Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[ducksalad]

The Supremes have done a lot to back up the rule of law in the last 72 hours of so. Next week will be critical, the administration could go three ways:

(a) they comply and back down,

(b) they openly defy the court and we have a genuine crisis, or most likely

(c) they go through the forms of complying but they misrepresent facts, redefine words, pretend to misunderstand, do the oopsie, run out the clock, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

The answer is (a): The Administration complies with Court rulings

[not guilty]

Yeah, right. As Dr. Samuel Johnson said of second marriages, the triumph of hope over experience.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the fact is, the Administration has complied with Court rulings, that is their track record. They have publicly affirmed that numerous times. POTUS Trump has affirmed that numerous times.

Availing oneself of legal means, like the appeals process as the Fed Gov has done in numerous cases, is not non-compliance. It is litigation.

I don't ever want a second marriage, NG; I cannot contemplate life without Mrs. Commenter. She is the only one. We are not always happy; when you build a life together, there is always friction. But I am a very fortunate (and better) man, for having found (and married) her. And I tell her that.

[not guilty]

"NG, the fact is, the Administration has complied with Court rulings, that is their track record."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, XY?

[Commenter_XY]

Very well...please cite the instance of deliberate non-compliance with a SCOTUS decision by the current Trump administration, NG. Is there one? I don't think so.

[not guilty]

The SCOTUS rulings are of very recent vintage, so there hasn't been time for compliance or for refusal to comply.

The Trump administration's record of noncompliance with lower court rulings, however, is abysmal. The MAGA crowd regards itself as not being constrained by statutes, constitutional provisions or judicial authorities.

[Commenter_XY]

The OP: The Supremes have done a lot to back up the rule of law in the last 72 hours of so.

WRT fed dist courts, the Trump Admin appealed the rulings to the circuit court, and then to SCOTUS. Is there something lawless about that? I thought that was the normal course of litigation.

They do it different in TN?

[shawn_dude]

While ignoring the judge's instructions in the meantime.

[Commenter_XY]

Which ones? Timing matters.

[not guilty]

The DOJ is brazenly flouting Judge Xinis's order to tell her Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts or the efforts to return him to the United States. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/trump-administration-illegal-deportation-el-salvador-00286877

I suspect that administration officials are deliberately withholding this information from the DOJ attorney appearing before the District Court.

[hobie]

"the Administration has complied with Court rulings"

They have defied every single court ruling except the Supreme Court's. And we don't yet know if they will defy them as well.

The better question is why does the administration keep failing to comply with the Constitution?

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, there WAS a prior Trump administration, his track record didn't begin January 20th of this year. Can you think of any Supreme court rulings during his first term that he violated?

[Sarcastr0]

Is this some kind of negative propensity argument?

There has been a ton written about Trump's philosophy in this admin as compared to his previous run.

Trump's gone from wannabe dictator to actual mad king. Which is just what you wanted last go-round. Hence your constant apologia to the point you've become kind of a joke this go-round.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I didn't see a list of SCOTUS rulings Trump violated in your rant.

You are boring and predictable.

[Commenter_XY]

Fine Sarcastr0, cite (an actual cite, not projecting your fantasy) a case where POTUS Trump deliberately and intentionally defied the Court. We'll wait.

[Sarcastr0]

You've created some goalposts I did not. But if you want to look for examples of defying court orders, check your cheering on of the Alien Enemies Act noncompliance.

Your 'Oopsie' cheerleading garnered another round of people asking what the fuck happened to you, if you remember.

[Joe_dallas]

as previously noted - appealing a court order is not defying a court order.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I read your response, thinking you would deliver an actual cite of POTUS Trump defying a SCOTUS decision, or a circuit court decision, or even a dist court decision...as opposed to your Orange Caligula projection.

Can you name a single instance where POTUS Trump did not comply with a Court decision? Do you have an actual cite?

It is fine if you do not. Simply say so.

[Joe_dallas]

com xy
Worth noting that quite of few of the "pro Bad guys" are intentionally mischaracterizing the appeals of the district court and appeals courts as "defying".

[David Nieporent]

You guys seem to have forgotten that Trump did not in fact turn the planes around.

[Joe_dallas]

The order got appealled

[David Nieporent]

The order got appealled

Yes, so? That's not how it works. When an order is issued by a judge, you have to obey it. Unless and until a higher court (or the same one, for that matter) reverses or stays it. Filing an appeal is not a substitute for compliance.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : " ....intentionally defied the Court."

Zoom back to a distance and you see why C_XY is so chipper. Debating anything to do with brown-skinned people - even those disappeared into a foreign hell-hole prison by "administrative error", with zero due process, and in defiance of court order - is still preferable to talking tariffs.

When the president is a brattish emotionally-disturbed child gleefully destroying everything within reach (U.S. economy included), random injustice against a dark-skinned type is like a warm soothing bath to our Cultists.

[Commenter_XY]

I am perfectly happy discussing deportation policy or tariffs, grb. I don't see America destroyed quite yet.

What we have here is a false claim. The fact is, there is not a single instance of POTUS Trump or the administration engaging in deliberate non-compliance of SCOTUS (the OP). That is why I said (a) The Administration complies with Court rulings. Appealing a dist ct judgment is not an act of non-compliance, either. It is following a legal process. Rather successfully, thusfar.

To be fair, they are not easy legal questions; SCOTUS has differing views. It is fine we have differing views on SCOTUS, IMO. That is expected, by design (from the Founders). I will grant you this: the Trump Admin lawyers are adopting novel interpretations of old law, applied to present circumstance. Rather inventive.

As for illegal aliens. I could care less about race. It is not about race. There is a right way, and a wrong way to enter this country. If you enter this country the wrong way, regardless of your race, creed, religion, sex, color, identity, LBGT status, I have no sympathy for you. You are an illegal alien, and you must leave this country. Go home. Apply to come back the right way. Come through the front door.

SCOTUS has asked that the Executive branch facilitate returning an illegal alien prematurely deported, the gangbanger Garcia. If America can get the illegal alien gangbanger Garcia back, fine. He is a citizen of El Salvador, and he has been repatriated to his home country. Who, FTR, promptly stuck his gangbanger ass in an El Salvadoran prison. There is no legal grounds to compel El Salvador to give him up. Still though, I personally feel POTUS Trump himself should make the request, very politely, to President Bukele. Since President Bukele is a very sophisticated observer of America, it will be a particularly enjoyable experience to hear 'The Donald' ask for a favor. El Salvador can always say no. Well, in that instance, case closed. Net, net: Ooopsie, we repatriated an illegal alien to their home country somewhat prematurely. We can all learn something from the experience.

[not guilty]

"What we have here is a false claim. The fact is, there is not a single instance of POTUS Trump or the administration engaging in deliberate non-compliance of SCOTUS (the OP). That is why I said (a) The Administration complies with Court rulings."

Wrong, XY. SCOTUS yesterday ordered: "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." The Government simply is not doing so. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/trump-administration-illegal-deportation-el-salvador-00286877

Judge Xinis has now issued an order specifically finding:

For the reasons discussed during today’s status conference, the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s Order at ECF No. 51. In advance of the conference, the Court had directed Defendants to file a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge, addressing the following: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. ECF No. 51. Defendants made no meaningful effort to comply. Instead, they complained that the Order is “unreasonable and impracticable,” and involves “sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review.” ECF No. 59 at 2.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf

This means that you are full of shit, XY.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, it means they haven't complied yet, post SCOTUS ruling, which just happened. The judge sounds butt-hurt, and, some of the questions may involve answers that cannot be disclosed (i.e. what arrangements might have been made to facilitate the illegal alien gangbanger Garcia's release). Somewhat soon to be waving the willful defiance of a court ruling flag.

If this hasn't resolved by next Friday, though, my perspective would change.

[not guilty]

XY, what part of "the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s Order" do you fail to understand?

The District Court on Thursday ordered: "the Court DIRECTS Defendants to file, by no later than 9:30 AM ET on Friday, April 11, 2025, a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge, addressing the following: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return." (Emphasis added.) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf The Court later extended the deadline to 11:30 a.m., and the Defendants failed to comply there as well.

Upthread you challenged Sarcastr0 to "cite a case . . . where POTUS Trump deliberately and intentionally defied the Court." I'm not Sarcastr0, but I met the challenge that you issued to him. You continue to deny Trump's non-compliance with Judge Xinis's April 11 order.

You, however, kvetch:

NG, it means they haven't complied yet, post SCOTUS ruling, which just happened. The judge sounds butt-hurt, and, some of the questions may involve answers that cannot be disclosed (i.e. what arrangements might have been made to facilitate the illegal alien gangbanger Garcia's release). Somewhat soon to be waving the willful defiance of a court ruling flag.

The non-compliance I speak of is with the District Court's April 11 order, which issued subsequent to the SCOTUS order.

XY, you used to be a decent and thoughtful commenter. Now you are simply a liar, and the truth ain't in you.

[not guilty]

The Defendants have now filed a declaration of Michael G. Kozak disclosing "that Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador. He is alive and secure in that facility." Not one word about what steps, if any, the Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States or what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.63.0.pdf

It is time for some Defendants (including cabinet officers) to go to jail for civil contempt until the District Court's order is complied with.

[Joe_dallas]

Appealling a court order is not defying a court order

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sort of right. But if you appeal it, but don't obey it, then it is defying a court order.

[Thought about __ all my life]

“that every man has a desire to appear superior to others, though it were only in having seen what they have not seen.”

[EllaWilson]

President Trump will comply with SCOTUS. He always does.

The supremes are not the huge collection of S-Bag "judges" in the Mayberry County office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

(d) They bring him back in a body bag.

So sorry, it was one of those gang things.

[Martinned2]

It must be great to live in a country where the government can arrange to have you killed with impunity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Whitey Bulger.

[Frank Drackman]

2 more words Ashli Babbit

[Dr. Ed 2]

2 more: Jeffery Epstein

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, actually it kind of sucks, and I'd much rather that Obama had been charged with murder over bombing that wedding, and Clinton over his bombing that pharmaceutical plant.

I think Presidents have far, far too much power. But I'm not going to agree that only Trump's power gets cut back, and ever other President before and after gets to be a term limited dictator.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, there is also the example of the Bolivians and Che Guevara.

An El Salvadorian criminal whom the crazy gringos want free?!?

[David Nieporent]

An El Salvadorian criminal

Garcia has never been charged with any crime in the U.S. or El Salvador.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yet.

[Magister]

Bumble likes the Queen of Heart's "sentence first, verdict afterwards."

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's been the law in Higher Ed for the past 15 years...

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 still bitter over his well deserved academic failure, I guess.

[John F. Carr]

That would lead to an order to show cause.

But Trump would pardon the killers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If a foreign, sovereign state executed one of it's citizens on its own territory?!?

Where the hell would a US court get the authority over what foreign states do to their own nationals on their own land???

[John F. Carr]

Judge orders man returned. Man dies. Judge says "Convince me this isn't your fault."

Depending on the details of the hypothetical, the U.S. government might or might not be in contempt.

[not guilty]

Well, civil contempt would not provide a remedy for the prisoner's death (although it could for the government's subsequent failure to explain the circumstances).

In the event of criminal contempt, Trump would in all likelihood pardon the contemnors.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Whitey Bulger???

[Kazinski]

Comply with what?

As I understand it the court has ordered the district court judge to refine his order and be clearer about what he expects the Administration to do:

"The District Court should clarify its directive,with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. 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."

So the Supreme Court says in the future when the judge clarifies the order, they should be prepared to comply, or I suppose appeal it again, if the judge does evidence due regard to the Executive Branch.

So far the judge is just ordering information:

"Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its order, Xinis directed Homeland Security officials to provide Abrego Garcia's physical location and custodian status, what steps they have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the U.S. and what further steps the government will take and when to help with his return. She initially gave the department a deadline of 9:30 a.m. Friday but extended it by two hours after the Justice Department filed a motion to ask for an extension until next week."

That's it.

[ducksalad]

provide Abrego Garcia's physical location and custodian status, what steps they have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the U.S. and what further steps the government will take and when to help with his return.

There are three separate requests there.

1. There is no good excuse to not immediately say what steps they have already taken. They could just say "none" if that's the truthful answer.

2. There is no good excuse to not immediately give the physical location and custodial status. We all saw Kristi Noem fly to El Salvador, put on her LARPing costume, and do a photoshoot inside the prison. It's not credible to believe she doesn't know what's going on.

3. It is reasonable to ask for a few days to say what further steps the US will take, since approvals are needed.

[David Nieporent]

3. It is reasonable to ask for a few days to say what further steps the US will take, since approvals are needed.

Key word: ask. Not say, "We'll tell you when we feel like it," which is what they said.

But also, as Garcia's lawyers pointed out, the order was initially issued on April 4. It was not stayed until the afternoon of April 7. That meant that they should've been working on compliance for 3½ days. And the Supreme Court vacated the stay yesterday evening, meaning that they've had another ½ day. What were they doing all that time?

(That's a rhetorical question: the answer is, nothing, because they decided that they didn't need to obey the order.)

[Commenter_XY]

You mean you expected the entire DOJ and other executive branch employees to be working on compliance (whatever that means) through the weekend, from Friday afternoon April 4 to Monday afternoon April 7, on the illegal alien gangbanger case. That is your expectation? Um, ok. 🙂

What were they doing that weekend...family stuff? Attend synagogue or church?

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes, I did. Litigation is not a 9-to-5. Neither is purported diplomacy or national security. When a judge orders you on Friday to do something by Monday, you work on the weekend to get it done. (Note that the supposed TdA deportations — the flights about which Boasberg suggested they be turned around if necessary — happened on a Saturday. If the Trump administration can rush to commit crimes on a Saturday, it can rush to undo them on a Saturday, too.)

[not guilty]

"You mean you expected the entire DOJ and other executive branch employees to be working on compliance (whatever that means) through the weekend, from Friday afternoon April 4 to Monday afternoon April 7, on the illegal alien gangbanger case. That is your expectation? Um, ok."

Well, as the District Judge noted in today's order at footnote 1:

Defendants’ assertion that “foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines” sorely misses the point. ECF No. 59. All parties appearing before this Court are obligated to comply with court-ordered deadliness unless and until they demonstrate good cause to depart from them. See Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008). Defendants’ vague reference to “foreign affairs” alone does not justify their lack of compliance.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf

As Tennessee's late former governor and speaker of the house Ned Ray McWherter was fond of telling recalcitrant state legislators, if you didn't want to work, you shouldn't have hired out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a serious 13th amendment issue here -- Trump could require every state department employee to work all weekend without pay per the judge.

[Magister]

I am not sure how to characterize Dr. Ed 2's belief that the entire State Department shuts down every weekend. The Trump administration is famously paying employee not to work at all for the next five months, so it is hard to believe they couldn't find money to pay somebody to work on the weekend. (Did the 13th amendment lawsuit by federal employees who had to work unpaid during the 35 day shutdown in the first Trump administration ever go anywhere?)

[Absaroka]

You've never had a salaried position?

[David Nieporent]

Comply with what?

The district court's orders. (Hint: the original district court order, other than the deadline of Monday at 11:59 p.m., remains in effect. SCOTUS did not vacate it.)

So far the judge is just ordering information:
[...]
That's it.

Yes, and they defied that order.

[not guilty]

"So far the judge is just ordering information."

