Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Two Venezuelan men in immigration custody in Orange County, New York have sued for habeas corpus relief in the Southern District of New York seeking to prevent their imminent removal under the President’s Proclamation—signed in secret on March 14, 2025, and published the next day—invoking the Alien Enemies Act. They seek relief on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated to them based on eight distinct claims -- six of them statutory in nature. https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/04/Petition-for-Habeas.pdf

Senior Judge Alvin Hellerstein has ordered that:

The parties are hereby ordered to appear for a hearing on Petitioners' motion for a temporary restraining order on April 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. In the meantime, and until ordered otherwise, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Petitioners shall neither be removed from the United States, nor transferred out of this District, unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., MK. v. Joyce, 25 Civ. 1935 (JMF), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45048, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 10, 2025); Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. New York Shipping Ass 'n, 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction."). No later than today, April 8, 2025, Petitioners' counsel is directed (1) to serve Respondents with a copy of the petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and by overnight mail; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance. SO ORDERED.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57572514/GFF_et_al_v_Trump_et_al

This filing appears to be fully consistent with the Supreme Court's order of April 7, 2025. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f0bf5a4cf01792c3/3ebf1173-full.pdf

The habeas petitioners seek certification of a class consisting of all noncitizens in immigration custody who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation." The criteria for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b) appear to be met:

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:

(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:

(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or

(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:

(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

[Commenter_XY]

Doesn't this fail on (a) (1)?

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable

There are only a few thousand TdA members, not millions. Eminently do-able by the courts. No need for a class, criminal TdA members, largely illegal aliens, can argue their habeus cases individually.

One way or the other, NG, these criminals, largely illegal aliens, will leave this country and go home.

Can each individual case be required to post bond under rule 65c?

[Martinned2]

There are only a few thousand TdA members, not millions.

You may want to be careful there. It's only a matter of time before the official Trump line is that there are indeed millions of TdA members.

[PaulS]

Aren't they in a catch 22
If there enough to be "to numerous" couldn't that be used as evidence of an invasion etc - if there's not too many then the class action fails?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[not guilty]

"There are only a few thousand TdA members, not millions. Eminently do-able by the courts."

The proposed class is not TdA members. It is "all noncitizens in immigration custody who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation."

Please tell us, XY, how the District Court should go about identifying and joining "a few thousand" or more plaintiffs.

[Riva]

The only common issue in these habeas proceedings would be whether the illegal is a member of TdA. The president’s finding to remove these animals is not open to review. That issue would be specific to the illegal before the court. A class certification would be inappropriate here.

[David Nieporent]

And this seems like it would be pretty high up there, in terms of how defamatory the statement in question was.

That's literally the one thing that's not common. The common issue is whether the AEA can cover something which is plainly not a government doing something which is plainly not an invasion.

[Riva]

Looks like your troll algorithm scooped up the wrong comment. That wasn’t my comment you’re quoting you clown.

[David Nieporent]

It was your comment I was responding to; I just had the wrong thing on my clipboard. Since you're totally confused by this simple error, I will repost with the correct quote:

The only common issue in these habeas proceedings would be whether the illegal is a member of TdA.

That's literally the one thing that's not common. The common issue is whether the AEA can cover something which is plainly not a government doing something which is plainly not an invasion.

[Riva]

"Doesn't this fail on (a) (1)?"

So, that they're all TdA enemy aliens isn't something they have in common? You're even more of a clown than I gave you credit for. In fact, I apologize to clowns for equating them with you.

And I added the irrelevant quote chosen at random because that seems to be something clowns like. You'r welcome.

[David Nieporent]

So, that they're all TdA enemy aliens isn't something they have in common?

That is correct. Most of them are not TdA at all. And as the Court explained in WalMart v. Dukes, the real question is whether there are common answers, not whether there are common questions.

[Riva]

Walmart? What the F? We're talking about gangbanger enemy aliens. The EO isn't directed towards illegals working at retail outlets.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, we're talking about people that racist POS automatically assume are "gangbangers" because they're hispanic.

I forgot that you don't understand how court cases work, but WalMart is a Supreme Court case that elucidates the 23(a) commonality standard for class certification. It applies to all class actions, not only cases involving WalMart employees.

[Riva]

I forgot that you're an imbecilic clown and wit is wasted on imbeciles. What we're talking about is trying to inappropriate use a class action mechanism to undermine the president's order under the enemy aliens act. Such procedures are not proper in habeas proceedings in this context.

[not guilty]

"The only common issue in these habeas proceedings would be whether the illegal is a member of TdA. The president’s finding to remove these animals is not open to review. That issue would be specific to the illegal before the court. A class certification would be inappropriate here."

That is horseshit, Riva. There is a common issue as to whether there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government. There is a common issue as to whether there is any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States. If so, there is a common issue as to whether such invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened by any foreign nation or government.

If those threshold issues are satisfied, there is a common issue as to the specific nature of what notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case," Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950), is due to the detainees. There is a common issue as to what manner of notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before any removal occurs.

[Riva]

Declared war? What the @#$ are you talking about? There is no requirement for a “declared war” in the statute. There is no such limitation on the president’s constitutional and statutory power to protect the nation from the TdA enemy aliens.

[windycityattorney]

Every single case that has looked at the history of the AEA has concluded its based solely on Congress' war powers.

And the language about predatory incursions by a nation or government would have to be read in conjunction with and in harmony with the rest of the statute which is about war and hostile nations/governments.

Everything in this damn administration is an emergency and everything is exaggerated to extremes to a single end. To accumulate power in the executive. Tariffs, clear cutting national forests or mining them for coal, ending environmental regulations, immigration policy, economic policy, literally fucking everything. Its ridiculous and even this US Sup Ct isn't going to put up with it forever.

[Riva]

Not what the statute says sport. And not in practice either.

[not guilty]

"Declared war? What the @#$ are you talking about? There is no requirement for a 'declared war' in the statute. There is no such limitation on the president’s constitutional and statutory power to protect the nation from the TdA enemy aliens."

Have you actually read 50 U.S.C. § 21, Riva? It states:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety. [Emphasis added.]

Sure it's phrased in the disjunctive, but either a declared war or an invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government is an essential prerequisite to invocation of the statute.

And you are merely begging the question as to whether Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang, is akin to a foreign nation or government. As I said, there are issues common to all members of the proposed class as to whether there is any invasion or predatory incursion which is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, and if so, whether such invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened by any foreign nation or government.

[Riva]

The EO explains why this is a predatory incursion by parties associated with the Venezuelan government. Do yourself a favor: read it and stop embarrassing yourself.

[David Nieporent]

The EO is a lie. HTH.

[Riva]

Go back to your Walmart case

[ReaderY]

The President’s findings on these points absolutely are open to review. Ludecke, which involved an interned German enemy alien who petitioned for release after the WWII armistice claiming the war had ended, made this point clear. The Supreme Court looked at the statutory terms. Because there had been a declared war, no peace treaty, and US troops were still in Europe as an occupation army, the Court said the “declared war” prong prerequisites were met and stopped there.

While what the conditions for the prong without a declared war may be did not come up in Ludecke, Ludecke nonetheless made it clear that federal courts have authority to review whether a Presidential proclamation complies with the statutory terms in all cases. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent per curiam opinion reiterated that federal courts sitting as habeas courts have authority to determine both whether the AEA statutory terms were met and whether those terms are constitutional.

[Riva]

Nope. Not on this question.

[ReaderY]

The key common issue is whether the AEA authorized the President to issue this proclamation. This requires asessing whether the statutory requirements were met. Since there is no declared war, the key questions are:

1. Whether what TdA is doing constitutes an “invasion” or a “predatiory incursion” as distinct from ordinary non-military criminal activity (smuggling etc.)

2. Whether TdA’s activities constitute activities by a “foreign government.”

The petititioners’ lawyers would be incompetent if they didnmt hotly dispute both inssues in this case.

Whether or not class actions are available in habeas cases at all is a separate question. But if they are, I don’t think there can be any question that these issues are common to everyone covered by the Proclamation.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, so your question is how do we separate the crap (TdA) from the larger group. I propose letting DHS do their job and identify the soon to be deported illegal (mostly) alien gangbangers by various means; physical tattoos, informants, electronic monitoring, foreign eavesdropping, etc., present it to the judge. Hell, we could do it in Gitmo.

If it is anything like the government getting a FISA warrant from the FISA Court, then this process is just like getting a rubber stamp. Very efficient. I'd foresee at least 98% of these hearings to result in, C-Ya! Bailiff next case, as the resolution.

And then deport them to Venezuela where they can be met with hugs and whatnot from Maduro.

[David Nieporent]

If it is anything like the government getting a FISA warrant from the FISA Court,

It is not.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Unless one asserts a special dislike for Salvadorans and Venezuelans, I think the people currently doing the deporting are the ones who know best who is MS-13 or Tren de Aragua.

I know, Pelosi called those murderers cute but they are killers
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSF_kIWAlwHX9VVmaeOCE9aIgq6FxCesV3gew&s

[David Nieporent]

Unless one asserts a special dislike for Salvadorans and Venezuelans, I think the people currently doing the deporting are the ones who know best who is MS-13 or Tren de Aragua.

Because…?

[David Nieporent]

There are only a few thousand TdA members, not millions. Eminently do-able by the courts. No need for a class, criminal TdA members, largely illegal aliens, can argue their habeus cases individually.

The numerosity requirement for class certification is normally deemed satisfied by 40 putative class members. 40 is notably less than "a few thousand."

[Kazinski]

Which really shows that this is a side show.

I can almost guarantee he Administration loves the publicity these lawsuits are giving them, over 0.01% of Illegal immigrants.

They are probably getting 10,000 self deportations for every TdA member on that plane.

[Sarcastr0]

'The thing to focus on is that this lawlessness is such good politics!'

Whether or not you're right, this is a pretty awful way to be.

[TaioF920]

No, what's awful is that millions of illegals are in this country, and that the American people have been sold out for decades.

The people NEVER wanted this. The left's open borders fanatics and the right's cheap labor traitors conspired against the American people.

[SRG2]

"The people never wanted this" but they did want cheap groceries, home construction, lawn services, etc.

[TaioF920]

Yeah, they wanted those things because they no longer had the incomes to pay for non-cheap versions of those, because mass immigration pushed wages down.

[David Nieporent]

I know this is just a racist troll talking, but it's also a lying one. Nobody had the incomes to pay for those before, because we were all a lot poorer. Having a lawn service was for the rich, nor for ordinary middle class people.

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

lmao bullshit. Half my childhood of mowing lawns over summers in my lower middle class neighborhood didn't happen!

[Bob from Ohio]

"ordinary middle class people"

A small percentage of ordinary middle class people use a lawn service. Its still a luxury.

[Mr. Bumble]

Everyone David knows in Whitelandia uses a lawn service.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's true that the "lawn service" was the neighbor's kid cutting the grass for $2. That sort of thing, like paper routes and the after-school job, seems to have disappeared, but idk if immigration caused that.

[David Nieporent]

Immigration didn't cause it; wealth did. You're not going to get a kid to do it for $2. Maybe add a 0 on the end.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I know this is just a racist troll talking

"Everyone with an opinion different from mine is a racist."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, that's inflation.

When I was a kid I don't think I ever saw a lawn service, everybody that didn't do their own had some kid do it. Now it's the other way around. Also, papers are delivered by adults in vehicles instead of kids on foot, and idk of a high school kid that works at McDonalds or the supermarket, when I was a kid that was the norm.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The people never wanted this" but they did want cheap groceries, home construction, lawn services, etc."

The people never wanted this but they did want serfs is quite an argument.

Among other things, you do know most people don't use lawn services, etc.

[SRG2]

Funny how you cultists focused on lawn services and ignored the other far more significant items.

Because you can't argue against those.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another "I want serfs" open borders cultist.

[Life of Brian]

Here's a FRED plot of CPI vs. construction wages over the past 45 years. The slight sag in wages starting around 1985 pretty much disappeared around 2019-2020.

And that's not even factoring in the atrocious drop in overall workmanship over that time frame.

[SRG2]

Bob: it's not I who want open-border serfs - it's you lot who want cheap farmworkers, cheap labourers, cheap meatpackers, etc. often enough paid wages so low that Americans won't do those jobs.

Ponting out what other people want doesn't mean I want it.

[David Nieporent]

but they did want serfs

I don't want people hanging out on my lawn, let alone being bound to it.

[Kazinski]

Funny that, Biden opened the borders let an unprecedented flood of illegals in, and then we got inflation shooting up to 9%.

I'm not blaming the inflation on illegals, but it didn't seem to help.

[Kazinski]

Lawlessness?

He just had two wins in the Supreme Court, on procedural issues admittedly, but wins that let him go forward nevertheless.

Funny definition of Lawlessness.

[David Nieporent]

Um, he lost at SCOTUS — I know everyone freaked out because Boasberg was overturned, and the 5th Circuit is a much more GOP-friendly jurisdiction. His position was that he could deport anyone without even giving them advance notice, let alone a hearing. All 9 justices rejected that.

[Kazinski]

So the planes finally have to turn around?

The DOJ brief conceded that they were entitled to habeas, in fact that was their big hook, the APA couldn't be used because they had habeas available.

The Court completely embraced the DOJ's argument:

habeas not APA
No jurisdiction in DC, only district of confinement.
And no repatriation of the deportees.

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ conceded that they could file habeas petitions, but not that they were entitled to the notice to give them a chance to file habeas petitions. Trump lost 9-0 on that.

[Kazinski]

If that's the worst setback that Trump gets on the issue then he will be quite happy.

But your buddy Hellerstein has been passed the baton now, and Boasberg is sitting on the bench, in more ways than one. Maybe Hellerstein can make the habeas class and nationwide injunction thing work better than Boasberg could using the APA.

But I will say one more time, I think 90% of the benefit Trump got from the AEA was from self deportations and as long as the AEA remains on the table that benefit will continue.

[Life of Brian]

I think 90% of the benefit Trump got from the AEA was from self deportations and as long as the AEA remains on the table that benefit will continue.

100% agree. Habeas gives some level of process and can be useful on the rare occasion they really did "get the wrong guy," but for the rest it's not even a very effective stall tactic and they'd probably prefer to make their own luck rather than ending up in their skivvies with a buzz cut.

[David Nieporent]

But I will say one more time, I think 90% of the benefit Trump got from the AEA was from self deportations and as long as the AEA remains on the table that benefit will continue.

Not understanding the logic here. Illegal immigrants were already subject to deportation, so why would the AEA make them any more likely to leave?

And people here legally have no incentive to leave because of the AEA.

[David Nieporent]

If that's the worst setback that Trump gets on the issue then he will be quite happy.

Trump isn't even smart enough to know the difference. But Stephen Miller, who is, will not in fact be happy. The plan was to sneak people out of the country. That plan has now been upended.

[Kazinski]

Did you see the video of the TdA members being greeted and processed in El Salvador?

Sure if they have their immigration attorneys on speed dial they can reassure them, maybe, if they have one.

Add to that the latest announcement that the Trump administration is going to start enforcing the statutory daily fines for ignoring a removal order amounting to about 1000 per diem.

So if you've been working saving money, they are going to seize all your assets before you go, unless you leave now, voluntarily.

Another big stick incentivizing self deportation.

Not to mention even normal non criminal illegals are subject to detention if apprehended.

[Drewski]

Class action threshold: Exists

Kaz: "This proves the case is a sideshow! Checkmate!"

[Kazinski]

The class of TdA members subject to AEA will be vanishingly small, especially in relation to the total population of illegal aliens. Even if there are 10,000 TdA members subject to AEA, which I highly doubt, that's 0.1% of 10 million.

Or are you claiming a large percentage of the Illegal aliens are violent gang members?

[David Nieporent]

Again, this isn't about illegal aliens. Illegal aliens can already be deported without the need to resort to the AEA. The purpose of the AEA invocation is to allow him to deport people who are here legally and haven't broken any laws here.

[Commenter_XY]

Not so. The EO explicitly names TdA as the target of the proclamation.

I agree Illegal aliens can already be deported without the need to resort to the AEA.

AEA facilitates the process of getting TdA members off American soil.

[not guilty]

XY, why do you suppose your hero is scared shitless of having to adduce actual, admissible evidence that Tren de Aragua is a foreign nation or government?

HINT: that's because it is not.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, it is in litigation now. The Fed Gov will have to make their case.

I just think the class part is BS. Litigate each case separately.

[not guilty]

The Trump administration is fighting furiously to avoid having to present actual evidence of its claims.

Judge Hellerstein in New York has certified a class, for purposes of this habeas action, designated as follows: All noncitizens in U.S. custody in the Southern District of New York who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation, who have not been given notice following the Supreme Court's decision of April 7, 2025, Trump v. JG.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, and granted a hearing. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57572514/GFF_et_al_v_Trump_et_al

Judge Rodriguez in Texas hasn't yet addressed class certification, but he has enjoined the Respondents from transferring, relocating, or removing the individual Petitioners or any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation, from the El Valle Detention Center; and Respondents are enjoined from transporting such persons outside of Willacy County or Cameron County, Texas, without an Order from the Court. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.12.0.pdf

XY, what criteria of Federal Rule 23 regarding class actions, if any, do you contend is not met?

[Kazinski]

"here legally"

You mean the Temporary Protected Status that Biden conferred by Autopen that Trump revoked.

And sure they are trying to contest that in the courts too.

[Drewski]

I'm saying you're a moron for declaring that an incidental, preexisting rule proves an unrelated point. It was a dumb thing to say. Just a total non-sequitur.

[Commenter_XY]

This is correct = I can almost guarantee he Administration loves the publicity these lawsuits are giving them, over 0.01% of Illegal immigrants.

The more Team D defends illegal alien gangbangers, drug dealers, rapists, murderers and thieves, the better. They're lining up on the 20 side of 80/20 yet again.

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

>signed in secret on March 14, 2025, and published the next day

Look at this unserious clown.

[tylertusta]

A class action habeas case? Has this happened before?

[William of Brooklyn]

I believe Jennings v Rodriguez (2018) was a class action habeas case. However, the class lost.

[John F. Carr]

I am biased towards a class action because I think the government loses on the common question of law and fact: is there is a present invasion that gives Trump statutory authorty to remove aliens? Otherwise the status of each petitioner as a forbidden person needs to be adjudicated. That is an individual rather than class determination. Some detained people might be removable on alternative grounds. If I don't assume success on the common question the cases should be tried separately.

The courts could consolidate a thousand habeas petitions into one pretrial proceeding to decide whether being a gang member is cause for deportation, and if so whether tattoos are prima facie evidence.

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

Yes there is a present invasion facilitated by the previous administration as indicated by the skyrocketing number of illegals being issued SSN's.

[David Nieporent]

There are no illegals being issued SSNs.

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

lol sure, just like there are no illegals voting...

lmao get real

[BBSquatter]

He meant to write, in Tony Fauci's voice,

"2 weeks to flatten the curve US Border"

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, just like there's no such thing as birth tourism.

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen anecdotes.

And a ton of confident pronouncements from the types who want landmines on the border.

So far, not looking well supported.

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

And here Gaslightr0 pretends there isn't anyone effected by Trump's solid interpretation of birthright citizenship...

lmao " just a few anecdotes" the govie has seen! 1 or 2 babies effected, why all the outrage? lmao

[David Nieporent]

Are you confusing the fake anchor baby argument with the fake birth tourism argument?

[Brett Bellmore]

I realize that just flatly denying things that can be proven in seconds is kind of your whole gig here, but isn't an embarrassing gig at times?

[David Nieporent]

Have you shown any data at all regarding supposed birth tourism? Any?

Here's a simple question: how many people each year spend $100,000 and then trick immigration officials into letting them in to give birth so that their kids will be U.S. citizens? (I'm looking for real numbers here, not unsourced estimates like with the plastic straws thing.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I guess you're incapable of embarrassment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Me linking to a company that literally provides birth tourism services is hardly an "anecdote". It's actually a major international market.

[DaveM]

A "class" of "individuals" is a non sequitur. The whole point of a habeus hearing is to adjudicate the legal status of each individual.

[David Nieporent]

And there can be common threshold questions of law or fact that are pertinent to said legal status.

[Kazinski]

The Urban League has put out what they call a "Demographics Adjusted" graph of NAEP school scores by state.

Surprisingly Mississippi is number 1 on the adjusted rankings.
https://x.com/panickssery/status/1909333745091723524?t=nJaLClaFbj1WETKFdhIIzA&s=19

In fact Red states are 7 of the top 10, and 1 purple state. MA and IL are the only 2 blue states on the list.

Why are Red States so much better at educating brown children? Although 4 of the 10 worst are also Red States, with one purple.

More here:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/kids-reading-scores-have-soared-in-mississippi-miracle

[Martinned2]

Interesting. Tell me more about how they did that adjustment.

[Kazinski]

It's here:
"For nearly 10 years, the Urban Institute has published adjusted scores that capture how well students in each state score on the NAEP compared with demographically similar students around the country. We determine these adjustments by calculating how each individual student who takes the NAEP scores relative to students nationwide who are the same gender, age, and race or ethnicity and have the same free and reduced-price lunch receipt status, special education status, and English language learner status."

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/states-demographically-adjusted-performance-2024-national-assessment

What is remarkable about Mississippi's improvements in the last decade or so is that Mississippi not only has the highest Black %, its also by most measures the poorest state. And its overall unadjusted rating is in the middle of the pack, which is a major accomplishment for them.

What's amusing is one of the cutting edge techniques they are using, if you read the PBS article, is phonics which used to be standard, hen they stopped teaching it in most places.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have many problems with their methods, starting with there being a very big difference between 200% of the poverty rate (how they define "poor") and 20% of the poverty rate (how HUD defines "poor").

What I'd do is have a raw score on just father living in the home, and then adjust further with SPED and ELL and Medicid percentages, and publish both.

[David Nieporent]

HUD does not in fact define poor as "20% of the poverty rate."

[Joe_dallas]

DN catches a typo

[David Nieporent]

There was no typo; Dr. Ed just made something up.

[Joe_dallas]

20 vs 200

It was a typo
Just a typical deflection from DN

[jb]

It's probably helpful to go and look at the words around the numbers in the original post. Not sure how you think that Dr Ed 2 is arguing that there's a big difference between 200 and 200.

[David Nieporent]

It was not a typo, moron. He was contrasting 20 v 200.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - you a possibly correct - Re - Reading Dr Ed's comment shows that DN's response was completely off the rails from what Ed stated. but the deflection and distortion of DNs reply is typical.

[Frank Drackman]

"Adjusted for Demographics"??
My Med School does that, if you're a certain umm, "Hue" they double your MCAT score, while you're in College they'll bring you down in the Summer for a shortened version of what you'll take 1st and 2d year, (all "Pass/Fail" now, so it's easier to sneak somebody across the finish line)
My Intergrated Ali-bama Pubic High Screwel was about 50/50 Black White, except for PE (more like 90/10) and lets see, Senior Year I took Algebra 3 with Trigonometry, Physics, Anatomy & Physiology, English Literature (Admittedly, no Grammar), and the Highest History course, each with only 1 Black Screw-dent (yes, the same guy, a Dermatologist now)
Of course now it's like 99 to 1 Black to White (those have to be the 20 toughest White guys in Ali-bama)

Frank

[shawn_dude]

This is an interesting and useful approach for some use cases. But imagine the right wing outrage if this sort of method was used by universities to rank applicants for acceptance...

[Kazinski]

Well of course it wouldn't be useful for ranking applicants, because those are individuals, ranking individuals on their race is absurd as ranking them on "reduced-price lunch receipt status, special education status, and English language learner status" for University Admissions.

But as I have long said, if you want to fix racial disparities in higher education then you have to start in primary, middle School, and High School. Trying to do it by admission formulas is just ignoring and exacerbating the real problem.

And Mississippi is showing how to start going about that.

[shawn_dude]

Is it, though? "Reduced-price lunch receipt status," for example, is nothing but a proxy measure of household income. Mississippi is shifting the grading curve to consider various things that impact learning opportunities in order to measure outcomes. A university that wanted to focus on a student's ability to learn for admissions could use similar measures ranking them against their peers. Meaning students with the highest absolute scores on tests would find themselves competing for admissions slots against kids with lower absolute scores but equivalent ranking based on their location and backgrounds.

[Kazinski]

Yes, and mismatch theory explains why that is a bad idea.

Thomas Sowell used MIT as an example decades ago, where Black students in the 90th percentile nationally in math would be admitted to MIT where then they would find themselves in the bottom 10% of their class at MIT, and would then struggle and drop out. Being in the 90th percentile or even 99th won't cut it when the rest of the students are in the 99.9th. The rest of the class is just moving too fast to keep up with.

If those same student's were admitted to a State University where most engineering students are anyway, then they would be in the middle or even upper tiers of their STEM peers and have a much greater success rate.

It just depends on your goal, more Black Engineers and STEM graduates, or making MIT's freshman demographics look better until the quota admissions start dropping out?

And to be clear Mississippi is not shifting the grading curve to consider those other factors, that would defeat the whole effort of having clear unambiguous standards and holding the students to them.

Mississippi is reporting absolute standards on standardized reading tests, and requiring all students to meet the standards or be held back.

The Urban Institute reanalyzed the data and presented it based on the demographic standards, which I agree is useful information.

[shawn_dude]

You've shifted the narrative here. I don't think discussions on the way universities can include factors like race and gender into admissions practices should be based on top-tier schools like MIT or the Ivies. Those schools are all outliers. Your response seems to acknowledge that using race as part of an admissions decision could work for the vast majority of universities in the US as those are all state-run schools.

Mississippi is most certainly shifting the curve as it pertains to declaring success. The individual students have their own absolute scores, but the state as a whole is trying to claim they aren't really one of the worst states for education once they factor in race and other data that would otherwise open up any university admissions department to claims of discrimination. That is what I find ironic here.

[Kazinski]

No.

Mississippi did not "claim they aren't really one of the worst states for education once they factor in race and other data".

First of all Mississippi in the top tier of states by unadjusted NAEP for 4th grade reading skills, performing "significantly better" using unadjusted scores.

Second, once again, Mississippi didn't issue the report, or adjust the scores, the Urban Institute did, and they have no connection to Mississippi.

