Monday Open Thread

Comments

[Kazinski]

I got a feeling that it won't be long until the Albrego Garcia case is back at the Supreme Court.

Xinis seems to be ignoring the bolded part of the SC per curium order below

"The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand.
The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term "effectuate" in the District Court's order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court's authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

It is clear from the context above, that the majority does not see effectuate and facilitate as synonyms, facilitate being described as proper, and effectuate as unclear.

The Government however is claiming that they are perfectly ready to facilitate Garcia's return, and claiming that its a term of art in the immigration context, meaning taking steps to make a visa available, and ensuring admittance.

"Defendants understand “facilitate” to mean what that term has long meant in
the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States.
Taking “all available steps to facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read
as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise
impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of “facilitate” is
tenable—or constitutional—here."

I don't know if the government is right, but I do think its clear Xinis has not sufficiently clarified what she means by effectuate.

At this point in time I think the government is going to continue providing updates (although they say they reserve the right to challenge that in the future) on Garcia's status and continue to assert they will facilitate his return if the Salvadoran government sees fit to release him from cecot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just cut off El Salvador's foreign aid if it doesn't comply.

[Kazinski]

The District Court Judge can order that?

El Salvador isn't even a party to the case.

It is kind of interesting that the assumption among a lot of observers that El Salvador is at the beck and call of the United States.

Has it always been like that or just since Jan 20th?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Did the idea of locking him up originate in El Salvador? Or are they offering their assistance to U. S. policy?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Seems like a great question for the judge to ask the lawyers for the government! I wonder if they’ll tell her?

[Bob from Ohio]

I wonder if they know.

[Kazinski]

Actually it is official El Salvadoran policy to lock up any of their citizens they believe are MS13 in CECOT, it is definitely their idea.

And they have an obligation to accept their own citizens when we send them back.

Venezuelan TdA members are being held there at at our request and for a fee, I think you are confusing the two different classes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think I am.

[Frank Drackman]

3rd Graders haven't mastered Abstract Thinking yet

[Kazinski]

That's not fair. I wIsh more people would just concede the point when they realize they are in error.

Not conceding and continuing to argue is what third graders do.

[not guilty]

Irony much, Kazinski?

How many points have you conceded?

[Kazinski]

Probably more than you have, but it is not a long list.

[myself]

Can you stop playing dumb games?

No one seriously thinks he's a member of MS-13, the only evidence is some informant claiming he was part of some chapter in a city he never lived in. The only reason that "finding" of the immigration court wasn't overturned is it was irrelevant, since he couldn't be deported back to El Salvador.

It's obvious that Trump could get him back with very little effort, all he has to do is make a sincere request as it's clear he has a good working relationship with the El Salvadorean President who is anxious to be paid to lock up more people by the US.

This is Trump playing games and having fun defying the courts as an innocent man is imprisoned, and likely tortured, at his request.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Well "myself" has proclaimed no one believes it so that must be true. I suspect you unquestionably believed the Russian collusion fraud, the Charlottesville lie, and the laptop letter lie.

[myself]

Trump can throw innocent people in prison to be tortured.

But he can't make people think he isn't a buffoon.

[Riva]

Inncocent? Ok if you say so, but what he is (or was) beyond question is an illegal with no right to enter or live in this country.

[myself]

What is beyond question is that Trump broke the law in deporting him, and is now mocking the courts in refusing to bring him back.

[Riva]

Nope, the illegal broke the law by trespassing into this country and Gang affiliations didn’t help him either. But your comment is even more egregiously wrong on another point. You’re complaining about the wrong president. The president of El Salvador (the country of which the illegal is actually a citizen) disagrees with you. He says he has no power to smuggle the illegal back. And he doesn’t care what “myself” has deluded himself into thinking through TDS.

[David Nieporent]

The District Court Judge can order that?

Why not? It's certainly not an Article II power to unilaterally send taxpayer money to El Salvador.

El Salvador isn't even a party to the case.

What does that have to do with anything? The order would be directed at the USG — which is — not at the Salvadoran one.

It is kind of interesting that the assumption among a lot of observers that El Salvador is at the beck and call of the United States.

Stop arguing in bad faith.

[Riva]

Foreign policy matters are not within the purview of the executive branch? Let's just say this crazy Dave, it sure as F isn't a judicial function.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, within hours after the SCOTUS ruling, District Judge Paula Xinis on April 10 amended her April 4 order to remove any requirement that the Defendants "effectuate" Abrego Garcia's return:

The Supreme Court’s April 10, 2025 decision in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—–, No. 24A949, affirmed this Court’s Order at ECF No. 21 (the “Order”), and directed that on remand, this Court clarify its use of the term “effectuate,” according proper deference to the Executive Branch in its conduct of foreign affairs. See Slip Op. at 2. To this end, the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0.pdf The amended order requires:

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.

The Defendants refused to comply with the April 10 amended order. The District Court opined on April 11:

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.

This order directed:

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. [Footnote omitted.]

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

On April 12 the Defendants 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." This cheeky declaration included 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.

On April 13 the Defendants filed a declaration of Evan C. Katz stating: "I have reviewed the declaration of Mr. Michael Kozak, which was filed in this case yesterday, April 12, 2025. It is my understanding that Defendants have no updates for the Court beyond what was provided yesterday."

[Kazinski]

Oh good.

Now the government has defined what they consider "facilitate" means in an immigration context, and it is not a synonym of effectuate.

If she disagrees with their definition then she is going to have to spell out the actions she expects them to take.

Why do you think she dropped the term effectuate rather than clarify her "directive" as she was ordered to by the court?

It seems she is ignoring the instructions of the court.

I don't think she's going to get what she wants until she spells it out, and then likely its going back up to the court because it will exceed her authority.

[not guilty]

Now the government has defined what they consider "facilitate" means in an immigration context, and it is not a synonym of effectuate.

If she disagrees with their definition then she is going to have to spell out the actions she expects them to take.

Uh, no. A lawsuit doesn't work that way, Kazinski. It is not up to any litigant to define the meaning of terms used by the Court in its order.

And Judge Xinis has been clear and explicit in what actions she requires of the Defendants.

[Kazinski]

What are those clear actions?

Provide information and "facilitate", what does she mean by facilitate?

She's going to have to say what she means, and as soon as she does then its back up to scotus, and she knows it.

That is if it is any flavor of "ask El Salvador to send him back".

And you know that.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, anyone who claims to be unable to understand what Judge Xinis has ordered has to be highly motivated not to understand. As Jonathan Swift said, you cannot reason someone out of something he was not reasoned into.

SCOTUS has ordered the Government to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps to bring about Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador. The Defendants are flouting that order. Perhaps the Defendants need to contemplate the meaning of Judge Xinis's orders while behind bars.

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

Oh I see, everyone who doesn't understand it the same, motivated way you do are out of touch and can't be reasoned with!

Lawyer! Science! Lawience! Trust the Lawience!

[Kazinski]

You see the trap the Judge is in and you don't want to admit it.

The judge wants the Administration to ask the Salvadoran's to release Garcia, but she can't order it. As soon as she order's it then they are back at SCOTUS and she loses.

So she blusters and says "facilitate", and the administraton will say they have issued a visa, and if he presents himself at the embassy they will stamp his passport or give him temporary travel papers.

But they are not going to CECOT, pot pick up the phone, to ask for his release and she cannot order it. At least Rubio or Noem won't, Trump is somewhat unpredictable, he might do it just to prove he can.

[not guilty]

Judge Xinis can order the Defendants "to share what [they] can concerning the steps [they have] taken and the prospect of further steps" in order to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia.

Should any Defendant fail to do that to the Court's satisfaction, she can find that Defendant in civil contempt and order that the offending Defendant be confined in jail until complying with the order. An order imposing civil contempt sanctions is not appealable until after final judgment. United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010), quoting Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 107, 57 S.Ct. 57, 81 L.Ed. 67 (1936) ("The rule is settled in this Court that except in connection with an appeal from a final judgment or decree, a party to a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning him for the commission of a civil contempt.").

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

Oh let's hope the judicial coup plotters escalate like that!

That would be glorious.

[Bob from Ohio]

"offending Defendant be confined in jail "

Keep hope alive!

No cabinet officer or other senior official is going to jail.

[not guilty]

Bob, this District Judge has already found once that the Defendants have failed to comply with the Court’s April 10 Order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf Since then the Defendants have continued to flout that order as well as the April 11 order on multiple occasions.

It looks like these Defendants have forgotten the First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!

[LawTalkingGuy]

No but several admin lawyers could be referred for bar discipline. Eventually Bondi will be the only one going to hearings across the country. I don’t think she’ll like that much.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It looks like these Defendants have forgotten the First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!"

Whatever. No one is going to jail, a higher court would quash or stay such an order.

[Bob from Ohio]

"No but several admin lawyers could be referred for bar discipline. "

Picking on lawyers who have no control. SOP for your side.

They likely don't have access to the info to satisfy her. They certainly can't order the Secy of State or AG or President around.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Picking on lawyers who have no control. SOP for your side.”

Two things:

1) this complaint is rich when your side has announced unprecedented sanctions against massive law firms simply for associating with people they dislike. And you’ve supported this.

2) lawyers have INDEPENDENT obligations to the court and the bar. They don’t and can’t just follow marching orders. They have control of everything they sign their name to and submit or represent to the court. If they misrepresented something or lack candor it does in fact fall on them.

Although your lack of understanding of your professional responsibilities does explain why you’re a transactional “lawyer.”

Finally, if the AG ever ends up signing her name to a document the court absolutely can order her around. And if enough good lawyers won’t sign stuff, then that’s exactly what she’ll be doing. We already have had her acting deputy AG and her chief of staff make appearances in court.

[not guilty]

"Whatever. No one is going to jail, a higher court would quash or stay such an order."

Bob, federal courts take the limits of their jurisdiction seriously. What federal statute do you contend would authorize an appeal from a District Court's civil contempt order prior to final judgment?

Please cite by number.

[Bob from Ohio]

"transactional “lawyer.”"

LOL A litigator is not the only type of lawyer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

But apparently the only kind that understands professional responsibility.

[Bob from Ohio]

"appeal from a District Court's civil contempt order prior to final judgment"

You can't appeal TROs either, yet SCOTUS reviewed and reversed a TRO just this month in the Columbian Arab case.

Mandamus, habeas. SCOTUS would find a way if it wanted.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But apparently the only kind that understands professional responsibility."

You have not even come close to saying what ethics violation DOJ lawyers have committed.

The client is refusing the info the judge wants. So long as that is made clear by the lawyer, there is no lack of candor, which seems to be your go to violation.

"I do not know, I have asked but no response" if true is no violation. If you have a case that says otherwise, enlighten me.

[Kazinski]

So who in particular is she going to send to jail, Noem? Rubio? Trump.

We were right on the brink of the frogmarching phase with Boasberg, now Xinis is getting all wound up to start the frogmarching, lets see if she gets any further.

[Bob from Ohio]

"she cannot order it."

The way to satisfy such an order is for Rubio to write a request but have Trump tell El Presidente orally to ignore.

[Jmaie]

BBC news tells me that Bukele either won't or can't return Mr. Garcia. http://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy03j9vddlt

"He...says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.

"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."

Perhaps Rubio both wrote the request and conveyed it along with a wink and a nudge?

[Kazinski]

I have to disagree there. If she orders anyone in the Admistration to negotiate anything with El Salvador they will take it back to the Supreme Court to remind Xinis she was ordered to give "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."

The Trump Adminstration may be ignoring and frustrating Xinis' order, but she is ignoring SCOTUS's order on remand.

[David Nieporent]

She did give due regard to said "deference." And then ordered them to act.

(Note that you might need a refresher course on what the word "deference" means.)

[jb]

Seems like deference to the executive could easily take the form of "it doesn't matter to me *how* you try to get him back, but you need to do something". That's not micromanaging the way the US runs its foreign policy, but is laying out a clear goal that the executive needs to make some reasonable attempt to fulfill.

[David Nieporent]

Now the government has defined what they consider "facilitate" means in an immigration context, and it is not a synonym of effectuate.

How is that relevant?

Also, Donald Trump is not "the government." Judge Xinis is as much the government as he is. You mean the DOJ, not "the government."

If she disagrees with their definition then she is going to have to spell out the actions she expects them to take.

Why would she have to do that?

Why do you think she dropped the term effectuate rather than clarify her "directive" as she was ordered to by the court?

It seems she is ignoring the instructions of the court.

Your two sentences contradict each other.

[Kazinski]

"Also, Donald Trump is not "the government." Judge Xinis is as much the government as he is. You mean the DOJ, not "the government."

That's not only overly pedantic, even for you, but wrong.

[David Nieporent]

It is 100% correct.

[Kazinski]

Do a search on supreme court opinions for "the goverment" or "the government's brief". You might get a few hits.

If I am wrong then I am in good company.

[not guilty]

The Trump Department of Justice is not good company.

[Riva]

The President of El Savador has effectively told the courts they're full of shit. Bravo.
“I hope you are not suggesting that I smuggle terrorists into the United States,” Bukele told reporters while sitting alongside President Trump in the Oval Office. “Of course, I’m not going to do it.

“The question is preposterous,” Bukele added. “I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He does if the United States "facilitates" it...

[Riva]

You do understand that the S.Court did not order President Trump to do anything, don’t you? Actually they couldn’t interfere with his conduct of foreign affairs even in their wildest, heated dreams. They have no such power. They are however quite cowardly and afraid to slap down the insane lower courts, so they remanded the matter for the district court “to clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump is speaking to Pres Bukele today, in-person. The illegal alien gangbanger, Garcia, will no doubt be one topic.

Garcia is an El Salvadoran citizen. He is home.

[Martinned2]

Garcia is an El Salvadoran citizen. He is home.

What part of "refugee" do you not understand? The whole point of letting him stay in the US was to protect him against being persecuted in El Salvador.

