Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Truman shut down the OSS only for Eisenhower to establish the CIA a couple of years later.

Could Truman have established the CIA? (Assume a cooperative Congress as needed.)

Could Trump/Congress simply abolish all Art 3 Courts excepting the Supreme Court, and then establish an entirely "new" court system, using the old structure and appointing "new" judges, most of whom happen to have already been judges?

The Danvers (not Salem) witch hysteria was ended when the MA Governor shut down the court system and replaced it with the one which exists to this day. Yes British law and not US, but???

Short of declaring martial law and shooting judges at sunrise, is there a way for Trump to clean out these schmucks?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, NAS, let me retry:

Clearly Congress can abolish all Federal Courts below that of SCOTUS. Agreed?

Would doing so preclude Congress from then immediately establishing a new (identical) set of inferior courts with new Judges being appointed, with some -- but not all -- of these judges being the same persons who had been judges before?

That should be reducible to a yes or no answer.

I say no -- that the President and Congress could replace the entire inferior Federal Court system every Tuesday at Noon if they so desired, and, absent impeachment, having been an old judge wouldn't preclude being a new judge.

[Martinned2]

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

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I have never been able to find out is what became of those midnight judges when the judiciary act was later repealed.

And Samuel Chase ought to have been convicted for his charge to the Baltimore Grand Jury -- not politics but conduct unbecoming a judge.

[Martinned2]

They all lost their jobs.

[not guilty]

"Could Trump/Congress simply abolish all Art 3 Courts excepting the Supreme Court, and then establish an entirely 'new' court system, using the old structure and appointing 'new' judges, most of whom happen to have already been judges?"

No. Per Article III, § 1, the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. They could absolutely abolish all Article 3 courts except for the Supreme court, and establish a new court system, but the old judges would have to be found jobs in the new system.

[Martinned2]

That didn't save the midnight judges. Abolishing all inferior courts seems to fall in the category of things that are terrible ideas but not technically unconstitutional, under current Supreme Court precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_v._Laird

[Riva]

Yes. They can have their judicial office but they have no special right to any particular district. Congress could reorganize the districts, and send the hacks to their new courts. They could also redefine their lower court jurisdiction.

President Trump has once again highlighted a corrupt and mismanaged area of government desperately in need of reform. He’s shaping up to be one of our greatest presidents. Let’s hope Congress does something.

[tylertusta]

Congress can dissolve the DC Circuit and District courts and assign those judges to the Federal Circuit or their subordinate Article I courts.

The thought of Judge Reyes doing patent trials for the next 30-odd years puts a smile on my face.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd prefer to see all DC courts abolished and its business randomly assigned to other Federal courts throughout the land. DC is the nation's capitol, it belongs to all of us and not just the 489,442 people registered to vote in DC. And when only 5.13% of them are Republicans, how on earth can a Republican get a fair trial there?

[tylertusta]

I'd prefer to see all DC courts abolished and its business randomly assigned to other Federal courts throughout the land

That's implied in my comment.

And when only 5.13% of them are Republicans, how on earth can a Republican get a fair trial there?

That's a problem the DCCA has no intention of fixing. Congress will have to step in.

[Nelson]

“ And when only 5.13% of them are Republicans, how on earth can a Republican get a fair trial there?”

So you can only get a fair trial from like-minded people? I would ask if you were really that clueless, but you’re Dr. Ed, so that’s a given.

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, this isn't just Dr. Ed; it is a central tenet of MAGA that only members of the MAGA cult can be trusted. Even for positions that aren't required to be impartial. It doesn't matter whether it's the jury, the prosecutors, a law enforcement agent, the judge; the presence of a Democrat, or even a non-MAGA Republican, means that the process is inherently unfair and corrupt as far as they're concerned.

[David Nieporent]

Case in point: Junior Donald J. Trump the less-senile-but-even-less-accomplished Donald J. Trump, tweeted today:

Why doesn't Jeffrey Goldberg disclose to readers in his stories that he is a registered Democrat?

https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/1904582716613369953?s=46&t=ckzdV1r0ljTkOE7CAMkj0A

Why on earth would he "disclose to readers" that?

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, what president nominated Judge Reyes to the Federal Circuit, and which Senate confirmed her to sit on that court?

[tylertusta]

Federal judges have been reassigned to other courts and to positions analogous with their previous positions previously as Congress can create/abolish courts as it sees fit.

I don't see any constitutional problem with assigning an appellate judge to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals should the DC Circuit be dissolved by Congress just as I don't see any constitutional problem with Congress doing the same for DC District Court judges.

Here's a list of past reassignments by Congress:

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/judgeship-reassignments

If you have a legal theory or precedent that says otherwise- that Congress cannot dissolve the DC courts, or that Congress must transfer the judges to another district/circuit except the Federal Circuit- then I'd be eager to hear it.

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

What are "Senate blueslips" and how do they influence judicial nominations?

[tylertusta]

They're approvals from a judicial nominee's home state Senators. Traditionally the Senate Judiciary Committee would only consider nominees that had the approval of the nominee's home state Senators. This practice has been pared back in recent years. The current practice is that they only really affect district court nominations.

The effect has traditionally been that home state Senators' had outsized influence in the judicial philosophy of nominees. Presidents previously were less likely to take hard-line positions on nominations where they knew that one or both senators would oppose a nominee.

That's why we see liberal judges nominated by Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43.

[windycityattorney]

The MAGA dominated Congress doesn't have big enough majorities and are presently scared to call out Trump's worst excesses for fear of Musk or somebody funding a primary challenger. But if they pass a bill to wholesale blow up the entire federal Court system they will be historically terrible.

There is a zero % chance the Senate will go along with this fantasy. Z-E-R-O

[Riva]

Ignoring your childish insult tantrum, it is true that Congress is slow to act. But the gross judicial attacks against the constitution may actually be a catalyst for some reform.

[David Nieporent]

Ignoring your childish insult tantrum,

I'm not sure what's more absurdist about this statement: the fact that it is a complete fabrication (there are no insults, nothing childish, and no tantrum in the previous comment) or that it comes from a bot programmed to spew insults as fast as they can be generated. (How many people prosecuting Trump did the bot call "fat"? )

[Riva]

I'll ignore your childish insult tantrum as well. Deriding MAGA and President Trump are insults by the way.

As an aside, I could appreciate a witty insult, but just parroting ad nauseum the same insult is not that thing crazy Dave, but you never struck me as that clever so I doubt you could manage anything else.

[David Nieporent]

Deriding MAGA and President Trump are insults by the way.

Even if that were accurate, no such derision appeared in the comment to which you were responding.

[Riva]

Enough you deranged troll, go away and corrupt another comment stream,

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of childish insult tantrums.

[John 4]

You really are a ridiculous fool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I never thought I would see the things I did during COVID.

[Riva]

If Congress had the courage to bring just one judicial impeachment it would have an immediately beneficial effect. Doesn't have to be successful, just starting the process would be enough.

[David Nieporent]

Could Truman have established the CIA? (Assume a cooperative Congress as needed.)

Congress established the CIA under Truman.

[hobie]

Talk about court packing on steroids! As a Democrat I completely support this. Get rid of the entire federal judiciary and all them disloyal republican SCOTUS justices. Start fresh with loyal judges every four years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A judicial method to stop Trump’s rampage against the Constitution.

Media outlets have lately published characterizations to suggest President Trump is conducting a, “war against the Constitution.” Outlets which do that have sometimes posited Chief Justice Roberts as a Trump opponent, challenged to craft a judicial means with power sufficient to counter Jacksonian-style defiance of the Court.

I have no problem agreeing that Trump’s actions to attack and abolish government departments wholesale, and to send armed DOGE teams to break and enter government and private buildings, and to seize data, and to deport without due process, have been flagrantly unconstitutional. I am skeptical that Chief Justice Roberts will turn out to be an opponent of that conduct.

But if Roberts does oppose Trump’s lawbreaking, he will have only himself to blame for what he opposes. To act as a check on Trump’s abuses, Roberts will be forced to recognize his own decision to side with Trump in the case Trump v. United States has been the fount of these abuses. If not the worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court, Trump v. United States has undoubtedly proved already to be the most dangerous.

If Roberts can get that far, then he likely has available a means to reverse course, stop Trump’s rampage, and prevent defiance. What is needed is history’s most emphatic pronouncement to say what the law is. To do it Roberts should call an unprecedented national judicial conference, summoning the entire federal appellate judiciary to meet and act.

They should agree to reverse Trump v. United States as wrongly decided, and to say so immediately in a public announcement. They should announce further the steps they will take to punish with summary federal disbarment any lawyers who advocate further to insist in court that Supreme Court defiance is a legitimate prerogative of the Executive Branch. They should specifically reverse and dismiss all the cases already before the district courts which have been argued on that basis, and then invite Trump and Congress to start over together, by Constitutional means.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This makes approximately the same amount of sense as the Dr. Ed post preceding it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur a sociis — Must your commentary always be answered with a request for a substantive reply? Have you considered that the more extreme your pejorative comparison, the less convincing it is likely to be, absent some actual convincing to go with it.

Let me help you with some context: this nation is already in an existential Constitutional crisis, and under threat of actually totalitarian governance. Legal business-as-usual, far from putting those tendencies to rest, has begun to induce panic, for the appearance of feckless indecision it invites. You would be wiser to start trying to think within that context.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Threat of totalitarian government?

What do you call the current dictatorship of fascist judges?

What do you call the swamp?

I think that Trump is our last hope of avoiding total totalitarianism.

[SRG2]

What do you call the current dictatorship of fascist judges?

An invention of your fevered "mind".

[Commenter_XY]

An existential constitutional crisis...LMFAO. What a drama queen.

[Frank Drackman]

someone using "LMFAO" and calling someone a Drama Queen,
sort of "Ironic" dontcha think?

Frank "STFU"

[Joe_dallas]

Wondering what would possess a federal judge to order planes in the air filled with illegals who are gang criminals to turn around??? How about the Judge's wife being the founder of an ABORTION NGO funded by USAID??? and his daughter, Katherine, whose employer is Partners for Justice, an organization that provides legal support to criminal illegal aliens and gang members. PF receives 76% of its funding from government grants. The organization actively opposes deportations, mass incarceration and laws targeting violent gangs like Tren de Aragua (from Venezuela and deeply invovolved in human trafficking, drug smuggling and violent crime). PF takes credit for eliminating 5,000 years of prison time for illegals since 2018.
Shortly after investigative journalist Laura Loomer connected these dots, Katherine Boasberg deleted her Linkedin and Instagram accounts in an attempt to scrub her connections from public view.
This connection raises a major ethical red flag. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states that judges must disqualify themselves from cases where their impartiality could be questioned. Specifically, it states that a judge should step aside when a close family member has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
Loomer’s reporting makes it clear that this is not just a minor ethical issue—it’s a serious conflict that could impact national security. The judge overseeing these deportation cases should not have any personal connections to groups that stand to gain from his rulings. And yet, here we are, with a sitting U.S. judge making decisions that align perfectly with his daughter’s professional interests.

[David Nieporent]

Wondering what would possess a federal judge to order planes in the air filled with illegals who are gang criminals to turn around???

How do you know any of the people in the planes were illegal or gang members?

How about the Judge's wife being the founder of an ABORTION NGO funded by USAID???

A fabrication. She did help found an abortion clinic in 2024; it is not "funded by USAID," and calling it an "NGO" is just weird. (I suppose it literally is — but then so are the New York Jets and Tesla.) Also, why would that lead to an order about habeas corpus for accused gang members?

and his daughter, Katherine, whose employer is Partners for Justice, an organization that provides legal support to criminal illegal aliens and gang members.

Another fabrication; that's not what the organization does at all.

PF takes credit for eliminating 5,000 years of prison time for illegals since 2018.

Setting aside the bizarre initializing of "Partners for Justice" as "PF," it does no such thing; that's yet another lie. The "5,000" figure comes from their website, but what PFJ actually says is "Our team has saved individuals an estimated 5,000 years of incarceration, yielding tens of millions of dollars in potential taxpayer savings." PFJ's mission has literally zero to do with "illegals," or with immigration policy at all.

This connection raises a major ethical red flag.

It does not, except to retards. Neither Boasberg nor his wife nor his daughter (nor his wife's side project nor his daughter's employer) have anything to do with this issue and do not stand to make one penny from his ruling.

[Joe_dallas]

DN' s retort
"and his daughter, Katherine, whose employer is Partners for Justice, an organization that provides legal support to criminal illegal aliens and gang members.

"Another fabrication; that's not what the organization does at all."

Their website says otherwise - though you a nice job cherrypicking statements out of the websites to deflect and distort.

"Immigration: Gathering necessary documents to prevent or fight deportation and detention"

[David Nieporent]

Do you see anything in the part you quoted about "criminal illegal aliens"? Hint: "criminal illegal aliens" cannot gather documents to prevent deportation. It is legal aliens who can fight deportation when they are caught up in the criminal justice system.

[Joe_dallas]

I gave the citation
What else is needed to expose your deflection

[David Nieporent]

As is your wont, you gave a citation to something — a non-peer-reviewed draft of a study, a court case, a website — that you didn't read and that didn't support your point.

[Joe_dallas]

citation to their website with their specific statement
Again what else is needed to expose your deflection.

[David Nieporent]

Their specific statement says something very different from what you are citing it in support of it saying. Are you stupid or illiterate?

[John 4]

When you find out your wrong, it's OK to just correct the record and move on. You don't have to drag out the nonsense.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Molly Hatchet sang "we've got our sights set straight ahead but we don't know what we're after."
Joe_dallas knows what he's after, but he just can't seem to stay on the roadway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A US Judge who should be impeached -- and well may be.

[not guilty]

"The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states that judges must disqualify themselves from cases where their impartiality could be questioned. Specifically, it states that a judge should step aside when a close family member has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Joe_Dallas, should Justice Scalia have recused himself in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), where his son was a partner in a law firm representing the petitioner?

[TaioF920]

They think the more worthless third worlders in America, the better.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Must your commentary always be answered with a request for a substantive reply?

Must your commentary always consist of inane rants based on nothing but what the voices in your head are muttering on that particular day?

[Thought about __ all my life]

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2025/03/21/john-roberts-is-responsible-for-the-high-courts-self-delegitimization-n2654195

John Roberts Is Responsible for the High Court's Self-Delegitimization

Published today and gets it completely right. Stephen, you are showing how wrong Roberts is, you want muscle and PR and televised fights between Trump and Roberts. First round, Presidential Immunity and Roberts is bloody on the floor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's right -- and Roberts needs to retire.

[Nelson]

Why is it that the lunatic fringe of conservatism hates most of the judges that conservatives appoint?

Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and John Roberts all were appointed by conservative Presidents. Yet because they weren’t all as extreme as Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or Antonin Scalia, they are hated.

Why is that? Perhaps there’s an extremism problem in the GOP?

[Thought about __ all my life]

Why ask the surgeion who removed the wrong organ to give it another go. Your logic is comic
Roberts is a mess, a smart man with no common sense, addicted to being praised, and playing all his priniciples like a poker game. He believes nothing firmtly.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey "Wrong Side Surgery" is no joke, after 2,000 years of Surgical advances, "Lasers" (HT D. Evil), Robots, Extracorporeal Circulation (HT J. Gibbon), Surgeons finally agreed to take a "Time Out" before every Operation to make sure 1: It's the right patient (Remember when Fred Sanford pretended to be sick, got put in the hospital and almost taken for a Hemorrhoidectomy) 2: Right Procedure, and lastly Right Side, in the old days it'd be like an Abbot and Costello routine.
"Umm, which Kidney are we removing, the left, right?"
"Right"
"That's what I said, the Left Kidney"
"Right"
"Ok Nurse, Scalpel!"

Frank

[MoreCurious]

That reminds me of case handled by a friend of mine who represented a hospital in a malpractice lawsuit. The patient was to have a leg amputated, but the surgeon removed the wrong leg. (The implications of that still make me cringe.) The case settled, of course, but my friend never told me what the settlement amount was.

(I learned from my own recent surgery not to try to make stupid jokes when they ask right before the surgery why you're there.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have no problem agreeing that Trump’s actions to attack and abolish government departments wholesale, and to send armed DOGE teams to break and enter government and private buildings, and to seize data, and to deport without due process, have been flagrantly unconstitutional."

I'm having a hard time understanding why the President should NEED to send armed teams to break into federal offices and seize data, in the first place. Do the people running the offices have some trouble understanding the chain of command, and where they stand in it?

Anyway, pretty sure DOGE teams aren't deporting anybody.

[Martinned2]

Do the people running the offices have some trouble understanding the chain of command

Do you have some trouble understanding the difference between the military and the civilian civil service?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In an insurrection?

That's what this is, and Trump has every right to use the military.

[Martinned2]

Knock it off with the trolling.

[Sarcastr0]

1. They aren't all actually federal offices.
2. The strong unitary executive theory isn't actually the current law.
3. DOGE isn't the President.

[David Nieporent]

Do the people running the offices have some trouble understanding the chain of command, and where they stand in it?

Um, you seem to be confusing civilian and military.

[Riva]

No, that would be Judge Reyes. Or at least she thinks she's a general and/or the president, not a judge. Another candidate for impeachment

[TwelveInchPianist]

The judge who based her ruling on what she believed Jesus would do? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. She should be impeached just for that.

[BBSquatter]

well she is an angry dyke so there is that. If she were lipstick lesbian I would cut her some slack

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now I'm pretty sure that that's not impeachable.

[Riva]

Apparently, her ignorance of the Constitution is exceeded only by her ignorance of Christianity.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Someone has to bring an appropriate conflict to the some federal court and then that has to work its way to SCOTUS. Or there has to be such a case filed for which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.
But be careful what you wish for because one could see the creation of a juristocracy such as that we seem in Israel, which seems drifting into insurrectionist demonstrations which that system has bred.

[Riva]

Actually President Trump is trying to stop the judicial rampage against the Constitution.

Democrats/leftist always falsely accuse others of doing what they in fact are doing. Always.

