Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Resolution of President Trump's hamhanded attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelans whom Trump deems to be alien enemies, without any opportunity for judicial review, certainly should not turn on the identity of the principals involved in the controversy.

That having been said, Pam Blondie's Department of Justice could have picked its fights more carefully than to tangle with a jurist whom Chief Justice Roberts had appointed to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in 2014, where he served as the presiding judge from 2020 to 2021, and to the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court where he was designated chief judge, who was the law school roommate of Brett Kavanaugh, and who made his bones as a homicide prosecutor in the United States Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boasberg

Pass the popcorn.

[Frank Drackman]

General Blondi(see what I did? I took your sexist epithet and slapped your face with it) has more testosterone in her pocket than imagined in Judge Bozos philosophy, weren’t you the one getting a boner over how tough the Special Prosecutor was? (Can’t even remember his name)

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Bozoberg was the judge who approved the FISA warrants to spy on Candidate Trump's campaign, and never asked any questions as he approved the warrants. And did that 4X.

Forum shopping?

[John F. Carr]

D.C. is a good district if you want a liberal judge. I don't think plaintiffs picked the specific judge, but sometimes a single judge is on call for emergency matters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LEFTIST judge. These f***heads are way too intolerant to ever be called "liberal."

[Sarcastr0]

His wiki doesn't look liberal much at all. More bipartisan, if not conservative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boasberg

-Appointed by President George W. Bush
-Elevated by Obama
-Feeder judge to the current Supreme Court.

[Martinned2]

Haven't you heard? George W. Bush and the current Supreme Court are liberal too!

[DixieTune]

Jorge Bush was a liberal at heart. He supported filling America with illiterate Aztecs, because he was friends with a lot of Mexicans as a child.

[Bob from Ohio]

"conservative"

LOL Good one.

Superior Court appointments are made via a recommendation from a DC commission. The wiki article has a link to the 2015 roster, their web site has the current roster. You think a"conservative" is getting recommended?

[tylertusta]

As the Chief Judge, he has (and apparently used) his authority to assign the case to himself.

[Sarcastr0]

That doesn't seem right.

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/local_rules/Local%20Rules%20May_2022_0.pdf

This was the latest rules version I could find.

I couldn't find any rules where assignments were done done by the chief judge.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's somewhat of a history of gaming assignments in that circuit, going back decades. The rules nominally don't allow it, but if happens anyway.

Unraveling the Controversy: Judge Norma Holloway Johnson'S Involvement ...

[Sarcastr0]

'I'ma use this Clinton-era conspiracy to bootstrap a different conspiracy!'

You're a child who just makes up whatever they like to avoid a sometimes complicated reality.

[tylertusta]

Yes, I know what the rules say. As Chief Judge he can override them to direct the clerk to assign the cases however he sees fit.

Boasberg writes the schedule for the emergency judges to cover weekends. He also amends them through another order to the clerk.

Here's the schedule for 1Q as of two weeks ago (Wayback Machine doesn't have anything more recent):

https://web.archive.org/web/20250304200914/https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/Revised%20Emergency%20Assignment%20List%20_001.pdf

Here's his latest order to the Clerk altering the schedule for two weekends:

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/Revised%20Emergency%20Assignment%20List_001.pdf

Two things stand out to me.

The first is that Boasberg is never on the schedule as the emergency judge; I guess rank does have its privileges!

The second is that Boasberg said during the Saturday hearing that his chambers was in contact with the plaintiffs before they filed their case, so he was in a position to direct the clerk to give him the case before the case even hit the ECF.

[Sarcastr0]

As Chief Judge he can override them to direct the clerk to assign the cases however he sees fit.

You assert this. You do not back it up.

You then make serious accusations without serious supporting evidence. Because you are not a serious person.

[tylertusta]

I'm not playing your stupid games today, Peanut.

[Riva]

And, we could add, as President of the Edward Bennett Williams American Inn of Court, Boasberg enjoys a lot of other privileges mere mortals couldn't possibly imagine. Like having justice Roberts immediately come to his brother members' defense. Must be nice being in this special elite clique. I wonder if they have their own little handshakes?

[Life of Brian]

I couldn't find any rules where assignments were done done by the chief judge.

Well, great. Then you've just painted him into an even tighter corner for somehow magically ending up with this case when he was not the assigned emergency judge for that weekend, as I pointed out in the Wednesday thread.

[tylertusta]

Boasberg said his chambers was in communications with plaintiffs Saturday Morning before they filed for the TRO.

Not sure why Sarastr0 is trying to die on this hill. It's not a very defensible one, it's covered in bullshit, and smells like bad faith.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it's covered in bullshit, and smells like bad faith."

You've read Sarcasto before? This surprises you somehow.

[tylertusta]

Surprised is perhaps too strong of a word. It's more of a "concerned for his mental well-being."

[Commenter_XY]

And to think, it is only 2 months in, with 46 months to go. Maybe he should take SSRI's now.

[Sarcastr0]

Y'all put together a conspiracy theory in real time and are mad at me that I called it out.

[tylertusta]

What conspiracy theory? Everyone else (including Boasberg!) is in agreement with what happened.

The only one who has a problem with that is you.

As our mutual friend Mr. Guilty likes to say: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[David Nieporent]

Judge Bozoberg was the judge who approved the FISA warrants to spy on Candidate Trump's campaign, and never asked any questions as he approved the warrants. And did that 4X.

1) Using "spy on" for surveillance with a warrant is tendentious.
2) There were no FISA warrants to "spy on" — or surveil — Trump's campaign. There were instead FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page, who was not part of Trump's campaign when they were issued.
3) There were four FISA warrants issued against Carter Page: one initial warrant, and three subsequent renewals.¹ Exactly zero of those warrants were approved by Judge Boasberg. You don't need to repeat everything you see on Twitter without checking it out. Especially when I already debunked this a couple of days ago. The four warrants were approved by (in order) judges Rosemary Collyer, Michael Mosman, Anne Conway, and Raymond Dearie.
​
​
¹Actually, there was a fifth one, but it was several years earlier, in 2014. Carter Page was not some random bystander who was arbitrarily targeted by DOJ to get Trump; he was a guy who had a history of suspicious dealings with the Russian government.

[Commenter_XY]

Spy is a perfectly appropriate description, David. It is what happened. I put more stock in AG Barr's characterization of what it was, than yours.

[SRG2]

But you did say that the warrant was to spy on the Trump campaign, which it wasn't, and that Boasberg signed the warrants, which apparently he didn't, so complaining about "surveillance" v "spying" is avoiding the much more significant issue/.

[Bob from Ohio]

So a warrant to surveil Mrs. Trump would not also have any effect on Trump?

They weren't interested in Page, it was the campaign contacts he had.

[tylertusta]

I don't know why David and SRG2 are denying that the FBI collected information from the Trump campaign and Trump himself. It's been widely reported that the standard for FISA warrants is to go out three hops for certain kinds of data. I don't see anything that says that they didn't do that in this warrant.

Furthermore it doesn't make sense to target only Page when the allegations are that Page, Manafort, and Trump were all actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians.

[David Nieporent]

Furthermore it doesn't make sense to target only Page when the allegations are that Page, Manafort, and Trump were all actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians.

You're right; it wouldn't make sense. If the theory that they were actually targeting the Trump campaign were true. On the other hand, if the theory was that they were actually targeting Carter Page when they targeted Carter Page, then it would make sense.

[tylertusta]

Unless you've gotten a copy of the (still classified) minimization procedures that says otherwise, the government likely received information on the Trump campaign in addition to Page, Manafort, and Trump himself.

Here's a hypothetical: Assume that the government had instead first tried to get a FISA warrant on Trump himself but was denied by the FISC. The government then goes back to the Court to get a warrant on a campaign advisor.

Would you say that it's a strong sign that the government really was after Trump and Page was just a proxy to get something on him?

[David Nieporent]

If the facts were entirely different, then my conclusions might be entirely different, yes.

[bernard11]

Where "hypothetical" means something that tylertusta just pulled out of his ass and is claiming, without a hint of evidence, is likely true.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Haven't you shipped off to Ukraine to serve in their infantry yet? I mean, "some things are worth fighting and dying for"...right? Or did you really mean to say, "Some things are worth other people fighting and dying for?"

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

7000 new Gold Stars created by the Jesus Lover!! All for nothing!! Lol!!!

[David Nieporent]

Is Mrs. Trump in daily contact with Trump? Was a former campaign advisor for something Trump didn't care about anyway (foreign policy) in daily contact with Trump during the heart of the campaign?

[Bob from Ohio]

"daily contact with Trump during the heart of the campaign?"

He was in regular contact with members of the campaign, I don't know if it was daily and neither do you.

[David Nieporent]

Why would Carter Page, who was no longer part of the campaign at all, be in regular contact with members of the campaign? Didn't they have actual election-related stuff to deal with, rather than gossiping with a former colleague?

[Nelson]

“ I put more stock in AG Barr's characterization of what it was”

Well there’s your problem. Barr is a partisan hack.

[Joe_dallas]

Says the guys that claims the steele was not part of the clinton campaign

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what that means, what it refers to that I supposedly said, or how it's responsive to what I wrote.

[Joe_dallas]

It goes to your credibility. You frequently make statements that are a deflection of the actual facts such as your statement above that the fisa warrants werent spying on the trump campaign. In many respects the fisa warrants were issued for that purpose, perhaps under false pretensious , yet still spying

[Noscitur a sociis]

Says the guy who is Sonja_T.

[bernard11]

So Joe_Dallas makes up a bunch of crap, as usual, and then questions DMN's credibility.

What a joke.

[tylertusta]

I don't often see someone use the narcissist's prayer as a guidebook, yet here we are.

[not guilty]

"Judge Bozoberg was the judge who approved the FISA warrants to spy on Candidate Trump's campaign, and never asked any questions as he approved the warrants. And did that 4X."

There was no FISA warrant to spy on Candidate Trump's campaign.

[Nelson]

“ spy on Candidate Trump's campaign”

Still not understanding the difference between investigating and spying, eh? You seem to be confused about what “spying” is.

[Kazinski]

"Pass the popcorn."

Well of the four possible short term outcomes of tomorrow's hearing I think a lot of people on both sides are rooting for #1

1. The Administration tells the judge to pound sand, that is give a completely unsatisfactory response while questioning his authority to even rule on the question, and/or his jurisdiction.

2. Give the judge enough to satisfy him and everyone waits for the appeals court to rule, or the judges next order.

I think eventually we are going to get to #1 on one of these cases, and its more likely to be on immigration than spending or layoffs, because its not going to be too long before Congress acts on providing clarity on those subjects.

[Commenter_XY]

I would vote for #2. Judge Bozoberg has asked questions that the gov't can, and must, answer. The state secrets objection looks and smells like BS. Something I learned early....don't F with a judge, they can toss your ass in jail for contempt.

That might happen here; meaning, Judge Bozoberg pursues civil and criminal contempt. Does anyone think that Judge Bozoberg will incarcerate AG Bondi and Asst AGs Bove, Blanche in that DC Metro jail for civil contempt?

[Drewski]

"Does anyone think that Judge Bozoberg will incarcerate AG Bondi and Asst AGs Bove, Blanche in that DC Metro jail for civil contempt?"

I typed out a careful answer to this and then noticed you were name-calling the judge. Then I remembered you're a childish asshole who doesn't deserve a response. Good day, sir.

[Michael P]

And you didn't notice the name-calling in the original comment? Or did you notice and decide not to mention it?

[Commenter_XY]

He doesn't know.

[Drewski]

Didn't notice. It's also childish, but NG isn't an asshole. For example, he's never asked another commenter to kill themselves, or written fantasy fiction about them dying, such as XY is wont to do (especially with Lathrop for some reason). Nor does he argue against objective, verifiable facts, like you do - you still owe an apology for wasting everyone's time when you denied that the words "administrative stay" were on a document so earnestly that several of us looked it up and saw you were bullshitting.

[ducksalad]

"Something I learned early."

If there's a fun story from your youth feel free to share it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

""Does anyone think that Judge Bozoberg will incarcerate AG Bondi and Asst AGs Bove, Blanche in that DC Metro jail for civil contempt?""

I don't think so -- unless John Roberts acted fast, you'd see a true Constitutional crisis with armed US Marshals releasing Bondi, et al.
And they would shoot the judge if need be.

[Nelson]

What the hell is wrong with your brain? Why do you have such a hard-on for political violence?

[Dr. Ed 2]

3: Say "National Security."

Push comes to shove, that judge goes to GITMO.

[Frank Drackman]

Like in “Office Space” they should just “Fix the Glitch” or like in that “Seinfeld” episode, move his Chambers to a Janitors closet in the Basement, eventually when he’s not getting paid it’ll work itself out

[windycityattorney]

I think its going to be 1. Here is why: Boasburg made his oral ruling Sat at 6:45 pm. The oral ruling is reduced to writing at 7:25pm.
The oral order included the Judge telling the DOJ to inform their clients (ICE or whoever) immediately of the Court's order and to either prevent the planes from leaving, order them to return OR don't let the detainees disembark the plane if they are already in El Salvador.

Here is the problem for the DOJ: According to publicly available data, the planes didn't fly straight from Texas to El Salvador. They stopped in Honduras. It is true that at least two planes left US before the Court's order was reduced to writing. However, they would have been in Honduras a couple hours after the judge's written ruling. One of or two of 3 total planes left Honduras to go to El Salvador the next day. Dictator Bukele posts a video of the detainees arriving to the prison at 8:15am Sunday. [there is also the infamous "oopsie too late" X post re-tweeted by Sec of State Marco Rubio Sunday morning].

The administration has repeatedly denied defying the Court's order but curiously refuses to answer the Court's questions about the planes (when they departed, when they landed, whether they made any stops in between, what time events happened, etc...). These are very simple questions and the DOJ has spilled a lot of ink attempting to avoid answering it. Frankly, their arrogance that the Court was wasting time on such frivolous questions kinda gives the game away.

If the publicly available information is correct; the planes could have been diverted from Honduras back to the US. The order to not transfer the detainees to El Salvador custody could have been complied with since it appears that didn't happen until a good 10-12hrs or so after the court's written order. The order to not let the detainees disembark the plane once in El Salvador for sure could have been complied with.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-courts-aclu-venezuelan-gang-timeline-43e1deafd66fc1ed4e934ad108ead529

[Sarcastr0]

I'd guess they're gonna try and invoke the Official Secrets Act first.

[windycityattorney]

Going to be very difficult to do. Simply invoking it doesn't mean it will be successful as the Court has already indicated in the order granting the govt an additional 24hrs to comply with its previous order given the information has been publicly shared and is not even classified.

Essentially, the Court has backed the DOJ into a corner. It allowed them to submit the answers to his inquiry in camera to avoid public disclosure. Invoking State's Secrets to avoid answering AT ALL could be construed as an admission that the only reason not to answer is because its going to show they lied to the court previously and don't want to reduce evidence of their perjury in writing and submit it into the record.

Popcorn indeed.

[Sarcastr0]

"Could be construed" allows for the kind of ridiculously small fig leaf they crave.

But yeah, watching this one for sure.

[not guilty]

"Invoking State's Secrets to avoid answering AT ALL could be construed as an admission that the only reason not to answer is because its [sic] going to show they lied to the court previously and don't want to reduce evidence of their perjury in writing and submit it into the record."

I wonder if anyone will invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. With criminal contempt sanctions being on the table, that privilege is available.

[Drewski]

There's an old OLC opinion that the DoJ doesn't prosecute criminal contempt against individual federal officials acting in their official capacity. Assuming the DoJ adheres to that policy, any sanctions would be levied against the department itself (probably in the form of striking arguments), so self-incrimination protections would not be on the table.

[not guilty]

It would not necessarily be a DOJ prosecution. “[I]t is long settled that courts possess inherent authority to initiate contempt proceedings for disobedience to their orders, authority which necessarily encompasses the ability to appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987).

[Riva]

Again you misapply precedent. Contempt proceedings by federal courts against federal officials acting in their official capacity would offend constitutional separation of powers principles. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987) had nothing to do with federal officials acting in their official capacity. and does not endow the judiciary with special powers to intrude on the executive branch.

[David Nieporent]

Contempt proceedings by federal courts against federal officials acting in their official capacity would offend constitutional separation of powers principles.

Yet another deranged interpretation of a non-existent provision of the U.S. constitution.

[Riva]

Since you seem incapable of understanding the fundamental concept of the separation of powers, you would do well not to embarrass yourself further by making additional comments. Just some friendly advice crazy Dave.

[David Nieporent]

I'd guess they're gonna try and invoke the Official Secrets Act first.

FTR, there's no such thing. (In the U.S.; the UK has one.) The state secret privilege, which is what has been referred to in this case, is just a judicially-invented doctrine that says the government doesn't need to reveal information in litigation if it claims that it would harm national security.

Worth noting that the case that birthed the doctrine turned out to have been a fabrication by the government to avoid liability, and no classified information was actually at issue.

[not guilty]

1. The Administration tells the judge to pound sand, that is give a completely unsatisfactory response while questioning his authority to even rule on the question, and/or his jurisdiction.

2. Give the judge enough to satisfy him and everyone waits for the appeals court to rule, or the judges next order.

Option (1) would likely result in some officials being held in civil contempt (not subject to presidential pardon) and jailed until they provide a responsive answer.

As for option (2), none of the orders issued to this point by Judge Boasberg is appealable as of right, and the government has not sought a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals accordingly has no jurisdiction. Federal courts take jurisdiction or the absence thereof seriously.

[not guilty]

I need to correct myself. The government does ask that the Court of Appeals to treat its motion for stay pending appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent the Court harbors doubt about its appellate jurisdiction. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845.01208720432.0.pdf

Mandamus relief, however, is unavailable, in that the government's right to issuance of the writ is not "clear and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004).

The Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument for Monday afternoon. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845/gov.uscourts.cadc.41845.01208721745.0.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

You say "jurist", I say "bound for GITMO" and one of us appears to know US history a wee bit better than you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there a lot of historical precedent for illegally imprisoning judges who question government actions?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe he'll again fabricate a claim that Lincoln tried to imprison Taney.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is not what I said -- Taney wrote in his diary that he EXPECTED Lincoln to do it. Taney was rather frail and died shortly afterwards, a couple of soldiers could have done it with ease.

And I didn't fabricate this, it's in his diary.

[David Nieporent]

I can find no evidence that Taney even kept a diary.

[Thought about __ all my life]

All funny to you. Keep the popcorn

[Don Nico]

NG,
You provide lots of detailed analysis which many of us appreciate. But why the sexist, "Pam Blondie"?

[Riva]

It’s surprising that the party of slavery and Jim Crow are also sexist little punks? “Vile and hypocritical” should be their motto. Maybe it is, I haven’t checked their websites lately. Probably sounds better in latin.

[not guilty]

There are some folks that I just enjoy tweaking.

Some get their blonde hair from their father's side.
Some get their blonde hair from their mother's side.
Others get their blonde hair from peroxide.

[Don Nico]

Tsk...Tsk

[Riva]

Democrats never know when to stop. But if they had any intelligence or integrity, they wouldn't be democrats. Keep digging clown.

[Riva]

Rather seems the judge is picking a fight issuing his grossly illegal orders. From what you note he has a background in that. Time for some accountability. An impeachment process would do nicely and have salutary effects on other rogue judges as well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or a black van and then a midnight flight to GITMO.

[Joe_dallas]

Not surprising those bashing trump for his disregard for due process of the illegal aliens, including the criminal gang members, did not seem to have a problem with the biden administration's lax enforcement of the border laws that allowed the huge influx of the illegal aliens .

[David Nieporent]

ot surprising those bashing trump for his disregard for due process of the illegal aliens,

How do you know that they're illegal aliens?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they were legal, they could have walked across the bridge and kept their shoes dry.

[David Nieporent]

Is this in English?

[Riva]

Illegally crossing the border is one clue.

[David Nieporent]

How do you know they illegally crossed the border?

[Riva]

Because unlike the corrupt Biden administration that opened the border to millions of illegals, many via the CPB One app and some actually flown in, the Trump administration will faithfully enforce the law and protect the border. And for the TdA animals sent back to Venezuela, i have no doubt the administration has adequate information to determine the status of the illegal terrorists.

[David Nieporent]

You retard, by definition everyone who used the CBP One app came here legally.

And for the TdA animals sent back to Venezuela, i have no doubt the administration has adequate information to determine the status of the illegal terrorists.

1) They were not sent back to Venezuela.
2) The administration already admitted it did not have information about them.
3) And in any case, whether the administration had adequate information wasn't the question I asked. I asked how you know they were here illegally.

[Riva]

That any alien crossed the border via an app does not entitle them to legal residency, crazy Dave. It just makes them easier to find and identify. That the corrupt Biden administration ignored the law and allowed millions to enter the country doesn’t make them legal, just do you know.

And I didn’t say the deported TdA animals used the app, but however they illegally entered the country, they have no right to remain here to terrorize American citizens. They are not legally in the country, they are aliens. Add those 2 together you get illegal alien. And a terrorist criminal alien at that.

I’d say don’t continue to make a fool of yourself but we both know that won’t happen.

[David Nieporent]

That any alien crossed the border via an app does not entitle them to legal residency,

It means that by definition they did not "illegally cross[] the border," as you claimed.

They are not legally in the country, they are aliens.

Millions of aliens are legally in the country.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it just means that the prior administration was complicit in their illegal entry.

[Sarcastr0]

There we have it. Brett gets to decide if you are illegal or not.

Authoritarianism at its apex.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, there you go: An administration can't repeal laws by issuing apps.

[David Nieporent]

No, it just means that the prior administration was complicit in their illegal entry.

No, it literally means that they did not cross the border illegally.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t see to know or care what the law says.

[Riva]

You really should stop crazy Dave. I'm trying to be nice because I don't like arguing with the mentally handicapped. The CPB one app didn't make illegal crossings legal, it is just evidence of the gross dereliction of the corrupt Biden regime. Where does the US code authorize an open border by app? But, aside from that, how, in your broken little mind would use of that app (assuming arguendo they used it because no one claimed that but you) excuse the terrorist activities of the Venezuelan state aligned TdA gangbangers or allow these animals to remain in the country?

[David Nieporent]

The CPB one app didn't make illegal crossings legal, it is just evidence of the gross dereliction of the corrupt Biden regime. Where does the US code authorize an open border by app?

Sigh. The problem is that the bot isn't programmed to know anything about anything, but just to repeat talking points. The crime is entry without inspection. If one makes an appointment, meets with an immigration official for processing, and is paroled into the country, then one's entry is not illegal.

(Also, it's CBP, not CPB. It's Customs and Border Patrol, not the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)

But, aside from that, how, in your broken little mind would use of that app (assuming arguendo they used it because no one claimed that but you) excuse the terrorist activities of the Venezuelan state aligned TdA gangbangers or allow these animals to remain in the country?

There are no terrorist activities of the TdA, no "Venezuela state aligned TdA gangbangers," and there's no evidence that a single deported person was a TdA member. MAGAworld has invented a fake bogeyman that they had never heard of until Trump mentioned it.

[Riva]

Sigh. You seem bound and determined to continue making an ass of yourself crazy Dave. You're not called crazy Dave for nothing. Again, where in the US code is entry by app countenanced? Where is residence by app allowed? Do you contend that all those illegals who took advantage of the corrupt Biden administration's unlawful app are somehow rendered "legal residents"? And that's outside the question of Tda, which, you blockhead, is a designated foreign terrorist organization. And it is absolutely linked to the Venezuelan narco-criminal state. You might try reading the EO. But you won't because you're just an a-hole troll.

[Magister]

Tren de Aragua was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February by the Trump administration; you may have noticed that a lot of what comes out of the Trump administration turns out to be false. No evidence has been presented that they've engaged in terrorist activities rather than just crimes or that they are "Venezuelan state aligned".

[ThePublius]

"Magister 2 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Tren de Aragua was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization in February by the Trump administration; you may have noticed that a lot of what comes out of the Trump administration turns out to be false. No evidence has been presented that they've engaged in terrorist activities rather than just crimes or that they are "Venezuelan state aligned"."

David Nieporent should read this, too.

Typical leftist lying and deflection. 'Trump lies.' 'No evidence.'

First, define terrorism. "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1] The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.[2] There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.[3][4][5] Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.[1]" [emphasis mine]

Second, they needn't be Venezuelan state aligned to be a terrorist organization.

And Trump didn't 'invent' a bogey man, if anything, Biden did. But it didn't need to be invented, it was real and seriously bad.

NY Times: "The Biden administration labeled Tren de Aragua a transnational criminal organization in 2024, the New York Police Department has highlighted its activity on the East Coast, and the Trump White House began the process of designating it a foreign terrorist organization in January."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/world/americas/tren-de-aragua-gang-venezuela.html

So, January and February are in the past, so they are now a designated terrorist organization. Read the Times piece to see how terrible this gang really is. Do you really want these people here, this gang operating across the U.S.?

[not guilty]

One question relative to invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is whether Tren de Aragua is a nation or government which is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. It is not.

If that were the case, then why has President Trump not asked Congress for a declaration of war?

[Riva]

If you took 2 or 3 minutes to actually read the EO, Not Guilty, you would stop posting such asinine comments.