[Kazinski]

Nobody ever claimed he was being persecuted by the Salvadoran government, only by gang members, and they have been neutralized.

[Sarcastr0]

Isn't he in prison right now with no due process as to why?

[Kazinski]

Every bit of due process that Salvador allows gang members.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA keeps stumbling into open envy for Latin American countries ruled by strongmen.

You want bad things.

[Commenter_XY]

The illegal alien gangbanger dirtbag has no right to be in the country.

He is home now.

[Josh R]

You aren't big on due process, are you?

[Commenter_XY]

In this case, Josh R, the appropriate response is: Ooopsie.

But go ahead, Josh R, defend the illegal alien gangbanger who does not belong in this country.

Hopefully, this episode will encourage millions of other illegal aliens to self-deport immediately, using CBP-Home.

[bernard11]

What kind of fucking idiot are you, XY?

Do you truly not understand the difference between defending someone and insisting they should have the right to defend themselves?

Based on your comments, I guess you don't.

You're happy to describe him as an "illegal alien gangbanger dirtbag" with no basis whatsoever. You're utter scum.

[Josh R]

SCOTUS said he needs to be afforded due process "as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." To me, that means the due process he is now getting from El Salvador is not sufficient.

[Kazinski]

He is entitled to continued due process here, and his case should probably fully adjudicated here, but since his presence here is not currently possible it will have to be without him.

[Josh R]

That seems right (assuming you are conceding he is due more than what "Salvador allows gang members"). But, it also seems that Trump and Bukele ruled that out today.

[David Nieporent]

No, they're smirking and playing word games. Bukele said "Oh, I can't possibly return him; what do you expect me to o, smuggle him into the U.S.?"

[Josh R]

The "smuggle" remark is in direct conflict with what Kazinski said the DOJ said they could do: issue Garcia a visa.

[David Nieporent]

He's not a gang member. And of course it is a separate human rights violation to imprison people without trial.

[Commenter_XY]

Two separate immigration courts appear to disagree with you = He's not a gang member.

Regardless, he was an illegal alien. And now repatriated.

[David Nieporent]

Name those "Two separate courts." Name even one of them. You can't, because you're wrong. No court found he was a gang member.

[Commenter_XY]

An immigration court, and an immigration appeals court disagrees, David.

The case is closed, counselor.

[David Nieporent]

The courts you refer to issued an order that he could not be sent to El Salvador. They did not issue the ruling you falsely claim they did.

[NvEric]

For someone who is in a country (?) where asking someone to speak in English is now a crime, ... .

Certainly the UK is not an example of a free society any longer.

Regardless of what you know, it's not your concern to be concerned in this case when issues at home fail your concern.

Abrego Garcia's case will be delt with according to a real free society's wisdom.

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

Hate Speech isn't Free Speech, NvEric!

And Hate Speech is literally every speech the Left doesn't approve of. Which is pretty neat.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That comment really deserves a throaty Sieg Heil!

[Joe_dallas]

He is not a refugee!

He is a criminal in his home country (m13) and fled el salvador to avoid prosecution in el salvador.

doesnt quite fit the criteria for "refugee"

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, that does frequently fit the criteria for "refugee", if we don't approve of the law under which the person is a criminal.

[David Nieporent]

He is a criminal in his home country (m13) and fled el salvador to avoid prosecution in el salvador.

bookkeeper_joe is lying. Every word there is fabricated.

[Riva]

Maybe the S.Ct. should try to order El Salvador to release the gangbanger? I would sing the El Salvadorian national anthem, whatever it is, if they told the Court to sod off.

[tylertusta]

This wouldn't be as big of a problem if Judge Xinis would just define what she means by "facilitate." She hasn't, and the problem she created with the words "facilitate" and "effectuate" hasn't been solved by the removal of the word "facilitate."

[David Nieporent]

This wouldn't be as big of a problem if Judge Xinis would just define what she means by "facilitate."

It's an English word. She didn't define any of the other numerous English words in her order, either. And SCOTUS did not suggest that there needed to be any clarification with respect to "facilitate."

[tylertusta]

She should have spelled out more precisely what was required of the government.

[David Nieporent]

She spelled it out very clearly. And if she had been more detailed, the bad faith MAGA would be claiming she was micromanaging.

[tylertusta]

Because not being accused of micromanaging is so much better than giving an unclear order.

[Armchair]

I look forward to the courts ordering Bowe Bergdahl be returned to the Taliban, and the Taliban five "facilitated" with their return to Gitmo next.

[John F. Carr]

The order is clear enough. Bring him back or explain why you can't.

Now I'm wondering, is it possible to blame the failure to comply on any individual? It may be time to have an ever escalating rank of official be required to appear in person to explain. Tomorrow a deputy assistant undersecretary. By next week, Noem or Rubio.

[not guilty]

Per Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2), the District Court's order binds:

(A) the parties;

(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

Upon a finding of civil contempt, the District Court can lock up all Defendants until each purges the contempt by complying with her order(s).

[Life of Brian]

Her and whose army, exactly?

[Sarcastr0]

That argument seems to lack any limits to District Courts.

Seems you stepped into monarchy shit again.

[Life of Brian]

Actually NG apparently fancies Hyronor to be the monarch -- see below.

[Sarcastr0]

So to you, someone's gonna be the king.

In reality, of course, the judiciary has no power unless there's a legal or constitutional question.

If it's power you're after, President >> some random court. It's kind of wild you think otherwise.

[Life of Brian]

If it's power you're after, President >> some random court. It's kind of wild you think otherwise.

It's kind of wild that you think I think otherwise. Xinis is the one with the Cartman-on-the-Big-Wheel complex here.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be unable to understand anything other than that having even one check on your power means you have no power at all.

You really are an authoritarian to your bones.

[not guilty]

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the District Court has wide ranging authority to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

If the U.S. Marshals Service (an agency answerable to the instant Defendant Attorney General) is conflicted, I am sure that Prince George's County has adequate detention facilities, and the Court can specially appoint other persons to serve its process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.1.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, LOL -- another wastebasket statute to the rescue! Any examples of when and how that actually has played out in the past?

[Sarcastr0]

wastebasket statute

So more dictatorship than monarchy for you.

[not guilty]

"Oh, LOL -- another wastebasket statute to the rescue! Any examples of when and how that actually has played out in the past?"

I don't have any such examples -- the U.S. Marshals Service fortunately is not in the habit of disregarding federal court orders. Now, however, with Pam (Bottle) Blondie as Attorney General, all bets are off.

[Life of Brian]

I don't have any such examples -- the U.S. Marshals Service fortunately is not in the habit of disregarding federal court orders.

Oh, great, then you should have no problem belting out a litany of past circumstances where the U.S. Marshals were ordered by a federal judge to arrest and imprison a member of the Executive branch, much less of the Justice Departent, and did so. I'll wait.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What part of "unprecedented" are you having trouble with?

[Josh R]

The government will quickly appeal such a decision (they think they are complying) and we will be back at SCOTUS in short order.

[not guilty]

Josh R, what federal statute do you contend would authorize any such civil contempt appeal prior to final judgment?

[Josh R]

I suspect the government will argue, and the judge may agree, your hypothesized contempt order is the equivalent of a final judgment because it is based on what "facilitate" means.

The government argues that "facilitate" is limited to "remov[ing] any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here." Assuming she disagrees with that interpretation, but agrees the government has done all it can do assuming that (flawed) interpretation, the judge would be better off issuing a final judgment and letting the appeal process play out.

[not guilty]

The Trump DOJ is shameless enough to argue anything.

Why do you think, though, that the Fourth Circuit would disregard its own and Supreme Court precedents prohibiting appeals of civil contempt orders prior to final judgment in the underlying civil suit? As for Judge Xinis actually entering a final judgment in the underlying civil action while Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, why do you think that she would entertain that notion for even a moment?

As I wrote upthread, an order imposing civil contempt sanctions is not appealable until after final judgment. United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338, 344 (4th Cir. 2010), quoting Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 107, 57 S.Ct. 57, 81 L.Ed. 67 (1936) ("The rule is settled in this Court that except in connection with an appeal from a final judgment or decree, a party to a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning him for the commission of a civil contempt.").

Also in Myers, the Fourth Circuit opined:

In Maggio v. Zeitz, the Supreme Court ruled that one who appeals a contempt order may not challenge the order alleged to have been violated but may only challenge whether the contempt order itself was proper. 333 U.S. 56, 69-70, 68 S.Ct. 401, 92 L.Ed. 476 (1948). In that case, the petitioner had disobeyed a court order to turn over assets during a bankruptcy proceeding, had been found in civil contempt, and had then challenged the turnover order on appeal from the contempt order. Declining to review the turnover order, the Supreme Court explained that "a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the original controversy." Id. at 69, 68 S.Ct. 401[.]

517 F.3d at 342-343.

[Josh R]

If the judge is fair, she would not hold the government in contempt over a disagreement on how to interpret "facilitate" in the SCOTUS order. A final judgment would be the right thing to do (after further proceedings to make sure the government will not back down on its position) since this is the only area of disagreement and it is over an interpretation of the law.

If she isn't fair, she can issue the contempt violation and we will see what happens. Per Myers, the government will argue the contempt order was not proper. I'll bet you she does not do so.

[David Nieporent]

If the judge is fair, she would not hold the government in contempt over a disagreement on how to interpret "facilitate" in the SCOTUS order.

That's not how it works. The word is in her order, and she decides what her own order means.

[Josh R]

Of course she decides what "facilitate" means in her court. I am just arguing the government should be afforded the opportunity to appeal what the meaning of "facilitate" is. NG seems to be saying she could hold the government in contempt for not "facilitating" Garcia's return to the USA without a right of appeal. Does that sound fair to you?

[not guilty]

Once more, Josh R, what federal statute do you contend would authorize any such civil contempt appeal prior to final judgment?

What you think the Government "should be afforded" means diddly squat if Congress by statute has not authorized piecemeal appellate review.

[David Nieporent]

Of course she decides what "facilitate" means in her court. I am just arguing the government should be afforded the opportunity to appeal what the meaning of "facilitate" is. NG seems to be saying she could hold the government in contempt for not "facilitating" Garcia's return to the USA without a right of appeal. Does that sound fair to you?

Yes. You do not have a right to defy, ignore, or postpone compliance with, a court order because you want to appeal.

[Kazinski]

Any contempt order from the judge would very likely to be in direct contravention to a Supreme Court order, which ordered her to clarify her order with due regard to the President's article 2 authority to conduct foreign affairs.

If she says she defines facilitate differently especially in an immigration context than the government she will have to explain.

The dictionary meaning of facilitate is "make (an action or process) easy or easier." Not take the action itself.

The dictionary definition of effectuate is "to cause or bring about (something)".

She dropped "effectuate" from her order.

She isn't the red queen, she can't say "facilitate" and expect it to mean "effectuate".

The meaning of words in the federal court system are their standard dictionary meaning unless she explicitly spells out what she means, and I already explained why she can't and won't say explicitly what she expects.

[David Nieporent]

She dropped "effectuate" from her order.

Indeed she did. So why the fuck are you still babbling about the meaning of that word? It's irrelevant. The operative order now only says "facilitate." Nothing in SCOTUS's opinion expresses any doubt about the meaning of that word or orders her to do anything with respect to that portion of her order.

[Josh R]

You do not have a right to defy, ignore, or postpone compliance with, a court order because you want to appeal.

It does not strike me as fair that you have to abide by an unconstitutional order without a right to appeal. Per NG, that right attaches when a final judgment is issued. What would such a final judgment look like in this case?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It does not strike me as fair that you have to abide by an unconstitutional order without a right to appeal.

I agree that it seems like it clearly should fall within the collateral order doctrine (which is in fact that rule for non-parties). Not
guilty is correct, however, that the Supreme Court disagrees.

What would such a final judgment look like in this case?

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the govenrment’s conduct was illegal, and injunctions requiring the plaintiff’s release and precluding further payments to El Salvador for his detention. So if he wins the case, the judgment would include some form of that.

[not guilty]

"Per NG, that right attaches when a final judgment is issued. What would such a final judgment look like in this case?"

"A 'final decision' generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). A final judgment in this case would likely conclude that the Defendants' actions and omissions are declared to have violated the laws of the United States and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and finding that any award of further relief in the lawsuit is moot because Abrego Garcia has been returned to the United States, and the action is accordingly dismissed with prejudice, subject to Plaintiffs being awarded costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

[Josh R]

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the government's conduct was illegal, and injunctions requiring the plaintiff’s release and precluding further payments to El Salvador for his detention.

So (again somewhat hypothetically), the government says it will not provide any more information on its efforts to facilitate Garcia's release because those efforts would be unconstitutional in the government's opinion. Shouldn't the judge then issue a declaratory judgment in favor the plaintiffs instead of holding the government in contempt?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Shouldn't the judge then issue a declaratory judgment in favor the plaintiffs instead of holding the government in contempt?

I agree that the judge could do that. I’m not sure I understand why you think she should.

[David Nieporent]

It does not strike me as fair that you have to abide by an unconstitutional order without a right to appeal.

If you're prosecuted and convicted of a crime, you have to go to prison before you can appeal. If you're sued and have a judgment entered against you, you have to pay the money before you can appeal. (You can pay it in the form of a supersedeas bond, but you have to pay it.) Why do you think this is or should be any different?

[not guilty]

"So (again somewhat hypothetically), the government says it will not provide any more information on its efforts to facilitate Garcia's release because those efforts would be unconstitutional in the government's opinion. Shouldn't the judge then issue a declaratory judgment in favor the plaintiffs instead of holding the government in contempt?"

If the government said that, that could lead to a finding of civil contempt, which would be non-final because it would include a purge provision whereby the contempt sanction could be lifted if and when the Defendants comply with the Court's order.