The judge is ordering information, and the Trump administration is withholding such information. Judge Xinis's order entered yesterday stated:

Further, as the Supreme Court made clear, “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.” See Slip Op. at 2. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Defendants to file, by no later than 9:30 AM ET on Friday, April 11, 2025, a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge, addressing the following: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. To the extent Defendants believe any portion of their submission must be filed under seal, they shall comply with the Court’s Local Rules governing the sealing of materials. See D. Md. Loc. R. 105.11.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0.pdf

The information specified in the order is well within the administration's ability to provide, but the administration has refused to do so. Judge Xinis has since issued today's order:

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that beginning April 12, 2025, and continuing each day thereafter until further order of the Court, Defendants shall file daily, on or before 5:00 PM ET, a declaration made by an individual with personal knowledge as to any information regarding: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States; (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. A follow-up in-person hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, April 15, 2025, at 4:00 PM. [footnote omitted.]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

The Trump administration has in recent weeks asked the Supreme Court to allow it to end birthright citizenship, to freeze more than a billion dollars in foreign aid and to permit the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador without due process.

In each case, the administration told the justices the request was an emergency.

By filing so-called emergency applications, the administration has asked for immediate intervention from the nation’s highest court 10 times so far — more than the total number of such requests during the 16 years of the presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Trump administration lawyers have repeatedly told the justices their intercession is necessary to quickly undo the decisions of lower court judges who have imposed temporary pauses on large swaths of President Trump’s agenda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-emergency.html

A lower federal court's disagreement with the position urged by a megalomaniac, lawless President hardly constitutes an "emergency." The longer the members of SCOTUS remain in the tank for Donald Trump, the more uncomfortable that habitat will become. If it hasn't already, that tank will become a veritable septic tank.

[Krayt]

Well, his previous four years, he was often fought to a standstill in the courts with temporary restraining orders, that then wend their leisurely way through courts. Is it wrong to ask for this to be expedited? "Stopped, now lets go home for a few years and wait."

This serves political games, of course, which is what it's all about.

[Kazinski]

It highlights a key issue of governance, if a president is elected by voters, and clearly laid out his agenda, and got majorities of both houses of Congress, will he be allowed to fulfill his mandate?

Or will the bureaucracy and the a judiciary who are not elected be able to frustrate the will of the people?

And I am certainly not saying he should be able to get his will with everything, Things like birthright citizenship, deporting citizens to foreign prisons are non-starters.

But its been the law for decades that illegal aliens get deported, and he got a clear mandate on that issue. And yet the courts and sanctuary cities and Blues state politicians want to hamstring him on that. The courts have told him he can't fire Biden appointees that certainly won't be implementing his agenda.

Its a real question of how much of a democracy we are.

[David Nieporent]

Given that most people who voted in 2024 voted against Trump, he has no "mandate," "clear" or otherwise, to do anything.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump won the popular vote, David. You have to show up and vote, to count. And the Senate flipped. Clearly, the country voted for change. Is that a mandate? Only in the eyes of the beholder.

[not guilty]

The rule of law is not subject to nor conditioned upon the results of any plebiscite. President Trump is a scofflaw.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, to be perfectly fair, POTUS Trump is a convicted felon, not a scofflaw. The POTUS and his Administration have complied with court rulings, while appealing. That is, in fact, the process you're supposed to follow when you disagree with a fed dist court ruling, you comply and appeal the ruling to the circuit court, then SCOTUS (if needed).

Aside from industrial scale, what is different here, process-wise, can you tell me?

The flip side of the coin: We have ideologically biased, unelected judges substituting their personal judgment for the judgment of the POTUS who was elected by the whole of the People.

The Trump Admin will win most, lose some. Seems normal, aside from the industrial scale (why so many is another matter).

[David Nieporent]

POTUS Trump won the popular vote, David.

Neither true nor responsive.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because we don't elect presidents based on the popular vote?

[David Nieporent]

No, because he only got a plurality of the popular vote.

[Krayt]

Europe and coalition governments over thataway -->

This also assumes all the bits and pieces would join the Democrats as The Resistance.

[Riva]

My my, someone can’t stop with the election denial. Try telling the truth, just once for change, just to see how it feels. You’ll thank me later.

[Commenter_XY]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

See the line called: popular vote.

[Mr. Bumble]

Being David Notimportant means never having to say you're sorry or admit you're wrong.
Got that cite asked for above David?

[grb]

Oh for God's sake :

1. XY's point is Trump led in the popular vote, which is true. Miracle upon miracle, he's not trolling for once.

2. David Nieporent's point is Trump received less than a majority vote. Given he's not a troll, that's unsurprisingly true as well.

Sometimes these things happen. Pretending your truth is the only one is kinda pointless.

[ThePublius]

Am I taking crazy pills or something? Majority means half plus one or more. Trump won the majority vote. David is wrong.

[ThePublius]

Actually, upon reflection, David is correct. Trump didn't receive a majority, he received a plurality. But, his popular vote total exceeded Harris', though that doesn't matter. Trump cleaned up in the electoral college.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

But David is wrong, in the sense that Trump did "win the popular vote" while simultaneously failing to win a majority of the popular vote: by definition, a plurality is a winning margin.

But David is technically right when he says that "most people who voted in 2024 voted against Trump", but this is of little practical consequence on its own. His point, of course, was simply to counter the allegation that Trump enjoyed some kind of "mandate" as a result of the 2024 election.

Barely winning a plurality is not what "mandate" means. Yes, Trump won the election, but he is massively unpopular, can barely pass legislation in Congress and has no mandate to speak of.

All he has is power.

[John F. Carr]

In the UK winning an election entitles the majority party to implement its platform. The US constitution is not as malleable as the House of Lords.

[Voize of Reazon]

Not yet, but it's getting more flexible with all the cyclic stress fatigue.

[Frank Drackman]

Only takes 270

[Kazinski]

My point isn't that the president shouldn't be opposed, its that the primary opposition should be Congress, not the courts. The Courts do have their job to do, but their job is not to issue unappealable TRO's and nationwide injunctions. Perhaps when the merits are decided and the verdict.is final, but not 5 minutes after the judge gets the case he came down to courthouse on Saturday for because he got a heads up it was coming.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason there is a lot of court action is because there’s a lot of stuff that looks like lawbreaking.

You also confuse a supine Congress for an approving one.

Silence is not consent. Right now the GOP can’t even agree on a budget.

[Don Nico]

"there’s a lot of stuff that looks like lawbreaking" to those who voted against Mr Trump in the first place.
Litigation is fine to try as a form of election denial (what you might call resistence), hence the record number of nationwide injunctions and non-appealable TROs.
But you might say that binding persons who are not party to a case is also lawbreaking by district court judges.
It will all play out and the nation will survive.

[Kazinski]

"Right now the GOP can’t even agree on a budget."

That's hilarious.

The last time a Federal budget was passed at all was 2019.

There hasn't been one on time in 27 years.

That's one of the primary gripes of the House Freedom Caucus.

What they have been doing instead is passing appropriations bills without passing a budget as they should.
https://checkyourfact.com/2023/12/08/fact-check-congress-four-budgets-40-years

https://reason.com/2023/03/21/the-budget-battle-book/

[David Nieporent]

but not 5 minutes after the judge gets the case

That's literally what a TRO is for.

[Kazinski]

And the Supreme Court is making it plain that these TROs are improper by deeming them as preliminary injunctions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Trump is not appealing to be heard on the merits. Trump is appealing in the hope that the Supreme Court will serve him now as it did in Trump v. United States. Trump wants an opinion which bypasses the merits, to dispose of the each case entirely on novel, outcome-oriented procedural grounds.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
He appeals first on the claim of non-jurisdiction by the district court judge. Nothing wrong with that.
If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Nothing wrong with the appeal. Everything wrong with granting it on that basis.

If after a lower court hearing including the merits, the Supreme Court eventually chooses after a full review of the merits and the procedures, to opine on each, and award a victory only on the basis of the procedures, I am fine with that. The procedures need to be correct first.

I am not fine with writing the merits out of a case where merits issues are obviously momentous. Every case involving defiance of court orders, and lying to a federal judge is such a case. Every such case demands full appellate review of whatever merits were not examined below, and full discussion of those in any decision. Otherwise, there will be too many cases where the procedural review was corrupted by absence of context created by ignoring the merits. Trump v. Unites States was such a case.

[PaulS]

The court has been writing the merits out of cases by citing lack of standing for years - how is writing it out for lack of jurisdiction different?

[Stephen Lathrop]

PaulS, to conflate unrelated legal concepts is a path toward confusion, not toward clarity.

And anyway, my issue is about something different than either: whether there is a judicial need to honor a relation between due process and the merits of a case.

[Michael P]

226 out of 538 is not "most", David. My state calls itself a commonwealth, but the ballot I filled out was very clear that the presidential section was to select electors, not the president directly.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "most people who voted in 2024 voted against Trump"

Please explain your basis for that statement, and how it is true despite contradicting the conventional understanding that Trump won the popular vote (Trump at 77,302,580 and Harris at 75,017,613 per FEC here).

[Malika the Maiz]

Is 49.8 a majority in your world?

[grb]

Right-wingers ain't very good at math. You need only look at the current budget negotiations, where their "arithmetic" managed to lose over three trillion dollars in new tax cuts off the books.

[Don Nico]

Another election denier, I see

[David Nieporent]

Please explain your basis for that statement, and how it is true despite contradicting the conventional understanding that Trump won the popular vote (Trump at 77,302,580 and Harris at 75,017,613 per FEC here).

Um, there were more than two candidates. Trump got less than half of the votes cast.

[Bwaaah]

I missed it. Understood. Thanks.

[Don Nico]

So what, that is irrelevant David.
He beat the dummy by more than 2 million votes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but what you're missing is that at least some of the people who didn't vote for Trump were merely voting for somebody else, not against Trump.

[A Woman of No Importance]

You know, when Democrats have the White House and Congress, conservatives are very big on checks and balances and not allowing tyranny of the majority. It's why we have the Senate filibuster and the electoral college and judicial review; so the majority can't get what it wants.

It's kind of amusing to watch them switch sides on the issue now that the shoe is on the other foot.

[Riva]

The filibuster is not a constitutional check and balance you idiot. Neither is the electoral college.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Based on your comment, I would be careful who you call an idiot. In the first place, I said nothing about "constitutional" checks and balances. And in the second place, the electoral college is in fact in the Constitution.

[Michael P]

He seems on safe ground in calling you an idiot. Just because a tool thwarts the majority or the elected authorities doesn't make it good.

Elections have consequences, to coin a phrase. Go out there and win an election!

[Riva]

The electoral college is not a constitutional check and balance. You brought up the subject yet are abysmally ignorant of the concept. Here’s another concept: when in a hole, stop digging.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Riva, you seem not to understand that checks and balances are not limited to branches of government; the electoral colleges checks the majority in order to prevent tyranny of the majority. I'm sure if you think about it for a while it will come to you.

MichaelP, the name of your logical fallacy is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

But all of this is a side issue. My main point, which neither of you has addressed, is that conservatives love denying the majority its way when it elects Democrats. You are now on the receiving end.

[Riva]

As to your "main point," I have no idea what the ___ you're talking about. You apparently understand less about conservatism than you do constitutional checks and balances. You really are a woman of no importance.

[Riva]

Oh, and just so you know, the electoral college was conceived to preserve federalism, not as a constitutional check and balance. Just curious, what country are you from?

[not guilty]

The electoral college, along with the 3/5 compromise, were conceived to give slaveholding states disproportionate influence in selecting the president.

[Riva]

To define federalism as an artifact of slavery is essentially to call this country systematically racist. That’s Project 1619 level dumb and I reject these silly attempts by modern racist democrats (who by the way never accepted responsibility or apologized for their support of slavery, segregation or Jim Crow) to redefine the history of the country through the prism of slavery.

[Riva]

And we should also note that it is the left that wants to render the electoral college a nullity with the national popular vote nonsense, not conservatives.

[rloquitur]

Well, it's part of the Senate making the rules for its proceedings, so the filibuster derives directly from the Constitution.

[Riva]

Is everyone that comments here either abysmally ignorant or certifiably insane? I guess there is something to be said for content moderators after all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It will amuse no one if a D president is afforded opportunity to do likewise. MAGAs ought to be shaking in their boots at the prospect of executive orders to target specific religious schools by name, to burden heavily gun rights, to criminalize abortion opposition nationwide, and to compel from major law firms hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pro-bono work to fight climate change. Also, to shift from the Defense Department a few tens of billions to plan military actions to impose draconian public health measures when the next pandemic arrives.

[Frank Drackman]

You just described the Barry Osama/Sleepy Joe terms, oh I get it! what the Native Amuricans called "Sarcasm", we Ass-Burgerians aren't good at recognizing it.

Frank

[A Woman of No Importance]

Frank, there's a long list of things you aren't good at recognizing. That you understand it's a problem is a good first step.

[TaioF920]

You mean exactly what Barf Obongo and Pedophile Joe did?

[Michael P]

Lots of people declared that they were amused, delighted and/or thrilled when Clinton, Obama and the autopen did those things. Their behavior suggested they were telling the truth.

[Commenter_XY]

Hell, Chris Matthews still has that thrill up his leg talking about Pres Obama.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you imagine Biden subjected to the same lawfare?

We need 235 Impeachments...

[Kazinski]

Nobody is saying the filibuster can't be used.

The GOP, and Kyrsten Sinema saved it for you.

[bernard11]

got majorities of both houses of Congress, will he be allowed to fulfill his mandate?

What mandate? Is it your opinion that Trump voters uniformly approve of everything he does? Or that he won some kind of overwhelming victory? Or that his "mandate" includes the right to ignore the Constitution and the courts?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He doesn't swear an oath to carry out his mandate. He swears an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this country.

[David Nieporent]

Well, his previous four years, he was often fought to a standstill in the courts with temporary restraining orders,

He was not, both because that didn't happen and because TROs only last two weeks.

[Krayt]

Such an alternative reality.

By the way, I didn't say that from a stance of, "Rats! He got stuffed on so much!" I said it from a stance of good, I'm glad.

I've said it before, the only thing I liked from his previous administration was declining to become nationwide COVID dictator-in-chief, instead recommending and letting states step up with the laws and emergency regulations.

[shawn_dude]

What's good for the Orange Goose... as they say.

This is Trump's own response to suits against him--delay delay delay. Why should anyone treat him better than he treats others?

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS only takes 80 cases a year; they need the extra work, NG. 😉

[Riva]

Make them run the circuit again. Just for a start.

[Frank Drackman]

Like our House of Representatives of Everything that's wrong with Society, and it's relative the House of Lords, we'd be better off if they all were permanently on "Recess" (I'd say "at the bottom of the Ocean" but I don't want to end up with an Ashli Babbit 40 caliber lobotomy)

Frank

[Michael P]

When will the lawless lower court Democrat insurrectionists be held to account? They, and commenters and bloggers here who have vastly overstated the cases against the Trump administration, have held up very poorly under review by judges who are less driven by partisan excess. There is a widespread but mistaken belief that federal laws stop having an effect just because successive Democrat administrations ignore them in favor of Great Replacement policies.

Before you are convinced by the rhetoric of your so-called source, keep in mind that it writes stories like this one (note the subheadline): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/nyregion/nyc-subway-corpse-sex.html -- apparently, one should quietly accept a certain rate of corpse defilements on a subway system.

[Kazinski]

And the Supreme Court is taking the cases because the Trump administration has a point.

This development on Capitol Hill might get their attention to:

thehill.com/homenews/house/5241423-house-passes-bill-district-court

"The House on Wednesday passed a bill restricting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in a move that would vastly diminish the ability of courts to block President Trump’s policies.

Dubbed the No Rogue Rulings Act, the legislation from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) would limit judges to providing relief only to parties directly involved in the suit. "

Its unlikely to get through the Senate, but the Supreme Court knows that in any constitutional crises pitting the Courts against the President which ever way Congress leans will decide the matter.

That is why SCOTUS is taking the cases and reining in the TRO's.

[Malika the Maiz]

"The House on Wednesday passed a bill restricting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in a move that would vastly diminish the ability of courts to block President Trump’s policies.“

Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you have Schumer openly bragging about 235 judges they installed to screw with Trump, you start to worry about the future of the Republic.