[David Nieporent]

They should agree to reverse Trump v. United States as wrongly decided, and to say so immediately in a public announcement. They should announce further the steps they will take to punish with summary federal disbarment any lawyers who advocate further to insist in court that Supreme Court defiance is a legitimate prerogative of the Executive Branch. They should specifically reverse and dismiss all the cases already before the district courts which have been argued on that basis, and then invite Trump and Congress to start over together, by Constitutional means.

Literally none of those things are within the power of SCOTUS. SCOTUS only gets to decide cases — and only cases for which it has jurisdiction.

[Riva]

You surprise me crazy Dave. That almost sounds like you understand that there are constitutional limits to the judicial power.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — as I said somewhere today, the business-as-usual legal context seems to be delivering not stability, but panic. Too many folks recognize the nation is trapped amidst an existential constitutional crisis, with the slow grind of legal procedure lagging a rush toward actually totalitarian governance. In that context, your cautious advocacy risks looking not wise, but feckless.

On the other hand, SCOTUS is empowered to decide not only cases but controversies—with the latter maybe meant to imply controversies connected to cases, but maybe dis-connectable in this instance. Under such distressed circumstances I am content if this SCOTUS—which I otherwise distrust—will decide on its own whether that is proper basis for an emergency jurisdiction declaration—if no other can be found among the cases already in process.

Please note also my call to return political procedures to ordinary Constitutional order as a result. I think that is relevant to any critique of what I advocated.

I am sorry to have to say this, but if your own loyalty to business-as-usual legal decorum admits no exception now, I expect you will have to endure the start of an endless exception shortly. Can you think of any legal means you approve, which you would judge likely effective to end the current emergency?

If so, let us hear them, along with your explanation for why you expect them to end the crisis. Now is no time for reticence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Too many folks recognize the nation is trapped amidst an existential constitutional crisis

Making baselessly dramatic claims about something is not the same as recognizing something.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not who killed JFK as much as who killed Mary Pinchot Meyer.

Was she a Communist? Am actual Soviet agent?
If she was, that raises lots of questions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is interesting: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/jessica-aber-death-us-attorney

43-year old female former USAs don't often just drop dead,

[Martinned2]

Did she fall out of a window?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably because there isn't a big pool of 43 year old former USA's, but if you look at Celebrities, you have Michelle Trachtenberg, Natalie Wood (where was Robert Wagner?) Cassandra Harris, and although she's a little older, Mia Love at age 49 (Brain Tumor, or so they say)
Market's had a bad month, and I'm not feeling so great myself. (Love how the experts always talk about investing for the long run, not timing the market, and then when it has a bad month everyone panics, not me, I'm not panicking, no-siree, now if I can just find my stash of Krugerrands.

[SRG2]

She was murdered by Ray Epps with a candlestick in the living room.

[Ska]

Mr. Green lied about the cards he was holding.

[David Nieporent]

43-year old female former USAs don't often just drop dead,

As an empirical statement, that is certainly true. 43-year olds of any background don't often just drop dead. So what? What conclusion would a normal person draw from that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

A conclusion to withhold judgment pending additional information?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A conclusion to withhold judgment pending additional information?

And how would this case be different from any other (where the cause of death is not yet known) in that regard?

[Kazinski]

One of DOGE's targets is Australian Universities:

"Donald Trump's "America First" agenda is imperilling some of the funding to Australian universities, with the ABC confirming several projects have lost US government funding.

Australian universities rely on funding from the US government for their research, receiving about $400 million in 2024.". That's about 250 million USD

Kind of wild we are spending that much on Australian Universities, Australia has a population of just 26 million.

But I guess the good news is that if Australia thinks the funding is worthwhile then it's only about 10$ US per capita for Australia to make up the funding shortfall themselves.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-20/trump-america-first-policy-risking-australian-uni-research-funds/105072344

[Stephen Lathrop]

If the funding harnesses Australian expertise to promote U.S. interests, what's wrong with that? (There could be such a thing as Australian expertise; Ernest Rutherford came out of loosely adjacent New Zealand.)

[Kazinski]

Well it doesn't seems to be an across the board cutoff, they sent questionnaires to the Universities:

"The questionnaire asked Australian researchers whether their university has any connections to socialist or communist parties, whether it has ever received funding from China, and whether the project takes appropriate measures to protect women and align with a presidential executive order to recognise only two sexes, male and female."

"Australian Academy of Science chief executive Anna-Maria Arabia said the federal government had been far too slow in responding to the potential threat of foreign influence in universities stemming from a 36-point survey that probes whether US-funded Australian research projects suit president Donald Trump’s political agenda."

Evidently its not a threat of foreign influence to take US money, but it is a threat of foreign influence if we ask what they are spending it on.

Another concern is China also funds research in Australia, so we need to make sure that China does not have access to non public results of US funded research and intellectual property.

[Sarcastr0]

The questionnaire asked Australian researchers whether their university has any connections to socialist or communist parties
...
foreign influence in universities

When McCarthyism goes imperialist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, you don't want a foreign government dictating what your universities do, fund your own damn universities yourself. What's complicated about that?

And, reminder: McCarthy was right: The federal government WAS lousy with communists.

[Martinned2]

So... your suggestion is that US-based universities should never collaborate with universities abroad?

[Sarcastr0]

foreign government dictating what your universities do

That's not what anyone was talking about.

And, reminder: McCarthy was right
This is why you are an enemy of free speech.

Because McCarthyism wasn't bad because there were not Communists (though his wild accusations didn't help) it was wrong because it sacrificed freedom on the altar of the Cold War.

[Brett Bellmore]

"That's not what anyone was talking about."

Seems to me it is.

"Because McCarthyism wasn't bad because there were not Communists (though his wild accusations didn't help) it was wrong because it sacrificed freedom on the altar of the Cold War."

Communists were (And are!) enemies of free speech. A lot of the problems we're seeing in the universities today are exactly because we DIDN'T purge the universities of communists, the way we purged the fascists.

It's the old paradox of tolerance. We tolerated the intolerant communists, and now we've got intolerant universities as a result.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc is very tolerant of intolerance. He routinely ridiculed people who protested censorship over the past few years. But he defends people who use physical force and intimidation to prevent others from speaking. (He hides that by not defending their actions; he just defends them, and the people who insist on tolerating them.)

And now he declares that you, Brett Bellmore, are "an enemy of free speech." That's the kind of twisted moronic B.S. this guy churns out.

With friends like Sarc, I need to STFU.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit lying about what I've said, and what I believe.

[Nelson]

“ Communists were (And are!) enemies of free speech”

So are conservatives. What’s your point?

[bernard11]

And how many did McCarthy find? How many were on his imaginary lists?

And how many careers of innocent people did he ruin?

[Frank Drackman]

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for two, and they were guilty as (redacted)

[Bob from Ohio]

"innocent people"

A Communist was never innocent.

[Nelson]

Wow. Just wow.

[Nelson]

“ And, reminder: McCarthy was right”

No, he wasn’t. Saying there were probably Communists in the US government would have been him being right. He did much, much more than that. Apologism for McCarthyism is about as absurd as it gets.

[Martinned2]

Dutch researchers have complained about getting similar questionnaires. (And were advised to ignore them.)

More generally, communication between US-based and non-US-based academics has become an exercise in using euphemisms to avoid keyword searches, discussing certain things only using very unofficial means of communication, etc. Being a US-based academic is like working in Soviet Russia or China behind the Great Firewall these days.

[Don Nico]

"Being a US-based academic is like working in Soviet Russia or China behind the Great Firewall these days."
Martin,
That is simply grossly incorrect.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's oppression envy. They kind of wish they could actually be oppressed, so they could heroically resist, (As they assume they would, rather than just falling into line as they probably would.) so they cosplay being oppressed.

[John 4]

The biggest projection I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

[Dr. Ed 2]

American interests as defined by whom?

[Sarcastr0]

Basic research will be published for everyone to read. Being nationalist about basic research is therefore a bit silly.

Funding another country because they win our competitive procedures and are considered most likely to come out with good research is not strange.

A decent amount is probably collaboration between US and Australian teams. Collaborations with other countries tends to lead to better outcomes than when a country goes at it alone.

[Don Nico]

A case in point: the Royal Society recently publicized a paper by groups at Los Alamos and by ANU. The claim is that at greater than 99% confidence and underground explosion of 1 kiloton can be detected using the methods and analysis described
That sounds like useful research to me.

[Commenter_XY]

How close do you need to be for detection?

[Don Nico]

Basically the international seismic network has multiple stations close enough.

[Commenter_XY]

So we'll know when Iran tests.

[Bob from Ohio]

Zero reason to pay other countries to do research. Unless we are researching wombats or something silly, then even less reason.

[Commenter_XY]

Sort of like studying bat coronaviruses, lol. You're right, we can and must keep more dollars home.

[bernard11]

Idiocy.

Do you and Bob honestly believe that there are not foreign researchers with valuable expertise?

[Commenter_XY]

There are. For instance, Israeli researchers are doing wonders in the biological sciences. For specific topics, no problem with collaborating.

Sprinkling research dollars worldwide like jimmies on an ice cream cone...nope.

[David Nieporent]

What a shock; C_XY has a special rule for Israel.

[Frank Drackman]

What a shock; David Nevercoherent middle name is Antisemitic

[Bob from Ohio]

"C_XY has a special rule for Israel."

No he doesn't. He just said they had expertise.

[Commenter_XY]

What a shock, Israel has expertise in some of the most advanced research in the biological sciences. It isn't like KSA or Bulgaria or Bangladesh are getting aced out; they have nothing meaningful to contribute that we need.

[David Nieporent]

They might. But we were discussing Australia, anyway, not KSA or Buglaria or Bangladesh.

[TaioF920]

Of course there are. But funding African universities "colonialists are evil" research or a French university's research into the history of homosexual sex in the Roman Empire into isn't my idea of wisely spent tax dollars.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not foreign researchers with valuable expertise"

Never said there weren't. Just that they shouldn't get US contracts.

[Sarcastr0]

Researchers are not interchangeable.

You want to ignore the majority of high-tech talent in the world.

Way to let America fall way behind.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You want to ignore the majority of high-tech talent in the world."

Does Australia's federal government fund US based research?

[Sarcastr0]

Research directions are also not interchangeable.

Getting smart people from wherever to study the stuff America wants to study, and then publish papers on it? That's a win for us.

If you can't see that, you're blind.

[Don Nico]

Bob,
That is silly.
Sometimes the best expertise is outside the US. Why not use it. Sometimes the world's best facility is outside the US (think CERN).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gotta love this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZwTe6HFtWc

Closing time -- you don't have to go home but YOU CAN'T STAY HERE...

[Dr. Ed 2]

And this is funny:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ALFjWy5jvF0

Trump does have a sense of humor.

[Martinned2]

I'm fascinated by the lack of self-awareness in the latest Trump EO. Complaining about frivolous lawsuits? Unnecessary delays? What the fuck is this guy smoking?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's the issue?

[SRG2]

40 yeas of Trump history of the very same thing

[windycityattorney]

Obviously disturbing but this is interesting: "The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the memorandum, which directed Bondi to assess lawyers and firms that brought cases against the government over the past eight years."

So that would include the 4yrs of Biden's administration. Let me guess... America First Legal won't be on the list of firms or lawyers reviewed for retaliation?

I don't know why this Administration seems hell bent on pissing off every major law firm and bar association in the country. But they are well on their way. I can't recall any other presidents signing executive orders against individual law firms. Perhaps its happened and just didn't make news? I am sure Blackman will come along to explain how normal this all is.

[Jmaie]

"Perhaps its happened and just didn't make news? I am sure Blackman will come along to explain how normal this all is."

Dang, I was drinking coffee when I read that...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why should they care?

When every major bar & firm is in bed with the left, why should they care?

[Nelson]

You obviously have a mindbogglingly broad definition of “the left”. Why not just say “sane people”?

[Kazinski]

Maybe they shouldn't have picked sides.

I don't see any problem with law firms suing the government representing clients, paid or not.

But some lawyers took it much further trying to get lawyers representing Trump or other administration officials disbarred.

There should be vigorous retaliation, any one who made a bar complaint against a Trump lawyer should have their firm barred from federal business, at least until they fire the offending lawyer.

And that includes lawyers on ABA committees that voted to disbar lawyers for who the represent.

If you have an enemies list don't complain if you end up on someone else's list.

[David Nieporent]

ABA committees do not vote to disbar lawyers. The ABA has nothing whatsoever to do with bar admission or disbarment of individual attorneys.

[Nelson]

“ trying to get lawyers representing Trump or other administration officials disbarred.”

They didn’t have to do anything. The Trumpkin lawyers did it all by themselves.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/democrat-infighting-government/2025/03/23/id/1203990/

Chuck is toast. Washington DC politicos always do the false bravado thing before they fall. Bye Chuck.

He'll be gone by Shmini Atzeret.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's actually right though...

[Bwaaah]

No, he's left, and that's the source of his problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

True, but Trump could do a LOT in a shutdown.

[Krayt]

More mass protests yesterday in Turkey over the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul, seen as the challeger to Erdogan in the election expected before 2028. He can squeak out another election if the legislature calls for it early rather than wait until 2028. Oh the paperwork to change the constitution at that point, what a hassle! Best to just do this.

He was formally arrested and susppended from office temporarily.

Yesterday was the primary for the arrested guy's party.

Unfortunately, the day before his arrest, the University of Istanbul rescinded his degree, claiming irregularities in his transfer application from (Turkish) Cypriot University. He's now ineligible because Turkey has a law you need a college degree to run for president.

The opposition said it was politically motivated. "We cannot accept our rights being so easily usurped. We will fight to the end." The government denies the accusation, insisting the judiciary operates independently.

The Economist: "He's [Erdogan's] taking a big risk by wagering the benefit of removing of a top rival is worth the cost of gutting Turkey's democracy."

Will you look at that? They even went to the trouble to dig out and activate something that prevents the guy from running. Don't you hate it when the people in power do that?

They even facete around that it's a fair cop on the charges.

Who knows? Maybe he actually has some corruption. One need only need look hard enough.

Still, if only they had a constitution where government couldn't go on fishing expeditions until they found something. Or conjure into existence sudden reasons he's legally ineligible, how convenient.

Sucks they can get away with rotten behaviors like that, which have been plaguing humanity for millennia. Those poor fools in Turkey. Good luck, our friends, and fight for your democracy against it.

[Martinned2]

Will you look at that? They even went to the trouble to dig out and activate something that prevents the guy from running. Don't you hate it when the people in power do that?

I like it when people in power do that, because the law should apply equally to all. I just don't like it when people in power make sh*t up to do that, like Trumpists do.

[Krayt]

Who said anything about Trump?

[Martinned2]

I did.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey man, I'll have the rent for you tomorrow or the next day, I don't know, done lost my job, how I sposed' to get money to pay this rent?

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, it looks like Elon Musk is still friendly with authoritarian regimes: https://www.politico.eu/article/musks-x-suspends-opposition-accounts-turkey-protest-civil-unrest-erdogan-imamoglu-istanbul-mayor/

[Commenter_XY]

From your link...it was a court order.

In parallel, access to social media like X, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube has been restricted in Turkey

[Martinned2]

So what? That doesn't stop him in the US.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only because we have a 1st amendment.

[Martinned2]

No, I meant the court orders don't stop him, because the rule of law is breaking down in the US.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I know that's what you meant. But the reason he's not stopped in the US is that we have strong freedom of speech on a constitutional level.

[Martinned2]

Well, you did. But from now on all speech critical of the government is terrorism, and might land you on a plane to El Salvador.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Elon Musk, though. Since he *is* the government, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect him.

[Commenter_XY]

If you are a guest in my country, and you falsely represent yourself (and/or your beliefs and/or your associations with certain organizations) to our consular officers, and then proceed to disrespect our rules while you are here as a guest; then yes, you will be told to leave and go home.

1A is alive and well. Protests of all kinds happen in this country every day. That is a privilege of citizenship. Guests do not have the same privileges as citizens.

If you don't like the law that permits deportation of guests in this country, then ask Congress to change it.

[Martinned2]

Who said anything about "guests"?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/rubio-says-el-salvador-offers-to-accept-u-s-deportees-of-any-nationality-including-violent-american-criminals

And who said anything about false representations on entry?

Neither of those things seem like a condition for ending up on a plane to El Salvador these days.

[bernard11]

That is a privilege of citizenship.

I can't find the word "citizen" in the First Amendment. Are you reading a different version than the one in the Constitution? If so, it doesn't count.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, feel free to petition Congress to change the Immigration and Nationality Act. Congress passed the law 73 years ago.

You just have a problem with consequences.

[not guilty]

XY, First Amendment rights of free expression are not privileges of citizenship. Due Process and Equal Protection guaranties protect persons, not just citizens.

An alien can lawfully be excluded entry into the United States because of expression of his political views. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Once here, however, an alien is entitled to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. SCOTUS has expressly rejected the contention that aliens within our borders are not subject to constitutional due process and equal protection guaranties:

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). The Court there elaborated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: `Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo [v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,] 369 [(1886).]

457 U.S. at 212 (italics supplied in Pyler).

Suppression of speech or expression based on content or subject matter violates both First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties. As SCOTUS has repeatedly opined:

under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an `equality of status in the field of ideas,' and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.

Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 463 (1980), quoting Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972).

[Sarcastr0]

Unless you are in a business. Then the government might blacklist you if they take a notion. Better watch what you say.

And if you are an elected official. You need to tread carefully I hear.

Or a student at a university that’s knuckled under to Admin strong-arming.

And those protections are by decree of this Admin not so robust if you aren’t a citizen.
And I hear they may be checking on the naturalized citizens too.

Until our courts step up, we don’t have freedom of speech at the moment.

I know you are none of the above groups, so you support it all.

[Don Nico]

"we don’t have freedom of speech at the moment."
Your very post, proves your point incorrect.

[Commenter_XY]

He suffers from Blue Sky Syndrome; catastrophize everything.

[Sarcastr0]

It isn’t an all or nothing thing.

I’m absolutely taking a risk, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to my job these days.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "I’m absolutely taking a risk, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to my job these days."