[David Nieporent]

Again, where in the US code is entry by app countenanced? Where is residence by app allowed?

These words don't even have any meaning. What on earth is "entry by app"? The entry is by plane or other conveyance, not by app. The app allows — well, allowed — people to schedule screening appointments with CBP at designated ports of entry.

Where is residence by app allowed?

Yet another bizarre question evincing unfamiliarity with the English language. The app allowed people to schedule appointments with CBP. That's all it did. Whether they were admitted to the country remained subject to decisions of the CBP, just as for everyone else.

Do you contend that all those illegals who took advantage of the corrupt Biden administration's unlawful app are somehow rendered "legal residents"?

I contend that by definition they were not illegal, because they were allowed into the country after inspection. They were not "rendered" legal, because they were always legal.

And that's outside the question of Tda, which, you blockhead, is a designated foreign terrorist organization. And it is absolutely linked to the Venezuelan narco-criminal state. You might try reading the EO. But you won't because you're just an a-hole troll.

The EO is just things Donald Trump said, which by definition are false because Donald Trump said them.

[David Nieporent]

Second, they needn't be Venezuelan state aligned to be a terrorist organization.

They need to be state aligned for the AEA to potentially apply.

[EllaWilson]

I didn't vote for "judge" bozburgh or "judge" chunkin.

[windycityattorney]

Worthless comment is worthless. You know which other federal judges people didn't vote for?

[Riva]

Even Schumer understands what’s happening. He’s even bragged on the Senate floor about the hack “progressive” judges efforts to block the Trump administration. Way way way past time Congress did its constitutional duty and impeached some of these judicial insurrectionists. Not the only judicial reform needed but it’s a start.

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

And who is also in a secret social club with Boasberg and PB&J.

Bondi isn't going up against just Boasberg. It's the whole Resistance.

[David Nieporent]

The Inns of Court is neither secret nor a social club.

[hobie]

Since us tax payers are on the hook for the $6M storage fee (instead of sending them to Venesuela for free), I would presume they are still under American federal jurisdiction. As such, they have rights and must be housed under rules of care for any US prison, and could sue us for failure thereof. What a nightmare we're now in because of this dumb stunt.

[Don Nico]

For those troubled by "activist judges," it could be worse. You could be living in Israel. Last night the cabinet voted unanimously to remove the head of Shabak (Shin Bet). This morning the acting president of the Supreme Court announced that the government is not permitted to fire the Head of the secret police.
Also this morning the government was warned by former supreme Court chief that attempting to replace the attorney general would lead to civil war.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Still worse, you could be living in Gaza.

[Riva]

Don’t know the accuracy of your “storage fee” comment, but I suspect any family members of the victims of TdA would gladly pay anything to get these animals any out of the country and away from other innocents. And, I bet you’ve whined almost daily in support of the waste and fraud uncovered by DOGE little hobie, so kindly shut the F up about $6 million wisely spent (if it’s even true, because well, your side has a history of making things up).

And, as an aside, you pay taxes? If you say so.

[Michael P]

The State of New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) has affirmed a lower court's decision voiding a New York City law purporting to allow noncitizens to vote in certain local elections is unconstitutional, and noted that they had specifically ruled that only citizens can vote in at least two prior cases.

https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2025/Mar25/15opn25-Decision.pdf

Reading Article II as a whole, it is facially clear that only citizens may vote in
elections within the State of New York.

("It is clear!" as the kids say today.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

As Trump makes citizenship harder to get, an effective democracy requires countermeasures.

[Michael P]

The left loves to hide their anti-America craziness behind vague platitudes.

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, the law was passed in December 2021, while The Cauliflower was in office.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I get that. But the law becomes more important now.

BTW, the law would only go into effect after a referendum, and that didn't happen. So as the dissent pointed out, the challenge should have been denied as moot.

[Commenter_XY]

Can you tell me why you think the law is more important now? Is there now a voter access problem in NYC? Any cases of where a voter was prevented from voting in NYC?

Do you think DeBlasio was addressing voter access issues?

[Bwaaah]

First, you let 'em sign in at the border. Then, you wave them through. Then you put them up in hotels. Then you give them prepaid debit cards. Then you show 'em to the voting booth. And still, a lot of them would be too smart enough to vote for these dufuses.

Look...it's Democrat election strategy. Don't expect better.

[Sarcastr0]

Seething with resentment.

[Bwaaah]

Nope. No resentment at all. I, for one, very much like immigration.

[Frank Drackman]

So hard to get that only 808,000 foreigners earned Citizenship last year (is that too few? Blame Parkinsonian Joe)

Frank

[Kazinski]

How is Trump making citizenship harder to get than its always been?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, there’s that whole thing about de lying citizenship to certain people who were born here. Though obviously that wouldn’t have any effect on voting for another 18 years.

[Riva]

That would be the Constitution. And President Trump has done nothing to alter the naturalization process.

[Riva]

But more to the point, the issue of birth right citizenship is not even relevant here. The comment responded to referred to "getting citizenship," which means the naturalization process, not the status of being born a citizen.

You continue to disappoint. Now in your defense the original idiot may have wanted to refer to birth right citizenship, but also shares with you the lack of wit and ability to use the English language.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Dan, citizenship at least requires that all the existing citizens not be ignored as you are wont to do in most of your posts

Sixty-six percent support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Republicans (93%) are more likely to show support than Democrats (43%) and independents (67%).

Anf thst is the ONLY complaint of people I know. You are here illegally , you know you are are here illegally, BYE !!!

I don't see your posting history but I bet you never once complained that no one was folloing up on the MILLIONS coming in.

[Riva]

How has President Trump made citizenship harder to get? Has he added a few differential calculus questions to the naturalization exam?

[Krayt]

As Trump makes citizenship harder to get, an effective democracy requires countermeasures.

I'm in favor of easy immigration. In an economically free society, the more, the better.

But that's effective freedom, not effective democracy. This country is great because it is free, not because it is a democracy. Before people fly off the handle, democracy is a tool of freedom, not the other way around. Freedom is the goal, not democracy. Democracy is what free people use to govern themselves.

There is something noble in inhaling people to the shining city on the hill. There is nothing noble about inhaling people to alter democratic results, especially when those results are to decrease the economic freedom.

[Michael Ejercito]

How is he making citizenship harder to get?

[A Japanese Student]

In a 2A case, Judge VanDyke posted a video dissent. Although judges and justices have cited video records (or a Schoolhouse Rock episode), a judge usually does not film opinions. Even in the fictional case of Dennis v. Hayes, the justices' opinions were drawings, not a video. For a person like me who lives in a country with a strict gun law, this is very helpful (even if it is biased).

I hope, though, that there is a law authorizing judges to possess firearms inside the judicial chamber - otherwise Judge VanDyke could be in a legal trouble. While possession of firearms inside a Federal facility is usually a misdemeanor, it is a felony to possess one inside a judicial chamber.

[Michael P]

The dissent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMC7Ntd4d4c

18 U.S. Code § 930(a) is the likely statute that AJS was referring to as making (unauthorized) possession of a firearm in a judge's chambers a felony, but the authorizations to possess firearms in subsections (d)(1) and (d)(3) might apply in this case. This post says that, as of 2012, there was no precedent on how broadly subsection (d)(3)'s "or other lawful activities" applies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why would a judge need a gun? He’s protected by armed security in a building where there are metal detectors and guns cannot be carried in.

[Frank Drackman]

You need to get out more, a Judge, his Court Reporter, a Fulton County Deputy Sheriff, and an ICE Agent were murdered (all except the ICE Agent in the Courtroom/Courthouse) when a Defendant on trial for rape overpowered his DEI guard and took her gun (after beating her to a pulp) Google “2005 Atlanta Courthouse Murders” since it was a Black murdering 3 Honkies he only got “Life”
Ironically, the Judge was planning on giving a directed innocent verdict for the rape

[Michael P]

Judge Kevin Mullins probably could have used one to defend himself when he was shot in his (Kentucky county-level) chambers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mullins having a gun wouldn't have mattered. Unless it was already in his pocket, loaded, and ready to fire. Imagine walking around all day like that.

[Frank Drackman]

I do almost every day I’m not in some Fascist Blue State

[not guilty]

Walking around unarmed requires a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with.

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry you weren’t blessed with Testicles, how did that work out for Gahndi?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Imagine walking around all day like that.

Many folks who comment here advocate that everyone should do that, all the time. Teachers in class, for instance. In Sunday school.

If you suppose, accurately, that kind of advocacy is more a result of cinematic experience than practical gun experience, you will waste your time trying to get those folks to attend to what you say. They sensibly understand their preferred practices are based on not listening.

[Thought about __ all my life]

YOU love the clever turn of phrase but you convince no one

Aug 11, 2024 — 58 percent of American adults or someone they care for have experienced gun violence in their lifetime. Source: SurveyUSA
To be clever in speech and lazy in research, how we pay for people like you

[Martinned2]

Glad to see you agree that there are way too many guns in the US.

[ThePublius]

"Glad to see you agree that there are way too many guns thugs in the US."

FTFY

[Magister]

The goal is to bring it from 58% to 100%.

[tylertusta]

Regular people do that every day.

[ThePublius]

I don't have to imagine, I carry all day, every day. It becomes a habit, like carrying your wallet or phone. And, you don't have to carry a cannon, there are many small, light, but sill highly effective self protection pieces available, like a S&W Model 36 or 37 (revolvers), and many very comfortable holsters for same.

[Frank Drackman]

Love my 37 Airweight

[Stephen Lathrop]

That overlooks possibility of attacks which commence by shooting security personnel to gain entry. As Israeli commando raiders have demonstrated, a platoon-sized forced which enjoys the advantages of advance intelligence, surprise, and utter ruthlessness, and which carries fully automatic weapons, can generally go anywhere it wants to go, and do whatever it wants to do, for an interval at least many minutes long. A judge's personal firearm is unlikely to make much difference if a suicide terrorist attack like that happens.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte. At the very least, the judge can slow them down.

[David Nieporent]

A judge's personal firearm is also unlikely to make much difference if Russia launches ICBMs at the courthouse, but what relevance do the scenarios you and I posited have to do with the real world?

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, judges have 2A rights, too. Let's not infringe upon them. 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

I suppose they have the right to play Cowboys and Indians in chambers. (Or maybe pose in front of the mirror like Dirty Harry in a robe.) But they're playing with real bullets.

https://m.ok.ru/video/589092752054

[Commenter_XY]

I'd worry more about the lawyers in the courtroom, quite honestly. I am sure the judges get pissed off enough at times to want to plug a lawyer right there in the courtroom. Come to think of it, maybe not such a bad idea, letting judges blow away shitty lawyers (just joking!).

[Absaroka]

"Why would a judge need a gun?"

He probably goes home at night.

[Bwaaah]

"Oh...so now you want to bring gun violence to his home too."

[not guilty]

"Why would a judge need a gun? He’s protected by armed security in a building where there are metal detectors and guns cannot be carried in."

Perhaps this judge wants his popguns handy whenever he feels the urge to worship them.

[Kazinski]

No one in this Justice Department is going to charge the judge with having a gun in the courthouse.

Especially since it is being used as a prop for making an argument.

Its very common for guns to be in courtrooms to be used as evidence, so I don't see what the problem is here where its presence is authorized by a federal judge.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this made me roll my eyes.

But of all the manifestations of America being a bit weird with guns, this is way way down the list of weirdness, much less trouble.

[Michael P]

U.S. Army Special Operations Command has issued a nationwide warning about the domestic terrorist movement against Tesla.

https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/domestic-terrorism-alert

The left continues to make the US look like some third world shithole country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bondi (?) announced yesterday that terrorism charges were being brought against three perps. About time!

[Krayt]

[Sarcastr0]

U.S. Army Special Operations Command, now staffed with drama queens.

Calling your political opposition domestic terrorists because some cars got vandalized is...well, it's kinda clear where you want to go, next with this, eh?

[Michael P]

No surprise that Gaslight0 comes in with a stupid take to white-knight domestic terrorism. The anti-Tesla movement checks all the boxes for classic domestic terrorism. But it's telling that you think the "political opposition" as a whole falls into that bucket.

[Commenter_XY]

How so? = The anti-Tesla movement checks all the boxes for classic domestic terrorism.

I see vandalism. And arson. And probably trespassing and a bunch of other assorted charges. Why is this domestic terrorism? What boxes make something domestic terrorism?

It is not that case where I disagree, but want to understand the reasoning.

[Michael P]

From 18 USC § 2331(5),

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

(C) is trivial. (A) is generally true when torching an electric vehicle or charging infrastructure. (B)(i) and (B)(ii) both apply in this case, the former being the private vehicle owners and firms whose facilities are targeted and the latter being the federal government -- Musk's actions and/or his continued role as an advisor to the President.

[Commenter_XY]

So no 'sponsor' of terror needs to be specified.

[Michael P]

Correct. That's never been an element of terrorism, but being a state sponsor of terrorism is a good reason for treating a government as hostile to the US.

[not guilty]

"The anti-Tesla movement checks all the boxes for classic domestic terrorism."

Not according to 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which states:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Threats of vandalism are serious and fully deserve to be prosecuted, but such a threat, standing alone, is not itself "dangerous to human life".

By way of comparison, § 2331(1)(a) states:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State

The difference between the two definitions is that a violent act which is not dangerous to human life could potentially evince "international terrorism" under subsection (1)(A), but not "domestic terrorism" under subsection (5)(A).

[TwelveInchPianist]

On what planet isn't arson and firing guns into Tesla's/Tesla dealerships dangerous to human life?

And why to the guys who are doing this seem to think that they're women?

[not guilty]

"On what planet isn't arson and firing guns into Tesla's/Tesla dealerships dangerous to human life?"

I was referring to the conduct referenced in Col. John A. Lucas's substack linked upthread by Michael P, which was doxxing Tesla owners and threats to vandalize their cars.

That having been said, arson and firing guns into commercial properties are not acts inherently dangerous to human life. It depends on whether the buildings are occupied.

[Martinned2]

It's simple. Just like Paul Weiss these guys have to play the game or get fired. And the game is flattering Trump and Musk. (See also: Why does Musk get access to top secret China war plans?)

[tylertusta]

Calling your political opposition domestic terrorists

Where have I heard this before?

[Sarcastr0]

I guess that makes it okay?

[tylertusta]

It wasn't even OK the last time someone did it.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Still, your short term memory is horrible. Look up Government Disinformation Board and for VP look up

How Kamala Harris Earned Rebukes from ACLU and SCOTUS on Privacy
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/08/22/how_kamala_harris_earned_rebukes_from_aclu_and_scotus_on_privacy_1053395.html

[Martinned2]

How much longer until selling your Telsa is terrorism too?

https://www.newsweek.com/tesla-owners-selling-cars-elon-musk-2044017

[Ska]

If I'm selling my car because my neighbors are having their Teslas vandalized on their property or outside their home, their might be something to the terrorism theory.

Oh, you were being a dick and acting like keeping a Tesla would be the terrorist act.

[Sarcastr0]

You misunderstood the comment you replied to twice somehow.

[Martinned2]

Having wrongthink social media posts is terrorism now. Representing clients who want to sue Trump is terrorism now. So why not selling a Tesla?

[apedad]

Odd that there's nothing on the USASOC page.

https://www.soc.mil/usasochq/usasochq.html

[Michael P]

I think the more odd thing would be for an organization to post internal security advisories on its web site's front page.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, it's fake.

[Michael P]

Don't you have a domestic terrorist to support?

https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1902951863819112867

[Sarcastr0]

Drama. Queen.

[apedad]

But somehow johnlucas6 can post it on some substack?!?

[Michael P]

Boy, won't you be surprised to learn about New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case) (1971).

[SRG2]

The left continues to make the US look like some third world shithole country.

It's called "bipartisanship"

[Kazinski]

UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has changed the Tories platform to abandon the UK's 2050 Net Zero commitment.

"Badenoch said net zero cannot be achieved by 2050 "without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us".

But she said her Tory party is going to "deal with the reality" of the target, something she argues Labour and past Conservative governments ignored."

Badenoch said that while the UK had lowered its CO2 emissions more than any country in Europe, it was still not anywhere near enough and they were spending too much money for too little progress, and there was no clear plan to get to Net Zero anyway.

It may be true that the UK has lowered its emissions more than any country in Europe but its a little misleading because France emits lower CO2 per capita, and has for decades because of its nuclear power infrastructure.

Here's the 2023 and 2000 emissions per capita, and the change % from 2000 for select countries:

Netherlands 7.09 11.11 −36%
Germany 7.06 10.70 −34%
United Kingdom 4.42 9.36 −53%
France 4.25 6.73 −37%
United States 13.83 21.03 −34%
China 9.24 2.86 +223%
Cambodia 1.03 0.16 +528
India 2.07 0.95 +119%

Obviously the villain is Cambodia increasing its CO2 per capita 528%.

[Stephen Lathrop]

On questions of CO2 emissions, developing countries enjoy an equity advantage which too often goes unnoticed. Compared to the fully-developed nations, the less-developed ones undertake a smaller economic burden to obsolete prematurely already-developed electrical infrastructure.

I suggest that means demands that the developed countries pay penalties to undeveloped ones, to compensate the latter for environmentally friendly energy investments, should at least be sharply adjusted downward. Let as much of that activity as possible proceed on the basis of ordinary foreign investments in energy infrastructure, but by building renewables from scratch.

Bypass completely wasteful investments in already-obsolete high-emissions technology. Merely to take notice of that should obviate objections that costs of renewable energy technologies impose unfair burdens on poor populations. Every developed nation had to start somewhere to build an electrical grid. Compared to the developed nations which suffer premature obsolescence of existing facilities, the less-developed nations are at an advantage, not at a disadvantage.

[Kazinski]

Problem is with renewables you have to build the infrastructure twice, once for solar, or wind, then natural gas or coal backup for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Coal is also slower to bring up online, and natural gas isn't readily available in the developing world.

And don't discount the risk of tropical storms to solar and wind installations which are much more difficult or impossible to harden than relatively compact plants. And also they use up a lot more arable land.

Hydro is certainly a good choice for the developing world but its limited and has high capital costs.

Probably the best choice is nuclear, but more research needs to be done on smaller less risky and cheaper to build designs.

I won't mention that any attempts to get developed countries to foot the bill have been miserable failures.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now the Martha's Vineyard windmills are getting hit by lightning.

500 feet tall on a flat ocean, who'd ever have thought that might happen...

[Frank Drackman]

Guess they should have built them on the mountainous Oceans

[Ska]

The canyons east/southeast of Montauk might be good for shark and tuna fishing; not so great for wind turbines.

[Kazinski]

And the maintenance of offshore windfarms is a logistical nightmare. Germany is decommissioning one of its offshore windfarms because its not profitable to operate it even writing off the sunk costs.

https://notrickszone.com/2025/03/16/germanys-first-offshore-wind-farm-to-be-dismantled-after-just-15-years-of-operation/

Getting just 15 years out of a major capital investment like that is disastrous.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think your one example can bear your generalization. They are more expensive but nightmare is unestablished.

Neither here nor there but your link reads like AI.

[Kazinski]

As for the AI, the author is an economist based in Grenoble, so it wouldn't be surprising if it were translated by AI.

https://ideas.repec.org/f/pgo508.html

[Absaroka]

Gotta agree with Sarcastro here. That the Titanic had a lousy ROI doesn't mean shipping can't work. Offshore oil isn't something I guessed would be practical, but it seems like they make it work.

I have no opinion on offshore wind in general, but one failure doesn't mean it must fail in general.

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 2 hours ago
"Problem is with renewables you have to build the infrastructure twice, once for solar, or wind, then natural gas or coal backup for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. "

That is one of the reason why the LCOE manta "renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels " is complete BS. Its total costs that matter. Renewables require far too much redundancy and backup to make the grid work at high penetration levels.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Compared to the fully-developed nations, the less-developed ones undertake a smaller economic burden to obsolete prematurely already-developed electrical infrastructure."

OTOH, more developed nations are better able to afford making stupid mistakes like that, because we have further to fall before arriving at dire poverty.

[Martinned2]

The bookies will give you 4/11 odds that Badenoch won't make it to the next general election. Personally I'd be surprised if she makes it as leader until christmas. So it doesn't really matter very much what she says about anything.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/kemi-badenoch-conservative-leader-at-next-general-election

[Kazinski]

Doesn't change that she's right.

Labour can't pass a bill mandating new math with a modern calculus that will make the numbers work.

[Martinned2]

She's not right. She doesn't even think she's right. She thinks she's pandering to radical right voters, and she is.

[Kazinski]

Right now, according to Euro news, Mississippi, the poorest US state has a GDP per capita greater than the UKs.

Electricity is .13 Kwh in MS, and .35us Kwh in the UK.

It would bankrupt most Mississippi'ns to have to retrofit their home with a heat pump,

Currently 1% of UK homes have heat pumps.

"However, to achieve net zero, the Climate Change Committee projects that domestic heat pumps will be needed in at least half, but likely closer to 80%, of homes by 2050"
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0699/

They are currently retrofitting 22k homes a year, but need to be retrofitting 600k annually to achieve net zero, and they don't have anywhere near the renewables to power them even if the wind is blowing.

Their plan is completely impractical money aside. and there is no way to afford it in any case.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you even talking about? That's just gibberish.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seems fairly clear to me.

[Kazinski]

Ill try to dumb it down

60% of UK homes use natural gas for heat. Natural gas is not carbon neutral.

Heat pumps can be almost as efficient as natural gas, but are expensive. (2000-50000 gbp https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/cost-guides/cost-replace-boiler-heat-pump/)
UK can't get to net zero unless that very efficient, and already installed, natural gas is converted, at a lot of expense to heat pumps.

And that's just one of the roadblocks,

[Davedave]

The usual far right drivel. Heat pumps are _more efficient_ per energy input than gas boilers. They are not wildly expensive to fit; no more so than a new boiler. As boilers age out and require replacement, they get replaced with heat pumps. Easy, not costly, and an all-round better solution. What's not to like? Oh yes, I remember: it's the Jews, somehow.

[Kazinski]

First of all as for efficiency maybe you are right if you are just converting energy equivalence of gas to electricity.

But natgas costs about 7 pence per 1 kwh equivalent or about 1/4 the price of electricity at 29 pence per kwh.

Then you've got the completely economically and functionally unnecessary cost of replacing a functional natgas heating system with one that uses energy that costs 4x as much per btu equivalent.

Then you have expensive retrofits in piping or ducting because natgas heats the water or air to a much higher temperature that a heat pump does so much less needs to be transported to the radiator or outlet duct.

From the website I linked above.

"How much does it cost to switch from a gas boiler to a heat pump? Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump will usually cost more than installing a heat pump in a new build. This is because your home is currently set up to be heated by a boiler. But boilers and heat pumps work differently. For instance, a heat pump will work at lower temperatures and will take longer to produce heat. For this reason, you’ll often need to buy new radiators and replace pipework to make sure your new heat pump can heat your home just as effectively as a boiler. Generally, radiators for a heat pump system will need to be two and a half times larger than for a gas combi boiler to provide the same heat output. You’ll typically need to budget around £3,000 to upgrade to larger radiators or £10,000 for underfloor heating. "

I have a heatpump, I like it, and its perfect for Arizona because it can cool the whole house as well as heat it. But I live in new construction so my house did not need to be retrofitted, and the winters her are very mild.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, M2 doesn't do math.

[Martinned2]

Or the UK could just switch to electricity for heating homes, which is what it is actually planning to do. Heat pumps are only a small element of the government's (current and previous) net zero strategy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"switch to electricity"

Using unicorn farts I guess.

[ThePublius]

Now you're spouting gibberish, as you glibly accused Kazinsky of doing (which he wasn't).

"the UK could just switch to electricity for heating homes"

Uh, where is that electricity going to come form? It's well known, and has been proven by foolish governments, that so-called renewables don't cut it; there's no way on earth, or should I say on the Island of Great Britain, that they can generate enough electricity all day to heat all the homes in the U.K. It's pure fantasy to think they can. They would have to embark on an aggressive project of building nuclear powerplants if they want to do this sans fossil fuels, and that will take decades, especially with the resistance imposed my the anti-nuke whackos.

[Ridgeway]

Aren't heat pumps primarily powered by electricity?

[Kazinski]

Did you read the POST (Parliament Office of Science and Technology) report?

Or see why heat pumps are considered necessary to reach net zero?

Heat Pumps are about 300-400% more efficient than conventional electric heaters.

"Efficiency Differences: Heat pumps offer a higher efficiency rating (Coefficient of Performance) than electric heaters, producing two to five units of heat for every unit of electricity consumed, while electric heaters convert nearly 100% of electricity into heat."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, here you are again with economic objections offered as false fronts for doctrinaire anti-renewable advocacy. Logically, that makes no sense. If proposed policies are economically impossible, that will preclude their use.