[Martinned2]

True. Judicial appointments should be non-partisan. But then that's only about number 33 on the list of things that are wrong with the US Constitution.

[Brett Bellmore]

The founders didn't anticipate the development of political parties, so it would have been difficult for them to have mandated non-partisan judicial appointments.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The founders didn't anticipate a great many things. That someone like Trump could be elected president was probably beyond their imagination. Which is another reason I'm not enamored of originalism; the founders simply could not have anticipated what things would be like two centuries later.

[Riva]

No not even close. But they might have been somewhat shocked at unverified mail in voting, ballot harvesting, and 30 plus day voting periods. And they would probably have said WTF? to a national popular vote for the president. And probably the same as to the 17th amendment.

[TaioF920]

They'd also have been shocked by women voting, by whites deluding themselves into thinking that the savage races were equal to them, and all other modern liberal developments.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And that just demonstrates why their views are largely irrelevant. If, as you claim, they were racists and misogynists, then who cares about their stupid opinions?

[TaioF920]

Why is racism and pro-male policies a priori bad?

[Riva]

I was thinking the same thing about a certain woman of no importance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Women DID vote -- initially voting was public and women would be told how their husbands voted. Woman had *a* vote...

[David Nieporent]

Women did not vote. Briefly in NJ.

[Riva]

Way to go crazy Dave. "Women did not vote other than when they voted." You sure showed him with your history acumen.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think the Founders did fear someone like Trump (they feared the people without some intermediate body picking wisely too) & were aware of various unhinged kings including those living in their lifetime.

We are probably somewhat lucky the presidents before him were generally at most incompetent or at most had a few criminals in their administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah - the Founders knew from mad kings.

But no institution can survive a large enough faction that doesn't believe in norms.

You can't write everything down for every potential abuse of process. Personal controls help with that. As in shame and a sense of honor. But once that's done, you're cooking quick-like.

Which is why the 'it's legal so it's okay' is such a corrosive attitude. So is 'he's elected so it's okay' and 'the other side is worse so it's okay.'

These fevers sometimes break, sometimes overwhelm and destroy. We'll see how quick this one is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"That someone like Trump could be elected president was probably beyond their imagination. "

They very much did imagine that. It is why they were determined NOT to elect a President by popular vote.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The founders didn't anticipate the development of political parties, . . .

Bellmore — that is an, "I am out of my mind," take on history. The founders, led by Madison, specifically anticipated development of political parties. Madison counted them an ordinary manifestation of day-to-day politics, and unavoidable. He pointed out accurately some of the hazards to be anticipated, and proposed a remedy which turns out to have been wisely anticipated, to enlarge the polity beyond reach of control by a single regional party.

[David Nieporent]

Factions — what Madison worried about — are not the same thing as political parties.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, on that one you are as historically out of it as Bellmore. But Federalist 10 remains perhaps the most misread of all the Federalist Papers, so you are at least in plentiful company. Obtuse readers of Federalist 10 cannot get its intended meaning without reading more from Madison elsewhere. And the canard you recited is the most-frequently misunderstood of the lot. If you want me to clarify, suppose if you will that Madison used, "faction," so broadly that political parties—a notion which his other writings show explicitly that he understood—were a major example among a range of other similarly-functioning political phenomena. On that basis, you can say "factions in Federalist 10 are not the same as political parties," but it remains a mistake to do it to argue a case that Madison either did not know what political parties were, or anticipate them in the U.S. He knew the one, and anticipated the other, and there is no historical doubt on either question.

Try this as an experiment, not to resolve the question above, but just as an amusing Madison reading capacity test. Reread Federalist 10 closely, then tell me how many definitions of the word, "liberty," Madison challenged you to understand and differentiate.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"The Little Magician" Martin Van Buren greatly changed the way political parties organize and operate. I'm not sure even as brilliant a guy as Madison could've anticipated that.

Madison did speak out strongly about one change that started occurring in his lifetime, the state rules mandating winner-take-all assigning of Presidential Electors. A feature we now mostly take for granted.

[Kazinski]

They had Whigs and Tories in Parliament for 100 years before the Constitution. 150 years before the Constitution they had had Roundheads and Cavaliers.

[Sarcastr0]

Populism doesn’t mean ignore a branch of government.

Trump is doing radical stuff. He is no big fan of carefully obeying the law. Or the constitution.

Your argument that yeah but he was elected belongs in some dictatorship of the majority.

TROs may or may not stand, but they are not some evil judicial power grab. They last limited for a very short time to allow stuff to get briefed. Nothing Trump is going needs to happen so urgently altar 2 weeks matters.

Your base frustration that Trump doesn’t always get what he wants is not an argument that belongs in our republic.

[Riva]

Somewhat confused, as always. That federal judges don’t like the policy of the Trump administration does not mean they can ignore the limits of their judicial power and interfere with executive branch prerogatives.

[ducksalad]

Prerogatives....you mean your magic vesting clause thing?

[David Nieporent]

Remember how Riva ranted and raved about the Abrego Garcia judge?

[Riva]

Some people call it Art. II of the US Constitution.

[Kazinski]

A huge win for the Administration today:

"WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a requirement that everyone in the U.S. illegally must register with the federal government and carry documentation, in a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for immigrants across the country.

Judge Trevor Neil McFadden — a Trump appointee — sided with the administration, which had argued that officials were simply enforcing a requirement that already existed for everyone who is in the country but isn’t an American citizen. McFadden's ruling didn't go into the substance of those arguments but rested largely on the technical issue of whether the groups pushing to stop the requirement had standing to pursue their claims. He ruled they didn't.

The requirement goes into effect Friday."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-allows-requirement-us-illegally-register-move-forward-120695687

This has flown under the radar but could be the biggest win yet for the admistration.

No more hunting them down, they have to tell us where they are.

And if they don't tell us:

Up to $5,000 fine
Up to six months in jail
Deportation
Additional criminal penalties for registrants who fail to carry proof
Parents or guardians of children who fail to register also face the same penalties.

I'm unclear of what the rationale would be to say Congress wouldn't have the authority to enact this.

[Commenter_XY]

One other penalty: They forever waive the right to come to America if they are found, and did not register.

Illegal aliens are going home.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, no! "If I don't tell them where I am so they can deport me, then they might deport me!"

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall while my was here on a green card; She carried it wherever she went, she was legally mandated to. Similarly, those here on visas are legally mandated to produce them on demand.

I haven't seen the exact text of the law, but it wouldn't shock me if every alien is under such an obligation, as they're asserting here, and Trump has just decided to enforce it.

[Kazinski]

That is true for legal aliens, but now they are going to enforce it for illegal aliens, which gives them another tool.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much that Trump now has another tool. What he has, that no prior administration in at least half a century had, is the desire to use those tools. We finally have an administration which actually wants to enforce our immigration laws. Not just sealing the border against additional illegal entries, but ejecting everyone who is already here illegally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And also delivering ejectees into foreign custody of torturers in the pay of the United States. Don't forget that part. It will grow in significance as the scope of ejections expands to sweep up more American citizens.

[bernard11]

Why do you want to eject everyone who is here illegally? What is the reason?

The majority have been here ten years or more, work, pay taxes (including into SS, which they will likely never collect) and are law-abiding, despite all the smears about rapists, murderers, pet-eaters, etc.

We have statutes of limitations for all kinds of things. Why not for crossing the border?

[Commenter_XY]

Why do you encourage law breaking? What is the reason?

[David Nieporent]

Victimless crimes aren't.

[Don Nico]

That is question begging

[bernard11]

Unlike Trumpists like you, I don't want to encourage law-breaking.

I want to show forgiveness to people who plainly merit it, are contributing to the country, and doing no harm. The notion that we hold illegal entry over someone's head forever is just morally wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

" What is the reason? "

Because they don't belong here.

[bernard11]

The very emptiness of that response proves that there actually is no good reason.

[rloquitur]

Because we are in a struggle with the democrats who want to import voters. That's why we want people deported.

[David Nieporent]

Illegal immigrants can't vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

Illegal immigrants may not vote. "May" and "can" are different words for a reason, use the right one.

[David Nieporent]

Illegal immigrants can't, mayn't, and don't vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

Illegal immigrants may not vote, (Save in some isolated local elections.) and yet can and do on occasion.

Your position appears to be, "If something doesn't happen often enough for me to care about, it doesn't happen at all."

[Sarcastr0]

Slippery slope arguments need more than your speculation.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a slippery slope argument. It's a "pointing out that Nieporent is, yet again, flatly denying something that is unambiguously and easily verified to be true" argument.

Or not so much an argument, as an observation.

[ThePublius]

19 foreign nationals indicted for illegally voting in 2016 elections

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-foreign-nationals-indicted-illegally-voting-2016-elections

[Sarcastr0]

That's the conversation you wish you were having; it's not the one actually going on.

This is the comment DMN was replying to:
"we are in a struggle with the democrats who want to import voters. That's why we want people deported."

For purposes of that partisan-brained reasoning, DMN is absolutely correct - illegals are irrelevant to that issue.

[Bwaaah]

DMN: "Illegal immigrants can't, mayn't, and don't vote."

ICE: "19 foreign nationals indicted for illegally voting in 2016 elections"

Sarc: [blah] [blah]

[David Nieporent]

19 foreign nationals indicted for illegally voting in 2016 elections

And how many of those were illegal immigrants? (Also: how many were actually convicted?)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh, if ICE says it, it must be true.

Over 136 million people voted in 2016. No one thinks that there weren't a handful of those votes that were illegitimate for one reason or another. The notion that a significant number were is not only completely unproven, but ridiculous on it's face. Go to training and work an election as a judge, and you will understand why.

19 votes out of over 136,000,000. If ICE is telling the truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why do you want to eject everyone who is here illegally? What is the reason?"

Because, while it is not, and likely never will be, politically viable to legally just throw the border wide open Somin style, from time to time, we ARE going to have administrations that actually DO want illegal immigration, and will, like Biden, deliberately let illegals in.

If having been let in, they can achieve a kind of pseudo-legal status via adverse possession, then they have every motive to walk through that door, and you get a sort of ratchet effect.

OTOH, if we establish that, even if one administration decides to illegally allow you in, and ignore your presence, the next administration is liable to financially ruin you and kick you the hell out, that motive to walk through that temporarily open door is hugely diminished.

Or to put it another way, relentlessly hunting down and ejecting even long established illegal aliens is the only way to convince potential illegal immigrants that we actually DO have borders, and violating them just isn't worth it even if somebody is temporarily in office who doesn't care to defend them.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pretty sure everyone thinks the US has a border, and has through many administrations and border policies.

It's amazing how much text you wrote and that's the best reason you got.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a pretty good reason. We must establish that you can't get lawful presence in the country by adverse possession, and the way to do that is to kick out people unlawfully here regardless of how long or how notoriously they have been here.

[Sarcastr0]

No, we don't must do that.

Because that has never been a problem in all of our history.

[Don Nico]

Ispe dixit

[bernard11]

Adverse possession?

Whose property are they taking?

kick out people unlawfully here regardless of how long or how notoriously they have been here.

No. Let's not. It's a terrible, evil, idea.

Look, crossing the border illegally is not the crime of the century. A few years of trouble-free living is enough to expiate the sin, but not for hanging judge Bellmore.

[Kazinski]

Because intentional lawbreaking should not be rewarded.

The Statute of limitations is for crimes it does not confer legal status.

If I steal a car and keep it 10 years, I maybe off the hook for the theft, but I never obtain title to the car.

[bernard11]

But the immigrants aren't stealing anything.

[Kazinski]

That still doesn't give them legal status.

And Congress passed a law that coming to the US illegally, or overstaying a visa illegally bars you from presence or admittance for 10 years.

Make your argument to Congress to change the law, but the President has a duty to faithfully execute the laws.

You rail about the President ignoring the lower courts when neither their jurisdiction or authority is clear.

And then you rail about the President following the law as Congress long ago wrote it when Congress' authority is undisputed.

[not guilty]

"We have statutes of limitations for all kinds of things. Why not for crossing the border?"

Criminal prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 is subject to the five year statute of limitations at 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

[Life of Brian]

I believe Bernard was referring to a SOL after which the person could freely stay in the country.

[not guilty]

I don't doubt that that is what he was referring to, and Congress could adopt that if it chooses to do so. The statute of limitations applicable to criminal proceedings does not bar civil deportation proceedings.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like failure to register with Selective Service?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The TV Show Mork & Mindy, which featured Robin Williams as an alien from another planet, ran 1978-82. One of the early shows involved Mork (Williams) trying to register as an alien at the Post Office, which terrestrial aliens had to do back then.

I was young, my family has been here since something like 1644, but I do remember something about aliens having to register annually.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes. There were announcements on TV about having to register every January. I remember them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, give that some thought, in context of Trump's other advocacy, that Trump can deport anyone, including U.S. citizens, without due process. What you celebrate now is in fact a practical requirement that everyone in American, birthright citizens included, carry identity papers all the time, or risk being thrown without legal process into some foreign gulag if caught without them.

[Commenter_XY]

Name a single natural born American citizen who was deported without due process. Name one.

[Sarcastr0]

"natural born"

Classes of citizens now.

You can the set shringing.

All non-illegals->All non-immigrants->All but natural-born Americans.

And we all know the right's opinion on who counts as natural born.

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, it is simply a fact that American citizenship can be stripped from naturalized US citizens. John Demjanjuk is the example I have cited. Do you dispute that example? If you do...cite something.

It is also a fact that American citizenship cannot be stripped from a natural born American citizen. Nor can a natural born citizen be expelled or exiled. Do you dispute that? If you do...cite something.

Projection and wishcasting don't go too far.

[Sarcastr0]

If someone fraudulently managed to attain papers saying they were a natural born citizen, would revoking them mean that citizenship may be stripped of natural born citizens as well?

Bona fide fraud (by a Nazi no less) doesn't show what you say it shows.

Additionally, you made new goalposts: "deported without due process" you said.

Sounds like you're cool with some pretext to get rid of undesirable second class citizens.

I'd tell you to quit with the white nationalist footsie but you're already at least at that level of bigotry.

[Don Nico]

Nice duck... but not a bona fide answer

[bernard11]

it is simply a fact that American citizenship can be stripped from naturalized US citizens. John Demjanjuk is the example I have cited. Do you dispute that example? If you do...cite something.

I don't dispute it, but it's irrelevant to your claims. Demjanjuk had a number of hearings and trials, here, in Israel, and in Germany. He was finally convicted in Germany and sentenced to five years, but released pending appeal, and died shortly thereafter.

You want to compare that to the treatment Garcia got?

[bernard11]

1. Give Trump time.

2. What is to stop it?

3. Is it OK to deport naturalized citizens without due process? Demjanjuk had plenty of it.

4. What about legal residents? Is it a good idea for the President to be able to just pick someone off the street, declare them a terrorist supporter, and send them off? Or is it only a good idea when Trump does it?

[Zarniwoop]

From the Gov’t Accountability Office:

Available data indicate ICE and CBP took enforcement actions against some U.S. citizens. For example, available ICE data indicate that ICE arrested 674, detained 121, and removed 70 potential U.S. citizens from fiscal year 2015 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2020 (March 2020).

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-487

It’s a large, complicated system; I do not expect that it 100.000% error-free. But the rush to circumvent due process is exactly how this sort of thing happens.

[Brett Bellmore]

But I can't help but note the difference between "US citizens" and potential US citizens. How many of those 70 turned out to actually be US citizens?

[Zarniwoop]

No idea. You could read the report.

[Magister]

One conclusion of the report is that ICE does not know the extent of the problem because of its failure to keep records about citizenship being in question.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What part of "not-our-problem-once-the-potential-US-citizen-has-been-disappeared-into-some-foreign-gulag" didn't you understand?

[Magister]

I understood; it's Brett Bellmore who is struggling to understand.

[Malika the Maiz]

Papers, please!

[bernard11]

"Papieren, bitte."