In a contempt proceeding, if the relief provided is a sentence of imprisonment, it is remedial (civil contempt) if the defendant stands committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court's order, and is punitive (criminal contempt) if the sentence is limited to unconditional imprisonment for a definite period. If the relief provided is a fine, it is civil and remedial when it is paid to the complainant, and criminal and punitive when it is paid to the court, though a fine that is payable to the court is also civil and remedial when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by performing the act required by the court's order. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631-633 (1988).

A judgment of criminal contempt is and immediately appealable final judgment. Appeal from a judgment of civil contempt must await final judgment in the underlying lawsuit. A federal judgment of criminal contempt is subject to the President's pardon power; a judgment of civil contempt is not.

Independent of the contempt power, a District Court can order sanctions against a party pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C) for its failure to comply with a pretrial order, including:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; or

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party.

In the instant case, a default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court. per Rule 55(d).

[Josh R]

Why Noscitur? The only disagreement in my hypo is whether the Constitution permits the executive to limit "facilitate" to removing domestic obstacles to getting Garcia back. Because that is a question of constitutional interpretation, the parties ought not (out of fairness) be required to do anything until that question is resolved on last appeal.

[David Nieporent]

Because that is a question of constitutional interpretation, the parties ought not (out of fairness) be required to do anything until that question is resolved on last appeal.

In addition to the other problems with what you've said, you're misconstruing the structure of our federal judiciary. The district courts are not there to issue preliminary orders which don't become official until confirmed by the Supreme Court. One does have a right to appeal (though not a right to appeal to SCOTUS), but the district court's orders are real, final, binding court orders.

[Commenter_XY]

Facilitate = We'll send a plane if El Salvador wishes to release their citizen.

BTW, what do you think would happen if we brought him back? After a judicial process in LA, he'd be deported again. Adios. The illegal alien gangbanger will never live in this country again.

[Josh R]

I'm not questioning the ability of the district court to issue a judgment (although an injunction likely ought to be stayed pending appeal in this case). I'm questioning the wisdom of holding the government in contempt over a disagreement about a constitutional interpretation (noting that so far, the government could fairly be held in contempt for not providing information on what is doing for things it has conceded it can constitutionally do).

[David Nieporent]

After a judicial process in LA, he'd be deported again.

Where?

[David Nieporent]

(although an injunction likely ought to be stayed pending appeal in this case).

They already did that. Why on earth "ought" that to happen again? Unlike in the J.G.G. case, there is no dispute over whether this is the proper jurisdiction to bring the suit. There is no dispute that the district court had the authority to order everything it did other than possibly "effectuate." There's nothing here for officials to do but obey the court order or go to jail.

[Josh R]

There is a disagreement on the separation-of-powers constitutional limitation on the court's ability to define the scope of "facilitate." SCOTUS did not resolve that issue. Yes, I think the government's argument is crap. But, SCOTUS has endorsed many things I think are crap.

[David Nieporent]

There is a disagreement on the separation-of-powers constitutional limitation on the court's ability to define the scope of "facilitate."

There is not. SCOTUS threw up a caution flag about the meaning of "effectuate." It did not do so with respect to "facilitate."

[Josh R]

The government claims "facilitate" is constitutionally limited to removing domestic obstacles to getting Garcia back. SCOTUS did not address this interpretation because it was not raised until after SCOTUS handed down its order.

[David Nieporent]

The government claims

The administration can claim whatever it wants, but it does not get to decide what a federal judge meant by her own words.

[Josh R]

Of course the judge gets to decide what she thinks the constitutional scope of "facilitate" is. The administration disagrees and will eventually get to appeal (hopefully to lose).

[not guilty]

The District Court's orders of April 10 and April 11 left nothing ambiguous pr subject to interpretation about the Defendants' obligations. The April 10 order (which Judge Xinis the next day found that the Defendants had not complied with) unambiguously "DIRECT[ED] 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." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0.pdf

The requirements of the April 11 order were similarly unambiguous:

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. [Footnote omitted.]

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

On April 12 the Defendants 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." This cheeky declaration included 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.

On April 13 the Defendants filed a declaration of Evan C. Katz stating: "I have reviewed the declaration of Mr. Michael Kozak, which was filed in this case yesterday, April 12, 2025. It is my understanding that Defendants have no updates for the Court beyond what was provided yesterday."

The Defendants have not provided a scintilla of information regarding what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States, nor what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. That refusal to provide the specific information which was ordered is cold, hard contempt.

The Fourth Circuit has opined regarding good faith substantial compliance with a court order:

Next, the appellants argue that the district court improperly held Darwin to a standard of perfect compliance with the summons. It is abundantly clear, however, from the two district court opinions in this matter, that the court held Darwin to the standard of good faith substantial compliance with the summons. Darwin I, 679 F.Supp. at 536-37; Darwin II, 680 F.Supp. at 740-41; see generally Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mine Workers of America, 683 F.2d 827, 832 (4th Cir.1982) (a good faith attempt to comply, as well as substantial compliance or the inability to comply, can be defenses to a civil contempt order). To avoid a finding of contempt, Darwin had "to make in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply with [the summons]." United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 534, 91 S.Ct. 1580, 1583, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971). The district court correctly noted that "Darwin was required to comply substantially with the Court's order," and added in explication: "Substantial compliance is found where 'all reasonable steps' have been taken to ensure compliance: inadvertent omissions are excused only if such steps were taken." Darwin II, 680 F.Supp. at 740. The district court found as a fact that Darwin fell far short of substantially complying with the summons. First, Darwin had not asserted that the documents missing from the June 24 production were beyond its possession or control, and second, Darwin had made no special effort to ensure that the June 24 production was complete. In sum, the court's finding that compliance was insubstantial was grounded in "Darwin's inattentiveness after the June 23 order was issued." Darwin II, 680 F.Supp. at 741. The district court found that Darwin did not take "all reasonable steps" to ensure complete production until after it was notified by Agent Kohorst that some documents were still unproduced and it made additional efforts to find the missing documents. Id. at 740-41. Clearly, Darwin did not take "all reasonable steps" to comply with the court order, General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir.1986), nor did it make "all reasonable efforts." United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 702 (11th Cir.1988). In sum, there is no merit to Darwin's argument that the district court held it to the unreasonable standard of "perfect compliance."

Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers, 517 F.2d 1348 (4th Cir. 1975).

If in the instant case DOJ lawyers argue that the Defendants have taken "all reasonable steps" or made "all reasonable efforts" to comply with the Court's April 10 and April 11 orders, I would fully expect Judge Xinis to check the soles of her shoes to make sure she had not stepped in dogshit.

[not guilty]

The April 12 Declaration of Michael G. Kozak is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.63.0_1.pdf

The April 13 Declaration of Evan C. Katz is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.64.0.pdf

[Josh R]

The DOJ says:

Taking “all available steps to facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of “facilitate” is tenable—or constitutional—here.

I concur the DOJ is obligated to tell what steps they have taken, or plan to take, to remove domestic obstacles to Garcia's return, and could be held in contempt for not doing so. But, let's assume the DOJ shares those steps. Are you arguing that the judge can 1) say that's not good enough because "facilitate" means more than removing domestic obstacles, 2) hold the DOJ in contempt, and 3) the DOJ cannot appeal until a final judgment is handed down. If so, what would that final judgment look like?

[not guilty]

"But, let's assume the DOJ shares those steps."

If that assumption were to actually bear fruit, any judgment of civil contempt would be purged.

But then, as Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY&t=14s

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you're prosecuted and convicted of a crime, you have to go to prison before you can appeal.

You don’t necessarily, actually. Likewise, if you’re detained pending trial, you can appeal that order immediately.

Why do you think this is or should be any different?

The same reason any collateral order is immediately appealable: if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be susceptible to appellate review at all. Once a party has complied with the order, then there’s no relief an appellate court can grant them. As I noted, that’s the rule for non-parties, see Nelson v. United States, 201 U.S. 92 (1906). Why should it work any differently for parties?

[Commenter_XY]

President Bukele has settled the matter.

The illegal alien MS-13 gangbanger will remain in El Salvador. He is home now.

Judge Xinis hardest hit. 🙁

[David Nieporent]

You really have become a total asshole.

[Commenter_XY]

Have you ever been touched by deaths of despair, David?

I have zero sympathy for illegal alien gangbangers who help kill Americans with drugs, and violent crime. Or murder our children. Or prostitute women. I have contempt for the people that facilitate those illegal aliens coming here, and staying here. They have blood on their hands.

More broadly, David, I have always taken a hard line on illegal immigration. Illegal aliens do not belong here, period. They need to leave, immediately. I would be willing to make an arrangement for DACA recipients (not their families); a previous POTUS errantly created a program they signed up for.

As for the gangbanger, the country is materially safer without him.

[Sarcastr0]

Your second paragraph, where you tar an entire group with heinous acts? It echoes the dehumanization and broad lying accusations made by the Nazis against the Jews.

Experiencing a trauma does not justify what you've become.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"where you tar an entire group with heinous acts?"

he's tarring the group of people who are illegal aliens and kill Americans with drugs and violent crime, and you're comparing that to how the Nazis treated the Jews?

What an antisemitic little shit.

[David Nieporent]

he's tarring the group of people who are illegal aliens and kill Americans with drugs and violent crime, and you're comparing that to how the Nazis treated the Jews?

The Nazis accused people of harming Germans based on nothing more than the ethnicity of those people, just like C_XY is doing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"just like C_XY is doing."

C_XY is accusing illegal aliens who harm Americans of harming Americans. Kind of a tautology.

[David Nieporent]

What American was harmed by Abrego Garcia?

[David Nieporent]

Have you ever been touched by deaths of despair, David?

If that's supposed to be a euphemism for suicide or overdose, then yes. And I blame mental illness and/or the people who chose to commit suicide or overdose. Not anyone else.

I have zero sympathy for illegal alien gangbangers who help kill Americans with drugs, and violent crime.

You are just telling on yourself, admitting you believe all hispanic people are "illegal alien gangbangers" even when you have no evidence of same. Abrego Garcia has been charged with — let alone proven guilty of — no crime anywhere in the world. Not in the U.S., not in El Salvador.

[bernard11]

I have zero sympathy for illegal alien gangbangers who help kill Americans with drugs, and violent crime. Or murder our children. Or prostitute women.

Oh cut it out. You are talking about a small percentage of illegal immigrants, and tarring the rest with no basis whatsoever.

Sure, let's arrest those guilty of what you claim. I'm all for it. But your determination to ascribe the acts of a few to everyone is nothing but naked bigotry and hatred.

That's who you are, and no amount of phony piety can erase it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Has he always been this way?

[Sarcastr0]

No.

He missed a funeral during Covid, and started getting more unhinged.

And then after Hamas attacked Israel, he's been off the deep end ever since.

He had a very telling comment about how holidays no longer felt meaningful to him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sorry to hear that.

[David Nieporent]

That's my general sense of his timeline, but I'm pretty sure his rabily pro-Putin stance on Ukraine predates the 10/7 attack on Israel.

[MoreCurious]

The president of El Salvador says that he's not going to return Garcia to the U.S. Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that Trump could persuade him to change his mind? If Trump wanted to do the right thing, that is.

[myself]

Step 1: Violate court orders to send an innocent person to prison in another country.

Step 2: Now they're no longer in US jurisdiction, all the court can do is ask you to take them back.

Step 3: Make sure that whatever the court asks you to do, the other country understands that you want them to hold onto the person.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Step 4: Lock her up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DOGE/TRUMP has initiated a policy to declare dead for Social Security purposes aliens with otherwise valid social security numbers. That looks like it will create a multi-billion dollar class of Social Security assets which will no longer need to be paid to anyone. Readers are invited to re-read Herman Melville's chapter in Moby Dick, where he distinguishes, 'Fast-Fish," from "Loose-Fish."

I expect to see that particular, "Loose-Fish," show up presently as a slush fund of unappropriated money Trump gets to use without Congressional authorization for any purpose at all, including for self-enrichment, or allocation to preferred cronies.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Giving up on the tariff slush fund theory already?

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is morphing into a multiple slush fund theory. Or perhaps a, Grand Unified Slush Fund Theory. Do you disagree? What odds are you willing to give that I have not predicted correctly?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have a couple of reservations:

1. You’re an old person on what I’d assume is a fixed income, so I’d feel bad taking your money.

2. You’re prone to rather idiosyncratic usage of generally well-defined terms (witness your Melville misreading here, or more generally any time you talk about free speech), which makes me doubtful about us agreeing how things have resolved.

I am, however, very confident that you’re wrong, so feel free to propose something concrete.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mellville misreading? Care to say more? Let me assist:

Is it not a saying in every one’s mouth, Possession is half of the law: that is, regardless of how the thing came into possession? But often possession is the whole of the law. What are the sinews and souls of Russian serfs and Republican slaves but Fast-Fish, whereof possession is the whole of the law? What to the rapacious landlord is the widow’s last mite but a Fast-Fish? What is yonder undetected villain’s marble mansion with a door-plate for a waif; what is that but a Fast-Fish? What is the ruinous discount which Mordecai, the broker, gets from poor Woebegone, the bankrupt, on a loan to keep Woebegone’s family from starvation; what is that ruinous discount but a Fast-Fish? What is the Archbishop of Savesoul’s income of £100,000 seized from the scant bread and cheese of hundreds of thousands of broken-backed laborers (all sure of heaven without any of Savesoul’s help) what is that globular 100,000 but a Fast-Fish? What are the Duke of Dunder’s hereditary towns and hamlets but Fast-Fish? What to that redoubted harpooneer, John Bull, is poor Ireland, but a Fast-Fish? What to that apostolic lancer, Brother Jonathan, is Texas but a Fast-Fish? And concerning all these, is not Possession the whole of the law?

But if the doctrine of Fast-Fish be pretty generally applicable, the kindred doctrine of Loose-Fish is still more widely so. That is internationally and universally applicable.