I think it makes more sense to recast your advocacy. You object to a feasible economic adjustment, because you disagree with others about the cost/benefit balance it will deliver. And more particularly, you suppose smaller costs associated with fossil fuel continuation than many others do. On that basis you could have a reasonable debate, but I think it is one your opponents will win.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You left out the best illustration of all

ICYMI: Biden Administration Condemns African Economies—Greenlights World’s Biggest Polluter
01.04.24

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/icymi-biden-administration-condemns-african-economies-greenlights-worlds-biggest-polluter/

Kerry's trip (and treaty)DRASTICALLY INCREASED emmission worldwide

CHINA
China's growing use of coal including the LONGEST coal transporting railway - which carries 200 MILLION tons of fossil fuel 1,141 MILES annually - draws pundit outrage as western nations spend BILLIONS to push citizens to reduce carbon footprint
A Scottish journalist highlighted the incongruity between the green initiatives coming from Western countries and those coming from China
China is responsible for 33 percent of the world's greenhouse gas, but continues to power itself by coal and establish itself as a global superpower
In the US, the Biden Administration continues to propose tens of billions of dollars be allocated to green initiatives that may or may not be effective

INDIA
India's Plans to Double Coal Production Ignore Climate ...

Bloomberg.com
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › articles › india-s-p...
Jan 9, 2024 — The south Asian giant is setting new targets to use more coal, despite committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

All you stupid liberals, WHEN YOU WINK AT HUMAN ORGAN HARVESTING the tyrants do what the hell they want.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unless the unjustified captivity in El Salvador ends promptly, almost certainly one or more among the innocents seized and sent there will die in consequence. If that happens, does Trump ever become criminally or civilly liable? Or is this the beginning of Trump's power to kill innocents at pleasure, with impunity?

[Frank Drackman]

About as likely as Parkinsonian Joe being held liable for Laken Riley’s murder or the thousands of others due to his premeditated (he’s either cogent or he’s not) open borders (and his ICE literally flew Lakens killer from the scene of 1 crime to where he committed the one that finally got him locked up)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say "Vicki Weaver"?

[Frank Drackman]

and the Dog, don't forget the Dog

[tylertusta]

If that happens, does Trump ever become criminally or civilly liable?

Only way he becomes liable is if he's impeached and convicted by the Senate.

[PaulS]

And wouldn't it have to be impeachment for that specific act?

[tylertusta]

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer.

[Thought about __ all my life]

stephen worded this to avoid the word 'abortion' just like Michael Moore, his brilliant idol
Michael Moore says deported migrants could have cured cancer, stopped ‘asteroid that’s gonna hit us in 2032’
Abortion is killing innocents at pleasure with impunity and of those millions, yes, someone would have done extraordinary things

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Have a cup of tea and calm down.
The "unjustified captivity in El Salvador ends promptly" is just not going to happen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, if you find that calming, we work differently.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — I have spent time to discover what the internet has to disclose about CECOT. Your remark above—about no prompt resolution—seems more tellingly, and more chillingly, accurate than you probably supposed.

Before you read further, please Google: "Getty Images CECOT"

Assuming you have done that, here is some other stuff you can learn online.

CECOT was built very recently, with an express totalitarian intent. It opened in 2023. Its political architect has been El Salvador's dictator, Nayib Bukele. Bukele was looking for a means to thwart resumption of El Salvador's long-running civil wars. That motive may have been justified. El Salvador has been a world-leader in civilian homicides, with terrorist gang attacks contributing.

CECOT is that intended means. Political enemies are simply seized, and fed into CECOT, never to get out. The most accurate characterization to apply to CECOT would probably be, "Clearly not Auschwitz, maybe Auschwitz adjacent."

"Not Auschwitz," because although CECOT is enormous—perhaps the largest prison in the Western Hemisphere—it is notably smaller than Auschwitz was. CECOT's designed capacity is 40,000 prisoners, and it is not yet half full.

Each prisoner is allocated 6.5 square feet in the cell blocks—which is to say an area about the size of a young child's mattress. But that is not the sleeping area per prisoner, it is all the area per prisoner. Obviously, that means vertical stacking must be used to cram everyone in. Thus, prisoner bunks are stacked as they were at Auschwitz, 4-high. It is not clear on the internet, however, whether the CECOT prisoners are generally allowed out of their bunks. It seems out of the question they could all get out at once; floor space to stand them all up seems unavailable.

A possibly-contradictory assertion can be found that the prison complex includes an area for online legal consultations. So perhaps a few prisoners from time-to-time can be escorted to that. And there must be something like mess halls and latrines. The internet showed me nothing about those.

An aerial view discloses next to nothing in the way of outdoor area, except narrow roads connecting buildings larger than football fields. Together, those fill almost all the area within a double-walled enclosure which seems to measure about 800 meters by 400 meters.

The grimmest Auschwitz similarity is that at CECOT the announced intention is that no one gets out alive. That Bukele forthrightly said to the press. Bukele is apparently proud of CECOT, and eager to reap credit for it. To make it terrible to behold seems part of the credit-gathering process. That may be working. Other Latin American dictators have announced plans for similar prisons.

Thus, according to plan, no one at CECOT will ever be released. No outside communication is permitted for prisoners. No inside admission of NGO representatives is allowed. No legal process applies (except as above, maybe). The only open questions appear to be, at what rate, and by which means, is CECOT intended to kill its victims?

There is a large prison-associated area outside the walls, with far more than enough capacity to accommodate prisoners' cremated remains. An enclosed area outside the prison walls shows a small building with tall chimneys, but at least for me it is not possible to discern what those are for. It could be a trash incinerator, or light industry, or who knows what. It seems to be associated with gates across the prison access road; visual ambiguity in the overhead photo prevents any conclusion I could reach.

Thus, with that apparatus up and running, Bukele reportedly contacted the U.S. in February—not yet two months ago—to offer help, for a fee, to the Trump administration, to similarly rid itself of political problems. Reportedly, Bukele met with Marco Rubio, and Elon Musk, who approved, quickly okayed the idea, and promptly laid out plans to make use of it.

So here we are, in the United States, using a fully-implemented totalitarian process actively at work abroad. Under the direction of a Secretary of State, and a President, who begin to look like candidates for the dock in a revived Nuremberg Tribunal.

If that makes you feel calm, or if you think I have exaggerated, go back to Getty Images and take another look. There are hundreds of photographs. Bukele apparently wants to get the word out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Or is this the beginning of Trump's power to kill innocents at pleasure, with impunity?"

It is. I think you should log off all social media and maybe move to protect yourself. Otherwise I'd expect you to be a early victim.

[John F. Carr]

Two deaths of note:

Anthony R. Dolan died March 11. As speechwriter for Ronald Reagan he wrote or supervised the writing of speeches that gave us "evil empire", "ash heap of history", and "tear down this wall." He also won a Pulitzer for reporting on municipal corruption in Stamford, Connecticut.

Jeffrey Bruce Klein, co-founder of Mother Jones, died March 13. He was a leader in digital publishing. He was pushed out in 1998 by board members who wanted a more progressive tone. Quoting NYT:

"There is obviously a left and right dimension, but I think the more critical dimension is outsider and insider," he told The New York Times in 1993. "I think that is where the real political battles are."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Did Dolan bear a burden of responsibility for the outlandish, "Shining city on a hill," or was that someone else's blunder?

Also, given near-match coinages dating back centuries, "Ash heap of history," was not much of an invention by the time of the Reagan administration.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, going back to the grooveyard of Reagan quotes, I liked the "We begin bombing in 5 minutes" myself.
Might want to watch that though, research shows repressed feelings can cause Cancer (OK, I don't have any research, make that "Experts Say")
Probably what gave Jimmuh Cartuh the "Terminal Brain Melanoma" that took 10 years to kill him
C'mon man, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another, right now
Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the "we begin bombing in 5 minutes" was inappropriate.

I would instead have said "the premier will be arriving tomorrow to sign the surrender document." Then if the Soviets misunderstood it, they'd merely be mad, not launching ICBMs.

Remember that a misunderstood signal like this is how we got into Korea.

And that Red Archer '83 damn near touched of a Nuke War.

[Thought about __ all my life]

YEt the Doc again leaves out the real case

Remembering The Man Who Saved the World ...
Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action
https://www.gzcenter.org › the-man-who-saved-the-worl...
Jan 30, 2023 — Vasili Arkhipov, a Soviet submarine officer who prevented a Soviet nuclear strike against US surface warships during that very crisis in 1962.

Reagan was very appropriate...the above however was the result of smooth talking slow walking JFK whom you like because hey he wasn't an honest speaking Hollywood actor, be honest 🙂

RFK said that when JFK was talking about Cuba most of the room wanted NUCLEAR WAR

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Shining city on a hill" was John Winthrop -- in the 1600s....

[David Nieporent]

Did Dolan bear a burden of responsibility for the outlandish, "Shining city on a hill," or was that someone else's blunder?

As has been explained to you repeatedly by people more literate than you are, there was no "blunder."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — There are of course people more literate than I am on many topics; there are a relative few on that topic. None that you have ever mentioned are numbered among that latter group.

The last time you tried to float that nonsense, to help you out I cited an entire intellectual history written specifically to contextualize Reagan's quote—right back to the first moment Reagan referenced, and then forward through the entire history of the U.S. to the present. It's a brilliant book. Of course you did not read it.

A MAGA fan intoning piffle: "As I already pointed out . . . " That's what you sound like.

[John F. Carr]

After violent protests, Guatemala's president withdrew a decree requiring motor vehicle liability insurance. BBC:

The government had issued the decree in the wake of a deadly bus accident last month in which more than 50 people died.

A rule requiring insurance for commercial motor vehicles might draw less opposition while covering the biggest accidents. I really have no idea if a poor person run over by a bus could successfully collect from the bus' insurance in Guatemala.

In my state insurance companies are not allowed to force people to sue if liability is clear. Refusal to settle results in punitive damages. In other states the insurance company can make it very difficult and expensive to collect.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg1qn7dw10o

[A Japanese Student]

Japan has had a mandatory vehicle insurance for decades. While people get mad at its coverage being low ($200k for death, $8k for injury, and $0 for property damage), few people oppose it. Most car owners enroll in additional coverage, and the consensus is that those too poor to afford it should not be driving in the first place.

Settlement is very common, and even if they go to court it's usually for determining the extent of liability. Once they get the circumstances, calculating damages is a robotic process. It's not the jury, not the judge, but medical bills, some mathematical formulas, and comparative-negligence table.

[Michael P]

Is the $0 for property damage explicit, or just implicit in only having defined minima for death and personal injury? If it's explicit, is there a non-historical reason that it's explicit? I could imagine that if it was formerly not zero, it might be more straightforward to set it to zero than to make larger changes to the wording.

Tangentially related: One interesting thing I learned when renting a car as a tourist to Japan was that it's an offense to not make a police report for any collision, even ones with fixed property where no damage is apparent.

(Mass transit was good enough for our purposes everywhere we went on Honshu, but we also visited the rural parts of Hokkaido -- quite lovely, at least in the summer, but much less dense. So we rented a car for our time in Hokkaido.)

[A Japanese Student]

Just to clarify: the numbers I posted are the maximum payment. Mandatory insurance only covers up to $200k for death, $8k for injury, and does not cover property damage at all.

ASCAA (https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3135) is the relevant statute - the most important provision being Article 3. It shifts the burden of establishing lack of negligence to the driver in accidents resulting in "death or bodily injury of another person". The rest of the statute establishes mandatory insurance scheme for Article 3 damages. Injuries to the driver or property are not covered, since they are not subject to Article 3.

[Michael P]

Thank you!

[John F. Carr]

Almost all states require insurance for personal injury and property damage to others. By contract, car owners with loans must insure their cars against damage so the lender does not lose its collateral.

Massachusetts is unusual in a few ways.

Personal injury to a vehicle occupant is "no fault" up to $8,000. Occupants collect from insurance and may not sue.

State law takes most collisions between vehicles out of the court system. If all cars have Massachusetts insurance and collision coverage the insurance companies decide between themselves who pays. Vehicle repair payments are negotiated between the insurer and repair shop.

Tort claims have prejudgment interest at a rate exceeding typical investment returns.

Unreasonable refusal to settle or make prompt payment subjects the insurance company to punitive damages. See Capitol Special Insurance Corporation v. Higgins for an example. Employees at a strip club served alcohol to an underage dancer and put her in her car to drive home drunk. She was seriously injured in an accident. The club had a $300,000 policy for alcohol-related incidents. The insurer waited three years to offer policy limits. For that delay the insurer was ordered to pay $5.4 million (with prejudgment interest on the base amount and postjudgment interest on the punitive damages).

[Commenter_XY]

Does Professor Amy Wax win her case against UPenn?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/03/upenn-asks-court-to-dismiss-professor-amy-waxs-racial-discrimination-lawsuit/

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ECF-001-01.16.2025-Wax-v-UPENN-Complaint.pdf

When Prof Wax eventually wins her case, will it be on the basis of contractual violations, or 1A, or both?

[David Nieporent]

It would of course not be based on the 1A, since Penn — despite its name — is a private, not government, institution.

[Commenter_XY]

What do you think, David? Does she win the case?

[santamonica811]

XY,
Much thanks for the cocktail recommendation last week. [As it turns out, I don't much like the taste of elderflower, which surprised me. But I definitely did appreciate the thought. ] 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Throughout the year, Commenter_XY will be looking for 'hardcore' vegan recipes (I posted a roasted curried sweet potato recipe awhile back, also from Tori Avey; it is the bomb) and holiday cocktails. Pesach is next up, and there are some outstanding cocktails for that time. Spring is in the air.

[santamonica811]

Did I see that recipe??? (I sure don't remember it) Please repost it in one of the upcoming open threads...it sounds delicious!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

For 40 years, Maine has been run by Feminists.
Now it's being run by Gay Men.
Things are getting interesting...

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/03/maines-12-billion-budget-debate-devolves-into-brawl-over-house-dems-censoring-disenfranchising-laurel-libby/

And no, I am not surprised that the Tranny's Daddy works for the Federal Court system.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Wondering what I clicked to be bombarded with HIV pharmaceutical ads across several platforms. No, it wasn't gay porn.

[Commenter_XY]

Brave (browser) is your friend.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember in the Ought's I thought I typed "Hot Bot" in the search window, but typed "Hot Boy" by mistake, but hey, I always wanted to meet Chris Hansen

Frank "I always bring rufies on a date"

[Krayt]

I don't think web sites, especially sketchy porn ones, survive on direct ads anymore so much as feeding the pages you visit to the advertising AI analysis bots. It must be them as https stops your ISP from seeing the details of any requested link.

[John F. Carr]

Maybe somebody who lives with you or is considered by the mighty algorithm to be close to you is into gay porn.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You can never tell these days. Did you take a look at the Enola Gay photo?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Schumer can brag about running through 236 partisan Federal judges and we are supposed to believe in the legitimacy of the Federal Courts?

We're in the midst of a Constitutional crisis but Trump didn't start it.

I say: GITMO for Judges, early and often...

[Commenter_XY]

A questions for the lawyers and law professors.

Is swatting attempted murder?
Do you think you could you get a conviction in court for attempted murder?

[Martinned2]

Novus actus interveniens

[Michael P]

From https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/novus-actus-interveniens:

If the subsequent event was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial wrongful act, it is not to be considered as a novus actus capable of limiting the liability to be imputed on the initial wrongdoer.

In swatting, the intervening act is not only reasonably foreseeable but intended.

[Martinned2]

The fact that the police in the US kills people so often that you could describe a particular killing as "reasonably foreseeable" should really give you more pause than it seems to.

(But, since you ask, I don't think that it does. If something has, say, a 10% chance of happening, that doesn't make it reasonably foreseeable.)

[Michael P]

A swatting call is usually tailored to increase the risk of violent police action. That kind of intentional elevation makes your vague and unsupported statistical assertions irrelevant.

[Martinned2]

As the word "say" suggested, I made that number up. How probable do you think a police killing is for a specific single case?

[Michael P]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but my previous comment rejected the entire idea that we should be pulling numbers out of asses or making any other arguments from supposed statistics.

Do you think civil liability would be determined by an argument that it was 51 or 75 percent probably that an unidentified bus that hit a person was operated by Company X? If not, why do you think citing broad statistics should override case-specific evidence about the intention of swatting?

[Martinned2]

Sigh...

If I understand that something is possible but unlikely, that doesn't make it "reasonably forseeable". The concept of foreseeability involves a reasonably high likelihood, though we can talk about how high that likelihood needs to be.

[Michael P]

You understand wrong. See, for example, the discussion of Kinsman Transit here or the discussion of Hughes v Lord Advocate and Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council here.

[Armchair]

Martinned....

Let's work with "reasonable foreseeablility" with the concept of percentages for you and a case example.

Let's say you have a firearm. You've previously tested it with a target. You know you only have a 10% chance of hitting the target. You've proven this with video evidence. You point that firearm at someone where the target is. You fire. It kills the person.

Was it "reasonably foreseeable" that when you fired that weapon, you would kill the individual? Or can you argue "There was only a 10% chance, it couldn't be reasonably foreseen, I'm not liable for the murder".

[Martinned2]

That's intentional killing, without any sort of intervening 3rd party in the causal chain.

[Michael P]

Martinned, why do you think that is relevant here? Where do you get the idea that "reasonably foreseeable" has some special meaning when action by a third party is involved?

[Martinned2]

Because that's the person you have to sue instead. It's called free will.

[Bwaaah]

That was Martinned's way of saying, "I kinda see your point now."

[Michael P]

As usual for him, it's a pretty silly way to say anything. Attempted murder is a crime that would be prosecuted by the state, not a tort that a private citizen would sue over.

[Armchair]

"That's intentional killing, without any sort of intervening 3rd party in the causal chain."

Fine. Let's put a third party in the chain then. Instead of taking the shot yourself, you hire "Poor Shot Hitman". Poor shot hitman only has a 10% chance of hitting the target (or person) in this case. You are fully aware of the chances. You say "Poor Shot, I'm paying you to take the shot at that person. Do it now".

He does, kills the person. Are you liable for murder, having paid him to take the shot?

[not guilty]

Check out the doctrine of transferred intent, Armchair.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Check out the doctrine of transferred intent, Armchair.

What relevance does that have to Armchair’s fact pattern? The intended victim is the one who died.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — I have twice been in situations where that probability went uncomfortably high, and the person at risk to be shot was me.

When by surprise, you are in a darkish place you have a right to be, and are suddenly spotlighted from behind, by an officer who yells, "Freeze," while pointing a pistol at your head with his hand visibly trembling, I think that would the wrong time to do a lot of things you might reflexively do.

Likewise when you are in broad daylight, and round the corner of your own apartment building to encounter at a distance of less than 20 feet a police officer running full tilt toward you, with a drawn pistol pointing right at you.

Turns out I had walked inadvertently into a foot-chase after a bank robber I never saw. I remain here to tell the tale, so maybe that mutual surprise was less dangerous than it seemed to me a the time. I congratulate the officer's self-control, if not his judgment.

[Jmaie]

OK, I’ll bite. If you were spotlighted from behind, how did you know his hand was trembling or where the gun was pointed?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I slowly raised my hands over my head.

He said, "Turn around."

I said, "I am going to keep my hands above my head, and turn around slowly." Which I did.

He was standing about 8 to 10 feet away from me, not as much in shadow as I was. The spotlight was on his cruiser, behind him. His unsteady hand became an immediate focus of my attention.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2, is a specific single case the right way to reason on the question? In police work, one thing absolutely foreseeable is a lot of cases. Seems like proper training has to anticipate that, and deliver assurance that unjustified killings will remain characteristically rare despite that.

[Armchair]

"But, since you ask, I don't think that it does. If something has, say, a 10% chance of happening, that doesn't make it reasonably foreseeable."

Vehicular manslaughter (due to drunk or impaired driving) is considered murder. Even if you only have a "10% chance" of killing someone on the way home because you're drunk, it's still murder.

[Martinned2]

That doesn't involve separate decisions by 3rd parties in the causal chain.

[Armchair]

1) You've moved your goalposts from something that was "reasonably foreseeable" at a 10% chance.

2) If you want to move your goalposts, I would mention the concept of Dram Shop laws, as they apply to drunk drivers.

[David Nieporent]

Dram shop laws are about civil liability, not criminal responsibility.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Wtong , at least logically, on both sides of your comment
The only question is not "In a legitimate police force there would be no killings' [ sily to say or imply that] but : Are those deaths results of the criminals they have to deal with to be doing there job at all.

As to a 10% chance, thjat too ignores circumstances and if there were not that chance THAT might be a cause for concern.
I had a good friend who was an IRS seizure agent. When you come to the house of a drug lord and say "we are taking your car" --- a 10% chance at least that he won't invite you in for crumpets.

[bernard11]

If something has, say, a 10% chance of happening, that doesn't make it reasonably foreseeable.

ISTM that whether something is "reasonably foreseeable" for these purposes ought to depend on the seriousness of the damage done, or maybe that's not a very good standard.

If I do something that has a 10% chance of killing someone it ought to be treated quite seriously, not disregarded because of the (sort of) low probability.

Drunk driving probably has considerably less than a 10% chance of killing someone other than the driver. Should it be ignored?

[SRG2]

That was always one of my favourite legal terms, fwiw

[Commenter_XY]

What do you think, SRG2? Is swatting attempted murder?

There have been plenty of people on the Left swatted, too.

[SRG2]

No, for the reason Martinned2 said. Swatting should lead to a civil suit, though, aside from any criminal charges laid for filing false reports, as well as criminal charges against SWAT if they acted without genuine probable cause.

[David Nieporent]

I disagree with Martinned. It absolutely can be attempted murder. At the very least it's some form of reckless endangerment. The intended purpose of swatting is to trick highly armed people into thinking you're dangerous and need to be dealt with.

[SRG2]

I think morally you're right. Legally, though...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Legally though… what? If you intentionally induce an innocent person to do something that would be a crime if you did it yourself, that’s usually enough for criminal liability.

[not guilty]

"I disagree with Martinned. It absolutely can be attempted murder. At the very least it's some form of reckless endangerment. The intended purpose of swatting is to trick highly armed people into thinking you're dangerous and need to be dealt with."

I agree that it can be reckless endangerment, or reckless homicide if death were to ensue. Attempted murder, though, is quite a stretch. I think that showing the caller's specific intent to cause death may be insurmountable, at least in the absence of the accused's admission.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't swatting premeditated? And intentional? The 'Swatter' knows that one outcome could be death of the 'Swattee'.

Isn't that enough for attempted murder?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No. For an attempted murder conviction, you have to specifically intend to kill someone, not just know that it’s possible or even likely. That could be the case for a SWATting incident, but I do think not guilty is right that you can’t automatically infer it, the way you likely could for, e.g., shooting at someone.

[Stella Link the dog]

Is there anyone posting here who doesn't think that SWATing should be illegal and punished? Seems to me that trying to classify SWATing as attempted murder just complicates things needlessly. If current sanctions are not sufficient, then the solution is to pass legislation increasing the penalties,not to get all entangled with needing to prove all the elements of attempted murder.

[David Nieporent]

but I do think not guilty is right that you can’t automatically infer it, the way you likely could for, e.g., shooting at someone.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “you” and “automatically.” Are you contending that a jury couldn't convict for attempted murder in a swatting incident?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you contending that a jury couldn't convict for attempted murder in a swatting incident?

I’m saying that I personally don’t think that placing a SWATting call in and of itself implies that the person had a specific intent to kill—I would need to see some additional evidence, and if the only evidence I had was the fact that the call was made, as a juror I would vote to acquit. (Whether the judge should grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal is a harder question.) On the other hand, in the absence of evidence negating an intent to kill, I’d be more than prepared to infer it from the defendant shooting the victim, without the need for additional corroboration.

I can of course easily imagine a fact pattern where the SWATter would have an intent to kill, and if the prosecution could establish it that would easily satisfy the elements of attempted murder, in my view.

[David Nieporent]

Whether the judge should grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal is a harder question

Yes, but that's the one I'm interested in!
​
​
(Of course, any particular case depends on the specific facts. If a 14-year old does it to one of his friends, I would assume the kid has the common sense of a 14-year old boy and did not have such an intent.)

[Commenter_XY]

So if it is not attempted murder, what is it? Reckless homicide, I guess.

[not guilty]

Reckless endangerment. If death occurs, it could be reckless homicide.

[John F. Carr]

Swatting does not ordinarily cause death, so I would call it not attempted murder and if death results it should be no more than manslaughter.

Under federal law there is a specific crime, false report or bomb hoax resulting in death, that was used in the deadly Kansas swatting incident a few years back. It avoids the factual questions of mental state and likelihood by imposing strict liability.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Swatting does not ordinarily cause death, so I would call it not attempted murder and if death results it should be no more than manslaughter.

What if it can be shown that the caller specifically intended for someone to die?

[Sarcastr0]

I tend to call out the righties on her a lot more than the left. This is absolutely tribal - I'm here to have fun and it's more enjoyable poking holes in arguments for theses I don't like.

Is this bad/unserious/trolling? I would argue that this is just how everyone on here is, by and large.

[Mr. Bumble]

Posts like yours make giving up the VC for Lent much easier and satisfying.
However, since I popped in;
Surprised that no one has brought up the Greenpeace case and the $667 million judgement.
Have a nice weekend.

[apedad]

Kazinski (Wednesday Open Thread)

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

[Brett Bellmore]

Play criminal games, get criminal prizes. They worked hard to earn that fate.

