews than any president in quite some time. One party is beholden to radical leftists who want to commit genocide against the Jews. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" means "free from Jews." Which means killing most of them there.

The other party isn't.

[David Nieporent]

The other party is open Nazis.

[Bored Lawyer]

Really? I don't see the GOP carving swaztikas on buildings and calling people "Jew lover" while assaulting them.

I have a beard and walk about with a kippah. I would be afraid to walk through Columbia University (where I attended law school 30 some years ago.) No such fear in walking through, say, Birmingham, Alabama.

Yeah, I know you hate Trump. Frankly, he's a flawed human being whom I wish had retired to Mar-A-Lago. But I stand by my statement: the Democratic party is beholden to its left wing, which is increasingly dominated by Jew-haters.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to deport the guy who organized much of the Jew-hatred at Columbia.

[David Nieporent]

The left wing is wildly anti-Israel, and of course anti-Israel and antisemite frequently go hand-in-hand. But the Democratic Party is not even a little bit "beholden" to those people. In fact, they had a tantrum in 2024 because Harris wouldn't endorse their views. Meanwhile, the far right in this country doesn't bother to hide their antisemitism behind a fig leaf of anti-Zionism; they're just openly antisemitic.

[Commenter_XY]

Who is running Team D? Those very same left wing, anti-Israel, antisemitic party members.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody "is running" the Democratic Party, unless you mean in a purely formalist sense who's the chair of the DNC. But that's a fundraising job, not a policy job. (In any case, the chair of the DNC appears to be very pro-Israel.) And contrary to what Trump may have told you, Chuck Schumer — an important figure, but not "running" the party — is not Palestinian. Jeffries is pro-Israel.

And as Prof. Bernstein has noted, the anti-Israel stuff on campuses — who most definitely do not run the Democratic Party — has tailed way off, reflecting the fact that this was less about Israel than about an internal struggle for power in the Democratic Party than actually about Israel.

[Martinned2]

Like DN said, there is no "Team D". US political parties have no leadership unless they hold the White House.

[hobie]

He said...in front of both you and me, with cameras rolling, that Jews were not Jews because they did not vote for him. Heh...like I said earlier, I'm eternally amused that the things you hate suddenly change. Try as I might, I cannot think that way. How do you do it?

[Kazinski]

A lot of Jews on Wallstreet too, I hear, I bet they are happy.

Now maybe you are going to accuse me of callous indifference, but usually when I think about an issue considering how it will affect the jews one way or another isn't on my checklist of factors to consider.

[DixieTune]

Most Wall Street Jews don't have a religion beyond making money. So I'm sure they are.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Disliking Greenpeace blowing up private property is exactly the same as disliking Jews. No daylight whatsoever.

[Bored Lawyer]

You made the point well. Dumping on Greenpeace has nothing to do with Jews.

[Bored Lawyer]

There is a statute that provides for three-judge district courts. 28 USC 2284. You can read the details here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2284
It's made up of three judges, one of whom must be a Circuit judge. Appeals are to SCOTUS.

Rarely used today, but I think given the spate of national injunction cases, it would make sense to use them in such cases. Three-judge panels tend to be less prone to doing off things, as they have colleagues to answer to. And there is an immediate appeal to SCOTUS. If we are going to challenge a major policy decision of the Executive branch and bind the entire country, we should have the benefit of some collective wisdom. (I might tweak the statute a bit. It allows one judge to issue a TRO. Perhaps that should only be allowed if there is a rehearing among the three judges within a few days.)

[Commenter_XY]

Needs an act of Congress.
A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress...

How would you route just the controversial cases to this court?

[Bored Lawyer]

You would have to come up with some category of cases. Someone seeking a nationwide injunction against the government, that benefits more than just the immediate plaintiffs, would be a start.

[Bwaaah]

As a layperson, this looks like an interestingly appropriate paradigm for the moment. (Am I wrong that it would have to have a filibuster-proof majority?)

I know little of the forest, so you can point me at [almost] any tree and say "that's a good one" and I'd have no reason to believe otherwise. With that in mind, as a first question, what aspects of this strategy do you think may be ill-advised, or may present insurmountable hurdles?

[Riva]

Start with cases challenging presidential orders.

[Riva]

It has to be made mandatory in cases challenging presidential orders. And something should be added to limit forum shopping.

[David Nieporent]

I have googled, but I haven't found any comments from Riva objecting to the judges in the 5th circuit who, several years ago, enjoined Biden's order that all military personnel be vaccinated. Nor the ones who enjoined the Biden administration's order that federal contractors have their employees vaccinated.

Weird. It's almost like the principle here doesn't have anything to do with the constitution or the law, and instead is just, "King Trump should be allowed to do whatever he wants."