What was America in 1492 but a Loose-Fish, in which Columbus struck the Spanish standard by way of waifing it for his royal master and mistress? What was Poland to the Czar? What Greece to the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the United States? All Loose-Fish.

What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men’s minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is certainly the passage explaining the metaphor, which is not an especially subtle one. As the quotation illustrates, it fails to describe the scenario you’re hypothecating.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Dead to irony? Not much anyone can do for you.

On the other hand, if you want for some crazy reason to read irony literally, LLMs do a hilarious job rendering Moby Dick into deadpan gibberish, and offering the result as literary interpretation.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
For the record, there is no evidence for Grand Unified Theory. It is just a product of fantasy maths.
But congratulations for an appropriate useage

[Kazinski]

It seems like a Standard Model Slush Fund Theory anyway.

[Kazinski]

There are no social security assets.

[Michael P]

Sure there are. We're also called American taxpayers.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - for all practical purposes, there are no social security assets. There is only a funding liability.

[JasonT20]

My understanding of the SS Trust Fund is that it consists of U.S. Treasury notes. That is, the SS Administration can essentially cash them in to pay the portion of benefits that exceed the revenue from the payroll tax. It has to do that, because the law only allows it to pay benefits with money it has control over - the payroll tax revenue + the bonds in the trust fund. The bonds are assets in the same way all bonds are assets.

When those assets dry up, supposedly in 8-10 years, last I heard, then SS will only be able to pay benefits from the payroll tax revenue, which would be ~75% of the current benefit levels. That is when the assets will be gone and no longer exist.

Those assets do have a practical purpose. The liability is on the Treasury, not the SS Administration.

[Jmaie]

"The liability is on the Treasury, not the SS Administration."

How is that not a distinction without a difference? it does seem unlikely that SS checks will just stop once the lockbox is empty...

[Commenter_XY]

Yes and No. Yes, the Fed has special purpose bonds on their balance sheet to fund SSA. No, these bonds are not assets like other bonds; they cannot be sold or transferred. They exist for one purpose only.

SSA will be able to pay 78% of benefits, if nothing is done.

Something will be done. Nobody is telling Grandma and Grandpa they are getting their checks reduced. I could see means testing of benefits, though. That would actually make sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The bonds are assets in the same way all bonds are assets."

Somebody else's bonds are an asset, because they obligate that somebody else to transfer something to you, so they represent an increase in the funds that are available to you.

Your own bonds are NOT an asset, because they obligate YOU to transfer something to YOU, which represents no increase at all in the funds available to you.

If you hold an IOU from Bob, it's an asset. If Bob holds an IOU from Bob, it's a piece of scrap paper.

I guess the argument is over whether the SS Administration is 'somebody different from' the Treasury, or whether they're just parts of the federal government, both "Bob".

As it is, the bonds originally accumulated as a part of a deal to increase the SS tax substantially above what was necessary at the time to pay ongoing expenses, on the theory that the increased revenue would reduce the accumulation of debt, leading the federal government to be better positioned to pay for SS when the outlays finally exceed income.

Unfortunately, all it did in practice was fund more spending, so making the retirees poorer did not increase the capacity of the government to pay their retirement benefits even one cent. We'd have been better off with mandated savings that never got anywhere near the government; My SS taxes would have been enough, if invested, that I'd have been fine without a SS check.

[Joe_dallas]

JasonT20 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"My understanding of the SS Trust Fund is that it consists of U.S. Treasury notes. "

That is an accounting fiction
The sole source of funds to pay social security benefits is from taxpayer revenue.

[Mr. Bumble]

The ultimate Ponzi scheme because your participation is mandatory.

[not guilty]

I have a comment being held for moderation, likely because I included too many supporting links. With the links removed, I said:

There is an old joke:

A farmer sells a mule. He says the mule is very obedient, and all you have to do is whisper in his ear.

The buyer can't get the mule to do anything. He whispers, he yells, he cusses and smacks the mule but the mule won't move. He calls the farmer to complain.

The farmer comes, picks up a 2X4, and hits the mule in the head. He gives the mule a simple command, and the mule obeys. "All you have to do is whisper in his ear," says the farmer. "But first you have to get his attention."

On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT). The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.

On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” That deadline was stayed by the Supreme Court and became moot. On April 10 SCOTUS issued a per curiam order providing:

The rest of the District Court’s [April 4] order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. 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. [Emphasis added.]

Later in the day on April 10, District Judge Paula Xinis issued an order providing:

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.

The Defendants refused to comply with this order, and the Court extended the deadline to 11:30 a.m. on April 11. The Defendants again refused to comply.

Following a status conference on April 11, Judge Xinis issued an order stating:

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.

The Court's order then provided:

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.

On April 12 the Defendants 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." This cheeky declaration included 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.

On April 13 the Defendants filed a declaration of Evan C. Katz stating: "I have reviewed the declaration of Mr. Michael Kozak, which was filed in this case yesterday, April 12, 2025. It is my understanding that Defendants have no updates for the Court beyond what was provided yesterday."

On April 12 counsel for Abrego Garcia filed a motion seeking, among other requested relief, that the Government be directed to show cause why it should not be held in contempt due its failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders, including any failure to comply with the Court’s order of April 11, 2025.

It is high time for the District Court to whack these obstreperous Defendants with a 2x4 in order to get their attention. Perhaps an order committing each Defendant to jail for civil contempt until they fully comply with the prior orders, with a (brief) opportunity to purge the contempt before surrendering to the jailer.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If things are as you state, lock up the relevant government officials.

[not guilty]

All of the District Court's orders are linked on the docket sheet: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

[Kazinski]

They aren't as he states they are.

The judge is ignoring the Supreme courts order for her to clarify her directive to the administration.

Then she and the media, and NG, claim they are in violation of an order that she hasn't given.

They've told her where Garcia is which is their only obligation until she issues clear instructions on what she wants them to do next.

[not guilty]

"They've told her where Garcia is which is their only obligation until she issues clear instructions on what she wants them to do next."

That, Kazinski, is a flat out lie. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.61.0_1.pdf

Is it difficult to type with pants on fire?

[Kazinski]

Ok, so she has asked for information, which they have either told her, or said they do not know:

But I don't see anything in that order that requires any concrete action:
"(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."

And according to the plain meaning of her order on April 4th, there is no action they can take to facilitate his return until he presents himself to a US embassy to get a visa.

But please show me where Xinis herself has conformed to the Supreme Court's order to clarify her directive giving due deference.

[David Nieporent]

But please show me where Xinis herself has conformed to the Supreme Court's order to clarify her directive giving due deference.

You're sealioning. You've been told the answer to this repeatedly, which is that you've invented an imaginary ruling. She clarified her order on April 10 in accordance with SCOTUS's ruling.

[not guilty]

"Ok, so she has asked for information, which they have either told her, or said they do not know:"

No. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. As Ron White is fond of saying, you can't fix stupid.

The District Court on April 10 amended her April 4 order, mandating disclosures from the Defendants in the manner that I have described and linked to upthread. Those disclosures have not been forthcoming from the Defendants.

On April 12 the Defendants 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." This cheeky declaration included 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_1.pdf

On April 13 the Defendants filed a declaration of Evan C. Katz stating: "I have reviewed the declaration of Mr. Michael Kozak, which was filed in this case yesterday, April 12, 2025. It is my understanding that Defendants have no updates for the Court beyond what was provided yesterday." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.64.0.pdf

[Kazinski]

Now Pam Bondi has spoken and addressed the steps the US will take to facilitate Garcia's return to the US:

“That’s not up to us,” she said, pointing to the Supreme Court ruling. “If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.”

That seems quite generous to me. She was speaking in Bukele's presence, right after he said he had no plans to return Garcia.

Hopefully the DOJ attorney will convey that statement to Xinis as that certainly seems to satisfy items 2 and 3 of Xinis's order. They have offered a plane if El Salvador decides to release Garcia, and they will continue to make a plane available if one is needed.

I don't know if the administration asked Bukele if he will release Garcia, I think that was a reporter asking on the video.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/14/el-salvador-president-return-wrongly-deported-trump-00289234

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, the nation needs to find out as quickly as possible whether the Supreme Court intends to facilitate a coup by Donald Trump. Every day which passes without forcing that clarification will further empower the intended coup's completion. The the United States District Court for the District of Maryland can do what is necessary. Declare multiple cabinet members, and relevant subordinates, in civil contempt, and order them jailed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why must I be on the same side of an issue as the drama queen?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps because there is wisdom to use precautionary policy in cases of even less-likely-seeming contingencies, if they threaten catastrophic results.

And on the flip-side, it is extremely unwise to urge cynical complaisance in the face of evidence of approaching catastrophe. I count prior evidence that a coup was already attempted as imposing evidence another may be on the way, What do you think?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I urged imprisonment of relevant officials if ng's facts are correct. But because I don't rise to your level of hysteria you think I'm showing "cynical complaisance."

There are many ways to conduct coups, including, for example, courts rewriting the law in the guise of interpreting it (gay "marriage," denial of bail in noncapital cases, etc.). The Supreme Court is quite the recidivist where such coups are concerned.

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

https://www.georgewashington.org/farewell-address.jsp

[Stephen Lathrop]

Accusations of, "hysteria," in the face of imposing evidence do indeed example, "cynical complaisance."

Or do you number yourself among those who deny any coup was intended?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the Court certainly intended to legalize abortion, mandate gay marriage, allow the government to take your property for private use, etc., etc.,

[Stephen Lathrop]

Got it. Ideological, but not serious.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Piss up a lath-rope.

[Martinned2]

Something, something, frogs in a pot of boiling water...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Below, you're defending the denial of bail in noncapital cases. You're real sentinel on the walls for defending civil liberty, aren't you?

[Martinned2]

I am, yes. (At least to the extent that I am able, being surrounded by illiberal keyboard warriors.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Denying the presumption of innocence seems pretty illiberal to me.

[Martinned2]

I have no problem with the presumption of innocence, but I don't think it requires that the courts pretend that blue is green and white is black. If the prosecution, at the bail hearing, can show that the accused has a high probability of reoffending, it seems that the court should take that into account.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"reoffending"

Hold your horses, in your hypothetical he hasn't even been convicted the *first* time yet!

The court can of course protect its jurisdiction by setting bail conditions like non contacting witnesses, including the complaining witness, and backing this up with a high (but 8th-amendment-complaint) bail.

[Martinned2]

Not being convicted doesn't stop the accused from reoffending, you'll find. In my hypo the guy beat up his wife, got arrested, and is now having his bail set at a level that reflects the possibility that he will beat up his wife again.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"In my hypo the guy beat up his wife, got arrested, and is now having his bail set at a level that reflects the possibility that he will beat up his wife again."

So long as the bail isn't "excessive," it can take into account the need to protect witnesses, including the complaining witness.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and applying that formula might result in a level of bail the accused cannot raise, thus putting him in the same position as if his bail had been denied.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We're debating the excessive-bail clause here, not the right to bail itself.

You have argued against the right to bail of *any* kind.

Now you're raising perfectly legitimate issues about the excessive-bail clause - some people can't seem to afford bail, and it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

All I can say is that even if the excessive-bail clause doesn't immediately solve the problem of financially-strapped defendants, that's no excuse for denying bail altogether. ("You wouldn't be able to afford it, anyway!")

Your "solution" - refusing *any* bail - has made the problem worse, not better.

[Don Nico]

"Supreme Court intends to facilitate a coup by Donald Trump."
Stephen, that has to be one of the most unhinged comments that you have ever made.
If you want an actual example of the process that worries you, look into the juristocracy being promoted by the Israeli Supreme Court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Unhinged?

The decision in Trump v. United States was unmistakably tailored to put out of the question any prosecution of Trump for an attempted coup. That was done with zero consideration of the merits of evidence to make a case that Trump had done it.

That decision was written with an eye to make sure no more such evidence could be turned up, not only prior to the election, but ever. That decision blocked future cooperation of witnesses who had yet to be served subpoenas. It reinforced on purpose intransigence by critically placed witnesses who had already defied subpoenas.

Trump v. United States went beyond estimates from the American legal community of what to expect. And it quickly proved a rival for Dredd Scott as the most constitutionally dangerous legal decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

See if you can refute any of that without making yourself foolish.

Beyond that case, the Supreme Court has taken no initiative to confront actually totalitarian abuses by the Trump administration. Those involve flagrant violations of: due process; the power of the purse; separation of powers; and prosecutorial integrity. Those abuses already target civil servants, universities, the legal profession, military leadership, the intelligence community, journalists, and of course immigrants with legal residence status in the U.S.

Complicity that comprehensive speaks for itself of the intentions which delivered the pattern. My one forlorn hope is that seeing so much damage actually happening will shock a few justices sufficiently to persuade them they were mistaken, and must reverse course. Otherwise, history will record that a corruptly partisan Supreme Court majority was complicit in the destruction of American constitutionalism.

And, of course, feckless complacency, and sneering cynicism of too many Americans who ought to know better, including yourself, make the crisis still harder to cope with. That may be the part which most baffles historians of the future, the question how so many went so eagerly toward support for plainly evident totalitarian governance.

It is an old question, and one notoriously hard to answer. A citizenry afflicted with timidity, self-interest, and benighted expectations for personal impunity have figured prominently. But first-hand experience this nation has recently endured suggest there must be even more to it than that. Failure of an effective opposition to coalesce may look explanatory, but amounts to little more than a truism.

[Noscitur a sociis]

See if you can refute any of that without making yourself [recte look?] foolish.

Well for one thing, the decision didn’t stop the prosecution of Trump for anything: it was his election that stopped it, not the Supreme Court.

Beyond that case, the Supreme Court has taken no initiative to confront actually totalitarian abuses by the Trump administration.