[John F. Carr]

The judge still has a chance to reduce the payment or even enter judgment for Greenpeace. Without some judicial grace Greenpeace probably won't be able to afford an appeal bond.

[Don Nico]

"I'm here to have fun and it's more enjoyable ..."
I am with you on that.

[Riva]

You are a hole.

[Kazinski]

You'd have to step up your game to be bad or trolling.

Unserious definitely.

90% of your calling out is you don't like the source, not that its not true, or we shouldn't think that because you think differently.

[Sarcastr0]

Calling YOU out for being the lifetime winner of the Fell For It Again Award with Comer is something I do alongside pointing out the holes and timeline fails in the stuff you share.

The fact that you take such offense at my suggesting you should care about the track record of credibility of your sources shows how little you care about media literacy as compared to polishing your priors.

It's a common vice, but you just lean into it.

[jb]

Maybe just reflecting my own bias, but I do find that with a lot of the farther right sources, even the most trivial inspection of the claims reveals that they're untrue (e.g., they correctly link to original sources but then the original source doesn't support or contradicts the claim).

I suspect this would be equally true if a lot of posters here were posting lefty blogs in support of their points, just as I suspect that the fact checking from right-leaning actual media sources like Fox News and the NY Post is roughly as good as left-leaning media. In practice, most of the sketchy sources in this particular forum tend to be on the right side of the ideological spectrum.

[tylertusta]

Is this bad/unserious/trolling?

For how you do it?

It's mostly unserious, and it's trolling.

I would argue that this is just how everyone on here is, by and large.

Hey man, whatever you need to tell yourself, you go right on ahead.

[Martinned2]

I assume the angry comments about how the Trump administration extorted $40m of free legal work out of Paul Weiss are coming any moment now? Takings clause, undue government pressure, etc etc. The comment writes itself.

[David Nieporent]

There are tons of them on Bluesky, with the focus being how pathetic Paul Weiss was. Why would anyone hire a firm to fight for them, if it was unwilling to even fight for itself?

[Martinned2]

Yes, I saw. (As well as speculation about how many lawyers at Paul Weiss, and at any other firm taking the same approach, might quit.)

[Commenter_XY]

The woodchipper goes brrrrrr....adios Dept of Education. After spending ~3T over 45 years, our education system is no better today than it was in 1979; if anything, standards and results declined.

The Dept of Ed started with lofty and laudable goals. Why did it fail?

Regarding the administration of student loans, is there a legal reason not to transfer this responsibility to the Treasury department?

[Dr. Ed 2]

To what end? A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat.

[Frank Drackman]

I love that phrase "To What End?" (remember when Silvio said that to Tony when Tony wanted him to talk to the Building Inspector?) use it all the time. Good job!

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

or a good Collection Agency

[David Nieporent]

Wrong, of course. Trump fooled you yet again. The Department of Education was created by Congress and only Congress can eliminate it; Trump tricked you by issuing an "order" that didn't do anything at all. (It said that it should be eliminated to the extent permissible by law, which is: not.)

[Commenter_XY]

Fortunately, POTUS Trump has a Congress inclined to eliminate it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So why didn’t we start there?

[Commenter_XY]

Congress needed encouragement. POTUS Trump provided it, albeit in a rather abrupt manner.

[Bwaaah]

"So why didn't we start there?"

Because change doesn't begin with doing nothing different. Or hadn't you noticed?

[ducksalad]

The Dept of Ed started with lofty and laudable goals.

Meh. Many of us thought it was a bad idea at the time. The goal was to administer a bunch of then-recent federal laws that probably shouldn't have been enacted in the first place, or should have been enforced solely through lawsuits based on the bill text rather than fleshed out through regulations and enforced through monitoring and mandatory reporting.

Why did it fail?

Fail? Depends what you think the goal was. It hasn't failed to gain federal control and influence over state, local, and private schools and colleges. It hasn't failed to greatly expand enforcement of Title this and Title that, it hasn't failed to define damn near every aspect of education as an equity issue.

Maybe you were referring to those declining standards and results. Well, they have gotten worse, and the DoEd certainly didn't help. However, if we're going to be honest the decline is mostly due to other factors. Most notably the idea that getting a diploma is an entitlement. That one is not really the DoEd's fault.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/mission-of-the-us-department-of-education

link to mission statement

Notably, the Dept of Ed doesn't appear to have any objectively measurable goals.

[Estragon]

“The woodchipper goes brrrrrr”

I have to say, I’m starting to get some grim amusement from your obsessive repetition of this phraseology in comments. Like “the smasher” before it— this has really caught your fancy, hasn’t it?

Of course there’s no need for you to dittohead Musk’s original tweet for weeks on end— we already knew you heart Elon.

The amusement part comes in courtesy of Judge Chuang. That original tweet features prominently in his last ruling— a delicious moment of self-petarding if there ever was one. And here you are, reminding us all that Musk is an idiot who can’t keep his mouth shut, week after week in some sort of sick fanboy paean! Keep up the good work!

I mean seriously— why didn’t you have Russel Voight do all of this? Would have been much cleaner and created way less legal friction. But no, you went with the ketamine addled Roman saluter, demonstrating once again MAGA has only one true guiding political principle: owning libs.

In the words of Peter Venkman— “tasty pick, bonehead!”

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr — I have a remarkable friend. Based mainly on boundless energy, resourcefulness, and a love of all things motorized, he parlayed an undistinguished high school academic record into a multi-million dollar fortune, by contracting to operate one small-town school bus fleet.

My friend held that contract for about 30 years, because he was so efficient even private bus contractors with big operations everywhere could not underbid him. He operated obsolete used buses, which he kept in visibly-like-new condition with diligence and sheer energy. If one dim kid got out a magic marker to vandalize a seat or metal surface, he never saw trace of his handiwork the next day. My friend had a shed full of solvents to cover every contingency.

He surprised me on the first day I met him, when it became evident he already knew me—for instance, knew quite a bit about my schedule, knew where I typically shopped—like he knew almost everyone else in our town of 12,000 population—on the basis of the vehicle I drove. Turned out my friend's bad grades in high school came consequent to full-time, out-the-school-window attention to every passing vehicle. It became a life-long habit. A person parking her car anywhere near the bus yard could not suffer so much as moderately low tire pressure without finding a cautionary note under the windshield wiper.

Anyway, my school bus operator friend convinced me that the people most at risk from bus-related accidents were the passengers themselves. And not because of anything likely to happen while riding the bus. That was an order of magnitude or more safer than riding any other conveyance in traffic. His little fleet typically completed each year with multi-millions of passenger miles traveled, without so much as a fender bender.

Turns out the moment after someone gets off a bus is fraught with severe risks of various sorts. Sight lines for disembarking passengers, and for approaching drivers, are mutually terrible. The driver's responsibility to keep the bus motionless until every passenger is clear of the bus is so demanding, but happens so often, that it amounts to a long-odds bet on an almost impossibly high standard of perfect performance. Passengers themselves can and will do almost every unexpected thing that can possibly happen—not least of which is to drop stuff they carry in the direction of the bus, and then duck down to retrieve it before the wheels can roll over it. Happens all the time.

A sensible passenger, just disembarked, and with an eye to cross the street, will cross in front, while the bus remains motionless, blocking traffic from behind, and leaving the passenger free to view approaching traffic in the opposite lane. (Of course a school bus has blinkers to stop traffic in both directions, which fail to be heeded only rarely, which is much too often). A less sensible passenger—a child disembarking, or a drunk, for instance—is far too likely to walk along the outside of the bus toward the back, and begin to cross there. That can happen just as the bus driver turns off his blinkers and releases a pent-up traffic stream in the opposite lane, to accelerate toward the point where the street-crossing passenger is about to step suddenly into view from behind the bus.

I guess this has been a public service announcement for bus passengers. If you want to, you can also take it as advocacy to support public school bus fleets, whether contracted or publicly owned. They do an astonishingly safe job, under conditions more demanding than anyone not familiar is likely to realize.

Consider, if any fatality happens in connection with a school bus anywhere, it will almost certainly get played up nationally in the news. You see those stories sometimes. When was the last time you saw one?

[Moderation4ever]

As you are mentioning buses I recently witnessed a car drive by a bus with its red stop lights flashing. The car driver was lucky no police were around. I am amazed we let people that stupid drive.

[Frank Drackman]

Inevitable once they were freed

[Stephen Lathrop]

I once saw a police officer witness that, visibly take notice, and do nothing. Poetically, he had just emerged from a Dunkin shop, and was standing beside his cruiser with his coffee.

[Brett Bellmore]

What was he supposed to do, drive by the bus in pursuit?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, yeah, that's what they used to do with serious traffic offences

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — In that case he was parked ahead of the bus, which afforded a perfect view of the violation. And plenty of room for safe pursuit if he wanted to do it.

Of course school bus drivers are trained to pull over and keep their doors closed if emergency vehicles are active in their vicinity.

If emergency vehicles show up while a school bus is already discharging passengers, that can become a tricky situation, demanding alertness and judgment. The idea is to stop discharging passengers, turn off the blinkers to permit passage, but to do it only when passengers already discharged are assuredly safe.

Then wait for the emergency vehicles to clear the area, re-activate the blinkers, re-open the door, and finish discharging whoever still needs to get off. But because emergency vehicles have a tendency to arrive at intervals, with a first wave followed shortly by others, and because other vehicles respond unpredictably to the lights and sirens, scenes of that sort are inherently chaotic and dangerous.

Caution first is the rule. In a situation like that, in a jammed intersection, a school bus driver sometimes becomes willy-nilly the traffic cop directing traffic flow, including that of the emergency vehicles, who may not be able to proceed until other vehicles ahead of them, but stopped by the bus, have room to get out of the way. While lights, horns, sirens, and ill-judged maneuvers by auto drivers boost the tension level for everyone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What they will do is tailgate the bus and then be able to testify that they saw the overhead reds on and that car go by. And had continuous eyes on the vehicle until stopping it -- this was the driver.

[SRG2]

In NYS it's the law that when a school bus stops and engages lights, stop signs, etc, not only can you not overtake, but cars on the other side of the road must also stop. Is that nationwide or state-dependent?

[Absaroka]

True in the half dozen states I've lived in.

Maybe not for divided highways. For instance, locally you don't have to pull over for police/ambulance/fire on the other side of the median, and not for pedestrians going away from you, once they reach the median.

I think :-). This (most?) states don't repeat the traffic law text for renewals, so it's been a few decades since I went through the DMV booklet.

[Commenter_XY]

That is how it is in the People's Republic of NJ. If the highway is divided (physical barrier), no need to stop if a school bus on the other side has red lights and is stopped.

Same appears to be true in TN, where I am spending more time now.

[Bwaaah]

An avenue in midtown Manhattan can be 7 lanes wide, and in mid afternoon, it's filled with traffic including trucks and buses that barely crawls. A school bus creeping along one side finally makes it to a stop, wherein it's flashers go on and red STOP signs swing out from the side.

Question: Does traffic stop?
Answer: Not when "go" has lost its meaning. (Yeah, the cars right next to that bus feel compelled to wait. But the drivers feel really stupid doing so.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why you try to have bus routes so that the child doesn't have to cross the street.

Although I had someone pass me on the shoulder once -- was the cousin of the girl she nearly hit. I didn't know whose car it was, but the kids did, they all told their parents, who then told hers...

[Krayt]

True in my state, unless the other side is separated by a boulevard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Children have a safe path to a curb -- beyond that, sucks to be them...

Although I don't believe pedestrians are allowed to climb over medians, and Ive always seen the bus having to go round to drop off on the other side.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure how plausible it sounds to me that someone operating school buses in a 12,000 person town, whose prices are so low as to undercut much bigger companies, is going to amass a "multi-million dollar fortune" from so doing.

[Davedave]

Over 30 years, running a moderately successful small business? I'd expect someone to amass at least a couple of million dollars in that time. The use of 'fortune' is a bit hyperbolic to describe a fairly ordinary sized retirement fund, though.

[Absaroka]

There was a book a few years ago titled 'The Millionaire Next Door' that said the typical millionaire is driving an F-150, not a Bimmer. A plurality?? majority?? were Joe the plumber types who kept expenditures low, started Joe's Plumbing employing a couple other plumbers, and worked hard.

It's not just having a high income, it's keeping expenses lower than income. Salting away $10K a year for 40 years with 5% ROI yields over $1M. Spend the median income but earn median+10K and there you go.

I know a couple of folks who have done similar things.

[Frank Drackman]

A Million's not that much anymore

[Dr. Ed 2]

There were a lot of people doing that in the 1920s who got screwed when the banks failed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen again.

[Frank Drackman]

Joke in Med School went like this,
Neurosurgeon goes to pick up his BMW after a repair, Mechanic tells him it's $1,500 for parts, $5,000 for Labor.
"$5,000??!?!?!??!?!" says the Neurosurgeon, "I only get paid $2,000 for doing a Laminectomy"
Mechanic says "Yeah, that's what I used to get when I was a Neurosurgeon" (Rim Shot)

Frank

[ducksalad]

One example contract I googled up was $18M per year to transport 2800 kids. A town of 12,000 might have roughly 1,000 kids riding buses, depending on badly they've been infected with parents who insist on driving their kids to school in the car.

So Steven's friend's contract could be $6M a year, if he clears 5% profit he could easily rack up a multi-million dollar fortune over 30 years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — The money he made first he invested in an antique home, on a large lot, in his then-outlying home town. It later turned into the upscale Boston suburb, Norwell, MA. Then he bought other properties, in coastal Maine, northern Vermont, and elsewhere.

But even without his gift for smart real estate buys, he was onto an advantage his mechanical talent made him uniquely equipped to exploit. He was his own fleet manager, his own mechanic, his own body-work expert, and his own backup driver.

His very talented wife was a gifted administrator, and state-licensed to train school bus drivers. She was the other backup driver. Both laughed at adversity, worked harder and longer every day than anyone, and stayed mostly cheerful.

That, a tiny travel trailer for an office, a shed for supplies, and a rented bus lot comprised the entire operation. Not even an indoor garage.

Very rarely, a mechanical problem arose which made more sense to fix than to replace the bus. If that needed indoor repairs the used-bus sales operators were equipped to provide backup.

Larger school systems which contract for bus service typically guard against unreliable service by contract requirements. Those typically stipulate equipment no more than a few years old. During the interval my friend ran his company, there was thus a reliable supply of second-hand surplus buses, with odometers showing well-under 100,000 miles total. Those buses were available on huge lots covered with them. You could take your picks, usually for less each than the price of a used car with similar mileage.

That meant my friend could operate an active fleet of ~12–14 buses, with a few cripples around for parts. The total he paid for all of them would have bought maybe two new buses of the kinds his rivals used. But it was the kind of balance sheets the rivals had which set the bid standard when contract time came around, every 3 years. That gave my friend a lot of room to make money. A high bid for him was an impossibly low bid for his rivals.

He knew how to do what he did. They knew how to do what they did. They were different business models. His business model made him plenty of money.

[Riva]

You ride a bus?

[apedad]

Fourth Circuit considers nuisance claims for West Virginia coal mining waste dumps

The Fourth Circuit on Thursday heard from a West Virginia county seeking accountability from coal mining companies responsible for waste dumps, which it claims harm the Johnson Fork of Loop Creek watershed.

Fayette County, West Virginia, sued over a dozen coal mining, real estate and insurance companies for failing to abate the supposed environmental threat five piles of coal waste, often called garbage of bituminous or GOB piles, pose.

"They emit acid mine drainage, they ruin streams, they drop PH, they kill fish," attorney Michael Callaghan of Neely & Callaghan, co-representing the county, said. "These are environmental problems left by coal companies."

The county accused the companies of creating a public nuisance and violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the West Virginia Solid Waste Management Act, and the Federal Clean Water Act.

https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-considers-nuisance-claims-for-west-virginia-coal-mining-waste-dumps/

HA!

A West Virginia county complaining about West Virginia coal mining.

Stupid people.

[Michael P]

Government sues companies accused of abusing the environment. apedad thinks this is somehow stupid. The irony, it burns.

[Commenter_XY]

From your cite....

A lower court judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that the county failed to show what harm low levels of contaminants like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, iron, manganese, and sulfate cause to the watershed and its wildlife.

"The court cannot find that the waste in the gob piles 'may present an imminent and substantial endangerment' where the county does not provide any evidence that could support a finding of such endangerment," U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Johnston, a George W. Bush appointee, said. While proof of actual harm is not required, there needs to be some "reasonable prospect of future harm."

[Bwaaah]

Once we got our measurements down to parts-per-BILLION, environmentalists got their cause for attacking pure drinking water. And their "may cause harm" standard turns it into a justiciable claim. The rest is our unfolding history of environmental legal nonsense.

What's Greenpeace up to?

[Moderation4ever]

Recent reports of the anti-DEI scrubbing of government web sites leading to removal of the Enola Gay and the Navaho Code Talkers has made news. Ever wonder what little goes through the head of the nerd that wrote the algorithms that did the scrubbing. Some little racist, xenophobic person trying to rewrite history with his computer.

[Martinned2]

Hanlon's Razor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

[gVOR08]

There's a reason people call Musk's minions Dunning-Kruger Kids.

[Michael P]

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

[apedad]

Not applicable.

From the link:

The Washington Monument syndrome . . . is a term used to describe the phenomenon of government agencies in the United States cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government when faced with budget cuts.
. . . .
This is done to put pressure on the public and lawmakers to rescind budget cuts.

TrGODmp is certainly not looking to rescind budget cuts.

[ducksalad]

I think he's suggesting it might have been a case of malicious/sarcastic compliance, and that's not impossible. Probably better to call it Solder Svejk Syndrome rather than Washington Monument Syndrome.

However, based on what I'm seeing at my own workplace, I'd say the more likely explanation is a nervous employee who feels they are at the mercy of people who are arbitrary, intentionally unnuanced, and might fire them just for sport. They might have been genuinely unsure of whether someone like Big Balls would fire them for not literally eliminating every instance of the word "gay".

[Riva]

Reports? Uh huh. That’s believable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nerd that wrote the algorithms that did the scrubbing"

You know this was done with an algorithm versus manually?

[Moderation4ever]

I assume that most people are smart enough to recognize that gay is a common word and also a common name for women. So I assume a computer did the scrubbing and the algorithm was written by a dum racist nerd.

[apedad]

SSA locations DOGE will close:

Alabama
Address: 634 Broad St., Gadsden
Closure date: Sept. 30
Arkansas
Address: 965 Holiday Drive, Forrest City
Closure date: April 25
Address: 4083 Jefferson Ave., Texarkana
Closure date: May 25
Colorado
Address: 825 N. Crest Drive, Grand Junction
Closure date: June 21
Florida
Address: 4740 Dairy Road, Melbourne
Closure date: May 16
Georgia
Address: 1338 Broadway, Columbus
Closure date: Sept. 30
Kentucky
Address: 825 High St., Hazard
Closure date: April 24
Louisiana
Address: 178 Civic Center Drive, Houma
Closure date: April 25
Mississippi
Address: 4717 26th St., Meridian
Closure date: June 1
Address: 604 Yalobusha St., Greenwood
Closure date: June 1
Address: 2383 Sunset Drive, Grenada
Closure date: May 1
Montana
Address: 3701 American Way, Missoula
Closure date: June 21
North Carolina
Address: 730 Roanoke Ave., Roanoke Rapids
Closure date: Aug. 1
Address: 2123 Lakeside Drive, Franklin
Closure date: June 23
Address: 2805 Charles Blvd., Greenville
Closure date: June 24
Address: 1865 W. City Drive, Elizabeth City
Closure date: June 24
North Dakota
Address: 1414 20th Ave. SW, Minot
Closure date: June 21
Nevada
Address: 701 Bridger Ave., Las Vegas
Closure date: June 1
New York
Address: 75 S. Broadway, White Plains
Closure date: May 31
Address: 332 Main St., Poughkeepsie
Closure date: July 31
Ohio
Address: 30 N. Diamond St., Mansfield
Closure date: May 17
Oklahoma
Address: 1610 SW Lee Blvd., Lawton
Closure date: April 25
Texas
Address: 1122 N. University Drive, Nacogdoches
Closure date: May 7
Address: 8208 NE Zac Lentz Parkway
Closure date: May 25
West Virginia
Address: 1103 George Kostas Drive, Logan
Closure date: April 30
Wyoming
Address: 79 Winston Drive, Rock Springs
Closure date: June 20

https://www.newsweek.com/list-social-security-offices-expected-close-2025-2047841

Nice to see that DOGE hates MAGAers too.

I also like how DOGE said, "(I)ndividuals who do not or cannot use the agency’s online my Social Security services to start their claim for benefits on the telephone. However, the claim cannot be completed until the individual’s identity is verified in person,” WHILE closing locations.

[Frank Drackman]

The Staten Island NY SSA Orifice, which probably has more employees than all the ones you listed combined was closed for a year in 2023 for “Renovations”, everyone worked from home, unhappy ending is that it recently reopened, had to take my mom to the one in Atlanta a few years back, talk about “Gorillas in the Mist”, took 2 hrs to do what should have taken 5 minutes
Frank

[Frank Drackman]

After further review, your list is Bullshit, most of the Orifices being “Closed” are either temporary closings, or moving to a Government owned property, several weren’t even still open (probably serving the 150 yr old Customers)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are those really the only closures in those states? If so, it's likely to be child's play to show that was squid ink to distract from a policy to hammer blue states with far more closures to come.

Did I miss something, or is it right that nothing in New England is even listed?

My guess is a policy to stay mum on the really bad stuff, while showing the base the closures are trivial.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, whats the argument against requiring in-person verification to receive benefits in order to prevent fraud. The average person will receive north of 250K over their lifetime in SSA payments.

I would understand the objection if we were talking about a gov't service that had nominal dollar value. But we aren't. We are talking about pension payments for decades.

What's the objection?

[apedad]

Absolutely no objection to that.

It's the fact that DOGE is requiring in person verification (if the person can't do the online verification) WHILE CLOSING OFFICES, I.E. REDUCING WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO TO COMPLETE THE IN PERSON VERIFICATION.

Just indiscriminately fucking everybody.

That might be the DOGE slogan.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, you're talking about closing 50 offices in 18 states. There are 1,200 SSA field offices, nationwide.

50/1200 = 4%

It is a huge stretch to suggest that closing 4% of offices (50) is fucking everybody when there will still be 1,150 offices to service the public.

[Armchair]

In 1983, the SCOTUS affirmed (8-1) an IRS decision that backed the revocation of tax-exempt status from a religious university in the United States. (The Bob Jones case). The reasoning was that even though it was a legitimate university, the policy it practiced (banning interracial dating) was contrary to a compelling government public policy (eliminating racial discrimination). And even though it had legitimate religious rights, those rights were "substantially outweighed" by the government's interest in eliminating racial discrimination.

It's an interesting case, and the logic is interesting. The question is, could it apply to Columbia University? Could one say that the United States has a compelling public policy (eliminating antisemitism and anti-Jewish discrimination)? And that the actions of (and lack of action at) Columbia University over the last 3 years has contributed to antisemitism and anti-Jewish discrimination? Thus, even with Columbia's free speech rights, the Government's compelling interest in eliminating antisemitism allows it to revoke Columbia's tax-exempt status?

What's the legal argument against that? Or should the Bob Jones decision be overturned?

[Martinned2]

What if my mom was a breakfast table?

[Frank Drackman]

I heard she was more like an Elevator

[Armchair]

It's always interesting how little concern the left has for combatting antisemitism. Or simply denying it exists.

[SRG2]

The far left and the far right have anti-semitism in common. Most of the antisemitic posters here are on the right.

[Bwaaah]

Let's see...do I prefer a few unorganized poorly regarded Jew-haters, or a large politically legitimized contingent of Jew-hater-sympathizers?

Glad to know we share the same concerns.

[SRG2]

Or a party led by an anti-Semite with a sidekick who encourages anti-Semitism?

Yeah, tough choices.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, you are using the cover of combatting antisemitism for authoritarian attacks on institutions.

You devalue antisemitism with your partisan games and are no friend to the Jewish people.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Antisemitism is a problem on the left. But I don’t think anyone associated with Trump and MAGA is a good faith critic, since they don’t mind that Trump has decided some Jews aren’t actually Jewish.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-chuck-schumer-used-to-be-jewish-but-is-now-a-palestinian/

[Sarcastr0]

I agree wholeheartedly.
Antisemitism is a problem on the left. Which many of the liberals on this site and elsewhere are not ignoring.

It is also a problem on the right. Which the right studiously ignores. Here and elsewhere.

Going after Columbia this hard isn't about antisemitism, on the left or otherwise.

And Armchair will call me an antisemite for saying that, because he doesn't care about antisemitism more than as moral cover for him and partisan cudgel against others.

[Commenter_XY]

You tell me.

What is the appropriate action, if any, for any administration (not just OrangeManBad) to take wrt Columbia University to address rampant antisemitism?

If you could be benevolent dictator for a day, what would you personally do?

[Martinned2]

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

[Bwaaah]

This is where Sarc backs away. He hates being asked to say what he'd do, because he has solutions to nothing of significance. The closest usually he comes is to say what he *wouldn't* do.