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=NP&chort=1&sub=RED&sj=&st=MN&year=2024R3

You seem a little deficient in basic reading skills, twice claiming it was Mississippi adjusting the scores and issuing the report. They had no involvement in the assessment.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2025/04/08/panama-files-criminal-charges-against-chinese-linked-canal-port-owner-for-breach-of-contract/

[Martinned2]

Criminal charges for breach of contract? Who is confused there, Breitbart or Panama?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Comptroller General of Panama Anel Flores on Monday announced that he would file a criminal complaint against Panama Ports Company (PPC), a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Hutchison Port Holdings, on accusations of breach of contract over the two ports it manages at the Panama Canal.

Flores, during a press conference, stated that an audit of PPC launched by his office this year found that the company, which operates two ports at opposite ends of the Panama Canal, found evidence of breaches of contract that amount to more than $300 million losses to the Panamanian state.

Flores further accused Panama’s Maritime Authority (AMP) of “misrepresenting” financial figures and will therefore file criminal lawsuits against the company’s board and the authorities responsible for the 25-year renewal of PPC’s concession."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just because breach of contract isn't criminal under US law doesn't mean it can't be under the law of a foreign state.

Seems to me that Trump had some legitimate concerns...

[Martinned2]

Well? Are you all excited about the military parade Trump is going to organise for his birthday?

https://apnews.com/article/military-parade-dc-trump-9ca70b018fe4f663ecaaf993d1b45a59

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was for the US military's 250th anniversary. What a coincidence.

[Martinned2]

Yes, indeed, extraordinary coincidence that the anniversary of the military is exactly on the Great Leader's birthday!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, coincidences happen.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Lou Gehrig dying from Lou Gehrig's disease, weird.

[John 4]

Hahaha WORM.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's an apologist for this shit, too it seems.

Not as damaging as most of Trump's stuff, it's still needless, wasteful, and got that wanna be dictator thing gonig.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto -- if we can celebrate Juneteenth -- when slavery did NOT end -- we can celebrate Trump's birthday. I presume that Trump really was born on that day so at least we are celebrating something that actually happened...

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Dr. Ed: "If we can celebrate something good, what's wrong with celebrating something bad?"

[TaioF920]

The end of slavery, as implemented, was not good, as the freed slaves were allowed to remain in America. The American Colonization Society had it right.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that I'm apologizing for it, as I just consider it to be stupid. Oh, dear, a military parade! Next thing up will be death camps, for sure! [/sarc]

And, guess what: The US Army WAS founded on June 14, 1775, 250 years ago this year. If you look it up, it was even founded on that day before Trump was born! Because it really was founded 250 years ago this June 14th!

So, genuine coincidence. But, with only 365 days of the year available, the odds weren't that long.

[Martinned2]

So what we're getting to is that you're trying to gaslight us into believing that this parade would have still been held if it wasn't Trump's birthday?

[Brett Bellmore]

Why wouldn't there have been some sort of celebration? 250th anniversaries do usually get celebrated, after all.

We had a lot of celebrations 50 years ago, too, as I recall.

I suppose there wouldn't have been a parade if Harris had won the election, that much is likely true.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump talked about this, Trump asked for it, the military is doing it, and it's in Washington DC.

This has Trump's fingerprints on it, and it's amazing you even pretend to believe otherwise.

It's also going to be expensive. You, who caterwaul about the debt requiring the country be remade just how you want it, haven't said a peep. Unsurprising, but notable.

In the counterfactual would there have been a celebration. Likely, but not like this. This parade is Trump's creature, and your denials only show hoe much you will twist the facts to defend your guy.
Even as you laughably claim your defense isn't a defense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Geeze. All I'm disputing is the claim that it's celebrating Trump's birthday. The fact that June 14th, 2025 genuinely IS the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army should be enough to put that to bed.

Sure, Trump likes pomp, and pomp is expensive. If you actually cared about the government doing unnecessary expensive stuff, this would be so far down the list of concerns you'd get around to complaining about it in time for the 300th anniversary.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you're the hypocrite about the debt here.

[Bwaaah]

BDS.

Get back to me when you think we have a imminently threatening debt problem, and you have a viable plan for addressing it.

Otherwise, you're much ado about Brett.

[grb]

Bwaaah : " ....you have a viable plan for addressing it."

You're kidding, right? There's no mystery to addressing the deficit problem. It's not some insurmountable problem beyond all human understanding. All you have to do is look to what worked before - because it will again.

First, some history : The Clinton surpluses were built on two deficit reduction packages, one originating with WJC and an earlier bill passed during the term of G.H.W. Bush. Both were critical. I'm reluctant to credit the elder Bush more because he ran from his own accomplishment almost as soon as the ink dried & subsequently campaigned against it. He also spawned the son who would destroy every hard-earned gain towards fiscal probity, but we won't hold that against him. So what did the two bills do?

1. Cut spending (without chainsaws & blindfolds & frat bro pranksters)

2. Raised taxes - including general middle-class rates. Taxing the wealthy alone isn't enough.

3. Created strict structural requirements for spending cuts or tax hikes to offset any new spending or tax cuts.

4. Squeezed the growth of Medicaid & Medicare.

And that's pretty much it. Of Clinton had the greatest economic expansion of any recent president and that drove the surpluses over the top, but Reagan's was almost as good and he buried the country in debt. But the necessary measures are pretty simple. They just require both sides to accept measures they find painful.

Someone like Brett shows up here to fake-wail his phony-anguish on debt, but he'll never accept any compromise that denies his side a single thing they want. It's all just empty talk.

[Bwaaah]

grb: You are neither Sarcastr0, nor a ventriloquist. (But not a bad perspective you have there, I think.)

By preponderance of his comment history, Sarcastr0 has little concern or interest in our debt problems. But he has great interest in what Brett says, and in malicious interpretation of that.

You too show little commitment to good faith interpretation of Brett. It doesn't help when you argue against things Brett didn't actually say or imply, but that you inferred. You underestimate the parts Brett leaves unsaid, and how little they comport with your estimate of him. Such is a problem of malicious interpretation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Clinton surpluses were not actually surpluses; They were what the government calls "primary" surpluses, which is to say, surpluses if you ignore the cost of interest on the debt. Of course, nobody but the government ignores the cost of interest on a debt when determining if there is a surplus.

I will, however, grant that it was as close to a balanced budget as we've gotten in my lifetime.

The problem is that we only got that close due to a combination of the Dotcom stock market bubble, and the parties in Congress being at each other's throats over Clinton's scandals and how/whether to address them, to the point where they temporarily couldn't agree on how to increase spending to more than use up the income. Hard to duplicate that recipe...

I actually reserve most of my blame for the debt crisis for the GOP establishment, particularly Newt Gingrich. For a brief shining moment we had a chance to get a balanced budget amendment out of Congress to the states, and they deliberately squandered it.

[grb]

Bwaaah : "Sarcastr0 has little concern or interest in our debt problems"

Three Points:

1. Sarcastr0 regularly observes the right-wingers in this forum engage in gross hypocrisy, hysterical hyperbole, and inconsistency even a small child couldn't stomach. He generally does this with a light touch, eschewing harsh or bitter invective.

It's absolutely amazing how those mild and true observations drive you folk around the bend. There's much guilty conscience to be found in that overreaction.

2. For nearly forty years I was, yes, a Left Wing deficit hawk. I admit to being more jaded now because I got tired of inevitably being played by today's Right. Every single word they say about debt and deficits is a lie. Every. Single. Word. It took years, sacrifice, and painful compromise to cob-together the two bills that tamed the budget. George W. Bush destroyed every hard-gotten gain while right-wingers everywhere cheered. Obama offered Boehner the same kind of massive deficit reduction package passed before and was rebuffed. Hell, BHO had accepted the sequester because he assumed the GOP would compromise before military cuts. But they didn't care a bit. The only thing that mattered to them was servicing their wealthy supporters. And Trump was just elected after promising trillions in new debt at every campaign stop. It is just possible the Left might address the deficit again. It's impossible the Right will. Like Brett, all they do is make empty little speeches after voting for trillions more in debt.

3. So you tell me : In the last forty years there been both positive actions on the federal deficit and gross irresponsibility. How many of the prior actions do you think Brett voted for or supported? The answer is simple : None. How much of the latter actions did he whole-heartedly vote for or support? Many, if not most. Certainly ALL of the measures that brought trillions in new debt.

So why should I see his pretty little speeches as sincere?

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah loves to explain at length what I belive and feel.

It's generally wrong.

He's one of the few I have muted for being creepily overly personal towards me.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The Clinton surpluses were not actually surpluses..."

Thus begins a new Bellmorian dance. The Clinton surpluses are called surpluses because that's what they would have been called if they occurred before or after his presidency. That aside, the "substance" in Brett's comment is there's no substance.

Per Brett, we get a long list of reasons why the deficit reduction measures that tamed the budget before aren't possible now. But left unsaid is this : Brett didn't support them then and wouldn't even consider supporting them now. Every single word in his comment is a smokescreen to dance around that fact. He doesn't discuss a single measure because he can't. Per Brett, deficit reduction would be swell & peachy if it could happen by magic while the Right gets everything they want and makes no compromise. Besides that, he doesn't give the slightest damn about federal debt. After all, he still has his pretty little speeches to fall back on.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In the counterfactual would there have been a celebration. Likely, but not like this."

Counterfactual hypocrisy is the best hypocrisy.

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

His fellow govies spending $4.9B on furniture for offices they don't show up to?

Sarcastr0 says "not a waste".

A military parade to celebrate the military's 250th birthday?

Sarcastr0 clutches his pearls and whinges on how wasteful!

What a buffoon.

[Moderation4ever]

I don't really care. Trump needs to feed his ego so let him. I like to see him pay for it himself but other than that I don't really care. I not going to watch it and I suggest others do the same.

I do think DOGE should get to review the parade budget before it is planned.

[Frank Drackman]

For someone who doesn't really care, you seem to really care.

[windycityattorney]

The only questions relevant to this are: a) how much is Trump going to grift off of it and b) what form with the grift take?

Is he going to sell special 250th anniversary NFT's images of himself greased up and oiled? Or just the usual superhero muscled up ambiguously homo-erotic version? Special on his $Trumpcoin? 25k seats at a special viewing venue catered by one of his hotels? A package deal for the parade AND a free round of golf at one of his resorts?

[shawn_dude]

Well, that and the impact to our (diminishing) allies after the US has its first dictator-style military parade.

[windycityattorney]

People have been pointing out for a decade that Trump seems to have a weird fascination with and/or friendly relationship with autocratic leaders. From Putin to Kim Jong Un's love letters, to Viktor Orban to that psycho Duerte on trial at the Hague... there seems to be some type of fascination with strong-men.

The symbolism of this parade and dictator-style showing off, as it were, is certainly not lost on me. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together requires some bit of speculation and leaps of logic... but the leap really isn't that far. He emulates those he looks up to and the world leaders he looks up to are some of the world's biggest pieces of shit.

[Kazinski]

A German Journalist has been prosecuted and convicted for defamation for posting a meme about the German Interior Minster showing her holding a sign saying "I hate Freedom of Speech".

He was sentenced to 7 months in prison but they did suspend the sentence and gave him 7 months probation. He is appealing.

The Interior Minister personally filed the charges against him, proving his statement true beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/german-journalist-sentenced-to-seven

[Martinned2]

Criminal libel exists in the US too. And this seems like it would be pretty high up there, in terms of how defamatory the statement in question was.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, at least in the US, the truth is an absolute defense. Supposedly in Germany, too.

I suppose they're not considering the meme truthful because the Interior Minister never held up such a sign?

[Martinned2]

Presumably the falsity of the statement is an element of the crime, which the prosecution had to prove. Is there any reason why you might believe that Nancy Faeser does indeed hate free speech? Because it seems like a pretty serious matter to accuse a cabinet member of hating a fundamental freedom. I realise that in the US you guys are pretty cavalier about having senior cabinet officials who care about liberty, but in other countries if an accusation like this were true the person in question would have to resign immediately, or would never be appointed in the first place.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If they *supported* free speech they'd have to resign.

Maybe this German journalist can try and claim political asylum in the U. S. like the homeschooling family.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wikipedia gave me more information:

"After the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war, Faeser passed laws criminalizing alleged Hamas slogans, including "from the river to the sea". Liz Fekete criticized Faeser's interpretation that the slogan was uniquely linked to Hamas. Such a reading, according to Fekete, can be seen as "silencing Palestinians and smearing their aspirations".

"In July 2024 Faeser imposed a ban on the magazin[e] Compact arguing that the magazine worked against constitutional order. The editor-in-chief Jürgen Elsässer described the decision as "the worst invasion of press freedom in Germany."

[Brett Bellmore]

It's kind of a lawsuit in quantum superposition, isn't it? You prove the meme false by NOT filing libel charges.

[Martinned2]

Because the existence of defamation law proves there is no freedom of speech? Are you nuts?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — My estimate is that about 80–90% of the active commenters here do believe that mere civil enforcement of defamation law would mean their own expressive freedom had been unreasonably burdened. Maybe a third of that group think defamation law is not too bad, so long as it remains unenforceable as a practical matter. Pretty much the entire bunch think private editing prior to publication is an outrage, amounting (mysteriously) to government censorship.

[Martinned2]

That seems generous. I think most of these people think defamation law (and all other restrictions on speech) are fine, as long as it is used only against people they dislike. Free speech for mee but not for thee...

[David Nieporent]

Using defamation law to punish critics is anti-free speech, yes. Particularly when done by a public official.

[Martinned2]

I don't know what to tell you. Public officials are entitled to protect their reputations as much as anyone else. Defamatory statements are not protected speech, either in the US or anywhere else, so punishing someone for making a defamatory statement is not a restriction of protected speech.

[David Nieporent]

Public officials are entitled to protect their reputations as much as anyone else.

They aren't. Just like they aren't entitled to their privacy as much as anyone else. When you enter into politics, your rights in those areas are significantly curtailed.

Defamatory statements are not protected speech, either in the US

They are, with respect to a public figure, unless uttered with actual malice.

[Martinned2]

They aren't. Just like they aren't entitled to their privacy as much as anyone else. When you enter into politics, your rights in those areas are significantly curtailed.

Why are you projecting the unique shibboleths of US history and law on the rest of the world? Just because the US had/has Jim Crow politicians who set people and crosses on fire rather than let black people vote, doesn't mean that other countries also have to have laws to beat up such politicians like the US does.

Stop reasoning about the world from the blinkered perspective of someone who knows only the US!

[David Nieporent]

Why are you projecting the unique shibboleths of US history and law on the rest of the world?

We're talking about universal principles of human rights, not law.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Defamatory statements are not protected speech..."

This "defamatory" statement was.

[Kazinski]

Which is why the Supreme Court made it so hard.

That link I put below to the 2006 Volokh post about fevered dreams of fascism has this story embedded:

"For that matter, Krassner himself, in one of the strokes of exuberance for which he was well known, was soon to publish a slight hoax: an account of how Lyndon Johnson was so overjoyed about becoming President that he had buggered a wound in the neck of John F. Kennedy on Air Force One as Kennedy's body was being flown back from Dallas. Krassner presented this as a suppressed chapter from William Manchester's book Death of a President. Johnson, of course, was still President when it came out. Yet the merciless gestapo dragnet missed Krassner, who cleverly hid out onstage at Princeton on Saturday nights."

Compare that to the poor German Journalists offense.

And I'm sure worse (ok, that's hard to top, so not worse) gets written about Trump every day, and nobody is even sued let alone jailed.

[Martinned2]

And I'm sure worse (ok, that's hard to top, so not worse) gets written about Trump every day, and nobody is even sued let alone jailed.

No, they just get deported to countries where they get tortured.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I believe is that filing a criminal libel case over somebody saying you hate freedom of speech, and winning, is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory: In the act of doing it, you persuade the public that the claim was true!

Who would do it, save somebody for whom it wasn't actually libelous?

[Martinned2]

Again: Defamatory statements are not protected speech.

What part of that is confusing?

[Brett Bellmore]

What part of what I'm saying is confusing? The very act of filing the charge proved the statement true! It's the sort of statement that can only be defamatory about somebody who blows it off!

How do you not grasp that?

[Martinned2]

You seem to be insisting that prof. Volokh, to take an example, hates free speech, because he supports the existence of civil defamation law.

So I ask again: are you nuts?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, you're the one who's nuts here. How the hell do you not realize that, if the purpose of criminal libel is to preserve your reputation, filing criminal libel charges against somebody who says you hate free speech is self-contradictory? The very act of doing it underscores that the statement was true!

Now, if the purpose of criminal libel charges is just to generally make people afraid of saying anything bad about you regardless of whether it's true, NOT preserving your good reputation, but just establishing a reputation as somebody who you have to treat with kid gloves or else, then filing the charges make sense. But then the statement isn't defamatory anymore, it's true.

So, as I say, a case in quantum superposition: It's only a valid case of libel for somebody who wouldn't have filed the charges in the first place.

What we're doing here is establishing beyond any question that Europe has, in fact, categorically given up on freedom of speech as understood in America. You WANT people afraid to say what they think.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's telepathy has found more bad faith!

[Krayt]

What part of jailing someone for saying you don't support free speech don't you get?

[Kazinski]

Problem is that by any civilized standard of free speech the X post by the Journalist showing the Minister of Interior with a sign saying she hates free speech is not defamatory.

Its normal, and expected, political back and forth, at least in a free country.

Which Germany evidently is not, they want people to be afraid of what they say and self censor.

They want them to fear their government.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah I like America's speech policies more than Germany's too.

But you? It's just shitty to see Trump supporters go after Europe for speech when they're going after immigrants' social media posts, and law firms, and universities.

Shut the fuck up about free speech; you don't have standing to complain.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Shut the fuck up about free speech; you don't have standing to complain."

You don't either. You're OK with the government punishing people for saying that there are two genders, remember?

[Frank Drackman]

So I can say Pete Booty-Judge buys little children? Ted Kennedy left a young woman to Asphyxiate (not Drown, there's a difference) and Dick Chaney shot an old man in the Heart?

[Dr. Ed 2]

THAT SHOOTING WAS NOT CHENEY'S FAULT!!!

There is a reason why driving game is illegal in the State of Maine -- in addition to being poor sportsmanship, it's inherently dangerous.

[Kazinski]

Criminal libel can only apply in the US once a statement has been found false and defamatory, and then repeated after the finding, which you should well know.

And of course the meme above would never even be found defamatory here, even if the person were not a public figure.

I have to say I am starting to see why many in the Trump Administration question how many values we share with Europe now where its becoming routine for people to be prosecuted for expressing opinions that would be completely unremarkable here.

Europe is no longer free, if it ever really was.

[Drewski]

"Criminal libel can only apply in the US once a statement has been found false and defamatory, and then repeated after the finding, which you should well know."

This looks like something ChatGPT would tell you. It isn't true.

[Kazinski]

How long have you been coming to this blog?

EV is an acknowledged expert on free speech and libel law, both civil and criminal, and he posts on it several times a week.

I've been at least paying a little attention, but maybe you are right, maybe EV is a aibot, but he discusses it here:

"Anti-libel injunctions can avoid this problem by adding a potent enforcement tool: the threat of jail. Continuing to libel someone in violation of an anti-libel injunction is criminal contempt, punishable by jail time. Failing to take down libelous material in violation of a takedown order may also be civil contempt, which could lead to the threat of jailing until the defendant complies with the order. Even if we're judgment-proof, we aren't jail-proof (unless we're safely anonymous or outside the jurisdiction)."

But he also says:
"Criminal libel law is often described as essentially dead. "

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/17/the-return-to-criminal-law-as-a-remedy-libel/

[Martinned2]

Civil and criminal contempt are not the same thing as criminal libel law, and criminal libel law may well be essentially dead, but it isn't actually dead, nor is it, as a concept, unconstitutional.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You have misread Volokh. Martinned2 explains accurately.

[Kazinski]

The post is a long essay, entitled:
"The Return to Criminal Law as a Remedy: Libel", and he is using that as an example of how it works because actual criminal libel cases are so rare.

Wikipedia says:
"From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences." Out of 41 prosecutions.

So in the whole country 10 prosecutions a decade, and 4 convictions.

Its as rare as hens teeth.

[Drewski]

Prosecutions are indeed rare, but not for the reason you incorrectly believe. But maybe focus on more fundamental skills, such as apostrophe use, before worrying too much about legal studies.

[Kazinski]

That's a hard no.

I really don't care about correct apostrophe use, and I pity those that have to care.

[Drewski]

Criminal libel and criminal contempt for continuing libelous conduct are very different things.

[Kazinski]

Really?

Because that is what EV seems to be advocating instead of Criminal Contempt:

"In traditional equity terms, the assumption that libel plaintiffs have an "adequate remedy at law" in the form of a damages claim is especially inapt when it comes to the judgment-proof defendant. And the Internet makes it easier than ever for judgment-proof speakers to cause damage that is substantial, yet financially irremediable.

Anti-libel injunctions can avoid this problem by adding a potent enforcement tool: the threat of jail. Continuing to libel someone in violation of an anti-libel injunction is criminal contempt, punishable by jail time. Failing to take down libelous material in violation of a takedown order may also be civil contempt, which could lead to the threat of jailing until the defendant complies with the order."

Maybe you should concentrate more on the law rather than apostrophe use.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Really?

Really.

Because that is what EV seems to be advocating instead of Criminal Contempt:

Your bolded passage is an argument in favor of criminal (and civil) contempt. It doesn’t address criminal libel prosecutions at all.

[Kazinski]

It certainly does because it functions pretty much the same.

In fact his post is entitled:
"The Return to Criminal Law as a Remedy: Libel"

And as I already quoted: "Criminal libel law is often described as essentially dead."

And explains further:
"Many criminal libel statutes did not survive the Court's libel revolution as well as civil liability has, partly because statutes are less supple than common-law tort rules. Because libel was a common-law tort, state courts could easily preserve a constitutionally narrowed form of civil libel action just by adapting state tort law rules to fit the Court's emerging libel caselaw, and doing so with each new Court decision. But by 1964, the criminal law, including the law of criminal libel, had been codified in most states. The Supreme Court's cases rendered those statutes unconstitutionally overbroad."

Thus the pivot to Criminal Contempt for violating anti-libel injuctions.

But certainly a couple of half paragraph clips of an at least 500 word essay can not convey his whole position, and that wasn't my purpose at all.

My purpose was to refute Martinned's statement that Criminal Libel law in the US could also be used to criminalize the conduct in Germany:

"Criminal libel exists in the US too. And this seems like it would be pretty high up there, in terms of how defamatory the statement in question was."

You surely aren't endorsing that proposition are you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Continuing to libel someone in violation of an anti-libel injunction is criminal contempt, punishable by jail time."

Has anybody examined the time aspect of this? Unless the anti-libel injunction has some time constraints, it sounds like a prior restraint.

[Ed Grinberg]

And of course the meme above would never even be found defamatory here, even if the person were not a public figure.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/election-deepfakes-prompt-state-crackdownsand-first-amendment-concerns-0b992e8e

California is at the forefront of legislative efforts to protect political candidates and voters from AI trickery. The state’s new deepfake statute—which Newsom signed into law last month—allows anyone who views “materially deceptive” AI-generated election-related content to bring potentially costly lawsuits against those posting it online.
Kohls is now suing to try to get the law struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. A federal California judge on Wednesday granted him a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing most of the law.
...
Ted Frank, a lawyer with the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute who represented Kohls, said, “We hope California accepts this straightforward application of longstanding First Amendment precedent and will negotiate a permanent injunction.” The group is also bringing a similar challenge to restrictions in Minnesota, again on behalf of Kohls.

Guess what? In the Minnesota case, the federal judge refused to block the law:
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/01/court-denies-preliminary-injunction-against-minnesotas-anti-deepfakes-law-kohls-v-ellison.htm

[TaioF920]

Europe started going downhill after the end of World War II. The U.S. started going downhill in the mid 60s, with the sexual revolution, the destruction of the family, and shortly after, abortions on demand.

[jb]

"I have to say I am starting to see why many in the Trump Administration question how many values we share with Europe now where its becoming routine for people to be prosecuted for expressing opinions that would be completely unremarkable here."

Two points: 1) Freedom of speech is generally more protected in the US than in most other countries and this isn't exactly new. See, for example, prohibitions in many European countries on Nazi memorabilia or slogans. I don't think this represents a huge gulf in overall values, just a different take on this particular freedom.

2) The US is currently trying to kick people out of the country based solely on their speech. Maybe you don't consider that those people are being "prosecuted" but it seems hard to argue that the US is on the right trajectory for free speech under the circumstances.

[David Nieporent]

And this seems like it would be pretty high up there, in terms of how defamatory the statement in question was.

First, the gist is obviously true, as proven by the fact that she went after him for criticizing her, so it can't be defamatory. Second, it's opinion, so it can't be defamatory. Third, to the extent that the case relies solely on the fact that she didn't actually hold up that sign, it's obvious satire, so it can't be defamatory.

Other than that, great comment!

[Martinned2]

Just because US defamation law has stretched out the concept of "opinion" to cover just about anything anyone might say about anyone else doesn't mean that other countries have to follow the same approach. Whether someone hates free speech or not is a question of fact, not opinion.

Apart from that you seem to be subject to the same confusion as Brett and others, who seem to think that the existence of defamation law is somehow inconsistent with free speech.

Other than that, great comment!

[David Nieporent]

Whether someone hates free speech or not is a question of fact, not opinion.

No, it's a question of opinion. I think that anyone who sues someone for criticism is anti-free speech. How is that falsifiable?

Apart from that you seem to be subject to the same confusion as Brett and others, who seem to think that the existence of defamation law is somehow inconsistent with free speech.

It is. You seem to be subject to the same confusion as Lathrop, thinking that because defamation is a legally permitted exception to the 1A (or other analogous provisions), it ceases to be speech.

[Martinned2]

Free speech is a legal concept. Whether someone hates it is subject to proof or disproof. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

Defamatory speech is speech, but it is not protected speech, and so supporting the existence of defamation law is entirely consistent with supporting free speech. (In US parlance. In ECtHR terms you would say defamation law interferes with the freedom of speech, but in a justified way. But I try to avoid confusing Americans still further when I write on this blog.)

Are you seriously telling me that you think prof. Volokh hates free speech? Because as far as I know he's fully on board with the concept of civil defamation law.

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

It's not him that hates free speech. It's you and your Euro governments.

[David Nieporent]

Free speech is a legal concept. Whether someone hates it is subject to proof or disproof. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

No. Free speech is a principle, one which is broader than a legal doctrine of protected speech.