[John F. Carr]

Many other laws aren't enforced until suddenly they are enforced.

Is there a Fifth Amendment defense for people who are here criminally, e.g. having reentered after deportation? Or is registration more like having to identity yourself after a traffic accident?

[Kazinski]

I doubt it.

Are you relieved from filing an accurate tax return because an accurate accounting of revenues and expenditures, and 1099's to mules and dealers, would incriminate you?

[Kazinski]

A US-Palestinian has resigned from his post at Harvard after is lawsuit alleges he helped Hamas build terror tunnels:

WASHINGTON — A billionaire Palestinian-American developer accused by Oct. 7 victims’ families of “aiding and abetting” Hamas has resigned from his position on the dean’s council at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, The Post can reveal, with the school acknowledging the civil complaint “raises serious allegations.”

Bashar Masri stepped down from his post at the Ivy League university days after nearly 200 family members of victims of the deadly attack in Israel sued him in Washington, DC, federal court for allegedly aiding the construction of tunnels and rocket launchers at Gaza-based properties.

“Mr. Masri has resigned from the Dean’s Council. The lawsuit raises serious allegations that should be vetted and addressed through the legal process,” a spokesperson for the Kennedy School of Government said."

Harvard for once doesn't appear to be stonewalling, and admits this could be a problem.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/10/us-news/palestinian-american-billionaire-quits-harvard-post-after-lawsuit-claims-he-helped-build-hamas-terror-tunnels-rocket-launch-sites/

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Could be" a problem???

[Commenter_XY]

Masri, the hamas homie, is a naturalized US citizen, not a natural born American citizen (for the time being). That American citizenship can be stripped. That option is now certainly on the table. We will see.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That American citizenship can be stripped.

On what basis?

[Kazinski]

I don't think that's possible unless of course he lied on his application.

But not only are criminal charges for material support for a terrorist organization on the table, the US and Israel have an extradition treaty if Israel develops credible evidence for criminal charges there.

[Krayt]

I don't think that's possible unless of course he lied on his application.

Which always bothered me.

1. Wait for someone to get uppity.
2. Lawyers scour his forms, looking for mistakes, omissions, etc.

Yay! We found something to kick him with!

Smacks of insurance companies happy to take your premiums for decades, then try to declare it invalid on close inspection once they have to pay because your house burned down.

[shawn_dude]

"if Israel develops credible evidence" [italics mine]

Are you suggesting that this person was accused and forced to step down from a prestigious position without credible evidence? Shouldn't they have waited until the Israeli government cooked some up for the occasion?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Think outside the box, man. All we have to do is get him on a plane out of the jurisdiction, and once he's gone there's no need to deal with silly investigations and court proceedings. Done!

[Kenneth Almquist]

The complaint asserts that the defendants helped Hamas deceive Israel into thinking that Hamas had no intention of attacking Israel.

It tells us that on September 6, Hamas leader al-Arouri, “gave an interview to Al Jazeera again expressing the view that a decisive confrontation with the enemy was imminent.” It quotes him saying on Aug. 13, 2023:

The all-out war has become an unavoidable issue, and we believe it is necessary, we want it. We, the resistance, the axis of the resistance, [Arab and Islamic] peoples, the Palestinian people, the [Islamic] nation want this all-out campaign. We do not talk about it [about the war] in public. We discuss it in closed rooms.

I’d suggest the reason that Israel wasn’t prepared for the October 7 attack had noting to do with any supposed deception by Hamas, but was rather the result of the Netanyahu government trying to make a problem go away by pretending it didn’t exist.

The complaint says that by developing properties in Gaza, the defendants, “deliberately advanced Hamas’s false narrative that it was interested primarily in the economic development of Gaza and a grudging coexistence with Israel.” But the complaint states that there has been a history of properties developed by the defendants being damaged in the conflict between Hamas and Israel, so it should have been obvious that the defendants weren’t investing based on some sort of inside knowledge that Hamas wouldn’t attack Israel.

This deception narrative undermines the rest of the complaint. The defendants were working with Hamas, but if Hamas could deceive the Israeli government about their intentions, they could have also deceived the defendants.

Case documents are here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69852151/shalom-v-masri/

[Commenter_XY]

We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt....

To all my Tribal VC Conspirators: Chag Semeach Pesach.

Commenter_XY likes to experiment in the kitchen, and for Pesach, charoset is usually the place where I do some experimenting. The link below is for a Sephardi version of charoset, with oranges and dates as the base, in lieu of apples and pears. It is ridiculously easy to make.

sm811: It is vegematic compliant, I had you in mind. 😉

https://toriavey.com/orange-sephardic-charoset-1/

For VC Conspirators in The Tribe, what are your favorite Seder foods? And why?

And how compliant with prep laws are you (I do cleaning, but not like I hear in shul - OMG!)? I have a TON of sympathy for the ladies right now; they're exhausted. My dishwasher 'kosherizes' my cooking vessels, and I have a completely separate dining set for the holiday (only used for 8 days annually).

Worst part of holiday: No bread (chametz) for eight (yes 8) days. Ugh!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt....

I never quite understood why, i.e. how that came to be.

But one of the best movies ever made showed how it ended...

[Frank Drackman]

You weren’t chosen for a reason

[Mr. Bumble]

If history shows anything, being "chosen" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Ed Grinberg]

"We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt...."
I never quite understood why, i.e. how that came to be.

https://bibleproject.com/bible/nirv/exodus/1/

[grb]

I was going to suggest he read one of my favorite books, Joseph and his Brothers, by Thomas Mann. That supplies the backstory, though you have to read over a thousand pages to get there.

Or he can wait until mid-May when the first part of the tetralogy is released on audiobook. I can't wait!

[Dr. Ed 2]

thanks -- I always thought they went home after the famine ended.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, Dr. Ed is so dumb that I can believe he thought this, but at the same time it exhibits ignorance on a galactic scale beyond even what I thought possible from Dr. Ed.

[bernard11]

I hesitate to call anything Dr. Ed says the ultimate stupidity, but this is in contention.

[SRG2]

My cousin Evie used to make a superb brisket - so much so that one year I suggested she start a restaurant, "International House of Brisket". Sadly she is too old and ailing to do it nowadays.

I don't comply at all, being an apikouros, though I forsake bread and pizza for 7 days (IMO no need to observe 8) because to me, Pesach is the most important festival, as it's the festival that celebrates our becoming an independent nation.

[Commenter_XY]

I made a brisket also; traditional. Too bad we cannot post pics.

The best brisket I ever had was 'Horn of Plenty' in Knoxville TN. They are open only 4 hours daily, M-F, and sell out every day.

[bernard11]

I have an unbelievably good brisket recipe that consists, more or less, of slow cooking it on a bed of onions.

Wonderful.

[A Japanese Student]

An interesting (summary) opinion from Japan's Supreme Court, issued April 8 but released to the public today. A defendant, who I presume was acting violently during flight, appealed conviction on the ground that criminalization of disobeying the captain's order violated private non-delegation doctrine. The Court denied appeal, noting that, because the law enumerates with specificity the kind of disorderly conduct the captain can forbid, it was constitutional.

Regulation for Enforcement of Civil Aviation Act, §164-16, does indeed enumerate prohibited acts with specificity - such as tampering with exit doors, smoking inside restrooms, or interfering with flight attendants in a way that endangers persons or property of another.

[Stephen Lathrop]

True story from a retired United 747 senior pilot. Drunk passenger repeatedly harasses flight attendants, takes a slap at one of them when she cuts him off from alcohol. She goes forward, returns with the Captain. He says, "See these flight attendants? They are paid to be nice to you. I am not. One more peep out of you, and I will clamp you in irons, and have you carried off this flight to jail when we land." No more peeps from said passenger.

Another true story, witnessed by me. My transcontinental flight lands in Chicago for a scheduled stop. Right after two days of blizzard, which still continues intermittently. During all that time, flights have sometimes been cleared to land, but few flight crews qualified to continue have arrived with them. Most were scheduled to pick up new crews, which have not gotten in.

O'Hare is bedlam. For two days, almost all the passengers waiting to continue have remained, in the hope to get home for Christmas. There is barely room on the floor to pick your way between sleeping bodies, apparently rendered indifferent by exhaustion to a deepening film of slimy moisture accumulating into actual puddles everywhere. The airport is long-since out of diapers; all but a few concessionaires are out of food, the ones still stocked with anything being also the least accessible. People are mobbing them, trying to buy half-full ketchup bottles.

I am there on crutches, with my leg in a cast from ankle to hip, with a backpack instead of luggage—a consequence of a recent surgical knee reconstruction. It's the late 70s; knee replacements haven't really got up to speed. I am not quite in agony, but very uncomfortable, sweaty with pain.

Miraculously, after only about 9 hours of delay, my flight is rescheduled for continuation, ahead of many which had arrived earlier. I am singled out for early boarding, and directed to a window seat, the one farthest from any exit on the plane. But it is a blessing, because it is fronted by a bulkhead, and affords a few extra inches of legroom compared to the others. Then, into the seat right behind me, goes a guy obviously already drunk. More bad weather. We do not actually get opportunity to take off for another 3 hours. Drunk guy keeps demanding more alcohol, but doesn't get it. He turns persistent, loud and abusive. A flight attendant tired of the abuse fetches her supervisor. As I listen from the row in front, the supervisor says in voice which probably carried back 12 rows at least, "Shut up, sir, this hasn't been a picnic for anyone!"

Relief washed over me. It was like a sunrise. I slept like a baby almost all the way to Dulles.

[Thought about __ all my life]

How can Reason say anything is wrong when it supports trans, gay, abortion, you name it. It's rule of the jungle. They tell you what they want and don't want and that translates into an ersatz 'right' and 'wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, C_XY, did you notice that the administration has completely abandoned the claim that Mahmoud Khalil lied on his green card application? The thing that you repeatedly trumpeted as the slam dunk justification for his deportation?

[Brett Bellmore]

I haven't noticed that. Got a cite?

[Commenter_XY]

No, I did not notice, David.

Khalil's green card and visa is revoked. If it takes awhile longer for the lawyers to argue it out until the final conclusion, his expulsion to another country not named El Salvador, that is fine. The legal process has yet to play out.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, that's not likely to happen if they can't show he lied on his green card.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the case that he lied on his green card application is pretty solid, given that he started engaging in actions contrary to his claims on the application within weeks of arriving here.

It's not plausible that he lacked any affiliation with Hamas, and then instantly became radicalized when he stepped on US soil. His actions on arriving here ARE the evidence of his lies.

Here's the official claim that he lied on the application. March 24th.

Now, where exactly have they repudiated this claim, since?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — From your linked article:

However, the government will have to prove to the immigration judge that Khalil willfully failed to disclose that information, and whether that disclosure would have impacted his eligibility for permanent residency.

Where and when, exactly, was opportunity for proof afforded?

Also, do you suppose an immigration judge is empowered to resolve unappealably allegations of 1A violations by the government? That seems to me like a legal question which might require examination, maybe including fact-dependent examination. I have no idea what the answer is. I doubt you do either.

And by the way, if the government can be shown to have lied in court, about anything, is that okay with you? The government's own attorney basically confessed to government lying, and then got fired by the Justice Department for doing it. Attorney General Bondi took that as occasion to warn other Justice Department lawyers to lie at her behest, or face retribution. That has reportedly triggered mass preemptive resignations from the Solicitor General's Office, amounting to more than half the lawyers, according to a story which broke last night. The lawyers there know they cannot lie to a judge, and expect to continue to practice law, and they apparently prefer not to stick around to suffer an inevitable black mark for insubordination. What kind of lawyers do you suppose will be available to replace those, when the flood-tide of Trump cases breaks on the Supreme Court?

I do notice your vehemence. What makes you think it does you credit?

[ducksalad]

DN said "abandoned" and I believe he is correct. Repudiated would be a different claim.

The government's latest court filing (https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/10/us/mahmoud-khalil-evidence-deadline/index.html?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_msn) doesn't mention lying on the application. For that matter it doesn't mention affiliation with Hamas or any other terrorist organization, it doesn't mention affiliation at all.

The meat of the actual allegation is that he opposes the foreign policy interests of the United States, and therefore his presence here could have adverse foreign policy consequences. There are laws allowing deportation for that reason, without any need to allege a criminal offense, and the government isn't alleging any offense in what was filed.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the case that he lied on his green card application is pretty solid

Your desire to go after immigrants has managed to outflank even the Trump admin.

Way to go. Love it when the outgroups are bound but not protected!

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, it is all over but the shouting and pounding on the table. SecState Rubio revoked his green card and visa. He has no legal reason to be here anymore. Those actions, issuance/revocation of green cards/visas is squarely in his power, by statute.

He was born in Syria. Send him back. Lebanon or Algeria are fine as alternatives.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, it is all over but the shouting and pounding on the table.

No justification remains; C_XY doesn't care. Celebrates it even.

Soulless. Ghoulish.

[Commenter_XY]

Commenter_XY has zero sympathy for Judeocidal terror supporters, which Khalid is, and wants them immediately out of the country. Especially if they (non-citizens) are persecuting and harassing Jews on college campuses.

There are many more Judeocidal terror sympathizers like Khalid who will be leaving the country. Thousands. I will absolutely celebrate their expulsion and permanent ban from my country.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, you're just a bigot. And hate speech. And hate due process.

I'm not fan of his cause but he's a much better American than you are.

[Commenter_XY]

You have a problem with accountability for one's actions.

Since you're a bureaucrat, I can understand why it bothers you.

[Josh R]

Should we deport aliens that support a two-state solution?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do they oppose "the foreign policy interests of the United States, and therefore [their] presence here could have adverse foreign policy consequences"?

So, no. We'll have to wait until the United States officially opposes the two-state solution, and then we can deport all the aliens who support a two-state solution.

[Josh R]

Trump is getting very close to that conclusion. And when the next administration reverses course and starts deporting aliens who oppose a two-state solution, I want no complaints.

[Kazinski]

He does seem to be taking it personally.

Watching Khalil on video chanting "cut off the heads of the Zionists" on the streets of New York probably made it hard for him to be totally objective.

That seems a little more ghoulish to me, more than just advocating deportation.

[Sarcastr0]

Is principle that hard for you to understand?

But sure, make common cause with a piece of shit like Commenter.

[Commenter_XY]

Well lookie there Sarcastr0, the dist ct judge in LA just ruled your hero Khalid (a Judeocidal terror supporter) goes home. He will never return.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In principle, yes. However, it was not a dist ct judge but an immigration judge; Sarcastr0’s hero is named not named Khalid, but Khalil, not Khalid; the judge didn’t rule that he goes home, but that he is removable, with his lawyers given another week and a half to respond further; the ongoing proceedings in New Jersey may separately prevent his removal; and if he were removed that wouldn’t mean that he would never return to the United States.

But other than that, great comment!

[Sarcastr0]

He's also very much not my hero - hence my mentioning principle.

I figure you understand that. Commenter doesn't, and Kaz doesn't care.

[Malika the Maiz]

Didn’t DB weigh in in the comments of EV’s post about the ACLU warning about actions targeting student activists and claim the ACLU was being dishonest in not explicitly saying it was only about ones with student visas?

[A Japanese Student]

House passed a bill, HR22, that mandates documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. My view has always been that voter registration should be abolished in favor of registration at birth (and updated as necessary to reflect people moving to different jurisdictions).

That's how Japan does it - assuming you are an able-bodied citizen, voting in Japan is really easy. The city mails to voters a voting ticket that you can bring to prove your identity (and the election worker asks you the date of birth) - and that's it. In fact, you don't need that ticket at all; you can vote without any documents.

One of the concerns I've heard regarding this bill comes from transgender people. While some states issue identity documents reflecting the person's new gender (and name), others do not, or impose some strict requirements. They fear that poll workers may prevent them from voting even with the proper documents.