Will that be sufficient? What Sarc won't do?

If Sarc could be a benevolent dictator for a day, he'd appoint a committee to study the problem and propose options. Eventually, you'd learn the tyranny of many uncaring people being in charge of a situation they can't actually grasp.

[Commenter_XY]

Most back away, they a) don't think there is a problem, or b) can't make a definitive call on what to do about it. I'd much prefer to see a definitive call, even if it turns out wrong. Take a stand, and defend it. Alas, what we get is hyperventilation and no stated alternative.

[Bwaaah]

In business, I never brought the complaint if I didn't also have what I wanted done about it, and a willingness to do the deeds if given the chance.

There were some who called me a "ladder climber." But I was just a fixer, and management saw in me its opportunity to get the dirty jobs done. It wasn't a pleasant living. But it was a useful one.

[ducksalad]

Three cases:

1. Rampant antisemitism opinions, openly expressed by students outside of class? The appropriate action is nothing at any level. Opinions and speech are none of the government's business, and to the extent Title IX says otherwise, it should be repealed or gutted by the courts.

2. Rampant anti-semitic assaults, trespassing, and vandalism by students or outside agitators? If they are local perpetrators, it is a local police matter. If it's some kind of interstate conspiracy (and I concede there could be some of that going on) then the feds can go after the perpetrators directly, bypassing Columbia. Two howevers: (a) It's not particularly relevant whether they are anti-semitic, except for the limited law enforcement purpose of identifying motive to aid in solving the cases, (b) Still nothing with respect to Columbia University itself. Columbia is not an arm of the police, and their academic discipline process should not be commandeered by the government as a way to get people punished without going through the criminal justice system. To the extent Title IX disagrees it should be repealed or gutted.

3. Rampant anti-semitic attitudes by professors and staff, expressed while on the job in lectures, tutoring, etc, OR, intentionally allowing students to divert lectures and other university activities into anti-semitic rants, and to an extent such that students could legitimately (as opposed to tactically) feel the institution is deliberately creating a pervasively hostile environment. OK, in that case, the administration could condition federal funding on shutting it down.

But if I was dictator for more than a day the real answer would be to get the federal government disentangled from education, at which point category 3 would go back to being none of the federal government's business.

[Commenter_XY]

1. Yes, for citizens.
2. re (b) Doesn't Columbia have a contractual obligation to maintain a safe environment (i.e. free of getting your ass beat b/c you're Jewish).

Agree = ...get the federal government disentangled from education...

[ducksalad]

"Doesn't Columbia have a contractual obligation to maintain a safe environment" You mean to students? If so:

Part 1: Contract violations, if any, should be handled in courtrooms by private lawyers for each side. Not by the police, not by ICE, not by the DoEd, not by the President.

Part 2: I don't know what Columbia promised in its contract. But I do know that I disagree strongly disagree with the deepest-pocket theory of responsibility. IMO Columbia is just Walmart. If I get beat up by another customer at Walmart, the responsibility should lie exclusively with that customer, not with Walmart. (I realize the kind of lawyers that advertise themselves in a muscle shirt disagree, but you did say I'm dictator for a day.)

Yes, for citizens.

This one's been beaten to death, but just to reiterate: as I see it the First Amendment was ratified after Article I and is therefore a restriction on how Congress' previously enumerated powers can be used.

So just like the commerce power can't be used as a pretext to suppress a particular religion, the naturalization power can't be used a pretext to suppress particular speech.

Focus on that phrase "Congress shall make no law...." Yes, it means citizens have freedom of speech, but it also means that the speech itself is none of Congress's concern.

[bernard11]

Yes, except that #3 is in fact the university's business, as those things obviously interfere with learning and teaching.

A school that tolerates that kind of crap needs a wake-up call. It doesn't need to be bankrupted, or be forced to punish innocents.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There are plenty of liberal and left wing Jews who are critics of the Israeli government/The Gaza War who call left-wing antisemitism out. That’s who is usually most informative on the topic. They’ll recognize that criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitic, but also recognize when the criticism of Israel is just a fig leaf for base antisemitism. Like how some people on the left use “Zionist” as a slur to describe Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

Yep.
And they're really bent out of shape about Khalil.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right. They also don’t endorse authoritarian and lawless tactics to deal with antisemitism on the left either.

And while certainly a moral and consistent liberal position, it’s also a matter of self-interest. If the (gentile) leader of a movement that can charitably be described as authoritarian is in the business of deciding who is and isn’t Jewish based on their politics, he is deciding who deserves to be protected from antisemitism. That’s no protection at all for a large majority of Jewish Americans.

[Michael Ejercito]

How can seeking deportation proceedings against Khalil be justified considering statutory authorization?

[Martinned2]

Sure, keep applauding Nazi-salute guy and mentioning-Soros-in-every-other-sentence guy! That's definitely the way to combat antisemitism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Of all the things to go after Musk for, that purported Nazi salute is not one. Good grief.

[zztop8970]

Now do Joe 'If you don't vote for me you ain't Black' Biden and his party

[SRG2]

As an offshoot of this comment, I wonder whether the Bob Jones case is due for the chopping block. Not too difficult to imagine a new suit being brought, the regime refuse to defend it (requiring the court to appoint someone), and then getting overttrned 6-3 at Scotus with the decision written by Gorsuch.

[Commenter_XY]

But what of the question posed by the OP?

Can the reasoning in Bob Jones University v US be applied in the context of antisemitism?

[SRG2]

No, because it's not enshrined in Columbia's charter or other formal; document of principles.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So if Bob Jones had removed all the official references to interracial dating and then quietly encouraged the football team to put an end to it, that would be OK?

Wasn't that tried by a group that had pointy white hats for their pointy white heads?

[David Nieporent]

Can the reasoning in Bob Jones University v US be applied in the context of antisemitism?

There's nothing special about racism vs. antisemitism that would make the reasoning inapplicable. But it has nothing to do with the facts of this case.

1) Failing to sufficiently discipline antisemitic students does not make Columbia not not-for-profit.
2) The government isn't even trying to revoke Columbia's tax-exempt status; it's cancelling contracts.

[Bwaaah]

Regrettably, the Administration is meting out punishment for very particular, viewpoint-based reasons, under the guise of "enforcement." I remember when that was called "lawfare."

Just because Columbia University is run by a bunch of lame assholes doesn't justify the government's actions. It shouldn't be against the law to be an asshole.

Like it or not, this one's for you, Frank.

[Josh R]

What actions, or lack of actions, is Columbia being accused of? So far, it seems to be only their curriculum or permitting protests. If Bob Jones applies to these examples, then it would permit the government to censor any speech that advocates for discrimination (there is nothing special about revoking tax-exempt status versus other punishments). Ain't happening.

The key difference is Bob Jones engaged in conduct, not speech. The case was about Free Exercise, not Freedom of Speech. And while the case happened during the Sherbert era, the type of "strict scrutiny" was often far less strict than used in speech cases. Moreover, we are now in the Employment Division era where rational-basis review would apply to Bob Jones.

[Commenter_XY]

This CNN article briefly discusses what Columbia actually did (not accused of) and did not do wrt Jewish university students.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/07/us/columbia-university-grants-canceled-trump/index.html

Here is the letter to Columbia from DoEd/DHHS
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25577971/31325-letter-to-columbia.pdf

So there are conduct aspects in addition to speech (roughed up janitors, harassed Jews, occupied buildings, etc). If I understand you, applying that BJU reasoning would be a slippery slope we would not recover from b/c acting on speech alone would be arbitrary, capricious and standardless. Is that a fair summary.

I'll ask you the same thing from above. You are benevolent dictator for a day. Your word becomes law. What, if anything, would you do differently?

[Josh R]

If I understand you, applying that BJU reasoning would be a slippery slope we would not recover from b/c acting on speech alone would be arbitrary, capricious and standardless. Is that a fair summary.

No. Eugene's position is my position: no viewpoint discrimination on regulations of speech, but conduct can be punished.

As benevolent dictator, I would allow any speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The letter's objections to breaking university rules related to time, manner an place restrictions are fine. Punishing antisemitic speech and the departments of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies for their speech are not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/paulsperry_/status/1902789509160321284?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

Fantastic that the richest man in the world, and the guy in charge of government spending, thinks this is “interesting.” Also fantastic that so many people in the replies think it’s a signal of corruption or illegality or some conspiracy and needs to be “investigated.”

[Armchair]

When a public official is apparently living a life that would exceed their income's ability to support that life, often some level of investigation is called for. A $2.5 Million house on a judge's salary would be a stretch with a $2.5 Million mortgage.

And it may be that all the investigation that is needed is that "Oh, we looked further and when he bought the house 10-20 years ago it was 1/10th that price. No problem". Doesn't mean it didn't need to be looked into. But you're done now.

Sometimes when things like this are looked into, there really is a $2.5 Million mortgage. And then you find another vacation house at $5 Million elsewhere. And then you look further, and his public finances really don't support it. So, you wonder where the money is coming from. Then the real investigation begins.

[tylertusta]

I agree in principle.

However, apparently Boasberg bought the house decades ago for $300k and it's appreciated over time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

DC real estate greatly appreciates over time and the judge didn’t just buy it today??? Wow. What a shocking development. Who knew!

[David Nieporent]

It also seems that he's married! (Which we already knew because the MAGA retards tried to claim that he had a conflict of interest in the TdA case because of his wife's unpaid role with a nonprofit organization.) Turns out that homes are generally purchased based on household income, not one spouse's.

[Armchair]

Hence "And it may be that all the investigation that is needed is that "Oh, we looked further and when he bought the house 10-20 years ago it was 1/10th that price. No problem". Doesn't mean it didn't need to be looked into. But you're done now"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe you should be audited. Based on your comments it’s a wonder you can hold a steady job and afford the internet. Seems suspicious!

[Armchair]

Do you read what I've written?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes for years, unfortunately.

[Armchair]

Just curious here.

How expensive a house do you think a public official with a $250K salary can buy at today's mortgage rates. Assume 10% down, but no other support.

Would you be suspicious if such a person had a $5 million house? $10 Million house? A $50 million house? Would you even look into it a little?

[Commenter_XY]

Mortgage industry generally doesn't like to see a housing payment more than 38% of your gross. So let's do some quick math, and get ourselves in the ballpark.

250K/12 months ~21K monthly
21K * 38% is ~8K monthly payment (max)

A very general estimate is your payment is 1% of home value.

So, I'd say a 250K salary swings an 800K home w/o an underwriter killing the deal. Maybe 900K with a 'loosey-goosey' lender.

[Stella Link the dog]

"So, I'd say a 250K salary swings an 800K home w/o an underwriter killing the deal. Maybe 900K with a 'loosey-goosey' lender."

P&I on a 720k loan to buy a 900k house is about $4800/month with a 7% rate. If the mortgage was taken a couple years ago at 4%, P&I would be about $3400/month. There's also a good chance that he could afford to put down more than 20%, unless he is a spendthrift like Justice Clarence.

"A very general estimate is your payment is 1% of home value."
Wot? Our payment is about .25%

[Sarcastr0]

From wiki:
"He then went into private practice, working in San Francisco at Keker, Brockett & Van Nest (now Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP) from 1991 to 1994 and then in the District of Columbia at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick from 1995 to 1996"

He's also not the only breadwinner in the family.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The problem, of course, is that there’s no particular reason to think that a professional in his 60s who has lived in the same city for 30 years would be buying a house for the first time at today’s mortgage rates.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or maybe millions of dollars in luxury vacations paid for by conservative activists?

[jb]

The amount of diligence to find out someone's house is worth $2.5M is essentially the same as to figure out what the house cost when it was purchased and when. The fact you think using Zillow to discover one fact justifies an "investigation" that you could resolve from the exact same page on Zillow seems like a lot of work to rationalize what is obviously a bad-faith argument.

[Armchair]

"The amount of diligence to find out someone's house is worth $2.5M is essentially the same as to figure out what the house cost when it was purchased and when."

True. Very minimal investigation is required.

"what is obviously a bad-faith argument."

No, what was attempted to be pointed out, is looking into the matter, very briefly, even to just look at a Zillow page is not unreasonable. And once that was discovered, no further investigation was required.

I'd point out that multiple posters (Sarcastr0, Noscitur a sociis, David Nieporent) did the exact same investigation. Which was appropriate. Very briefly looking at public records to see if there was a reasonable explanation.

LTG's point was that even that level of investigation was inappropriate. His point was "You have to be incredibly stupid/paranoid to not recognize immediately that “lawyer has nice house” isn’t interesting in the slightest and doesn’t merit looking into at all." Not at all. Not even to check the public record for when the house was built. Or see if there was a spouse. Or see how long the person had been in DC. Any of that was an inappropriate level of investigation.

Multiple posters believed (due to their actions), that very briefly looking into the public record was appropriate.

[Ridgeway]

You know who could have done a brief investigation before posting this on a high-profile account? Elon Musk, or at least one of his flunkies.

That is the point you are willfully missing.

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Bozoberg better sell now and lock in his gains as real estate prices in the NoVa area are about to decline over the next 2-3 years. He looks close to retirement age. There will be a wave of selling after UI benefits run out for the newly whacked non-essential fed bureaucrats.

Start stashing some cash now for that eventuality. 😉

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is just schizo politics. Normal stuff, like a guy who was a lawyer and judge for 40 years having a nice house, is somehow worthy of investigation because they must be hiding something and are corrupt.

[Armchair]

As I mentioned

"And it may be that all the investigation that is needed is that "Oh, we looked further and when he bought the house 10-20 years ago it was 1/10th that price. No problem". Doesn't mean it didn't need to be looked into. But you're done now"

[LawTalkingGuy]

The issue is thinking it merits looking into in the first place. Like you have to be incredibly stupid/paranoid to not recognize immediately that “lawyer has nice house” isn’t interesting in the slightest and doesn’t merit looking into at all.

[Armchair]

A $2.5 Million mortgage on a $250K salary is a stretch. At current mortgage rates, that would equate to more than $200,000K a year in payments.

Very briefly looking into it and seeing the house was bought 20 years ago is not unreasonable.

[David Nieporent]

The "$2.5 million mortgage" is something you entirely made up. At no point was there anything in this fake story about a $2.5 million mortgage.

[Martinned2]

You might almost start to think that Elon Musk isn't very good at numbers...

[John F. Carr]

Elon Musk and spiky intelligence, by Nate Silver

[John F. Carr]

Law firm Paul, Weiss has purchased an indulgence.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-firm-security-clearances-4e0a8f152ccfea86ae2c383bfc41c586

President Donald Trump on Thursday rescinded an executive order targeting a prominent international law firm after it pledged to review its hiring practices and to provide tens of millions of dollars in free legal services to support certain White House initiatives.

[apedad]

TrGODmp extorted an indulgence from Law firm Paul Weiss.

FTFY

[Martinned2]

Isn't the takings clause great?

[John F. Carr]

Trump is not God, merely the Pope. Salvation comes from good works.

[Commenter_XY]

Karp was smart, he kissed Trumps ass The Ring and saved the law firm. Best of all, if Karp welches on their agreement, the EO can be un-rescinded. Sort of like what is happening with Eric Adams in NYC, except there isn't a dismissal with prejudice here. The strings remain firmly attached.

As opposed to the other law firms addressed by EOs that are now burning up beaucoup dollars of their firms litigating in a fruitless effort. Maybe they should talk to POTUS Trump and save themselves money, and heartache.

[Martinned2]

Sounds like a great country to live in!

[John F. Carr]

Litigation against blacklisting has a good chance of success. Lost business during litigation may cost more than settling quickly.

[Commenter_XY]

Define 'blacklist', in a legal sense (IDK what it is legally, but I know blacklisting when I see it, and it sure looks like that is happening here). The EO addresses security clearances, and the gov't doing business with that firm.

Is refusal to do business with a law firm = blacklist -- in the eyes of the law?

[David Nieporent]

The EO addresses security clearances, and the gov't doing business with that firm.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the EO is about the government trying to force private companies not to do business with the firm.

[Commenter_XY]

The EO text says nothing about forcing (or compelling) other companies not to do business with those law firms, David.

How do you define 'blacklist' in a legal sense, in a court of law?

[David Nieporent]

The EO text absolutely says something about forcing (or compelling) other companies not to do business with those law firms. Read it again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only where they would be providing services as part of a government contract. The administration doesn't want the firm doing direct or indirect work for the government.

[David Nieporent]

Only where they would be providing services as part of a government contract.

No, Brett. We went through this in the previous thread. You stopped reading too early. Twice.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is the Perkins Coie EO, David.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/11/2025-03989/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp

Tell me where it forces and compels other companies not to do business with Perkins Coie. Are you talking about section 3(b)(i)?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes.

[David Nieporent]

No; I’m talking about 3(b)(ii).

[Ridgeway]

Also, doesn't 3(a) violate attorney-client privilege? This doesn't impact PC's rights per se, but government contractors should still be permitted to keep their attorney relationships confidential (at least absent specific evidence of wrongdoing).

[Riva]

Nothing in the EO "forces" any firm to do anything. No law firm, no matter how big or repugnant with the smell of democrats, has a constitutional or statutory right to a security clearance.

[John F. Carr]

I don't know of a specific legal definition of "blacklist." It is related to disbarment (punishment for federal contractors) and secondary boycott (illegal labor practice).

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, so blacklist = disbarment, secondary boycott. If I follow, the argument goes something like this...

Law Firm: Judge! This is an open and shut case of disbarment. It is egregious. Our firm is being punished for work we did for the previous admin, not for any illegality. And to make it even worse, OrangeMan is not allowing other law firms to work with us on federal contracts! That is 20% of our business that went bye, bye. We demand.....?

Does this sort of thing happen often...in MA?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, just got the word from EV, lets keep it clean in here! And like the lady on "Romper Room" used to say (was I the only one freaked out when at the end of the show she'd look in her "Magic Mirror" and mention all the children watching at home by name "I see Bobby, and Debbie, and little Frankie.......:")
"If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything"
and "Turn that Frown upside Down!"
and like Hey-Zeus, I'll be be first to turn the cheek and start.

"Sarcastro, your comments aren't as Stupid as they usually are, Good Job!"

Frank

[hobie]

Did someone rat you out, Frankie?

[Frank Drackman]

"And I see little Hobie....Hobie! get Bobbies (Redacted) out of your mouth!"

[Bwaaah]

You're still here. I am thankful for EV's forbearance in such matters of expression. Still, he's trying to keep the neighborhood from going to shit. Thick as I am, you still make me cringe sometimes.

[apedad]

[hobie]

I believe I understand the peculiar conservative war on education.

You've raged against public schools; and lately the concept of higher education. Libraries. Dept of Education. School boards.

Plus we have a lot of unions here in the US. Fire, police, auto. But you only attack teachers.

Animal Farm has been on my mind a lot lately. The only way the authoritarian pigs could take control was that the other animals were just too dumb to comprehend their fate.

That's been the end game all this time, hasn't it? Well played, hayseeds. Well played

[Martinned2]

Haven't you heard? Trump loves the poorly educated.

[Ska]

So did Democrats, but they couldn't perform the delicate balancing act of keeping both the overeducated and undereducated happy. And that's part of the reason they lost an election over it, much to their chagrin.

[apedad]

But the good states (Mass, NY, CA, etc.), will appropriately fund their education programs ensuring their children will have much better opportunities to succeed in life where the mouthbreather (or I think you prefer hayseed) states will underfund their education programs thus ensuring they REMAIN at the bottom of all Life Quality Indexes (LQI).

[hobie]

Keeps them at the bottom which also keeps them as reliable voters

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

Why are you defending an institution that has negative results?

[hobie]

I don't recall mentioning the University of Alabama

[Frank Drackman]

At Auburn we refer to them as "That School out West"
OK, that's pretty much dominated us for the last 20 years.

[Bwaaah]

This isn't a "war on education." It's a war on useless bureaucracy. All education is local. DOE is neither education, nor local.

And as for why teachers have been singled out, I'd like to point out the only class of so-called "essential workers" in America that refused to work during the pandemic: teachers. Of course, that was only at the expense of children. And, of course, all the teachers still got paid. Oh, and if you call that zoom crap "teaching," maybe the cops and firemen should start working from home too.

[Martinned2]

Good to see some countries are still trying to defeat the Russians:

Es ist ein sehr robuster Schritt, dem offenbar in Berlin ein längeres Ringen vorausgegangen war: Erstmals setzt die Bundesrepublik mit der Eventin ein Schiff der russischen Schattenflotte wegen möglicher Sanktionsverstöße fest. Der Zoll beschlagnahmte das Schiff Ende vergangener Woche. Damit könnten auch die fast 100.000 Tonnen Rohöl an Bord an Deutschland übergehen. Die Zeitschrift „Spiegel“ hatte als erste über den Vorgang berichtet. Demnach soll das ungewöhnlich robuste Vorgehen aus Sicht des Kanzleramts und des Außenministeriums ein Zeichen an Russland sein, dass Deutschland dem Transit von russischem Öl durch die Ostsee nicht tatenlos zusieht. Aus Berlin hieß es dazu gegenüber der F.A.Z., es handele sich nicht um ein deutsches, sondern ein europäisches Zeichen. Verwiesen wurde auf bereits zuvor erfolgte verstärkte Aktivitäten Finnlands und Schwedens gegen die russische Schattenflotte.

Allerdings geht das Vorgehen gegen die Eventin deutlich über die genannten Beispiele hinaus. Finnland hatte im Dezember die Eagle S festgesetzt wegen des Verdachts auf Sabotage von Unterwasserkabeln. Doch wurde dem Schiff, das ebenfalls zur Schattenflotte gezählt wird, die Weiterfahrt nun wieder erlaubt. Zudem hatte es sich freiwillig in finnische Hoheitsgewässer begeben. Die Eventin aber trieb wegen eines Blackouts in deutsche Gewässer. Der 270 Meter lange Tanker unter der Flagge Panamas war im Januar auf dem Weg vom russischen Ust-Luga nach Ägypten havariert. Notschlepper unter Leitung des Havariekommandos brachten ihn vor Sassnitz auf Rügen.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/zoll-beschlagnahmt-tanker-der-russischen-schattenflotte-110371513.html

[Frank Drackman]

Na und?

[dwb68]

I am curious what the IP lawyers think of this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/search-libgen-data-set/682094/

Allegedly (I am skeptical of the reporting), Meta accessed LibGen, a pirate site, for material to train its AI/Large Language Model. If true, I would think this is the copyright infringement lawsuit of the century.

Like no, don't do that. I am skeptical the corporate lawyers let them to that, but idk.

[Bored Lawyer]

There are already lots of suits involving "training" AI and copyright. Just recently, a judge ruled its not fair use. Is there something special about this one?

[dwb68]

They accessed a pirate site to obtain the data (allegedly), LibGen, intentionally circumventing copyright protections.

I think it's a different case if, say, they bought the e-book from and uploaded the raw epub file (yes you can get the raw ebook off your computer).

For example: If I buy a book, and then glitter/emboss the cover, or turn it into a binder (yes this is a thing) I can resell it. The artist got the original royalty and I added something.

One can debate whether AI "Adds" something and is fair use; here they never even bought the books.

[SRG2]

Musk Set to Receive Top-Secret Briefing on U.S. War Plans for China

WASHINGTON—Elon Musk is scheduled to receive a briefing Friday on the U.S. military’s top-secret war plans for China, according to two U.S. officials, giving the wealthy businessman and presidential adviser insight into one of the Pentagon’s most closely guarded operational blueprints.

Musk is expected to be briefed on how U.S. forces would fight in a potential China war, including maritime tactics and targeting plans, the officials said. China will be one of several topics to be discussed at the Defense Department, one of the officials said.

The meeting underscores the crosscutting interests Musk has as a senior adviser to President Trump, with a powerful and expansive role in the new administration. It could give him—the head of Tesla, which relies on China for car production, and of SpaceX, a U.S. defense contractor—access to sensitive military secrets unavailable to business competitors.

Krasnov went ballistic when the story was first reported by the NYT, insulting all and sundry and insisting the story wasn't true.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114200175082806882
Elon Musk will be briefed by the Pentagon about the USA’s top secret plans against China should there be a War,”according to the Failing New York Times, one of the worst and most purposely inaccurate newspapers anywhere in the World. Their FAKE concept for this story is that because Elon does some business in China, that he is very conflicted and would immediately go to top Chinese officials and “spill the beans.” RATINGS CHALLENGED FAKE NEWS CNN immediately picked up on this absolutely ridiculous and false story, which is probably libelous, and went heavy with it. Fortunately, nobody was watching! Maggot Hagerman, the really dumb “scammer” who constantly writes about me for the Times, using anonymous, made up (nonexistent!) sources, and who I haven’t spoken to in ages, is a big part of the Scam. She lead the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, only to realize that she was duped and got it wrong. She owes me a totally discredited Pulitzer Prize for her bad reporting. The Fake News is the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE…And Elon is NOT BEING BRIEFED ON ANYTHING CHINA BY THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR!!!

STFU, Krasnov

[Sarcastr0]

Sure looks like Trump wasn't in the loop.

[Commenter_XY]

Another anonymously sourced, breathless report. I think I would call bullshit on this one, SRG2. Get treatment for your ED problem.