And saying that because a category of speech has been criminalized, trying to punish it does not reflect on one's attitude towards free speech is begging the question. "Oh, the law bans lèse-majesté, so therefore it isn't anti-free speech to punish someone for insulting the president." Um, no.

Because as far as I know he's fully on board with the concept of civil defamation law.

He recognizes its legal existence; I haven't seen him try to use it to shut down his critics.

[Martinned2]

I also haven't seen him advocating for its repeal.

[Krayt]

"First Amendment? We don't need that stupid thing when we have democracy and can outlaw speech!"

This is not a value. This is building tools of tyranny to help those in power silence silence criticism of themselves.

Back when Trump first came to office, we had concerns he would work to make it easier to sue critics (how green was our valley!) Europe blew way past that, if it ever was even an issue.

Oh, the righteousness of some opinions, so right that to disagree, they must be jailed.

This is the guy holding a sign that says "Kill those who say Islam is a religion of violence!"

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

Countries that do this to their people are not our allies.

[David Nieporent]

Wait until you hear about Russia!

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

Are they back to their evil Marxist/Jew/Bolshevik days where they mass murdered and starved millions of White farmers and families like the Marxists are doing in South Africa now?

If so, then they definitely shouldn't be our ally!

[BBSquatter]

If only Russia followed the example of China where Mao Zedong killed over 60 Million Chinese, and later asked for forgiveness for being a Commie.

China, where freedoms are on par with fair labor practices

/s

[TwelveInchPianist]

Russia's largely in Europe. Seems like they fit right in.

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Jake, it's Germany, they executed peoples in Gas Chambers because their noses were too long, and they make Doctors go to Re-Ed-jew-ma-cation Camps if they (correctly) say that "Sexual Reassignment Surgery" is Genital Mutilation,
Oh wait, that's Canada
The Camps I mean, and the Canadians didn't gas their Jews, making them live in Canada was bad enough

Frank

[Martinned2]

Matt Levine normally writes about Wall Street, but he is a lawyer by training, so he made an exception to his better judgment and wrote about the IEEPA on Monday:

What is the “unusual and extraordinary threat” that requires these tariffs? The declaration of the tariffs says that there is a “national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.”

The idea seems to be that every trade policy of every country in the world, over the past several decades, constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” This is a strange way to use words! How can every instance of trade with every country be unusual? How, after decades of trade deficits, is a trade deficit extraordinary?

It is also a strange way to use law. The US is in a perpetual state of emergency with respect to every country forever, allowing the president to use emergency powers to bypass the Constitution to impose tariffs.

[Commenter_XY]

The quickest and cleanest way to do away with the tariffs is to successfully challenge the emergency declaration, and argue the rationale given, a national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries, is BS.

[Brett Bellmore]

Quickest, cleanest, and least likely to be successful.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the knockout blow, Brett. If Team D had a lick of common sense, they'd find a way to have Neal Kaytal argue it before SCOTUS.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's either a knockout blow, or a total miss. I'm guessing the latter, as the Court won't want every judge in the country double-guessing Executive branch decisions.

[Commenter_XY]

They said that when Jonathan Mitchell argued Dobbs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Was that before or after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Frank Drackman]

That's like saying the best way to hit an Aroldis Chapman fastball is to keep your weight on your back foot, keep a firm front side, and step aggressively towards the pitch, piece of cake!

[Riva]

Not really his call. Matt Levine is not the president. Neither are delusional district court judges.

[David Nieporent]

The Mad King thought he could do as he liked.

[Riva]

You clowns really don’t want to accept the results of the election, do you? And if there’s anything you apparently hate more than democracy, it’s the Constitution.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, working people up to assassination attempts and terror attacks doesn't do itself, you know. Somebody's got to put in the work.

[Sarcastr0]

working people up to assassination attempts and terror attacks

You accuse liberals of the worst shit. Meanwhile, you and Ed are the only ones I've seen call for lynching judges.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you've got me confused with somebody else. Ed? I've had him muted for several months, finally got tired of his "Nuke Gaza" shtick.

Set Trump and Musk aside, and look at the polling on Luigi Mangione. Yougov poll

Views of this murderer range from 8% favorable 62% negative for the very conservative, to 47% positive 31% negative among the very 'liberal', with his favorability increasing monotonically as you move left.

The NCRI poll is consistent with this trend: The further left you go politically, the more favorable people become to violence, including murder, directed against political foes.

Seriously, what do you expect, with an unrelenting drumbeat of how Trump isn't just an ordinarily bad man, but an existential threat to the survival of American democracy? What else do you do when ultra-Hitler is President, and the next Presidential election is 4 years out? Just accept "democracy dying"?

[Sarcastr0]

1. This is you: "Extraordinary? That's 'nearest lamp post' material"
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/19/north-carolina-state-supreme-court-makes-a-bold-move/?comments=true#comment-9660495

2. Your statistic does not support your thesis, as is usual with you. Your thesis is some conspiratorial plan of "working people up to assassination attempts and terror attacks." You provide stats about a very narrow incident.

AND your stats don't have crosstabs. Youth seems like a phenomenal conflating variable - the young are more liberal, and life is cheaper to them.

Seriously, you think you live in a fucking political thriller. You don't. Your political opposite is not evil, not planning deaths, nor going to put you in a camp.

You're just addicted to drama and have a very low threshold for when you turn off your critical thinking. Thus your reputation as the resident conspiracist.

[Commenter_XY]

Let us know when you come up with a cite that has crosstabs. I'm guessing that won't be anytime soon, Karen Sarcastr0.

[TaioF920]

It's as much of an emergency as COVID was in 2022 when Biden was implementing CDC eviction bans, masks on planes, and tons of other stuff.

[SRG2]

Nope. It's not an emergency at all. It really is that simple. Just because Dear Leader is ignorant about macroeconomics, and his craven cultists are either too ignorant themselves or too gutless to go against this garbage, doesn't mean that there is any kind of emergency.

[TaioF920]

You're not good at reading, are you?

[SRG2]

Fuckwit, I can read. It's hardly my fault if you don't say what you meant. An emergency is independent of the policy to manage it.

[John F. Carr]

Unfortunately "emergency" is a very flexible concept in American law.

I agree with the constitutional argument against a legislative veto. Such a power would be good policy in the modern world with a strong executive. Congress could give itself veto power by another means. Say that certain executive actions are temporary and must be ratified by Congress within a set time. Such a rule would also end a lot of litigation. Once Congress has ratified a decision only constitutional challenges remain.

In the case of tariffs and alien invasions, make the proclamations good for six months or a year. If they expire without approval by Congress, the president can't make any similar declarations for the next year.

[Martinned2]

In the UK all statutory instruments are subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. I don't see anything in the text of the US Constitution that forbids that. It's just case law all the way down. (And, for the record, in my view the case law is part of the small-c US constitution.)

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments-commons/

[David Nieporent]

The issue isn't that Congress can't repeal presidential action; it's that any such Congressional act is subject to presentment and veto.

[Brett Bellmore]

And thus requires a consensus that something wrong is going on, not just the minority party not liking the majority party's policies.

[bernard11]

“national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.”

I wonder what the record is for how many things in a single sentence can be wrong.

[DaveM]

If Congress were to declare we are not in an emergency, that would put a halt to it. That is because its delegation of tariff power to the President comes with that explicit caveat. Only CONGRESS can do this, no other branch or state.

[ReaderY]

I’ll point out that a different statute gives the President authority to impose tarriffs in the event of balance-of-payments deficits, 19 USC 2132, titled “Balance of Payments Authority.”

It seems here that the President simply invoked the wrong statute. We don’t have an economic emergency. But the trade deficit we have would appear ro be squarely covered by this other statute.

[shawn_dude]

"the President shall proclaim, for a period not exceeding 150 days (unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—

(A)a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the United States;"
Source

The balance of payments authority is limited to 150 days and 15%, which is on the very low end for the current tariff scheme.

[Martinned2]

In January and February 17 Americans claimed asylum in the Netherlands.

https://bsky.app/profile/johanvanheerde.bsky.social/post/3lmelhyjazs2f

[Kazinski]

All the Ivy League University presidents, and who else?

[Sarcastr0]

Just hating on higher ed in America.

How could that go wrong?

[Riva]

Not a whole lot. Save some wasteful government spending. A loss of some DEI administrators to be sure. Maybe male athletes wouldn’t be allowed to corrupt women’s sports. And jewish students might breathe a sigh of relief.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "hating on higher ed"
Evil things should be hated. Your apparent conviction that "higher ed" is, by definition, good is ... questionable.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-nazi-sympathizing-scholars-prepared-the-ideological-groundwork-for-genocide/
But hey, "higher ed in America" is nothing like that, right?!
https://thespectator.com/topic/ivy-league-scolds-amy-wax-penn-culture/
The author calls the Ivy League a "cauldron of iniquity." (Note that this was before 10/7/23 -- before various students & faculty came out in support of the worst people on Earth, while the various school administrations, who for years had been conducting a veritable crusade against "politically-incorrect" speech (see the article above!) ... yawned.)

[Sarcastr0]

VDARE fan wants us to know that academia is full of Nazis.

Also he thinks quoting phrases like 'cauldron of iniquity' will get him taken seriously.

Fuck off with your 'here's some editorials and anecdotes' as you cheer the persecution and dismantling of one of the things that made America exceptional.

Don't worry, China's picking up the slack. I'm sure that'll really bring in the freedom.

[TaioF920]

Higher ed is fine if it's teaching mathematics, physics, economics, and medicine. If it's teaching hate whitey African-American studies, gender fluidity, human sexuality aka gay sodomy is heroic, then, it should be hated.

[BBSquatter]

Higher ed is definitely not fine. Only those who are outside of that system defend it. Those of us who are part of higher ed mock it routinely, both the admins and the undergrad students who havent a clue what they want out of life

Bring back Votech Schools, that and forced military service

[Bob from Ohio]

The Ivy League is not "higher ed in America", its just a fraction. Ohio alone has more public universities than the entire Ivy League has schools.

[Kazinski]

That, and the German journalist story, reminds me of this long ago post on Volokh, almost 20 years ago now about this quote:

""dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,"

Read the whole thing, but here's a little bit of it, some things never change:
"The next thing I knew, the discussion was onto the subject of fascism in America. Everybody was talking about police repression and the anxiety and paranoia as good folsk waited for the knock on the door and the descent of the knout on the nape of the neck. I couldn't make any sense out of it. . . . This was the mid-1960's."

https://www.volokh.com/posts/1139878045.shtml

The 60's, the 00''s, and now the mid 20's and fascism is still descending on America, while a German Journalist get criminally convicted and narrowly avoids jail, for making fun of an unpopular Minister,

[Sarcastr0]

This you?

"Well many of us voted for Trump because we want him to burn it all down."

You know, your assurances that it's not fascism ring kinda hollow if you're rolling nihilistic fuckwit the rest of the time.

[hobie]

Oh Kazinski. Did you really say the quiet part out loud?

[Kazinski]

Quiet?

I'm all for the Four Horsemen of Doge riding through Washington shutting down USAID, Department of Education, preemptively killing DEI contracts.

If you are going to quote my past comments I wasn't even initially supporting Trump because he wouldn't cause enough havoc:

"Hey I was hoping to vote for the Sweet Meteor of Death in the 2016 election but xe* was not on the ballot.

https://sweetmeteorofdeath.com/"

https://reason.com/profile/comments-history/#comment-10460324

[Ed Grinberg]

Hmmm... Could it be that the things he wants Trump to "burn down" are themselves reminiscent of Russian / Italian / German totalitarian regimes?

[Sarcastr0]

You mean ALL he things, like he said?

No.

What an angry white nationalist calls out as totalitarian is laughable; just intellectual cover for our great leap backwards.

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

lmao, ridding us of the incompetent bureaucrats that brought us massive wealth inequality, nearly $40T in debt, mental health epidemics, obesity epidemics, autism epidemics, chronic disease epidemics, and transgender mania which is harming a generation of children is a "great leap backwards"...

Sure, it's a great leap backwards for Leftwing billionaires, foreign countries who take advantage of us, and fat & lazy govies, and perverted degenerates. But not for us 1776 Patriots, that's for dang sure.

[Kazinski]

I maybe many things, but angry isn't one of them.

I am certainly not one of the one's throwing F bombs, and accusing people of chicken fucking, or throwing insults of any kind.

And I'm not even that much of a nationalist and not an American Firster. I'm a lot more of an International Capitalist believing that free market economies, smaller governments and free trade is lifting up the entire world, and I certainly have traveled enough to see it first hand.

I am also pro-immigration, but not open borders.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I'm a lot more of an International Capitalist believing that free market economies, smaller governments and free trade is lifting up the entire world, . . .

Just to be clear on that, is DOGE/Trump an example, or an example to the contrary? Given your commentary, I concluded you think DOGE/Trump delivers pretty good governance. To help you answer clearly, please leave out counterfactual hypotheses about what others might have done. Just stick to DOGE/Trump, and say whether it is lifting up the entire world, or not.

[Bwaaah]

I tuned in because your Kazinski quote comfortably comports with my sentiments:
"I'm a lot more of an International Capitalist believing that free market economies, smaller governments and free trade is lifting up the entire world,"
Like him, I am pro-immigration. I think border security should be measured, and only as much as is necessary to keep inflows of immigrants from putting upward pressure on our native crime rate. (Immigrant populations should have less criminality than our native population.)

Trump's tactics are inconsistent, in any direct sense, with my objectives. However, his tactics DISRUPT THE STATUS QUO in government and in politics. If that status quo is allowed to persist, I believe it will surely drive us into cultural and financial bankruptcy in the not-distant future. (The spending trends are clear, as is the widespread political entrenchment of the support of those trends. And cultural regard for science and ethics is taking a beating from all corners these days.)

Trump doesn't directly get us where I want us to go. But indirectly, he definitely creates the possibility of correction. I believe a lot of that correction will be manifested in the nation's political defense against Trump, which will have to be methodical, focused and compelling enough to appeal to a significant majority of the American public. (We're not coming out of this with a 51% agreement; it's going to take more like 60%.)

Eventually, Democrats will stop with the Daily Declaration of Crisis and focus on truly serious threats (not a 5 degree rise in temperature or how somebody waved his arm). And just because people think people deserve unlimited health care doesn't mean we can afford that.

Trump is a serious problem. I'm waiting and watching for a serious answer, not just to Trump, but to broad American interests. But for now, we must all devote at least some of our precious attention to, for example, transgender issues.

I wait for a coalition of serious Americans. I believe we are distilling our political interests down to what that really means in a way that a substantial majority can get on board.

[SRG2]

No.

[Kazinski]

That too.

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

Reforming the graft, waste, and corruption in DC is "fascism"!!!

It's literally tyranny not to pay Sarcastr0 an extra $5,000 a month like he got during the COVID "emergency".

[Frank Drackman]

The Frank family (no relation) did also, didn't work out to well for them. (those damn Dutch HOA's!)

[Riva]

Feel free to apply yourself.

[Martinned2]

That's one hell of a swing, compared to the start of the year. (The numbers in brackets are comparisons to the last election, in 2021.)

- LPC: 203 (+43)
- CPC: 117 (-2)
- BQ: 17 (-15)
- NDP: 4 (-21)
- GPC: 2 (-)

- April 8, 2025 -

https://bsky.app/profile/canadianpolling.bsky.social/post/3lmdcyshr3c2o

[Martinned2]

Incidentally, this also shows how much of Carney's success comes at the expense of the NDP, not Poilievre.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how you just assume everyone knows which party is which, heck I'm a Foo-Bawl fan and I couldn't tell you who plays in the CFL (Rough Riders? Calgary? Winnipeg? and the Alouettes? that's gotta be one of those Frog-Eating Provinces)

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, the concept of leading questions seems to have tripped some people up in the AFL-CIO v OPM litigation.

BY MS. LEONARD:
Q So that was the reason you thought it was a good idea to write this memo telling agencies to collect lists of all their probationary employees because you believe the agencies were not using the performance assessments correctly? Is that right?

MR. FUCHS: Objection. Lack of foundation. Objection. Leading.

THE WITNESS [Noah Peters, the senior advisor to the OPM director]: Yeah. I mean, it's certainly a leading question.

MS. LEONARD: This is cross, by the way.

THE WITNESS: No. I -- I understand. It's just -- you know, and you're doing -- you're doing what you're supposed to be doing, which is leading, and especially given the short timeframe, it may -- it absolutely makes sense for you to lead and lead very aggressively. But what -- sorry. Can you repeat the question?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444883/gov.uscourts.cand.444883.188.1.pdf

[Drewski]

Oh noes, a lawyer called an objection by mistake. Stop the presses, get out the big typeface, this is the story of the century! Why hasn't he been disbarred, drawn, quartered, and ridden out of town on a rail?

[Martinned2]

It's more the witness's reaction that had people amused.

[Riva]

Would this involve the properly shit canned federal probationary employees? At least they have time now to read your posts.

[Commenter_XY]

Memo to University Presidents: Toleration of Antisemitism has a cost

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/406624

Trump administration freezes over $1.7 billion in federal funding for Cornell and Northwestern universities amid ongoing antisemitism investigations.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth.... 😉

[Martinned2]

Who hates free speech now?

[Michael P]

Lyndon B. Johnson and the members of the 88th Congress who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

[Frank Drackman]

"88"??? didn't they realize the connotations of that number!?!?!?!? and not even 20 years after the wah??? Good thing the Repubiclowns went along so it could pass.

[Sarcastr0]

What about the CRA went against free speech?

[TaioF920]

Free speech includes free association. The Civil Rights Act requires that you hire and serve in restaurants and hotels people you don't want to. I don't know a bigger abridgement than that.

In terms of speech directly, courts have upheld "hostile work environment" Title VII claims purely based on speech. So, for example, a company owner cannot put a Confederate Flag on his desk if his black employees will "feel" offended.

[Ed Grinberg]

As someone put it the other day: "Schools should...have always opposed anti-Semitism with at least the same zeal [with which] they oppose racism, since the Civil Right Acts prohibit it in education."
Here's the relevant title of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VI_%E2%80%93_nondiscrimination_in_federally_assisted_programs

[Sarcastr0]

1. This is bullshit. You can tell because the DoJ isn't moving on a CRA action; it's just a collateral attack via funding by the administration, using combating antisemitism as increasingly thin cover.

2. What about the CRA went against free speech?

[hobie]

Free speech for me, but...

[Don Nico]

Hobie,
How did your pasta con le sarde work out?

[hobie]

It was nice. Cooking mellowed the fennel and made it pleasant. The super sardines weren't any different that regular ones

[Commenter_XY]

The recipe?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/15/journal-of-free-speech-law-the-future-of-free-speech-curiosity-culture-by-olivia-eve-gross/?comments=true#comment-10761502

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, the German competition authority keeps making progress.

Google will stop restricting competition in connection with Google Automotive Services and Google Maps Platform

Google (Alphabet Inc., USA) has offered the Bundeskartellamt commitments to end several restrictions of competition in connection with Google Automotive Services and Google Maps Platform.
(...)
Google has offered the Bundeskartellamt commitments under which it will license the services contained in Google Automotive Services also as separate stand-alone versions. In addition, Google will remove restrictive contractual provisions which have created incentives for customers to use Google services, including provisions on default settings or participation in advertising revenue. Google has also committed to create the necessary conditions to enable interoperability with third-party services.
(...)
Google has committed to remove the contractual provisions restricting the combined use of Google’s map services and map services from other providers, such as HERE, Mapbox or TomTom. In future, map content provided by Google may also be displayed on third-party maps, such as OpenStreetMap maps.

In addition to the commitments relating to Google Automotive Services, this allows vehicle manufacturers and suppliers to use and combine Google Maps services in infotainment systems with third-party services or with services developed in-house.
(...)
The effect of Google’s commitments is not limited to Germany. The commitments apply to automotive services for in-vehicle infotainment systems in passenger cars that are or may in the future be registered in Germany. As the conditions for registering vehicles are standardised across the EU, the commitments cover the entire European market. Due to the fact that it is common practice in the automotive sector to develop uniform systems which can be deployed internationally, the commitments effectively also apply to in-vehicle infotainment systems used in other countries and regions.

With regard to Google Maps Platform, the commitments to remove the contractual restrictions will, in any case, cover all license holders of Google Maps services with a billing address in the European Economic Area.

https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2025/04_09_2025_GAS_GMP.html?nn=48916

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

Good, fuck Google.

[Martinned2]

This is indeed a fascinating story:

Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Kushner, saw an anti-China book on Amazon by Navarro who fabricated quotes from fake expert (Ron Varna) & gave it to Trump in 2017 so that he could “speak more substantively” about China.

And yes, he named his fake expert with an anagram of his own name...

[windycityattorney]

Trump knows a thing or two about fake names. The fact he named his own fkn kid after one of his alter-ego's is just wild.

It probably also explains why he talks in the 3rd person so much about "Trump."

[Dr. Ed 2]

In tranny news: https://www.themainewire.com/2025/04/doj-pulls-federal-funding-from-maines-department-of-corrections-for-housing-a-dangerous-biological-male-in-a-womens-prison/

[Frank Drackman]

Watching the Braves game (beat the Phillies, now we're 2-8, watch out!!!) last night, Chick-fil-A commercial touting their contributions to Foodbanks, fresh-faced Volunteers handing out delicious Chicken to the Hungry.
All in expensive SUV's (even a Mercedes! well, with what it costs to keep one on the road, I can see where the poverty comes from)
OK, it's a commercial, but it's like all these Ill-legal Immigrants struggling across the Rio Grande with their Iphone 16's (is that what they're up to? I've got a simple SE)
and I love Chick-Fil-a, only place you can get one of their sandwiches on a Sunday?
A Falcons/Braves/Hawks game

Frank

[Krayt]

I guess a contract to supply all games outweighs religious conviction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are there criminal penalties for violation of the 1964 civil rights act independent of funding? Hence could college officials be criminally prosecuted in addition to the loss of Federal funding?

[not guilty]

No, there are not criminal penalties for violation of the 1964 civil rights act.

[Frank Drackman]

Congress still exempted themselves from it

[Martinned2]

White smoke in Germany: https://www.tagesschau.de/eilmeldung/einigung-koalitionsvertrag-union-spd-100.html

CDU/CSU and SPD have agreed a coalition agreement. There will be a press conference at 15.00 (i.e. in 2 hours time), then we'll know more. It is understood that the parties have also agreed already which party will hold which government department, but they will still have to decide who will be ministers in the new cabinet before the government can take office.

[Martinned2]

Der Spiegel has some more details on the division of portfolios:

- Unusually, the CDU/CSU gets the foreign ministry. (That's usually the job for the leader of the smaller coalition party.)

- The SPD gets finance. (Makes sense. That's the job that goes to the smaller coalition party in most countries.)

- The SPD gets defence. (Makes sense if the SPD doesn't get the foreign ministry. It will be interesting to see of Boris Pistorius, the great star of the SPD who will probably take over as leader, will stay at defence or whether he will switch to finance.)

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/union-und-spd-einigen-sich-auf-koalitionsvertrag-a-44afd212-1761-4ff9-9394-90ac67a9d239?giftToken=306550ee-47f1-4dc6-9c29-53474da0eed6

[Martinned2]

I am told it would be the first time since 1966 that the chancellery and the foreign ministry are in the hands of the same party.

Meanwhile, it looks like the SPD gets Justice and the CDU gets Interior, which is another sensible split of connected portfolios.

[Martinned2]

The prediction is that the new government will be voted into office on 7 May.

[Martinned2]

For the (many) people here who speak German, the draft coalition agreement is here: https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/258046-koalitionsvertrag-cdu-csu-spd-2025-entwurf/

Obviously, since Germany is a democracy, the members of the coalition parties still have to vote on it, and some changes may still come as a result, but in all likelihood this is it.

[Don Nico]

Will the new government choose to start a German nuclear weapons program?

[Martinned2]

It says that the government continues to have a long-term goal of arms control and nuclear non-proliferation. (Page 125.) Make of that what you will.

[Bob from Ohio]

"CDU/CSU and SPD have agreed a coalition agreement."

"Conservative" party allies with socialist party! Again.

Another 5 points for AfD in next election.

[Martinned2]

Just because you're confused by the concept of coalitions, doesn't mean German voters are.

[hobie]

Came here to say this:

Ron Vara

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/04/09/peter-navarro-pseudonym-ron-vara/

[Michael P]

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?" - Joe Biden, in the original

[Frank Drackman]

it was all the TBI's from playing foo-bawl after sucking down Coal dust all day

[David Nieporent]

I know Navarro is in the news now, but I find it strange that people are just talking about the Ron Vara thing now, given that it was reported back in 2017.

[Brett Bellmore]

Shortage of enough contemporary bad things to bring up about Trump, I guess.

[Martinned2]

Unlikely

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not that there's an absolute shortage of bad things to bring up about Trump, as much as that the demand on the left is impossibly high even relative to that plentiful supply.

[Sarcastr0]

No, dude.

There's plenty we aren't bringing up.
Cornell and Northwestern.
America getting compensation due to our sacrificie being the world's reserve currency.
Tariffs threatened on drugs.
Last minute trying to put USAID back together.
DOGE fucking up social security's payments system in multiple ways.

YOU don't care enough to read the news, so you assume everyone else is performative.
That just shows the pinched, cartoon world you come from.

[Commenter_XY]

Such a Parade of Horribles! Are you preparing to flee?

[hobie]

Because this is the first I've heard about it, that's why. Plus it's amusing to know our trade policies are based on fiction

[Noscitur a sociis]

If I heard about it back then, I’d completely forgotten, so I for 9ne appreciate the refresher.

[Riva]

I came here to confirm that “hobie” lacks wit and a sense of humor. No link but his comments speak for themselves.

[hobie]

I know you rubes are concerned and wondering. Well, after two years my illegal 4 Cubans and 2 Venezuelans are prospering. To the best of my knowledge, they are all legal now (but I'm not completely sure).

The big news is that Hideraldo (A Venezuelan) has just purchased a $400,000 house. I don't know how he could swing that on $18/hour. But all these boys are shrewd which is a part of why we hired them over incompetent, lazy American hayseeds.

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

Uh, us actual taxpayers know how an illegal can afford a $400,000 house on $18/hour.