American courts generally, and the Supreme Court in particular, don’t take initiative to confront anything: they can only rule on cases that are brought to them. And Trump’s track record with them so far hasn’t been anything too impressive. Prof. Baude has some more sensible thoughts over at the Divided Argument Substack: https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-supreme-court-and-the-second

[Kazinski]

Since you are familiar with the orders, can you point to me where the Judge "clarif[ied] its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs"?

Instead what the judge seems to have done is quit referring to "effectuate", and instead only using the term "facilitate" which the government seems to define narrowly, and not involving any interaction with the government of El Salvador.

Its also kind of interesting she wants someone with "personal knowledge" to communicate where Garcia is. Are they supposed to fly down to El Salvador and back?

What if CECOT Isn't taking phone calls on the weekend?

[Stephen Lathrop]

It surprises no one that Kazinski resolves every doubtful question on the side of the Trump administration, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against it.

[Kazinski]

That's only because his opponents are wrong so often.

I did get Trump v Anderson right before the verdict.

Pretty close on Boasberg v Trump (which is closer than the official case title)

I even got the immunity case fairly close even before oral arguments, although I wasnt quite so deferential as Roberts was:

"depending on the motivation of the actor.”

This is similar to what I suggested in an earlier thread, A mens rea immunity doctrine for the President: setting a standard that the prosecution has to prove official acts were done with an improper motive, not merely suggest it. Thus prosecuting a president can be done but the prosecutor has an additional burden of either showing the act was not official, or if it was then prove the motive not only provided a private benefit, but was solely intended to provide a private benefit"

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/30/robert-leider-on-sources-of-presidential-immunity/?comments=true#comment-10541983

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Kaz and many others arent on the side of the bad guys.

[bernard11]

Yes they are.

The government wants to grab a guy and send him to El Salvador despite:

1. Being prohibited from sending him there.
2. Not affording him ten seconds of due process.
3. Having a court order to turn the plane around before he got there.

They refuse to act to return him, despite admitting its error.
They defy court orders to report to the court what steps they have taken.

Sounds pretty bad to me. Police state tactics, I'd call it.

[Joe_dallas]

You and most every leftist posting here have a very long history of being on the side of the bad guys, whether it be the anti semites, hamas, illegal aliens.

[bernard11]

I'd say someone who wants to deport/arrest people simply because Trump feels like it is on the side of the bad guys.

I think people who are accused of things have a right to challenge the accusation. In your mind that makes me a "bad guy." I'd say you're on the side of the police state.

Trust me, I have little sympathy for antisemites or Hamas members.

I do have a fair amount for illegal aliens, especially those who have proven they are responsible members of society. Deporting people who have been here for ten years or so because "they don't belong here" - worst reason imaginable - is spiteful, cruel, and bigoted.

[Joe_dallas]

Following the pattern of others by only condemning the antisemites, hamas, etc after being called out!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, it is telling that you define good guys and bad guys in terms of opinions you approve or disapprove. Or in terms of creeds you are willing to defend or to assail.

Neither approach has legitimate place in American constitutionalism. It is instead liberty to structure and change governments at pleasure, and to vindicate such choices by reliance on power greater than government's, wielded by a joint popular sovereign, which defines American constitutionalism.

DOGE/MAGA advocates commenting on the VC show a tendency to think and advocate as you do, instead of any tendency to think and advocate in the traditional style of American constitutionalists. A national political climate split likewise has delivered incipient constitutional crisis.

I suggest you would be unwise to expect you can predict what changes will happen if DOGE/MAGA politics replace the politics to which Americans have traditionally been accustomed. If it is the case that you think of this nation as a better place to live than most nation's elsewhere, consider that the prospects for this nation after a constitutional revolution are likely more to resemble the many nations you dislike, than to improve on this one you already like better.

I suppose if you know of any other nation you already like better than this one, then you could aspire to a DOGE/MAGA revolution to remake this nation on that model. Do you know of any other such nation?

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 38 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Joe_dallas, it is telling that you define good guys and bad guys in terms of opinions you approve or disapprove. Or in terms of creeds you are willing to defend or to assail.

Wrong analysis - what is telling is how all the leftist are on the side of the bad guys

Your interpretation of DOGE is also incorrect - there is a lot of Wastefull spending/corruption/self dealing/ funding leftists (not funding leftist programs ) that DOGE is finding. Why would you object?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Just admit to yourself that you advocate forceful overthrow of American constitutionalism.

Do you know of some other nation you like better than this one?

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you a living a life of delusion.

[Ed Grinberg]

what is telling is how all the leftist are on the side of the bad guys

Indeed.
Compare:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/30/the-left-would-wise-to-worry-about-its-anti-semitic-wing/

...a trio of newly elected Democrats: [New York's] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar. They seem to have very few foreign policy views aside from a caricature of Israel as an occupying colonial force that sits up at night thinking of new ways to torment Palestinians.
...the potential mainstreaming of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party as represented by the renewed public importance of Louis Farrakhan and the refusal of vanguard figures on the left, like the leaders of the Women’s March, to repudiate his noxious filth.

Yes, most (all?) of Farrakhan's statements are "noxious filth." And yes, the leaders of the Women's March are "vanguard figures on the left." But so what?! The rest of their ideology, aside from their views on Jews and Israel, is also "noxious filth"! (Read Ayn Rand if you don't understand what I mean.) Anyone who is willing to go along with “redistribution of wealth” or “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” has already revealed himself to be a moral degenerate; adding anti-Semitism does little to complete his moral portrait.

[David Nieporent]

Your interpretation of DOGE is also incorrect - there is a lot of Wastefull spending/corruption/self dealing/ funding leftists (not funding leftist programs ) that DOGE is finding. Why would you object?

DOGE is not finding any such thing. It's just gullible people who get their news from Twitter who think DOGE has found actual waste/corruption.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd call it a good job = deporting an illegal alien gangbanger

[David Nieporent]

The government wants to grab a guy and send him to El Salvador despite:

1. Being prohibited from sending him there.
2. Not affording him ten seconds of due process.
3. Having a court order to turn the plane around before he got there.

For the record, you've conflated two cases. There was no "turn the plane around" order in Garcia's case; that was the JGG case heard by Boasberg. (They defied that order, too.)

[bernard11]

Ok.

I'd say #1 and #2 are sufficient to decide who the bad guys are.

[not guilty]

As I stated above and linked to the District Court's order of April 10, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0.pdf , the District Court amended the April 4 order so as to no longer require that the Defendants "effectuate" Abrego Garcia's return.

The District Court clarified its directive by removing the arguably problematic language.

[not guilty]

President Trump has claimed that he indeed has the ability to secure Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador. The New York Times has reported:

“If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that,” [Trump] said, seeming to ignore the court’s order. “I respect the Supreme Court.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/us/politics/us-maryland-man-deportation-delay.html

If Trump has the ability to do that in response to a Supreme Court order, he has the ability to do so in response to the current orders of the District Court.

[Kazinski]

The District court has only ordered him to facilitate Garcia's return, and I think they are prepared to do that, but I don't think they are prepared to ask El Salvador to return him, which the District Court has not ordered them to do.

Not did the Supreme Court:

"And the 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."

[Commenter_XY]

Let's see if Judge Xinis holds a contempt hearing. I hope she does. 😉

Go ahead, line up on the 20 side of the 80/20 divide. By all means.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think that 80% of people believe that if the government improperly deports someone to a prison in El Salvador, a court can’t order them to undo it?

I’m glad that President Trump disagrees.

[Commenter_XY]

I think 80% of people are fine with deporting illegal alien M-13 gangbangers, which Garcia actually is. Even better, he was sent home. He is a citizen of El Salvador, after all.

[Joe_dallas]

The guys supporting the bad guys want to claim a m13 gang member who fled his country deserves refugee status.

[Josh R]

He is alleged to be an M-13 gang member. Do you think 80% of the people are fine with sending people to a torture prison based on an allegation without due process?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. But it’s probably closer than we’d like to think. Also the people who support that tend to correctly recognize that they’re unlikely to be in the situation because 1) they aren’t a target of the regime that is doing this (and don’t foresee becoming one), 2) if the opposition gets in they’ll be protected by a return to liberal values. They correctly recognize the libs wouldn’t do this to them because they know deep down the libs are better people.

[Estragon]

“and don’t foresee becoming one”

This strikes me as not so much making a correct assumption about the current and future situation but rather an ignorance of history and a lack of imagination. You can already see the shape of things to come in last Friday’s open thread— lots of talk of stripping citizenship and an emphasis on “natural-born” citizens being the only class beyond the reach of unilateral deportation (or should we start saying exile?). A fascinating position, by the way, for some of our commentators married to foreign spouses to take, but we can leave that topic for now.

As much as these huckleberries would like to believe they will be safe from such treatment based on political views, racial characteristics, parentage, whatever— the historical truth is undeniable:

“Once you have replaced the principle of equality before the law with the idea that some people have no rights, you have granted your approval to the idea of an authoritarian government. At that point, all you can do is to hope that the dictator and his henchmen overlook you.”

Lotsa blithe it-can-never-happen-to-me attitudes around here.

[Estragon]

“Homegrown criminals are next.”

Earth to huckleberries. Come in huckleberries. They are openly saying it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why wouldn't they do it?

[Commenter_XY]

I think 80% of the people are fine with repatriating illegal alien gangbangers to their home countries, Josh R.

[Josh R]

You skipped the "alleged" part. Perhaps LawTalkingGuy is right that too many people are like you and don't like due process.

[Commenter_XY]

President Bukele has settled the matter.

He will not send back the El Salvadoran MS-13 gangbanger; Garcia is home now.

I am fine with due process. He was due to be processed, and he was.

[Josh R]

Bukele does not have the final say on what due process is required for Garcia. SCOTUS already said Garcia's case must be handled "as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."

I am fine with due process. He was due to be processed, and he was.

In ither words, you are not fine with due process.

[Commenter_XY]

Two courts have made the finding he was a member of MS-13. Not alleged.

Garcia is an illegal alien gangbanger, according to the court. He had his due process. He was going to be deported simply b/c he is the member of a designated foreign terrorist organization (MS-13).

[Josh R]

Garcia had been legally present in the USA since 2019. No court has ever held that he was a member of MS-13.

[Mr. Bumble]

First, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an illegal alien found by the Immigration Courts to be subject to removal from the United States. He has no right to return to or remain in the United States.

Second, all during the removal proceedings Abrego Garcia was detained. The initial detention was based upon a finding — supported by the evidence presented — that he was a member of MS-13. That finding was later upheld by the Bureau of
Immigration Appeals. Much ink has been spilled in the past 10 days suggesting this finding was not supported by meaningful evidence. But it doesn’t work that way — he had a hearing, evidence was submitted, the determination was made, and it was upheld on appeal. And, as noted below, there is more evidence than the public has been led to believe.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161248822

[Josh R]

His detention was supported by enough evidence that he was an MS-13 member (and upheld as not being clearly wrong). But, that's not a judicial determination he was a member.

[David Nieporent]

And, as noted below, there is more evidence than the public has been led to believe.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161248822

That link is paywalled, but I've read the actual original documents, and there is less evidence than the public has been led to believe. And no court found that he was an MS-13 member.

[Estragon]

I found this timeline to be clear and helpful:

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lmsntyhr722o

[NvEric]

District courts have no authority over a president !

[Sarcastr0]

Courts have authority over the executive in the limited situation where there the executive may be breaking the law or Constitution.

That is all courts, and that is all the executive.

Your understanding of our branches of government seems to have withered into something aristocratic.

[not guilty]

"District courts have no authority over a president !"

Wrong!! Have you read United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), NvEric? Which court do you think issued the Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c) subpoena for the audio tape recordings there?

[Commenter_XY]

No Court can compel the Executive to conduct foreign policy.

[Josh R]

If you are right, there is no due process for deportation. The president can simply deport anyone he wants for any reason without any review because once the person is in a foreign country, no US court has jurisdiction.

That's a total abrogation of the rule of law by an authoritarian.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"And you're next!"

[David Nieporent]

No Court can compel the Executive to conduct foreign policy.

Why not? The constitution gives the president the power to receive ambassadors. It gives the president no other exclusive power over "foreign policy."

[Martinned2]

That may or may not be a duty, but it doesn't seem like receiving ambassadors is a power.

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

This Abrego guy has become the new George Floyd. The blacks are trying to make Karmelo George Floyd, while the Resistance is doing this MS-13 guy. There's gonna be a collision soon between Master & Slave.

[Frank Drackman]

Floyd George (RIP) would be and Alfrego is, safer in CECOT than most DemoKKKrat controlled big Amurican cities.

[tylertusta]

I have a comment being held for moderation, likely because I included too many supporting links.

This is one of the dumbest 'features' of this comment system, especially since the attached VC blog is a legal blog which may require many citations.

[John F. Carr]

It's an important spam-fighting feature.

[tylertusta]

No, it's not. There are better spam-fighting features in better-implemented comment systems. This current system lacks basic automated features like CAPTCHA (among its other flaws).

If you're going to have a moderation system the blocks posts, then at least staff it with actual people who can release them in a timely manner.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Pretrial detention without bail in noncapital cases: unconstitutional under the 9th Amendment (in the case of the feds) and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment (in the case of the states).

Most states, including all but two states admitted since 1789 - had a right to bail in noncapital cases on being admitted to the Union. Sounds like a widespread recognition that the right existed.

Now that we no longer have to worry about the pretrial release of alleged Jan 6 rioters, we can consider this question with the calm deliberation which usually characterizes this blog.

[Martinned2]

Bail, like the 4th amendment, is one of those things that is relatively easy as a high-level principle, and very fact-specific the rest of the time. The accused is entitled to bail unless there is a clear indication that pre-trial detention is necessary to protect the trial (jury and/or witness intimidation) or the public (further crime). The difficult part is how high you set the evidentiary bar for those things, and how all of that works in practice.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As a high-level principle, the USA already decided this issue, but alas the servants of the people (government) haven't learned their lesson.