(ED = Elon Derangement....what else were you thinking, lol?!)

Teasing aside, it would be a lot more believable to me if Elon was getting briefed on confidential trade policy, or our posture in negotiations with China wrt tariffs. That I could believe.

But war plans? NFW.

[SRG2]

If I had posted anything as immoderate as the corrupt traitor you so happily support, you might have had a point about derangement. Citing the WSJ? GMAFB.

[Commenter_XY]

The DefDept spokesman (Sean Parnell) is on the record saying the report is a crock of stinky brown stuff. How many other Old Grey Hag articles based on anonymous sources turned out to be a crock.

NYT citing anonymous sources < Spokesman on record

SRG2, war plans? C'mon. How does that pass your sniff test?

[David Nieporent]

The WSJ reported it too.

[SRG2]

Years ago I realised there was an odd pathology amongst the right - if a story had been posted by any source they believed to be on the left (whether it was or no), it didn't matter if a right-leaning or independent source then published an article confirming that story, it wasn't true., or at least, wasn't acceptable.

So to XY it doesn't matter that the WSJ posted it. Because the original article on the story was the NYT, it isn't true. And of course that Krasnov denies it, as a beacon of pravda he must be right.

[tylertusta]

It's not confined to the right.

It's a universal human condition.

[Bwaaah]

Hence, the irony of SRG2's strike at awareness. He writes well, though, I think. That should count for something.

[SRG2]

Thank you for the compliment. I should note that Tyler's claim notwithstanding, I never found that the left generally inclined to that pathology. though I understand why Tyle would want to claim so.

It is by no means a human condition to think that if the first source were questionable, all subsequent reportage in support must be wrong.

[tylertusta]

Agreed, I'll give him credit for that at least.

[Bwaaah]

As per his response, he still can't see for shit.

"Half the country is stupid, and my half has to put up with it."

[SRG2]

It's not half, and I don't belong to a half.

[David Nieporent]

Also, Musk accidentally confirmed it, by threatening the people who "leaked" the story. By definition, only true things can be leaked.

[Krayt]

"What does 'God' need with a starship the cost-cutting guy need with top secret invasion defense plans?"

[hobie]

Nothingburger. All you have to be is a guest at Bedminster to receive our country's military secrets

[Bored Lawyer]

UN staffer hospitalized in Israel has pro-Nazi tattoos

A staff member at the United Nations Mine Action Service, who is currently hospitalized in Israel, was discovered to have two prominent pro-Nazi tattoos, a source with knowledge of the matter told JNS.
The employee, who was injured in a booby trap attack in Gaza, was first taken to a hospital in Gaza before being transferred to Israel for further care, JNS understands.
The United Nations has blamed Israel for the attack that injured the staffer, although the Jewish state doesn’t operate in that part of Gaza, and the attack was likely a trap set by Hamas, according to the source.
The staffer has a tattoo on an arm that states, in German in heavy black letters, “my honor is loyalty,” which the Anti-Defamation League describes as the motto of the Waffen SS.
“It is a reference to the organization’s loyalty to Adolf Hitler,” per the ADL website. “Since World War II, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists around the world use this German phrase, or its equivalent in English or other languages, as a hate slogan.”
On the other arm, apparently, the U.N. staffer has a large tattoo of the face of an SS soldier or officer, wearing a Nazi hat, sunglasses and a collar with apparent Nazi symbols.

https://voz.us/en/mundo/jns/250321/22449/staffer-hospitalized-in-israel-has-pro-nazi-tattoos.html

Remind me why the UN has any credibility?

Just waiting for someone to post here how this is free speech, and the US is barred by the First Amendment from withholding funds from UN agencies.

[Martinned2]

Oh, wait, you're saying that being a Nazi is bad??? You had me confused, with all your other protofascist and occasionally antisemitic comments.

[Bored Lawyer]

What an utter moron you are. I am Jewish, so I can hardly be anti-semitic. I have had anti-semitic statements and worse hurled at me. I am as obviously Jewish as a plate of gefilte fish. (The good kind, not the jarred kind.)

As for proto-fascist, you are making things up.

BTW, are you going back to Amsterdam for this year's Jew-hunt? I heard the Dutch are putting on a good event this year.

[Martinned2]

I am Jewish, so I can hardly be anti-semitic.

(Assuming this is true), you somehow still manage it, with your invocation of Jewish stereotypes in this comment alone, and your constant reliance on misinformation about Judaism, Zionism, Israel, and generally everything in order to project anti-semitism on others. (See your comment about the Netherlands for pretty much all of that bundled together in two sentences.)

[Bob from Ohio]

You are hardly in any position to discuss anti-semitism at al, given your passive aggressive support of Hamas.

"invocation of Jewish stereotypes"

He's making fun of himself, you ignorant slut.

[Bored Lawyer]

This Euro-trash has earned muting. Bye-bye. Enjoy Europe when all the Jews leave and the Muslims take over.

[Sarcastr0]

Europe when all the Jews leave and the Muslims take over.

What a normal thing to say.

[hobie]

So what? The American military and Republican party are awash in Nazi antisemites. I don't see you complaining about them

[Frank Drackman]

You've sucked in way too much second hand THC from your neighbors, Hobie-Stank, you've got the Military confused with the Ivy League.

[Krayt]

Erdoğan of Turkey just arrested the mayor of Istanbul. He was seen as the best challenger to his power in the next election.

Don't you hate putrid politcians who use their power to arrest opposition in disgusting attempts to deny The People a free choice? I'll bet he's even cobbled together a cover story about what the guy did wrong. Maybe he even found something.

But that's not why he did it, is it?

[Bored Lawyer]

How long is Turkey going to remain in NATO, I wonder.

[John F. Carr]

As long as Greece is in NATO?

[Frank Drackman]

not long if they have any sense.

[Martinned2]

Isn't it terrible when politicians use false claims to go after their political opponents?

But I can see why you might be confused. You're so far down the rabbit hole that you're long past the point where the truth or falseness of anything Trump says matters to you.

[Krayt]

Again, the "falsity" red herring. All the rules in the Constitution trying to stop this aren't because of fears of planting false evidence. They are there because fishing expeditions are usually fruitful. So we ban fishing expeditions.

And with mmmmmany initiatives, some will be fruitful.

I am not the one in the rabbit hole. The entire nation is.

You literally did the same thing, dug and dug and dug to git yer opposition, and tried to jail him, seized a massive chunk of his estate, then loved democracy so much you tried to get him kicked from ballots in some purple states, so he'd be a guaranteed loss in a close election.

asinine adj ass-like, like a donkey or mule

[hobie]

I suppose it depends on whether the mayor, like Trump, committed a bunch of crimes. If he didn't then, yes, this arrest is problematic

[Krayt]

Is it though? Or did they dig on a fishing expedition until they found something, anything, to tag him with?

Many of these nations are corrupt. Anyone wealthy or near power has their fingers in many pies. The Constitution forbids the king from going on fishing expeditions because they know they can find something if they look hard enough.

Nobody has problems with organic discovery of criminality. It's the motivated fishing expeditions that are a massive historical problem.

Putin, who some on this very web site have said they literally "like", jailed the former world chess champion, among others.

[hobie]

I guess you never saw the pictures of national secrets in the bathroom

[hobie]

I'm a bit confused as to why Trump hasn't made the stolen election of 2020 his DOJ's top priority. He's got the DOJ he wants and has been screaming about it nonstop for 4 years.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Instead of trying to reverse Biden's acts, he could be a "sedevacantist" and declare that all Biden's acts are void. And if Biden passes away during the next four years, he could put the corpse on trial, like Pope Stephen VI did with Pope Formosus.

[SRG2]

Nice analogy! One seldom encounters sedevacantism nowadays - though I think there are a few classical sedevacantists left in France (where else?)

[Krayt]

Same reason he didn't order the DOJ or FBI to investigate it back then. He could have sat down and addressed the nation, here is a bunch of serious evidence of something sinister.

No. It stayed in the realm of talking heads because it never was anything but blabber.

[SRG2]

The "stolen election" is part of the Trumpene Creed - no evidence needed. It is, quite literally, an article of faith..

[Michael P]

What offenses do you think this would involve? How quickly do their statutory limits bar prosecution?

[hobie]

I don't know. Did the man ever articulate which theory of theft he settled on? All his homies have recanted their accusations in open court

[Z Crazy]

I read somewhere that people were excluded from military service for being transgender before 2014, and in fact it goes all the way back to 1776. Banning transgenders from military service didnt start with Trump.

Let's make it clear. It's immoral and unethical to exclude persons from military service for things that aren't their fault. It was wrong when George Washington did it; it is wrong when Donald Trump does it.

That said, the President is commander-in-chief, and he gets to exclude persons from service for any reason whatsoever. That should be the final answer.

[Michael Ejercito]

Judge Reyes failed to properly apply the military deference doctrine.

[apedad]

" . . . exclude persons from service for any reason whatsoever."

Like women? Blacks?

GTFO

[Frank Drackman]

Because women in the military have this frequent practice of what we call in the medical field,
"Pregnant" , which makes them useless for any strenuous physical work for 9-12 months, you need 2 Male Soldiers for every Female (which in itself is a problem, because Male Soldiers have these things we in the medical field call,
"Dicks" which makes them useless for most mentally strenuous work,
It's a Viscous Circle Jerk (Never been to a Circle Jerk, but I can imagine it'd be pretty Viscous)

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

I read somewhere that people were excluded from military service for being transgender before 2014, and in fact it goes all the way back to 1776.

There was a rule banning transgender people from serving in the military in 1776?

[Brett Bellmore]

Madmen. Trans are just a subset of that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's immoral and unethical to exclude persons from military service for things that aren't their fault"

I have a variety of minor birth defects; Together they're probably some syndrome or other, but the upshot is I was medically unfit for any combat position. Are you suggesting the military was ethically obligated to take me anyway?

[John F. Carr]

An Oklahoma man on a mission from God pleaded guilty to throwing a bomb at the Satanic Temple in Salem Massachusetts. His DNA was found on the bomb. This is an interstate commerce case, arson of a building used in interstate commerce, rather than a civil rights case. The statutory sentencing range is said to be 5 to 20 years.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/oklahoma-man-pleads-guilty-attempting-destroy-satanic-temple-salem-pipe-bomb

[Bored Lawyer]

The man deserves the maximum. But the interstate commerce part illustrates how absurd Commerce Clause jurisprudence has become.
My house is built with wood grown and lumbered on the other side of the country. Does that mean anything I do to my house is interstate commerce?

[Longtobefree]

Most likely.
Even if all the wood was grown in your backyard, it affects interstate commerce because you didn't buy from out of state.

[Bwaaah]

"My house is built with wood grown and lumbered on the other side of the country. Does that mean anything I do to my house is interstate commerce?"

By the looks of things these days, that kind of depends on what you're accused of, how the townspeople feel about that, and whether the district prosecutor needs to score re-election points.

So the answer is: "It doesn't mean it's not interstate commerce. Beware...your neighbors have fangs."

[A Japanese Student]

Owner-occupied private residence is not covered by 844(i), even if it receives gas originally from interstate pipeline, is a collateral for out-of-state mortgage, or covered by an out-of-state insurance policy. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000). In contrast, a pre-Lopez case held that a rental property is covered by 844(i) because renting a property is commercial in nature. Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985).

[apedad]

Hey Publius!

IIRC, the Satanic Temple in Salem is on Bridge St., just a few blocks from Bill and Bobs Roast Beef.

I was there a few years ago (Bill and Bobs, not the Satantic Temple), and it seems they had dropped off a little in quality.

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

Is it true that Boasburg actually told the DOJ they should've stopped flights when he announced the hearing because they should have known he would rule against Trump?

[John F. Carr]

The first statement on the record is docket item 20 at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/. Chronologically this precedes the order at number 15 by an hour or two. It took some time to transcribe the hearing. The part about turning the planes around is on page 43.

[rloquitur]

He strongly implied that it was improper for the flights to take off when the government knew there was a hearing scheduled for 5pm. Bondi should hammer this, the idea that he could orally order the planes to turn around and the fact that he assigned the case to himself.

[Sarcastr0]

I hear 'well, the judge strongly implied' plays well in briefs.

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

Here are his words:

"And it was one of those times because of the government's actions, not because of my actions, that you knew that at -- you knew in the morning that there would be a hearing at 5:00. So any plane that you put into the air in or around that time, you knew that I was having a hearing at 5:00 about."

In your mind, are there any implications that could be drawn from his words? If there aren't, then so fucking what? Who gives a shit what happens before his hearing.

[jb]

The obvious implication is that since you know that there are flights that are the subject of the hearing, that you should be prepared to apply the outcome of the hearing to those flights since you were aware of both the hearing and the flights ahead of time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prof. Bray discussed this in a recent post on the Divides Argument sun stack, quoting a nineteenth century Pennsylvania case:

It appears that the plaintiff is the lessee of certain coal mines, of which the defendants are the owners or lessors, and that since 1887 he has been operating said mines. A dispute having arisen as to the manner of working the mines, and the amount of royalty due under the lease, the defendants proceeded by force to tear up a portion of the tramway used by plaintiff in shipping his coal. The plaintiff replaced it, and it was again torn up. This occurred for the third time; the last being on February 8th, while the plaintiff was obtaining a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants. The writ was served just as they had finished the work of demolition, and this coincidence is strongly suggestive of a race against the law. When the cause came on to be heard upon the motion to continue the injunction, the learned court dissolved it, in part for the reason that the act sought to be restrained had already been done, and that it had no power at this stage of the cause to issue a mandatory injunction, and restore the property to its former condition.

In the recent case of Appeal of Easton, etc., Ry. Co., ante, 486, we had occasion to express our views in regard to the propriety of settling legal disputes by the strong hand. I quote a few words from the opinion in that case as applicable here: ‘There is a growing disposition in this commonwealth, especially on the part of corporations, private as well as municipal, to take the law into their own hands, and settle controversies by force, instead of appealing to the courts to redress their wrongs and enforce their rights, in an orderly and peaceable manner.

…

What the city did in that case, the defendants did in this. They decided in their own favor all the questions of law and fact arising under the lease, and enforced their decision by tearing up the tramway, not only once but thrice; the last destruction being so well-timed as to escape by a few minutes the injunction issued by the court. If such matters are to be settled in this way,—if we sanction the doctrine that might makes right,—there will be little use for the civil courts, while the criminal side of the courts will have a large accession of business, in the matter of riots, assaults, and homicides growing out of such transactions. What we did in the Easton Case we will do here. We will restore the injunction, without passing upon the merits of the case. They will be considered when it comes here upon final hearing. As far as it is possible upon a preliminary injunction, we will restore the status quo as it existed prior to the acts of the defendants. While the injunction will not require the defendants to relay the tramway, it will enable the plaintiff to do so, and will protect him in its use pending this litigation. The decree is reversed at the costs of the appellees, and the preliminary injunction is reinstated.

https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/dead-horses-and-the-strong-hand

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

Would you mind explaining that to Sacastr0? He seems to think there's nothing implied in Biasburg's statement.

[windycityattorney]

The planes ending up going to Honduras first then onto El Salvador on Sunday. The written order was issued Sat early evening. The DOJ violated the court order and are desperately trying to avoid admitting it. Hence, all the stonewalling answering the judge's simple inquiries about the plane's movements and times.

If they still say they didn't violate it, they are lying to the Court. If they answer the questions, it will prove they were lying previously.

They are in a perjury trap and are hoping the appellate court or somebody saves themselves from it.

[tylertusta]

Apparently one went to Honduras and then El Salvador, and the second went to El Salvador directly.

Unsure about the 3rd plane.

[windycityattorney]

Bukele himself posted public videos of the detainees arriving at the facility and getting their ceremonial "head shaving" routine approx 8:15am Sunday morning.

So from Sat afternoon til Sun morning the DOJ had the option of preventing the handover of detainees subject to the order over to El Salvador. While we don't know which flights held which detainees....the govt does. But they don't want to say. Or say what routes the planes took, if they made any other stops, and what time each of these events occurred. Information that is in the possession of the fed govt. Curious that they don't want to answer. Even more curious is them talking shit to the judge calling his request a pointless fishing expedition.

[Brett Bellmore]

What exactly did the order say at the time the actions were taken?

My understanding is that it was quite specific, and that two of the flights didn't violate it on account of leaving the US before it was issued, and the third on account of being outside its terms.

[David Nieporent]

I like how half of the time MAGA argues that it was crazy for the judge to order the planes to turn around and the other half of the time MAGA argues that he didn't order it at all.

[tylertusta]

Boasberg's already taking a pillorying over this from the right. His assigning the case to himself is technically allowed, despite how unseemly it looks.

Not much more that the AG can do here besides appeal and hope the DCCA intervenes before Boasberg steps on any other rakes.

While it might be entertaining for us to watch, I'd rather this travesty be over sooner rather than later.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you really think it will be over sooner, rather than later?

[tylertusta]

What I think is likely to happen and what I hope happens may be very different.

[David Nieporent]

It is not contempt of court if an order hadn't been issued, but I don't know any ethical lawyer who would let his client quickly rush to try to create irreversible facts in the face of a hearing to be held later that day.

[Bob from Ohio]

"let his client"

The DOJ lawyer[s] were in no position to stop the flights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but I don't know any ethical lawyer who would let his client quickly rush to try to create irreversible facts in the face of a hearing to be held later that day."

Don't know any divorce attorneys? Or were they excluded by the 'ethical' proviso?

[tylertusta]

He castigated the government for sending out planes on Saturday despite knowing there was a hearing that day.

(With due respect to John Carr, Judge Boasberg said it on Monday's hearing, not the Saturday one. That would make it item 25 on the courtlistener docket):

And it was one of those times because of the government's actions, not because of my actions, that you knew that at -- you knew in the morning that there would be a hearing at 5:00. So any plane that you put into the air in or around that time, you knew that I was having a hearing at 5:00 about.

[Frank Drackman]

Surprised the term "March Madness" has survived, it's very insensitive to the truly Mad.

[Ska]

Not to mention 1980 British two-tone ska-pop bands.

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

Why are taxpayers paying for car leases for Congressmen who live in small districts?

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

Why did Ukraine violate the just inked cease-fire agreement?

Are the Ukrainian Oligarchs not rich enough?

[hobie]

Did Ukraine just finish bombing their own railroad power systems...again?

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

They bombed a Russian energy facility.

Your news sources are embarrassing you.

[hobie]

Today the Cleveland Food Bank sent out a warning that they are limiting visits to once a month instead of two. Trump/DOGE have suspended federal funding for food assistance.

At the food bank a single household can get about five grocery sacks a visit. Which ain't much for a whole month.

Also, there has been a nationwide rash of SNAP card electronic thefts. Wiping out everyone's monthly funds. This is normally replaced as long as you submit a form documenting the theft. But Trump/DOGE has also cut the funding for that reimbursement program.

There's gonna be a hell of a lot of people going hungry this month.

I know that excites you hayseeds. But it sucks for the needy. And guess what? They also vote

[Ska]

When I got robbed my inclination is to not only leave my doors unlocked, but to leave them open in the future.

"At the food bank a single household can get about five grocery sacks a visit. Which ain't much for a whole month."
Followed by:
"There's gonna be a hell of a lot of people going hungry this month."

Incoherent bullshit followed by a mild insult is sure to win over doubters.

[Sarcastr0]

Is your position that there are no deprived people, only thieves?

[hobie]

You people really are reality-challenged. A single lady and two kids can probably stretch five sacks out for two weeks. After that, they go hungry. What's incoherent about that?

[Bob from Ohio]

What's exactly in the sacks?

[hobie]

I take some of my neighbors there so I'm familiar. It's mostly vegetables with some pasta, beans, canned vegetables, two packages of bread and one meat (usually a chicken or some pork chops). That's it. Sometimes they have milk, but not usually. No candies or snack foods.

[Bwaaah]

Well, there's another difference between you and me. I don't want to see an increase in people going hungry, and you don't want to see a decrease in food programs. As long as you equate the two, we'll be at odds with each other.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is necessary to cut spending now to wnsure there is still mo ey to spend later.

[Bwaaah]

It looks like there's enough ambiguity about "how much is too much" that we won't find out until we get there. Like the profligate unsecured mortgage lending and the economic crisis that ensued after years of it, it's not enough for it to be obviously excessive.

Obvious isn't good enough. "Now we're screwed," will do it.

[ThePublius]

There's a lot of fraud and cheating in food banks and especially in SNAP. I personally know people who are relatively wealthy, e.g., owning multiple residences including one on the water, and boats, who go to the food banks twice a month. One gave me some of the stuff she got there because she just took it because it was available to her, including pork chops, cookies, etc. And the fraud and theft with SNAP is incredible. So, while I don't want hungry people to continue to be hungry, and I have compassion for them, the 'system' is broken.

So, what should we do?

[Sarcastr0]

Your evidence is an anecdote.

[ThePublius]

Yes, by definition, I said "I personally know people who...." So, what? You think there's no food bank fraud and no SNAP fraud?

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say that.

But an anecdote is not sufficient support for "the fraud and theft with SNAP is incredible."

[Michael P]

Here, denialist: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-stolen-benefits-claims-skyrocket-1983882
https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/17-people-indicted-conspiring-steal-more-24-million-snap-benefits ($140k/person)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thieves-are-stealing-snap-funds-electronically-states-victims-never-ge-rcna60172

If it were not so predictable, it would be ironic that you criticize someone for not meeting a burden of evidence when you deny something that is true, well-known and trivial to substantiate.

[Bwaaah]

Hey. It's Friday night! Come to Washington Square Park this evening, around 6PM. Some nicely dressed concerned citizens should be setting out some tables and lots of free food for "people in need." Watch the people who come by, how they examine the pickings, how they make their decisions, who goes away with what.

You'll see a lot of people trying to improve their diets, i.e. seeing if there's anything good worth taking. You'll be hard pressed to see evidence of hunger.

Practically speaking, the once-a-week giveaway isn't much of a solution to the daily problem of eating. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that it's an add-on occasion, not an essential one. "It's Friday night...let's see what they got in the park."

Like feeding pigeons, the mess can be a problem. The mess doesn't come from the Friday night food pickers. They tend to load up bags and take the food home. The mess comes from the junkies and low-lifes who take and don't give a shit.

The concerned citizens do a good job cleaning up when they're done, and I hope they go away feeling good. (No, I can't say I've ever spoken to any of them.) But they don't get to go home and say they fed "the hungry." Various measures of "need" are evident. But it's all much more complicated than any of that.

[David Nieporent]

So, what should we do?

Not believe obviously fabricated anecdotes.

[ThePublius]

It's not fabricated!

[ThePublius]

It's really insulting to be called a liar.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Have you thought about telling the truth more often?

[Bwaaah]

Are you confident he's not telling the truth here, or are you just being a dick?

[hobie]

He's actually telling the truth. Try to modulate your behavior instead of killing the messenger

[David Nieporent]

It’s really insulting to be asked to believe that someone who owns multiple homes and boats goes to food banks routinely to get free groceries.

[Absaroka]

Is it insulting to be asked to believe that well off people cheat on their taxes?

If not, what keeps well off people from going to food banks? We have a house, cabin, and canoe, and we have been offered food from food banks, from people who go there and end up getting stuff they don't want. We say no thanks, because it seems ethically questionable to us, even though we are assured the food banks don't care (we haven't checked with the food banks ourselves). But the food banks apparently just hand a box to all comers, no questions asked.

I lived in DC during the Great Government Cheese Giveaway, where they were handing out cheese in poor neighborhoods. And whatever paper I subscriber to - WaPo I imagine - reported there were lines of not-beater cars with MD and VA plates lined up for the free cheese. Living in the burbs doesn't mean turning up your nose at bargains.

(I do wish the food banks wouldn't refuse donations of food that is past the best by date, on the grounds poor people shouldn't have to eat such food. Because we would totally eat that. We didn't get to the canoe owning level of affluence via a lack of frugality)

[David Nieporent]

Is it insulting to be asked to believe that well off people cheat on their taxes?

No. I am not saying that well off people never commit crimes for financial gain. (All you have to do is look at the occupier of the oval office to see an example of that.)

If not, what keeps well off people from going to food banks?

Shame? Standards? Convenience?

[Absaroka]

"Shame? Standards? Convenience?"

For some, sure. Shame, or at least a mild feeling of ethical uneasiness is what keeps me doing so. I dunno about standards - my standards certainly include eating food not good enough for food banks, e.g. stuff past the best by date, so that's not what's stopping me. Convenience didn't seem to be a factor keeping the 'burbanites away from the free cheese. Heck, I drive by the food bank on the way to Costco, so it can't be convenience for me.

So that kind of leaves ethics. But those also keep me from cheating on my taxes, and since other people do cheat on their taxes, evidently there are people with ethics lower than mine.

[ThePublius]

"It’s really insulting to be asked to believe that someone who owns multiple homes and boats goes to food banks routinely to get free groceries."

It's really, really true, I swear! Last trip, as I think I mentioned, she gave me some thin cut pork chops and chocolate chip cookies she got there. It's kind of a social thing for her, I think. She and her girlfriends go there together, I think once or twice a month (they limit your visits). And, she had THREE houses, two on the water, one of which she sold. All true.