Why the fuck do you think us Patriots have been complaining about all the bullshit benefits and largesse being showered upon illegal invaders? Democrats are buying these assholes houses, then demanding to raise taxes on us Whites to pay for it.

Fuck you people.

[hobie]

Yes, when he's not out raping white women, Hideraldo would like to thank all you hayseeds for the free largess.

After a year of impressive work I decided to treat all six to a free lunch. I handed them a menu from a Cuban restaurant and told them to order whatever they liked. Turns out, in the fine print, were lobster tails. And all six of these bastards ordered it (with rice and beans, of course). We joke about it to this day. So, yes, I'm also a small part of the abuse of system these inhuman animals have fomented. But I must say, they produce excellent piping systems that keep you hayseeds and your fat squaws in sweet, low-cost LNG

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

Fellow White man, I, too, see brown people as an underclass of manual laborers and servants.

[Frank Drackman]

You ain't fooling nobody Hobie-Stank, I recognize the Reverend Sandusky when I see, I mean, hear, I mean read him, I mean, umm, the Reverend "Alvin T Kurkland?" "Arvin V Kurtland?" don't you hate it when you can't remember someone you didn't like's name?
So henceforth, so as it is written, so shall it be done, for every "Hillbilly/Rube/Cracker" I will ish-yew a "Reciprocal" "Reverend Sandusky"

Frank

[Armchair]

"I don't know how he could swing that on $18/hour."

Maybe you should ask? Perhaps he has....another source of income?

[Frank Drackman]

he has a special Tool he charges Hobie-Stank extra to use

[Mr. Bumble]

Better hope he didn't use the CBP One app.

[hobie]

True fact: for the journey from Nicaragua to Mexico, Hideraldo rode a horse

[Mr. Bumble]

"...Hideraldo (A Venezuelan)..."
??

[hobie]

He took a boat from Venezuela to Nicaragua

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

Sarcastr0 is up and down this thread finger wagging and trying to shame real Patriots. Meanwhile...

https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/07/survey-55-of-self-identified-leftists-say-killing-trump-is-justifiable/

>The report, produced by the Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in partnership with Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, finds a broader “assassination culture” appears to be “emerging within segments of the U.S. public on the extreme left, with expanding targets now including figures such as Donald Trump."

Who wants to bet where Sarcastr0, hobie, David Nopants, Martinned, and the other assorted Lefty Lunatics fall?

[hobie]

Heh...The Federalist

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

Woah, good call. I had forgotten that there are only a few official domains which hold the official truth as verified by official fact checkers.

The rest of these domains are illegally harming our sacred democracies. Speech that harms our sacred democracy isn't free speech. That's why Biden created so many government agencies to monitor and protect the country from such harmful unconstitutional speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The report, produced by the Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in partnership with Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, "

[Commenter_XY]

I have often said, there are many VC Conspirator's whose only regret is that Crooks missed. And that view is shared by many of their friends. The survey and report is not surprising at all.

[Moderation4ever]

Any reports on DOGE review of the Defense budget? I am wondering what they think of the advanced fighter program after reading Elon Musk's comments on the F35 fighter.

[tylertusta]

DefenseNews: Trump promises $1 trillion in defense spending for next year

https://www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/04/08/trump-promises-1-trillion-in-defense-spending-for-next-year/

Not DOGE specifically, but it's a hint as to what's to come.

[Commenter_XY]

War is coming, tyler. That is what it means.

China faces mass unemployment by end of Q3.

Remember the pileup of empty shipping containers after the pandemic? We are in for a major repeat. With the fire in LAX, there is plenty of open space to store the containers.

[hobie]

I heard that one big reason allies are cancelling orders of expensive systems like the F35s (apart from drones now making them obsolete) is that even though they get the whole plane, America withholds the software needed to operate them. Because American can longer be trusted to keep its word or commitments, it is pointless to have a plane like this

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a fair cop, but it's been a fair cop for decades now.

[ducksalad]

Which part are you talking about - Not giving them the unlock keys for the software, or not being trusted to keep our word and honor commitments?

[Brett Bellmore]

The latter. The former is just a new way of doing the latter.

[hobie]

Stabbing our allies in the back or threatening to invade them is a more recent phenomenon, Brett

[Don Nico]

Which allies do you think have been stabbed in the back?
All my European friends and colleagues have told me that it about time the EU had its own armed services.

[David Nieporent]

Which allies do you think have been stabbed in the back?

Canada, Denmark, Ukraine, Mexico, Panama, the rest of Eastern Europe, Colombia, Israel… Is there any country he hasn't, other than Russia of course?

[Don Nico]

David,
You're wrong and delusional. Ukraine is a client state not an ally. It was Mr Biden trying to chock Israel not stabbing it in the back. You might blame Biden about Hungary, both is so the knife was soft plastic.

[tylertusta]

If that's the case, then allies choosing alternative designs are running into the fact that American defense dominates even the 'foreign' market.

Canada may indeed ditch the F-35 in favor of the Gripen, but if Trump is being spiteful he can just block the transfer of the engines.

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, the purchasers did not buy the entire suite of F-35 functionality, why are we obligated to hand over the keys of what they did not buy? What they paid for, they received.

[Kanei1024]

this violent nigger, yes an oxymoron, should have been lynched years ago. why is this ape allowed to continue to put his hands on white men and women?

https://nypost.com/2025/04/08/us-news/nyc-mom-of-teen-attacked-by-deranged-vagrant-outraged-he-was-freed-as-latest-victim-fights-for-her-life-following-heinous-slashing/

[Sarcastr0]

A retread or a new out-and-out racist posting on reason.com? Hard to say!

[hobie]

I'm trying to find an article about a white redneck committing assault...oh wait...there's millions of them

[Frank Drackman]

How're the Nittily Lions (HT B. Osama) Linebackers looking this Spring Coach?
I mean Foo-bawl Skills, I know they all have nice hard butts.

[hobie]

Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's Neediest Veteran, as much as I don't want you to continue to waste space here with your words, you will be doing so ever more needlessly if you were to think I am the Rev...I ain't

[Bored Lawyer]

Can the racism. This is a failure to the mental health system in NYC.

[Frank Drackman]

and 9-11 was just a failure in the US Immigration system

[Dan Schiavetta]

Kane:
You are muted. Obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Mute, where is thy Sting?

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

You know that thin-skinned coward can't read your comment.

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

With all these interesting facts coming out about that Routh guy and his connections to ForeverWar, Inc. and the Ukraine military, how long before some Democrat judge like Boasburg issues a TRO against the DOJ to stop their investigation?

[Armchair]

Some thoughts on tariffs...
First two concepts need to be introduced.

1. Balance of trade.
Free trade is great...so long as it's actually "free". Including free floating currencies. If country A makes widgets, and country B makes doodads, and they sell them to each other, that's great. If there's an imbalance in trade, a free system will find that the prices of the two country's currencies will change to fix the trade. This will make one country's labor more expensive, and the other's cheaper, which will tend to balance out the trade.

It's when there is a large trade balance and there ISN'T a currency change...you've got to watch out. Because something funny is happening.

2. Economies of scale.

Economies of scale are great things. The cost per unit it takes to make 1 million items is often less than the cost per unit it takes to make 10,000 items. But...it has an odd effect. The "first inventor" effects. Basically, the first company to "make" something often has a major advantage. They can sell the first few items they make on their manufacturing run (say a run of 1,000) for high prices...because there's no competition. Then they can use those profits to increase the run size to 10,000, lower prices, and reinvest the profits again to increase the run size. And so on.

The problem lies in the second or third company (or country) to enter the market. They can't do the first couple runs and make a profit. Because there's already an item on the market which is much cheaper. This makes extremely difficult for a new company to make it onto the market...unless barriers (real or artificial) are in place which increase the price of the first's company's items. Even if ultimately the second company could make it cheaper.

[SRG2]

Correcting you is too much like work I got paid for. You' just don't understand enough.

[Sarcastr0]

It's part of MAGA's war on the expert.

Laypeople come in with outcome-oriented hot takes and confuse their zealotry to support Trump with confidence and understanding.

In the end, they have no understanding beyond Trump good.

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

It's a war on the experts that ushered in our current utopia!!

If we don't keep our chronic health problems, environmental poisoning, failing public education system, social division, crippling national debt and massive wealth equality, it's a great leap backwards!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"war on the expert"

The experts all favored allowing China into the WTO, among other expert victories.

Letting China destroy western industry and let them build up their military was such good advice.

[David Nieporent]

U.S. manufacturing output has grown tremendously since China entered the WTO.

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

How are you defining "tremendously"?

[Don Nico]

The same way that Mr Trump does.

[Armchair]

This is a lie. U.S. manufacturing output has not "grown tremendously " since China entered the WTO.

This has been demonstrated before to David.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/manufacturing-output

China got into the WTO in 2001.

How weird is it to continually not do easy checks on stuff before you accuse people of lying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Data are in current U.S. dollars."

[Armchair]

Indeed.

What you want is the real manufacturing sector output. Which is here.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

It's failed to even keep up with population growth since 2001. Maybe a 4% increase, if you squint.

(Compare that with the near 50% gain between 1990 and 2000).

[David Nieporent]

So, in other words, up 50% since China joined the WTO. Doesn't sound like a disappearing manufacturing sector. Sounds like a tremendous increase.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. I guess no one will accuse you of being a White Supremacist.

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

>So, in other words, up 50% since China joined the WTO. Doesn't sound like a disappearing manufacturing sector. Sounds like a tremendous increase.

How are you determining 50% is tremendous? What are you comparing it to? Historical numbers? Other countries? Just guessing because 50% sounds big?

Here's some extra context, over the time period here is how BRICs countries, the EU, and US did:
- Brazil saw 171% cumulative growth.
- Russia saw 318%
- India saw 573%
- China saw 1,233%
- EU saw 65%
- US saw 86%

A few more samples and an interesting pattern starts to emerge:
- Vietnam saw 964%
- Mexico saw 206%
- Canada saw 55%

-----
At best you could say our growth was "tremendous if you don't include most countries on Earth". Or "we're the most tremendous of the White Western Democracies (but just barely)"

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the silliness of comparing growth rates of things starting from very different baselines — my son quadrupled in height in that time, while I didn't grow taller at all, so obviously he's soon going to be an NBA center — that has nothing to do with the actual topic. The claim was that our industry was "destroyed," not that it didn't grow as fast as some others.

[Moderation4ever]

Your second thought on economy of scale reminded me of saying from one inventor, it maybe Ron Popeil but not sure. The idea is to skip the time getting a patient on an invention and instead get it to market quickly. Get out there and sell as many units as you can as quickly as you can. Others will copy you, but it will take them time and you make your money on the first round of buying.

[ducksalad]

1. Country A can sell stuff to Country B, Country B can sell stuff to Country C, and Country C can sell stuff to Country A. Which makes Armchair's Concept #1 more or less meaningless.

2. Yeah, there's a first inventor effect. It has nothing to do with international borders, it is just as true for companies in two states, two adjacent cities, or on two sides of the same street. It would be stupid economics to "correct" the first inventor effect with tariffs on crossing the street, or between two adjacent cities, or between two states, or....

[Armchair]

So, what's going on with tariffs.

Tariffs (and unfair trade) are really a form of the prisoner's dilemma. It's best if there is "free trade". IE no tariffs between the parties. It's worst if there are tariffs on best sides. But...but... If one side has tariffs, and the other doesn't.. That's the best case scenario of all for the country that does have the tariffs. (That's what's going on now, China has a series of unfair trade practices going on...and has for decades).

This can be seen by the perpetual large trade imbalances, yet the lack of any real currency appreciation to match that imbalance.

---So what happens when you have a trade imbalance, but no currency appreciation---

Short answer is, that sort of trade imbalance can almost be thought of as a "debt" between the countries (Sometimes it is actually a debt). And a debt like this can be leveraged into power. That trade imbalance can be used to effectively eliminate certain sorts of industry in country B...especially if country A is willing to sell items at a loss to do so. If can be used to buy the productive assets of country B, and funnel those profits back to country A. It can be used to influence the politicians of country B. It's...a problem. Especially in potentially contentious geopolitical relationships.

So, if the problem doesn't resolve...it's the prisoner's dilemma type situation. And for country B...dual betrayal (trade barriers on both sides) is prefereable to a situaiton where only country A has trade barriers.

[David Nieporent]

Tariffs (and unfair trade) are really a form of the prisoner's dilemma. It's best if there is "free trade". IE no tariffs between the parties. It's worst if there are tariffs on best sides. But...but... If one side has tariffs, and the other doesn't.. That's the best case scenario of all for the country that does have the tariffs. (That's what's going on now, China has a series of unfair trade practices going on...and has for decades).

This is, of course, entirely wrong. The best is no tariffs. And the second best is not imposing tariffs on one's own country. There's no prisoner's dilemma. Just don't impose tariffs on yourself.

[SRG2]

He's too ignorant of economics even to bother to correct.

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

Everyone in the entire world except for Trump's critics don't understand economics! If they did, they wouldn't put tariffs on US goods!!

That makes so much sense when you put it that way!

[ThePublius]

"And the second best is not imposing tariffs on one's own country."

How do you impose tariffs on your own country? You mean export tariffs?

"Export tariffs are taxes levied on goods a country exports. While import tariffs are common, the United States does not allow export tariffs, with Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution forbidding them."

[Martinned2]

I assume that's a retorical question?

[David Nieporent]

How do you impose tariffs on your own country?

That's what tariffs are: taxes on one's own citizens. They are not paid by the foreign country. They are paid by the American consumer.

You mean export tariffs?

No, I did not.

[ThePublius]

Of course, you don't mean literally, you mean in effect, through higher prices. Import tariffs are paid by the part importing the goods, no?

[Sarcastr0]

Of course, you don't mean literally

No. Literally, who pays a tariff?

[ThePublius]

Tariffs are paid by the party importing the goods. They will probably raise the price of the good in response to higher tariffs. The consumer can pay this, or can simply not purchase the product. So, the tariff is not a direct tax on the consumer.

They are not a tax on consumers. They are a tariff. We have enough terms to denote these separately and unambiguously.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep going...the party importing goods into the US is going to be...who?

[shawn_dude]

Are you arguing that a sales tax is not a direct tax on the consumer since the consumer can opt to not purchase the taxed item?

[Commenter_XY]

Importer imports product to America, after paying fee. Nobody buys it, consumers buy a cheaper alternative. Where is the consumer harmed?

[Life of Brian]

Ah, you beat me to it.

[David Nieporent]

Where is the consumer harmed?

The "cheaper alternative" is more expensive than the import was before the Trump tax.

[Commenter_XY]

This is wishcasting = The "cheaper alternative" is more expensive than the import was before the Trump tax.

Because....reasons?

[David Nieporent]

Because....reasons?

Because the entire point of the tariff is to make otherwise cheaper goods more expensive than their domestic competition!

[bernard11]

No it's not wishcasting.

Pre-tariff, why do you think Americans were buying the imported product? Could it possibly be that the import was cheaper?

So now we put a tariff on the import and, mirabile dictu, it becomes more expensive than the domestic product. So people now buy the domestic product at a price higher than what the import cost pre-tariff.

And that doesn't even take account of the possibility the domestic producers will raise their price, because they are now protected from foreign competition.

Really, the excuses here get worse every day.

[shawn_dude]

This is non-responsive to my question.

That aside... the consumer, or more precisely, the American residents who operate within our economy, are harmed by knock-on effects related to the government's tax on imported goods. It reduces competition and innovation, it increases prices and adds to inflation. It reduces consumption overall which reduces employment. Long term, it dampens economic growth.

Broad, isolationist tariffs also have political impacts that result in an overall reduction of our ability to project economic power around the world.

[Life of Brian]

It's not a sales tax when only some of the goods in the store are subject to a given tariff. Those particular items are just more expensive than other ones next to them on the shelves. We comparison shop based on features/price/etc. all the time.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a sales tax when only some of the goods in the store are subject to a given tariff.

TF are you talking about? A sales tax is a tax collected on sales. A tax only collected on the sale of some products is still a sales tax.

If I go to Target for a shopping excursion, here in NJ some food I buy will be taxed, some will not be. The clothing I buy will not be taxed. But other household goods I buy will be. That doesn't mean that the 6.625% sales tax isn't a sales tax.

[Life of Brian]

TF are YOU talking about? Tariffs are not "collected on sales" under any rational meaning of those words.

And trying to conflate tariffs for certain sources of a good with categorical sales taxes is ridiculous. If you to to Target to buy fresh apples, you're not going to be taxed regardless of which ones you choose. If you go to buy a toaster oven, you're going to be taxed regardless of which one you choose. A tariff just adjusts the shelf price for a particular toaster oven, and you can avoid that by buying a different one.

[David Nieporent]

The U.S.-based importer (not the exporting country) writes the check to the U.S. government, obviously. And then — like any other sales tax — the consumer pays it in the form of higher prices.

[ThePublius]

Yes, I know! Or the U.S. consumer can choose to not purchase the imported product.

[David Nieporent]

In which case he has to buy the higher-priced domestic product (which is, after all, the entire point of a tariff!), with that price difference being… a tax.

[Don Nico]

The price differential paid for the domestic good is not a tax.

[David Nieporent]

It's not money paid to the government. It acts as a tax from the perspective of the consumer, though.

[Don Nico]

So David, when CA raises the wages of McDs to $20 an hour that is also a tax.
Your rhetoric aims to confuse people for your political agenda.

[David Nieporent]

So David, when CA raises the wages of McDs to $20 an hour that is also a tax.

I mean, yes, economically speaking.

Inflation is also a tax, economically, even though it doesn't involve mailing a check to the government.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does generally involve the government profiting, though, through seigniorage; As the value of privately held dollar denominated assets drops, that value effectively gets transferred to the government.

Government also benefits from inflation on account of lowballing COLAs, and the gap between continuous inflation and annual COLA increases.

So it's not just metaphorically a tax, it literally transfers value to the government.

[ThePublius]

I can do this all day. It's not a tax. It's a tariff. He doesn't "have to buy the higher-priced domestic product." He doesn't have to buy anything!

What do you think of the tariffs other countries imposed on U.S. exports. Was that all fine? Like 700% on U.S. rice going to Japan? What if we just match other countries' tariffs? Is that O.K.? The EU imposed a 10% tariff on U.S. cars while we imposed a 2.5% tariff on their cars. Was that fair?

[shawn_dude]

"Was that fair?"

Maybe. Were we selling cars and making a profit? Teslas were selling like crazy there (until recently.) Does trade equilibrium require balance on a per-sector or per-good basis? Or do we look for "fairness" across the entire scope of trade? Were we getting non-monetary concessions that made up for in other ways? It's hard to define "fair" without looking at the bigger picture. Trump has even defined national sales taxes (VAT) as a "tariff" and unfair even if the VAT is applied equally to both local and imported goods.

The cost of these tariffs are far, far higher than the tariff amounts, as well. Triggering massive stock losses and all the actions that will trigger is going to cost Americans billions in lost economic activity. People will lose jobs and it'll tip us into a deep recession. And at the end of this, we'll not be in a better place economically. It will take decades before we can replace all the foreign inputs into our supply chains and our goods will cost far more than foreign goods even if the government is successful at killing unions and preventing wage growth. (Which itself is going to diminish our economy and average quality of life.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can do this all day. It's not a tax. It's a tariff. He doesn't "have to buy the higher-priced domestic product." He doesn't have to buy anything!

Is an income tax not a tax? No one is forcing you to receive any income!

[David Nieporent]

Like 700% on U.S. rice going to Japan?

Another completely made up claim floating around the internet. Japan had import quotas on rice, but over 99% of all rice imports to Japan were tax free.

What do you think of the tariffs other countries imposed on U.S. exports. Was that all fine?

Not sure what you mean by "fine." I don't like taxes; I would hope these other countries wouldn't tax imports from the U.S. But whether they do or not, we should not be taxing imports from them to the U.S.

What if we just match other countries' tariffs?

Better than what we did, given that almost all countries have low tariffs involving the U.S. Still not as good as eliminating tariffs, of course.

The EU imposed a 10% tariff on U.S. cars while we imposed a 2.5% tariff on their cars. Was that fair?

I don't understand the word "fair" in this context. My grocery store raised its prices by 10%, but I didn't raise my legal fees I charged my customers 10%. Is that "fair"?

[Commenter_XY]

David, if you're that good of a lawyer, raise your fees 25%.

[Josh R]

Or the U.S. consumer can choose to not purchase the imported product.

A reduction in consumer demand is a bad thing for the economy.

[Commenter_XY]

The consumer purchases an American made good, instead.

What reduction?

[Josh R]

The American-made good costs more. Econ 101.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah right. Econ 101. A label you use when you can't argue your point, and don't know the historical data.

[Josh R]

I use the label Econ 101 when the answer is obvious. American-made goods have to be more expensive. Otherwise, we would not be importing from other countries.

But please, share your historical data.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes Josh R. Can you explain 45's tenure? None of the 'Econ 101' you confidently cite appears to have applied back then. We had tariffs, inflation was steady or went down.

Domestically produced goods did not appreciably increase in price, b/c it was surely not reflected in the inflation numbers from then. What gives? Reality was different that the textbook.

Did they rewrite the book and you didn't notice, or something?

[bernard11]

XY,

You are confused.

Suppose domestically produced widgets sell for $10, while imports cost only $8. Imports will greatly outsell domestic widgets. OK so far?

Now the government stupidly imposes a $4 tariff on widgets. Economic history suggests that the price of imports will rise almost $4, to $11.75, say. Still with me?

Now buyers will in fact switch to domestic widgets, but they will have to pay $10, as opposed to the $8 they were paying pre-tariff. That is a price increase to the buyers. And Econ 101 tells us that *they will buy fewer widgets than before because of this increase. (see Law of Demand). Make sense?

Further, the newly shielded domestic producers are likely to raise their prices further, to $11, maybe. Again, prices are up (how do you feel about inflation?) and sales volume is down. (In fact they will raise prices as high as elasticity allows, but leave that for another day). Still there?

*This is because some consumers who were willing to pay $8, or even $9, will be unwilling to pay $10.

[Josh R]

We had tariffs.

You tried that one before. We only had limited tariffs, most of which were eliminated in about a year.

Trump caved because Wall Street told him his plan was a disaster. Being a bug believer in tariffs, he did not want to cave. But, he had too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you impose tariffs on your own country?

I take it you haven’t been watching the news recently?

[ThePublius]

Why don't you just give me the answer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but your comments on this topic seem to suggest that you’re completely ignorant of the most basic elements of both macro- and microeconomics. Have you tried reading a Wikipedia article or watching a YouTube video or something?

[ThePublius]

Well, that is a rather insulting thing to say. All that I'm saying is that a tariff is not a tax; not the same thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay, I guess I did mean it a little disrespectfully. If you can’t even recognize the extent of what you don’t know here and aren’t interested in taking the time to learn, this isn’t going to be a very productive conversation.

[shawn_dude]

Oxford Dictionary definition for "Tax:"
"A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions."
[emphasis mine.]

trade.gov (a US government website) says this:
"A tariff or duty (the words are used interchangeably) is a tax levied by governments on the value including freight and insurance of imported products. Different tariffs applied on different products by different countries."
[emphasis mine.]

You can claim it's not a tax all you want, but even the government that is imposing the tariff says it's a tax.

tl;dr: Econ 101

[bernard11]

Are you familiar with the idea of subsets - that it's entirely possible that, given sets A and B, everything in A can also be in B. That would make A a subset of B. So it is with tariffs and taxes. Tariffs are a subset of taxes.

To say that a tariff is not a tax, but a tariff is like saying baseball is not a sport, because of its name.

[shawn_dude]

I was going to make that analogy through bread and croissants and then got hungry and stepped away from my computer for a roll.

[Armchair]

"And the second best is not imposing tariffs on one's own country. "

This is a lie. No economist suggests that it is "second best" to have no tariffs while other countries have tariffs against you.

[Sarcastr0]

DMN is a libertarian. He's consistent. I don't agree with him, but you citing to 'no economists say' is a fucking laugh.

And you called him a liar again. Based on your stupid-ass vibes. Again.

[David Nieporent]

Milton Friedman, 1970:

"Japan does impose numerous restrictions on trade—though in recent years she has been reducing them. Those trade restrictions hurt Japan and they hurt us—by denying them and us mutually profitable trade. In Japan no less than in the U.S., concentrated producers exert a greater influence on government than widely diffused consumers and are able to persuade the government to fleece the consumer for the benefit of the producers.

However, we only increase the hurt to us—and also to them—by imposing additional restrictions in our turn. The wise course for us is precisely the opposite—to move unilaterally toward free trade. If they still choose to impose restrictions, that is too bad but at least we have not added insult to injury.

This is clearly the right course of action on economic grounds."

[Armchair]

" No economist suggests that it is "second best" to have no tariffs while other countries have tariffs against you"

Freidman doesn't say that.

But...

"After four decades of aggressive public support from its Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI)—direct subsidies, tax breaks, cheap loans, and information-sharing—Japan had built an automotive juggernaut by the 1970s with the world’s most efficient production processes and its highest-quality cars.1 Its top automaker, Toyota, had perfected its management of material to the point that its inventory costs were only a tenth of General Motors’.2 American automotive engineers awarded many more top product-quality honors to Japanese automakers than to American ones.3 Over the decade, the Japanese industry improved its productivity at 4.3% annually—three times the American rate of progress.

Whereas American firms competed in a free and open market, Japan had insulated its automakers from foreign competition. On top of the aggressive government support it provided to its own producers, high tariffs kept imports uncompetitive, while onerous standards made it virtually impossible for foreign firms to build operations in Japan.4 American tolerance for such an imbalanced arrangement was a feature of Cold War-era trade policy and had long been a source of frustration for American auto executives.5

From 1970 to 1976, Japanese cars tripled their sales volume in the United States to more than 1 million units and 8% market share.6 Then came the decade’s second oil crisis. In the wake of the Iranian Revolution in Spring 1979, as oil prices more than doubled, American consumers lost their taste for American-made “gas guzzlers” and switched en masse to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.7 In 1980, nearly two out of every three new automobiles sold were small or compact cars, up from fewer than half in 1978.8

Small, fuel-efficient cars were a Japanese specialty and the American automakers, unable to quickly retool, quickly lost ground. Japanese automakers reached 21% market share in 1980,9 at which point they were exporting nearly two million cars annually to the U.S.—more than they were selling in their home market.10 That year, the Big Three American automakers suffered a $6.2 billion loss,11 after an average of $4.4 billion in annual profits during the previous decade.12 In the span of two years, Big Three sales had plummeted 30%, to their lowest level since 1961.13 Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy,14 and over 100,000 auto factory workers had been laid off.15

Policy Intervention
Backed by the threat of an outright import quota, President Reagan negotiated a “voluntary export restraint” (VER) with Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Japan agreed to limit its auto exports to the United States to 1.68 million, the level from 1979, for three years beginning in 1981. It was the economic equivalent of an import quota.