What a joke. You'd STFU if you were seriously fearful of speaking freely here. And there was never "freedom of speech" in the workplace, so you'd better damned well STFU there lest you bite the hand that feeds you.

Il Douche feels pinched by a need to hide his douchbaggery.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Sarcastr0's point is not that expressive freedom is so broken that nothing ever slips through the cracks. More like, Columbia's inability to govern itself shows expressive freedom can no longer be treated as a defensible right. You comfortable with that?

[Magister]

"we don’t have freedom of speech at the moment."
Your very post, proves your point incorrect.

Sarcastr0 posting anonymously and somewhat cautiously in an obscure forum hardly proves his point incorrect.

[David Nieporent]

And there was never "freedom of speech" in the workplace,

There was for government employees. See, e.g., Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), along, of course, with Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).

[Bwaaah]

DMN:
Thanks for correcting me. I'm glad there are carveouts for individual opinions to exist, especially in a government workplace. (As a manager in the private sector, I always enforced a similar [but more expansive] carveout for employee speech.) .

It appears that Pickering was not a case of workplace speech, but of outside-the-workplace speech:

Appellant Marvin L. Pickering, a teacher[...] was dismissed [...] for sending a letter to a local newspaper...

I don't see that as a case of workplace speech. Rankin, on the other hand makes a reasonable carveout to protect speech in the workplace:

Respondent [...] was discharged for remarking to a coworker [...] during a private conversation in a room not readily accessible to the public.

I don't interpret either of those as suggesting you can speak freely at work. Both cases seem to indicate a significant burden upon an employee to show that his/her action did not affect workplace operations or mission, excepting only for speech regarding "matters of public concern."

I still think nobody should make a mistake of thinking they have a right to speak freely at work. Any such right seems to be quite narrow and limited.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah....very good public service message = I still think nobody should make a mistake of thinking they have a right to speak freely at work. Any such right seems to be quite narrow and limited.

There ain't no free speech right at work. You can get fired.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
I hope that your posting does not affect your job, even though we often disagree.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sarcastr0 posting anonymously "

He's done that here for 15-20 years. We haven't had freedom of speech for a long time then.

[Magister]

One specific post was said to demonstrate that we do have freedom of speech at the moment; it did not. There are plenty of reasons to post anonymously and cautiously in any forum for comments.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Wrong analysis. Most normal people see this in real life, often.
You know that your ruling will eventually be overruled but you make it anyway because your real goal is just to stop Trump, let the bad guys get away, etc.

It takes the Supreme Court MONTHS, and truckloads of Amici Curiae, public hearings , and then often a split decision -- BUT a creepy nasty lone judge at the lower levels can stop the whole thing in one day with one decision !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Martinned2]

You forgot to write part of your comment in ALL CAPS. But otherwise you've almost mastered your Master's style of writing, congratulations.

[Sarcastr0]

You...may not be the arbiter of normal.

[Commenter_XY]

That statement is actually incorrect; Twitter (now X) complies with court orders.

Turkey court issues court order; X complies.
Brazil court issues court order; X complies.
US court issues court order; X complies.

The common theme is X complies with court orders. This is a problem for you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"OMG! They're defying the courts!!!"

OMG! They're not defying the courts!!!"

To quote that great philosopher, Bart Simpson: "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't."

[Frank Drackman]

Don't forget Canada, their new PM sounds like Sleepy Joe circa 2020 when he could occasionally string together a few coherent words, threatening to beat "47" up behind the bleachers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't like the requirement of a college degree for this very reason.

[Martinned2]

That's one reason.

[Sarcastr0]

Krayt, axiomatically believes Trump is innocent, because it's important to his worldview that both sides are 100% corrupt.

No facts or reason need apply. He's got a Fundamental Law to wank about!

[Krayt]

I do not believe he's innocent!

I claim the opposition is going after him for political reasons, using legal reasons to do the harm, in contravention to principles in the Constitution.

The reason against fishing expeditions is not that they might plant evidence, but that theh might find real violations, which kings of yore knew uppity Lords, being wealthy land owners with many fingers in many pies, probably had one or two fingers too many.

This Turkish example has all the features of why it's wrong: going after opposition, arresting them, laundry lists of charges hoping something sticks, holding off on charges and investigations until useful, using suddenly-discovered legal technicities to ban him from the election.

The only difference in the US is the sheer number of inititiatives, one fails, move on to the next, so many at various stages of progress.

Oh, and, as far as I know, Turkey hasn't tried to expropriate the uppity lord's estate, yet.

I could grant you every last rotten thing you believe about him. I know I agree on some, Ukraine/Russia is one, there are others.

But that still doesn't justify this historically Bad Behavior on the opposition's part.

People against Israel's current actions, when it's pointed out they are curiously silent on other awful conflicts, like to say, "Well, Israel is a democracy; they can do better."

Well, we can do better. We should not be teaching the world we are all hot air, then let political tricks run all over it like a cheesy dictatorship, and in exactly the form the Founding Fathers tried to protect against, having been its victim and beeing steeped in ancient human history.

[Bwaaah]

Behold the brilliance of Sarcastr0, who pretty much reflects the prevailing attitude of the left: if you don't 100% condemn everything Trump, then you're 100% pro-Trump.

How maliciously does he interpret your position? That's not malice. That's just Big Stupid talking. Big Stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say Krayt was 100% pro Trump. Very much the opposite.

You have a huge telling me what I think problem. Alongside the strawmanning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I claim the opposition is going after him for political reasons, using legal reasons to do the harm, in contravention to principles in the Constitution.

Fortunate, then, that you are mistaken about the principles in the Constitution. Those fully support prosecutions which happen as frequently as indictable offenses get committed. And there is nothing at all there to suggest running for president is an escape hatch.

Even the Supreme Court has been egregiously wrong on the same question which baffles you. No Constitutional principle supports Trump v. United States either.

[David Nieporent]

The reason against fishing expeditions is not that they might plant evidence, but that theh might find real violations, which kings of yore knew uppity Lords, being wealthy land owners with many fingers in many pies, probably had one or two fingers too many.

One might be able to argue that the NY prosecution was a "fishing expedition." But no rational person could construe the other prosecutions that way. It didn't take any "fishing" to see J6 or the stolen documents.

[John F. Carr]

On a recently published list of countries graded by degree of democracy, Turkey was in the middle category, neither democratic nor authoritarian.

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

(Scandinavia is perfect, Turkey is so-so, Afghanistan is really bad.)

[Jerry B.]

"He's now ineligible because Turkey has a law you need a college degree to run for president."

We'd be better off if having a college degree prohibited you from running for president.

[Frank Drackman]

Last President without a degree was Hairy Truman, who wasn't any worse than most of the Presidents with one.

[Nelson]

Sure. What we really need is an uneducated ignoramus running the country. We’re struggling enough with Trump, imagine if we had some QAnon/Pizzagate/Dr. Ed type rube in charge.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-columbia-student-facing-deportation-hid-unrwa-role-on-visa-application/

Bye Mohamed Khalil. Lied on your visa application. How about that.

[Michael P]

30-ish college "students" have more opportunity for things to leave out than do typically aged students.

[Frank Drackman]

Why is this piece of shit still here? Moe-Saad's really slipped on this one

[SRG2]

And that is how things should work, with court hearings and briefs, not being kidnapped and sent to a foreign prison for no crime.

[Commenter_XY]

Now that Khalid's case is nearly done, most of the legal kinks have been worked out. There are plenty more hamas homies and hamas harpies that will be processed much more efficiently, and rapidly deported to their country of origin.

A great place for the state Department to start is https://canarymission.org/ . Plenty of proverbial grist for the mill.

[Josh R]

You just don't like Freedom of Speech.

[Commenter_XY]

I love freedom of speech, Josh R. It is a treasured right of citizens to speak freely on any topic they like.

Foreigners, OTOH, should be circumspect and especially so on controversial matters. They are guests that can be invited to leave. Pretty much every democratic country on the planet operates this way.

[David Nieporent]

I love freedom of speech, Josh R. It is a treasured right of citizens to speak freely on any topic they like.

The constitution does not say "citizens."

[bernard11]

This has been pointed out to XY numerous times.

Apparently he is incapable of understanding it.

[Commenter_XY]

I understand it perfectly well. You and David and Josh evidently have the issue here. It remains a fact that citizens have P&I that non-citizens do not. Like unfettered free speech.

[David Nieporent]

The constitution does not say that free speech is a privilege or immunity of citizenship.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A point which, incidentally, the Trump administration explicitly concedes in its brief in the Khalil case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've pointed out before that the Congressional debate over adoption of the 14th amendment did, in fact, identify Amendments 1-8 as Privileges and Immunities. The only reason they didn't get incorporated as P&I is that the Court deliberately spiked the 14th amendment to put a stop to Reconstruction.

"Substantive" due process was just a stupid work-around to incorporate some of our rights without admitting what the Court had done back then.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Again, the fourteenth amendment limited the powers of state governments. The limits on the federal government to abridge freedom of speech go back to the first amendment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The only reason they didn't get incorporated as P&I is that the Court deliberately spiked the 14th amendment to put a stop to Reconstruction."

SCOTUS: Black people can't be citizens, because if they were, they'd get P&I, like freedom of speech and the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

14A: Black people are citizens, and get P&I.

SCOTUS: It turns out that freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms aren't P or I.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We’re talking about the federal government, so the privileges or immunities clause doesn’t come into it. What matters is the First Amendment.

[not guilty]

"It remains a fact that citizens have P&I that non-citizens do not. Like unfettered free speech."

You are only partially correct, XY. Free speech guaranties apply to persons, which includes noncitizens within United States borders.

This has been explained to you repeatedly by me and by other commenters, with ample supporting legal authorities. Why do you repeatedly assert a rank falsehood?

[Josh R]

As I said previously, I want to hear no complaints from you when President AOC kicks out every non-citizen who expresses support for Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck with that = POTUS AOC.

ROTFLMAO.

[Josh R]

As you know, AOC was just a provocative example. There are plenty of more plausible presidents who could do likewise.

[Joe_dallas]

Josh - any reason you continue to pretend the deportation of Khalil is a free speech issue?

[Josh R]

If it is not his speech, what is it?

[Joe_dallas]

Think about it honestly - its not that hard -

[Josh R]

After thinking about it honestly, he was detained for his advocacy (i.e., speech) for Hamas.

[Joe_dallas]

You replied with only half the facts, he was doing significantly more that advocacy

[David Nieporent]

You replied with only half the facts, he was doing significantly more that advocacy

I'm sure he was. Eating corn flakes, watching Netflix, having sex with his wife. But he was detained for his advocacy, not for any of those other things. The administration expressly disclaimed reliance on any illegal acts he might have undertaken.

[Nelson]

“ President AOC”

God help us if this comes to pass.

[Joe_dallas]

Deporting Khalil is not a freedom of speech issue, no matter how badly you wish to misrepresent the facts

[David Nieporent]

When you say that it isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's not clear whether you mean that they're not attempting to deport him for his speech, or whether you mean that it doesn't violate his freedom of speech to do so. Either of those possibilities seem quite incorrect, though.

[Joe_dallas]

Its not freedom of speech issue - its a little dishonest of you and other fellow leftists to pretend its about free speech.

but you already know that.

[David Nieporent]

When you say that it isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's not clear whether you mean that they're not attempting to deport him for his speech, or whether you mean that it doesn't violate his freedom of speech to do so. Either of those possibilities seem quite incorrect, though.

[David Nieporent]

Also, I am not a leftist, you retard, and you already know that. Hell, even Ann Coulter, whose complaint about Trump was that he wasn't harsh enough regarding illegal immigrants, thinks this is a free speech issue.

[Joe_dallas]

Almost erything you state is woke & leftist. give us a hint why we should believe you are not a leftist

[Nelson]

What if he’s both a leftist and right? I think your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance.

[David Nieporent]

Almost erything you state is woke & leftist.

Only to a retarded person who uses "woke" and/or "leftist" as some sort of catchall for "disagrees with me."

give us a hint why we should believe you are not a leftist

Let's see: I support deregulation (intelligent, gradual deregulation, not randomly blowing up federal buildings), school vouchers, free trade, the right of Israel to defend itself, Citizens United. I oppose gun control, racial preferences, the minimum wage, zoning, Obamacare, industrial policy, antitrust, shouting down speakers I disagree with. I think that the concept of gender identity is poorly conceived and largely incoherent. I don't have a problem with voter ID laws.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure if I went systematically through the various party platforms, I could come up with more.

[Bwaaah]

That's a helpful reminder.

[hobie]

And the students here on visas that support Israel but condemn Palestine? Maybe even support the internment, relocation or killing of Palestinians? Kinda sounds like two faces of the same coin, doesn't it?

[Commenter_XY]

It does, hobie. Fair is fair.

Feel free to identify those students to SecState Rubio, and make your case that their continued presence on US soil is inimical to our foreign policy interest.

[hobie]

So basically: come over here, study, keep your head down and your mouth shut or else you get the frog march. Sounds inviting. You know I once saw a black and white newsreel about this very thing, but I had trouble following it because the narration was in German!

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = So basically: come over here, study, keep your head down and your mouth shut or else you get the frog march.

There are MILLIONS of people who will gladly accept that restriction to come here. It is a privilege to be allowed to come here.

[hobie]

I'm sure I won't be hearing a thing out of your mouth about freedom of speech anymore, yes?

There's a hell of a lot of people in this country: students, expats...myself...who support Ukraine without reservation. Now that we have a pro-Russian administration, I suppose our voices are now inimical to the official stance of the United States. You gonna tell me and them to keep our mouths shut and heads down? You gonna keep telling Palestinian students to keep their heads down and shut up about their own people?

[Josh R]

XY continues to not appreciate the purpose of Freedom of Speech protections: not trusting the government to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech. A future administration can deport all aliens that support Israeli settlements according to XY's logic. Yet, I doubt he would sit idly by if that happens.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, I appreciate the purpose of free speech protections. For citizens.

[John F. Carr]

The docket for his case has moved again.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69757814/khalil-v-joyce/

The case is assigned to Michael E. Farbiarz. Never heard of him. (It's not a bad thing for a judge not to have name recogition.) Many attorneys are asking for admission pro hac vice at $200 or $250 a head.

[Commenter_XY]

What is that? = admission pro hac vice

[not guilty]

Admission for purposes of participating in one case.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds shady. Is it?

[Estragon]

No

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is it?"

No, its for when a lawyer is not admitted in the state where the lawsuit is but is admitted elsewhere.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like a wonderful way for NJ to raise revenue. Make the outside lawyers pay.

Since NJ is currently getting raped by NYC on congestion pricing, could NJ raise the fee for NYC lawyers to 2K or 2.5K? Sort of like congested lawyer pricing.

[John F. Carr]

The case is in federal court. The federal government gets the money. State courts have a similar pay-to-play program. They attorney does have to be licensed somewhere to participate. You can't simply walk in off the street and play lawyer for a day.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you can, but you have to convince a prosecutor to charge you first...

[Commenter_XY]

Damn, there goes my idea of saying I graduated at the bottom of the class at VC Conspirator law School.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, that's only partially true; to get admitted PHV in federal court in NJ, you have to pay (in addition to the PHV fee to the federal court) the state assessment to the NJ Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. But that's the same assessment that NJ lawyers have to pay.

[bernard11]

NJ is not "getting raped" on congestion pricing.

Paying to use scarce resources is the very essence of market economics. It is one of the very important ways that markets lead to economically efficient use of resources.

Space on NYC streets is a scarce resource.

[Harvey Mosley]

Now do healthcare.

[David Nieporent]

Healthcare on NYC streets is a scarce resource.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't say that he "lied." Indeed, it's not clear what is being claimed. (It says "hid," but that's editorializing.)

[hobie]

Looks like the hayseeds can no longer abide lying. Good.

[David Nieporent]

I see what the article is talking about, but it's talking about statements in a brief; there is no supporting affidavit. And it doesn't mention UNRWA at all, so I don't know where Times of Israel is getting that. ("He didn't mention that he worked for the British government" is possibly the dumbest pretext I have ever heard.)

[Martinned2]

All through last year the Canadian conservatives had a near certainty of getting a majority, had an election been called. Following Trump's interest in Canada, the probability of a CPC majority has fallen to <1%, and the probability of a CPC plurality now stands at 9%. As of last weekend 338Canada estimates a 63% probability of Mark Carney winning an absolute majority in the election.

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

[Martinned2]

By the way, this campaign ad featuring Mike Myers is the funniest thing Myers has done this century: https://bsky.app/profile/mark-carney.bsky.social/post/3lkyqnumvz22n

[Dr. Ed 2]

What are the two seasons in Canada -- Winter and Construction.
That is funny, but the rest is Canadian insecurity.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, the American economic warfare against Europe continues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/bayer-roundup-monsanto/

[tylertusta]

Meanwhile, European economic warfare against American companies continue:

https://reason.com/2025/03/23/the-european-commission-is-assaulting-american-industry/

[Krayt]

It's almost like trade wars are stupid and counterproductive.

[tylertusta]

I don't disagree. They are stupid.

This has (up until now) been just a one-sided trade war.

[Jmaie]

More in context of our current trade spat with Canada, what is the benefit to Canada of their retaliatory tariffs? Those are generally far more harmful to the local population vs. whomever instigated the initial tariffs. "You have shot yourself in the foot, I shall do likewise!" seems like poor policy. I get that National Pride™ is a thing, but...

Granted, US tariffs will depress Canadian exports but taxing the Canadian public would seemingly do more harm.

[David Nieporent]

The arguments for retaliatory tariffs are:

(A) Politics: one's own population demands it;
(B) If your adversary stupidly thinks tariffs are a weapon, then one can use them as a chip to negotiate with.

[bernard11]

This tactic is reminiscent of Cleavon Little holding himself hostage in Blazing Saddles.

[tylertusta]

... what is the benefit to Canada of their retaliatory tariffs?

Sadly, I'm not as familiar with Canadian-US trade to offer an informed opinion on that topic.