It probably wouldn't change anything, to be fair; red states already impose similar requirements, and blue states issue updated documents. The bill appears to give states wide discretion on how they structure their identity documents.

[Kazinski]

Its not going to pass the senate in any form, so its not something that needs any tweaking to improve it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"My view has always been that voter registration should be abolished in favor of registration at birth "

The problem with this is that a large pool of people who are registered to vote, but who have no interest in voting, (As half the population don't.) is the raw material of ballot fraud. It represents a huge pool of people you can create absentee ballots for, confident that they'll never show up at the polls to discover that they 'already voted'.

For that reason, I believe that registering to vote should not be automatic, but should instead require some minimal initiative on the part of the voter, which has to be repeated periodically or it expires. Nothing onerous, but the voter should have to take the initiative to get it done.

[Mr. Bumble]

Next thing will be calling for allowing proxy voting.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The larger issue Brett is the twofold issue of (a) voting Constitutionally being a state issue and (b) historically being seen as a municipal one.

The Federal Government could specify when the election would be, but anything more than that would not have been tolerated.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Another excerpt from your dissertation?

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 4.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We seem to be putting a lot of meaning into that word "Manner." Are we figuring that the word gives Congress the power to mandate voter ID? Does the word put every aspect of an election of a federal Representative and Senator within Congress' power?

[Frank Drackman]

What’s the point of Voter ID when everyone looks alike?

[Krayt]

They fear that poll workers may prevent them from voting even with the proper documents.

In the US, well, most (?) states, you can swear at the poll desk you have the right to vote, and vote provisionally, and then it counts if it turns out you're not a liar.

And refusing to let you vote because of transexual status, otherwise validly ID'd, should itself be a crime.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

All votes must be counted on the day of the election! No exceptions!

[Brett Bellmore]

" They fear that poll workers may prevent them from voting even with the proper documents."

What they fear is that they'll be required to obtain proper documents, rather than documents that list their sex wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

The law is not required to instantiate your personal worldview, no matter how confident you are about it.

I have a policy position myself, but allow states can come down on one side or the other legitimately.

Not you, though!
This is the same level of self-orientation as were a trans person to insist any state that doesn't sanction people for misgendering is an evil one.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The law is not required to instantiate your personal worldview, no matter how confident you are about it."

Apparently the only reason that's the case is that I'm NOT 'trans', seems to be your position.

[Sarcastr0]

Apparently the only reason [The law is not required to instantiate your personal worldview] is that I'm NOT 'trans', seems to be your position.

I said the opposite of this:

"I have a policy position myself, but allow states can come down on one side or the other legitimately."

[Kazinski]

The inflation report came out today and it was absolutely stellar:

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) decreased 0.1 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis in
March, after rising 0.2 percent in February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12
months, the all items index increased 2.4 percent before seasonal adjustment."

Hard to find any flaws in the report, energy prices were down accounting for the month over month decline, gasoline dropped more than 6% in March, but even core inflation was quite good only up .1% month over month, and 2.8% over the last 12 months.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

[Mr. Bumble]

(W)hip (I)nflation (N)ow!

[hobie]

Thank you Joe Biden. I wonder how the scamp is doing these days

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad he wasn’t allowed to run

[Mr. Bumble]

He can hardly walk.

[Krayt]

Too bad he wasn’t allowed to run

Democrats do things like that.

Interesting their party did, or tried to do that, with both parties' candidates.

These are the lovers of democracy, the protectors of democracy, panicked with fear they'll lose it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Neither party really has any respect for the principle of democracy. But by comparison, the Democrats are slightly more respectful. Low bar, though.

[Kazinski]

Actually I would thank gridlock in Congress for 2 years.

Be honest Hobie, of possible, if Joe had the opportunity for a new mega spending bill in the last 2 years don't you think he'd take it?

He certainly didn't try to get a recission on any of the mega spending bills he did pass. In fact he* was still trying to shovel the money out the door as fast as he could while he was leaving.

*I am of course referring to those in charge of the autopen, not Joe personally.

[Commenter_XY]

There are a variety of reasons CPI can go down, not all of them good.

The report is good from the perspective that The Fed continues to make progress at moving the inflation rate to their 2% target. That is pretty huge from the standpoint of future SSA (and entitlement) expenditures, less inflation = less COLA = less Fed spending.

My organic eggs from Wegman's cost less. That is good.

[Kazinski]

Well in this case it was the 6% drop in gas prices in a month.

Nobody will complain about that, except the oil patch.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, this is Alfredo Garcia
Could somebody call me an Uber?

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, you're an Uber.

[Frank Drackman]

Tough crowd! I just flew in from El Salvador, and boy are my arms tired!

[bernard11]

Vaudeville interlude appreciated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

General Mills is trying for a Last Hurrah with Trump:

Augusta, Maine - Due to continued challenges in accessing federal funding, the Maine State Library will temporarily close and reorganize its operations. This decision follows layoff notices issued this week to 13 employees whose positions are funded through a program grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) in Washington, D.C. The library tentatively plans to reopen to the public on April 28, 2025.

https://www.maine.gov/msl/news/display.shtml?id=13168894

[Dr. Ed 2]

Suspending a student for not tattling on another student quick enough? And then identifying him as the one who told the admin?

Lesson here: Sniches get stitches -- he should have (a) kept his mouth shut and (b) lied and said either he didn't know it was a bullet or that he thought it was a toy one if called on it.

We used to use .22 bullets (actual lead outer edge) as pencils.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/08/us-news/judge-rules-against-virginia-private-school-that-suspended-student-for-waiting-to-report-classmate-with-bullet/

[hobie]

"We used to use .22 bullets (actual lead outer edge) as pencils."

I remember a Bugs Bunny cartoon where he had to be the Easter Rabbit for a day. In it was a gangster infant sucking on a revolver as a pacifier. Was that you, Ed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, and I'm actually surprised that Disney released that cartoon because, back in the day, Disney was socially responsible and gun safety was a thing back then.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bugs Bunny and Looney Tunes was from Warner Bros., NOT Disney.

[hobie]

You see why no one holds Ed's proclamations as credible?

[hobie]

If you ignore all the shotgun blasts to the face most characters endured, your statement would make sense

[Frank Drackman]

I love the one where Bugs gets drafted into the Army, typical Military, they don't realize it until the end, but they use his talents, Bugs ends up testing Artillery Shells, Then there's "Rebel Rabbit" where Bugs is offended that the Bounty on Rabbits is 2 Cents, declares war on the Government, turning off Niagra Falls, selling Manhattan back to the Indians, paints Barber Pole stripes on the Washington Monument, Saws off the Florida Peninsula, Locks up (get it?) the Panama Canal, Fills in the Grand Canyon,
Bugs, now satisfied with the $1 million bounty on his head (although the bounty is for him specifically, not rabbits in general), has his Tarzan yell interrupted by the whole US Army coming after him, much to his horror. Bugs then dives into a fox hole as artillery shells surround the foxhole. Bugs then says, "Ehh, could it be that I carried this thing too far?" just as the shells explode. It then cuts to Alcatraz Island where Bugs, in his jail cell, finally remarks "Ehhh, could be...!"

Frank "I knew I should have taken that left turn in Albuquerque!"

[Frank Drackman]

Ed was Elmer Fudd, No Homo Hobie-stank, but anyone who watched Bugs Bunny (the real ones, not the PC version of the last 40 years) can't be all bad. I especially love the one where Daffy and Bugs turn the tables and say
"Be ver-wy quiet, we're hunting Elmers, huhhuhuhuhuhuhuh"
How about the 3 Stooges? I love how upstanding Men in suits would just nonchalantly pull out and fire revolvers when the Stooges would run into them on the street.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...or Bert (Ward Bond) pulling out his revolver to fire at George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) as he runs down the crowded main street of Bedford Falls (actually Pottersville in that sequence).

[Krayt]

I love that movie, but when he shoots I'm like you idiot there are people running around down there!

[Dr. Ed 2]

i saw that as a feature -- an indication of what type of community Pottersville had become, where hitting innocent bystanders was acceptable.

[Brett Bellmore]

My fav was "What's Opera, Doc?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

I remember one where bugs is falling, memory in an airplane going straight down -- and stops, saying "you know how much gas you can get with these "A" cards."

I hadn't heard of WW II rationing, but did understand the concept of gravity and wondered how the government could defy that.
Franklin Roosevelt was explained to me.

Historically, Trump really isn't that radical...

[John F. Carr]

The title of that short is "Falling Hare."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Easter Yeggs." I believe it was called. One of my favorite Bugs lines of all time:
Easter Bunny: You're going to give the Easter Bunny a bad name.
Bugs: I've already got a bad name for the Easter Bunny.

[David Nieporent]

We used to use .22 bullets (actual lead outer edge) as pencils.

You know that pencils use graphite, not lead, right?

[LawTalkingGuy]

TBF, lead poisoning from using bullets as pencils as a kid would explain a lot here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

TBF, pencils were painted with lead paint until 1978...

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's probably why bullets didn't work very well, but they DID work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Feds are going to get a consent decree with Columbia.

Hmmm -- can you do that without first having a lawsuit?

https://nypost.com/2025/04/10/us-news/trump-administration-looking-to-put-judge-in-charge-of-ensuring-columbia-sticks-to-campus-reforms-report/

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a real problem with FEMALE teachers (well, most of the newly-hired ones are female due to discrimination) -- I know of one Florida district that has banned Facebook, i.e. if you are an employee of the district, you are not permitted to *have* a Facebook account.

Way too many female teachers in their 20s with pictures of college spring break on their Facebook accounts, and not realizing where that would lead with 16 year old boys.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/07/10/forbidden_fruit_and_the_classroom_the_huge_american_sex-abuse_scandal_that_educators_scandalously_hush_up_1042969.html

[Frank Drackman]

The real problem is you think that's a real problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is...

[David Nieporent]

I know of one Florida district that has banned Facebook, i.e. if you are an employee of the district, you are not permitted to *have* a Facebook account.

Is this as true as everything else you say?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know, David NoMind -- why don't you ask the administrator who told it to me at a conference -- oh, wait, you'd have to go to conferences, first.

Oh, wait, *could* it be true? Is Facebook an issue in Florida K-12?

Umm: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/floridas-k-12-social-media-ban-garners-mixed-reactions

But that would require knowledge of boolean searches, which David NoMind lacks.

So then there is mens rea and the question of why would I fabricate something that didn't happen and that would involve into the dark recesses of empty space between David NoMind's ears.

Oh, wait, does Florida even exist?

[Noscitur a sociis]

why don't you ask the administrator who told it to me at a conference

Even if we ignore the fact that you obviously made this up and humor you by pretending that janitors go to conferences where people tell them about the new illegal policies they’re implementing, that would still be a pretty bad source!

Umm: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/floridas-k-12-social-media-ban-garners-mixed-reactions

It is, I suppose, barely worth mentioning that that is an article about a state law restricting Facebook use by students in school, not a school district policy restricting it by teachers outside of school.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 earlier:

one Florida district that has banned Facebook, i.e. if you are an employee of the district, you are not permitted to *have* a Facebook account.

Employers can prevent employees from using social media while working, and in some places fire them over things they post, but that's way short of not even having a Facebook account.

Dr. Ed 2 moves the goalposts:

The law, which took effect July 1, essentially bans students from accessing social media in public schools unless expressly directed to do so by a teacher for educational purposes, and it requires the Florida Department of Education to publish a social media awareness curriculum for all public schools. The law identified the advantages of social media use in schools as career- and resume-building for future academic or employment opportunities, sharing information with family and friends, and safely connecting with other users with similar interests. The identified risks include social media addiction, publication of misinformation, negative effects on mental health, and the permanent nature of content posted to social media.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was told about the ban several years ago, i.e. BEFORE this law.

And you'd be surprised at some of the policies that school superintendents come up with. I saw a high school that had a policy that anyone who posted on a facebook page that was negative of the principal would be kicked out of the National Honor Society.

Bear in mind there are a lot of educational administrators whose attitude is "try it, I've got liability insurance if we get sued."

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fact, here is a Florida Appeals Court saying that:
https://flaglerlive.com/no-you-may-not-discipline-a-teacher-for-personal-facebook-posts/

I'd heard about the Bernie Sanders joke, but not that the school had been overruled.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bernie Sanders was the principal of that school?

[David Nieporent]

Oh, wait, *could* it be true? Is Facebook an issue in Florida K-12?

Umm: https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/floridas-k-12-social-media-ban-garners-mixed-reactions

But that would require knowledge of boolean searches, which David NoMind lacks.

So the answer to my question was, "Yes, it's as true as everything else Dr. Ed says." (For those who — unlike me — didn't click on Dr. Ed's link out of morbid curiosity, the link does not say one word about employees of any district in Florida being forbidden from having a Facebook account.)

So then there is mens rea and the question of why would I fabricate something that didn't happen

That is indeed a puzzling question that I will never likely understand the answer to. What is even more puzzling, though, is why you would post something that doesn't even have anything to do with your claim as though it proved your claim.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lead bullets as pencils?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm dreaming of a white EASTER....

(It's not snow -- it's "Global Warming"....)

Hazardous Weather Outlook
National Weather Service Gray ME
311 AM EDT Fri Apr 11 2025

This Hazardous Weather Outlook is for southwest Maine, New
Hampshire, central New Hampshire, northern New Hampshire and
southern New Hampshire.

.DAY ONE...Today and tonight.

Light snow and rain will persist through early this morning before
ending. Locally slippery travel conditions are possible for the
morning commute, especially across the higher terrain and elevated
surfaces.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...Saturday through Thursday.

A brief period of moderate to locally heavy snow is possible on
Saturday morning, which could result in rapidly deteriorating road
conditions. Snowfall accumulations of 1-3" are likely with localized
higher amounts possible. Please stay tuned to the latest forecast
updates as forecast uncertainty remains.

[Frank Drackman]

So is Hey-Zeus going to see his shadow this year? (Did Hey-Zeus even cast a shadow? he's sort of a Bizarro-Vampire, rising in the morning, and giving his blood instead of taking someone elses, not bothered by Crosses (well maybe a little)

Frank

[shawn_dude]

Too many lead bullets when you were a kid, eh?

[Malika the Maiz]

The Mad King hosted the Dodgers:

“All year, the Dodgers faced down adversity,” he continued. “You entered the playoffs battered and bruised, but not broken. When you ran out the healthy arms — you ran out of really healthy — they had great arms, but they ran out. It’s called sports. It’s called baseball in particular; and pitchers, I guess you could say, and really particular.”

It’s called sports! Rambling idiot.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he smell some 5 yr old girls hair? Compliment Barry Osama for being "Clean"? Give Bullions of Shekels of Military Equipment to the Tolly-Bon? Call hundreds of millions of Amuricans "Trash"?? but it's cool, he's got 8 years to improve("48" I mean, not Sleepy Joe, who I wouldn't bet money is alive right now)
Oh, I'm sorry, I meant "47",
"48" won't be until January 2029
See, Peoples, THAT's how you "Troll"

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Man who writes like a third grader should probably go easy on Parkinson’s jokes.

“We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated!"

[grb]

You're too kind. I would say Frank writes like a third grader with Parkinson’s Disease.

[MoreCurious]

Did you ever notice that Drackman and Trump both have the vocabulary, grammar, and communication skills of middle-school students?

[grb]

And they're never seen in the same place at the same time!

Given Frank's endless Walter Mitty fantasies of Amazing! Accomplishments! it would be kinda funny if our mentally-ill commentator was actually our mentally-ill president.

[Frank Drackman]

Well we both do have a very, very large Br-ain

[grb]

Sure. And everything about you, Frank, screams very stable genius......

[MoreCurious]

You've been poisoning this blog for years now, Drackman, but you've never once submitted a comment that even hints that you might have a "very, very large Br-ain." To the contrary, every one of your comments confirms what we've all concluded about you. And I'll give you a hint: it's not that you have a "very, very large Br-ain." This might be a good time to take a break and come back when you grow up and have something intelligent and thoughtful to add.