"jury and/or witness intimidation" - a risk which justifies higher bail, not denial of bail altogether.

"further crime" - As determined by the Department of pre-Crime, I suppose.

[Martinned2]

How does higher bail prevent jury and/or witness intimidation?

And are you really saying that the courts are supposed to pretend, say, that a guy who beats his wife into a bloody pulp on a regular basis isn't going to immediately do that again if he's released on bail?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you really going to pretend that bail can't be revoked in that case, requiring the setting of new, higher bail?

Perhaps you're accusing the states which recognize the right to bail of being soft on crime?

The right to bail simply acknowledges the presumption of innocence.

[Martinned2]

Sure, and at some point you're setting a bail that's so high that it is the same as refusing bail.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If only the Framers had thought about that, they'd have put something in the Bill of Rights about it.

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

[Martinned2]

So, we're back to letting men beat up their wives as much as they like?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So you're back to the "have you stopped beating your wife" style of argument?

Fine, let's take the Eighth and Ninth Amendments out of the Bill of Rights. Is there anything else in there which fails to meet your approval?

[Martinned2]

I have no problem with either amendment. I just don't think denying bail for an accused who has a high probability of reoffending is unconstitutional, because setting a bail at the level that would be necessary to deter such a person would not be excessive even if they can't afford it. And an unaffordable bail and a denied bail are materially the same thing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why did so many in the Founding generation and afterwards protect bail in noncapital cases? I suppose they were a bunch of soft-on-crime types who didn't care about abused women.

The meanings of "right" and "left" must be shifting if the European leftist guy is talking like Richard Nixon on the subject of Law and Order.

[Martinned2]

There's your first problem. I'm not a leftist. I'm just to the left of Donald Trump on most issues.

Like I said, I have no problem with the right to bail, as long as we agree that a sensible formula for setting it might result in a level of bail that the accused cannot afford, meaning that you end up in the same practical position as if bail was denied entirely.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I have no problem with the right to bail"

I hate to quibble, but you *did* say this above:

"The accused is entitled to bail unless there is a clear indication that pre-trial detention is necessary to protect the trial (jury and/or witness intimidation) or the public (further crime). The difficult part is how high you set the evidentiary bar for those things, and how all of that works in practice."

You also said:

"How does higher bail prevent jury and/or witness intimidation?"

[Martinned2]

In both those cases I used bail in the sense of "an amount the accused might actually raise", while treating denial of bail and setting bail at a level the accused cannot raise as equivalent.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I've mentioned the problems with enforcing the excessive bail clause for people on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

I'm not offering a panacea, but I'm suggesting how *not* to make a bad situation worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

"In both those cases I used bail in the sense of "an amount the accused might actually raise""

The problem is that "an amount the accused might actually raise" doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "an amount that would actually stop the accused from fleeing/reoffending". And yet, the very practice of bail assumes that bail will be set at the latter. Not the former.

[David Nieporent]

Why did so many in the Founding generation and afterwards protect bail in noncapital cases?

Isn't that a bit misleading of a framing, given the much larger number of capital crimes at the time?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Here you see the dark side (one of many) of "living constitutionalism." Supposedly it just means getting more and more rights, but in reality it can mean things like locking up defendants without bail for noncapital crimes. The plain fact is that, whether capital crimes be few or many, the framers didn't trust capital defendants to show up in court, and thus allowed their pretrial detention if the proof was evident or the presumption strong.

It's misleading to insinuate that bail is denied today for crimes which used to be capital - although that would be silly in any event, since the incentive of a capital charge, or lack of one, remains the same. But the living constitutionalist is not serious about the argument for denying bail for crimes which used to be capital, and he'd deny bail for many more crimes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's misleading to insinuate that bail is denied today *only* for crimes which used to be capital

[Brett Bellmore]

"There's your first problem. I'm not a leftist. I'm just to the left of Donald Trump on most issues."

By American standards, (This is an American website, after all.) you are a leftist. Maybe not by European standards, but you're not just to the left of DJT, you're to the left of most of the American electorate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Denying bail is different from setting excessive bail.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yeah, but you switched from denial of bail to excessive bail, and didn't acknowledge that there *was* a clause about excessive bail - a subject on which these is some constitutional history.

[Noscitur a sociis]

? I don’t think I’ve mentioned excessive bail at all. I agree imposing it would be unconstitutional.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait, I'm confusing you with another commenter, I'm really sorry.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[commend moved]

[Michael P]

Denying bail is tantamount to setting it to the most excessive value possible.

[David Nieporent]

Denying bail is different from setting excessive bail.

The words are different, but setting bail at a level one could never afford to pay is the practical equivalent of denying bail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting bail at a level one could never afford to pay is only the practical equivalent of denying bail if one assumes that nobody ever pays somebody else's bail. And it does happen from time to time.

Really, bail should be set at whatever seems likely to prevent the defendant from fleeing, and if he can't afford that much? Maybe something involving ankle monitors would provide a solution.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Deciding a case by flipping a coin may have the same result as deciding it by a jury trial: that doesn’t mean that they’re the “equivalent” for Sixth/Seventh Amendment purposes. “You cannot be released safely” is different from saying “you can be released safely, but only if you’re at risk of losing a thousand/million/billion dollars”. Admittedly, judges do sometimes pretend to do the latter when they really want to do the former (especially in jurisdictions where they’re not allowed to do so explicitly). That reality doesn’t make denial of bail an excessive bail, nor does the fact that both result in pretrial detention. Deciding a case by flipping a coin may have the same result as deciding it by a jury trial: that doesn’t mean that they’re the “equivalent” for Sixth/Seventh Amendment purposes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Are you really going to pretend that bail can't be revoked in that case, requiring the setting of new, higher bail?

Your theory is that even if someone posts bail and then violates their conditions, leading to the bail being revoked, they still have to be granted bail again?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your theory is that the government should be entitled to deny them bail the first time.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is indeed my theory, which is the mainstream and correct one. Your theory, on the other hand, is aggressively heterodox, even among the people who doubt mine.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Civil liberties are heterodox nowadays, they have no home in either of the major parties.

The right to bail was fully orthodox at the Founding, and even for a long time afterward.

So...have we achieved progress by moving away from a soft-on-crime dystopia, or are we devolving into the kind of society the Founders warned us about?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2, unmentioned by you is the baleful reality that Trump has already been handed criminal impunity for colorably official actions. And not only that, but immunized against subpoenas for subordinates to testify in any such cases. To ignore that, and pretend instead business as usual, is to give up on the future of American constitutionalism.

Lawyers, of course, reflexively insist on business as usual, no matter what. Even now, while they can see legal colleagues targeted for totalitarian extortion, America's lawyers stupidly continue to insist. A great many of them appear to weigh what favorable prospects might await them in exchange for complicity.

[NvEric]

If you are trying to state Trump is now the first dictator of these united States, then you are confused and or wrong.

Any deviation from the Constitution began long before our births. Recent SCOTUS aside, the drift has been consistent towards what we have today. The illegal Biden Coup furthered the dismalness of today's hyper-inflated concerns by those responsible before Trump's presidency and even his birth.

Whimper if you must, but it's just trash talk to suit the personal need. Get over it ! Accept what you helped create, this Leviathan State.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Are you a 2020 truther?

2. I notice you didn't defend Trump at all, just yelled about hating America's history.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It seems very strange that a (dumb) procedural protection that they forgot to put in the bill of rights and some founding-era constitutions was so fundamental that it is protected by the Ninth Amendment. It is stranger still to think that the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” [recte “or”] which is not generally understood to protect unenumerated rights, even under fairly aggressive theories.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If we have no unenumerated rights, where would we get the rights to condoms and gay marriage?

Maybe the right to bail is at least as vital a constitutional principle as "wrap your pecker before you wreck her."

[Noscitur a sociis]

While I’m not especially impressed by or interested in defending the decisions you’re referencing, I’ll note that they didn’t depend Ninth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities clause, nor were they justified by the claim that everyone understood those rights to exist since the founding.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"nor were they justified by the claim that everyone understood those rights to exist since the founding"

Now that you mention it, the Court never claimed that. It would have strengthened their argument considerably if every state admitted to the Union since 1789 had a right to same-sex marriage - such a circumstance would have at least been alluded to by the Court in its gay-marriage decision, if true.

[hobie]

Since the 80's part of the mandatory minimum outrage has included that if a pretrial detainee's charge can have a sentence of 10 years or greater (which is basically every federal criminal statute), then they do not get bail. Only a very, very small amount of fed pretrials get bail

[Martinned2]

One of you who is in the US might want to check whether CBS is still broadcasting, because they let Donald "free speech champion" Trump take his phone to the toilet again, and the result was a whole word salad about how CBS should be punished for being mean to him.

Remember, CBS is the channel that broadcasts all of your favourite police procedurals!

[Martinned2]

RIP Mario Vargas Llosa

Since every period has its horrors, ours is the age of fanatics, of suicide terrorists, an ancient species convinced that by killing they earn heaven, that the blood of innocents washes away collective affronts, corrects injustices, and imposes truth on false beliefs. Every day, all over the world, countless victims are sacrificed by those who feel they possess absolute truths. With the collapse of totalitarian empires, we believed that living together, peace, pluralism, and human rights would gain the ascendancy and the world would leave behind holocausts, genocides, invasions, and wars of extermination. None of that has occurred. New forms of barbarism flourish, incited by fanaticism, and with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we cannot overlook the fact that any small faction of crazed redeemers may one day provoke a nuclear cataclysm. We have to thwart them, confront them, and defeat them. There aren’t many, although the tumult of their crimes resounds all over the planet and the nightmares they provoke overwhelm us with dread. We should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by those who want to snatch away the freedom we have been acquiring over the long course of civilization. Let us defend the liberal democracy that, with all its limitations, continues to signify political pluralism, coexistence, tolerance, human rights, respect for criticism, legality, free elections, alternation in power, everything that has been taking us out of a savage life and bringing us closer – though we will never attain it – to the beautiful, perfect life literature devises, the one we can deserve only by inventing, writing, and reading it. By confronting homicidal fanatics we defend our right to dream and to make our dreams reality.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2010/vargas_llosa/lecture/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — What do homicidal fanatics care for the deaths of millions of others' dreams?

All that has ever defended that power to dream has been supreme, ungovernable, uncontrollable power, which chances to prefer dreaming over tyranny. This American nation enjoyed for centuries the luck to be ruled by a sovereign so powerful, and so intended. Now that power is under attack by a rival differently motivated.

This nation—like every other consequential nation state since collapse of religious supremacy across Europe—was established by force, not by idealism. If it can no longer be defended by force with wisdom to cherish idealism, and power sufficient to vindicate idealism, this nation will be replaced by force marching toward some other preference.

It is tempting but fatuous to suppose idealism itself to supply the motive power for national sovereignty. History teaches otherwise. At best, absent crisis, idealism serves to bolster continuation of whatever power may choose to protect it.

Benjamin Franklin made himself the statesman most influential to mobilize force sufficient to found this American nation. Not idealism, but vantage supplied by his experience of mobilizing force, not only in America, but also in France, uniquely equipped Franklin to deliver his wise admonition, lately much in evidence again: "A republic, if you can keep it."

[Krayt]

Can't God kill his own political enemies? Why do we have to help, like he's a mob don ordering servants about?

[Ed Grinberg]

In a 2014 speech, Mario Vargas Llosa criticized "liberals who believe that...the free market is the panacea for [all] problems, from poverty to unemployment, from discrimination to social exclusion." This is not quite right, at least where I am concerned. I don't expect the free market to eliminate poverty, unemployment, discrimination, or "social exclusion" (whatever that is). But it so happens that, if left to its own devices, the free market (i.e., laissez-faire capitalism) is the best available mechanism for alleviating these problems. When the government steps in to "help," it invariably does more harm than good. (Often, those harmed are the very people the "help" was aimed at.) Whatever residual poverty, unemployment, discrimination, or "social exclusion" remains, it should be seen as an unavoidable consequence of living and having freedom of choice. As Rush Limbaugh said: life is not fair.

[Martinned2]

This week's Charlemagne column in The Economist is particularly good. I'd quote the whole thing, but that seems like something that would go beyond any reasonable interpretation of the copyright laws. So these two paragraphs will have to do.

The thing about Europe: it’s the actual land of the free now
(...)
The thing about Europe is it freeloads on defence, not spending enough on its armed forces to single-handedly fend off threats. This will continue to be true for a long time, even as defence budgets are hiked across most of the continent. But it also reflects a different understanding of what “defence” means. For one, nobody in Europe—outside Russia, at least—is even casually implying they will invade other countries. There is no Brussels quip about turning an unwilling neighbour into “our 28th state” (on the contrary, many of the EU’s neighbours are desperate to join the club). Nor do European vice-presidents fly uninvited to places they are seeking to annex, on the pretext that their spouse wants to watch a sledge race. Europe may have scrimped on intelligence-gathering, but its various leaders do know the identity of the aggressor who initiated the fighting in Ukraine (hint: it is not Ukraine). Many foresaw the pitfalls of invading Iraq a while back.

The thing about Europe is that it lacks an absolutist attachment to free speech. See how judges in Romania and France derailed the careers of hard-right politicians, who have convinced themselves (with little evidence) that it was their ideology rather than their lawbreaking that got them in trouble. Yet to many Europeans the idea that free expression is under threat seems odd. Europeans can say almost anything they want, both in theory and in practice. Europe’s universities never became hotbeds of speech-policing by one breed of culture warrior or the other. You can express a controversial view on any European campus (outside Hungary, at least) without fear of losing your tenure or your grant. No detention centres await foreign students who hold the wrong views on Gaza; news outfits are not sued for interviewing opposition politicians. Law firms are not compelled to kow-tow to presidents as penance for having worked for their political foes.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/04/10/the-thing-about-europe-its-the-actual-land-of-the-free-now

[Martinned2]

Last week's Charlemagne column is also good, but fortunately it can be summarised by its title: Europe cannot fathom what Trumpian America wants from it

[Commenter_XY]

Money.