[ducksalad]

Same logic as mutual assured destruction, with difference that these weapons can be recalled before all the damage is done.

[Nelson]

“ what is the benefit to Canada of their retaliatory tariffs?”

Scarcity also drives up prices. So Canadian softwood, for example, is a huge part of America’s lumber supply. It is so much it literally cannot be replaced quickly. So the scarcity of 2x4s will drive up the price. Americans will feel the pain directly, as the cost of a new house rises noticeably.

The same will happen with crops that we can’t grow here, like coffee and chocolate. If you want to see consumers get pissed, fast, put tariffs on the coffee (or bean) belt countries (between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn). Between scarcity and direct tariffs, doubling of prices isn’t outside the realm of possibility.

[Don Nico]

But for the most part, you got the sign wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"American economic warfare"

Seems like rule of law in operation.

[Martinned2]

I am reliably informed that "the rule of law" is irrelevant when massive fines are imposed. They are economic warfare regardless.

[tylertusta]

Does this include fines amounting to 5% of global revenue for American IT companies?

[bernard11]

What fines? What are you talking about?

Is there a 5% European tariff on software? If so, the Europeans mostly pay it.

[tylertusta]

I posted this up above:

https://reason.com/2025/03/23/the-european-commission-is-assaulting-american-industry/

In July 2024, Apple was compelled to share its mobile wallet technology with competitors under a penalty of 5 percent of its daily revenue for each day of noncompliance. Amazon was threatened with a fine of up to 10 percent of the company's annual revenue for using nonpublic data for its retail business two years earlier.

The EU isn't fining companies for damages that they cause to EU consumers, but rather they're levying excessive fines that attack American companies' business outside of the EU.

It's not just a EU phenomenon. The UK has contemplated similar rules with global fines as well.

[Bwaaah]

[Nelson]

“ Seems like rule of law in operation”

That is the hands-down winner for the most ignorance about “what the rule of law is” I’ve ever seen. I knew you were pretty high on the ignorance scale, but this is Dr. Ed territory you’re in.

[Jmaie]

I am genuinely curious, no snark intended - why you would consider a Georgia jury's civil liability verdict, "American economic warfare against Europe?" Seems pretty tenuous.

On a separate note, IMHO, Disneyland started downhill when they replaced Adventure Through Inner Space with that Starwars thingy...

[Bwaaah]

You're substituting the anti-Europe regime in place of the anti-chemical regime. RoundUp is great stuff. (It made short work for me of eradicating a load of Japanese Knotweed.) But you're supposed to put it on the plants, not on yourself. And here's a suggestion: if you're going to aerosolize anything you wouldn't eat, wear a suitable mask to avoid breathing it in (and no-go on windy days). All that said, you don't know, and don't want to know, what you're breathing into your lungs during the course of your life. What's that smell?

[Martinned2]

Former Phillipino strongman Rodrigo Duterte is still in ICC prison. He doesn't like the food. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/duterte-confident-has-no-case-to-answer-at-icc-says-daughter

[myself]

Duterte actually arrested by the ICC? How the hell did I miss that in the news?!?

[tylertusta]

He was arrested by the Philippine police.

Wikipedia's article is sufficient here:

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

[Bob from Ohio]

"strongman"

Elected and left when term ended. So not a "strongman".

[David Nieporent]

"Elected" is not a defense to illegal conduct in office.

[hobie]

Don't get him started. The word 'lawfare' is now on the tip of his tongue.

[Bob from Ohio]

""Elected" is not a defense to illegal conduct in office."

Did I say it was? I was objecting to the use of "strongman".

[David Nieporent]

It was his illegal conduct in office that made him a strongman.

[Bob from Ohio]

That's just dumb, so any leader who allegedly commits a crime is a strongman. It makes the term meaningless.

[David Nieporent]

strong·man
/ˈstrôNGˌman/
noun
a leader who rules by the exercise of threats, force, or violence.

[Bob from Ohio]

Right, not "commits a crime".

[David Nieporent]

Only Bob would think that ruling by the exercise of threats, force, or violence isn't a crime.

[Nelson]

No, unfortunately that list is pretty long. Basically every paleocon here thinks it’s a feature of Presidencies (at least the one they like).

[hobie]

Cool. So you're saying that the world can hold leaders responsible for extrajudial justice that lacked due process?

[Bob from Ohio]

American Service-Members' Protection Act

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pam Bondi on the attack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-K6uU6og3s

I noticed traces of an accent coming out. Hadn't heard that before.

[Frank Drackman]

No Accent, you're the one with the accent.

[Jerry B.]

Video removed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably copyright -- now on Fox site:
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370426836112

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the BigLaw lawyers. Complex litigation requires a team to see the litigation through to the end. When a complex, brand new case presents itself, and you need to create your litigation team, how do you go about doing that?

Bonus question: How much global litigation happens at BigLaw. Meaning, complex litigation that spans more than 30 countries? For example, think GDPR compliance and American tech.

[Michael P]

My local school district has provided take-home meal kits for (some?) "students who are fasting during the school day between February 28 and March 28". The announcement of this doesn't mention Ramadan, but that's the obvious motivation.

If a public school district provides free meals in school, is this kind of consideration constitutionally required, prohibited or discretionary (whether controlled by law or only policy)? I suspect it's discretionary, but would be interested in arguments for either of the other two options.

[apedad]

Before we answer, can you tell us what kind of lunches they serve on Fridays?

[Michael P]

Choice of cheese or (turkey) pepperoni pizza. I think poultry is usually considered "meat" in the context of Fridays during Lent. Red meat of any variety seems to be about once a week.

How does that affect the answer to my original question?

[apedad]

You didn't say it but you're obviously wondering about the religious aspect of the Feb 28 - Mar 28 meal plan and if it's constitutional.

As we all know, I'm quite anti-religious but in this matter, it doesn't appear the govt is mandating or enforcing a religion - either during Ramadan or on Fridays, and I don't have a constitutional problem with it (at this school or any other).

Of course the entire fasting thing is stupid; Let's eat meat on Saturday through Thursday but (breaks screeching!!!!) not on Friday because . . . GOD!?!

Stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that complicated. Granted, the nature of the actual command is fairly arbitrary, but are you actually capable of ordering your life to follow a command? Or can't be bothered?

It may be light lifting, but it IS a sort of spiritual exercise.

[Don Nico]

Having said that dad, intermittent fasting works wonders for your health.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was doing that for a while, but as I got older, I started having trouble with my blood sugar crashing if I didn't eat lunch.

Going on a high protein keto diet seems to have fixed that, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Keep an eye on your uric acid level though!

[Don Nico]

If you have Type 1 diabetes or risk low blood sugar, a continuous glucose monitor is recommended although is will cost you several hundred dollars per year.

[John F. Carr]

Catholic Canon 1251 prescribes:

Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann1244-1253_en.html

[Nelson]

But you can rape boys every day of the year and we’ll protect you.

[hobie]

Michael's selective memory prevents him from recalling kosher, halal, vegetarian (Hindu/Buddhist) , celiac etc. meals also exist. Something must be especially pernicious about a Ramadan meal that really has him out of his normal zone of neutrality

[Don Nico]

True enough. To me vegan meals are stupid, but if others choose tha, it's their choice and not my business

[Frank Drackman]

Well there's the goal of providing a welcoming nuturing environment for children of all faiths, and if they don't, Moe-Haamad Kareem Sky-hook Jamall Kishab Ali-bama's father will chop off your head

[Commenter_XY]

Definitely not prohibit. I would not having a problem with the school mentioning Ramadan and explicitly stating the take-home meal kits are for muslim students who are fasting and will break their fast with the take-home meal kit. Why is that a problem? There is nothing inherently unconstitutional for a local school district to do this under state law.

It is a teachable moment, to me.

[ThePublius]

The problem is, schools shouldn't be feeding children, their parents should feed them!

[Commenter_XY]

I don't disagree, but school lunches are a thing. Here in the People's Republic of NJ, free school lunches are supposed to be income based, but people lie and get the free lunches. They nailed a city councilwoman for that fraud. It is surprising how much state aid is predicted on the number of students who get free school lunches. So there is incentive to cheat.

[ThePublius]

I grew up relatively poor in the Bronx and went to Catholic grammar school. We brought our weekly envelope with 70¢ in it to pay for the hot lunch. There was no free lunch. There was charity for completely destitute kids that paid for their lunches, but it was still paid.

Now, kids get free lunch, and also free breakfast and even dinner! It's destructive to the family, in my view. The government shouldn't be in the business of feeding children.

[David Nieporent]

There was no free lunch. There was charity for completely destitute kids that paid for their lunches, but it was still paid.

The program has been around since the 1940s.

[hobie]

Back to our discussion the other day about the crippling of America's food banks. And here we are again looking for ways to keep the poor and the hungry ...poor and hungry. You boys never disappoint

[ThePublius]

We're not trying to keep the poor and hungry poor and hungry, we're trying to make them self sufficient. As they should be. It's not the government's responsibility to feed people.

Parents or guardians should feed children. If you are hungry in this country you are either a victim of an irresponsible parent, or are irresponsible yourself. There is TONS of money and aid and programs available for people.

[David Nieporent]

There is TONS of money and aid and programs available for people.

It seems sort of weird to argue that there shouldn't be money and aid and programs available because there is money and aid and programs available.

[Kazinski]

Strangely the convicted perpetrators of the 250m Feeding Our Future fraud in Minnesota seem to agree with you.

They took the 250 million and didn't feed any kids.

Federal Jury Finds Feeding Our Future Mastermind and Co-Defendant Guilty in $250 Million Pandemic Fraud Scheme

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/federal-jury-finds-feeding-our-future-mastermind-and-co-defendant-guilty-250-million

Of course that points out that even if you think the government should be paying for initiatives like this, they should not do so via grants to non-profits, it should be through a competitive bidding process.

Same with Stacey Abrams 2 billion slush fund for appliance replacement boondoggle.

[hobie]

You see, Kazinski, this is how disingenuous and vacuous your arguments always are. We are here talking about whether our government should give religious meals to kids, but then you conflate it with a pandemic scam a small group of Somalis perpetrated in the fog of that war. Most of the sheep here probably think you've conjured something brilliant, but I know the specifics...like I do about almost everything. I'm always watching

[Kazinski]

250 million with zero oversight is quite a fog.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect that's like the so-called alternate-side-of-the-street parking suspension calendar in NYC that suspends some of the parking rules on various occasions including a bunch of religious holidays. I think they file that under "religious accommodations," which would appear to be quite discretionary as they certainly don't accommodate the The Satanic Temple.

[Josh R]

This is a good example of what should be an application of the "play-in-the-joints" doctrine. The school should be permitted to do so (without violating the Establishment Clause), but not required (because of the Free Exercise Clause).

However, the current Court seems to have abandoned this doctrine (see for example Carson v. Makin) in favor of either it's required or prohibited. Or, at least that is the case where strict scrutiny is triggered by someone claiming their religious practices are burdened. Whether the current Court would apply strict scrutiny to a decision not to provide these meals given they provide fish on Friday for Catholics is not known.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = The school should be permitted to do so (without violating the Establishment Clause), but not required (because of the Free Exercise Clause).

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is bullshyte.

The purpose of the school LUNCH is to have a LUNCH IN SCHOOL so that they are not hungry DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

It's their parents responsibility to feed them the rest of the time.

End of discussion.

This is patronizing a religion.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't seem like a big deal, I remember in the 60's school cafeterias serving fish on Friday.

I don't see any problem with that kind of deminimis religious accommodation.

[Commenter_XY]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/23/opinion/miranda-devine-trump-to-grant-full-pardon-to-hunter-biden-whistleblower-devon-archer-he-was-screwed/

Suppose you are the advisor to POTUS Trump on pardons. What is the argument against granting a pardon to Devin Archer?

Was justice done here? If not, why not?

[Martinned2]

He didn't buy enough Trumpcoin?

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Devon".
"Devin" was Anthony Junior's hot little blonde rich girlfriend on the Sopranos.

[Dr. Ed 2]

if Miranda Devine supports it, do it.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of the 1st Amendment:

Air Force, Navy Warn Troops About Political Speech Amid Trump Administration Changes

New memos from the Air Force and the Navy warn troops to watch their political speech online and in person, and even mentioned Uniform Code of Military Justice violations for certain criticisms of the president or their superior officers.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/03/21/air-force-navy-warn-troops-about-political-speech-amid-trump-administration-changes.html

[CountmontyC]

This has always been the policy and it almost never had to be enforced in the past but we are in a time where the rules seem to have a "but Trump " exception to excuse violating thorules.

[Martinned2]

Must be nice to live in a country with such strong free speech safeguards.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's right: It's always been the case that, if you were enlisted in the military, you were supposed to be circumspect about criticizing superior officers, including the commander in chief. A lot of constitutional rights get put on hold when you're in the military.

[tylertusta]

A member in the US Armed Forces has significant limitations on their rights.

Besides not being able to mouth off whenever you want, you have no privacy, greatly abridged criminal justice processes, no freedom of movement. You can even be ordered to take part in acts that are likely to lead to capture and torture, great bodily harm, or even death.

Up until recently there were not even religious waivers for beards or for turbans.

[apedad]

Agree with you and tyler but remember, it's all voluntary and is explanied by recruiters.

tyler - the criminal justice process is NOT greatly abridged, not a smidgeon.

There's an ADMINSTRATIVE justice process unlike in the civilian world (Article 15), but all the criminal justice safeguards are there (retired OSI agent here).

[tylertusta]

Officially, those processes are in place.* Unofficially, you're flatly wrong.

As we said in the Marines: "Gunny's got more games than Milton Bradley does."

Even if you beat the rap, you aren't beating the rap.

* I am reminded of an instance where a service member declined a NJP and went through a kangaroo court martial. Got 20 years for a crime he couldn't have committed, and was only released after 10 years in Leavenworth when his case was finally reviewed by an appeals court. It took just a cursory review to immediately find deficiencies with the trial, but the appeals court was so backlogged it took them a decade to getting around to him.

Such is the case where your boss is also capable of prosecuting you, which is something you don't have to deal with in the civilian world unless you work for the prosecutor's office.

[apedad]

No process is perfect and there are a gazillion errors (and straight up illegal actions) in the civilian world too.

And just because you cite one bad case doesn't mean the military has "greatly abridged criminal justice processes . . . . "

And BTW, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a FEDERAL LAW and not something the military created.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title10%2FsubtitleA%2Fpart2%2Fchapter47&edition=prelim

And while The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) is an Article I court, the SCOTUS has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review cases under the UCMJ (there are details).

[tylertusta]

In any meaningful sense of the word, NJPs are criminal. Decline a NJP and you go to a court martial.

And BTW, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a FEDERAL LAW and not something the military created.

I don't understand why you're bringing this up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I argue that the UCMJ is fairer because JAG represents both sides. Your public defenders are as good as your prosecutors because they are the same people.

[tylertusta]

I don't know about that. JAG defenders have incentives to not do as good of a job in taking down their own team in court.

[David Nieporent]

That's not how the show portrayed it!

[tylertusta]

They also showed them chasing down aliens and going on spy missions.

Season 1 was just wacky.

[John F. Carr]

We like civilian control over the military. Back in the 1990s I was inclined to agree with General Harold Campbell's assessment of President Clinton. I also agreed the general had to go for saying it in public.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed.

And there was a real fear that MacArthur was going to start a nuke war on his own.

[Sarcastr0]

Just an extraordinary abuse of speech these days, eh?

[tylertusta]

Speaking of things that you know nothing about:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/24/monday-open-thread-98/?comments=true#comment-10972091

[Martinned2]

So the free speech absolutism is definitely out the window? Gee, who could have seen that coming?

[tylertusta]

I see you're off your meds today. You had better use that 'free' health care to get some more before the funds are diverted to defense spending.

[SRG2]

Si it's ok for someone in the Air Force to criticise Krasnov, as he's not in the chain of command.

[tylertusta]

I'm reminded of an old Ronald Reagan joke here.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure, once they leave the air force. 😉

[SRG2]

Nope. Nowhere in the Constitution is the president empowered to be the commander-in-chief of the USAF, ergo he is not. RTFC.

[ThePublius]

You are wrong again, SRG2:

National Security Act of 1947:
This act formalized the structure of the U.S. military, including the creation of the Department of Defense and the Air Force, and further solidified the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces. [emphasis mine]

[SRG2]

An Act of Congress cannot give the president powers he does not already have under the Constitution. This is basic constitutional jurisprudence. Hence it is not I who am wrong.

It is an oversight that could be remedied in about five minutes, of course, and my correct reading of the constitution leads to bizarre outcomes, but you cannot legitimise an unconstitutional position by appealing to consequences.

[ThePublius]

I have no idea what you are talking about. You said POTUS is not the CIC of the Air Force. That's patently false. That is all.

[SRG2]

According to the US Constitution, the president is not the CinC of the USAF, which is in all likelihood an unconstitutional entity. The president only has those powers delegated to him. Hence pretty much anything done wrt the USAF is ultra vires.

I am not denying that he acts as C-in-C, that legislation treats him thus, but according to the Constitution, he isn't. Flight has been around for more than 200 years so there's been plenty of time for Congress to propose a constitutional amendment but they've not done so.

Now if I were actually wrong, you'd have no ptoblem citing the part of the Constitution which delegates to the president the command of the :USAF. (or the UFP, for that matter.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just an air army.

[SRG2]

Then no need to mention the navy as it's just a watery army...?

Nope. army and air force are distinct terms as well we all know.

[David Nieporent]

That is correct, but at the time the constitution was written there were already two separate words, army and navy, that referred to different things, so if they had just written "armies" there might have been some confusion as to whether the navy was included. In contrast, "air force" and "army" didn't refer to different things in 1789. And indeed, when the air force did come into existence eventually it was originally just part of the army.

[ThePublius]

"According to the US Constitution, the president is not the CinC of the USAF, which is in all likelihood an unconstitutional entity."

The AF is an unconstitutional entity? Really?

"The president only has those powers delegated to him. Hence pretty much anything done wrt the USAF is ultra vires."