[Martinned2]

Gee, who could have seen this coming:

SEC drops case against crypto firm with ties to Trump, CEO says
(...)
The move, which was not confirmed by the SEC, prevents Ripple from potentially facing a $125 million fine -- and comes less than two weeks after Garlinghouse was at the White House for President Donald Trump's crypto summit.

Ripple also donated $5 million to Trump's inaugural committee, sources previously told ABC News, and Garlinghouse posted a photo to social media of him meeting with Trump in January.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/sec-drops-case-crypto-firm-ties-trump-ceo/story?id=119963257

A 2400% return on investment. Not bad...

[Martinned2]

By the way, this one from yesterday is also not good:

Judge Howell is worried that if she orders DOGE to leave the USIP building it could turn into an “armed standoff” over unwillingness to vacate, and points out law enforcement has shown willingness to help DOGE. Asks if we’ll need foreign mediators to come in.

https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqyjeozok2x

[David Nieporent]

I'm sure Trump's boss good friend Vlad would be happy to assist.

[Martinned2]

The AFP is reporting that Mark Carney will soon call a general election, and that the general election date will be 28 April.

https://bsky.app/profile/afpnews.bsky.social/post/3lksrll3x5i2m

That's interesting, because I'd heard that Carney would wait until after the G7 summit in June. Which made sense to me, from an electioneering POV.

[ducksalad]

I think on this issue Canadian voters aren't a lot different that American voters: many don't even know what a G7 summit is, only a tiny minority have even a mild interest in what happens there, and approximately zero will make it their deciding issue.

So it could be it's more important to Carney to capitalize on the current anger against Trump and the perception that his party is the one fighting back, before Trump moves his focus for insults to some other country and Canadians start to forgive and forget.

[Martinned2]

I would have thought that having Trump come to Canada and behave like a jackass would make the prime minister who tells him to fuck off look good...

[CronosTruth]

Why are liberals on a libertarian blog so surprised to read a different viewpoint?

[Martinned2]

Have you seen any libertarianism on this blog lately? (Other than from some of the bloggers.)

[ducksalad]

S_0 has it correct. For the time being the actual libertarians and the liberals have the same concerns. We'll (hopefully) be able to go back to bashing and knifing each other in January 2029 but there are higher priorities right now.

[Sarcastr0]

The liberals on this blog are currently joining the actual libertarians arguing against monarchical power concentrations and in favor of institutional freedom from federally mandated culture-war bullshit conditions.

The folks on here who get mad that their hug-box isn't pure are the MAGA snowflakes.

[Life of Brian]

The folks on here who get mad that their hug-box isn't pure

Don't forget the folks on here who still value plain-English communication.

[ducksalad]

I looked it up and learned a new word. Not a particularly valuable addition since we already have "safespace" but it allows changing up the insults in a long exchange.

[Bwaaah]

For a libertarian, you're very picky about which individual liberties, and which types of people, you defend.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were one of those single-issue, Monday morning libertarians.

I'm kidding. Libertarian Sarcastr0. GMAFB.

[Sarcastr0]

Condolences on your illiteracy.

[SRG2]

And we're back to Krasnov again:

CIA denies Trump and Putin's claims on Ukrainian troops encirclement in Kursk region - Reuters

Ukrainian soldiers have retreated in the Kursk region in recent days, but are not surrounded by Russian troops. CIA data refute simultaneous statements by US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, according to Reuters.

US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, shared this assessment with the White House last week, sources told Reuters. However, Trump continued to claim that Ukrainian troops were surrounded in the Kursk region of western Russia.

Experts described Putin's March 13 statement that Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region were cut off and would eventually have to surrender or die as disinformation designed to show that Russia was offering concessions to save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers, giving Putin leverage in ceasefire negotiations.

Of course, the cultists will believe Krasnov and Putin because they are beacons of pravda.

[David Nieporent]

Uh oh. Expect some CIA officials to get fired soon for contradicting the Dear Leader.

[Commenter_XY]

Uh boy, the gov't essentially 'flipped off' Judge 'Leftist Lunatic' Biasberg in court today. The judge was not pleased. He would like to see a Cabinet officer in his court tomorrow.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5206108-trump-administration-venezuelan-deportation-flights/

Let's see if the judge pursues civil contempt and criminal contempt.

[not guilty]

The judge is not ordering a Cabinet officer to personally appear in court. He has ordered the filing of a sworn declaration not later than 10:00 a.m. tomorrow from "a person with direct involvement in the Cabinet-level discussions regarding invocation of the state-secrets privilege." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.47.0_2.pdf

IOW the judge regards the DOJ lawyers' representations to be worthless. That is an uncomfortable spot for a lawyer to be in.

I surmise that the judge is trying to identify whom to charge with contempt of his previous order(s). It will be interesting to see whether anyone invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, and if so, whether the judge would grant use immunity to any such person.

To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo: Marco, Pam and Kristi, you got some 'splaining to do.