And take care of your own messes = UKR.

[Krayt]

The UKR bit is not a proud statement for the US. It's appeasement dressed up in feigned virtue signaling, sans the virtue.

[Brett Bellmore]

It has always been the case that you can say "almost anything you want", even in the least free country, so long as you take care to only want to say things the government doesn't object to.

Granted, the things the government objects to in your typical European country seem a bit odd to American perspectives. But there are certainly such things.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump came in and sure got to work against bad speech.

We lack moral standing to object to Europe at the moment.

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

Who is the one who assigns "moral standing" to whole populations? Maybe we can petition him with facts and reason and they'll reverse course?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. Because our moral standing is dependent on you liking who wins elections.

Or maybe you just think it's worse to deport non-citizens for advocacy of genocide, than to jail citizens for political opinions the government doesn't like.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think part of what makes (made) America exceptional was we were secure enough in our republic and the marketplace of ideas that you could advocate for genocide and the government would let you in the name of liberty.

But don't pretend it's not gone far far beyond that specific case.

People in America who must watch what they say, lest they displease the President or his people:

Civil servants
Immigrants (including permanent residents)
Academics
Media companies
Law firms

[Michael P]

Everyone in the US had to watch what they said under the previous president on a lot of topics.

Election integrity
Chinese virus labs
Men in women's gyms/spas/sports
Attempts to extort money from Donald Trump
Hunter Biden's work as an unregistered foreign agent and bribe collector

But I guess it turned out all right in the end because a bunch of politicians got extremely broad pardons.

[Sarcastr0]

No, though, they didn’t.

You mix up being criticized with actual government sanction.

[jb]

Wait, how many people got kicked out of the country for saying the wrong things about any of those topics? Or put in prison, I guess, since that's the comparison in Europe.

[Michael P]

Thousands. Many more lost their jobs or were deplatformed.

[jb]

Sorry, can you point to a single example of a person who got kicked out of the country or put in jail for bad speech on any of those topics? I'm certainly not aware of any such cases.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be conceding the lack of government persecution in your response to my list.

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

You seem to be ignoring the government's role in the censorship, deplatforming, and debanking.

But that's only because you are you, and that's your forte.

[Ed Grinberg]

You seem to be ignoring the government's role in the censorship, deplatforming, and debanking.
But that's only because you are you, and that's your forte.

Right. Talk about lack of moral standing...

[Sarcastr0]

So just table pounding, Ed? No actual response to what the Trump administration is doing about the speech of wide swaths of people?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You got the sign wrong. Again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump came in and sure got to work against bad speech."

The government was punishing people for saying that there are two genders, with your approval, before Trump came in.

[David Nieporent]

Never happened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did so.

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

>You can express a controversial view on any European campus (outside Hungary, at least) without fear of losing your tenure or your grant.

lol what? You can't criticize politicians in Germany. You can't criticize illegals, pray in public, or tweet pro-Christian/pro-family messages in the UK. You can't be a conservative politician in, what, 3 different European countries now?

Sure, that's what the Left always wants, but that's a far cry from the characterization in the extract.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's true: You CAN express a controversial view on any European campus without fear. So long as it's a government approved controversial view. Antisemitism. Advocacy of Sharia law. Not crazy controversial stuff like saying foreign rape gangs should be deported.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea, do you?

This is rewarmed anti-Muslim bullshit from far-right European parties. Who are themselves no strangers to antisemitism.

You're just repeating the line; you don't seem to actually know anything on this.

[Michael P]

How many people in the UK have been told they need to shut up and watch a race-swapped bit of propaganda?

Grow up, and grow out of your echo chamber name-calling.

[Sarcastr0]

How many people in the UK have been told they need to shut up and watch a race-swapped bit of propaganda?

Good question. You should find an answer!

Love it when people pickled in MAGA ask me to have a broader point of view because I've sullied this comentariat with my heterodoxy.

[Michael P]

Denialist wants to move the goalposts again.

Remember when Germany criminally prosecuted someone for accusing a politician of hating free speech?

[Sarcastr0]

lol you asked a question and I said you should find the answer. Not really shifting the goalposts on that one, chief.

[Michael P]

You want to NOT answer the question, denialist. Even a lowball answer will show how full of lies you are.

[Sarcastr0]

I actually don't know the answer to it. Do you?

[Michael P]

If I had a precise answer, I wouldn't have asked. You should find an answer!

There is a huge amount of gaslighting in the media about the race-swapping in that show. In most other contexts, the Southgate murders would have caused the show to be cancelled, but because this show had the "right" propaganda message, it was kept.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't know.

But you're very sure it's a media coverup why you don't know. Plus a counterfactual for spice.

The paranoid style of American politics, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

Your problem with me is that I'm not as clueless about what's going on in Europe as you want me to be.

Woman jailed for insulting gang rapist

Arrested and ignored: The ordeal of grooming gang victims at hands of authorities there to protect them

For a little while it looked like the explosive revelations about immigrant rape gangs were going to result in some action. Indeed it did: They decided to get serious about punishing anybody who complained about it!

And then you got that stupid TV series that took the rape gang problem and deliberately inverted it.

[Sarcastr0]

As usual you make a broad statement, and when called on it offer irrelevant anecdotes.

Neither of your posts were about campus speech.

The first was about personal threats, not viewpoint.

The other is about a 2011 incident which is the usual anti-Muslim right cause celeb for over a decade now.
The article spends a lot of it's time yelling about the defense attorney for going after the victim.
That sucks, but is hardly government persecution for speech.

Lets revisit your thesis: "You CAN express a controversial view on any European campus without fear. So long as it's a government approved controversial view. Antisemitism. Advocacy of Sharia law. Not crazy controversial stuff like saying foreign rape gangs should be deported."

You've provided no support for any of that. Which, to be fair, you set yourself a big lift with that kind of bombast.
Instead, your parroting old white nationalist populist rhetoric from the British far right.
Tired.

[Michael P]

https://apnews.com/article/amsterdam-campus-protest-gaza-europe-palestinians-israel-1eeb4e07231ebcc6776319ff0663db66

Denialist.

[Martinned2]

You can express a controversial view. What you cannot do, at least not without some risk of arrest, is occupy and barricade a university building so that no teaching can take place.

That said, the laws against protest have become way too strict for my taste, both in the US and in Europe. Those Extinction Rebellion people are certainly succeeding at making a nuisance of themselves, but mostly what they're achieving is that countries are passing laws to make it easier to arrest them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've got no problem at all over arresting protesters for anything that would get you arrested if you didn't claim to be a "protester"; I've been to plenty of protests myself, mostly back in the 90's, and at every one of them we were scrupulously law abiding, and generally left the site of the protest cleaner than when we came.

I really don't have a lot of tolerance for people who riot and commit vandalism, and call what they're doing "protest".

And, frankly, the left are just as capable of protesting without acting criminally, I've seen them do it locally. Even BLM is capable of peaceful, law abiding protest, if they're in a jurisdiction that would shut them down at the first hurled brick.

[Sarcastr0]

Civil disobedience has at it's core breaking the law.

[bernard11]

I really don't have a lot of tolerance for people who riot and commit vandalism, and call what they're doing "protest".

Neither do I, Brett. Nor, I suspect, do most of the "leftist" commenters here. Neither do I have much respect for those who blame the vandalism of the few on the many who don't commit it, a favorite tactic of the RWer's here.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's argued that if you were at a protest during the day in the summer of 2020, and there was violence at night, you count as being a violent protester.

He also thinks CHOP is worse than January 06.

His standards are warped.

[not guilty]

Civil disobedience has at its core breaking the law and accepting the consequences that flow therefrom.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought about noting the 'accept the legal consequences', ng.

Yes, that would be a more complete formulation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Civil disobedience has at it's core breaking the law."

Civil disobedience, as I've explained to you before, is the practice of publicly violating the law that you are protesting, in a civil manner, in the hope that the public, seeing what the government is punishing you for, will turn against the law.

Unless you're protesting laws against vandalism and assault, rioting has no place in civil disobedience. And doing your protest in a peaceful and respectful manner is central to civil disobedience, because you're trying to win the public's sympathy, not piss them off.

Does this mean that civil disobedience has no applicability to a lot of causes? Indeed, it does.

First, it's inapplicable to cases where you're protesting something being legal, not illegal, because you can't violate the absence of a law.

Secondly, it's inapplicable to cases where the public actually supports the law, and will be enthusiastic about it being enforced against you.

Because civil disobedience is inapplicable to a lot of left wing causes, the left has taken to violating unrelated laws, in order to garner attention, and in the hope of just being such a pain in the ass that people will give you what you want just to make you go away.

[Sarcastr0]

Civil disobedience, as I've explained to you before, is the practice of publicly violating the law that you are protesting
Good to know the Selma protests weren't civil disobedience.

Unless you're protesting laws against vandalism and assault, rioting has no place in civil disobedience
As bernard11 noted, no one says otherwise.

doing your protest in a peaceful and respectful manner is central to civil disobedience
Respectful? Nope. Civil disobedience dies not have an obligation to keep you feeling comfy.
The strategies that use civil disobedience vary; not all of them are about sympathy.

Your definition of civil disobedience has no connection to the history, or philosophy, of the practice.

You're just vising your way into how you think it ought to be. Shockingly, as a comfy white guy kinda hostile to the civil rights era to begin with, your definition doesn't play outside your head.

[Sarcastr0]

The headline: "Pro-Palestinian student protests spread across Europe. Some are allowed. Some are stopped."

The body: German police broke up a protest by several hundred pro-Palestinian activists who had occupied a courtyard at Berlin’s Free University. Protesters occupied a university building in Amsterdam hours after police detained 169 people at a different campus location. Two remained in custody on suspicion of committing public violence.

Sounds like the US. Or the US until the Administration decided top-down diktats via research funding and vague/broad attacks on universities were there newest populist power play.

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

>Neither of your posts were about campus speech.

lol goalpost moving pedantic shitbag.

of course Gaslightr0 comes out from his taxpayer funded luxury office (with a bathroom, like that one agency...) to try and convince us the UK isn't suppressing regular criticism of certain happenings.

Ignore all the videos and news reports you've seen guys! The UK welcomes public criticism of illegals, groomers, and degenerates! They totally won't come and arrest you!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Mario Vargas Llosa has died. I have not read his work, but from his NYT obit appears to have an interesting life. His support of free markets might interest some people on this blog.

I found Tune in Tomorrow , the American version of his Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, amusing. Peter Falk had the "scriptwriter" role, and Barbara Hershey was "Julia."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I looked into Abrego Garcia's background in various articles in multiple publications. It is a tad ironic that in his family's account extortion from gangs is the reason he and his brother (now a U.S. citizen like Abrego Garcia's children and wife) originally arrived in this country. Both had productive lives in their new homeland.

The details of his deportation are particularly egregious, but there is already evidence that multiple problematic cases have arisen in the last couple of months.

The president of El Salvador, in "an act of extraordinary friendship" (Marco Rubio), has offered to take on a burden as part of an attempt toward a special relationship with the U.S.:

Mr. Rubio said that El Salvador had proposed jailing undocumented migrants who have been convicted of crimes and deported from the United States. The secretary said Mr. Bukele had offered to also accept convicted criminals who are currently serving their sentences in the United States, “even if they are U.S. citizens or legal residents.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/us/politics/el-salvador-prisons-marco-rubio.html

I think the Administration, if it wanted, can get Garcia back.

[Mr. Bumble]

How is it that his brother is a US citizen?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Many articles note his brother came to this country and later became a citizen, but I have not seen details of his route to citizenship.

[Frank Drackman]

I thought your side was "Pro Choice"??
"45/47" Chose to send Alfrego back from whence he came.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is anyone safe in Pennsylvania?
First Trump comes close to being assassinated and now the Governor's Mansion is firebombed while he and his family are sleeping.

[ThePublius]

And now there's another potential Trump assassin in custody, also from Butler, PA.

https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/04/13/another-day-another-alleged-would-be-trump-assassin-charged-n3801744

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am a strong supporter of more aggressive enforcement of laws against threatening communications, but “potential … assassin” seems a bit much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Pennsylvania Man Charged with Making Threats to Assault and Murder President Donald J. Trump, Other U.S. Officials, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents

In February 2025, Monper commented using his “Mr Satan” account: “I have bought several guns and been stocking up on ammo since Trump got in office.” Further, in March 2025, Monper commented using his account: “Eventually im going to do a mass shooting.” One week later, Monper commented: “I have been buying 1 gun a month since the election, body armor, and ammo.”"

February 17, 2025: “Nah, we just need to start killing people, Trump, Elon, all the heads of agencies Trump appointed, and anyone who stands in the way. Remember, we are the majority, MAGA is a minority of the country, and by the time its [sic] time to make the move, they will be weakened, many will be crushed by these policies, and they will want revenge too. American Revolution 2.0.”

March 4, 2025: “im [sic] going to assassinate him myself.” Wonper allegedly said this in a YouTube video titled “Live: Trump’s address to Congress.”

March 18, 2025: “ICE are terrorist people, we need to start killing them.”

April 1, 2025: “If I see an armed ice agent, I will consider it a domestic terrorist, and an active shooter and open fire on them.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who would benefit from Trump's untimely demise, I wonder?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is there any Federal law prohibiting a state from putting men in a female prison?

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/04/trans-identifying-murderer-given-taxpayer-funded-sex-change-drugs-alleges-mistreatment-and-wants-sentence-reduction-and-transfer-to-womens-prison/

[John F. Carr]

Maybe the Prison Rape Elimination Act and its regulations have something to say. The courts have created some sex-conscious rights which are going to be based on whether a judge thinks the prisoner is a man and not whether the Governor or the President thinks the prisoner is a man.