[Bwaaah]

In the park, people regularly recommend that I go get food from this free kitchen or that free kitchen. I say, "I don't need food."

"But it's good. They make great chicken. And they'll send you home with two additional meals."

"Sokay. I don't need food."

"Why? You can give it to your friends. It's great. Sometimes I can't eat it all."

You think I'm making this stuff up? You don't know. I do. I wouldn't believe this stuff if I didn't regularly encounter it.

Come to NYC with food to give hungry people. Watch for a person who's scavenging the wastebaskets. "Hey...you want some food?"

They'll answer, "Whattaya got?"

You hold out food...maybe a piece of fruit, maybe a sandwich, maybe some cookies. They'll look carefully. Maybe they'll take something. Often, it's "Nah." Nothing there they want. They continue along.

This isn't a case against food being available for people. This is just to denote the presence of pervasive anecdotal evidence of the plentifulness of food, certainly in NYC, for anybody who wants it. Even the junkies, who can't be bothered to get to the kitchens during meal hours, have quality pickings from wastebaskets as they do. Any indignity would be yours, not theirs.

I know how ThePublius feels when you jerkily call these anecdotes "fabricated." Is that how you handle uncomfortable facts? You just pretend that they come from liars?

You should get out in the world and stop pretending you're not hidden from it. You must be. It's in my face.

[hobie]

Bwaah, you do realize it is hard to square your antipathy to humanity you display here, with this declaration? Yes?

[Bwaaah]

Honestly, when you describe me as having "antipathy to humanity," that doesn't square at all with my feelings of affinity with humanity. And I don't know what you mean by "this declaration."

I wrote some observations of people. I consider them to be useful as anecdotes because, in the context of many day-to-day interactions that I have with a diversity of people, I think those anecdotes reflect significant representative aspects of people (and so-called "food insecurity," and opportunism) that I think are being denied here by Sarcastr0, and by David Nieporent.

I've seen enough to sound matter-of-fact about seemingly harsh realities, but only because my experience leaves me with little doubt that those are, in fact, matters of fact. At the same time, I am not numb to any of it, and to the contrary, there's a steady burn of emotional suffering that comes with bearing witness to the people I write about, their challenges, and the often ugly ways they are manifested. (I don't make it up. I just try to take it in for what it is.)

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, and what perspective I represent, which I assure you is my own and unaligned with any popular archetypes. (Steve Lathrop, though very different from me, reflects a similarly non-aligned construction of reality.)

Admittedly, hobie, the contemptuous voice with which I speak to you, and about you, is very misleading, as it is void of the huge measure of compassion that fills my view of people. I never, in real life, feel or convey the nastiness that I convey here in these VC discussions. Here, I admit my numbness to the voices, the words, and in effect, the people behind them. That's not a good thing.

[hobie]

Cutting off most food assistance as Trump/Musk are doing is only going to lead to mass hunger. I'm already seeing it here. Yeah, you'll end up hurting welfare queens like your wealthy friends, but you'll end up causing a lot of collateral devastation for everyone else. But like Charlie Sykes has said since the beginning of MAGA: it's all about the cruelty

[mulched]

What do you mean cutting off most food assistance? SNAP and WIC are still going strong.

[Stella Link the dog]

We received over $50k from social security last year. We don't need it, but we took it anyway. Government is giving away free shit, why shouldn't we take it?*

A number of years ago, we were visiting some relatives in Wisconsin who were neither pure nor hungry (quite well fed, in fact -- as are most of us) who commented about receiving free cheese sourced from the National Cheese Reserve. Discretion and valor and an abiding quest for peace at any cost and all that so I bit my tongue, painful as it might be. Was in the grocery store the other day and they were giving away free samples. I took one. Where's that hair shirt of mine?

Interesting article about the cheese reserve from 2021: https://www.farmlinkproject.org/stories-and-features/cheese-caves-and-food-surpluses-why-the-u-s-government-currently-stores-1-4-billion-lbs-of-cheese

*no, it's not my money. My money was spent years ago by the government for the defense budget and government cheese.

[Dr. Ed 2]

People could use that cheese -- and that money.
People who actually need it.

[bernard11]

ISTM that what you should do is report those people.

I mean, wouldn't that help reduce fraud and waste, not to mention leaving more food for those who really need it?

This can't be a giant problem, and if everyone who bitches about it reported it then it would get smaller.

But you'd rather have your anecdote, true (doubtful) or not.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost. I have nothing to gain by lying. It's absolutely true, and I don't really care if you believe it. And, I'm not in the habit of reporting people, "snitching," and so forth.

The interesting thing is that one needs a car to get to this food bank. If you can afford a car and gas and insurance, ....? As a matter of fact, when they distribute turkeys for Thanksgiving, the cars queue up and they put one turkey per occupant into the trunk.

I know there are many who have cars but are nonetheless struggling, and can use the assistance. God bless them.

When I go there I drop food off, not take it.

[Martinned2]

Suing the government is now also terrorism:

On March 15, a Cornell PhD student with UK and Gambian citizenship, here on a student visa, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Trump's EO aimed at foreign students accused of "antisemitism.

Last night, the DOJ emailed asking him to come to ICE to be detained and put into removal proceedings.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lkvkxorrhk2n

[Commenter_XY]

Momodou Taal's presence in the US is inimical to the foreign policy interests of the US. He is a guest on a student visa. The party is over, and it is time to go home. He picked the wrong case to associate himself with.

This has been going on for a while.

https://ithacavoice.org/2024/09/cornell-rejects-first-appeal-from-international-student-suspended-after-pro-palestinian-protest/

[Stella Link the dog]

If I understand correctly, he was kicked out of Cornell not for filing a lawsuit or for protesting within acceptable limits but for his actions in clear violation of the university's rules. So long as those rules are applied evenly and without "viewpoint" discrimination, well FAFO.

[Dr. Ed 2]

GOOD RIDDANCE.

[M L]

Re discussion of Judge Bozoberg above, I copy my previous comment.

To nobody's surprise, Judge Bozoberg and his wife are big leftwing activists and Democrat donors.

The wife is the founder and board chair of an abortion clinic. Nothing like dedicating your life's work to aborting human beings.

Bozoberg is also the judge who decided that Kevin Clinesmith should not get prison time for the Russia hoax scam!

Breitbart's Alex Marlow has more:

While giving Clinesmith 12 months probation and 400 hours community service instead of the prison sentence that prosecutors suggested in January 2021, Boasberg said the disgraced former FBI lawyer’s punishment of losing his job and reputation was enough, Politico reported.

Back in 2018, Boasberg fought against the first Trump administration’s immigration policy by ordering exceptions for “asylum-seekers” to be “released” into the U.S., siding with lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

During the height of coronavirus lockdowns, the judge made what the Washington Post described as a “secretive” ruling to approve the FBI’s use of a powerful warrantless surveillance authority over American citizens.

The 1,172-mile-long Dakota Access Pipeline, which has the ability to ship out 557,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was temporarily shut down by Boasberg in 2020, stating that the government had not studied the “effects on the quality of the human environment” enough. The shutdown order was later overturned by a U.S. appeals court.

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2025/03/18/alex-marlow-exposes-anti-trump-leftist-activist-judge-who-blocked-gang-member-deportations/

[David Nieporent]

To nobody's surprise, Judge Bozoberg and his wife are big leftwing activists and Democrat donors.

To nobody's surprise, ML is a liar. Boasberg is listed as having given three donations in his life, all more than 20 years ago, $1,000 to a Republican and $750 combined to two Democrats.

[M L]

And the wife?

[jb]

Wait, are we deciding what we think about judges' biases based on what their spouses political activities look like now?

[Paladin_44]

Ooooh...
Don't go there ML - much fuel for this fire...

[bernard11]

Who cares.

You're a liar, not mention a gullible fool for believing anything Breitbart publishes.

[David Nieporent]

Ayn Rand thinks Musk is an idiot.

https://twitter.com/TimothySandefur/status/1902525581834776597

[M L]

"decontrolling the economy" would refer to things like repealing all federal regulations and subsidies concerning health care, insurance, banking, automotive, energy, environmental, and resetting the tax code, etc.

It does not refer to laying off a bunch of government lackeys that can probably be replaced by AI to the extent they do any work, chopping DEI programs and other administrative bloat, shutting down the corrupt gravy train of money to leftist institutions and propagandists through USAID and so on.

[David Nieporent]

Ayn Rand also thinks ML is an idiot.

[Michael P]

Not as much as she would have thought you are a particularly evil idiot.

[rloquitur]

Well, we think you are an idiot.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Here's a video of a bunch of children with a very nice version of a song that seems appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T3B502Ut94&ab_channel=JoshTurnerGuitar

The kid playing bass is Josh Turner who is youtube famous. Made a video of a Dire Straits tune (Sultans of Swing) when he was about 15 and it has millions of views. The guy playing the box is Carson McKee, a long time collaborator

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Here's a link to the video that Turner posted when he was about 15. Pretty impressive, I think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SC1uIxXhk&ab_channel=JoshTurnerGuitar

[tylertusta]

Trump announced today that Boeing won the USAF's NGAD competition, and the new 6th gen fighter will be the F-47.

https://apnews.com/article/fighter-jet-ngad-trump-hegseth-china-55d7b3d15e5a4fa9cb061ec85ac19ae2

The Navy's NGAD program (commonly reported in the press as the F/A-XX) is still awaiting a final design. Lockheed Martin dropped from that competition, leaving Boeing to compete against Northrop Grumman (smart money says Northrop Grumman wins that one).

[David Nieporent]

Trump announced today that Boeing won the USAF's NGAD competition, and the new 6th gen fighter will be the F-47.

Trump named it after himself, but he claims it was all Boeing's idea.

[tylertusta]

Wait until he declares the winner of the other NGAD program as the F-45.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boeing isn't doing well right now...

[tylertusta]

This is a shot in the arm for Boeing's bottom line, one that they really needed

Like them or not, the US need Boeing to be making planes rather than bankrupt. We need more companies making airplanes for the military, not less.

[bernard11]

Probably true, but I'm wondering if there any stipulations ion the contract that require much improved quality control by Boeing. It doesn't seem to be a high priority for them.

Let's not have doors or windows blow out in mid-air. Reduces military effectiveness, I think.

[tylertusta]

Their military production lines are different from their commercial lines. They're different divisions.

Unlike the commercial side, the military side doesn't have the same sorts of production problems. If they did, we would know about them and the fleets of Growlers, Rhinos, and Eagles would be grounded.

[SRG2]

Amanda Marcotte on the cult - seems accurate enough

"I don't regret the vote": Why most Trump voters stand by him, even as he ruins their lives

[apedad]

Texas Parents Warn Against Shots Despite Death of Their Unvaccinated Child

The parents of an unvaccinated six-year-old girl who died from measles-related complications at Lubbock hospital on February 25 are urging other parents not to get the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine despite this being strongly recommended by the relevant health authorities.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/texas-parents-warn-against-shots-despite-death-of-their-unvaccinated-child/ar-AA1Bouzx?ocid=BingNewsSerp

YOUR KID IS DEAD BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID DECISIONS.

Why aren't these people in jail?

[David Nieporent]

My favorite part of this story is the mother's "Measles isn't so bad; it only killed 20% of my kids" stance.

[rloquitur]

I get it that these parents are brainwashed knuckleheads, but there's a dead kid involved. I have no favorite parts of this story. Be a better person.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Did your fee fees get hurt? Cry harder, snowflake.

[rloquitur]

No dipshit. DN's statement lacked class. There's a dead kid, and it's sad.

[Sarcastr0]

Was your hottie post below classy?

[rloquitur]

No, but it didn't lack class. She's 20, and a beautiful woman. Who does this stuff. And that's not to say that she's somehow more valuable that others. I have the same reaction when someone abuses a dog. Like who does that?

Lighten up.

[Sarcastr0]

USAID cuts killed plenty of kids.

Quit being a scold; you do not have the skills to play like you have sympathy.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

" I have the same reaction when someone abuses a dog. Like who does that? "

Like, "who does that to such a good looking dog?"

Reminds me of Trump who suggested that he wouldn't sexually assault the Carroll person because she is insufficiently attractive. After all, Trump only rapes "hotties." Or grabs them by the pussy.

[SRG2]

Reminds me of Trump who suggested that he wouldn't sexually assault the Carroll person because she is insufficiently attractive.

He said under oath that she was not his type. Fwiw when she was much younger she was attractive - and bore a more than passing resemblance to Marla Maples.

Who is Marla and who is Jean?

[Magister]

Only 20% so far; measles infection can have fatal consequences long after recovery from the measles.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why aren't these people in jail?"

Vaccine effectiveness is utterly dependent on public confidence in the health agencies that are telling parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Why aren't people like Fauci and other bureaucrats who destroyed that confidence during the Covid era in jail?

Because if you're why parents aren't getting their children vaccinated, it's the lying bureaucrats who are responsible.

[Michael P]

Marcotte has long been part of a cult. Just a different, more relevant and more dangerous one than what she is imagining.

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

When the fascists decided to boycott Bud Light they stopped buying Bud Light.

When the not-fascists decided to boycott Tesla they launch a nationwide terror campaign terrorizing innocent EV owners and firebombing EV dealers.

For the record.

[SRG2]

Perhaps you can appreciate that Tim McVeigfh did not represent all right-wingers

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who knows WHO McVeigh represented? There are persistent rumors of an Arabic companion of his.

That's why we shouldn't have executed him...

[SRG2]

Who knows WHO McVeigh represented? There are persistent rumors of an Arabic companion of hi

Seriously?

[hobie]

Remember when your pappy unleashed water cannons and dogs on black people? That was terrorism. Egging a shitbox Tesla? Not so much. A crime to be sure...but not terrorism. It's difficult to have sympathy for your hyperbolism when your trashing the country

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, Bull Connor was a DEMOCRAT.
There were no Republicans in the South before Jimmy Carter.

[not guilty]

"There were no Republicans in the South before Jimmy Carter."

Not true. Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky served three non-consecutive, partial terms in the United States Senate before being elected to two full terms in 1960 and 1966. Senator Thruston Morton from Kentucky was elected in 1956 and 1962. Senator John Tower from Texas in 1961, 1966 and 1972. Senator Howard Baker, Jr. from Tennessee in 1966 and 1972, Senator Edward Gurney from Florida in 1968. Senator Wendell Cook from Kentucky was appointed in 1968. Senator Strom Thurmond, who was originally elected from South Carolina as a Democrat, became a Republican in 1964. Winthrop Rockefeller was elected governor of Arkansas in 1966 and 1968. Louie Nunn was elected governor of Kentucky in 1967.

Contemporaneous with Jimmy Carter's election as governor of Georgia in 1970, Bill Brock was elected to the Senate and Winfield Dunn was elected governor in Tennessee.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Texas had Republicans that Republicans like to pretend never existed. Like when they would claim Gore’s father voted certain ways while ignoring the other guy’s father who had similar positions and actually became president. Buh Gore.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you have successfully pointed out one way Dr. Ed is a dumbass, but even if his claim had been factually accurate (and if such an improbable occurrence didn’t cause an apocalyptic event), it still would’ve been dumbass. “Southern Democrats used to be racist so therefore Republicans can’t be racist now” makes as much sense as saying “Japan attacked us in WW2 so it can’t be our ally now.”

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Who defends the CSA memorials??

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bull Connor????

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

>Egging a shitbox Tesla?

Well sure, if that's all there was going on.

Of course you don't know anything else that's going on because you're a low-information Democrat (as if there's any other kind...)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Remember when your pappy unleashed water cannons and dogs on black people? That was terrorism."

That's a filthy lie! My pappy never unleased water cannons or dogs on any black people!

All he did was firebombed their businesses when they registered to vote.

[Bwaaah]

"It's difficult to have sympathy for your hyperbolism," says hobie.

[windycityattorney]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2d4kex0w2ro

What do people think about Trump's executive orders targeting various law firms...then rescinding one of them after the firm agreed to do 40million in pro bono work in areas that support the administration's initiatives???

This not seem ridiculous to anyone else? Executive orders against law firms are strange enough then meeting them and him agreeing to rescind them. Shakedown street isn't just a Dead song.

[rloquitur]

That ship sailed when Obama leaned on the AIG people to give up their stay bonuses.

[bernard11]

No it didn't.

There is no resemblance, but you need your BS whataboutism.

[Life of Brian]

Most good settlements piss off everyone roughly equally. Betcha at their billing rates $10M/year is well under 20% of their total pro bono hours, and so in reality they're not really going to end up doing much more than would have already happened.

[windycityattorney]

How is it a settlement? There isn't a DOJ civil action against the firm. It's an executive order since rescinded.

And it's not the only firm Trump has issued executive orders against. If the firms are doing something illegal or unethical; the DOJ is equipped to handle it. But they aren't. That is what is strange.

[Life of Brian]

How is it a settlement?

How is it not? First hit was American Heritage 5th Edition -- I'm sure there are comparable entries in others:

"settlement /sĕt′l-mənt/
noun

An arrangement or agreement reached, as in business proceedings or negotiating a dispute"

[John F. Carr]

Hot off the presses, the First Circuit just ruled that states can challenge mass cancellation of Department of Education contracts by suing in District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims, it doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction over these contract-related claims. And the states need the money more than the federal government (pp. 14-16).

Formally, the court declined to stay the District Court's TRO pending resolution of the appeal. But the writing is on the wall. The court ducked the non-appealable TRO issue by saying that if the appellant loses anyway it's OK to lose on the merits rather than procedure.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1244P-01A.pdf

[Dr. Ed 2]

First CIRCUS....

[rloquitur]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14519005/Mystery-missing-Ukrainian-OnlyFans-model-20-close-death-road-Dubai-spine-arms-legs-broken-hotel-party.html

Who does this to a hottie?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Be a better person.

[rloquitur]

How is that being a bad person?

[Dr. Ed 2]

A culture that doesn't hold Locke's values does this, except she wasn't supposed to live.

[rloquitur]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-returning-court-defend-deportation-venezuelan-migrants-due/story?id=120024244

Looks like this twit judge is doubling down. The Deputy AG should have said when this douche of a judge asked about the deportation when he scheduled a hearing:

"Judge, we work for the American people, and it was in the best interests of the American people to get these guys out of our country before the process of deportation could be stopped. The idea that the government is somehow required, prior to the issuance of written court orders, to stay its hand runs counter to Article II of the Constitution. In other words, the government doesn't have to ask "Mother, May I" before it takes action."

He also should have said, "Your honor, we respectfully request that you issue a written ruling regarding the enforceability of your statement about the planes turning around. Our view is that the order is not enforceable and that you are seeking irrelevant information."

[bernard11]

Fucking ridiculous argument.

Working "for the American people" doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want if you yourself have decided it's "in the best interests of the American people."

That justifies absolutely anything. And no, requiring the executive to obey the statutes and Constitution does not remotely violate Article II.

[rloquitur]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/21/opinion/a-14-year-old-is-dead-and-democrats-in-albany-are-to-blame/

Democrats suck.

[David Nieporent]

Kind of weird to support involuntary commitment for the mentally ill, but not involuntary vaccination for the mentally ill of a different sort.

[Michael P]

More weird to support involuntary vaccination but not incarceration for a potential to commit serious crime.

[not guilty]

In the Perkins Coie LLP lawsuit, the Defendants have moved to disqualify District Judge Beryl Howell. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290/gov.uscourts.dcd.278290.34.0_2.pdf

The motion is thin gruel. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), states "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This statute is subject to the "extrajudicial source" limitation, as described by SCOTUS:

For all these reasons, we think that the "extrajudicial source" doctrine, as we have described it, applies to § 455(a). As we have described it, however, there is not much doctrine to the doctrine. The fact that an opinion held by a judge derives from a source outside judicial proceedings is not a necessary condition for "bias or prejudice" recusal, since predispositions developed during the course of a trial will sometimes (albeit rarely) suffice. Nor is it a sufficient condition for "bias or prejudice" recusal, since some opinions acquired outside the context of judicial proceedings (for example, the judge's view of the law acquired in scholarly reading) will not suffice. Since neither the presence of an extrajudicial source necessarily establishes bias, nor the absence of an extrajudicial source necessarily precludes bias, it would be better to speak of the existence of a significant (and often determinative) "extrajudicial source" factor, than of an "extrajudicial source" doctrine, in recusal jurisprudence.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-55 (1994) (italics in original). Justice Scalia there opined:

As Judge Jerome Frank pithily put it: "Impartiality is not gullibility. Disinterestedness does not mean child-like innocence. If the judge did not form judgments of the actors in those courthouse dramas called trials, he could never render decisions." In re J. P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (CA2 1943).

Id., 510 U.S. at 551.

[Commenter_XY]

So NG, what in your view would disqualify Judge Howell? What would she have to do to show she cannot be impartial? Reporting her words uttered in court and outside of court is not enough? What's the bright line?

You were sure the 11th circuit would remove Judge Cannon. That did not happen.

[David Nieporent]

Reporting her words uttered in court and outside of court is not enough?

Like, "I'd like to order a large pizza, half pepperoni"? No, reporting her words is not enough. They have to be the right (or wrong, depending on one's perspective) words.

You were sure the 11th circuit would remove Judge Cannon. That did not happen.

Um, Trump took it out of the 11th circuit's hands before that could happen. I don't know whether it would have, but the circuit court's failure to do so had nothing to do with any lack of willingness to do so.

[not guilty]

"So NG, what in your view would disqualify Judge Howell? What would she have to do to show she cannot be impartial? Reporting her words uttered in court and outside of court is not enough? What's the bright line?"

There is no bright line. But a request for disqualification based upon a litigant's mere disagreement with the merits of a judge's rulings (including previous rulings in the same case or in related litigation) is not even in the same ballpark. As SCOTUS has opined:

The judge who presides at a trial may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill disposed towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible person. But the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings, and are indeed sometimes (as in a bench trial) necessary to completion of the judge's task.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 550-51 (1994).

[Commenter_XY]

No bright line? No way to determine impartiality? At some level, there has to be something that the judge's peers would say, 'you are not impartial' and the case is reassigned. Presumably that is the appeals court.

Clarence Darrow took on unpopular clients and unpopular causes. Thank God he did. So I can understand a judge making very unpopular decisions, based on disputed points of law that even SCOTUS would have different POVs, relative to a specific set of facts. That could be the case here with Judge Boasberg. It is possible.

To me, the intersection of money (finances) and rulings might have something to bear on the question of impartiality.

There is nothing in Judge Boasberg's courtroom conduct thusfar (to me) that makes me question his impartiality. Aside from the fact that Judge Boasberg is definitely butthurt and making his displeasure known.

[not guilty]

The criterion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is whether the judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." “Since subsection (a) deals with the objective appearance of partiality, any limitations contained in (b) that consist of a subjective knowledge requirement are obviously inapplicable.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 553 (1994) (italics in original). Objective reasonableness tests are the antithesis of bright line rules.

That having been said, there are objective standards that require recusal when “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 877 (2009), quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975). Among these cases are those in which the judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome and in which he has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the party before him. Withrow at 47.

[Commenter_XY]

Now isn't that interesting....a financial interest and/or one party of a suit before him criticizes him too much = probability of bias is too high, and must recuse.

Not that anything like this would happen here.

[BrotherMovesOn]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll just return to one of my takes on the Alien Enemies Act, and add one more thing.

For Venezuela's citizens to be covered by the Alien Enemies Act, there must be "a declared war" between our countries, or Venezuela must be making, attempting, or about to make, an "invasion or predatory incursion." Does this mean hostile activity in general toward the U. S.?

I'd say *no,* because the best way to read the "invasion or predatory incursion" language is as providing a way for the President to act when Congress doesn't have time to do so - you, know, an emergency Congress can't handle right away. That would seem to limit the law to Venezuelan troops starting on a standard-issue invasion.

If Venezuelans are covered by the Act because Venezuela is dumping criminals here (assuming it is), Congress has time to deal with it - even to declare war, in theory. So Venezuela hasn't achieved enemy status in the eyes of the Alien Enemies Act and its citizens can't be treated like we did British nationals in the War of 1812, Central Powers nationals in World War One, and Axis nationals in World War Two.

As to contempt of court, an *ongoing* contempt can be dealt with by the judge acting by himself, fining or imprisoning the contemnor until the contemnor complies. As to *completed* contempts, there's two strands of legal thinking - the courts themselves say they can lock people up for criminal contempt without a jury, while the actual Constitution provides for jury trials in *all* criminal prosecutions (or all with the exception of impeachment, depending on which clause you look at).

So if we're OK with courts defining their own powers in a self-interested way without heeding the text of the Constitution, no jury is needed. If we prefer the Constitutional text and are dubious of self-serving precedents, then let us consider the possibility that the precedents are - wait for it - wrong, and that alleged criminal (completed) contempt needs a jury trial.

(Technically, the Supremes divide criminal contempt into serious (with juries) and petty (usually without juries) - guess which form judges like? The only constraint on petty contempts is sentencing - no more than six months)

[SRG2]

There’s only one word to describe Trump’s negotiations with Russia: appeasement

In what by now looks like a pattern, in his most recent phone call with President Trump, Vladimir Putin again rejected the White House ceasefire — and again piled up still more preconditions before even considering one.