Ridiculous

"I am not denying that he acts as C-in-C, that legislation treats him thus, but according to the Constitution, he isn't. Flight has been around for more than 200 years so there's been plenty of time for Congress to propose a constitutional amendment but they've not done so."

Try 122 years since the first powered flight at Kitty Hawk. Maybe you were referring to balloons? And to suggest that a constitutional amendment is required for the Army to adopt a new technology is ridiculous.

"Now if I were actually wrong, you'd have no ptoblem citing the part of the Constitution which delegates to the president the command of the :USAF. (or the UFP, for that matter.)"

You're completely wrong, to the point that it doesn't even warrant serious rebuttal.

[SRG2]

I can't help your lack of knowledge

""The president only has those powers delegated to him."

That at least you accept, right?

Look, if you want to say that my accurate reading of the Constitution leads to bizarre or absurd results, I wouldn't disagree. But then as someone else noted, Congress needs to offer an amendment, not pretend the issue does not exist.

[David Nieporent]

I recognize that you're just trolling here, but it's actually right there in the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The Air Force is an Army of the United States. QED.

[SRG2]

Except that is not what was meant by "army" at the time the Constitution was written nor in general now.

It's not entirely a troll - it's based on conservative approaches to constitutional jurisprudence and interpretation. Basically, if someone wants to argue originalism or textualism they are required to accept my argument. In practice no-one who has ever so argued has accepted this, because of course their claims to either mode are convenient rather than principled. (Best example is Scalia insisting that "cruel and unusual" should be understood to be "by the standards of 1789" while "arms" should be understood to be "as defined today". Sorry, Fat Tony. One or the other.)

[SRG2]

BTW if you're going on intent, there shouldn't be a standing army, only a standing navy.

[ThePublius]

You're just being ridiculous. The Air Force was formerly the Arm Air Corps and became known as the Air Force with the 1947 National Security Act. You're asserting that since the constitution didn't include "Air Force" in things POTUS was CIC of, that he isn't CIC of the Air Force? News Flash: there were no airplanes when the constitution was drafted. But, besides that, your position is laughable.

Let me ask: is POTUS CIC of the Coast Guard? Marine Corps? And what's the basis for your analysis?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hooligan's Navy, aka the USCG, is an interesting question.

Before 9-11, in peacetime, the USCG was part of the DOT, and hence, IDK. Now it's part of Homeland Securiy -- IDK...

USMC is part of the USN, QED...

[Noscitur a sociis]

You're just being ridiculous. The Air Force was formerly the Arm Air Corps and became known as the Air Force with the 1947 National Security Act.

You are correct that America military aviation assets used to be part of the army or the navy. That changed when the Air Force was created as a separate service branch, which was the whole point.

You're asserting that since the constitution didn't include "Air Force" in things POTUS was CIC of, that he isn't CIC of the Air Force? News Flash: there were no airplanes when the constitution was drafted. But, besides that, your position is laughable.

There’s nothing wrong with the founders failing to anticipate the importance of military aviation. But if you want to have a military establishment that isn’t contemplated in the constitution, amend the constitution.

Let me ask: is POTUS CIC of the Coast Guard? Marine Corps?

The Coast Guard was originally a law enforcement entity: it was directed by the president but he wasn’t the commmander in chief any more than he was the “commander in chief” of, say, the U.S. Marshals Service.

Marines, on the other hand, were always understood as an integral component of the naval establishment.

And what's the basis for your analysis?

The original public meaning of the text of the constitution.

If you want to substitute your policy preferences for that, go nuts.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and yes, you're trolling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you want to get technical, the USAF is actually a NAVY. It has ships that cross the high seas -- they just do it 30,000 feet higher than the USS Constitution did...

[SRG2]

Not what "navy" means.

[Bob from Ohio]

Army Air Corps, Army Air Force, Air Force

Its just a name, they dropped the Army is all. Its still an air army.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Constitution say Congress may create "armies", so an air army was anticipated.

[SRG2]

Not what "army" meant.

[David Nieporent]

What part of the definition of army do you think it didn't meet?

[SRG2]

Being a land force. After all, we know that the geography makes a difference because in regular speech, no-one calls, a navy a marine army.

[David Nieporent]

in regular speech, no-one calls, a navy a marine army.

The Chinese call theirs the People's Liberation Army Navy.

[David Nieporent]

Except that is not what was meant by "army" at the time the Constitution was written nor in general now.

It absolutely was, and is. It employs different technology, but that doesn't make it not-an-army any more than the existence of tanks makes the Army not an army.

It's not entirely a troll - it's based on conservative approaches to constitutional jurisprudence and interpretation.

Yes, that's what I said: trolling. Because it's not the approach anyone uses.

[Brett Bellmore]

The real argument here is whether the air force is an army or a navy. They're treated very differently constitutionally, after all; A standing navy with long term appropriations was allowed for, while a standing army was disfavored, and appropriations had to be for only two years at a time.

Honestly, I could make a case either way, but I think the case for it being a Navy is better, in light of the long term capital requirements and lack of ability to oppress the populace in a detailed way like an army can.

[SRG2]

And what is the Space Force? An army or navy?

Until I brought it up, every single last one of you, if asked to define "army" and "navy" would have done so in terms which did not include "air force", because you are all well aware of the regular meaning of the words. Army - land force; navy - sea force...

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"Army - land force; navy - sea force..."
The US Army has aviation resources as does the US Navy. The Navy has the Marines, which have existed since before the Constitution existed, and have been officially part of the Navy since 1834.

As for your argument about the unconstitutionality of the Air Force and the President being the CIC, it's entertaining to watch, in a perverted sort of way, not unlike watching someone masturbating in public, but it's not going to get you anywhere or win you any support. Unlike masturbating in public, it shouldn't get you sanctioned by the powers that be, but who can tell in the current environment? Do you have quick access to documents proving your citizenship? If not, perhaps Boasberg's daughter can help.

[SRG2]

Begging the question by assuming that army and navy are the only two possibilities. Is a triangle a square or a circle? Is a theremin woodwind or percussion?

[Harvey Mosley]

Cool. Now do the Commerce Clause.

[SRG2]

Ha! Good one. I am sure that there are plenty of people better qualified than I to take this one on.

[billatcrea]

The French were using balloons for military reconnaissance by the 1790s. And Napoleon briefly considered transporting an invading force to England via balloon. So a military air arm would not have been incomprehensible to the authors of the constitution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — Nothing new about that. During the Vietnam War my brother-in-law, an MD, got drafted MASH style. While he and the family lived on a SAC base in Washington State, his wife participated in anti-war demonstrations. My brother-in-law got an order reminding him of his duty to discipline his wife, children, and pets.

[Martinned2]

That can't be right. Three times a week people on this blog tell me that the US has the best free speech in the world. (The only free speech, in fact.)

[Brett Bellmore]

The US can have the best free speech in all the world, and still have pretty unfree speech, because free speech is in pretty bad shape indeed, in the rest of the world.

[SRG2]

We have huge free speech, the best free speech, many people have told me, and its in the first commandment and the first amendment that you can say what I like, unlike the failing New York Times

[Bob from Ohio]

"That can't be right. "

Its Lathrop so probably not true.

US air force did not draft.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop (rhymes with Aesop) Fables 😉

[Kazinski]

Perhaps not implausible, Joint Base Lewis McChord in a joint Army Air force base dating from WWI. So he could have been army and on a SAC base.

[Absaroka]

At a guess, it would be Fairchild AFB near Spokane. They had B-52s for a long time; I don't think McChord ever did.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would an order to discipline a civilian wife stand up today?

[CountmontyC]

Hey remember that French researcher who was supposedly denied entry into the United States because of his opinion of President Trump? There is more to the story. It seems he had confidential information from Los Alamos that he wasn't supposed to have.
https://www.allsides.com/story/immigration-french-scientist-denied-us-entry-amid-dispute-over-confidential-data-and-border

[Martinned2]

Oh, if that's what the Department of Homeland Security says, it must be true!

[CountmontyC]

Do you have evidence otherwise? Because the only evidence that it was because of the researchers opinion of President Trump was a claim by a French government official who wasn't there.

[David Nieporent]

Do you have evidence otherwise?

Yes.

1) How would a random customs official be able to look at information on a French researcher's phone and determine whether it was information he wasn't supposed to have?

2) If he were actually in possession of confidential information unlawfully taken from Los Alamos, why wouldn't he have been arrested rather than denied entry?

[Dr. Ed 2]

confidential does not mean secret, and there are reasons not to prosecute.

[CountmontyC]

That is conjecture not evidence.

1) Custom officials have the right to inspect phones at the border. Here is a good explanation of what can occur.
https://www.theverge.com/policy/634264/customs-border-protection-search-phone-airport-rights

2) Various explanations are possible. For example they could have decided that prosecution might mean exposing that information to the public or they might have decided that the information was minimal but that it was enough to bar re-entry.

[David Nieporent]

1) Nonresponsive. I know that they're supposedly allowed to inspect the contents of electronic devices, but I didn't ask how they knew it was on the phone. I asked how the person doing the inspecting could possibly know the guy wasn't allowed to have it.

2) And the most likely explanation is that they're lying.

[CountmontyC]

Did you read the article I linked? The searches of phones can be quite comprehensive even without a warrant. They can even hook it up to other computers to conduct the search. And that assumes it was a completely random decision to search the phone. It is possible that they had suspicions and went as far as legally allowed.
Keep playing dumb. You are exceptional at it

[David Nieporent]

Did you read the article I linked? The searches of phones can be quite comprehensive even without a warrant.

You're still being nonresponsive. I. Am. Not. Asking. How. They. Searched. His. Phone. I. Know. How. They. Did. That.

I am asking, after searching his phone, how would some random border agent have any idea whether the guy was allowed to have these documents or not? If a CBP guy searches a phone and finds naked pictures of little kids, it's easy for him to say, "Aha! Child porn!" But if a CBP guy finds a random document from Los Alamos, how would he know to say, "Aha! This guy has a document that he isn't supposed to have!"?

[CountmontyC]

Well as I RESPONDED the search could easily have been done by a computer (as mentioned in the article). A computer program could easily flag key words or phrases, types of documents or even certain locations (Los Alamos is kind of an important location) and then alerted the border official. Hell it could have alerted officials at Los Alamos if he downloaded the information and there was an electronic signature that causes an alert to go out when viewed on non-secure computers. And that is more response than your TDS addled self deserves.

[Bwaaah]

The incident happened five days ago, and there's still no denial of that assertion from the researcher or the French government. That's what I call "deafening silence." But I'm still listening.

[Martinned2]

The hallowed 1st amendment is so great that more and more foreign academics are cancelling work trips to the US, because they don't want to spend a couple of weeks in immigration detention.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/breakdown-of-rule-of-law-mcgill-professor-cancels-trips-to-us-amid-immigration-crackdown/

[Brett Bellmore]

"In Canada, there is also growing concern about the Donald Trump administration’s treatment of researchers whose work is wholly or partially funded by U.S. federal agencies."

Why is this even a thing?

[Martinned2]

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

[Sarcastr0]

Remember the thing you were factually wrong about re: the Twitter Files?

Well what you thought was happening there, now you're endorsing here.

Your inconsistencies continue to multiply.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I don't recall when I was factually wrong about the Twitter files. i do recall you thinking that, "Nice platform you have here, be a shame if Section 230 got repealed" wasn't really a threat.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither here nor there; the point is you thought it was bad then and you think it's fine now.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I think, Sarcastr0, is that the federal government is funding way too damned much stuff, and money comes with strings attached, and the best way to cut those strings is to cut the funding. Rather than just expecting the money to lack strings.

If having a different puppeteer pulling the strings encourages people to think twice about taking the money, great.

But the platforms weren't cooperating with the government's censorship program because of funding or strings, they were being outright threatened.

That's why you're seeing a turn towards Trump from people like Musk and Bezos: Even if they were sympathetic to the aims, they didn't like the threats one bit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — There were zero threats against Musk and Bezos. Had Congress decided that Section 230 was a blunder, and decided to discard it, that would not have been action against Musk or Bezos, anymore than it would have been action against you or me.

You sometimes seem smart enough to understand stuff like that. Why not try smart enough all the time?

[Brett Bellmore]

I stand corrected: Both Sarcastr0 AND you purport to think, "Nice platform you have here, be a shame if Section 230 got repealed" wasn't really a threat.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — It cannot be at once an actual threat, and an indispensable Constitutional principle. Until you are ready to argue that passage of Section 230 foreclosed future repeal, go away.

A private decision to build a gigantic business empire on a reversible congressional policy may or may not be sound business. It does not constrain either Congress, or the administration's prerogative to discuss what Congress is empowered to do, or even what the administration is empowered to advocate Congress should do.

Once again, why not try smart enough all the time?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — What makes you suppose that a law or policy which applies alike to everyone can be construed reasonably as constitutionally justified for all of them, but an unconstitional threat against some of them.

[David Nieporent]

But the platforms weren't cooperating with the government's censorship program because of funding or strings, they were being outright threatened.

They were not, and didn't cooperate. They moderated things that they wanted to moderate, and didn't moderate things they didn't want to.

[Michael P]

It's really not hard. Turkey has bad laws. Twitter follows those laws for its Turkish operations. The Twitter Files were about US government agents acting badly, either as USG or private-enterprise employees. There's a significant difference in who is at fault.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Deary! Where will I get a crew of cheap foreign Political Scientists to put in my new pool? (you know when you're rich? when you put in a second pool for your guest house, don't want them swimming in my pool)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Watch out. Let a single one in and the guest house will be speaking French and the guest pool will become the subject of a secessionist movement. Don't make the President have to take over your pool too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NEA -- Never Educate Anyone...

[John F. Carr]

Report: Automated ADAS Safety Features Are A ‘Nightmare’ For Drivers

I had the misfortune to drive a car with fancy sensors a few years ago. So many false alarms. Reading speed limit signs is useless in my area. The safe speed and the enforcement threshold have little relation to the numbers. There are places where driving past a certain location at a certain speed will reliably bring you a bill in the mail. Just a bill, not a real ticket. American speed camera operators only want your money. European cameras issue real tickets. In America it's legal to map speed camera locations. I don't know European laws on the subject.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I suspect it has more to do with the implementation (and perhaps your use of them) than with the concept itself. We got a new hybrid CR-V in 2023 that comes with all of the assisted driving bells and whistles, and so far they've made for a very good driving experience, with no false alarms of any real note. In fact my only real gripe is that I drive her vehicle far more than mine (a 2015 pickup without all of those goodies that I use mostly for trips to Home Depot, the feed store or anywhere else she's not going), and I've become so spoiled that every time I drive my truck I have to remind myself that it's not going to nudge me back into my lane if I start to stray, or automatically slow down if I start to encroach on the vehicle in front of me on the highway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The steering correction freaks me out because it feels like a tie rod coming loose.

There are no speed cameras in MA are there?

[John F. Carr]

There are currently no speed cameras. Bills have been filed for the past 25 years and one will pass someday. All the bills would make it illegal to use speed cameras and red light cameras for safety. They could only be used for revenue. If you're rich enough to buy your own politician you're rich enough not to care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/dudespostingws/status/1903433628136141230?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtAM

Setting aside whether this is fake or not: there was a contract here, right? The blue text breached.

[John F. Carr]

Google reports that news results in searches by European users bring in little or no ad revenue. https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/our-experiment-on-the-value-of-european-news-content/

The EU requires payment for showing news snippets in search results. Google wanted to know how much news snippets are worth to it. If you believe Google, Google should pay nothing and omit news from searches instead. According to online reporting the EU will not like this response and will fine Google until it pays what EU bureaucrats think news is worth.

[Commenter_XY]

So based on the objectively verifiable data from Google, the news is worthless in europe, too. Heh. 😉

[jb]

AIUI, the queries that make a lot of money are those with a commercial intent. So if you search for "Donald Trump" you might be looking for news or biography or some other factual information, but probably not trying to buy anything. On the other hand if you type "Donald Trump bible" you might just be looking for information, but there's a decent chance you might want to buy the thing so a bible company would probably be more excited to spend money on the latter query than the former.

[Commenter_XY]

So what actually happens to the data in a bankruptcy liquidation?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/24/23andme-files-for-bankruptcy-anne-wojcicki-steps-down-as-ceo.html

Insurance is predictive, and risk based. If I am an insurer, I would buy the entire database immediately. What stops an insurer from doing that, and subsequently canceling policies left and right from the genetic information they get data mining that DB?

[John F. Carr]

Some jurisdictions prohibit insurers from using genetic information.

[Commenter_XY]

Does that present issues...some states prohibit, others don't?

[John F. Carr]

It's hard for me to tell exactly what is legal because restrictions differ by type of insurance. Most states have some restrictions. As of 2018 the federal government prohibited use of genetic information in health insurance.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/07/636026264/genetic-tests-can-hurt-your-chances-of-getting-some-types-of-insurance

[Commenter_XY]

I'm thinking life insurance, JFC. Many insurers require some testing before issuing a life insurance policy. The results of those tests + genetic data + demographic data + finance data = a frighteningly close prediction of mortality down to the month (absent a random event)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Decades ago, when genetic tests for disease propensity were just getting started, there was a newly discovered test for which a positive result would make a person totally uninsurable. Problem was, the test established likelihood of life-long pathology in connective tissue, but with no indication that the condition would shorten life. An insurance company nightmare.

That meant a positive test result, if discovered, was also an employment nightmare. HR departments were very much in the business of minding employee medical vulnerabilities. No matter what the law said, small-group employer insurance plans were subject to medical insurance costs not determined by an actuary based on data for the general population, but determined instead by the medical records of their own employees. That put any already-employed person with a positive test result on a slippery slope with the small-group employer's HR department—along with every other small-group insured with high expected medical bills.

Sensible rheumatologists were telling patients never to take that test. Less-sensible rheumatologists were ordering it.

At the time, nobody needed that test, and it did nobody any good, with the arguable exception of the insurance companies. No treatments were then available.

Thankfully, many good treatments have since been developed. Medications developed to deliver relief on an outpatient basis remain among the most lucrative ever developed by the pharmaceutical industry. Even just the co-payments remain prohibitively expensive for people of ordinary income.