[BBSquatter]

Well done. But in defense of Malika, his sock puppet name does mean corn so we should expect nothing less from xim/xer/dem when it comes to corny, cornball, corn on the cob up their butt comments.

[Malika the Maiz]

Cob up the butt? We’re not here to discuss you mother.

[grb]

Or William Faulkner novels.....

[Armchair]

Pseudo-hypothetical question for the commentariat

Let's say, hypothetically, you had a large trade with a country, especially in key items. But you expected that country to be hostile in the near future. And that trade (and the potential geopolitical leverage it had), would put you at a severe disadvantage if a conflict broke out.

Would it be wise to attempt to limit some of that trade, via tariffs, to avoid that disadvantage?

To give an example, Germany was importing a large quantity of natural gas from Russia. This put pressure on Germany, if it opposed any conflict that Russia engaged in. Would it have been wiser for Germany to place large tariffs on Russian natural gas a few years prior, to wean itself off that natural gas?

[Krayt]

Putting them on the western dole, allowing them to trade, was supposed to purchase acquiescence, not allow rising from the ashes and expansionism, using dependency on them to empower it, 'cause what're ya gonna do, ha ha!

That isn't the only example.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, not terribly hypothetical, actually.

I'd say the real problem is that we should have started disentangling ourselves from China at least a decade ago. Kind of late when we're probably going to be in a shooting war with them within a couple years.

China Suddenly Building Fleet Of Special Barges Suitable For Taiwan Landings

Xi knows he has to take Taiwan in the next few years, his window for accomplishing anything like that is rapidly closing. It looks like he's preparing for that war.

[Moderation4ever]

The opportunity to confront China was back at the end of the Obama Administration with the Transpacific Partnership. That was the opportunity to build strong trade relations with Asian countries to block out China. Markets like stability and the US is in chaos. It a prime time for China to build relationships and make deals. hina doesn't need a hot war because it can win a cold war. Something USSR could not do.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Yeah, not terribly hypothetical, actually.”

Of course, it’s Armchair. Hypotheticals aren’t his thing, attempted set-ups are.

[Commenter_XY]

We are running out of time Brett. Absent an agreement on tariffs, China faces mass unemployment by the end of Q3. There will be millions of military aged males out of work.

Premier Xi will have to give them something to do (war). Or those young men will find something for themselves to do (unrest). It is not a good choice. WRT tariffs, China will not let itself be seen to publicly 'lose face', they publicly committed to seeing it through 'to the bitter end'.

We (America) might not see the tariffs on China as an existential matter; China does.

Taiwan has very little time to become an inedible porcupine.

[bernard11]

So Trump's tariffs are going to provoke China into war?

One more reason they are not such a great idea.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a distinct possibility, bernard11. Think it through, but from Xi's perspective. He has nothing to lose.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's brinkmanship -- if we and the Dutch stop recognizing their diplomatic passports, they're no longer in the UN.

And in a shooting war, we would.

[David Nieporent]

Is that as true as everything else Dr. Ed posts?

(I must admit that I did not realize that the Dutch controlled access to either NYC or Geneva.)

[bernard11]

There are some buried loopholes left over from the days of Peter Stuyvesant.

[David Nieporent]

I'd say the real problem is that we should have started disentangling ourselves from China at least a decade ago. Kind of late when we're probably going to be in a shooting war with them within a couple years.

Um, being entangled with them is how we avoid a shooting war.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously?
Better red than dead?

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea how you got that from what I said. Are the Chinese attempting to foment a communist revolution in the United States?

[bernard11]

Yes. Seriously.

Not a question of "red or dead," but of having a peaceful mutually rewarding trade relationship.

I can buy the idea that for strategic reasons we need not to be dependent on China for some goods. But that represents a small share of our total imports.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, right. We just spent several decades acting on the basis of that theory, and the result was that we became dependent on a totalitarian state that uses slave labor, as they infiltrated our own institutions. And fueled their economy, which just resulted in their military growing.

[David Nieporent]

We just spent several decades acting on the basis of that theory, and the result was

that we didn't have a war.

[Sarcastr0]

Not only did out trade ties help create a headwind against going to war with China, we also developed like gangbusters ourselves in that time. Our economy was fueled; our military grew. They became dependent on us.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "China Suddenly Building Fleet Of Special Barges Suitable For Taiwan Landings"

Here's my question : How in the world could those barges survive missile attack? I can understand a Chinese assumption they will achieve air superiority by plane, whether that be a reasonable assumption or not. But as the Ukrainian conflict has shown with tanks, it's very easy for a small and (relatively) inexpensive ATW to destroy a (relatively) expensive tank.

That said, I also have a queasy feeling about the survivability of 13 billion dollar aircraft carriers in a true global conflict. With anything short of that, they're invaluable. But I wonder how many would last the opening months (or weeks) of total war.

[Moderation4ever]

The answer here is not tariffs which really do little for a country's economy, other than crashing its markets. Countries need to assess what are strategic resources and make plans to assure those resources are available. That could mean finding additional trading partners or subsiding internal production. There probably was a time when tariffs represented a useful tool for a country to build its economy, but we now have a world economy. It makes more sense to develop smart trading strategies over putting in impediments to trade.

[Sarcastr0]

Another Armchair overdetermined hypothetical!

Truly our T-shirts are a national security issue. Glad Trump is protecting them.

[grb]

My very own overdetermined hypothetical below:

The NYT front page today has an article on Trump trying to win hearts & minds in Greenland. So when that fails - as it will - let's say the Mad King decides to invade. What would result? My speculation:

1. Someone would leak. The bootlickers cry treason.

2. There'd be universal revulsion from the public & Congress (both parties).

3. Whether by Democrat or bi-partisan voice, someone representing Congress would tell the Danes and Greenlanders everything will be put to right after the Mad King is safely in a padded room, whether post-Inauguration Day '29 or earlier.

4. All the loons, lackeys, freaks & leeches in the Trump White House would run around like headless chickens, JD Vance being the most frantic.

An unlikely original premise? To be sure! But it was equally unlikely Trump would try to destroy the United States economy and look what happened there. When the president is mentally ill - as is clearly the case - the unlikely becomes possible.

[John F. Carr]

Trump has 6,000 aliens summarily executed.

...but only in computer records. The subjects of Trump's order had legally issued Social Security Numbers. They may have overstayed their residency permits; this part is not clear. They are to be declared dead in Social Security Administration records. Any SSN check will fail. The hope is if they can't work or can't have bank accounts they will leave.

https://apnews.com/article/living-immigrants-dead-social-security-numbers-trump-c10737cbe36e3108fb244a555777d880

I don't know if this order is legal or will cause loss of access to services the aliens are legally entitled to under federal or state law. Compare Trudeau's order freezing bank accounts of people who opposed his COVID rules.

[Sarcastr0]

this part is not clear

Seems important.

Compare Trudeau's order
Or don't. Tu quoque as justification is way way too common; resist the impulse.

[Ska]

Good thing it wasn't a tu quoque statement. Or is every comparison a logical fallacy now?

[Sarcastr0]

I agree it wasn't being used as justification here.

Which just makes it irrelevant.

I get the impulse, but it is a vice.

[Kazinski]

Yes its a vice to try to label almost everything you don't like as tu quoque, strawman, no true scotsman, bad source.

It seems like more of a tell that you are stumped when it comes to actually refuting the point.

Carrs point seems to be that you need a social security number or tin to open a bank account, the point seems to be will this result in debanking the people that had their son's revoked.

[Sarcastr0]

JasonT20 has the right of it - tu quoque has formal contours that I was abusing.

But if upon seeing an objection to something Trump did you start talking about those Dems?
You're deflecting. That's a red herring.

Have some shame. Hold yourself accountable.

[JasonT20]

I think it is better to just use the broad term, "red herring", for this sort of thing. Whether it really falls under tu quoque or some other, more specific logical fallacy, a red herring diverts attention from what is relevant in a dispute. Something that distracts doesn't even need to be intentional or a logical fallacy to be a red herring. But we should always make an effort to avoid including them in our discussions.

[Sarcastr0]

Good note.

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

Are you going to add it to your list of copy & paste finger-wags?

[Michael P]

If Hotblack Desiato could spend a year dead for tax reasons, is there really a problem with declaring people dead to the SSA for immigration reasons?

[John F. Carr]

The order is like the registration order earlier in the thread. The law against working (assuming the aliens' right to work has expired) has always been on the books. Suddenly it is much more strictly enforced.

America needs to figure out where it stands on immigration. Cut out the limbo status where we make rules and don't enforce them. Take DACA beneficiaries. Either they are permanent residents or they get deported. No suspension of enforcement that segues into another suspension that requires a notice of rulemaking to rescind. In or out.

[Sarcastr0]

America will not take a stand on immigration. The GOP doesn't want to change the system - the chaos and misery is the point. Lets them target an outgroup and claim they're being prevented from targeting the outgroup.

The Dems have offered multiple compromises, including tons of security increases. The GOP has rejected them all, to the point of sabotaging their own members.

Suffice to say, I agree with you, but I'm not optimistic.

[Commenter_XY]

Team D controlled the White House and the Congress 2009-11, 2022-2024 and did nothing on immigration.

Last November, America figured out their position on open borders and illegal immigration; they want no part of it. Hence, a unified Congress is now addressing the problem via funding, in support of a POTUS who ran on (and won) on the issue of illegals.

I am all for immigration reform and dramatically increasing the number of people we let in legally. I want millions of the best and brightest from around the world to come to America every year through the front door, and help America remain the greatest country on the face of the earth. If you are a Judeocidal terror sympathizer, don't bother.

To emigrate to this country is like winning the lottery.

[ducksalad]

" a unified Congress"

Laying it on a bit thick, don't you think?

[Commenter_XY]

Am I? Does Team R have a majority in the Senate and the House? You tell me. That is unified.

For the time being, Team D is irrelevant. Team D can do nothing but gaze at their navels, and bleat like sheep. Senator 'I got a friend named T-Bone' Booker is a wonderful example of the useless bleating sheep.

[ducksalad]

I would define "unified" as able to consistently muster a majority vote in both houses in favor of bills proposed by the leadership team.

We still elect people, not parties. Republican dissenters who carry it to the point of voting "no" don't count toward a majority.

Team D is irrelevant, but Mike Johnson and John Thune don't seem to have much luck throwing their weight around either. Stuff that passes the House dies in the Senate and vice versa.

[David Nieporent]

For the time being, Team D is irrelevant.

Apparently you haven't heard of the filibuster.

[Commenter_XY]

You mean, like Senator Spartacus. That kind of filibuster? 😉

[Kazinski]

They didn't even try during Biden's first two years, and it certainly would not be out of the question to peal off 9-10 GOP votes in the senate for a reasonable bill that allowed more legal immigration in exchange for.closing the border to illegals.

The bill they wanted actually codified letting 5000 illegals in a day.

[David Nieporent]

The bill they wanted actually codified letting 5000 illegals in a day.

It did not. It did not codify letting even 1 illegal in.

[Mr. Bumble]

It just ignored them until 5001 got in

[Bob from Ohio]

"tons of security increases"

Good one. No wonder you get called Gaslighto.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, we really needed those enhancements to get the border under control, but you can't legislate backbone.

[Sarcastr0]

Smacks of *ahem* “judicial courage.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess, just a guess, is that these people actually are dead and their identities were stolen.

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law reports that multiple judges have received unsolicited pizza deliveries. Judge Michelle Childs (D.C. Cir.) received an 'alarming' delivery of Domino's. Pizza has even been sent to Supreme Court justices.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judge-describes-alarming-pizza-delivery-as-threats-increase

If pizza can be delivered in 30 minutes or less (or your money back), maybe judges can turn out an opinion in 30 weeks or less (or your money back).

[Michael P]

US pizza companies don't make that kind of promise any more. As I understand, they are worried about being held liable for accidents caused when their drivers rush to make the time cut-off.

The analogous lesson for TROs are left as an exercise for the reader.

[John F. Carr]

Let me add, publishing the address of a federal judge "with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence" is a crime. 18 USC 119. I would not call unsolicited pizza delivery a threat.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't 'Swatters' often order pizza before swatting their victims?

Not so sure about this not being an attempt at intimidation.

[hobie]

Remember during the pandemic when large groups of leftists gathered outside the homes of judges, doctors, nurses, and school officials?

[ducksalad]

Feel free to intimidate me any evening with a 19" NY style mushrooms black olives onions extra cheese. But not before I get home at 6pm, it's only good fresh.

[Commenter_XY]

Post your address here, and I will oblige, ducksalad. 🙂

Be sure to include your cellphone number too, just in case there needs to be a callback. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

How hard would it be to fake a Domino's delivery with poisoned pizza?

[Magister]

I expect ducksalad is rethinking his post.

[ducksalad]

Nope. Despite the awfulness of his political beliefs, Commenter_XY has more class than to send Domino's, even in an attempt to kill me.

[Magister]

OK, but we haven't seen you post an address yet, have we? Also, watch out for snowplows out of season in your neighborhood.

[ducksalad]

It's quite possible that there has never been a snowplow in this county (Hidalgo, TX) since it was formed in 1842.

[Magister]

Complacency may be your undoing, even if Dr. Ed 2's murderous fantasies (which in this case were probably aimed at federal judges he doesn't like) are unlikely to be realized.

[grb]

Of course killed by a murderous snowplow in Hidalgo, TX would be a death of distinction (if you're looking for that sorta thing).

[Commenter_XY]

I have standards, ducksalad. Little Caesar's, for sure. /sarc

[Jmaie]

"I would not call unsolicited pizza delivery a threat."

Even if it's Papa john's?

[LawTalkingGuy]

So is the Court going to find a way to end Humphrey’s Executor without destroying the Fed? And if so, how so? If they were thinking about doing it before, they’re probably less likely to now after witnessing tariff chaos. They’re not going to hand him monetary policy too. Justices are and can be as materialist as anyone.

[hobie]

"Justices are and can be as materialist as anyone."

Anyone want me to name our favorite materialist justice?

[MoreCurious]

It's a tie between Thomas and Alito; they've turned grifting into a professional sport.

[Ridgeway]

I have trouble seeing any way to square Humphrey's, Seilla Law and Myers in any intellectually coherent fashion, but as a practical matter, I don't see the SCT messing with the structure of the Fed.

My guess is that they will at least grandfather in the Fed and FTC, and to the extent they effectively overrule Humphrey's, it will have prospective effect only, meaning that Congress cannot create new independent agencies. I'd analogize to "new" rights/principles in criminal cases, where they have prospective effect only.

[John F. Carr]

Major League Baseball retained an exemption from antitrust law thanks to stare decisis.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Roberts will United States v. Rahimi it a bit, perhaps.

[BBSquatter]

Violent crime is on our minds at home, my rural area and discussed often by neighbors, family and friends. DOJ needs to communicate to Americans that they are aware that Democrats are aligned with these recent acts of violence via George Soros funding rent-a-mob, and that they will charge, prosecute and throw in prison those entities bankrolling these domestic terrorists. This is the number one topic on our minds

[Malika the Maiz]

You left out “small” after “our.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glxxreed7o.amp

[Moderation4ever]

I would suggest you think about where you are going to sell grain crops when overseas markets dry up. Because that is rural America's biggest problem right now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Use the usual dodge. This time, no tariffs on Russia, so sell to Russia. Then they resell wherever they can.

[Michael P]

This seems related: https://nypost.com/2025/04/10/us-news/pa-judge-sonya-mcknight-convicted-of-shooting-sleeping-boyfriend-in-the-head/

[David Nieporent]

Because he ate her pizza?

[Commenter_XY]

The Psalms hoodie she was wearing was a nice touch. Something about doing the perp walk in a valley, shadowed by the MSM...