Perhaps still more important in the long run was Trump’s reaction. So far, the record of the White House’s negotiations with the Kremlin amounts to appeasement

It is perhaps unfair to compare Krasnov with Neville Chamberlain. Chamberalin was not a Nazi asset.

What is very clear in the article is that any peace agreement that Putin agrees to would amount to Ukraine's surrender. Krasnov would of course be fine with that;

No doubr some cultist would like to describe Aron as a neo-con.

[SRG2]

And more "Trust me" from Krasnov

Trump says ‘contract’ being drafted on ‘dividing up’ land in Ukraine war

During his Tuesday call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump proposed the U.S. take ownership of some of Ukraine’s power plants as a way of providing protection in the future.

“American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure,” national security adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a joint statement after Trump’s one-hour call with Zelensky.

Having a Russian agent control Ukraine's energy production strikes me as a bad move.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Nazi Nazi Nazi Hitler Chamberlain Munich Nazi Nazi Nazi. Also, Nazi."

[SRG2]

In case you didn't understand it, Putin is the dictator here.

That you are apparently ignorant of history is only mildly contemptible.

Ans you also by implication are a supporter or Putin. But please correct me if I am wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Schumer is...

[Bwaaah]

"Nazi Nazi Nazi Fascist Dictator Apologist Nazi."

[bernard11]

Trump has decided to stop investigating Russian war crimes.

I guess Putin bought him a nice shiny new dog collar.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"But please correct me if I am wrong."

You are not only wrong, you are a lying scumbag.

[SRG2]

If I'm wrong, so be it. My implication error was based on what in my post you chose to respond to and how you responded, A supporter of Putin would be far more likely to deny any historical ocmparison to Hitler than an opponent, obviously.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If I'm wrong, so be it."

That's your motto. Because you are a lying scumbag.

[SRG2]

A willingness to admit one might be wrong is nothing to be ashamed of, YMMV.

Because you are a lying scumbag.

Liars tend not to concede that they're lying. (Krasnov, passim)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, the liar's paradox - you admit your indifference to the truth, and no true liar would admit that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy4zQlWECc

[SRG2]

I did not admit indifference to the truth. I accepted I was (in all likelihood) wrong. - the qualification necessary because it required me to take your word for it, and that is not a high enough probability for me to make an unqualified admission of error.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You said "If I'm wrong, so be it." Own it.

You had no idea if your accusation was true, but you made it anyway, simply because I mocked your Winston Churchill cosplay. Though there are obviously plenty of reasons for anyone to mock it - such as that it's stupid.

Are you a Chinese agent trying to foment strife in the United States? I might be wrong, but I won't accept your denial.

[SRG2]

You had no idea if your accusation was true, but you made it anyway,

I heavily qualified my accusation and couched it in such terms as to make it clear that you could readily confirm or deny it. But you're such a sensitive little cunt, perhaps you should change your name to Margravine of Azilia

[Bwaaah]

"I heavily qualified my accusation and couched it in such terms as to make it clear that you could readily confirm or deny it."

So you knew it might be false, but floated it as fact anyway. You're a bullshitter.

[SRG2]

So you knew it might be false, but floated it as fact anyway. You're a bullshitter.

Oh fuck off, you clown. I did not float it as a fact, I floated it as an implication with the acceptance that if I'd be wrong I'd correct it

That is not the position of a liar nor of a bullshitter.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You said:

"Ans [sic] you also by implication are a supporter or Putin. But please correct me if I am wrong."

I corrected you, and you said that wasn't enough for you to believe me. So why did you say "correct me if I am wrong"? Because that was a mere rhetorical decoration for your lie.

But I appreciate the fact that you're trying desperately to climb down.

[Magister]

It would be more accurate to say that Margrave is a supporter of Trump, although the only defense he seems capable of is to insist that anyone who criticizes Trump is calling him a Nazi.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's not that you didn't respond to my takedown and criticism of Trump's position on the Alien Enemies Act, you want to put my comments into the memory hole and pretend I never criticized Trump on the subject.

"to insist that anyone who criticizes Trump is calling him a Nazi"

More lies.

Shove your lies up your ass to keep your head company.

[Magister]

Lots of strong Trump supporters have also criticized him; they just want some combination of the corruption, the judicial nominees, the tax cuts and the chaos. Margrave does the scolding over Nazi name calling here and with regards to the Niemoller allusion in an earlier thread. But I didn't say anything about Margrave's criticism of Trump, but (as usual with his severe deficit in reading comprehension) he has failed to demonstrate other forms of defense. Making up lies through failed reading comprehension is a standard Margrave technique; not clear if it's stupidity or dishonesty driving it, but some would say "why not both?".

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're just babbling and doubling down on the lying.

I think you know that a "strong Trump supporter" wouldn't be criticizing his Alien Enemies Act schtick.

But the important part is that everything you say is a fucking lie, including "a" and "the."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And I guess you missed the part where I said if Trump violates court orders, send him back to private life and replace him with Vance.

I'm not addressing you, I'm addressing anyone who is so unfortunate as to think you're a credible source - I'd like to disabuse them of that notion.

[Bwaaah]

It's becoming clear to me that an essential tenet of the contemporary left is that any lack of opposition to anything Trump makes a person a "Trump supporter" (Magister's term), and by that mere association, imbibes in that person everything that Donald Trump is.

If you don't 100% oppose Trump, you are 100% Trump.

Ever hear of a "smear?" The whole friggin' left is living on a smear now. That makes for a lot of super-dumbed-down conversations.

[SRG2]

@Bwaaah: on the other hand, not being part of the left myself (except by the idiotically idiosyncratic definition of the cultists), I see that many cultists will deny being members of the cult despite being largely unable to condemn anything Dear Leader says or does.

[Bwaaah]

"I see that many cultists will deny being members of the cult despite being largely unable to condemn anything Dear Leader says or does."

But many do state differences, with Trump, quite regularly. Those differences mean nothing to Big Stupid. "They are cultists, unable to condemn anything 'Dear Leader' says or does."

Like Sarcastr0, you *are* a case and you *make* the point.

[SRG2]

But many do state differences, with Trump, quite regularly

Not here they don't. Perhaps, in trying to show that ypu lot aren't cultists, you might find something to disagree with him on, e.g., "I don't think that RFKjr was the best choice for the position", but it will rarely be anything more than that.

[Magister]

I think you know that a "strong Trump supporter" wouldn't be criticizing his Alien Enemies Act schtick.

No, that is both untrue and stupid. Some strong Trump supporters are there for the judicial appointments, some are there for the tax breaks, some are there for the deregulation, some are there for the xenophobia, some are there for the abortion bans, some are there just to own the libs -- lots of reasons to have joined the cult.

And, as SRG2 notes, lots of cult members want to deny their membership with performative heresy, even if it's only soft disagreement from anonymity, and for some that might be the Alien Enemies Act.

Lots of cult members have to distort and misrepresent the opinions of those who are not cult members; Bwaaah and Margrave demonstrate that here.

[Bwaaah]

I think I'm seeing it now. I'm a cultist.

Am I under the spell, or do I cast it? Presumably, I am under it, like a delusional person being lead by a fascist real estate developer (who may also be delusional)?

Since you purport to know what I am in a way that I do not know, I am interested. Tell me my nature, as a "cultist." Tell me what that means. Would I be wrong in saying that roughly half the population of the U.S. is now "cultists?" Can a person *not* be opposed to DJT, and *not* be a cultist? If so, can you tell me what might be the cause of such an exception?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Gosh, SRG2 and Magister, you both have some interesting points. Have you considered fucking yourselves, you lying sacks of shit?

[Magister]

Margrave again demonstrates why discussion with him is useless.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your idea of a "discussion" is posting bullshit and claiming that the evidence that it's bullshit was all planted, perhaps as a test of your faith in the bullshit.

[Bwaaah]

Racist Racist Racist dried up. Nazi Nazi Nazi is past its prime. Cultist Cultist Cultist will have to do.

Nothing Nothing Nothing is the substance.

[Magister]

Margrave and Bwaaah both resorting to grade school taunts because they can't rebut what I've written. I haven't claimed any evidence is planted, and I don't have to claim any evidence is planted because no evidence has been presented.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hitler was a threat to England.
Putin a threat to the US? I don't think so.

[Michael P]

Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not sure that Putin does -- it's been 40 years and they are degraded to the point where I wonder how many of them would actually go "bang."

[David Nieporent]

It's in his dissertation, folks!

[bernard11]

I don't suppose the Russians do any maintenance or inspections or anything.

[SRG2]

Dr Ed (Ph D in physics from TikTok U)

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Schumer could run 235 judges to block Trump, we can eliminate 235 courts.

And should.

[John F. Carr]

You still have to keep all those judges on the payroll. I think it's an open question whether they can be suspended from hearing cases without cause. Remember one of the Democratic court reform proposals would have taken away almost all of the Supreme Court's cases. Many doubted the court would put up with that.

With 60 votes in the Senate Republicans could also pack the courts, creating hundreds of new positions for Trump to fill. Whatever Republicans do will be fair game for Democrats in 2029, same as the nuclear option worked both ways.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/21/sec-to-see-exodus-as-hundreds-take-trumps-buyout-offers.html

These are the smart ones, taking the buyout offer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Smart" in the sense of "I don't care about the pain, tragedy and corruption that will happen if the agency I work for is dismantled". These are not political appointees who can go whoring on Fox News or MSNBC. These are career civil servants, highly specialized and trained, who do work that few others are qualified for.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, few others are that much of a layabout.

[bernard11]

Screw you, Ed.

This whole "all civil servants are lazy incompetents' shtick that people like you and others like XY take as absolutely true is based on utter ignorance. It's what you hear from your cronies, and maybe from Fox "News" or Breitbart.

It's baseless, dishonest, lazy, and nasty. But you spout it anyway.

[Commenter_XY]

Who said they are lazy? I merely state, correctly I might add, that they (Fed DC-based bureaucrats) are non-essential.

[Bwaaah]

I think you are using the term "non-essential" in a manner that's inconsistent with its current conventional usage. It's as if you are saying that they are "not essential." Even though that may be true, that's not what that term means anymore.

"Not essential" is a bureaucratic designation that means you don't have to come to work if there's a shutdown, and you'll still get paid retroactively. That shouldn't be confused with teachers, who during the pandemic were designated as "essential," and who also didn't have to come to work, but who got paid all along anyway.

You're probably getting confused by the traditional meaning of the word "essential," which used to mean necessary to function. The definition changed in the mid-teens, and now has no relationship to necessity or function.

This, by way of context, may help you to understand the contemporary definition of the term "essential":

  Sarcastr0 is an essential worker in government.

[ThePublius]

I think you are just making this up. Do you have a citation for your supposed definitions of the terms?

For example, here's Brittanica:

1 nonessential /ˌnɑːnɪˈsɛnʃəl/ adjective
Britannica Dictionary definition of NONESSENTIAL
: not completely necessary : not essential
All nonessential personnel had to be laid off.
Please avoid all nonessential uses of water.
2 nonessential /ˌnɑːnɪˈsɛnʃəl/ noun
plural nonessentials
Britannica Dictionary definition of NONESSENTIAL
[count]
: something that is not completely necessary : something that is not essential — usually plural
She puts aside money in her monthly budget for nonessentials like haircuts and vacations.

I haven't found anything that resembles your definitions and historical etymology.

[Bwaaah]

That was intended as humor.

However, the terms "essential" and "non-essential" were widely used during the pandemic, by governments to classify people and dispatch then within the context of "emergency" orders. For example, here is a CDC COVID era page: Categories of Essential Workers Mapped to Standardized Industry Codes. And here is one of Governor Andrew Cuomo's announcements about COVID era essential workers.

Here's a 2019 Commerce Department document that uses the term regarding furloughs during a government shutdown. They seem to lean toward using less descriptive (i.e. "non-judgemental") terms now, such as "exempt" and "non-exempt," "excepted" and "non-excepted," as in this 2021 OPM shutdown guidance.

And here is an NEA gripe peace, Trump administration designates teachers as ‘essential workers’ to force educators into unsafe schools.

[Armchair]

Inside The Now-Shuttered Federal Agency Where Employees Lived ‘Like Reigning Kings’

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) occupied a nine-story office tower on D.C.’s K Street for only 60 employees, many of whom actually worked from home, prior to the pandemic. Its managers had luxury suites with full bathrooms; one manager would often be “in the shower” when she was needed, while another used her bathroom as a cigarette lounge. FMCS recorded its director as being on a years-long business trip to D.C. so he could have all of his meals and living expenses covered by taxpayers, simply for showing up to the office.

FMCS seemed, quite clearly, to exist for the benefit of those on its payroll, and not much else. One employee told me: “Let me give you the honest truth: A lot of FMCS employees don’t do a hell of a lot, including myself. Personally, the reason that I’ve stayed is that I just don’t feel like working that hard, plus the location on K Street is great, plus we all have these oversized offices with windows, plus management doesn’t seem to care if we stay out at lunch a long time. Can you blame me?”

Top FMCS official George Cohen used a “recreation and reception fund” to order champagne and $200 coasters for his office, and to purchase artwork painted by his wife. The tiny agency commissioned paintings of its top employees — as one employee told me, “like they were reigning kings or something…I’ve never seen anything like it before.”

FMCS employees “unblocked” their government credit cards to turn off typical abuse protections, then used them to apparently fund personal expenses and simply bill anything they’d like to the government. One employee leased a BMW; another (IT director James Donnen) billed the government for his wife’s cell phone, cable TV at both his home and his vacation home, and even his subscription to USA Today.

Employee Dan W. Funkhouser used his FMCS card to rent a storage unit near his home in rural Virginia, two hours from the office he supposedly worked at, which was used to store personal possessions such as a photo album of his dog, Buster. Funkhouser also spent $18,000 at a jewelry store near his house, and “destroyed all purchase card records upon leaving the agency,” an audit said.

When Charles Burton retired from FMCS, he incorporated an LLC to which another FMCS employee paid $85,000 using his purchase card, listing it as a “Call Center Service,” even though the company had neither a website nor a working phone.

Employee Dan W. Funkhouser used his FMCS card to rent a storage unit near his home in rural Virginia, two hours from the office he supposedly worked at, which was used to store personal possessions such as a photo album of his dog, Buster. Funkhouser also spent $18,000 at a jewelry store near his house, and “destroyed all purchase card records upon leaving the agency,” an audit said.

When Charles Burton retired from FMCS, he incorporated an LLC to which another FMCS employee paid $85,000 using his purchase card, listing it as a “Call Center Service,” even though the company had neither a website nor a working phone.

More at https://www.dailywire.com/news/fmcs-slush-fund-abolished-by-trump

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

Every agency is like this. It's sickening. These are the people that the Left is crying over. Can you believe it?

[David Nieporent]

If every agency were like this, then this obscure tiny budget agency would not be making news for being like this.

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

Why was any agency like this?

[David Nieporent]

Well, a religious person might answer "Because of the fallen nature of humanity." A leftist might argue that it's because of the overwhelming pressures of late stage capitalism. A normal person would just say, "Because some people are corrupt."

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

Why was any agency allowed to be like this for so long?

"Well because the Watchmen are corrupt too".

And now you understand why we have DOGE.

[David Nieporent]

Who said it was "allowed" for any length of time? As opposed to just being a very small agency that flew under the radar?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Small potatoes compared to the big $$ Trump and Musk are making by using the federal government to line their own pockets. You did see that Tesla commercial Trump filmed in front of the White House last week, I imagine?

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

Was that commercial different than the Jeep commercial at that Biden event? Or is it just (D)ifferent?

>"Small potatoes"

And definitely good call, we should just let these Sacastr0's continue ripping us off since its just so small.

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

I had a dream recently where I was in prison. And sometimes when you have these off the wall dreams, it makes you ponder. So I was pondering, if I really were to wind up in some prison, maybe I'll get lucky and it would be some UK prison.

There wouldn't be a single minority in it, as they only imprison White people these days. I would bet a UK prison would actually be kinda nice and pleasant. Like you wouldn't even have to lock up your jail cell at night to protect your valuables kinda pleasant and nice. I bet it's like some quaint suburb (before Obama's HUD rules wrecked it), with people sharing meals & recipes and walking each other's dogs. No locked doors. Like those pre-COVID days... innocence, good times, and overall goodness all around.

[SRG2]

Some of those deported:
https://adamisacson.com/who-did-the-trump-administration-just-send-to-el-salvadors-dungeons/

Even if you want to claim that as unlawful residents they had no relevant rights, the US has no right and the Executive categorically does not have the power to send them to a prison in El Salvador.

Being Hispanic While Tattooed used not to be a crime in the US.

[bernard11]

Ah, SRG, but the deportees were carefully vetted, per Trump, who of course was lying like a rug.

And how did all these incompetent, lazy, civil servants get that done accurately anyway.

It's amazing, isn't it? When employees do, or pretend to do, something that Trump wants to brag about they are all the souls of diligence. Otherwise not.

[David Nieporent]

https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1903120893217210396

Looks like at least 15 of the 137 people sent to Salvadoran prison after being arrested under the Enemy Alien Act were NOT GANG MEMBERS. Many were asylum seekers who fled Maduro's socialist dictatorship to be abused by Trump and then sent to Bukele's prison camps.

Outrageous.

But, I mean, you can't make an omelet without torturing a few people because of their skin color.

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

Don't be on the wrong side of history.

[SRG2]

Supporting a dictator is seldom being on the right side of history.

Do you support the seizing and sending off to a foreign prison legitimate asylum seekers who have committed no crimes?

[bernard11]

The sad thing is that there are those who will make that argument unironically.

Can't wait to hear the excuses.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The more important evidence, of course, is the government’s basis for thinking they are gang members, which we haven’t seen. But family members saying that they’re not doesn’t in and of itself seem all that compelling a refutation.

[SRG2]

The more important evidence, of course, is the government’s basis for thinking they are gang members, which we haven’t seen.

And which they will resist showing, I expect, "in the interests of national security" i.e., to avoid revealing how often they screwed up and how scant the evidentiary basis was.

[Absaroka]

I hear you, OTOH the careful, deliberate pace of this administration so far ... doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. Move fast and break things is better suited to (some) software than people, IMHO.

[Thought about __ all my life]

I think Judge Boasberg will be working at McDonalds soon.
The daughter, the history , the snarl, the meanness. Peoiple will tend to hate him and he has set himself up as blind lady Justice and he is partisan as a judge can be. Throw the book at him

"This Judge Boasberg, who Blocked the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang member’s, never disclosed the fact that his daughter works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice!
Thats right . The judges daughter gets paid, with your tax dollars, to protect foreign murderers, rapists and gang members from being deported !!!!
This goes far beyond conflict of interest."

[Commenter_XY]

In all likelihood, Judge Boasberg will stay right where he is. Even if impeached, which I don't thing will happen and I don't see any conduct from Judge Boasberg thusfar as impeachable. Maybe recuse-able from a case, but not impeachable. Those are two very different things.

One would need to examine a lot of rulings from Judge Boasberg to see if there is a consistent pattern of any kind that can be identified. A lot, meaning years. I think Fed Dist Ct judges file financial docs, which may or may not be public. Between longitudinal rulings pattern(s) and finances, you'll know if there was a conflict of interest that would compromise the appearance of impartiality. I haven't seen that detailed analysis.

One example. While on the FISA court, how many search warrants from the government did Boasberg decide, grant, and reject. I don't think the judge is a friend of 4A. That is one pattern.

[tylertusta]

For what it's worth, Boasberg was one of the judges who didn't throw the book at J6 defendants. Unlike other judges that deviated upwards from the sentencing guidelines, he deviated downwards more often than not.

[David Nieporent]

"This Judge Boasberg, who Blocked the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang member’s, never disclosed the fact that his daughter works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice!
Thats right . The judges daughter gets paid, with your tax dollars, to protect foreign murderers, rapists and gang members from being deported !!!!
This goes far beyond conflict of interest."

Right; it goes all the way to fiction.

[Absaroka]

Megan McArdle hits one out of the park: "Warning to conservatives: You won’t fix campus diversity like this".

[Bwaaah]

"It’s also a reminder that for all its excesses, DEI had its heart in the right place."

I believe it did. It still does. But the excesses, e.g. requirements of "equity" and "inclusion," were always beyond the reasonable scope of social engineering (at least in the current social context). And their practical definition of "diversity" was pretty much measured with a skin-color chart.

Remember "tolerance"? I was taught that, as a child, as a virtue. The hippies added "love," but of course, that was one of their excesses (despite the heart having been in the right place there too). Tolerance, and civility, are viable starting points, even if insufficient to reach the desired goal. (Humanity, in its present form, is insufficient to reach the desired goal.)

Anyway, I'd never encourage my son to pursue an academic career in the social sciences because of how intellectually pigeonholed the institutions are now. But I wouldn't discourage him, and as I read that article, I fancied the benefit of him participating in academia. Alas, he graduated only recently, and already got a full helping of the meaning of "collegiality" in higher education. I'd describe him as a thoughtful, restrained, articulate, not-particularly-political right-leaning thinker. In other words, "a piece of shit."

It's hard to build on that.

[Absaroka]

"But the excesses"

I was solidly in support of affirmative action in the 60's and 70's. At that point the 'is black' Venn diagram circle was completely contained inside the 'was severely discriminated against' circle. But IMHO we should have explicitly put a statue of limitations on it. One generation sure, two generations maybe, but saying we need even more as we roll into three generations is getting predictable pushback.

[SRG2]

Witkoff, traitor.

Trump envoy dismisses Starmer plan for Ukraine

Sir Keir Starmer's plan for an international force to support a ceasefire in Ukraine has been dismissed as "a posture and a pose" by Donald Trump's special envoy.

Steve Witkoff said the idea was based on a "simplistic" notion of the UK prime minister and other European leaders thinking "we have all got to be like Winston Churchill".

In an interview with pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlson, Witkoff praised Vladimir Putin, saying he "liked" the Russian president.

"I don't regard Putin as a bad guy," he said. "He's super smart."

Krasnov must be very pleased with him.

[ThePublius]

You're going to have to 'splain that to me - how is Witkoff traitorous? Are you saying he's a traitor to the U.S.? How? Ukraine is not part of the U.S., last time I checked.

[SRG2]

I don't "'splain" stuff to voluntary morons.

[ThePublius]

Oh, get lost. Typical leftist response - deny, deflect, insult....

The answer is you probably can't 'splain it - it's just you spouting your anti-Trump bilge.

[David Nieporent]

Since we are not formally at war with Russia, Witkoff is not treasonous in the technical legal sense of having committed the constitutionally-defined crime of treason. He is, however, treasonous in the colloquial sense of supporting enemies of the U.S., namely Russia.

[ThePublius]

I guess you don't play poker much, or hunt, eh? He's negotiating. He flattered the person with whom he's negotiating. So what? Let's see how this ultimately turns out, then you can judge whether he's 'treasonous' or not. BTW, accusing him of treason is laughably ridiculous. And, by what legal or otherwise official definition is Russia an enemy of the U.S.?

[SRG2]

Bullshit. This isn't negotiating. This is simply favouring Russia.

Do you think that by doing this, repeating Kremlin propaganda, etc. that Witkoff is negotiating with Ukraine? What's the negotiating? "If you don't surrender we'll provide more support for Russia"? And if with Russia, even you must know that in a negotiation you don't immediately agree with what one side wants.

You may indeed have played poker, but what's happening here isn't poker. It's cockholstery.

[David Nieporent]

I guess you don't play poker much, or hunt, eh? He's negotiating.

I negotiate for a living. Giving the other side what it wants, and then giving them more after that, and then more after that, until you're happy is not negotiating; it's capitulating.

[Commenter_XY]

I watched the Witkoff interview with Tucker Carlson. The BBC article is not giving the entire context of what Witkoff said during the interview. You should see the interview for yourself.

He also had some very interesting comments about Iran, and Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvu2LBumGo

[ThePublius]

Thanks.

[Bwaaah]

Interesting interview. Witkoff seems like the decent, smart, motivated person.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Unfortunately, the motivations are evil.

[ThePublius]

The FBI’s definition of “domestic terrorism”:

"Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."

So, the people attacking Tesla dealerships, vandalizing, even setting on fire Teslas, and Tesla charging stations, are terrorists.

Do you support this terrorism? I suppose a sizable number of commenters here do.

Many returning veterans of WWII wouldn't but a German or Japanese car. But they didn't attack the dealerships and vandalize the autos.

[Magister]

What ideological goal are they pursuing? Looks to me like they're angry at Elon Musk and venting it on Tesla (cars, charging stations, dealers). It's bad, and they should be arrested/tried/convicted in the traditional way that crime has been dealt with in this country. The new model for crimes you seem to like is for the president to excuse it (January 2021 between the 6th and 19th) and later pardon even the most violent ones (this year).

[ThePublius]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Magister]

Trump's insurrection already down the memory hole, then?

Domestic terrorism requires violent, criminal actions "to further ideological goals" -- for Tesla vandals, what are these ideological goals?

[ThePublius]

It's Sunday, right? Geez, I'm losing track of the days of the week since retirement. Sucks.

Well, Happy Sunday, everyone!