The insurance companies who compete most of all for large-group policies, game that system. They offer individual insureds special-exception forgiveness of almost the total price of those medicines, to enable employed patients to be prescribed them. That also enables large employers to hire those people. Then the insurance companies bill hospitals and Medicare for full costs, on the basis of Medicare disability claims. It is a system about which large-group insureds—basically the folks employed by America's wealthiest corporations—are justifiably very happy.

It is also a bonanza for insurance companies. Unfortunately for older consumers, the Federal Government refused to be similarly gamed. Thus, retirees on Medicare do not get offered the insurance company discounts. And almost none of them can afford the co-pays.

That has created a thriving counter-gaming medical industry, where biologically similar medicines get administered to older Medicare recipients as in-hospital infusions. Those typically happen once a month, at a per-visit cost to the public of a few thousand or so per month.

If any of that sounds to you like it makes sense, then you are obviously not an advocate for single-payer healthcare, and quite likely are a specially-privileged federal cost center, via your employer's large-group insurance policy plan.

More rational management of issues like those would deliver an instant constituency sufficient to force single-payer health care through Congress. Federal savings large enough to support notable tax reductions would result.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Suppose (just hypothetically now) that someone were disinclined to take your word for all that. What would be a reliable source or two you’d point them towards?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Some is personal experience. I suffer a condition (called ankylosing spondylitis) which the genetic test I mentioned was designed to diagnose. It was my own rheumatologist who explained the genetic test, and why not to take it.

Later, that led to extensive personal research, to see how much I could get insurance companies to disclose about what they did with regard to the particular medicines I mentioned, and why. I needed to find a way to afford the medicines. Turns out the insurance companies disclosed quite a bit. Even hooked me up with an unnamed private donor for about 18 months.

Also, I was able to get info from my wife's small-group insurance plan, and from her human resources department, when we confronted the question whether it was better to continue to rely on her small-group plan, or go with Medicare. There were no threats, but no mincing of words either, about how much better it would be financially for her employer if my care were transferred out of the small-group plan. Turned out the premium savings were comparable to the entire annual cost of my wife's compensation.

The bit about gaming the large-group markets is based on personal investigation, in that case supplemented and helped by a relative who also uses the class of medications I am talking about. She has a law degree, but her professional career is as a third-party medical benefits adviser to employers, and she works at a high professional level. If she would do it, which I doubt, you could probably qualify her in court as an expert on a broad range of public policy issues regarding medical benefits.

The part about the expenses incurred by Medicare for hospital infusions I have straight from the hospital bills they show me from time to time, apparently pro-forma. I do not pay any but a few hundred dollars co-pay to cover the first month of every year.

My hospital (Mass General) features multiple medical infusion suites. The two I have used support simultaneous infusions for about a dozen patients each, with typical turnover about once an hour in each chair. The suites are staffed accordingly with RNs and support personnel, all relying on an in-hospital pharmacy, which always runs behind schedule. Some infusion appointments go longer or shorter. They keep all the chairs active. Appointments are not easy to schedule. Based on my bills, each turnover racks up about $3,000 gross for the hospital.

I was also able to gather additional information about policy impacts from my former personal care physician, who unbeknownst to me was also a public policy PhD researching health quality outcomes, costs, and efficiency—something I learned only after he told me he was leaving to head a giant public policy institute at a major Midwest university. So I Googled my doc, and discovered the most-patient-centered physician I had ever seen, was also a guy with a national reputation on health care management policy. So I asked him some questions.

The part about forgiving payments to game the system you can find out for yourself. Contact AbbVie, (or others). Explain you saw their ads saying they could help some people with costs. Operators are standing by; ask them how it works. Then follow up with Medicare to get the flip side—why Medicare recipients cannot get that help from AbbVie. It took me both explanations to put the picture in focus.

Hope that helps.

[Noscitur a sociis]

One such jurisdiction being the United States.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sort of possibility is a big part of why I've never done 23 and me.

[Martinned2]

Isn't data protection legislation great?

[jb]

Yeah, interesting question here: does a privacy policy bind future use of data gathered under it, or just the company doing the initial data gathering? I have no idea what the answer is.

I think the proper answer should be that the policy continues to apply to future uses of data, but suspect that it does not.

[Commenter_XY]

Why would the obligation survive the termination of a party (23andMe)? When does that happen?

[jb]

If your question is "why should it be that way" I think consumers should be able to expect that data they provide is going to be treated in whatever way it is promised when they provide it. As a (perhaps strained) analogy, if someone pays you money to put a conservation easement on your land, that obligation doesn't go away if you go bankrupt and someone else ends up in control of the land.

In the data context, certain types of data (e.g., credit data) have specific legal/regulatory regimes that limit how the data is used, so there's definitely precedent for the government imposing limitations on data usage.

If your question is, "why does it work that way right now", I suspect it does not. Maybe in a state like California with a more robust privacy regime than what the federal government provides, but probably not generally. Then again, 23andme is based in California, so we'd need someone with expertise with the California privacy laws to help us get to an answer.

[jb]

Seems like California privacy law probably does not protect the data in bankruptcy. The California AG advised people to delete their data (which 23andme is required to honor under California law):

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-urgently-issues-consumer-alert-23andme-customers

[John F. Carr]

In bankruptcy a company's contracts become malleable.

[jb]

It's concerning that this is true regarding very sensitive data such as this, though. Bankruptcy law is about trying to make creditors whole, but it probably should be balanced by privacy laws trying to make sure that people's privacy isn't compromised just because it delivers the most value to creditors to do so.

This is probably the most sensitive set of data out there, so I'd expect if things go badly here it may result in some new laws to protect sensitive data better in the future. That will kind of suck for the millions of people who get their genetic data unexpectedly sold to the highest bidder in the process, though.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What stops an insurer from doing that, and subsequently canceling policies left and right from the genetic information they get data mining that DB?

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.

[Commenter_XY]

That doesn't apply to life insurance. Hence, my open question.

[Commenter_XY]

When did video dissents from Circuit Court judges become the rage?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/03/appeals-court-judge-disassembles-gun-in-video-dissent-from-anti-2a-9th-cir-decision/

Judge VanDyke has a sardonic manner of writing. Just saying.

[Martinned2]

Wow, I thought the nuts who had taken over America were limited to Congress, the Executive Branch, the federal courts in Texas, and everything at state level. But they are elsewhere in the Federal judiciary too?

[Martinned2]

For now alleged criminals who are alleged to be non-citizens still have due process rights: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0766-53

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A somewhat related subject, including an answer to at least one contributor of this blog who sneers at the subject.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/03/the-internationalization-of-american.html

[tylertusta]

Who knew that you have a due process right to forum shop even when Congress said you have to go to another court.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I checked out The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms by Alison LaCroix.

It has a lot of interesting bits including this bit from John Quincy Adams (quoting his journal), talking about fellow Cabinet member William Wirt, then the Attorney General:

He said that doctrine was too bold for him: he was too much of a Virginian for that. I told him that Virginian Constitutional scruples were accommodating things, whenever the exercise of a power did not happen to suit them, they would allow of nothing but powers expressly written; but when it did, they had no aversion to implied powers.

[He started to journal at age 12. It's available online.]

Sounds familiar. There is also an early federal regulation of immigration. The Steerage Act of 1819, to quote Wikipedia (which provides links):

In addition to regulating conditions in ships, the act also required ship captains to deliver and report a list of passengers with their demographic information to the district collector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steerage_Act_of_1819

The proper reach of state regulation of those coming in and out of a state was particularly touchy since it raised questions involving slavery. Therefore, for instance, anti-slavery Justice McLean argued that the Commerce Clause did not apply to persons, avoiding the specter of congressional regulation of slavery via that clause.

A tricky issue, cited in the book, is Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1, which references the power of Congress to regulate the migration or importation of persons.

[hobie]

"Sounds familiar."

Sounds very familiar

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

The Global Left just met in Berlin. And they've decided they seek out a "New World Order With European Values".

Which of course, in order to save Democracy, includes massive amounts of censorship, but in a totally freedom-loving, not-fascist-at-all, democracy-saving way.

Basically, you're not allowed to express any wrong think that the State has deemed harmful to Sacred Democracy.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/24/a-new-world-order-with-european-values-the-unholy-union-of-globalism-and-anti-free-speech-measures/

[SRG2]

Which is totally different from expelling green card holders and other legal residents for expressing views the :US government doesn't like.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Holy shit. Trump named Alina Habba as US Attorney for NJ. That’ll be wild to have a US Atty be subject to a disciplinary proceeding for several extremely serious violations of the rules of professional conduct:

https://newrepublic.com/post/185917/alina-habba-settles-trump-hush-money-deal-bedminster

Again if even only 10% of that complaint was true I don’t see how she doesn’t get disciplined.

[Estragon]

Wow. As painful as this is, the impending John Eastman rehabilitation tour is going to be worse.

[SRG2]

Well, there's no doubt she's perfrctly qualified for the position - a Trump loyalist, hot, and corrupt. A Trump Trifecta!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump: "Alina will lead with the same diligence and conviction that has defined her career, and she will fight tirelessly to secure a Legal System that is both 'Fair and Just' for the wonderful people of New Jersey."

Truth in advertising, down to the usage of scare quotes.

[David Nieporent]

He's simply appointing his entire corrupt legal team to run the entire DOJ, so why not this? But she's only interim US Attorney; she has to go through senate confirmation to get the job permanently, and I assume at least a few competent Democrats (not Chuck Schumer) will bring up the incident you're talking about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brandon appointed Rachel Rollins as USA-MA and it took Heel's Up's 51st vote to confirm her.

[myself]

Still no word about Trump extorting policy changes and $40 million in services from a law firm?

If Biden or Obama had done the same they would have been impeached.

[Estragon]

I will say this— Paul, Weiss’ conduct here doesn’t exactly inspire. I’ve got to imagine a lot of potential and current clients are having some second thoughts, and I have heard similar from my old NYC contacts. FWIW (i. e. not much).

[myself]

How valid was their worry about fighting destroying the firm?

I'm sure they could have won an injunction, and eventually won the case, but I'm also not sure it would matter. If you take the EO as a signal that the Trump admin was fixed on retaliation clients might worry they'd find themselves frozen out of government contracts if they kept using Paul, Weiss.

[rloquitur]

Well, but then you had actual discrimination in the workplace, and that would have destroyed the firm if Trump pushed it. You all didn't seem to care about Arthur Andersen, now did you?

[Estragon]

This was not about “actual discrimination”. This was about Trump’s personal vendettas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's $40M in services to a firm like this?
I'd say somewhere between a parking ticket and a speeding ticket.

[rloquitur]

So what?

[Estragon]

“Well, but then you had [Trump angry at a former employee of Paul, Weiss], and that would have destroyed the firm if Trump pushed it.”

I can see the ads now…

Paul, Weiss. We’re here for our clients, as long as we can stay on Trump’s good side while doing it.

[Estragon]

“How valid was their worry”

Who knows? Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their zealous advocacy when they prioritize self-preservation and assisting in Don’s personal vendettas.

[Commenter_XY]

Brad Karp single-handedly saved the entire law firm based on a single conversation with The Donald. Karp deserves a huge raise, and hanging his portrait on the boardroom wall at Paul, Weiss.

[Estragon]

That may all be so. But if I were a potential client this conduct would give me serious pause.

[Commenter_XY]

Why?

Brad Karp a) has access to The Donald on the strength of a phone call, and b) can get The Donald to take action to benefit his client (in this case, a 2B law firm). That is impressive.

Brad Karp did nothing morally, or ethically wrong in bending the knee and kissing The Donald's posterior. Sometimes leaders have to eat shit sandwich. It goes with the job, Estragon.

[Estragon]

Access and a willingness to participate in Donald’s personal vendettas are not positives in my view. To the contrary, it suggests a certain ethical flexibility that I would not find attractive in a potential advocate.

[Commenter_XY]

A willingness to participate in The Donald's personal vendettas....

Brad Karp had two options.
Kill the firm, close their doors, fire 1300 lawyers.
Pick up the phone, call The Donald, and see if the firm could be saved.

Acting in the interest of the firm, and of 1,300 lawyers and their families is not remotely unethical.

[David Nieporent]

No, he had a third option: give a middle finger to Trump and go to court.

[Estragon]

Exactly

[Commenter_XY]

And the firm is dead...from canceled contracts.

[David Nieporent]

1) It would indeed impact the firm's bottom line if contracts were cancelled. But it would not kill it.
2) The going to court is to prevent the contracts from being cancelled.

[Commenter_XY]

David in the case of Paul, Weiss the percentage of their work tied up with federal contracting was...well, it was pretty much their entire business.

Brad Karp took the best option, out of a bad set of options. I don't know how you can possibly argue differently.

[David Nieporent]

C_XY, I am quite confident that you do not have any insight into Paul, Weiss's operations.

[Estragon]

Again. Even if I accept everything you say above, AS A CLIENT, it absolutely would be improper for Paul Weiss to put these ancillary firm interests ahead of a client’s.

Which is why if I were anticipating being in any conflict with USG or Donald personally (notice how those putatively distinct interests are now viewed to be one and the same? That is improper itself!) I would never hire these people.

I also question the assertion that after having seen one of their own underbussed over bullshit that other partners would be as enthusiastic as you suggest to hang portraits and dole out raises to the person/people who made these decisions.

As to the substantive assertions about Paul Weiss’ fate had they not “[eaten] the shit sandwich”, I’m not sure how you can say all these consequences are certain before any litigation— especially in light of the developments in the analogous Perkins Coie litigation. And so what? There are other law jobs. You can only destroy your reputation once.

Timothy Snyder calls this “obeying in advance.”

[myself]

Again. Even if I accept everything you say above, AS A CLIENT, it absolutely would be improper for Paul Weiss to put these ancillary firm interests ahead of a client’s.

But that's exactly what the firm did.

Read the orginal EO:

(a) To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, activities that are not aligned with American interests, including racial discrimination, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Paul Weiss and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.
(b) The heads of all agencies shall review all contracts with Paul Weiss or with entities that disclose doing business with Paul Weiss under subsection (a) of this section.

The EO literally directs Government contracting agencies to cancel contracts with clients of Paul Weiss.

As a client it would be in my interests for them to capitulate so I didn't get punished.

Now, I think they could have gotten the EO thrown out, but we've seen how the Trump admin deals with court orders. Even if there's no EO I suspect a lot of clients would suddenly find their government contracts under review.

I'd love Paul Weiss to fight, but I don't expect them to make that big a sacrifice on them and their client's behalf.

That's why I'm pointing out VC's silence on the issue. If the legal profession doesn't speak up to protect the rule of law then the law is dead.

[David Nieporent]

If I were Paul Weiss's client, I would say to myself, "What if Trump tells them, 'Throw that guy under the bus or I'll come after you'? They've already shown they'll fold rather than fight."

[Estragon]

“The EO literally directs Government contracting agencies to cancel contracts with clients of Paul Weiss.

As a client it would be in my interests for them to capitulate so I didn't get punished.”

Yes, I realize all of that. Indeed, I’m sure some of the motivation to engage in this humiliating display was the fact that at least one high-profile client had already dropped them. But it sure wouldn’t give me a ton of confidence in them going forward— who knows what the next demand from Trump will be?

[not guilty]

In the struggle to preserve the rule of law against Donald Trump's encroachment, Brad Karp is a damned quisling.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A word from where?

Paul Weiss and the Trump Administration both put out statements.

Do you mean Republicans in Congress? I'm sure they are just doing their due diligence.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Volokh Conspiracy did have a post on Paul Weiss though yes I think it is a bit strange that someone like Eugene Volokh has only had limited reaction to 1A related Trump Administration actions.

[rloquitur]

Um, no, they wou;dn't have been. First of all, there are all sorts of extortionate consent decrees etc. Second, that ship sailed when the Obama Administration tried to bully AIG employees out of their stay bonuses.

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

Biden and Obama were to busy setting up illegal unmonitored FBI terminals and getting these law firms to do their illegal and treasonous dirty work for them. They also got non profits in the mix too.

They used USAID funded non-profits to prosecute political oppression against conservative lawyers and firms instead.

[ThePublius]

Patrick Henry's Famous and Moving Speech featuring "give me liberty or give me death" turned 250 years yesterday. It's not long and it's worth reading:

https://www.historicstjohnschurch.org/the-speech/

Spoiler alert: last paragraph:

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

[Stephen Lathrop]

The liberty Henry had in mind was the closest thing to modern libertarianism that history has to offer: the slaveholders' liberty—privately administered, and legally boundless. Great liberty, if you can get it.

[SRG2]

Dr Johnson's words are salutary here: "[H]ow is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

[rloquitur]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/24/us-news/three-illegal-immigrants-charged-after-fiery-dui-crash-kills-another-driver/

Yep, Judge Boasberg, it's in America's interest that immigration is relegated to the federal judiciary. How many illegals live in his neighboorhood?

[jb]

Cool story. Here's some about citizens driving drunk and killing people:

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/11/02/woman-was-driving-drunk-nearly-140-mph-before-crash-that-killed-her-3-children-officials-say/
https://www.wsmv.com/2025/01/12/community-mourns-loss-two-children-killed-robertson-county-rollover-crash/
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/children-and-grandma-killed-in-tragic-miami-gardens-crash-identified/3539917/

[Bob from Ohio]

That's bad, we have plenty of home grown reckless people, no need to import others.

[jb]

Sure there is--they do lots of useful things and less bad things than citizens do! It's really dumb to only look at the costs of immigration without comparing it to the benefits.

To put it another way: if you were to just look at the costs of things, you might read these articles and decide "wow, cars are really bad; we should just ban them and then there won't be any more deaths from DUIs". But of course that ignores that cars are really useful and what we should probably be doing through both lenses is making it less likely that people drink and drive in general rather than deciding that either immigrants or cars are the problem.

[rloquitur]

As if we cannot sort immigrants . . . . that's why illegal immigration has to be stopped.