Impact
In the near term, the quota reduced the sales of Japanese cars by 20%16 and raised prices for consumers by an average of 8%, costing American consumers an additional $5.1 billion.17 But within the decade it had prompted nearly three times that much in foreign direct investment18 and brought 26,600 new auto-assembly jobs to the American South and Midwest.19 The investment in assembly plants spurred Japanese automakers to onshore more of their value chains, including component manufacturing and materials, which created 101,700 American jobs by 1991.20

Trade barriers created new market incentives to invest.

The quota set no limit on the number of vehicles Japanese automakers could sell in America, only on how many they could export to the country. Cars built in the U.S. were exempt. As a result, the Japanese automakers had new incentives to invest in U.S.-based manufacturing capacity. In 1980, there were no Japanese auto assembly plants in the U.S. Within a decade of Reagan’s action, every major Japanese automaker—Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and Subaru—began assembling cars in America.

https://americancompass.org/the-import-quota-that-remade-the-auto-industry/

[David Nieporent]

Freidman doesn't say that.

He literally did. Did you read the boldfaced portion? Or maybe you just don't think he was an economist?

[Sarcastr0]

He said exactly that - it's not a long quote!!

Are you lying, or were just too lazy to read and had some long-ass shit you Googled up and were itching to slam into a post?

[bernard11]

"Prisoners' dilemma?"

WTF does this have to do with the Prisoners' dilemma?

Plus, what DMN said.

Plus a trade deficit is not a debt.

Plus, this is just wrong, backwards, in fact:

If one side has tariffs, and the other doesn't.. That's the best case scenario of all for the country that does have the tariffs.

[Armchair]

"WTF does this have to do with the Prisoners' dilemma?"

https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/12/tariffs-trade-and-the-prisoners-dilemma/

[bernard11]

The critical point of the Prisoners Dilemma is that the prisoners lack the ability to communicate with one another and make agreements.

Cornell notwithstanding, that doesn't apply to trading partners.

[Armchair]

Cornell explicitly references trading partners.

The iterative trader's dilemma is rea.

[Sarcastr0]

The author is not an economist. He does AI.

Or he does now. He wrote that blog post your leaning on as an undergraduate. It's right there in the title of the blog.

You gotta stop posting contextless shit you Googled up. It makes you look like a dumbass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It makes you look like a dumbass."

Says the guy who posted non-inflation adjusted data to show that the US manufacturing sector went up.

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair:

We have now focused on the biggest problem; China. The world gets a 'tithe' of 10%, no big deal. China, OTOH, faces mass unemployment by end of Q3.

War is coming.

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

Hey fellow Patriots! Want to earn some easy Patriot Bucks?

Report the Democrat Blue Hairs illegally subverting families and grooming your children here:

https://enddei.ed.gov/

[Life of Brian]

First archived on February 26, so they rolled it out within about a month of the inauguration. That's like overnight in bureaucrat time.

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

That would've been 3 years and a $1B cost with a disastrous rollout like the simple heathcare.gov rollout was if it were done by govie Sarcastr0's instead of DOGE Patriots.

[Life of Brian]

Speaking of, check out this doozy from DOGE today:

On the http://IRS.gov website, the "log in" button was not in the top right on the navbar like it is on most websites. It was weirdly placed in the middle of the page below the fold.

An IRS engineer explained that the *soonest* this change could get deployed is July 21st... 103 days from now.

This engineer worked with the DOGE team to delete the red tape and accomplished the task in 71 minutes. See before/after pictures below.

There are great people at the IRS, who are simply being strangled by bureaucracy.

[Sarcastr0]

Doge lies.

The before/after picture does not prove anything they claim.

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

Huh? Of course it does. The before picture shows the login link below the fold, as claimed, and the after link shows the login link above the fold and on the top right. Again, as claimed. You can verify the current position of the login link by visiting the site yourself. And you can verify where the login link was by visiting the irs.gov website using an web archiving site. On archive.is the last snapshot is one month ago.

[David Nieporent]

The before picture shows the login link below the fold, as claimed,

Pro tip: there is no "fold" on a website.

And if we interpret that metaphorically, to mean that one has to scroll down to see it, it's still wrong; one does not need to scroll down to see it.

[Life of Brian]

It's fascinating how the squirmers are trying to squirm away from the main point -- that a simple change to a major government website was made in just over an hour rather than the originally projected 3+ months -- by concocting hairs to split over what the change actually was.

[Sarcastr0]

Your trust in DOGE for the 3+ months figure is touching, but naiive.

I don't know IRS policy, but that's not my experience with my agency's website.

[Life of Brian]

"I don't know IRS policy, but they're lying about it" shows some world-class determination to ride one's priors to the bitter end.

[David Nieporent]

"Virtually everything DOGE posts is a lie" isn't a "prior"; it's a conclusion formed from about 3 months of evidence now.

[David Nieporent]

By the way, I think a plausible interpretation is that this DOGE guy said he wanted this change, and the IRS guy said, "I'm busy. I'll get to it whenever. Now go away and come back in three months."

[Sarcastr0]

DOGE has a history of lying.

They made an unsupported assertion.

Your sudden blind trust in the government is not fooling anyone.

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

And here Sacastr0 is encouraging people to ignore the statements of government officials.

lol we've come full circle. We've got lazy govies telling you not to believe what other govies say.

[Magister]

Yes, it's easy to move some HTML around in the source of a single web page if your philosophy is "move fast and break things". And this seems like a trivial change that is probably safe to do the way social media website changes are made.

The three plus months claimed might reflect a formal process aimed at more substantial changes, proceeding through development, system integration, user acceptance, training and finally production, with testing at each stage, and security and performance reviews, and updates of appropriate documentation, and working around any change freezes or staff availability. And maybe IRS staff are busy enough (or now few enough) that a cosmetic change will be pushed past the busiest tax season.

But sure, let's just have a 19 year old nicknamed "Big Balls" mess around with public facing production applications and simply trust that no security vulnerability was introduced and that however many millions of people can still log in right before taxes are due. (One could also observe that many people visit irs.gov for forms and instructions and don't even need to sign in; putting the sign in so prominently may cause confusion for those users.)

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

Your repeated choice to make confident assertions about shit you have no idea about continues to astound me. Ever after all these months.

https://www.semrush.com/blog/above-the-fold/

"Above the fold" absolutely is a term of art for website design lifted from the newspaper industry.

You ignorant, and I mean I.G.N.O.R.A.N.T. boob.

Please next try and shit on "semrush" and step on yet another rake.

Regarding your scroll claim. Do you understand that just because it's above the fold on your browser, that maybe it isn't for others? Or do you think everyone has the same monitor, same resolution, same phone etc that you do? Or possibly there are several design heuristics that generalize and make analysis simpler? In many cases "above the fold" now generally means above the hero section.

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

* including the hero section.

[David Nieporent]

Regarding your scroll claim. Do you understand that just because it's above the fold on your browser, that maybe it isn't for others? Or do you think everyone has the same monitor, same resolution, same phone etc that you do?

Because I'm not a Nazi troll who shitposts stuff from 4chan all day long and then pretends he's informed, I had in fact considered that, and checked it on two browsers on my laptop — which has a small 13" screen — plus my iPhone's, before I posted. In none of the cases was scrolling necessary.

[Martinned2]

Brian Klaas posted an interesting essay on Power and Stupidity: https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/on-power-and-stupidity

The short answer is basically Yeats: The best lack all conviction, while the worst // Are full of passionate intensity.

(Klaas quotes Bertrand Russell for basically the same conclusion.)

But the more interesting bit are his four central observations:

Observation 1: Humans confer power based not on whether someone would be good at wielding power, but on whether they are good at getting power.

Observation 2: Increasing social complexity creates greater capacity for boundless stupidity and a higher risk that some of us will be hoodwinked by charismatic imbeciles.

Observation 3: Idiocy, carelessness, and incompetence frequently change history in consequential ways, but it’s far easier to break things than to fix them.

Observation 4: Because we like to imagine that people in power are clever and know what they’re doing, we feel compelled to perform intellectual gymnastics in pursuit of sticking rational explanations onto egregious stupidity.

This seems quite right, but the problem is what to do about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Give people in power less to do, so that they have less they can screw up, obviously.

[SRG2]

You don't actually believe that, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I do. I've been asking for the federal government to do less since the 70's.

This is, of course, orthogonal to the question of who gets to call the shots on the things the federal government DOES do.

The joke here, of course, is, what is Trump catching the most grief over at the moment? His attempt reduce how much stuff the federal government does. The impoundments and firings!

[Martinned2]

I've been asking for the federal government to do less since the 70's.

Like most people, you would prefer for the government to do less of the things you don't like, and more of the things you do like. That's not exactly libertarianism.

The joke here, of course, is, what is Trump catching the most grief over at the moment? His attempt reduce how much stuff the federal government does. The impoundments and firings!

Neither of those things involve the government doing less, they just involve the government doing the same things, but at a lower level of service quality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/climate/noaa-doge-cuts-salmon.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-U4.9ibv.6DOEsszw5VDR&smid=url-share

[Jmaie]

"Like most people, you would prefer for the government to do less of the things you don't like, and more of the things you do like. That's not exactly libertarianism."

Whatever else you can say about Brett, I'll take him at his word on this issue...

[ducksalad]

I don't see a lot of reduction so far in the scope of federal government.

Just to take a few examples:

Yes, the government is doing dramatically less DEI enforcement. But they've replaced it with dramatically more anti-DEI enforcement, so it's not clear less total policing is being done on the subject.

The Department of Education is being shut down, but it appears the main objective is simply to get rid of an organization that had been captured by liberal democrats. I see no sign that Trump is trying to reduce federal spending on, or influence over, education. He wants to spend the money and keep the power, just with his people and his priorities.

The cuts at the IRS and SSA are not accompanied by any reduction in the policies and programs they implement. It's merely trying to do just as much with fewer people, which is not the same as doing less.

He's increased federal activity on many fronts:
(1) heavy, aggressive tax increases and the enforcement that goes with them.
(2) heavy, aggressive policing of anyone who is not a citizen.
(3) aggressively seeking to confront countries we didn't have a fight with, and aggressively seeking to escalate fights we already had, of course with the exception of Russia.

[Commenter_XY]

It's a start.

https://doge-tracker.com/

I sort of like the Doge Merch. That made me laugh. They need a 'Big Balls' T-shirt, IMO.

[bernard11]

what is Trump catching the most grief over at the moment? His attempt reduce how much stuff the federal government does. The impoundments and firings!

Much of the complaint is that he is doing these things illegally and stupidly.

[ducksalad]

Observation #4 is a bit off. More accurate version:

Because we like to imagine we made the right choice at the polls, we feel compelled to perform intellectual gymnastics in pursuit of sticking rational explanations onto egregious stupidity after our candidate wins an election.

[Martinned2]

There's something I didn't have on my 2025 bingo card:

For veterans of the Eurozone crisis, this is quite incredible - today Greece has a lower borrowing cost than both the UK and the US for their 10 year bonds.

I had to check, all of the previous so called 'PIIGS' (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) have lower borrowing costs than the US today.

https://bsky.app/profile/nvondarza.bsky.social/post/3lmevbpme6s2r

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, duh. Why do you suppose we sneer every time somebody claims that the US budget deficit and ever higher debt isn't a problem?

Why do you suppose we treat it as an urgent problem that desperately needs to be solved?

Because 'what can't go on won't go on', and we're approaching the point where it won't go on.

[Sarcastr0]

It's quite clear that this is you bullshitting.

You don't care about the the US deficit or our debt - it's just a justification for radical cuts to programs you don't like.

Nothing about taxes, nothing about Trump's wasteful nonsense, nothing about anything but stuff you already didn't like.

I allow that among those you are lying to is yourself, but that doesn't mean you get to post our debt is crisis without getting dragged for your double standards.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't care about the deficit, it's just a cover for wanting to cut spending. Riiight. Because there's no obvious connection between caring about deficits and wanting spending cut....

If I want overall spending cut, what the hell am I supposed to advocate cutting? Programs I think are desperately needed? Of course I'm going to want radical cuts to programs I don't think should exist to begin with!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I don't care about the deficit ....."

I read that and thought you decided to try honesty for once. But - nah - the pretense goes on. In the last presidential election you voted the candidate who promised the largest increase in federal debt. And Trump wasn't subtle. Hell, he shouted his intentions on trillions in new deficits at every campaign rally. But you always vote for more debt, don't you?

Meanwhile, the Senate just passed a budget calling for five trillion dollars in additional red ink and I recall nary a peep from Brett Bellmore. This, despite the fact they cheated budget rules, simple arithmetic, and basic honesty itself to do so. The massive tax cuts from Trump's first term are expiring, but the GOP Senators decided to pretend that isn't happening to keep 3+ trillion off the books as new tax cuts. This, regardless of the fact they ARE new tax cuts.

But nothing from Brett, which is to be expected. His hypocritical pieties on the ickiness of federal debt must never apply to his own side!

[Sarcastr0]

Your motive has always been that you have a vision for government that does things you personally find nice, from services you enjoy to persecuting people you don't like.

In the past you talked about it all being in service of liberty. That was bullshit, but at least consistent.

You cannot sincerely care about deficits given the things you support.
Though again, I do believe you *think* you are sincere.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Though again, I do believe you *think* you are sincere."

You, sir, are a generous soul. I see no basis for such belief. What we see repeatedly from Brett is intense calculation : Can he support deporting U.S. citizens to a foreign prison? Sure; see his comment down below. All it took was a little elbow grease, some sleight-of-hand weaseling, and a throwaway line on how distasteful he would find it as cherry on top. Cult duties performed!

Over and over, we see the same thing: He twists, kneads, stretches and mauls the facts until he produces a Cult-Approved™ argument that looks just plausible if you stand way back & let your eyes go out of focus. After seeing all that work and effort, I find it not credible he wandered into his grotesque deficit hypocrisy by unthinking accident alone.

[Sarcastr0]

Tribalism makes rationalizers of us all.

But Brett much, much more than most.

I mute a ton of people, but rarely him. Because he really seems to believe what he says and engage with his critics.

Even if his beliefs and engagement are batshit, he's not boring.

Insincerity and being dully repetitive or verbose are the sins that'll get folks muted for me. And I can attest I apply that standard to lefties as well as righties around here.

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

> And I can attest I apply that standard to lefties as well as righties around here.

lol no you don't

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know who I have muted.

But yes, you're in the 'insincere' set.

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

I do know. Your objective here isn't to engage or contribute, it's to finger-wag and patriot-shame, so you're snow-blind to all Lefty comments and have no need to mute them. As if us Patriots will be silenced like you people are with those juvenile tactics.

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

Great finger-wag Komment Karen! We'd know he'd be serious if he adopted your positions on these issues!!

[ReaderY]

I want to make clear that I do not in any way condone cyberbullying anyone.

But I have to confess there is a bit of a soft spot in my heart for the audacity of the anonymous gamer who cybercrashed the chat of a livestreamed gaming session Musk was on, impersonated one of the many women Musk has impregnated as part of the hardware company he runs on the side - surely you’ve heard of the Great International Screw and Bolt Company - and messaged “Elon, it’s me, Aishley St. Claire. I have no means of contacting you so I bought PeO2 early access. Please pay your child support. Thank you, Elon.”

I also found the fact that Musk played miserably - he got his high game ratings by paying people to play for him and he basically sucks at the games he’s presented himself as an expert on - amusing as well.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-rage-quits-livestream-after-getting-ruthlessly-cyberbullied-in-the-chat/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a problem with Musk expecting people to work for no pay -- we have a minimum wage law for a reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I want to make clear that I do not in any way condone cyberbullying anyone.

But [very long paragraph condoning it]"

Its like the perfect example of ignoring everything before the "but" in a statement.

Well done!

[Ed Grinberg]

shorter ReaderY: "Norms are well & good, but I really hate this guy..."

[Estragon]

The cheating at video games is so unbelievably cringe, but what can you say— these people get the heroes they deserve.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=z1ykCc588Zw

[Estragon]

“A long time ago, I was, like, semi-pro good at Quake.”

What an unbelievable dipshit. There’s plenty more at the link above if you can handle the ick.

[Martinned2]

Chris Dillow is a bit weird, and a self-proclaimed Marxist, but his blog posts are usually worth reading.

It's a nice irony that one of the most capitalistic nations on earth should be one of the few which has a government which is acting against the interests of capital.

This isn't, however, merely embarrassing for those bankers and tech billionaires who supported Trump. It's also awkward for a Marxian conception of politics.

"The executive of the modern state" wrote Marx "is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." But Trump is managing these affairs appallingly. His tariff rises have wiped trillions off stock prices and threaten to cause a recession that will hit the interests of the whole bourgeoisie - not just of mainstream corporate America but also of the tech billionaires who have lost hundreds of billions.

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2025/04/governments-vs-capitalists.html

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's a nice irony that one of the most capitalistic nations on earth should be one of the few which has a government which is acting against the interests of capital."

This demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand free market economics. What did Adam Smith say about businessmen? "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Maintaining a free market economy requires you to routinely work against the interests of actual capitalists. Because free markets are, for the capitalist, a dog eat dog war of all against all, a Red queen's race where you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in place.

The last people who like free markets are capitalists!

[Martinned2]

The last people who like free markets are capitalists!

So why put Trump in the White House? He's worse than a capitalist, he's a bad capitalist.

[Sarcastr0]

Maintaining a free market economy requires you to routinely work against the interests of actual capitalists.

This is absolutely correct - with laws against insider trading, conflicts of interest, antitrust, etc.

It requires a lot of government work to mantain free competition.

But that's the Euoropean model. In American conservativism, laissez faire has been called out as the goal for ages.

[Brett Bellmore]

But ideally not a lot of government work in a "Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done." sense. Even though free markets require guiderails, government is as prone to screwing them up as to preserving them.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the government work in question should be good policies, not bad nonsense.

Now, please apply your "Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done" condemnation to the current administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say: "I generally approve of his ends, I think his means often suck."

[bernard11]

What ends do you approve of?

Are you willing to say that those ends justify any means?

[SRG2]

1. The USD is the world's reserve currency.
2. Because of that, it trades at a higher level than a general model of currency valuation would suggest.
3. And because of #2, trade deficits are to be expected.
4. And also because of #2, the US was less likely to suffer from imported inflation.
5. And because of #1, the US can finance its debt more cheaply than otherwise - and that also has a follow-on effect for US interest rates in general.
6. If you impose trade barriers and start a tariff war to try to balance trade, your currency will weaken, but exporters can't take advantage of a cheaper USD owing to other countries' tariffs. hence this will be a driver of recession
7. The political risk of such a war is that other countries take the political position that they want alternatives to the USD as a reserve currency, which will drive US rates up
8. And owing to a weaker USD, the US will be importing inflation, and rates will go up.
9. Rising rates will cost US domestic companies, leading to losses, closures, and hence another driver towards a recession.

Hence that worst of outcomes, a recession with inflation, together with the likely permanent loss of the USD's previously unchallenged status as the world's reserve currency, leading to permanently higher interest rates , all of which will have been accomplished with little to no offsetting advantages or benefits.

And all because Trump doesn't understand macroeconomics particularly in regards to trade, and his political lackeys and the cultists are either too ignorant or too cowardly to do anything about it.

[hobie]

You know who you need to talk to? Ron Vara. He knows more about this than you do

[Ridgeway]

This is pretty much dead-on Econ 101.

I'd add 6(a): Increased overall prices (as equilibrium pricing of all goods (domestic and imported) will by definition be higher than pre-tariff) will decrease overall consumption, exacerbating recessionary pressure.

[SRG2]

This is pretty much dead-on Econ 101.

Yup - but it's apparently beyond the cultists.

I'd add 6(a)

Also yup.

[Commenter_XY]

I reject your #2, and hypothesis. You talked to Otto Youazz (thanks NG) for it trades at a higher level than a general model of currency valuation would suggest, and 6 Prove it, b/c it is BS.

So 3,4 moot. 5 is true. 6-9 is wishcasting.

Make a better argument.

[Ridgeway]

Seriously? It is just supply and demand. Due to the USD's status as a reserve currency (and related issues like oil being traded in dollars) there is an artificial demand for dollars that would not exist otherwise. That axiomatically increased the value/price of dollars vs other currencies.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes seriously. It is not just supply and demand, there is a little more to it. There is no such thing as 'artifical demand' for dollars. No other currency has the reach as the dollar, no other country has a currency that is as fungible, or the characteristics of a country like ours that gives the dollar it's value.

So no.

Do you want to try again?

[SRG2]

No other currency has the reach as the dollar, no other country has a currency that is as fungible, or the characteristics of a country like ours that gives the dollar it's value.

Which is why it's a reserve currency! You post as though the status as a reserve currency and these qualities are independent.

[bernard11]

No.

A reserve currency is one that is heavily used in trade. Prices of imports and exports between non-USA countries are often stated in dollars, because the dollar markets are extremely deep and liquid, and there are plenty of hedging mechanisms available.

If Brazil buys goods from Argentina, say, the deal will often be done in dollars.

That creates a demand for dollars. And that demand strengthens the dollar. It's not the only factor, of course, but it definitely is significant.

[SRG2]

Wrong, stupidly so.

Economics is clearly a subject about which you are lamentably ignorant.

[Kazinski]

As I type this the SP500 is up over 8% today, and the Nasdaq up over 10%.

[Ridgeway]

Yeah -- because Trump blinked and backed off the "reciprocal" tariffs. We are still down about 8% YTD on the S&P, and 5% since "liberation day." I am sure all those tariffs we collected since this morning will counterbalance those losses, though.

[Kazinski]

I said right after liberation day that the reciprocal tariff formula was stupid, and had a long post using Bangledesh as an example.

But it may well be his tariff tantrum will pay dividends in the long run, and may promote freer trade especially by inducing other countries to reduce non-tariff trade barriers.

[SRG2]

Any Wall Street trader who bought options two weeks ago and hedged is making out like a bandit.

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

The Left is out there rooting for China/CCP in the trade war. I bet they'd also be rooting for China/CCP in a hot war.

[SRG2]

And meanwhile, the cultists are rooting for an unnecessary trade war that no-one wins.

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

Why don't all these countries putting tariffs on our goods first understand that no one wins with tariffs?

It's so weird that this supposedly obvious economic sense is so esoteric that only Trump critics know it...

[grb]

Uh huh. And no one would win a nuclear exchange either. But I bet the victim of a first strike would retaliate.

What do you think, Magnus? But of course you're only a troll; you don't think.

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

Who levied tariffs first? The US, or all these other countries?

Do you know?

[SRG2]

Until Trump's bullshit emergency, tariffs amounted to little more than minor skirmishes. That's why.

Now defend Trump's methodology for imposing tariffs. If you can.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, we have been nuked for the past 40 years.

[SRG2]

On what grounds do you say that? Because Trump said so?

[Moderation4ever]

Many people are rooting for China because China's interests happen to coincide with the interest of the American consumer and the American suppliers, including US farmers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

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

>China's interests happen to coincide with the interest of the American consumer and the American suppliers

WOW

[David Nieporent]

Trade. Is. Positive. Sum.

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

Free. And. Fair. Trade. Is. A. Positive. Sum.

H.T.H.

Magnus. Pilatus. M.B.A.,. M.D., J.D., P.h.D.x.2.

[David Nieporent]

All voluntary trade is positive sum.

"Fair trade" is a slogan like "common sense gun safety" that is used to mean its opposite.

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

So if Side A has 0% tariffs and Side B has 1,000,000% tariffs, it's a positive sum and fair!

[Ridgeway]

I, for one, look forward to becoming Albania 2.0.

Where's the love for Enver Hoxha?

[David Nieporent]

The two are totally unrelated, and yes. Of course, a million percent tariff would be bad and harmful, but it has no bearing on a transaction going the other way.

One thing you people fail to understand is that people trade; countries don't.

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

>but it has no bearing on a transaction going the other way.
So in order to get to your position, you have to ignore half of the equation. That definitely explains why you are so opposed to tariffs, the American producers and workers who are harmed by the foreign tariffs don't exist in your universe.

>One thing you people fail to understand is that people trade; countries don't.

Are you for real? How stupid is that statement?

[David Nieporent]

So in order to get to your position, you have to ignore half of the equation. That definitely explains why you are so opposed to tariffs, the American producers and workers who are harmed by the foreign tariffs don't exist in your universe.

No. There is no such "equation" at all. When I buy a Honda from Japan (I mean, it was probably made in the U.S., but for the sake of argument, let's say it was made there and imported here), that's the entire deal. I give Honda green pieces of paper; they give me a car. That's it. Finis. Complete.
Some random other American selling some random other product or service to a Japanese person is not "half" of any "equation." It's simply an independent deal.

Are you for real? How stupid is that statement?

It's not. The countries aren't buying and selling from each other; individual buyers and sellers in each country are dealing with each other.

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

>When I buy a Honda from Japan (I mean, it was probably made in the U.S., but for the sake of argument, let's say it was made there and imported here), that's the entire deal.

So, the President of a country when he's evaluating trade in aggregate shouldn't care about producers and workers, only on the consumers?

Are you deliberately cherry-picking or are you just kinda ignorant?

>The countries aren't buying and selling from each other; individual buyers and sellers in each country are dealing with each other.

And the government of the countries should do what when setting policy? Nothing because it's just individuals? Only consider one class of participants? Or evaluate the entire landscape of trade?

[hobie]

Damn right I'm rooting for China this time. They got the muscle to give you America-hating traitors a good lesson you won't forget. You know all them nuts and bolts holding together your F-150s and the Chick-fil-A drive thru signs? China

[Frank Drackman]

Who makes the Condoms your wife gives to the guys fucking her?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A Firefly fan, huh?