[hobie]

Are Soros-funded Antifa zombies shuffling around the hollers of your kith and kin? Kinda like Gollums? You should take a photo

[David Nieporent]

A good start, but you need to throw in some racial slurs for the full MAGA effect. The antisemitism isn't enough.

[ThePublius]

That's just a slur, David. Racism and antisemitism are not characteristic of the MAGA movement. As a matter of fact, virtually all of the racism and antisemitism these days comes from the left, the Democrats, and the progs. Look at the college campuses, the DEI movement, AntiFa, etc.

What do you do if you have nothing on your opponent? Throw the race card, and the antisemite card. Typical.

[Sarcastr0]

The liberals on here acknowledge some antisemitism on our side of the aisle.

You, however, deny the MAGA antisemitism *on display every day on this website* among other places it's easy to find (Candace Owens, Patriots.win, SOROS hate, and those are the layups.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, our antisemites are merely annoying, yours are dangerous. Words versus physical violence.

[David Nieporent]

Gaslight0, our antisemites are merely annoying, yours are dangerous.

Thank you for goysplaining that to us. But I disagree. To be sure, left American antisemites pose more of a threat to Israel, I think. But I am not worried about a future AOC administration rounding up American Jews. The party run by the guy who gives Nazi salutes and endorses neo-Nazi candidates, on the other hand…

[ThePublius]

"on display every day on this website" - funny, I don't detect that at all, except as perhaps jest that you decide to take literally. Plus, they're not physically harassing and haranguing Jews, as so many lib, left, students and faculty do.

Soros hate is not anti-semitism, it's hate for someone screwing with our government systems. That he is Jewish is immaterial.

[Sarcastr0]

funny, I don't detect that at all

You're willfully blind, then.

Magnus hates Jews.
Schlafly does too.
Then you have all the 'liberal Jews aren't really Jews' posters.

Soros hate is not anti-semitism,
Not all of it, but a ton of SOROS shit is rewarmed Protocals shit.
International banker and shadowy puppetmaster with tentacles everywhere and an agenda of destroying nations and the family etc. etc. And he's a Nazi, too!

[BBSquatter]

The Left differentiates minorities on whether the latter serves them on bended knee or whether they think for themselves. If a Hispanic is like Marco Rubio, a black is like Condi Rice, a gay like David Rubin, a Jew like Bari Weiss, an Asian like Amy Chua, then they would urge Americans to have these "taken down" ala Jasmine Crockett.

They are offspring of Nazis.

[John 4]

Maybe worry about the Demoncrats and “illegals” after you’ve finished replacing the ice in the urinal. Priorities.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/09/wednesday-open-thread-11/?comments=true#comment-10995086
re: "But hey, 'higher ed in America' is nothing like that, right?!"
https://reason.com/2025/04/09/brickbat-flipping-out/
Talk about "betrayal of the humanities"...

[ducksalad]

BBC:

A tattoo belonging to a man from Derbyshire has appeared in a US government document used to identify members of a notorious Venezuelan gang - despite the man having no connection to the group.

Pete Belton, 44, from Ilkeston says he was shocked to find his forearm featured in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document used to help identify alleged members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a transnational criminal organisation.

"I'm just an average middle-aged man from Derbyshire," he told BBC Verify.

Mr Belton said it was a "bit strange, bit funny at first" but is now worried the family trip he booked to Miami with his wife and daughter in August might end up "being a six month all-inclusive holiday to Guantanamo".

[ThePublius]

Well, he can just cover it, or wear a long sleeve shirt, or whatever. What's the issue?

[ducksalad]

Man, why didn't those deported guys think of that!

Anyway you missed the whole point, which was not about his vacation plans, but thanks for commenting.

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about, he expressed concern about his upcoming vacation to Miami.

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord you're thick.

What is a tattoo belonging to a man from Derbyshire doing on a US government document used to identify members of a notorious Venezuelan gang, if he has no connections to the group?

The US government is making shit up, in real time.

[ducksalad]

He's not thick. He's sealioning.

[ThePublius]

No, I'm not, I'm just commenting on the guy's travel concerns. I have no idea why that picture is in the US government document, and I didn't comment on that.

[ducksalad]

You said "what's the issue" and I think you knew quite well that the issue was not the guy's joke about his vacation plans.

But if you prefer to insist you're dense rather than sealioning. In that case Sarcastr0 explained it you.

[John 4]

You people are too fucking dumb. Unreal.

[JasonT20]

Mr Belton said it was a "bit strange, bit funny at first" but is now worried the family trip he booked to Miami with his wife and daughter in August might end up "being a six month all-inclusive holiday to Guantanamo".

Nope. Don't be worried about being sent to Guantanamo. That is still directly controlled by the U.S. Worry about being sent to El Salvador, where the Trump administration can claim that they can't do anything to bring you back if they make a mistake target you without caring whether you are actually guilty of anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jason, he has the British Embassy.

[Magister]

The British Embassy springing him from an El Salvadoran prison would definitely demonstrate the weakness of Donald Trump's administration.

[ThePublius]

If he has a U.K. passport and an ESTA he has nothing to worry about.

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't you the one that thinks we should treat the UK as an enemy due to their speech policies?

[ThePublius]

I never said "as an enemy," I said not an ally. There's a difference.

[ThePublius]

BTW, I have an Irish passport (as well as U.S.) due to my dual citizenship with Ireland. So, I'm not at war with them, even though I don't agree with many of their government policies.

[ducksalad]

Uh-oh. According to the latest constitutional theories, your offspring do not have sole allegiance to the United States. Therefore (somehow) they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Too bad they don't get birthright citizenship.

[ThePublius]

That's total nonsense. I acquired my Irish citizenship about 6 years ago. I was already in my sixties. My kids were all born here, to two parents who are second generation Americans.

[ducksalad]

Yes, it is nonsense. You voted for it, and you support Turmp when he spouts this allegiance nonsense.

[John 4]

Fucking traitor ass bitch!

[JasonT20]

If he has a U.K. passport and an ESTA he has nothing to worry about.

Why would having valid documentation prevent someone from being unjustly sent to a foreign prison when they aren't given due process anyway?

It makes me double facepalm to see how little you all are understanding of the implications of what the Trump administration has been doing and what they are arguing in public and in court when challenged on it.

[Bob from Ohio]

I understand, I just don't care.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You really get off on just straight up admitting to being a bad person don’t you?

[John 4]

Good thing you don’t matter.

[ThePublius]

You guys are just nuts.

[Sarcastr0]

Can't disprove the administration finding your passport invalid if there's not due process!

So easy!

[ThePublius]

So you're saying now there's no due process at all in the U.S.? What the heck are you talking about? Like, we're going to grab a British tourist and send him to a prison in El Salvador based on nothing? Geez. You are ridiculous.

[David Nieporent]

Like, we're going to grab a British tourist and send him to a prison in El Salvador based on nothing?

ThePublius is probably right here. We really only do that to darker-skinned people. Mostly.

[ThePublius]

David plays the race card for the second time today!

[JasonT20]

When the shoe fits...

[Sarcastr0]

I do notice a common hue among those we are denying due process to.

That is hard to deny.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "I do notice a common hue among those we are denying due process to"

Plus there's the bad immigrants (black & brown skin) vs those heroic, worthy, and very-very-white South Africans.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure......

[Sarcastr0]

Oh dang I'd forgotten the SA thing.

Yeah, that makes it a pretty strong case.

[shawn_dude]

That worked out great for the guy that already had a judges order that he couldn't be deported. Now the administration is saying it's not possible to get him back from the torture prison in El Salvador.

[Bob from Ohio]

"now worried the family trip he booked to Miami with his wife and daughter in August might end up "being a six month all-inclusive holiday to Guantanamo"

Well he can just stay home then. Go to Spain to get sloppy drunk instead.

[shawn_dude]

Oh, I bet Florida's going to love losing all the tourist revenue from Canadians and Europeans. But hey, they're used to taking one for the MAGA team, amirite?!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is what happens when you allow AI to write your immigration policy...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Charlie Brown's Christmas Miracle by Michael Keane is an interesting, fact filled book about the making of the famous Christmas special. Keane previously wrote a book about how Santa Claus got lost and the military helped him out. Keane is a vet himself as was Charles Schultz.

[Frank Drackman]

Not a Hey-Zeus follower, but who here didn't tear up when Linus takes the Microphone? Oh Sure, nobody here didn't tear up, same A-holes who didn't cry when Ol' Yeller got shot.
For you Millennials who don't recognize anything before "Yo! MTV Raps!" here's Linus's soliloquy
(Just after Charlie Brown (he's a clown, that Charlie Brown) yells
"Doesn't anyone here know the real meaning of Christmas!?!?!?!?!"
"Lights, please.”
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them:
and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe
wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the
heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will toward men."
[Linus picks up his blanket and shuffles off-stage.]
“That’s what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown.”

Almost enough to get me to stick a Jesus Fish on my ZO6

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

I had no idea that Anderson-Cooper was an anti-trans bigot.

[grb]

Whereas the rest of us determined long ago that nothing from TIP is remotely serious.

[JasonT20]

And, this episode is an example of conservatives not understanding what makes someone a bigot. Making an assumption in the absence of knowledge that someone named Grace with a typically feminine appearance would go by "she/her" pronouns is not anti-trans* bigotry. It seems to be a matter of debate, even among non-binary and trans people, whether it is reasonable to prefer that people use gender-neutral pronouns until they know with certainty that someone prefers gendered pronouns. Personally, I think it is fair to use they/them when you don't know and can't make a solid guess. (Like when online and can't see the person.) But Cooper clearly did nothing wrong.

On the other hand, mocking the very idea of trans and non-binary identity the way some conservatives do? Yeah, that's definitely bigotry.

* Not to mention that a person that wants to go by gender neutral pronouns is usually non-binary, which is different than being trans. A trans person could certainly prefer to be referred to using pronouns that match their gender identity and not gender neutral ones.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And, this episode is an example of conservatives not understanding what makes someone a bigot."

Left-wing disapproval makes someone a bigot.

"...non-binary, which is different than being trans."

It's under the trans umbrella. Or it was last I checked. It may have changed.

[JasonT20]

Similarities, sure. And there is probably some overlap. Some people will self-identify as both. But then again, some won't. I was mainly pointing out that a person that is a trans woman might prefer female pronouns, and some trans men will prefer male pronouns. Being non-binary seems like having a preference for gendered identification would be contradictory.

But don't take my word for any of it. I don't know much, if anything, more than you do.

https://www.rainbow-project.org/what-we-do-mean-by-trans-or-non-binary/

[JasonT20]

Left-wing disapproval makes someone a bigot.

You have the causality backwards there. Being a bigot is a cause of disapproval from almost anyone that isn't.

You know what the actual definition of bigotry is, even if you pretend to genuinely believe what you wrote or are just saying that as a rhetorical device. It is an irrational and obstinate dislike of some group that is different from one's own. People that don't care to understand what the other people of the target group are actually like, what they actually think and feel, and who don't accept anything that would contradict their beliefs about that other group — no matter how factual — those people are bigots.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Thanks for making my point for me.

[JasonT20]

In your own mind, perhaps.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I wanted to name my latest dog Anderson Pooper. Wife wouldn't let me.

[JasonT20]

Massachusetts state Representative Christopher Flanagan, a Democrat for the First Barnstable District, was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts in an alleged fraud and cover-up scheme.

Via Newsweek.

Too bad for him that he wasn't in a position to help deport illegals.

[grb]

But he's still an (alleged) corrupt politician. That makes him Trump's brother, parties be damned. As we've seen in the past, Trump will regularly cross party lines to reward other criminal pols with a pardon.

The Brotherhood of Crooked Politicians is well above such petty distinctions.

[ThePublius]

How on earth do you connect this corrupt Dem to Trump? You must surely be deranged.

[grb]

Good Lord Above! It's like having to explain things to a child:

1. The initial comment by JasonT20 referenced Trump, though that probably went Whoosh! right over your head. He suggested that if Representative Christopher Flanagan could perform any service for Trump, the latter would intervene to quash the indictment as with Adams.

2. I suggested Trump could still intervene from his special regard for corrupt politicians as (say) with the Rod Blagojevich pardon. As a full-time Cultist, you probably don't have time to pay attention to what DJT actually does, being more concerned with your fantasy Trump, but he's made a habit of pardoning his fellow criminal politicians:

"During his presidency, Trump granted clemency to 15 former officials who were convicted of crimes connected to their public service at the federal, state, and local levels of government.

The officials were two former White House advisors, six former U.S. House Representatives, three former federal political appointees, a former California state assemblyman, a former Palm Beach County commissioner, a former Detroit mayor, and a former Illinois governor."

https://campaignlegal.org/update/trumps-legacy-pardoning-public-corruption

If you need any additional help having things explained to you, ThePublius, please don't hesitate to ask. I like to help and mentor the less fortunate.

[ThePublius]

Oh, you're full of baloney, and insulting, too.

[grb]

ThePublius : "Oh, you're full of baloney, and insulting, too"

But - hey - that's better than "deranged"! With more learning and improved reasoning skills, you inch ever closer to reality. Gotta say you seem to be coming around. Given another thousand years we might make a reasoning human being outta you yet....

[Mr. Bumble]

Pork baloney?

[grb]

Not from Mexico! I don't wanna be deported......

[rloquitur]

What happened with that ICE agent held in contempt?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The government filed a notice of removal in federal court, where the docket shows now action since 3/31. The U.S. Attorney and D.A. traded some insults in the media last week; it doesn’t appear that the D.A. has instituted contempt proceedings, and I would imagine he’s not likely to.

[rloquitur]

Once again, all this lib whining. It's perfectly clear that when Joe Biden's puppet masters are in charge, you're fine with government thuggery. But when shoe is on the other foot, you scream bloody murder.

[Ed Grinberg]

I'd note that, under Joe Biden, the victims of government thuggery were U.S. citizens. On the other hand, the supposed abuses currently being decried by ACLU, New York Times, etc. are aimed at foreign criminals / terrorist-supporters.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is this a reference to something in particular?

[grb]

Nah; I think it was an involuntary spasm - much like a bowel movement from the incontinent.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Since your whining about government thuggery has now ceased, can we conclude it was all bad faith on your part? You guys are so un-self-aware it is amazing.

[Bob from Ohio]

So starting in August 2026, the manufacture, sale and purchase of most popular semiautomatic firearms that can accept detachable ammunition magazines will be outlawed in Colorado.

Its not immigration or limiting Trump so I anticipate SCOTUS turning down an appeal is about 3 years after the circuit court says its not a 2A violation.

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-declares-virginia-home/
Lucretia has some unusual real estate transactions.

[David Nieporent]

Lucretia

Her name is right there in the URL you posted and you still can't get it right.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its a reference to Lucretia Borgia

[David Nieporent]

Then he probably should have spelled it the way Lucrezia Borgia spells it.

[Bob from Ohio]

If he was writing in Italian, you got him.

"Lucretia de Borgia" is right there at the top of the wikipedia entry. Lucretia is a common English alternate spelling.

"Both spellings, Lucretia Borgia and Lucrezia Borgia, are widely accepted and used interchangeably. The "e" vs. "i" spelling is simply a matter of preference, and either is understood to refer to the same historical figure." Google AI program

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks Bob, but I don't refer to him as David Notimportant for nothing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just tired of his a-hole pedantry.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's a sentence fragment, not a sentence. And you needed to use an adjectival form of a-hole, since you are describing his pedantry.

[Estragon]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.59.0_1.pdf

Government’s response. They are in a hearing right now.

This take, a mere 9 hours old from the top of the thread, seems not as hot as it was:

“The answer is (a): The Administration complies with Court rulings”

[ducksalad]

Looks like (c). Apparently they're going with open trolling of the judge: The negotiations are so delicate. It's so difficult to ask for him back! Lots of preparation and vetting needed. The preciousness of El Salvador's sovereignty!