[jb]

It doesn't seem like there's any reason to believe that drunk driving is a particular problem amongst immigrants, either legal or illegal. So this seems like a particularly poor place to focus on trying to sort them or to justify stopping illegal immigration.

[Harvey Mosley]

Why do we need to justify stopping illegal immigration? If we aren't going to enforce immigration laws, is it okay if I pick which malum prohibitum laws I want to ignore?

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Sure, why not? The feds don't enforce the Hatch Act, nor the Comstock Act, nor most laws concerning marijuana in states where such state laws have been repealed or not enforced. Also, laws against private citizens willfully stealing and mishandling classified documents seem to be haphazardly enforced. Further examples are manifold.

[jb]

You can try to justify or not. Just saying that OP is a really stupid attempt to try and do so.

[SRG2]

I decided to check government stats for crime rates amongst illegal immigrants. This is what I found:

The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs is currently reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some pages and publications will be unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Fortunately the CBP still has data up, though I wonder for how long.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind all those 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, that take care not to report crimes by illegal aliens, lest they end up being deported.

[David Nieporent]

This is not a thing. And the strongest data, as you well know, comes from Texas, which is not a sanctuary state.

[rloquitur]

Yes, but a lot of crimes are being committed in Dem jurisdictions . . . .

The fact is that no one knows, even excluding the fact that every illegal is a criminal, the rate of criminality of illegals.

[Brett Bellmore]

David, one of the defining characteristics of 'sanctuary' cities is that they do not inquire of or report the immigration status of offenders. This renders all local statistics unreliable.

[David Nieporent]

What the fuck does that have to do with immigration? If someone from Arizona gets into a car accident in Texas and kills someone, do you think that says that we shouldn't have freedom of interstate travel in the U.S.?

[ThePublius]

Please don't use foul language on the blog. It detracts from the tenor of the site, and from the point you're trying to make, which may well be good.

[Sarcastr0]

Swears are fine and normal, if you're not a primitive screwhead.

[ThePublius]

I don't know what that means, but I imagine you are trying to insult me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Swears are fine and normal"

Orally, sure. They are a spontaneous uttering.

When you write something, you can edit it, its not spontaneous but performative. "I'm tough"

[apedad]

SCOTUS denies Trump megadonor’s bid to challenge pillar of press freedom

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a challenge by Trump megadonor and casino mogul Steve Wynn that aimed to overturn a core ruling on press freedom.

Wynn, a billionaire who oversaw the construction and operation of iconic Las Vegas casinos including The Mirage, Treasure Island and the Bellagio, petitioned the high court in an effort to lower the standard needed for public figures to sue over media reports.

The 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan has allowed the media to report on public figures without the threat of costly libel suits. A bedrock of modern libel law and one of the Supreme Court’s most significant First Amendment rulings, the landmark decision says public officials must show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit.

The high court declined to grant certiorari in the case, marking a setback for a push among conservative legal scholars and media critics to overturn Sullivan.

https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-denies-trump-megadonors-bid-to-challenge-pillar-of-press-freedom/

I think Sullivan was a good decision - as long as this part, "the landmark decision says public officials must show actual malice to prevail in a libel suit" is still operational.

[SRG2]

If not a single conservative justice would have granted cert, clearly Wynn didn't remember to tip the server even they must think Sullivan is still good. Or else they're waiting for a more sympathetic plaintiff. Interesting that the murderer Don Blankenship filed an amicus bried supporting Wynn,

[Michael Ejercito]

What police powers did Wynn exercise?

What office was Wynn running for?

What iffice was Wynn nominated?

[SRG2]

Take it up with the SC

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't casino security have power of arrest in LV?

[SRG2]

Was about to edit, then got a phone call, and then it was too late

If not a single conservative justice would have granted cert, clearly Wynn didn't remember to tip the server even they must think Sullivan is still good. Or else they're waiting for a more sympathetic plaintiff. Interesting that the murderer Don Blankenship filed an amicus bried supporting Wynn,

[Bwaaah]

SRG2: "clearly Wynn didn't remember to tip the server "

You're so lame. Just stick to the name-calling and leave out the rationalizations. Conserve your energy. Conserve everybody's energy.

You make idiots like me look like .... [OK...I don't have a decent finish for this one].

[Bob from Ohio]

"pillar of press freedom"

More like a poisoned chalice. It lets the press get very sloppy with their fact checking, which leads to loss of public confidence.

[AtR]

Perhaps VC is not representative of the legal community ... but what I have learned from several years of reading articles and comments is that, by and large, very few people still maintain legal ideals.

All legal text (including the Constitution) can be abused and perverted for just about any purpose, as long as there is some sufficiently powerful backing for the abuse.

There are no absolute legal guarantees in the US ... and, perhaps, there never have been.

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

As long as the laws are interpreted by humans, we will have, at best, a simulation of the Rule of Law.

There are no true human umpires, no matter how much we dress up in robes and pretend there are.

[Michael Ejercito]

What police powers did Wynn exercise?

What office was Wynn running for?

What iffice was Wynn nominated?

[David Nieporent]

Why are you asking these questions?

[ThePublius]

For the first time in 65 years commuter rail service to Boston has returned to New Bedford, Fall River, and Taunton. Hallelujah! It's a mixed blessing, as the route established is rather slow - about 1 1/2 hours from New Bedford to Boston's South Station. But, it's something!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rail is not viable if it is twice as long as driving.

In the day, Class 1 railroads either had four tracks or plans to eventually have four tracks -- two express tracks in the middle and two local tracks on the outside.

The two problems with trains are (a) you can't pass the one in front of you, and (b) you can't have two trains going opposite directions on the same track at the same time. And politically you have to stop at every station, which takes time.

For example, the ACELLA stops at almost all the stations on the NEC, when it could get there faster if it didn't.

That said, the only reason the Green Line (trolleys) still exists is because it was serving the (then) lower income areas of the city and where lots of college students were. The latter is still true -- BC, BU, NE, Kenmore Square, and notice how the E line doesn't go all the way out to Forest Hills anymore. (B was a railroad.)

[jb]

"For example, the ACELLA stops at almost all the stations on the NEC, when it could get there faster if it didn't."

Once again, Dr. Ed says something factually incorrect that is trivial to look up on Amtrak's own schedules for the NEC vs. Amtrak.

Although it was cool when right before the pandemic Amtrak was running nonstop NYC to Washington service.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Dr. Ed says something factually incorrect that is trivial to look up on Amtrak's own schedules for the NEC vs. Amtrak.

To be fair, he also spelled Acela incorrectly.

[ThePublius]

I find online recipes frustrating. Many of them start with a long narrative about how the author remembers this from his youth, blah, blah, blah. Then, for a simple sandwich - yes, I know how to make a Reuben, but I was just curious - they go on to give a recipe for making the Russian dressing. Doesn't everyone just squirt this out of a plastic salad dressing bottle? Then they go " take 8 slices of bread...." Uh, I'm not making four sandwiches, I'm making one, or some multiple of one. So tiring.

[Brett Bellmore]

Some of the recipe sites have a utility to alter recipe quantities depending on the number of servings you want, but, yeah, I get you about not wanting to hear somebody's life story before they give you the actual recipe.

[ThePublius]

Yes!

[ThePublius]

I found the best, simplest Reuben sandwich recipe online:

https://boarshead.com/recipes/detail/366-classic-reuben

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"I found the best, simplest Reuben sandwich recipe"
That's hilarious. "Flip sandwich over to grill other side." Glad that was included lest one might forget.

[ThePublius]

Yes, ha, ha! Grill it, flip it. Recipe over.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

'Then they go " take 8 slices of bread...." Uh, I'm not making four sandwiches, '

Yes! Arithmetic, how does it work?

[SRG2]

Yup - and then there are the recipes that claim "only three ingredients needed" ignoring all the spices and other minor but essential ingredients

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

Former broke ass bitch, now multi-millionaire Congresscritter Jasmine "Yas, Queen" Crockett said in a recent interview Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) need to be “knocked over the head, like, hard.”

I guess she's just saving democracy again by calling for violence against a sitting Senator. Which makes it perfectly legal and acceptable, just wait until you read all the replies to see the reasons why this is good.

[David Nieporent]

Jasmine Crockett's net worth is less than $50,000.

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2023/10061435.pdf

[Frank Drackman]

She wouldn't be the first Afro-Amurican Representative to go to prison for Tax/Financial Fraud. (Charles Diggs, D, MI Walter Fauntroy D, DC, Mel Reynolds D, IL, William Jefferson D, LA, Jesse Jackson Jr D, IL, Chaka Fattah D, PA, Corrine Brown, D, FL,

[Mr. Bumble]

What was in all those ice cream containers in Nancy's freezer?

[David Nieporent]

The corpses of her enemies.

[not guilty]

Judge James Boasberg this morning entered an order denying the government Defendants' motion to vacate the Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting removal of Venezuelans who are part of the Plaintiff class. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.52.0_1.pdf He directed the Plaintiffs to inform the Court by March 26 if they wish to convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a preliminary injunction. The memorandum opinion is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.53.0_1.pdf

[Kazinski]

The head of Milei's counsel of advisors disputes that Argentina has achieved an economic miracle:

"Post

See new posts
Conversation
Demian Reidel
@dreidel1
Have you heard about the so-called Argentinian economic miracle? I have news: there is no miracle. This is a lie.

I am the chairman of President Milei’s council of advisors, and I want you to know that there is no miracle here at all.

You read that correctly. No miracle whatsoever.

What you are witnessing is the most impressive turnaround in the country’s history.

We slashed wasteful spending that once enriched the few at the expense of the many.

We brought down inflation—a tax that disproportionately burdens the poor. As a result, we lowered poverty rates by more than 11% and lifted millions out of poverty

We eliminated the thousands of pickets that made travel across the country a nightmare. Imagine the relief of breathing in fresh air after years of suffocating congestion.

Welfare programs? The left’s favorite: they mostly served politicians. They even stole food from the poor. Yes. They stole food from the poor.

Now, welfare flows directly to those who need it most.

At the core of our strategy, we eradicated the source of the macroeconomic instability that had plagued our nation for so long: we eliminated the fiscal deficit. We now run a fiscal surplus, which has dramatically reduced our country risk—from the 3000s to the 700s.

A miracle, some say? How dare they!

This is not a miracle. This is hard work. This is putting the country first, not politicians.

Why is the opposition protesting so fervently? Not because they care for the people or the nation, but because they fear the truth—that they have been the problem all along. Their time is over.

Again, this is not a miracle.

This is hard work. This is having a vision, formulating a plan, and executing it without fear. This is having the guts to do what is right. This is president
@JMilei
leadership.

The jig is up for the left. They have nothing, and they never did. They do not love the poor. They love poverty.

Now, tell me again that this is a miracle.

We didn’t know it was impossible—so we did it.

Viva la libertad, carajo!"

https://x.com/dreidel1/status/1903075546914853196

[tylertusta]

Yup. It's only a 'miracle' from the cribbed view of the world that left-wingers have.

For us conservatives, it's natural to return to prosperity once the locusts are removed from the government payroll.

[SRG2]

Now, welfare flows directly to those who need it most.

I guess that makes Milei a Marxist.

we eliminated the fiscal deficit.

Every year Trump was president, the deficit rose. That trend will continue

This is hard work

In marked contrast to Trump's and Musk's approach.

Note the absence of tariffs, of regressive tax changes, of loyalty tests and revenge politics.

Actual capitalism works.

[Estragon]

Did you get in on $LIBRA?

[Absaroka]

It seems like the editor of 'The Atlantic' got included in a signal chat group which detailed, in advance, the strike plans for the Houthi attacks.

This brings to mind 'the only one professional enough'.

[tylertusta]

I heard a funny joke today over this idiocy:

"This is a signal to the nation that DEI hires perform better than DUI hires"

At this point I'm mad enough that I kinda agree with it, too.

[Commenter_XY]

Unbelievable lapse in judgment. /smh

Let's see if there is any bottom line accountability.

[Estragon]

“We are currently clean on OPSEC.”

Just… wow.

[David Nieporent]

What. The. Fuck. (Sorry to offend ThePublius's delicate sensibilities, but I know of no other way to express my reaction to the insanity of this story.)

1. Violations of multiple laws.
2. Total fucking incompetence.
3. More cheap gangsterism from Trump people, explaining how to justify doing this they need to extort the countries that we formerly considered our allies.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

When asked about this FUBAR Trump, after taking some gratuitous swipes at the Atlantic, claimed to know nothing about it, to not have heard of it before being asked. Can that possibly be true? If it is true, what does it say about the Trump Administration that the President of the United States would not be alerted to this?

[SRG2]

He probably didn't know. First, he wouldn't have been on the chat, second, nobody was going to tell him,

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're assuming it is real -- and not a honey pot.
AND that it isn't an attempt to get him to do exactly what he did -- print that Europe is going to be expected to pay for this.

Maybe it was an assumed risk -- what could be the potential harm of him knowing 2 hours earlier? We have air supremacy there -- all they could do would be to take cover and it would be worthwhile to know that he would tip them off.

[Absaroka]

"You're assuming it is real"

The administration has confirmed it.

[Bwaaah]

Oh sure. But *was* it really "the administration?" (humor)

I fear there's an inverse proportional correlation between how high you are in the social hierarchy of power, and the depth of your technical savvy such as notions of digital security.

In other words: the bosses don't know shit about computers. That's certainly not always true, but the pattern is pretty visible. I think it has something to do with people who talk for a living.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AND NOT A HONEY POT....

You do know what a honey pot is, don't you?

[Absaroka]

If you want to do that, generally speaking you don't leak the actual information: 'the landings will be on the 6th of June at first light on the following (actual) beaches'.

There are two reasons not to leak actual information:
1)The enemy can use it to reinforce and defeat, you know, the actual attack.
2)Since lots of people know the actual information, finding the actual information in the hands of the enemy doesn't tell you who the leaker is. Thus the usual practice is to give the suspected leaker(s) untrue, and different, info to see which version leaks.

[John F. Carr]

Author Jeffrey Goldberg observes that this is the sort of carelessness that Trump wanted to lock Hillary Clinton up for and Biden wanted to lock Trump up for.

[David Nieporent]

That is a distortion of what Goldberg said, though he could've and should've been clearer. He did say the first part of it (Trump/Hillary), but not the second (Biden/Trump), and the second would be untrue. Trump was not charged with "carelessness"; that he left the stuff piled up in a bathroom, while egregious, formed no part of the charges against him. Rather, Trump was being prosecuted for refusing to return national defense information when the government demanded its return. (And then lying about it and obstructing justice.)

[gVOR08]

But her emails.

[MoreCurious]

It doesn't surprise me that the dumbest president ever would staff his administration with people who are just as dumb and incompetent as he is.

[Bwaaah]

I find this startling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I still say "honey pot."

[not guilty]

How so? Please show your work.

[David Nieporent]

Shouldn't he first be asked to explain what he thinks a honey pot is? Does Dr. Ed think Hegseth wanted to have sex with Jeffrey Goldberg?

[not guilty]

Good point!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's Honey Trap.

Honey Pot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)
You want to see where it will go,,,

[Noscitur a sociis]

Was the NSC admitting it was real part of the ruse?

[not guilty]

"It seems like the editor of 'The Atlantic' got included in a signal chat group which detailed, in advance, the strike plans for the Houthi attacks."

Has any commenter who had heretofore accused General Mark Milley of treason weighed in on this?

[Martinned2]

Note that people in that chat seemed decidedly uncertain about what Trump had or had not ordered/authorised.

[Voize of Reazon]

On Tuesday Gabbard testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that

There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.

That is difficult to reconcile with Jeffrey Goldberg's account that the contents concerned plans for bombing attacks in Yemen that would be executed two days later, including "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

[David Nieporent]

It's kind of easy to reconcile: Gabbard's lying.

[ThePublius]

Do you happen to know that that information was classified? And by whom?

[Voize of Reazon]

Publius, you won't find refuge there. It would be an even bigger scandal if the US military failed to classify its imminent attack plans.

[SRG2]

A low-, but not zero-probability hypothesis: Krasnov really does not like the Atlantic or Goldberg. Someone wanting to curry favour with Krasnov decided to add Goldberg and deliberately leak classified materials, thinking that Goldberg would publish, and he could then be prosecuted, to Krasnov's delight. But best to leak classified material that by the time of publication would be too late to be responded to. The Houthis certainly wouldn't have been able to respond in time. even if the publication had taken place soon after it leaked. But Goldberg didn't leak. And Krasnov's later anger at Waltz (IIRC) was that Waltz told Krasnov what he'd done and it didn't work.

Low-probability, as I said, but not impossible.

[tylertusta]

The domestic terrorists are getting very serious now:

‘Incendiary’ devices found at Austin Tesla showroom

Placing devices over the weekend but not detonating them implies an intent to kill Tesla customers and the dealership's staff.

[David Nieporent]

Placing devices over the weekend but not detonating them implies an intent to kill Tesla customers and the dealership's staff.

Or maybe it implies that the perpetrators were incompetent and that the devices simply failed to go off as planned.

[tylertusta]

-

[ThePublius]

Or maybe not. Maybe it was intentional. How does one know, one way or the other?

[David Nieporent]

Well, aside from catching the people involved, perhaps reading their communications, I assume one may be able to glean some information by examining the devices as to whether they were competently constructed to go off at a later time, or incompetently constructed so as not to go off at all.

[SRG2]

When a right-winger sent bombs to pretty much the entire Democratic leadership, I recall other right-wingers claiming that as the bombs were poorly made it didn't really count as terrorism or an assassination attempt.

[Armchair]

Got any evidence to back up your memory?

[SRG2]

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mail_bombing_attempts

I can think of no other assassination attempt which has been so comprehensively memory-holed.

[Armchair]

Whether they were incompetent or it was intentional...it still could've killed lots of people.

[ducksalad]

So from a report that says nothing more than that someone reported a suspicious item at a Tesla and it turned out to be something incendiary, Team Supersleuths VC have already figured out:

- that it was something that could "detonate", i.e. an explosive rather than an incendiary;
- that there were controls over when it would detonate, and those controls were set with an intention to kill someone;
- that the someone to be killed were Tesla customers and staff; and
- that the perpetrators (if there are even "perpetrators") were domestic terrorists.