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

lol, I can tell who has never bought a box of nuts and bolts made out of Cheap Chinesium.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, my Chinese made AKM and SKS are damn near indestructible, and the Chinks didn't even know enough to call their 7.62 x 39 steel core ammo "Armor Piercing" (or maybe they do, if they'd classified it as "AP" probably wouldn't have been able to export it to us) Only realized it was Armor Piercing when I was shooting at my Uncles Farm back in the 90's rounds went through the target and some steel truck wheels he had stacked up "to use for a rainy day"

Frank

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

Go buy a box of screws from Home Depot. Do you even know what a Home Depot is?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, you mean the place where I find the guys to do my lawn work? I work with my hands (Hey Now!) can't risk them doing mundane manual labor.

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

Why aren't you reporting them to DHS and collecting your Patriot Bucks? That's what I do.

[Frank Drackman]

No speak-a dee Inglees, now I'm going to sound like Hoby-Stank, but what am I supposed to do, hire Kleetus and Bubba when they're not grinding a Tree Stump?

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

Hire an American and stop being part of the problem.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said, get Kleetus and Bubba to put down the Meth Pipe and answer their phone and I will.

[Brett Bellmore]

Chinese quality is all over the place. I've gotten absolute crap, and decent stuff for insanely low prices.

[bernard11]

Chinese quality is all over the place. I've gotten absolute crap, and decent stuff for insanely low prices.

Of course. Because "China" doesn't manufacture, Chinese businesses do, and some of them make quality stuff and some don't. Big surprise.

I have actually imported goods from China - iron and steel castings. We used two foundries. One we have many years of good experience with, and the other came highly recommended by major American companies.

Guess what? They both did excellent work at prices far below what we would have paid domestically.

[Don Nico]

Yup, the world's largest manufacturer of counterfeit bolts.

[tylertusta]

I bet they'd also be rooting for China/CCP in a hot war.

If Trump is President and a war with China starts, the wackadoos will definitely make themselves known.

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

Wrong thread.

[hobie]

I wonder what Elizabeth Oyer the pardon attorney had to say that that federal marshals we're dispatched to stop her? I know beating women ain't much of a crime these days, but Mel Gibson getting his toys back doesn't seem particularly earth-shattering

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"At least half of the front-line attorneys in the solicitor general’s office plan to leave, people familiar with the matter said, as Trump’s emergency requests pile up at the high court."

https://archive.ph/zpIQq

This stood out:

The planned departures, and the newly announced retirement of veteran Edwin S. Kneedler, come as the Trump administration has repeatedly asked the high court to clear the way for its efforts to dramatically reshape the federal government, expand immigration enforcement and halt federal spending.

Edwin Kneedler, who recently argued a case in front of the Supreme Court, has been around for 46 years. He mentored both Alito and Kagan.

Alito praised him:

“Whenever Ed is on the brief or is arguing, I know — and I won’t speak for my colleagues, but I bet they all feel the same way — we’re getting the best possible argument that can be made for the position that he is defending,” Alito told The Washington Post in 2014.

Enjoy your retirement. As Monica said on Friends, it is the passing of an era.

[hobie]

I hear Chesebro, Giuliani, Powell & Eastman all need jobs badly. Just pull them back out from under the bus

[Estragon]

Eastman will get wheeled back out soon enough. Probably as the birthright citizenship stuff comes to a head. Whether any of the proprietors here will have the “courage” to mention it— or their past endorsement of him— is left as a thought exercise for the reader.

[grb]

Every day Trump moves this country further towards becoming a banana republic:

"Thinking of taking a family trip outside the U.S.? It’s not your reception as an American at a foreign resort you have to worry about. It’s close encounters of the Trump kind when you return:

A lawyer’s spring break trip to the Dominican Republic with his family ended on a troubling note at Detroit Metro Airport on Sunday: He was detained by federal agents, questioned about his clients, and asked to give up his cellphone, he says. But Dearborn attorney Amir Makled, who is representing a pro-Palestinian demonstrator who was arrested at the University of Michigan last year, stood his ground. He didn’t give up his phone.

“I’m an American citizen. I’m not worried about being deported,” Makled said he recalled thinking to himself in the airport interrogation room. “So, I tell them, ‘I know you can take my phone. I’m not going to give you my phone, however … 90% of my work is on my phone. You’re not getting unfettered access to (it).’ “

https://digbysblog.net/2025/04/09/close-encounters-of-the-trump-kind/

[Ed Grinberg]

So, the only way to avoid "becoming a banana republic" is to ignore the "pro-Palestinian activists" violating all kinds of rules / laws, on and off college campuses, as the local & national Democratic authorities have been doing for a year and a half? Hmmm...

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, this has been the law for as long as there have been cell phones. I think in the Ninth Circuit they can only do manual searches rather than a forensic extraction, so try to find a flight that lands in LAX.

[Estragon]

The White House press secretary suggested yesterday that they would like to find a way to be able to deport US citizens:

“The president has said if it’s legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that. He’s not sure, [and] we are not sure if there is […] It’s an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly in the effort of transparency.”

As I have said repeatedly, the power to deport, in defiance of court orders and regardless of status, will NEVER remained cabined to the original group once arrogated. This has been obvious from the beginning, as well as readily revealed by any cursory study of history. Indeed, I suspect that the deportation of Mr. Kilmar was not in fact in error but rather calculated boundary testing at the direction of a certain Mr Miller.

The blithe confidence of commentators here that this can simply never happen to them is truly mystifying— and in particular as to those of you married to foreign born spouses.

Additionally, if we don’t hear from Josh for a while, I think we all know what he’s furiously working on. A pathway!

[hobie]

Just make another Texas SB8 where you deputize the citizenry to expel whomever they please with no review by the courts. If Blackman were smart he could plagiarize that, but he's too busy polishing the novelty gavel he bought at the Sharper Image

[Estragon]

I read “gavel as “Navel”

Speaking of navel gazing, Somehow I hadn’t realized until literally yesterday that he refers to himself— on his own website— as a “national thought leader.”

[hobie]

You gotta be fucking kidding me

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately, he is not

[Brett Bellmore]

As I read it, it's not so much deportation, as just serving a normal prison sentence in a cheaper prison outside the country. It's not like you have freedom of travel as a prisoner...

Still, I'm not fond of the idea. We should reshore our prisons. Why should this be the one area where we want export jobs?

[hobie]

You should be more careful in these regards, Brett. I wouldn't put it past this administration to deport even naturalized citizens if they wore the wrong t-shirt at a Trump parade or criticized Russia

[Brett Bellmore]

I said I wasn't fond of the idea.

Really, the proper way to do what Trump is doing here, is to get Congress to actually fund enough immigration judges and detention facilities. Trump is trying to work around a Congress that's basically worthless in terms of getting anything done, but the Constitution isn't written for working around Congress.

[Estragon]

“immigration judges”

What role do you figure immigration judges have in the deportation of US citizens?

[Brett Bellmore]

In the case of a US citizen? Outside of really rare circumstances such as fraudulently obtained naturalization, their role would be saying "no".

Look, I am generally supportive of Trump's ends, I frequently think his chosen means suck. But, not being committed to the left wing "Trump is a moron who acts randomly" stupidity, I can generally understand why Trump has chosen particular means, and see how he could think he might get away with them.

In this case, Trump is faced with an absolutely staggering accumulation of illegal immigrants let in by prior administrations. He ran on ejecting them from the country, the public supports him delivering on his campaign promise.

But that's the end. The means? He's stuck with deliberately underfunded detention and deportation systems, and the Republican Congress is utterly worthless when it comes to doing anything about it.

So he's trying to get inventive in dealing with the dire mismatch between legally authorized means, and politically legitimate ends. Outsourcing detention to foreign prisons which are much cheaper than US facilities. Bypassing the understaffed immigration judge system.

It's understandable, but I don't think it's constitutional.

But, what will the Supreme court think about it? I don't know, they frequently approve of things I think are grossly unconstitutional.

As I said above, the real answer to this is for Congress to get off their asses and properly fund the system, so that Trump can deliver on his promise of mass deportation, (That they ran on, too!) legally.

[ducksalad]

In the case of a US citizen? Outside of really rare circumstances such as fraudulently obtained naturalization, their role would be saying "no".

Suppose that the president issues a direct order to immigration judges - as subordinate employees within the unitary executive - along the following lines:

(1) he has determined as POTUS that there are zero cases of citizens wrongfully in deportation proceedings, and
(2) immigration judges, as employees, are required to accept this determination as factual in every single word and action they take on the job, and
(3) any judge who rules otherwise is deemed to have resigned unconditionally.

EDIT: I typed this before I saw your response below. I assume you think such an order would be problematic.

[David Nieporent]

In this case, Trump is faced with an absolutely staggering accumulation of illegal immigrants let in by prior administrations. He ran on ejecting them from the country, the public supports him delivering on his campaign promise.

But that's the end.

Seems weird that he's wasting so much time attacking legal immigrants, then.

[Brett Bellmore]

I hope you don't really think news coverage is a representative sample of events.

[Sarcastr0]

All lies and jests, till the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Did you read Noscitur below? He kind of shows you're doing a lot of work to explain away a direct response about deporting citizens.

[shawn_dude]

So you're operating on faith that Trump is doing things much better than any of the reported data shows?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll say it outright: If you think most of the people being deported are genuinely legal aliens, you're nuts.

[shawn_dude]

I think the deportations are not following required legal processes and that the government itself doesn't know who it's deporting. Otherwise, it wouldn't be deporting US-born children or legal immigrants working their way through the process of getting a green card. They wouldn't be deporting green card holders, either.

I recall a lot of the pro-Trump crowd (and Trump) saying he'd deport the criminals and leave those immigrating legally alone. But like everything else Trumpian, it was all just a bait and switch.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett’s confidence is based on no information.

Vibes.

Not sure if MAGA cultist shit or nativist nonwhites scary shit. But this is not a facts based determination.

[bernard11]

If you think most of the people being deported are genuinely legal aliens, you're nuts.

Odd standard. What if some of them are legal? Just a bunch of oopsies, not worth worrying about?

You're generally not a big believer in government competence. But suddenly they can't possibly be making a mistake and deporting people they shouldn't?

Hard to reconcile.

[Estragon]

“In the case of a US citizen? […] their role would be saying “no”

But also potentially “yes”?

You are saying that a US citizen seeking to challenge deportation under this new contemplated regime would do so in front of an immigration judge? How should habeas play into a situation like this, in your opinion?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, in the very rare case of a US citizen who obtained citizenship by material fraud, judges are going to say "yes".

[Estragon]

But the comments by Ms Leavitt and Don don’t contain that limiting factor “citizenship obtained by material fraud” as you can see in the original comment you are replying to.

If you think it’s just great for Trump have the ability to deport US citizens, full stop, why not just say so? Let’s stop playing these little games.

[ducksalad]

There's a problem with whole idea of having people called "judges" in the executive branch.

The problem becomes obvious when the upper administration asserts that as executive employees, they have to rule as they are ordered to rule. It defeats the whole concept of "judge" both in the legal and the everyday sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I absolutely agree: Article II "judges" are BS.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More of a problem in the second paragraph than in the first.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump successfully lobbied against the 2024 immigration bill, which would have funded more immigration judges and detention facilities.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/

And once Trump came into office, he fired a bunch of immigration judges, so we don’t even have the immigration judges that Congress did fund.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-court-judges-fired-firings-d35eed0f685739c4a19d4c8baf39113a
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5335523/trump-immigration-judges

In this case, Congress is worthless because Congressional Republicans haven’t stood up to Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, once again, it was a bullshit "compromise" bill that nobody who was paying attention thought would actually help with border enforcement.

[Sarcastr0]

Once you start putting compromise in scare quotes, you are no longer interested in solving problems.

[bernard11]

Apparently, all they have to do is grab you and ship you off somewhere before you can let anyone know.

Then they can claim it's impossible to get you back. Just an oopsie, to some commenters here.

[Commenter_XY]

For illegal aliens, it is an Oooopsie. They are out of America.

Deport natural born American citizens? NFW. Expulsion or exile is of a natural born American citizen is unconstitutional (I think); you can jail them for life, but not expel them. Nor can citizenship be stripped from a natural born American (meaning born to legal resident alien parents, or citizens; children of illegals have an uncertain legal status, presently).

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’ve been clear that you don’t think a court has any authority to direct that someone removed to a Salvadoran prison be returned to the U.S. If a U.S. citizen did find themselves in that predicament, what do you think could or should be done about it?

[Commenter_XY]

Ask the country holding them, very politely, to hand them back to us, unmolested and unharmed = If a U.S. citizen did find themselves in that predicament, what do you think could or should be done about it?

If that country said 'No' (which isn't happening, just like your hypothetical isn't happening), that American citizen just became a hostage. Not a good move by that country. It would never get to that point, Nas.

[ducksalad]

Nosc can speak for himself, but to me you're missing the point of the question. We all know Bukele is getting paid for this and would send anyone back we want back, regardless of citizenship. The situation would be where the administration declines to ask for the citizen back (or equivalently, pays the other country $20K/head to "decline" our request).

So my question very specifically: if the administration admits they deported a citizen, plausibly has the ability to get them back, but declines to do so, what do you think could or should be done about it?

Follow-up question: suppose two years later a very thin, dirty, unshaven man dressed only in once-white boxers shows up at our border saying he's the citizen who was wrongly deported but he somehow got out. Now that he's standing on US soil, does he have any right at all to have someone listen to him and do some identity checks, or should he simply be seized and sent back to El Salvador with instructions to "make sure" this time.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, ok, ok...to play out the scenario that will not happen. I'll humor you.

You get to wait until the next election and ask the next POTUS to get the natural born American citizen back, by very politely asking the country holding him to return him unmolested and unharmed.

If the poor bastard manages to make it back two years later, he should turn himself in, and immediately and ask for asylum. But first, get a shower and a good steak dinner at Del Frisco's. ????

[bernard11]

First of all what about naturalized citizens. It's easy enough for Trump to manufacture some sort of claim, have them arrested and hauled off before anyone knows about it.

Certainly Trump is not going to ask, politely or otherwise, for the guy back. Why would he?

And the same actually applies to a natural born citizen in that situation. Do you think Trump cares about the Constitution?

Oh, and lose the oopsie business. An illegally imprisoned individual is still a human being, your sneers notwithstanding, and doesn't deserve the punishment and deprivation of rights you cheer.

And an illegal alien who hasn't been convicted of any crimes surely doesn't deserve it.

[Commenter_XY]

Ooopsie, I offended bernard11.

[bernard11]

Not the first time.

But yeah. The idea that sending someone to a foreign prison by mistake is just a trivial error that we need not do anything about is offensive, to me, to the Constitution, to ordinary morality. I feel no need to apologize for being offended.

And don't give me some crap about them all being rapists and terrorists and murderers. That's horseshit you repeat because Trump said so, and for zero reason. It's all just ignorance and bigotry. You should be ashamed.

[Estragon]

“It's not like you have freedom of travel as a prisoner”

Wow, look at you, coming up with a potential pathway all on your own!

Again, I find your blithe confidence that this could never happen to you somewhat puzzling.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I read it, it's not so much deportation

The question was, “over the weekend, President Trump said that he would be willing to have U.S. citizens deported to El Salvador, with the cooperation of President Bukele. How would that work legally, and how many people would potentially be available for that operation?”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-simply-floated-idea-of-deporting-u-s-citizens-white-houses-leavitt-says

[bernard11]

It's not a matter of exporting jobs.

Sending someone to a foreign prison, as we have seen, deprives them of the rights they would have in the US.

These include the various rights to be heard in court, and I also doubt El Salvador has a constitutional provision against cruel and unusual punishment.

[Frank Drackman]

It's just a way to get certain peoples to "Self Deport", like that Tub O' Haggis Rosie O'Donnell, (see what I did there?) does anyone miss her? Same with Ellen Degenerate, I Hate America Ferrera, 40 Facelifts of Eva Longoria, Speaking of Face Lifts, that Horse-face Cher and Sharon Stone-face

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Estragon, deportation of naturalized American citizens, is possible, after stripping them of their American citizenship; see John Demjanjuk.

[Estragon]

“Naturalized”

Funny— neither Ms. Leavitt nor Don included that qualification. I remained puzzled that people think it will end there— even accepting your massaging of the comments we can all read for ourselves.

[Commenter_XY]

I simply made a factual statement.

[Estragon]

Thanks for your contribution.

[shawn_dude]

Based on recent events, deportation of anyone is possible if a government agent scoops you up and throws you on a plane to El Salvador before anyone can stop them. It doesn't matter what your current legal status is and it doesn't matter what any judge orders.

Your comment assumes what the law says is required defines what "is possible" but there are more than a few cases of ICE gathering up anyone and everyone in an area and deporting the lot without any warrants or legal process. What is possible is simply what they can get away with for as long as they can get away with it.

[Commenter_XY]

Based on recent events, natural born US citizens have absolutely nothing to fear. How many natural born American citizen TdA gang members do you think there are? Not too many. It is not exactly a large population.

[Estragon]

“natural born American citizen TdA gang members”

The comments by Ms. Leavitt and Don do not actually contain this limitation (“TdA gang members”)… as you can see in the original comment you are responding to.

[Estragon]

This comment also seems to suggest that you believe “not too many” natural-born US citizen members of certain gangs COULD be deported. Are you in favor of that?

[Commenter_XY]

Nope. Can't deport natural born American citizens. Cannot expel them, either.

[Estragon]

“Natural born”

Interesting how you inject that limitation. I’ll just note that Don and Ms Leavitt do not articulate that status as being relevant.

[Commenter_XY]

I cited a historically accurate case where a naturalized American was stripped of their citizenship, and expelled.

Hence, my comment that natural born American citizens cannot have citizenship stripped, or be expelled.

The Donald or PressSec Leavitt have not commented directly on the topic. Your projecting. And badly.

[Estragon]

They absolutely have, as quoted above.

They are talking about shipping US citizens to foreign countries. Places where, by the way, they are currently in court arguing that they cannot be compelled to retrieve people from even if they ended up there by error.

What they have not yet talked about directly is stripping citizenship from naturalized citizens. In fact at least thus far, thankfully, nobody is talking about that except you and Brett Bellmore. I can guess why.

[ducksalad]

Don't play off the different meanings of "can't".

The police "can't" hold an uncharged person prisoner without bringing them to a judge, but police occasionally do it anyway.

If they do, and people notice, the courts have authority to order the person released, even in the face of a president getting on Truth Social and saying no don't release her.

In the case of deporting citizens, what is your position? Can the courts order the administration to do anything, once the victim is outside the borders?

Please no red herrings about the foreign government and their precious sovereignty. We're talking about what a court could order OUR government to do.

And please no false bravado about hostages and our executive branch heroically rescuing them. We all know that Bukele is holding people at our request and is getting paid to do it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nope. Can't deport natural born American citizens. Cannot expel them, either."

What if you mistakenly believe that the US citizen is an illegal alien TdA member?

[shawn_dude]

And then cannot get them back from the Salvadorian slave camp you dumped them into?

Or, what about the natural born children of undocumented immigrants who get scooped up, shackled, and sent to El Salvador with their parents?

[bernard11]

What if you mistakenly believe that the US citizen is an illegal alien TdA member?

Not a hard question. The answer is obvious except to a Trump cultist.

You bust your ass getting them back, including paying what is needed. You don't yell "oopsie," or make up lies, to get away with it. And when you do get them back, which is far from impossible, no matter what the Liar-in-Chief says, you pay them damages for the time they spent in prison.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And when you do get them back, which is far from impossible, . . .

Dead or alive?

[shawn_dude]

I'd add that you also give them a bump up in their application for permanent residency. Congress has done this in the past.

[Griffin Klema]

Surprising not to see a post (yet) from Prof. Volokh on his amicus brief in MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR advocating for school control over sexual identity indoctrination of young children without any parental oversight or input.

[Bwaaah]

You have a link to his brief? Are you sure you are interpreting it the way it was intended? (Me thinks it quite likely not.)

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

Which one is it?
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/

I looked through a handful of the 3/10 submissions and didn't see Volokh anywhere.

[Griffin Klema]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/355106/20250409094122047_24-297%20Professors%20Justin%20Driver%20and%20Eugene%20Volokh%20Amici%20Curiae%20Brief.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Thanks. So you did mischaracterize it. It simply argues that there is no constitutional right to an individualized curriculum in a public school. (More precisely, no constitutional right of parents for individualized curriculums for their children in public schools.)

[Bwaaah]

For what it's worth, I found this link to an amicus brief filed by Protect the First, an organization that lists EV as a "Senior Legal Advisor." That brief advocates for "the right of parents to control their children’s education on issues of religious or moral significance." If I understand the brief correctly, it seems to advocate for the opposite of what you say EV is advocating. (I don't know if that brief reflects the views of EV.)

[David Nieporent]

He didn't sign onto the brief, definitely. (And the brief is silly, btw.)

[Bwaaah]

The brief points out that the plaintiff made no claims of the kind of indoctrination you described. And yet plaintiff asserts that each parent should have their own effectively unlimited veto over what a school teaches. That's nuts.

As the brief points out, current 1A interpretations provide numerous free exercise protections:

"First, students are generally permitted to engage in individual religious expression while in public schools.[...]
Second, the Court has held that state and local governments can provide indirect public funds for families who wish to enroll their children in private religious schools.[...]
Third, the Court’s decisions provide religious parents with broad rights to instruct their children outside of the public-school system."

The sky is not falling.

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

https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/04/05/letitia-jamess-40-year-pattern-of-property-and-financial-discrepancies/

Letitia James’s 40-Year Pattern of Property and Financial Discrepancies

"It’s not just about a number. It’s about a repeated pattern of paperwork that benefits the filer but doesn’t match the facts. This pattern stretches across multiple properties, unfolds over more than four decades, and cuts through a wide range of government filings—from building violations to mortgage applications to sworn financial disclosures. It’s a timeline of discrepancies that would trigger serious consequences for any ordinary property owner."
----

I can't wait for that DEI traitor to get justice... and it looks like it's justice is on the horizon...

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/letitia-jamess-offensive-against-vdare-is-harrowing-for-free-speech/
She successfully hounded a dissident website off the Internet over supposed financial improprieties. This person.
Kind of reminds me of Eliot Spitzer...

[SRG2]

Oh, the double-sided irony!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A thought based on a book I recently read.

The "marketplace of ideas" concept is popular. A marketplace IRL is a regulated entity. "Free markets" are still regulated.

If we have a free market of ideas and it is to succeed, there will be regulations. The same goes for the whole "well-regulated militia."

Some people push back on the whole metaphor, but I'm willing to work with it.

[Sarcastr0]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-bad-ideas-the-marketplace-of-ideas/id1682047968?i=1000677732599

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sounds like Mary Anne Franks might like that podcast.

[M L]

Refrigerators made the USA used to last 40+ years. Now they last 10 years or less with multiple failures and repairs needed during that time.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, do you think you're talking to twenty year olds here? Because nobody who was around a few decades ago believes you, since we know differently firsthand.

[M L]

My inlaws have had the same fridge in their kitchen for 45 years or something. I know lots of people with one in their garage.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can personally testify that there wasn't much that could break on my mom's refrigerator back in the 60's. Unless maybe you dropped the block of ice while putting it in.

It is certainly true that modern appliances have a lot of fancy electronics in them which are vulnerable to power surges, where older appliances had much less in the way of vulnerable components.

[ducksalad]

Be fair, man. You'd need to be at least 40 years old to have seen a refrigerator last 40 years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was "retiring" working 40 year old refrigerators and replacing not-working 4 year old ones.

The old ones had date of manufacture on them...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Going by an Indiana Jones movie, the old variety also allowed you to survive being in the middle of a nuclear test.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The old ones had latching doors you couldn't open from inside.

Federal law banned latching doors in 1956:
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_pdf_rsa.pdf

[shawn_dude]

Not sure why this surprises anyone. There are a number of factors that contribute to this, most of which can be laid directly at the feet of consumers themselves. The old, 1950s fridges were very simple, not unlike today's "dorm" fridges. A compressor and a freezer section that leaks cold into the refrigerator compartment. The only things that could break were the compressor, the gas seals, or the hinges. But consumers wanted to new features and cared about color and design. Americans typically swap out fridges when they renovate their kitchens which happens, on average, between 10 and 15 years. I'm not an expert here but I'd theorize that the rise of modern marketing techniques post-WWII had something to do with this. In any event, manufacturers are going to compete on cost which means reducing the quality of the parts to meet the normal consumer lifespan for this products and not much longer. So with added features and reduced cost, you get fridges that last about 10 years.

Having said that, I'd also consider that 40-year old fridges likely cost far more to run than modern counterparts which implies new fridges might pay for themselves in savings.

[Jmaie]

"In any event, manufacturers are going to compete on cost which means reducing the quality of the parts to meet the normal consumer lifespan for this products and not much longer."

My mother purchased Hamilton Beach appliances back in the 60's. Made in America of course, there wasn't China to compete with so making quality products was just...normal. The mixer and toaster both lasted more than 40 years. I still have the waffle iron.

Of course they'd have cost a couple hundred of today's dollars each...

[jb]

This is true for all sorts of things, though, like clothes or furniture.

Stuff is cheaper but often not better.

[dangfitz]

zGiven all of the controversies over, for example, Tariffs & executive power, what do you think the chances are that we will see a more strict constructionist approach to Article 1, Section 1? How far might that pendulum swing? Will Congress end up taking back a lot of the “rule making” process the executive branch exercises via the Federal Register? At what point does “rule making” become “legislating”?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not much chance: Congress is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, and I don't think we're anywhere near the end of that trend.

[SRG2]

Congress has become increasingly dysfunctional because voters keep electing and rewarding representatives who contribute to the dysfunction. There's a reason that voters rate their own representatives highly but Congress really poorly.

[Brett Bellmore]

House reelection rates have been consistently in the 80-95% range for my entire life, Senate rates used to be lower, but with a few exceptions have been in that range since the mid 80's.

I don't, however, think this is so much due to voters being happy with their representatives, as it is their representatives having gamed the rules to make challenging them practically impossible.

[jb]

All the gerrymandering (by both parties) helps a lot too.

[bernard11]

I suspect the primary system has something to do with it. Primary voters tend to be more partisan, more ideological, than general election voters, so nominees tend to be more extreme than voters, and we end up with the kind of partisanship we see today.

I'm not sure how to fix that. Maybe proportional representation would help, or instant runoff voting.

[Jmaie]

"Campaign to the (left/right) for the primary and move to the center in the general" has always been a thing, I just don't remember seeing the true fringe types having much success until recently. Certainly Reagan could not get elected by Today's Republican Party™...