[Estragon]

Yep, as I said yesterday: most likely outcome is malicious compliance and parsing “facilitate” into oblivion. On the other hand, this may not even rise to the level of malicious compliance.

[David Nieporent]

Wow. Setting aside the non-compliance, that is about as disrespectful as it's possible for a lawyer to be to a judge. (matched by their immediate request for an extension: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.55.0_3.pdf)

This is "Fuck you, we're going to do what we feel like when we feel like it."

[grb]

But isn't this a "Fuck You" at the Supreme Court too? Granted, Thomas & Alito would probably get off on that, but other Justices might be less forgiving.

[Commenter_XY]

What non-compliance? The gov is asking for time to understand the delineation of SCOTUS' ruling, and reasonably asking the judge to clarify his order.

You see non-compliance; others see diligence. 😉

[Josh R]

SCOTUS said:

the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

So far, the government is stonewalling on this issue, including the location of Garcia.

[Estragon]

“What non-compliance” you ask, and then in the next sentence you recite the excuses the government is giving for… not complying! Brilliant.

[ThePublius]

I have a question for the Jewish guys here. Is Manischewitz Matzo Ball Soup, in the jar, any good?

[Frank Drackman]

Not as good as my moms, but it'll do

[Commenter_XY]

No. Go to a deli and get it. Prob too late, now.

[ThePublius]

I think I'll make my own. Found a nice looking recipe. And, I have a whole chicken in the freezer.

[Commenter_XY]

If you want something a little unique, toss 1tsp saffron threads into 1C boiling water (I use my pyrex glass measure cup). Let it sit 5 minutes, then dump the water into the soup, making sure you get all the threads into the soup (saffron is pricey).

[Mr. Bumble]

Pricey is an understatement.
In 2025, the approximate wholesale price range for US saffron is between US$ 821.17 and US$ 1,696.63 per kilogram or between US$ 372.41 and US$ 769.44 per pound(lb).

[ThePublius]

Thanks, yes. I have saffron. The recipe I found calls for it to be ground in a mortar and pestle, the mortar then being rinsed into the soup with hot water.

[ThePublius]

Here's the recipe I found that I like:

https://toriavey.com/perfect-chicken-soup/

I was thinking of making my own variation on it, making chicken meatballs, i.e., chicken shreds combined with the matzo ball ingredients. But maybe not the first time. 🙂

[SRG2]

I don't see how it could be any good.

[ThePublius]

Meaning Manischewitz, or my own?

[SRG2]

Manischewitz. They'll probably find a way to put sugar in it.

[ThePublius]

El Paso CBP Agriculture Specialists seize 242 pounds of pork bologna

This guy was caught for the second time in two months trying to smuggle pork bologna into the U.S.

What the heck? Is this some rare, coveted delicacy from Mexico?

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/el-paso-cbp-agriculture-specialists-seize-242-pounds-pork-bologna

[ducksalad]

Is this some rare, coveted delicacy from Mexico?

Yes! From Chowhound:

Mexican bologna is the savory treat that regularly makes an appearance at the Mexico-United States border...the Mexican style is a classic in itself for those craving a true taste of full-bodied Mexican flavors. The processed pork differs from U.S. bologna, which is usually made from a blend of finely ground meat. The pure pork taste is what keeps the Mexican version a high-in-demand smuggled good and a frequent culprit at border control.

[ThePublius]

Oh, wow! Thanks. Now I want some.

I like the Wunderbar German Bologna: "Hearty bologna made with pork, chicken, beef and a unique blend of spices to bring you the sweet taste you love." I've tried the more expensive Wunderbar Beef Bologna, but I prefer the German.

[Frank Drackman]

Breaking News!
Well, it's on NBC News anyway, take it with a large grain of (Kosher) Salt
"A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration can deport Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil just a month after his arrest prompted national outrage and marked the start of the federal government’s broader crackdown on foreign students."
If it's true he'll be on his way to Damascus tonight, but that layover at CECOT is brutal!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

One down, thousands to go.

[Josh R]

He can't be deported per two federal judges orders until all appeals are heard.

[Frank Drackman]

The Fat Lady might not be singing Steam's "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" yet for Mr. Khalil, but she's warming up.
His future, I see, a Middle Eastern Time Zone.

Frank

[Josh R]

He has a First Amendment defense which may or may not succeed. What odds will you give me on his winning his case?

[Commenter_XY]

He has 0% chance of prevailing. Mahmoud Khalil, an antisemitic hamas homie, who has stated loudly and proudly he would like to decapitate Jews, will leave this country. And never return.

Name the stakes, Josh R.

[not guilty]

How is pro-Palestinian advocacy anti-semitic? Jews and Palestinians are each semitic people.

[ThePublius]

Oh, you don't understand? While you may be literally correct, in the vernacular, antisemitism means anti-Jew. That is the common meaning of the term.

[Mr. Bumble]

NG, David Notimportant, Il Douche and many others are proud graduates of Queenie's School of Obfuscation and Deflection.

[SRG2]

Because the term "anti-Semitism" was coined specifically to refer to Judeophobia.

[not guilty]

Semites are the descendants of Noah's son Shem. The term "anti-Semite" is, in fact, a misnomer, as true anti-Semitism would imply discrimination against anyone of Semitic descent including Arabs, Ethiopians, and other Semites.

Of course, the story of the Great Flood is a myth. Taking it seriously is foolish.

Palestinians are a people who are the descendants of the various populations who inhabited the Levant over millennia, including ancient Canaanites, Philistines, and other Semitic groups.

[tylertusta]

I agree. We should abandon the label 'anti-semite' and just call him pro-genocide.

[ThePublius]

When people say "anti-semite" or "anti-semitic" they mean anti-Jew. Period. Regardless of your obstinate pedantry.

[Josh R]

1000 to 1 on $100.

[JasonT20]

File this under the least surprising news of the week.

[not guilty]

A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ordered that a lawsuit brought against Donald Trump by members of the "Central Park Five" alleging defamation, portrayal of the Plaintiffs in a false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress can go forward. The IIED claim is subject to the filing of an amended complaint. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/central-park-five-v-donald-trump-defamation-lawsuit-can-proceed.pdf

As Groucho Marx said, time wounds all heels.

[SRG2]

This should be an easy case - but Trump will of course drag it out

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-law-firms-executive-order/2025/04/11/id/1206649/

They bent the knee. They were the smart ones. The dumb ones litigate.

[not guilty]

What are these firms going to do now, XY?

Hang a sign on the door reading: PLEASE HIRE US. WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, WE FOLD LIKE A DECK CHAIR! ?

[Bwaaah]

Indeed, like a deck chair with a vig. Once the vig is covered, it's folding time. But no, they don't need a sign; that's business as usual. (Nice attire only hides the soil; it doesn't make it go away.)

[Commenter_XY]

They will survive, NG. The employees of those firms should be thanking their CEO for saving their jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds like the sort of thing a law firm would ordinarily do to get out of sanctions if caught red handed engaging in gross racial discrimination. I assume the objections are coming from people who desperately want to pretend that DEI isn't illegal racial discrimination?

[Sarcastr0]

You assume whatever you need to make this not Trump's personal grudges being turned into DoJ orders.

This is what you kept insisting the left was quietly doing, and oh hey you can't see it when the right is loudly doing it.

Your brain is broken.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, rather than outright denying that DEI is racial discrimination, you'd rather just deflect?

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know what DEI is.

[Bwaaah]

A common, usually key feature of DEI is institutional implementation of race-based preferences (and de-preferences), i.e. racial discrimination. Though you may not like my choice of words, I'm quite sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. I think Brett is referring to that kind of thing.

[Magister]

Not a common feature, let alone a key one. Regurgitating right wing lies is a common, often key, feature of Bwaaah comments.

[ThePublius]

It's a DEFINING FEATURE! Without racial discrimination there would be no way to implement DEI.

[Bwaaah]

Like Sarc, you may not like my choices of words. But what I describe has in fact been a common feature of DEI initiatives: emphasis on race, and other varying group characteristics that are associated with historically disadvantaged sub-populations, as the basis of programmatic focus. It's core mission is in service to the integration and advancement of those historically disadvantaged sub-populations within the greater population. That discriminatory emphasis is justified as being in service to all people.

That's not "right wing." It's one of the 2020 regressions that's only unwinding now despite holdovers like yourself. I didn't have to read stories of it. I got to see it with my own eyes, and by hearing direct accounts of people I know, and their experiences (particularly in schools and corporations). Group identities, and their special treatment, were widely written into laws, particularly in 2020 and later. (Oh...is that a right wing thing to say?)

sarc
But yes, Magister, I'm just a dumb-ass right-wing turd. And DEI initiatives don't much discriminate on the basis of race; race is a minor factor for DEI initiatives.
/sarc

Don't worry...no conversation to be had. Just finish, if you need to, with more snide confirmation of my lowliness, and we'll be done here.

[Magister]

You are a dumb-ass right-wing turd, and you would profit by acknowledging that without sarcasm.

You cite "written into laws" but don"t name any, but just make baseless assertions about core mission and emphasis. I guess you don't like valuing individuals unless it's your group that gets valued, and you seem unaware of the diverse kinds of diversity that DEI covers.

[ThePublius]

DEI is anti-Meritocracy

How DEI Left Service Academies In A ‘State Of Decay,’ And How Trump Can Fix It

[Sarcastr0]

TP quotes The Federalist to set us straight on DEI.

Y'all live in your own world of whitey being oppressed.

The Admin is taking down websites about successful minorities all over the place. Feeling less mediocre yet?

[Absaroka]

"TP quotes The Federalist to set us straight on DEI"

I'm not sure if you had time to read the article in question, but if you did you aren't engaging with the point it makes - which is that the service academies were admitting people based on criteria (DEI categories and jocks) other than their likely ability to effectively accomplish the mission of the military.

[tylertusta]

One of Sarcastr0's common dilatory tactics is to attack the source rather than the substance of your reply. He saw "The Federalist" and then used that as his counter rather than rebutting you on substance.

It's a deliberate choice on his part as he tries to get under your skin.

[Magister]

ThePublius links to an article that leans heavily on the opinions of Bruce Fleming, who engaged in a lot of conduct unbecoming that got him fired, with at least some of it driven by his political views. The other individual quoted, Ken Segelhorst, seems nearly as concerned with admitting unqualified athletes, which is not related to DEI and seems like something a military academy should not be concerned with. There is no evidence provided whether diversity concerns led to a 1% difference in evaluation, a 20% difference, or a quota, nor whether the cadets who were "disappointed" were assuming that any diverse cadet admitted was unqualified, or were basing their reaction on observed performance.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka - what is 'DEI criteria?'

You are also not engaging with what DEI means.

'DEI means Giving good things to nonwhites' is right-wing nonsense.

If you want to know what DEI is *talk to people who do it.*Of course they're not talking now and a lot of my previous sources are scrubbed.

Which should itself tell you something dire. Can't argue against the bullshit if you're too afraid to.

Baude's got a good series on CRT that does the same thing - has a CRT prof explain what CRT is, and it's history, and how it's nothing like what the right claimed.

[ThePublius]

My personal, corporate experience with DEI is that "no white males need apply." I literally sat through meetings where folks said "no way we're going to have bunch of white men speaking at this event." And was told by non-U.S. managers that we were to only recruit non-whites, and do recruiting heavily at women-only events.

(Cue Sarcastr0 to say I'm lying.)

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying what you described neve happens, I'm saying "no whites need apply" is not what DEI means.

I've talked a lot about what I think DEI means - not leaving talent on the table - and all the strategies and groups that applies to. It doesn't seem to penetrate.

And that's only my personal take on a very wide discipline; I'm not a DEI person, I just work with some folks who do that stuff for a specific use (scientific research) and talk to them about it.

It's nothing like what you all angrily declare it is.

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0:
"It's nothing like what you all angrily declare it is."

1. I'm not angry. That's another lib/prob rhetorical technique to denigrate one's opponent in argument; call them angry, ignorant, stupid, and so on;

2. I don't care what you think it means, this is how it's implemented in corporate America, academia, the military, and elsewhere. Recruit and hire based on 'desired' racial and ethnic characteristics: no white men, no Asians, and so on.

For example:

"On December 11, 2023, James O’Keefe released a recording on X of IBM Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairman Arvind Krishna. In the recording, Krishna promises to fire, demote, or deny bonuses to corporate executives who either fail to meet the corporation’s racial, national origin, and sex-based hiring quotas, or who hire too many Asian individuals. Also, Paul Cormier, the chairman of IBM subsidiary Red Hat, admits that Red Hat terminated employees who failed to meet the corporation’s unlawful racial, national origin, and sex-based quotas.

The evidence strongly suggests IBM’s management has created a culture of systemic racism. "

https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-slams-ibm-for-racially-discriminating-against-white-and-asian-americans-files-federal-civil-rights-complaint/

In particular, check out this video that's linked in the article:

https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1734374423124176944?s=20

I know. I worked at Red Hat as a software engineering manager, and I personally know Paul Cormier, and I sat through numerous recruiting meetings, and other meetings where this stuff was insisted upon, and was afraid to open my mouth. Much, or most of it was clearly against U.S. law, and was implemented by international managers who could not care less for U.S. law.

DEI does not include inclusion for white men or Asians.

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaaah...I see things somewhat more simply. 😉

The shoe is on the other foot now. It hurts (for some).

[Bwaaah]

And yet, for a good number of them such as Mr. Insightful here, nothing has changed. He speaks about how glorious the emperor's clothes are like the world doesn't recognize a naked guy when it sees one.

[Absaroka]

(wrong place)

[ThePublius]

Update on the British Steel story from a few Open Threads ago:

UK Lawmakers Debate Measures to Prevent Chinese Owners From Closing British Steel Factory

Seems they are belatedly coming to their senses.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/04/12/uk-lawmakers-debate-measures-to-prevent-chinese-owners-from-closing-british-steel/

[Mr. Bumble]

Who was it that said the capitalists would sell us the rope to hang them?

[Paul Elliott]

+Baptist Health Medical Group requires patients to agree with transgender ideology in order to per-register for a Doctor's appointment. Pre-registration is an an important part of communicating with one's doctor it is a quick way to get important info into the computer before appearing for the appointment.
The first page of the pre-registration form contains a question like this: What sex was assigned to you at birth? Now as all people who have not been brain-washed by the woke know, no sex was assigned at birth. Sex was determined at birth. The "assigned at birth" trope implies that the sex was an arbitrary choice by the doctor and not a medical fact. The question is so worded that it is impossible to answer this question without agreeing with this absurd assertion on this point of transgender ideology. If you refuse to answer this question it is not possible to fill in the medical information on the rest of the form. Information such as medical and family history as well as the list of drugs you are taking. Thus people who refuse to agree to transgender ideology are denied an important part of medical care.

question 1) what are the chances of getting a class action suit going?
question 2) what would be a good firm and or organization to approach?
question 3) what are the chances of success.

Paul Elliott

[Magister]

Why would people be incapable of entering the relevant datum from their original birth certificates? It seems quite straightforward. But do tell us about it if they have a question that asks for religion, requires an answer, and gives only the two choices "Baptist" and "Damned to hell for all eternity".

[Paul Elliott]

The question is not what is the datum on the birth certificate, the question is what is the nature of that datum? Is it a determination of FACT made by the doctor, or is it an arbitrary decision made by the doctor, i.e. an assignment. Transgender ideology asserts it was an assignment. History and common sense say it was a determination. The question is written in such a way that there is no way to answer the question without implicitly asserting the "assignment" view.

[Paul Elliott]

The question could have been written "What sex appears on your birth certificate?" That way the responder would not be required to take a position on the nature of that data.

[ThePublius]

I agree with Paul, FWIW. I think Magister missed the point.