And then, sad to say, Team Resistance VC already responded to the wild speculation with the whataboutism, and it was a vague whataboutism.

Let's wait until there are some more facts.

-----
I haven't forgotten two weeks ago when Commenter_XY and Bellmore were saying bombing Mexico was justified because Mexican cartels were planting IEDs "near" Brownsville and that constituted war and an invasion. When in fact their narrative was wildly incorrect, and was taken from events that happened in San Fernando, Tamps, Mexico, had nothing to do with the border.

[tylertusta]

Seeing people engaged in sophistry to defend this instance of domestic terrorism is unfortunately something I've come to expect.

In my opinion, this is no different than when the Hamas apologists decided to vomit all over these comment sections. It's no less reprehensible as well.

I'm sure the totally-not-explosive devices just planted themselves! And if they didn't plant themselves, the individual(s) that have had to break into the building must have placed them over a weekend- except that they forgot to set them off! And then they forgot about to collect them so their handiwork wasn't discovered!

[ducksalad]

1. The APD bomb squad knows words like "incendiary" and "explosive" and what they mean, even if you don't. Is it possible they spoke incorrectly and it was really a gigantic 4000 lb bomb. But more likely it was exactly what they said it was, which could mean anything from a smoke bomb to a Molotov cocktail.

2. Lots of people could have planted it. You seem to be obsessed that we're infested with Hamas apparatchiks out to slaughter Americans but that's not a very likely scenario. The more likely scenarios in order of plausibility:

-(a) anti-Musk protestors trying to create a minor disturbance by setting off the fire alarms,
-(b) some copycat kids, or
-(c) someone whose demand for "domestic terrorism" greatly exceeds the actual supply. No one here of course!

3. But keep waiting and wishing for that Reichstag fire. If you want it bad enough maybe you'll get the excuse you're looking for.

[Commenter_XY]

I have not forgotten, either, ducksalad. It is only a matter of time before the cartels start bumping up against CBP or US Army on the border.

[ducksalad]

They've already been bumping up, at some level, for decades. Criminals doing some occasional gunfire has been a thing as long as there has been a border. I don't see any particular reason to think it's going to escalate unless it's us going south to look for it.

Stuff like what you posted is something we see several times a year in the local McAllen paper. Whether you see it in the national media you read has more to do with the needs of politicos, rather than any increasing or decreasing trend.

[Kazinski]

TSLA stock is surging today, up almost 12%.

But its still down 31% YTD.

But its up 62% year over year.

Who ever is writing the script is keeping it interesting.

There were also IED's found in the Austin Tesla showroom this morning.

And the Blue on Blue civil war where democrats are attacking other democrats Tesla's seems to be continuing around the country.

[SRG2]

Anyone who bought options a couple of months back and regularly delta hedged them is making out like a bandit,

[TaioF920]

The stock market is a casino, and has been for nearly a decade. Don't bother trying to make sense of it, because you can't.

[Kazinski]

Short term trading is like a casino.

Long term buy and hold of index funds is like printing money. The 5 year SPY index total return is 153%, the 10 year return is 224%.

https://www.financecharts.com/etfs/SPY/performance/total-return

[TaioF920]

Yeah, because the Fed has made people think they can't lose. The economy is no longer growing. If you buy today, you're counting on multiple expansion, not growth.

[Armchair]

As an aside, TSLA's valuation really doesn't make sense.

It's P/E ratio currently sits at 175, which is absurd...especially compared to its competitors in the auto market (Toyota sits around 8, for example). The overall market has a P/E ratio of just 23. The other FAANGs sit from 30-60 for P/E.

Having a P/E at 175 is just insanely overpriced.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

DJT P/E is about -7.3. Donald can assert that it's lower than the P/E of the overall market.

[TaioF920]

It also doesn't make sense for the S&P to have a P/E of 30-35, but here we are.

[SRG2]

In the days when I taught finance and capital markets, when it came to equity valuation, I used to say, there's no difference between a P/E of 200 and a P/E of 2 million.

[moresignallessnoise]

Get out of your armchair and go for a test drive for about 3 hours with Full Self Driving before you compare Tesla to Toyota etc. It's like when Harry Potter gets the admission letter. "Everything I know is wrong." Amazon was insanely overpriced for a bookstore where you couldn't touch the books or sit with a cup of coffee. Put your butt into a Tesla seat and then you'd have experiential knowledge.

Plus, consider that he's reinvented manufacturing across multiple industries. Legacy car companies outsource almost everything. How about manufacturing insanely more efficiently? You should not discount the cash flow from selling cars to estimate valuation. It's IP of driving billions of miles.

[Armchair]

I've driven Teslas. They're fine cars. The real issue with Tesla's valuation is that the auto market simply isn't that big, compared with their current market share. Not enough to justify their valuation.

Let's put some numbers down. Tesla currently has market cap of $872 Billion. That's with 4% of the US auto market. Toyota, by comparison has a market cap of $300 Billion, with 15% of the US auto market. To argue for a near $900 Billion market cap, you'd expect Tesla to take 45% of the US auto market. OR be massively profitable on a smaller % of the auto market (P/E ratio says that's not currently happening)

[jb]

You could also go to the places where they operate, sit in a Waymo and experience full self driving vehicle that hasn't managed to kill any of its riders due to faulty software.

Tesla is hardly the leader in full self driving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ

[hobie]

Blue on Blue? You sure you don't recall you and every redneck attacking Tesla and Elon for the past eight years? I know I do. Kazinski, I've already schooled you for being a hypocrite twice today. Let's try to get you back to the place you were before you were instructed to think differently

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Here's a video of some hicks, hillbillies, and hayseeds performing a real nice cover version of the Stephen Stills song "For What It's Worth" (recorded in 1966 by Buffalo Springfield).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIdfulZ1c5c&t=96s&ab_channel=TheMcCouryChannel

Vocals are by Jason Carter who is (or was) the violinist/fiddler in the Del McCoury band. Most of the others are members of the McCoury band as well. The woman playing the mandolin is the child prodigy player Sierra Hull who is also a great vocalist and guitar player.

[hobie]

Good song. Apply the lyrics to Palestinians (students) in the US. 'The man come and take you away'.

I'm confused, did Jim Croce cover this or write this?

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Stephen Stills wrote it. According to Stills, the inspiration was some protests over curfew laws in LA, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Strip_curfew_riots) and not Vietnam protest stuff, but it sure did resonate and still does.

Best I can tell, Croce never covered this song.

[hobie]

Well, you've never watched the Muppet Show

[Life of Brian]

I have, and neither the unarguably awesome video or anything else I can immediately find suggests Croce was involved.

[hobie]

I guess my brains are scrambled. I was sure Croce had been part of the show that day

[Bwaaah]

MusicAfter Midnight said "Best I can tell, Croce never covered this song."

And yet, in response to that, you doubled down on your theory rather than check it?

Open up, Hobie. The universe is speaking to you. Open up.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Jeez, the Muppet episode was broadcast in 1978. So, somebody gets something trivial confused from over 45 years ago. So what? I'll just observe that I think you're being a little harsh.

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. He often dishes it out, quite nastily. I can be prickly that way, but not indiscriminately.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

"Well, you've never watched the Muppet Show"

No, I have never watched the Muppet show. I do find that the Muppets did cover the song. An article in Rolling Stone spoke about the episode and revealed that the vocals were performed by Jerry Nelson. I have now watched about half of the Muppets interpretation (which has more than doubled my exposure). It's entertaining for what it is, I suppose.

[Life of Brian]

If you're not familiar with Henson and his work in general, I'd highly recommend Jim Henson: Idea Man from last year. One of the premier creative minds of our time IMO.

[Sarcastr0]

I just did a Croce-fest on Sunday!

Started with Rapid Roy (The Stock Car Boy). Then of course Mess Around with Jim and Bad, Bad Leroy Brown.

But then I got offtrack with Big John by Jimmy Dean.

But I'ma do a Croce dive soon.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Yeah, I enjoyed Croce back in the day. Most of the heavy lifting on guitar on the Croce records was done by Maury Muehleisen who died in the same crash that killed Croce. Apparently, Muehleisen and Croce were close collaborators on the sound and production. Croce is remembered, Muehleisen not so much.

Interesting how much of the sound of the 60s and 70s music was actually the result of work and inspiration by professional session musicians. Everybody knows about The Monkees, I suppose. But a loosely defined group of session musicians that was labeled The Wrecking Crew was instrumental in vast quantities of the music coming out of LA much of it produced by Spector. It is estimated that bassist Carol Kaye, for example, worked on over 10,000 tracks. Tommy Tedesco may have been the most recorded guitarist ever. A few of these people (eg Glen Campbell, Leon Russell) became famous but most remain pretty much unknown.

[not guilty]

Let's not forget Roller Derby Queen.

[Commenter_XY]

These Dreams was a nice ballad. I enjoyed listening to Croce as a child. I remember when he died, it was national news. Now, I occasionally put on Croce radio on Spotify while working outside.

[Commenter_XY]

Alexandria....AJ Croce show?

[TaioF920]

Ultimately, Canada and the leftist countries in Western Europe are upset because the U.S. is no longer bending to their every demand. They hate that Trump is America first.

[SRG2]

You think the US did so before Krasnov? Hahaha bollocks they did.

What concerns Canada and Western Europe is first, his long-term cosying up to Putin, second, his insane and unambiguous interest in seizing Greenland and bringing Canada into the Union.

[grb]

Yunseo Chung is a high school valedictorian who moved to the United States with her family from South Korea when she was seven years old. She has legal permanent residency but is currently being hunted by ICE for participating in one pro-Palestinian protest. She had no public or organizational role in that or any other demonstration.

On March 5, Chung was one of a handful of protestors who were given a misdemeanor ticket while protesting the expulsion of three students from Barnard, Columbia’s sister college. She had never been arrested before that event or since then. She did not participate in any unlawful activity on the day of her arrest or on any other day. The NYPD issued her a desk appearance ticket and released her that day.

For that, she's currently in hiding from Trump's Brownshirts. Her lawsuit against Trump, Rubio, Noem and Bondi details the efforts of ICE to frighten her parents and bully the university, seeking her lease agreements, travel documents and immigration records.

Let's be clear to all of Trump's bootlickers in this forum : The excuses you've spewed out on Mahmoud Khalil don't work with Yunseo Chung. You're going to have to weasel twice as hard to "explain away" this latest illegal action by a lawless White House. A lawyer in the Administration told Ms. Chung’s attorney that the secretary of state, Mr. Rubio, had revoked Ms. Chung’s visa. Her lawyer responded Ms. Chung wasn't in the country on a visa and was a permanent resident.

According to the lawsuit, he was told Rubio had “revoked that” as well. They're just making up shit as they go along.

[David Nieporent]

Deporting people who came to the U.S. as kids is terrible, and deporting people based solely on the whim of Marco Rubio is terrible. But she did not "participate in one pro-Palestinian protest," but many, and you don't have to credulously repeat her self-serving claims that she wasn't doing anything illegal when she was arrested.

[Commenter_XY]

There is nothing to explain. The hamas harpy can cheer for hamas from South Korea. Her presence and advocacy for a terror group (hamas) is contrary to our foreign policy interest. In this case, our interest in trying to obtain freedom for American hostages being held by hamas, and which those demonstrations made more difficult, if not impossible.

Yunseo Chung goes home to South Korea.

[David Nieporent]

Her home is the United States, and whatever she did had no impact on our foreign policy interests. Spite is not a policy.

[Commenter_XY]

Bullshit, Chung and the other harpies like her repeatedly demonstrated their support for hamas in gaza. That is absolutely contrary to our stated foreign policy: full stop.

She goes.

I am very disappointed you don't see that the pro hamas rallies here make it more difficult to negotiate the release of American hostages.

[David Nieporent]

You've repeatedly demonstrated your support for Russia in Ukraine, which was absolutely contrary to our stated foreign policy, but I don't think you should be punished for it either.

Pro hamas rallies here have no effect on negotiating the release of American hostages. And if they did, well, there are plenty of American citizens at those rallies, so how would deporting her help?

[ThePublius]

Wait a sec - is Russia a designated terrorist state or organization? Are we at war with Russia, or have otherwise declared them an enemy or combatant?

Not the same thing, David.

BTW, what, exactly, is our "stated foreign policy" with regard to Russia? Who stated it? Can you cite it, or quote it?

[Commenter_XY]

David, you won't weasel your way out of this one. Chung is a foreign alien who supports a terror group, hamas. She can do that from South Korea. The faster she is deported, the better.

And by all means, televise the deportation all the way to the deportation plane. I want every resident alien to see the deportation, far and wide. You do not support terror groups who kill Americans and hold them hostage, and stay here.

There are millions who will happily take her place, and not support terror groups.

[David Nieporent]

C_XY, you are trying to weasel your way out of this one. Chung is a permanent resident of the United States who has been here since she was six years old.

[ThePublius]

So what? She can still be deported, no?

[David Nieporent]

For some things, yes. Whether she can be deported solely for her speech is very much an open question.

[ThePublius]

She was arrested, for presumably more than just speech.

"Yunseo Chung, 21, a women’s studies major who emigrated to the US with her family from South Korea as a child, was charged with obstructing governmental administration and issued a desk appearance ticket by the NYPD after her March 5 arrest at the Barnard College sit-in."

"“Yunseo Chung has engaged in concerning conduct, including when she was arrested by NYPD during a pro-Hamas protest at Barnard College,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement."

https://nypost.com/2025/03/25/us-news/columbia-junior-yunseo-chung-engaged-in-concerning-conduct-dhs/

[David Nieporent]

She was arrested, for presumably more than just speech.

Not much more. She says she did nothing wrong and was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, but assuming we don't believe her, it was something like failing to disperse. Regardless (a) it's not a crime that renders her inadmissible; and (b) she hasn't been convicted anyway.

[ThePublius]

One needn't be convicted to be deported, depending on the alleged crime, an arrest is sufficient.

[David Nieporent]

One needn't be convicted to be deported, depending on the alleged crime, an arrest is sufficient.

There are certain offenses that render one inadmissible even w/o a conviction, but they still require (depending on which crimes) admission of the offense or that the government has a reasonable basis to believe the offense was committed. But this isn't one of those types of offenses so that's irrelevant here.

[Commenter_XY]

permanent resident = foreign alien

[not guilty]

permanent resident = foreign alien = person entitled to due process and equal protection of law

[ThePublius]

Surprisingly perhaps, no. One needn't be convicted to be deported, an arrest is sufficient, depending on the crime alleged.

[not guilty]

As I have written elsewhere on this thread, SCOTUS has expressly rejected the contention that aliens within our borders are not subject to constitutional due process and equal protection guaranties:

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). The Court there elaborated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: `Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo [v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,] 369 [(1886).]

457 U.S. at 212 (italics supplied in Plyler).

The First Amendment guaranty of free speech is encompassed within the liberty protected by the Due Process clauses. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160 (1939). Suppression of speech or expression based on content or subject matter violates both First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 463 (1980); Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). "When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995).

[tylertusta]

Mr. Guilty, 'equal protection of law' isn't the same as aliens having protections equal to citizens in all situations, including under the 1st Amendment.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, she is going home to South Korea, with due process.

She picked the wrong cause to agitate for, publicly. I have no sympathy for hamas harpies who cheer on Judeocidal terrorists. They go home.

There are millions who will take her place and not support Judeocidal terrorists.

[not guilty]

"Mr. Guilty, 'equal protection of law' isn't the same as aliens having protections equal to citizens in all situations, including under the 1st Amendment."

I realize that. An alien can lawfully be excluded from entry into the United States because of expression of his political views. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Once within American borders, however, an alien is entitled to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-212 (1982).

The aliens at issue in Plyler were here illegally, but nevertheless were entitled to the constitutional protections at issue. Deportation of legal permanent residents such as Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung because of their exercise of First Amendment rights would be a clear cut violation of Due Process. "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country." Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945). So is Equal Protection. “These [Due Process and Equal Protection] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).

[not guilty]

"She picked the wrong cause to agitate for, publicly. I have no sympathy for hamas harpies who cheer on Judeocidal terrorists. They go home."

Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud, XY, but deporting the young woman for speaking out in support of Hamas is just as wrong (and every bit as unconstitutional) as it would be to deport a resident alien for speaking out in support of the government of Israel. "Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995).

[TaioF920]

No, her home in South Korea, at least until she became a citizen. Why didn't her parents apply for citizenship when she first became eligible, or in the alternative, why didn't she apply when she turned 18?

[Martinned2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)

[tylertusta]

Her home is the United States

I'm just shocked- SHOCKED- that you'd abandon pedantry and legalistic arguments when it suits your purposes.

[David Nieporent]

No abandoning. Her home is the United States. One's home is the place one lives. Her country of citizenship may be South Korea, but she does not live in South Korea. She hasn't lived in South Korea since she was a little kid.

[Martinned2]

Martinned has entered the chat...

[Bwaaah]

Team: Thoughts on taking Canada after lunch on Friday?

[Commenter_XY]

Only as a territory, heh. Not the 51st state. Greenland can be the 51st state. /sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Many Bothans were inadvertently included in the Signal Char to bring us this information.

[ThePublius]

I don't know what this means. What's a "Bothan?" What's a "Signal Char?"

[David Nieporent]

The "Char" is probably a typo for "Chat." The overall statement is a star wars allusion.

[Magister]

"Char" is the Bothan spelling for "Chat"; also, many Bothans died in a pointless argument about how "Char" should be pronounced.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The level of information the Trump Administration is collecting caught my eye:

"New Trump demand to colleges: Name protesters — and their nationalities"

It also demanded these students’ “national origin/ethnicity/shared ancestry,” in addition to other details about how their cases were handled.

https://archive.ph/nfR0x

The collection of such information is allegedly warranted in some cases, apparently.

[ducksalad]

If it makes you feel any better, the feds have compiled this kind of information all along.

What's different is the open demand that universities cooperate, and the willingness to act on information that's well short of any serious criminal offense.