[Martinned2]

Indeed. With a single party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, it's no wonder they can't get anything done.

[ducksalad]

Consistent proponents of strict construction are a tiny and despised minority in the Republican party, and non-existent in the Democratic party.

Nothing short of a realignment along the lines of 1856-1860 or 1964-1968 is going to change that.

[Commenter_XY]

Massie = strict constructionist

[ducksalad]

I agree he's a reasonable approximation to one. I had him in mind when I said a "tiny and despised minority".

Trump has already promised to have him primaried; the only silver lining is that Trump's promises don't count for much.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't want to see Massie go, his voice is needed. I do want to see Massie to persuade POTUS Trump to move toward his POV.

[M L]

"Running a vintage refrigerator with the door off in summer to see what it costs me
Let the "no way" comments begin"
https://www.instagram.com/antiqueappliance_restorations/reel/DFZMbIxseTT/

"Energy Star fridge compared to unrestored 86 year old fridge twice it's size"
https://www.instagram.com/antiqueappliance_restorations/reel/DFqUvGuyujg/

[ThePublius]

Old appliances were better than the new junk we get now. I expect a refrigerator and washer and dryer to last at least 20 years, and be repairable. This new stuff is awful, failing in 3 to 5 years, and being almost unrepairable.

I moved, and bought a used, U.S. made washer and dryer. They are at least 20 years old, and work great!

[M L]

My new fridge has been serviced twice under the 2 year warranty. Before that, I repaired our previous one myself more than half a dozen times, including replacing the computer board, a solenoid, defrost heater issues, and ice maker issues. Replaced the board in a dishwasher before too.

[David Nieporent]

Old appliances were much more expensive, much less energy efficient, had fewer features, were typically smaller, but, yes, more repairable — because they needed to be repaired a lot.

Appliances do not fail "in 3 to 5 years" today unless you're using them underwater or something. They're still repairable, but they're so cheap compared to labor that it often doesn't make economic sense.

[David Nieporent]

I forgot to add that old appliances were much louder than modern ones. And they came in avocado green.

Do any of you people remember the Maytag repairman ads? Old appliances were so unreliable that Maytag made as its main marketing theme that its appliances were reliable.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just had to replace my GE refrigerator after 35 years (no repairs).
Still running my Kitchenaid dishwasher now 42+ years old and run literally every day (and it cleans in one cycle in less then one hour.
Frigidaire washer and dryer (1998) lasted 20 years.
Many (not all) of the newer appliances are crap and cost way more especially when amortized. Also, you will never save the increased cost based on "improved" efficiency (Energy Star is mostly un-verified).

[M L]

As shown in the links I posted, the energy savings is largely a myth. These old models by and large do NOT cost much at all to run.

New appliances are junk and while consumer choices in the market play a role, so does offshoring, trade policy, and the burdensome domestic regulatory and tax environment. But the biggest problem by a wide margin is the efficiency regulations, particularly with regard to the use of water, it's terrible for washing machines and dishwashers. They'll do a much worse job and take five times as long to do it. Hope you have good luck with your new fridge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't have as efficient a refrigerant in new refrigerants because the old ones are banned due to the Ozone layer.

[shawn_dude]

Avocado green is back in style! Our kitchen in the 70s was that burnt harvest orange color. Admittedly a wise choice for my chain-smoking parents.

Note that there is this linear compressor design that is supposed to save energy but it has proven to be highly unreliable. Anyone that buys one of those might be forgiven for believing fridges only last a couple years these days.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whirlpool bought Maytag about 20 years ago -- quality went to hell.

[ThePublius]

I disagree, David. I'm old enough to have had appliances that are over 20 years old. They rarely needed repair, and without computer boards, were much more repairable than modern ones. On the other hand, everyone I know who's purchased a modern Korean or Chinese refrigerator has had expensive repairs starting at about 3 years.

You're mischaracterizing the Maytag ads. The point was that the repairman was lonely and bored, because the appliances didn't need repair.

BTW, I don't consider a $1,500 refrigerator "cheap."

[David Nieporent]

You're mischaracterizing the Maytag ads. The point was that the repairman was lonely and bored, because the appliances didn't need repair.

Yes, that's what I said! Maytag was saying, "Our appliances are reliable." My point was that the reason that was a selling point was because other appliances weren't. You don't see ads like that nowadays because reliability isn't a differentiating factor between brands; they all are.

In the 1980s, Ford adopted the slogan "quality is job 1." Again, why? Because American cars sucked in reliability at the time. In the early days of competitive long distance after the Bell system was broken up, Sprint adopted "So quiet you can hear a pin drop," because the sound quality of long distance calls was so frequently terrible and they were trying to differentiate themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My point was that the reason that was a selling point was because other appliances weren't. "

They were saying the first wave of imports weren't reliable, yes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Networking Telephony.

They had all digital fiber when others still had analog copper.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The 1960s, when the Boeing 727 was newly released. One airline, I think it was United, started calling them, "Whisperjets." The airline insisted that 727 aircrew, and even the families of aircrew, always say that: "My dad is a pilot, he flies Whisperjets."

It wasn't until later that I discovered that those early 727s were the most god-awful loud civilian aircraft flying. Much louder on takeoff even than the 4-engine jets of that time.

Marketing. Also, politics. Later, for marketing/political reasons, new technology got added to those first-generation 727s. The new technology was called, "Hush Kits."

Reassurance came that "Hush Kits" somehow contrived to deliver a measurable noise reduction. Not much improvement in subjective bystander experience got noticed, but computed airport noise went down. (Never measured noise; for policy making the FAA formally refused consideration of measured noise. The airport itself maintained an area-wide network of permanent noise measurement stations, to no avail; the FAA explained that only computer simulations of noise delivered the consistency needed for flight path planning.)

If you were trying to find out more, no one you talked to turned out to be the right person to explain. But the FAA had a stable of independent acoustical experts standing by, to be appointed as advisors to citizens' committees which advocated for quieter airports. Supposedly, the consultants understood the FAA's computerized noise simulations.

Challenged at a public meeting, the head of the expert firm I was told to rely on attempted the high-school-level computations necessary to demonstrate the FAA's acoustical exposure maps proved out, but he never did find a solution. I felt sorry for the guy. The audience was giggling.

[David Nieporent]

BTW, I don't consider a $1,500 refrigerator "cheap."

You can spend that much if you want. You can also spend half that much.

But in 1975, say, you'd be spending twice as much in today's dollars. In an era where we were poorer in absolute terms.

[Noscitur a sociis]

BTW, I don't consider a $1,500 refrigerator "cheap."

Sears advertised $469.95 as their “lowest price in 1979” for a 17 cubic foot refrigerator. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-good-old-days-are-right-now/ That’s close to $2,000, inflation adjusted. (Home Depot also has several 18 cubic foot models for under $500 available on its website right now.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Except that wonder "inflation" isn't uniform across different commodities.

[David Nieporent]

Again, you people are just Dunning-Krugering your way through economics discussions. Inflation is a measure of the purchasing power of money.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wasn't a janitor but I did supervise apartment maintenance while pursuing degrees and we only got 3-5 years out of a refrigerator.

It was a state bid but they were GE brand and the boxes were all in English (they made great mulch for my tomato patch.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with a refrigerator is twofold -- the compresser starts wearing and the freon leaks out and hence it does become less efficient over time...

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 1939 refrigerator is almost certainly an ammonia/water heat cycle refrigerator, and if it does not have a compressor, it WILL BE far more efficient, even if it doesn't cool as quickly.

The old Servells actually ran off "bottled gas" (propane) and had a fire running in the back. Always running some of the time, running full blast when the thermostat called for cool.

Thermal convection made it work, the freezer was an evaporator which is how it became cold, and I can't remember the rest of it. But ammonia was/is quite lethal and fire departments were being called in the 1970s to remove some of these.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other thing is you'd likely burn out the compressor on a modern one.

[shawn_dude]

Minecraft Movie

I went to see it last weekend because it's a game I've enjoyed playing in the past and it seemed like a great thing for a quiet Sunday evening. It was.... boisterous. I've been reading about adults calling the police or trying to have children expelled from the movie for their exuberant behavior. (Chicken Jocky!) The one thing I've not yet read in any of the over-hyped and exasperating news articles is any mention to the Rocky Horror Picture Show movie. Anyone my age is probably familiar with the call-and-response style event this movie created in its day. Theaters used to play it at midnight in order to spare unsuspecting viewers the experience of flying rice and toast.

The Minecraft Movie, in my limited experience, did not involve flying food but it was most certainly fun (even for someone who remembers punch cards) and not a passive experience. It'll be interesting to see how this evolves and how theaters respond to an experience people cannot easily get at home.

(Now back to the normal open-thread outrage and doom scrolling.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I still recall the time my college SF club ran multiple showings of Rocky Horror back to back with Galaxina as a (wildly successful!) fundraiser, at a local theater. Deal was that we had to clean up afterwards.

Darned good thing the floor and walls were concrete, and the rear exit doors doubled as drains... I was part of the cleanup crew. What a mess, but really all we had to do was hose the place down.

My son went to see the Minecraft movie, and quite enjoyed it, though he agreed it wasn't exactly great cinema. But cinema doesn't have to be great to be enjoyable, I'm personally a big fan of B movies, Bruce Campbell is my favorite actor, and I'm glad to see the genre is still alive and well.

[shawn_dude]

For people who play Minecraft, it's a big goofy party of easter eggs and in-jokes. The vast majority of what's on screen is animated so one could just classify it as a "cartoon" and avoid any allusions to cinema as an artform. OTOH, the easter eggs and in-jokes are very well done and the movie cast a lot of famous Youtube players as extras in various scenes. (A bunch of British Youtubers were cast as American rednecks which was especially amusing.)

One of the things that makes this movie rare is that it's basically a big 'ol ad for a 15 year old video game that somehow didn't fall flat on its face.

[Sarcastr0]

If we're talking boisterous movie nights, every Ash Wednesday my college had 'Army of Burritos' where they would get an unreasonable amount of Del Taco and beer and we would watch the 3 Evil Dead movies.

It was something I came to look forwards quite a bit.

[shawn_dude]

"Ash Wednesday" LOL.
Also... "Del Taco." God I missed them when I moved to the East coast. Only place to get a solid Mission-style burrito outside of California at that time.

[Sarcastr0]

I had a dream about their chicken soft tacos about a month ago.

I've not been to Cali for nearly 20 years.

[shawn_dude]

I can walk down to Mission St in less than 10 minutes and be at any of a number of excellent mom-n-pop taquerias so I don't seek out Del Taco unless I'm outside of California these days. I consider it a minor but important balance to the absolute shit weather we have here in SF. We also have a two-star Michelin Mexican restaurant, which is a nice treat once in a great while.

[Frank Drackman]

You can find excellent mom-n-pop Taquerias in Jasper Alabama now-a-days, probably because every Holiday Inn Express from El Centro CA to Ellsworth ME has Maria or Esmerelda cleaning your room and Juan or Guillermo doing the landscaping.

[bernard11]

And Pedro or Juanita in the kitchen. Hooray for immigrants.

[Frank Drackman]

There's several Del Taco's in Georgia, only reason I go to Columbus.

[Jmaie]

Del Taco is better than Taco Bell but I've never thought I'd see their name and Mission-style burrito in the same sentence.

Mmmm, La Cumbre . Now I'm hungry and 800 miles away...

[John F. Carr]

A Boston Herald reporter wonders if a Muslim City Councilor could be deported. She pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. I think the reporter is overreacting to standard language in a plea deal warning that a criminal conviction could result in deportation. The defendant is a naturalized citizen. I think in saner times that would be enough to keep her in the country unless she got her citizenship fraudulently. Under Trump, who knows.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/04/08/could-plea-deal-get-boston-city-councilor-tania-fernandes-anderson-deported/

[ThePublius]

I don't think so. I think she would have to have committed a crime related to immigration, like immigration fraud.

Regardless, the chances of her being deported are just about zero.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good riddance....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Saw City Island (which is part of the Bronx) on DVD ... good Andy Garcia and Julianna Margulies film. Another good "small" film he was in was At Middleton. Vera Farmiga (and her sister, who played her daughter in the film) co-starred.

[SRG2]

I was slightly puzzled at first as to why Andy Garcia's daughter wasn't actually shown topless in the strip club. It's his daughter IRL...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That makes the dinner scene a bit more creepy.

[grb]

SRG2 : "It's his daughter IRL..."

Which reminds me of John Boorman's Excalibur - a movie that's a nice mix of artistic brilliance, half-digested "Golden Bough"-style philosophizing, and garish shlock. In the movie, Merlin gives King Uther the appearance of his war rival so he can sleep with the man's wife, Igraine. A torrid sex scene results, with Uther ripping off her clothing and they doing it before a roaring fire, Uther still in his armor (I've never worked out the mechanics of that).

But Igraine was Boorman's daughter, Katrine. That had to be weird.

[SRG2]

Excalibur is a fine film - Helen Mirren and that breastplate, a brilliantly bonkers performance by Nicol Williamson, and a wonderful soundtrack, mostly Wagner.

[grb]

The whole movie was brilliantly bonkers, but Nicol Williamson as Merlin particularly stands out. They say he and Mirren despised each other with a fiery hot passion, which had to give an edge to their scenes together.

I sometimes watch the end credits of older movies to see if some later-familiar name slipped in unnoticed. That definitely pays off here with Liam Neeson, Ciarán Hinds, and Patrick Stewart having roles - along with Gabriel Byrne if you missed he was Uther.

[SRG2]

Before Gabriel Byrne's nose job!

[grb]

Anál nathrach,
orth’ bháis's bethad,
do chél dénmha

[ThePublius]

I'll have to watch that. I grew up in the Bronx and spent a lot of time on City Island. It was very tribal, people who grew up there really viewed everyone else as outsiders.

[SRG2]

All I know about City Island IRL is that, day or night, the section of I95 with the exit to City Island is always slow if not actually clogged.

[questioner7]

Regarding nixing visas/green cards for speech: the common refrain is "there's no right to a visa". But there's no right to a government contract, either, and these can't be nixed for speech. What is the difference?

[David Nieporent]

The difference is that someone invented an atextual constitutional doctrine that Congress has near "plenary power" over immigration, and thus it isn't bound by almost any constitutional strictures.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

strange since the Bill of Rights is supposed to be a "plenary" limit except when otherwise limited

[Frank Drackman]

Market seems to be up, anything happen?

[ThePublius]

A butterfly flapped its wings in Southeast Asia.

[Bwaaah]

No. That's probably why it's up. But the day is still young.

[Bwaaah]

Well, I'm glad to have been wrong.

[ThePublius]

DOW is up 2,600
NASDAQ up 10%
S&P 500 up 8%

(as of 2:20 EDT)

[David Nieporent]

Presumably because Trump announced a little while ago that he was caving on tariffs.

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

A 90-day pause on countries negotiating fair trade is "caving on tariffs"?

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Jake, it's David Nevercoherent, "47" increased the Tariff on China another 100%

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh noes! Good thing David Notimportant is a successful practitioner and will still be able to afford the newest Iphone.

[Bob from Ohio]

And hire illegals to do his lawn!

[David Nieporent]

We have a lawn service. The guy who owns the service is American. No idea about the people who work for him, and don't care as long as they do a good job.

Oh, and I got a new iPhone (though not "the newest iPhone") a few months ago, so I'm good, thanks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We arrest and prosecute "John's" --
I think we should also prosecute people such as David NoMInd -- if he is going to benefit from illegal alien labor, let him pay the price.

[David Nieporent]

Darn, I don't even merit snowplow treatment?

Gosh, Dr. Ed has invented yet another imaginary crime, as well as imaginary facts.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, "Notimportant" is better than my "Nevercoherent" well done!

[Bob from Ohio]

"47" increased the Tariff on China"

Also left a new worldwide tariff of 10% in place. Including Canada and Mexico.

[Commenter_XY]

The 'buy the dip' people are happy.

[bernard11]

Are they happy today?

[Josh R]

Yes, it's a cave. Musk won this round over Navarro. That's good for the USA.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

partial cave

[ThePublius]

"caving?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Tariffs are kind of like nuclear weapons; They're best used as a threat. Trump got some countries' attention, now the real negotiations can take place.

[TaioF920]

Bull fucking shit. Who is going to take anything seriously anymore? The 90 days will turn into 180, then 360, and the remainder of his term.

[shawn_dude]

There's a bit of sane-washing in here. The "real" negotiating starts at a disadvantage for the US because all agreements will need to be hedged based on our new-found unreliability. Countries that might have once been fine with the US dollar's dominance will start to look for alternatives. Other Western nations will start to build trade agreements around us in order to protect against Trump's tendency to break agreements and renegotiate on a whim.

Re: Nukes. When was the last time the US told every country in the world, and that island of penguins, we were going to nuke them?

[Commenter_XY]

The 90-day clock started. Then that 10% goes up for countries that haven't cut a deal.

[shawn_dude]

Some of which will involve buying his DJT coinage, I'm sure. Extortion is such a racket, amirite?!

[Frank Drackman]

Extortion is such a dirty word, and if you say it once more, I'll have your legs broken.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Look, if you have to have a sovereign wealth fund, under exclusive control of the President, who is going to be comfortable if it has nothing in it but DJT crypto? It has to be mostly tariff money, obviously. Maybe a $trillion or so.

[shawn_dude]

He could always tell Congress to pass a law that forces the SSA to convert all remaining funds in the SS "savings account" to DJT coins. You know, to make sure it's future-proof or something.

[bernard11]

Then that 10% goes up for countries that haven't cut a deal.

Yeah. We cut off our ears as well as our noses. That'll show 'em.

[TaioF920]

Yes, Trump caved to the Shylocks on Wall Street, whining about their portfolios.

[Frank Drackman]

Somebody call for a Shylock?

[Bwaaah]

Didn't you say you have a nose for that kind of thing?

[hobie]

The stable genius was just kidding after all

[Sarcastr0]

They call this move the victory pivot.

[Bob from Ohio]

If Trump haters want to call this a "cave" so be it, it is a retreat. But if Trump announced a world wide 10% tariff last week with a 125% one on China, it would have been announced as extreme and highly destructive etc., now its considered somewhat reasonable.

So it looks like ole Donnie stumbled into a victory again to me.

[TaioF920]

It's a cave. Do you really think the 125% on China will actually ever be implemented or will it be "paused" too? Our supposed allies who levy 25-30% on ours now get only a 10%. The point was to force our allies to be more equitable, and now they realized he was bluffing all along.

[David Nieporent]

That was not the purpose, and there are no allies who levy 25-30% tariffs on American products.

[TaioF920]

France and Germany sure do.

[shawn_dude]

I see how you're trying to make this sound like a clever ploy by Trump but the reality is a 10% tariff on all of our historic trading partners and allies is not reasonable.

[Bob from Ohio]

I said "stumbled" not "clever".

The tentative market reaction says "reasonable", whatever your opinion might be.

[shawn_dude]

The tentative market reaction says no such thing. We're still not back to where we were pre-Trumpenomics and it's only a 90-day reprieve. Trump backed off somewhat and so the market backed off somewhat. That doesn't define "reasonable" as much as a linear cause and effect relationship. A reaction that indicated the tariffs were good or neutral for the economy (aka, "reaonsable") would little to no decrease from pre-tariff performance.

[ThePublius]

Dow surges 2,900 points, S&P 500 posts biggest gain since 2008 on Trump tariff reversal: Live updates.

"The stock market mounted one of its biggest rallies in history after President Donald Trump announced a pause in some of his “reciprocal” tariffs on the globe, causing a market that has been under extreme pressure for the past week to explode higher."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/08/stock-market-today-live-updates-.html

[jb]

Yes, it is in fact good that Trump stopped being a dumbass and creating a global trade war. Now the S&P is only down 11% since he started this buffoonery.

[Sarcastr0]

Dow surges AFTER it cratered for 2 days.

So...kind of not much of a surge unless you're being myopic on purpose.

[M L]

Trump Announces Tariff Pause for Nations Who Aren’t Retaliating

China Rate Cranked to 125%

Stocks Soar Immediately… World Unites Against CCP

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/04/09/stocks-soar-after-strong-demand-in-treasury-auction/

Always try to remember to post a BB link for Sarcastro.

[hobie]

Actually, many Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea, are starting to gravitate to China because they are a lot more stable

[Mr. Bumble]

Bad booze?
China has one foot on an economic banana peel.
Wait until exports pile up on Chin's east coat shipping ports and orders get canceled.
There are plenty of low wage countries ready, willing and able to jump in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China has major economic problems related to the glut of unfinished residential housing located where no one wants to live.

Evergrande was only part of it.

[Commenter_XY]

Pay no attention to the Uigurs or Hong Kong. Stable indeed.

[bernard11]

I note this was posted one day ago.

[John F. Carr]

The man who wanted to kill Justice Kavanaugh pleaded guilty to attempted murder without the benefit of a plea agreement. The indictment charged him under 18 USC 351(c).

According to AP prosecutors say the sentencing guideline is 30 years to life. I don't think the guidelines do a good job in this case. Attempt to commit a crime includes a wide range of conduct. Prosecutors want to treat the crime the same as taking a shot and missing. For giving up before success was imminent he deserves a substantial discount.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/california-man-pleads-guilty-attempted-murder-supreme-court-justice-maryland

[Frank Drackman]

It's admittedly a low bar, (get it? "Bar"?") but that may be the stupidest post I've ever seen on this Blog. (OK, except for any of Hobie-Stank or David Notimportant's blitherings)

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

I just did a quick Guidelines calculation, and I got 11-14 years. That's assuming he has no prior history.

[John F. Carr]

What if you apply a terrorism enhancement? Murder with a political motive is terrorism.

Here is the AP story: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-threat-roske-25b1055d257b0905f7b7d04a14981530

[Frank Drackman]

He'll be murdered well before then so it's all academic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He was represented by competent counsel?

[Commenter_XY]

I actually agree with you about this = For giving up before success was imminent he deserves a substantial discount

[tylertusta]

Another lower court ruling stayed. This time it's the one that went en banc in DC. Humphrey's Executor is on life support and may be CTD:

STICK WITH ME: Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox have now been...

Fired. Unfired. Re-fired. Re-unfired. Re-re-fired.

- Kyle Cheney (Politico reporter):

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1910066628257022404

[Kazinski]

I kind of wondered what the end game the En Banc court thought they would get, they were never going to get the last word.

However their order was not indefensible, they are still bound by Humphreys Executor, so finding the firees were likely to prevail on the basis of not yet overruled precedent wasn't outrageous.

But of course Roberts himself has very definite ideas about how likely the petitioners are to succeed, and he can ignore HE.

It appears Roberts issued the stay himself, or the stay of the stay of the stay, whatever it was, so likely the rest of the court will weigh in a couple of days. But if Roberts is one of the votes getting to 5 won't be hard.

[John F. Carr]

Roberts ordered an administrative stay. There is still a chance to flip the termination switch again.

[Kazinski]

Pretty short:
Briefs by next Tuesday:
"IT IS ORDERED that the March 4, 2025 order of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-412, and the March 6, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-334, are hereby stayed pending further order of theundersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 15th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT)."

Putting them back in their jobs seems pretty reckless by the en banc, they would immediately get back to work trying to reverse Trump's Doge cuts, or what ever else is on their plate, then it would all have to be reversed again if or more likely when Trump prevails.

And its another nail in the coffin of the judicial resistance which the Supreme Court has finally decided to take on in earnest.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.thecollegefix.com/faculty-should-use-collective-power-to-resist-trumps-dei-directives-umich-webinar/

"The “letter suggested that if there are discussions of racially charged issues in classrooms, and that makes some members of a majority race, some white people feel worse about themselves, that might be a racially discriminatory act that’s unlawful. That is not true,” he said."

I seem to remember a law professor who got into a lot of trouble for merely reading an official court report that used the word "nigger", in a case where the suit was about the word being used.

Which case was that, anyway?

[Kazinski]

The Washington Free Beacon has a recap of the Vanity Affair article on the book "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House."

The spin the Beacon is giving it is not so much Interesting or insightful as amusing.

They are giving Jill Biden credit for Trump winning because she spent so much time and effort trashing Kamala and burning bridges with her supporters:

"[L]et’s be honest, Jill was a thousand percent behind this," a Biden ally told journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, authors of Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House. "So, she was pushing it. The staff was all pushing it. At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone in that inner circle was presenting the president any contrary advice that this thing is not going to be easy or maybe this is not the best thing for the Democratic Party."

Allen and Parnes note that many of Joe Biden's longtime aides were also desperate to cling to power, and refused to consider advising the president to retire after a single term. "Nobody walks away from this," senior adviser Mike Donilon reportedly told a prominent Democrat. "No one walks away from the house, the plane, the helicopter." This burning desire to retain the perks of the White House, the authors explain, was "doubly true for the first lady." Dr. Jill had enjoyed them for nearly a decade, and "the trappings of the most elite levels of Washington power had grown on her." The reporting confirms what presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said about Jill Biden in February 2024: "She likes power. She wants to stay. She wants some sense of revenge."

"Most normal citizens can agree that Jill Biden should be honored for her efforts, however ill-intentioned, to burn the party down in a frantic attempt to stay in power. Rarely in the course of human events has one individual’s reckless ambition and extreme pettiness had such a positive impact on her country’s future. On behalf of a grateful nation: Thank you, Dr. Jill.

Absurd but amusing. Kamala didn't lose because of Jill she lost because of 4 years of Joe and Kamala.

[David Nieporent]

Trump Orders DOJ To Investigate Prominent Critic in Shocking Oval Office Remarks: ‘I Think He’s Guilty of Treason’

President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate former Homeland Security official Miles Taylor over his “anonymous” essay and book hammering Trump during his first term. Trump went so far as to accuse Taylor of committing treason, a capital offense, for writing about what he saw during Trump’s first term.

Trump also ordered the DOJ to investigate Chris Krebs, Trump’s election security director during his first term. Trump wildly suggested Krebs was part of an effort to steal the 2020 election as Krebs repeatedly said there was no evidence of fraud that he could find.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-orders-doj-to-investigate-prominent-critic-in-shocking-oval-office-remarks-i-think-hes-guilty-of-treason/

Party of Free Speech, folks!

[Estragon]

Treason!! I wonder if he can get deported to El Salvador for that.

[shawn_dude]

Depends on how quickly government agents can black bag him and toss him on a plane out of Texas. The administration claims that US judges have no jurisdiction once the plane crosses the border.

[Frank Drackman]

When you normalize charging Ex-Presidents with Bullshit don't be surprised if when that Ex-President becomes President he doesn't go for some "Payback"

[Kazinski]

Speaking of El Salvador and Deportations, it appears LA County's sanctuary policies resulted in the rape and murder of a 13 year old boy by his soccer coach:

"Soccer coach accused of murdering 13-year-old is illegal immigrant, officials say.

But it gets worse — he was arrested LAST YEAR for sexual assault of a teen boy but was not prosecuted & allowed to keep coaching."

Since the coach is now being prosecuted both for this murder and rape, and also the sexual assault last year, it appears the only reason he was not charged last year is because he would have been subject to deportation.

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1910059547781185659

[David Nieporent]

"It appears!"

[Kazinski]

I thought it would be Sarcastro that would jump on that, not you, but I am not afraid of drawing an conclusion but still make it clear that nobody said so explicitly.

Feel free to disagree, or even provide more information to refute me if you can find it.

[Sarcastr0]

Causality requires something more than a shitty twitter account asserting "it appears."

You posted shit. Because you agree with it. Too good to check!

[shawn_dude]

No explanation of how sanctuary polices resulted any of these crimes.

No explanation for why people would shield a child sex abuser.
No explanation of why the 2024 incident wasn't prosecuted when your very next sentence says he is being prosecuted for both crimes. I also don't think you know what "prosecuted" or "charged" means.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember Breaking911. They reported McConnell had died a couple of months ago

Oh wow, they're...not credible at all!

About 79 results
https://iffy.news/fact-check-search/?q=breaking911

[Kazinski]

So what did the Los Angeles County Sheriff embedded in the video get wrong in his press conference?

Here is the local NBC affiliate:

"He was charged Monday with first-degree murder for the death of Oscar, who was reported missing March 30 after his parents said he’d gone to visit Garcia Aquino in the Antelope Valley.

Garcia Aquino was initially arrested last week on an unrelated sexual assault case from 2024, in which Garcia Aquino allegedly attacked a 16-year-old at a home in Lancaster.

The 2022 case, which was investigated but never previously charged, involves an alleged sexual offense on a child 14 or 15 years old that police said took place at Garcia Aquino’s former residence in Sylmar.

Law enforcement officials told NBCLA they received numerous calls from the public after requesting information on other unreported incidents involving the coach."

They admit they had enough to arrest him and charge him for the 2022 case but they didn't. Why?

Why did they arrest him last week on the previously uncharged case? Because they hadn't found the body of his 13 year old rape and murder victim yet, and they needed something they already had enough evidence for an arrest.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/soccer-coach-charged-with-2022-sexual-assault-after-murder-charge-in-death-of-teen-boy/ar-AA1CxXUO?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And I'd like to see a credible fact check that McConnell is indeed still alive, when I see him on the news he looks like an amitron.

[Sarcastr0]

This is your original nut statement: "it appears the only reason he was not charged last year is because he would have been subject to deportation."

That's what shawn_dude and DMN and I all focused on. Did you notice that? I'm not sure you did, since you posted about some other shit.

You've provided nothing. bolded or otherwise, to back up your actual thesis.

You did show you have truly awful media hygiene.

[Kazinski]

I was very clear that was my opinion:

"It appears"

"I am not afraid of drawing an conclusion but still make it clear that nobody said so explicitly.

Feel free to disagree, or even provide more information to refute me if you can find it."

You don't like my opinion because any rational observer would know its dead on.

[Sarcastr0]

Making BS factual assertions and when called on it you hide behind ‘it’s only my opinion, man.’

How empty and lame.

[Kazinski]

Not my fault you can't read.

Dave picked it up right away I was expressing my opinion outside the quotes.

[shawn_dude]

That doesn't explain why you have that opinion in the first place given that the actual reported facts (which you provided, no less) clearly prove it wrong. And then, when it was pointed out by multiple people, you doubled down on it.

[Kazinski]

Oh the fact that they waited 2 years, and waited until he raped and murdered another 13 year old boy before charging him with the first child rape he was accused of proves I'm wrong?

[Sarcastr0]

They waited?

Your opinion is a whole-ass story, eh?

Could perhaps additional information have come to light after the second crime? Maybe?

Nah, probably sanctuary cities love rapes.

Brett level delusions of evil about those you disagree with.

[Frank Drackman]

Forget it Jake, it's LA

[Kazinski]

duplicate deleted

[David Nieporent]

So, it looks like the whole Hispanic-so-he-must-be-a-gang-member strikes again:

https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1910075704273993801

[Life of Brian]

I read the entire string, and didn't see anything like that at all. Feel free to get edgy and try out those new-fangled "quotation marks" to point out which particular language you feel "looks like" your proposition.

[David Nieporent]

Sure: they arrested the guy to great fanfare and claimed he was an MS-13 leader who had committed many violent crimes in the U.S. And yet they're not prosecuting him for anything, and are just going to deport him, which suggests that they actually have no evidence that he's an MS-13 leader who had committed many violent crimes in the U.S.

[Life of Brian]

Well, points off for not risking the quotation marks, and further points off for not using the word "Hispanic" at all after you wrote the check about that being pivotal.

And why is it remotely irrational just to get him TF out of our country now that we actually have the infrastructure and the will to make that stick, rather than tying up substantial judicial and penal resources keeping him here? All your source could muster was some handwringing about "historical precedent."

[David Nieporent]

Because actual murderers and drug lords should be prosecuted, not just sent away?

[Commenter_XY]

CECOT is fine for that guy.

[Martinned2]

Sure, the last US torture and prisoner abuse scandal is already more than 20 years ago, so you guys are long overdue.

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

No that's not true. There just was a 3-4 year long torture and prisoner abuse scandal that Trump recently terminated with his J6 pardons.

[bernard11]

I don't suppose you have any evidence or anything.

[Life of Brian]

Because actual murderers and drug lords should be prosecuted, not just sent away?

That's basically just rewording "historical precedent." How does that lead to a better net outcome for us?

[Sarcastr0]

Lets go full police state. The best, most orderly outcomes don't get caught up in due process.

[Life of Brian]

Did you respond to the wrong comment?

[Sarcastr0]

'Get him TF out of our country' ignores all due process.

So no, you are cheering for a police state. No need to bother with prosecutions with all that messy process!

[Life of Brian]

'Get him TF out of our country' ignores all due process.

The two options under discussion were 1) to deport someone subject to deportation; or 2) keep him around for years for criminal prosecution/incarceration. If you're grumbling that there's no due process in our deportation system, that's a topic for a different thread. Otherwise, maybe try reading a bit more before piling on.

[Sarcastr0]

You're reducing the choice so you can ignore one option includes process and the other is the administation saying 'trust me' even as they've been demonstrably liars on this issue specifically.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No need to bother with prosecutions with all that messy process!"

Huh? There's no need to bother with prosecutions with all that messy process unless you're going to convict someone.

If he's getting all the process he's due before removal, how's that "go[ing] full police state"?

[Life of Brian]

You're reducing the choice so you can ignore one option includes process

Um, both options include process. You no doubt think there should be more, but as I said that's just a distraction in this particular discussion.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, you don't think that extremely dangerous criminals being prosecuted is a good outcome?

[Life of Brian]

Well you're in fishing-for-gotchas mode today, aren'tcha?

The question, as I think is abundantly clear from the thread, is whether we as a country have a better net outcome from a policy of 1) gumming up our courts and prisons with people who aren't even supposed to be here, or 2) getting them the hell our of our country and keeping our resources available for our own use. If you actually want to try to make a rational case for #1, be my guest.

[Sarcastr0]

How many people are you tracking that they would gum up our courts and prisons.

You're just rewriting the previous discussion now.

[Life of Brian]

You're just rewriting the previous discussion now.

Your long-demonstrated inability/disinclination to actually read the previous discussion before wading in is noted. Here's my original question, which you actually crop-quoted in one of your responses:

And why is it remotely irrational just to get him TF out of our country now that we actually have the infrastructure and the will to make that stick, rather than tying up substantial judicial and penal resources keeping him here?

[Sarcastr0]

I follow current events, so I know the 'infrastructure and will' ha thusfar been the administration ignoring all process and oversight and just deporting people that look right.

You know this too. That appears to be why you support it!

But you're lying about it for some reason.

[David Nieporent]

If you actually want to try to make a rational case for #1, be my guest.

Pretty sure I've done that: leaders of violent drug gangs should be in prison, not just kicked out of the country.

[Life of Brian]

So we're officially in lather/rinse/repeat mode. One more time: How does that lead to a better net outcome for us?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL you are arguing that oversightless exile is a superior option to our penal system.

In response to an example where the administration lied, or got it wrong and didn't care.

And then you wonder why people keep saying you support a police state.

[David Nieporent]

So we're officially in lather/rinse/repeat mode. One more time: How does that lead to a better net outcome for us?

If someone broke into your house, set your kitchen on fire, shot your son, and raped your dog, would you want him (a) kicked out of your house; or (b) in prison? Which would be a better net outcome?

[Life of Brian]

So you're once again opting for a distraction rather than affirmatively making a case for your position. Your deliberately outrageous fact pattern 1) is unhelpful to a discussion about net benefits of a policy, and 2) bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground here in any event.

First law of holes.

[David Nieporent]

This guy is a leader in MS-13, according to the government. You don't think that means he's guilty of things analogous to what I said?

[Life of Brian]

Al Capone was notoriously well recognized as a leader of the mafia. Remind me what he ended up going down for, and after how many years?

[Magister]

The net benefit to us, to the US, is preventing future crimes by such a person. A criminal deported (who is a member of a gang that smuggles people and drugs into this country) is way more likely to return to this country and commit more crimes; the same criminal imprisoned after conviction is way less likely to escape from prison and commit more crimes, and can still be deported after the prison sentence. (You can tell the family of a future Laken Riley that you wanted to save the cost of imprisoning such a criminal.)

[David Nieporent]

Al Capone was notoriously well recognized as a leader of the mafia. Remind me what he ended up going down for, and after how many years?

Your attempted analogy escapes me. Capone was sentenced to 11 years in prison for tax evasion because that was the best they could do, because he had corrupted the Chicago justice system and that was the only federal crime they could prove. How is that relevant to this guy? Are you saying that this MS-13 guy couldn't be prosecuted for any MS-13 activity because he had bought the DOJ? And therefore the most they could do was deport him?

[Life of Brian]

Capone was sentenced to 11 years in prison for tax evasion because that was the best they could do

Indeed. But, contrary to the rest of your sentence, I don't believe it was Chicago just not charging him nearly as much as there just wasn't much they could tie to him personally.

Are you saying that this MS-13 guy couldn't be prosecuted for any MS-13 activity because he had bought the DOJ?

Nah, just that it's similarly likely that MS-13 leaders don't personally commit most of the atrocities themselves, but farm it out to underlings.

But now that you mention it, all you reflexive apologists that jump to defend people like this solely because they're minorities make for a pretty good functional equivalent of a bought-off legal system.

[David Nieporent]

Nah, just that it's similarly likely that MS-13 leaders don't personally commit most of the atrocities themselves, but farm it out to underlings.

TF? You think that's a defense in a criminal prosecution? "I'm not guilty of murder because I didn't pull the trigger myself; I paid someone to do it"??!?!?

[bernard11]

why is it remotely irrational just to get him TF out of our country now that we actually have the infrastructure and the will to make that stick, rather than tying up substantial judicial and penal resources keeping him here?

Because Bondi's claim is insufficient to justify either deportation or imprisonment? Look, I agree with David. If the guy is a violent criminal, prove it and put his ass in jail for a long time. But the prosecutor's word is not close to enough.

[Kazinski]

Must have done something bad for the Biden Administration to take any action whatsoever:

"Villatoro Santos, according to an ICE official during the April 1 hearing, had obtained legal work authorization before it was revoked in 2023 for an unspecified reason.

Before then, however, ICE officials said the 24-year-old entered the U.S. illegally in 2014 when he was around 13-14 years old. The officer said he was apprehended at the Texas-Mexico border and put in a juvenile detention center, where his mom eventually brought him to Manassas, Virginia."

[ThePublius]

David, where do you get the racist accusation from? You guys always play the race card. It's tiring, and unjust.

The guy was in the country illegally. Period, full stop. So, deport him. Oh, yea, he was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Isn't that enough?

[David Nieporent]

Oh, yea, he was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Isn't that enough?

For a leader of MS-13? No, surely not.

[ThePublius]

That's a rather nonsensical reply. I was saying that in addition to being here illegally, in addition he was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm: isn't that enough basis to deport him?

What don't you get about that?

[David Nieporent]

What don't you get about that?

Why you would deport a very dangerous criminal rather than prosecuting him.

You apparently missed the central point of this thread I started when you jumped in. It's not "This guy doesn't deserve to be deported." It's "They obviously lied when they claimed he was a senior MS-13 leader."

[ThePublius]

No, your point was that this was being done because he has brown skin!

[Sarcastr0]

What quote of DMN's made you think that was his point?

[David Nieporent]

Oh, I did kind of mean to imply that, but it's not contradicting what I said, so I'm not sure why ThePublius said "No." My point was that they lied. And that they lied because they have decided to claim that every Hispanic they want to get rid of is a gang member.

[David Nieporent]

Look, another one: https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/local-news/video-ice-arrest-wesminster-elsy-noemi-berrios-QJ7CIME76ZGPZEBW5C3REEPZ6E/

52-year old seamstress/gang member, obviously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oral arguments in B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School District, where a first grader was forced to miss recess for two weeks for drawing a picture that said "Black lives matter" with the words "any life" underneath.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Still not convinced that voting against ill-considered trade policy would have been worth voting for this.

[David Nieporent]

As is so often the case in litigation, both sides are stupid. I can't even begin to comprehend why the school did what it did here. But what kind of lunatic brings a federal lawsuit over a first grader missing some recess? Especially a year after the fact?

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

The ideological coercion, that's what's offensive and worthy of a lawsuit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What kind of lunatic defends such a lawsuit?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And she's represented by the PLF pro bono. What's the school district's excuse? They're wasting taxpayer money.

[not guilty]

"What kind of lunatic defends such a lawsuit?"

I think they are called liability insurance carriers. Would you have the school district default?

[Hugh]

Impeach Trump, then lock him up.

[Frank Drackman]

That's a joke, right? because they've done the first (twice? 3 times? I lose track) and tried to do the second, good thing the guys who tried to kill him were such fuckups (actually Crooks came damn close, if it wasn't for that "Big Beautiful Chart" that makes even a Cynic like me wonder if there's a Jay-Hey, who knows who the Repubiclowns would have nominated?

Frank

[Hugh]

Deport Elon Musk.

Then deport Rupert Murdoch.

If the U.S. could denaturalize Charlie Champlin, they can certainly get rid of these two cancers on our nation.

[Michael Ejercito]

What makes them cancers?

[ThePublius]

Don't feed the troll.

[shawn_dude]

Might as well add Melania Trump to that list.

I don't know about Murdoch, but both Musk and Trump had worked illegally outside of their initial visas when they arrived in the US. We're currently deporting people who've done less--though in their case they aren't white.

[ThePublius]

That's such B.S. Neither Elon nor Melania entered the country illegally, and both maintain they never worked illegally, either. They've never been charged, and it has never been proven they worked here illegally.

And, it has nothing to do with race, skin color, etc., as you libs are constantly tossing.

If you have nothing else, play the race card. Check.

[ThePublius]

And besides, who cares? It's not like they are dealing drugs, robbing and raping people, or living on the dole. Let's just call them "Dreamers," O.K.?

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

Attention 1776 Patriots, this is worth 3 minutes of your time.

https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1910115200562569510

Share it with all the fence-sitters and equivocators.

Dear Democrats, do not click the link nor watch the video. It is not an official communication and thus not approved for your viewing and might be even illegal in dozens of European countries.

[grb]

Paul Krugman:

Trump Is Stupid, Erratic and Weak

Anyone sounding the all-clear on tariffs, or Trump economic policy in general, should be kept away from sharp objects and banned from operating heavy machinery. We’re in a hardly better place than we were before Donald Trump announced a tariff pause (in a Truth Social post, of course.) In fact, we may be in a worse place.

Let me make four points about Trump’s post-pause tariff regime.

1. Even the post-pause tariff rates represent a huge protectionist shock
2. Destructive uncertainty about future policy has increased
3. We’re still at risk of a major financial crisis
4. The world now knows that Trump is weak as well as erratic

The level of financial market stress declined somewhat yesterday, but the situation remains fraught. Trump’s next stupid policy move — and there will be more stupid moves — could quite easily tip us over the edge. Above all, don’t take yesterday’s relief rally as a sign that the danger is behind us. The story of the tariffs so far — at least as other countries will see it — is that Trump announced extreme policies, insisted that he would persist with those policies no matter what, then beat an ignominious retreat. In other words, Trump is a typical bully, full of swagger and tough talk, who runs away at the first sign of adversity.

[ThePublius]

And when had Krugman ever been right about anything? Ha, ha. 🙂

[ThePublius]

s/had/has

[Magister]

I guess you could ask the Nobel Foundation.

There's also this:

A May 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd.

[grb]

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced that “by September we will know what has caused the autism epidemic” while touting his launch of a new study.

So how can he confidentially predict we'll "discover" something by then? Because the whole thing is a rigged joke, run by someone who (a) isn't a doctor and has zero medical education, (b) has been fined in Maryland for impersonating a doctor, and (c) earns every damn penny he makes from hustling the gullible with "vaccines causes autism" crap. That's all David Geier and his father, Dr. Mark Geier, do. That's their entire source of income. If David Geier doesn't "conclude" vaccines causes autism, he might as well apply for welfare. Tin-foil-hat scams are the Geier's only business model. From NBC News:

"The Geiers conducted research from a makeshift laboratory in their carpeted wood-paneled suburban Maryland basement; published several studies, many of which were retracted; and promoted an unproven treatment for autism that cost families tens of thousands of dollars and included injections of Lupron, a drug used for prostate cancer and early puberty. In children, it’s only approved for precocious puberty and comes with side effects including bone damage, heart issues and seizures. They diagnosed kids with precocious puberty without proper tests and misled parents into thinking they were signing up for an approved autism therapy. A 2011 Maryland Board of Physicians investigation found that the Geiers violated standards of care.

Mark Geier, who theorized that autism resulted from an interaction between mercury and testosterone, was stripped of his medical license by Maryland regulators in 2012. Maryland regulators also disciplined David Geier for practicing medicine without a license.

In addition to research and running a clinic with his father treating autistic children, David Geier owned and operated a company called MedCon, a consulting firm that helped people with vaccine injury claims get compensation."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hhs-taps-anti-vaccine-activist-look-debunked-links-autism-vaccines-sou-rcna198214

[M L]

"China’s increasingly shrill and desperate efforts to prove itself tough and fearless against President Donald Trump’s tariffs hit a new low on Thursday, when Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning decided to post old footage of Mao Zedong, the founder of the Chinese Communist Party – and the worst mass murderer in history.

Mao Ning’s tone-deaf decision to post 72-year-old footage of Mao declaring his determination to “fight” until we “completely triumph” against President Eisenhower illustrates how badly the Communist elite has sunk into the revisionist history pushed by the ruling Party.

No sane person on Earth, outside of the Communist elite, thinks Mao is an admirable model of leadership. Germany might as well have run some old footage of Hitler to declare its opposition to Trump’s tariffs.

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2025/04/10/china-threatens-the-free-world-with-the-ghost-of-murderer-mao-zedong/

[Magister]

If the Chinese elite think something, I expect the Chinese non-elite have to at least pretend to think the same, and given the cult of personality around Mao, I expect that many of them are not entirely pretending.

[David Nieporent]

So the excuse for trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil has now been filed with the court, and as is to nobody's surprise except C_XY's, it does not allege any specific wrongdoing at all:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25894225/dhs-documents-mahmoud-khalil.pdf

[ThePublius]

"These determinations are based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of [redacted] Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States."

I guess that's not specific enough for you, or any wrongdoing at all?

[grb]

Given the same rationale was used to describe someone who wrote a university newspaper op-ed, that covers a lot of ground as "wrongdoing". As for Khalil, the only specific charge I've heard is he "advised" people who staged a sit-in - another wispy nebulous charge of wrongdoing.

The whole "lied on his application" thing seems to have vanished, which is very strange. Multiple people here insisted that was surefire grounds, locked-up and in the bag.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure it was multiple people, as opposed to C_XY, loudly and repeatedly. And yes, that's quite conspicuous by its absence here. One of two possibilities:

1) It was all a lie.

2) Trump doesn't want to rely on that, because to do so is a tacit admission that the INA's "the president can deport you if he feels like it" provision might not be legally sound. This could be yet another example of Trump deliberately setting up a confrontation for no other reason than playing dominance games. (Consider the banning of the AP from the press pool, for instance. Trump could've come up with a million pretexts for doing so that would've held up in court. But instead he deliberately chose to flaunt the fact that he was doing it to punish them for crossing him.)

[Sarcastr0]

Is it your view, TP that a permanent resident may be deported at any time for any reason the administration cares to cite?

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

I love seeing this tension between the Left and the Jews.

[ThePublius]

No, I never said that.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you believe the threshold of "protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment" is sufficient reason?

If so, how would you cabin that to avoid the blank check you declaim?

[David Nieporent]

Wow. I'm (pleasantly) a bit surprised here, but SCOTUS upheld the judge's order requiring the government to do what it can to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

I still think Trump is going to pretend he can't, and Abrego Garcia may never make it back here, but this is a pretty big smackdown of Trump.

[tylertusta]

I wouldn't be cracking the champagne here.

The Court said that the district court had to clarify what it means when it said to effectuate and facilitate the return as it "may exceed the District Court's authority." That combined with the Court's resetting of the clock smells an awful lot like the USAID remand where the government lost in name only.

If the district court- now gently admonished by a six-member majority- continues on a maximalist course, then the Court will step in again.

[David Nieporent]

Are you Josh Blackman? There was no "admonishment." This was a 9-0 smackdown of the Trump/MAGA "Fuck you, we can do whatever we want and the courts need to shut up and stay out of it" position. SCOTUS even warned the administration about stonewalling.

Of course, like I said, I expect the administration to simply shrug and say, "Can't do it."

[tylertusta]

Are you Josh Blackman?

I'd sooner skin myself alive before I counted myself among your profession, David.

However, one doesn't need to be to see that the government's main argument was that the district court's order exceeded its authority. The government won there, and most of the rest of the government's complaints about it evaporate once the district court reduces its order.

This was a 9-0 smackdown.

I guess if you're into Twitter hype and only check if an order is GRANTED or DENIED, then you would call it a smackdown.

No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm closer to Sherlock Holmes, and if you are correct then something is deeply wrong with this order.

In this particular case, the problem is that the dog didn't bark. The 'barking' is the lack of a dissent from Alito and Thomas. It's elementary that at least those two Justices certainly feel that the district court exceeded their authority. They didn't dissent, ergo the sentence about the district court having to clarify its order was added for the conservatives' benefit. And by clarify, I mean that the district court is revising downwards its authority over and subsequent demands of the Executive branch.

That's a pretty big deal.

I think that the that revision of the district court judge's order is probably going to be effectively the end of the case. After the district court revises its order to reduce its authority over the executive branch, the government may only have to say that it informed its border control officers that Garcia is the only alleged MS-13 member on the "admit" list should he show up at the border and that will be that.

SCOTUS even warned the administration about stonewalling.

For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further

That doesn't seem like much of a warning given that the district court's order effectively got its balls chopped off.

[tylertusta]

For contrast, an actual smackdown of the Trump/MAGA world would be SCOTUS flatly denying the application for a stay, and maybe a short per curiam saying that the judiciary has the authority to order the Executive to bring Garcia back with no concern for its prerogatives in foreign affairs.

An actual smackdown would have SCOTUS make an offhand comment that suggested that contempt might be on the table if the Executive didn't do what the district court said.

[David Nieporent]

No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm closer to Sherlock Holmes,

If that were the case, then the crime rate in England would skyrocket.

Your argument is literally, "I can't believe Trump could lose 9-0, so if he lost 9-0 he must not really have lost 9-0."

[tylertusta]

I'll take "I Didn't Read What Tyler Wrote" for 1000, Alex.

[David Nieporent]

I read exactly what you wrote: that you can't believe Alito/Thomas would agree to this, so if they didn't dissent then the court must not have said what it plainly did say.

[not guilty]

"I think that the that revision of the district court judge's order is probably going to be effectively the end of the case. After the district court revises its order to reduce its authority over the executive branch, the government may only have to say that it informed its border control officers that Garcia is the only alleged MS-13 member on the 'admit' list should he show up at the border and that will be that."

Uh, no. Federal Rule 65(d)(1)(C) and due process guaranties require that an injunction describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required. SCOTUS here had some concern about whether the intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is sufficiently clear as to what the Respondents are directed to do. The Supreme Court directed the District Court to clarify that point and further stated, "For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."

"An actual smackdown would have SCOTUS make an offhand comment that suggested that contempt might be on the table if the Executive didn't do what the district court said."

The Supreme Court here is not the court contemned. Do you really think Judge Xinis needs to be reminded of her contempt authority? The prospect of contempt proceedings attaches to every court order.

I predict that the District Court will issue some clarification of the scope of the word "effectuate" (after input from the parties as to what measures to facilitate the prisoner's return are available and when such measures can be undertaken) and keep the Respondents tethered on a short leash regarding compliance. If the Respondents do not promptly comply, I would expect the District Court to impose civil contempt sanctions with a purge provision if compliance occurs within a few days. If not, then lock up some cabinet members in jail until the Petitioner's return.

[tylertusta]

SCOTUS here had some concern about whether the intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is sufficiently clear as to what the Respondents are directed to do

There's no confusion as to what the original order was because Judge Xinis's order was clear: bring Garcia back.

If you took the meaning of the words "and may exceed the District Court’s authority" to mean that the Court is only asking the District Court to clarify its order as if it's unclear, then that's the kind of navel-gazing fiction that makes lawyers a contemptible species.

The Supreme Court here is not the court contemned. Do you really think Judge Xinis needs to be reminded of her contempt authority?

Yet the Supreme Court saw fit to remind Judge Xinis of the separation of powers.

I wonder why the Court did that.