[A Japanese Student]

PREA does not establish cause of action or impose direct obligations. It authorizes a grant with some strings attached, which may be relevant. However, it likely does not require that transgender women be placed in men's prison. I'd be shocked if a court ruled as such - it is basically ignoring the important background behind PREA.

[apedad]

Justice Department Surpasses $12 Billion in Compensation to Crime Victims Since 2000

To commemorate the 2025 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, the Department of Justice reaffirms its steadfast commitment to compensate crime victims with federally forfeited assets. The Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program has surpassed $12 billion in compensation to crime victims.

In fiscal year 2024 and the beginning of fiscal year 2025 alone, more than $735.3 million has been returned to victims of human trafficking; romance, investment, and healthcare fraud; business email compromise and government imposter schemes; drug diversion; and cryptocurrency-related thefts and frauds.

Recent cases in which victims were compensated for their losses with forfeited assets in 2024 or 2025 include:

$4.3 Billion to Victims of Bernie Madoff

$420 Million to Victims of Fraud Schemes Facilitated by Western Union

$8 Million Returned to Victims of Email Business Compromise Scams

$5.6 Million to the Small Business Administration

$2.28 Million Returned to Victims of Two Business Email Compromise Schemes

$328,500 to an Elderly Victim of a Computer Support Scam

$6.4 Million to the Internal Revenue Service

$52,000 to a Survivor of Human Trafficking

$6.3 Million Returned to Estate Victims of an Embezzlement Scheme

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-surpasses-12-billion-compensation-crime-victims-2000

The Madoff case is insane.

[Estragon]

Somehow you managed to leave out the restitution for the restitution the J6ers had to pay

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/09/january-6-defendants-reimbursed-capitol-fines/83008661007/

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

You know the best thing about 2025?

Now when I drive my Tesla around town, people see all the swastikas on it and they think it's already been vandalized! lol dumbasses.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one!

[apedad]

Three Americans transferred from Congo to US, one arrested in Utah, charged with coup to overthrow government

A criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday in the District of Utah charged four U.S. citizens with conspiring to unlawfully carry out a coup d’état in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Marcel Malanga, 22, Tyler Thompson, 22, Benjamin Zalman-Polun, 37, and Joseph Peter Moesser, 67, are charged with conspiracy to provide material support and resources, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to bomb places of government facilities, and conspiracy to kill or kidnap persons in a foreign country, among other offenses, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-transferred-from-congo-us-one-arrested-utah-charged-coup-overthrow-government

WTF?!?

Hey guys! Let's go overthrow an African country!

[Martinned2]

It sounds like today you'll learn about Margaret Thatcher's son Mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher#2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt

On 13 January 2005, Mark Thatcher, in a South African court, pleaded guilty to helping finance a coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. South African police were able to prove that Mr Thatcher had transferred about US$285,000 to the mercenaries that were to execute the operation and had met and talked frequently to them prior to the coup attempt. After pleading guilty, he was given a four-year suspended sentence and a fine of about US$560,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_attempt#Sir_Mark_Thatcher,_2nd_Baronet

[Dr. Ed 2]

As usual, the British press has more detail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14590697/Americans-Congo-botched-coup-new-charges.html

Not that The Congo is a particularly democratic country.

[John F. Carr]

I enjoyed The Dogs of War, a 1974 novel about mercenaries trying to overthrow the government of a fictional country in the same part of Africa. Wikipedia says the Emerson, Lake and Palmer song "Pirates" was originally written for a film adaptation of the novel.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, President Santa Pause, the Exemption Executive folds yet again. He has more folds than origami. No wonder he had to run off to a UFC event* this weekend to try to re-establish his tough guy credentials, he’s like a joystick where only back and down work!

* Remember when the Mad King used to criticize Obama for playing golf, yet he has been playing golf or going to something like UFC avoiding work at Homer Simpson levels.

[Sarcastr0]

The tariffs were good.
Then pausing them was a masterstroke.
Then restarting them was genius
Then pausing them again was extra genius
Then restarting them again is amazing
Now pausing them is tactically brilliant.

Nothing has demonstrated the ridiculous devotion of some on here to defend Trump more than the tariff pretzels. No one, certainly no one on here, knows what Trump'll do next with tariffs, but it'll be great.

[Malika the Maiz]

He insisted the tariffs were going to make America billions of dollars, paid by foreign governments. Guess he didn’t want us to have all those billions!

Course these same cultists believed him when he said Mexico would pay to build a border wall and then forgot about that goofy claim when it of course didn’t materialize.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the impossibility of tariffs as revenue, tariffs as onshoring tactic, and tariffs as negotiating tactic is obvious to even a child.

But consistency in rationale was left behind by the right during Trump's first term.

[ducksalad]

Inconsistent? What do you mean, it's all been clearly and officially explained:

NOBODY is getting “off the hook” for the unfair Trade Balances, and Non Monetary Tariff Barriers, that other Countries have used against us, especially not China which, by far, treats us the worst! There was no Tariff “exception” announced on Friday. These products are subject to the existing 20% Fentanyl Tariffs, and they are just moving to a different Tariff “bucket.” The Fake News knows this, but refuses to report it. We are taking a look at Semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN in the upcoming National Security Tariff Investigations. What has been exposed is that we need to make products in the United States, and that we will not be held hostage by other Countries, especially hostile trading Nations like China, which will do everything within its power to disrespect the American People. We also cannot let them continue to abuse us on Trade, like they have for decades, THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! The Golden Age of America, which includes the upcoming Tax and Regulation Cuts, a substantial amount of which was just approved by the House and Senate, will mean more and better paying Jobs, making products in our Nation, and treating other Countries, in particular China, the same way they have treated us. The bottom line is that our Country will be bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[Sarcastr0]

Ever notice how few of the MAGA faithful engage when you post Trump's actual words?

[Michael P]

And stomping on international trade is good when the UN does it. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162176

[Sarcastr0]

Look over there!

Good lord you are transparent.

[Malika the Maiz]

I wonder why this didn’t cause market crashes? It’s almost like most of the financial world thought this was something different and less drastic… But hey, maybe it serves as a good whataboutism talking point for a guy like Mikie who won’t directly defend the policies of his Mad King but of course can’t muster getting off his knees to criticize them.

[Malika the Maiz]

Thank goodness our Defense Department is creating a robust warrior culture by….creating a safe space for future officers from the works of Maya Angelou?

“ Gone is “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Maya Angelou’s transformative best-selling 1970 memoir chronicling her struggles with racism and trauma.

Two copies of “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler are still on the shelves.

Gone is “Memorializing the Holocaust,” Janet Jacobs’s 2010 examination of how female victims of the Holocaust have been portrayed and remembered.

“The Camp of the Saints” by Jean Raspail is still on the shelves. The 1973 novel, which envisions a takeover of the Western world by immigrants from developing countries, has been embraced by white supremacists and promoted by Stephen Miller, a senior White House adviser.

The Trump administration’s decision to order the banning of certain books from the U.S. Naval Academy’s library is a case study in ideological censorship, alumni and academics say.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/us/politics/naval-academy-banned-books.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=g&pvid=E1BB538D-58AC-4FB3-A5E0-E9463AEA66A9

[Frank Drackman]

You left out "The Turner Diaries"

[Malika the Maiz]

But did they?

[John F. Carr]

Following a trip to the White House Bill Maher talks about how Trump has the personality you might want in a president, but only when he's not playing the role of the president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlopbcfXpQ

[Michael P]

The US Naval Academy has been busy discriminating against white applicants: https://x.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1911060185201680404

[Malika the Maiz]

The chart and statistics presented in the linked source as fact by Mikie are from the analysis by the plaintiffs’ (challenging the Naval Academy’s admissions) expert which were heavily criticized by defendant’s expert and eventually found to be “unreliable” by the court.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/students-for-fair-admissions-v-the-united-states-naval-academy-et-al-findings-of-fact-conclusions-of-law

[Sarcastr0]

You, uh, linked to Emil Kirkegaard. He’s…awful.

Not just racial IQ but lowering the age of consent and it goes on from there.

Malika took care of the substance, but good lord this link says a lot about your non VC media diet.

[Michael P]

How ironic that a resident denialist only has an ad hominem argument.

"the substance" is that the judge ignored evidence in favor of unsupported hand-waving.

To independently estimate admission rates at the Academy, Dr. Gurrea compiled admissions data, replicated Professor Arcidiacono’s analysis, and obtained very similar results.
[...]
Dr. Gurrea testified that “fit is how well the model explains the outcomes,” and noted Professor Arcidiacono’s model “does a fairly good job of explaining decisions.

Notably, Dr. Gurrea did not substantiate that the explanatory power ("fit") was reduced at all by including the confounding variables that supposedly made Prof. Arcidiacono's analysis "unreliable".

[Malika the Maiz]

A “look at the company you keep” is not an ad hominem Mikie (and Sarc was pretty explicit that that was his point).

[hobie]

Usually Michael clutches pearls much sooner. Today it took 30 minutes

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

Great Finger Wag, Komment Karen!

[Frank Drackman]

Med School's the same way, friend of mine (Yes I had "Friends") had good but not great MCAT Scores, if he was Black he'd have been courted by all the top Screw-els and had his pick, as a White Guy, he didn't just not get in, didn't get an Interview, and in his rejection letter they politely asked why he was wasting their time
Story has a happy ending though, he got a Finance degree and is a wealthy Investment Banker in Atlanta (yes, we have wealthy Investment Bankers in Atlanta, it's not all head bobbing Housewives)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Person with third grade writing skills still wants us to buy his stories of having a MD.

The veracity and writing skills of Trump, no wonder he’s such a fan!

[Brett Bellmore]

How hard is it to understand that Frank is just deliberately imitating a Rush Limbaugh shtick?

An annoying shtick, I'll grant you. But it's still just a shtick.

[Frank Drackman]

I listened to a fair amount of Rush Limbo, which "Shtick" (like the N-word with Whites, the Goyim should avoid the "Schtick" word) of his am I doing?

[MoreCurious]

It's more than a shtick. Drackman's goal seems to be to kill the VC by constantly poisoning it. Whether he's a third-grader or a med school grad, wouldn't we all be better off if he switched to a blog where he could actually make a meaningful contribution. To date, he has failed to provide any insight or make any thoughtful or useful comments on this law-related blog.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Which is why you should just ignore him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Rush did the grey box thing, too? Well, well, well...

[Martinned2]

You mean the Naval Academy that purged all the "woke" books from its library but kepts its copies of Mein Kampf, that Naval Academy?

[Frank Drackman]

To bad more people didn't read "MK" in the 30's, Hitler told everyone exactly what he was going to do, and did it, just like the Moose-lums do.

[Malika the Maiz]

So CBS This Morning had a piece on Crystal Wahpepah, a James Beard nominee chef. Her mission is to bring back/introduce/popularize Native American cooking, and especially to mentor/foster other Native American chefs. As part of this mission all of the other chefs at her restaurant are Native Americans (though from different tribes she points out).

Is this racist and discriminatory?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure, if they're excluding people based on race, rather than on their knowledge (or lack thereof) of Native American cooking.

Sociologically, we may expect that people with knowledge of Native American cooking will tend to be Native American. Which isn't sinister in the least.

What *would* be sinister is to suspect discrimination merely because the racial numbers have come out "wrong" and need to be redressed by government. (I guess you could call it cooking the books.)

But find a Black or Asian cook of equivalent skills who was turned down, and maybe the govt can look into it.

[Malika the Maiz]

So the mission of mentoring/fostering Native American chefs is a racist and discriminatory one? If Tiger Woods started an initiate to identify, train, mentor and sponsor black golfers with potential to be PGA golfers (there were four in 2022) would that demonstrate Woods and his effort to be racist and discriminatory?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the usual conflict between individual liberty and mandated non-discrimination, that originally led Goldwater to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights act. The more strictly we mandate non discrimination, the less free we become, gradually approaching that "all that is not forbidden is mandatory" dystopia.

[Martinned2]

Well, insisting on non-discrimination in employment makes employers less free and employers more free. Which one you care about more is up to you, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I'm quite strict in distinguishing between positive and negative rights, and denying the existence of the former as fundamental, I don't actually see a conflict here.

Positive rights are to rights theory what division by zero is to math. Once you admit their legitimacy, destructive contradictions enter the room.

[Martinned2]

If you're going to define liberty in such a way that the side of the dispute you like is by definition pro-liberty, you can definitely call yourself pro-liberty. Very convenient!

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

Wow, now you're bullying Brett.

POLICE!!! POLICEE!!!! We have a hate speech lawbreaker!!! Police!!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Look at this pussy (sorry to trigger the guy about something he never sees in person).

[bernard11]

I think you oversimplify.

An accused criminal has, in the US and many other places, a right to counsel. Positive right. Is this nonsense? Trial by jury? RIght to vote?

[Brett Bellmore]

Originally, that was a negative right, too. As government has grown, there's been a distinct trend for negative rights to be replaced with positive.

[Sarcastr0]

Those aren't phrased as a negative rights...how are you making this distinction?

And of course when it comes to immigrants, it's all positive rights.

No, you're not strict at all except insisting what you like is in the Constitution and what you don't isn't.

[David Nieporent]

An accused criminal has, in the US and many other places, a right to counsel. Positive right.

Strictly speaking, that's a negative right, too. You can't walk up to the government and say, "I demand a lawyer." The right in question is the right not to be prosecuted without a lawyer, not the right to a lawyer per se.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So the mission of mentoring/fostering Native American chefs is a racist and discriminatory one?"

Calling it "mentoring" does not make it not racist.

She is hiring based on their race. If she was "mentoring" whites by hiring only whites, you wouldn't be making these dumb arguments.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you find Israel to be racist (they base much policy on ethnicity)?

[Bob from Ohio]

Whataboutism! Those evil Jews, huh.

Israel does not have the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I thought we were discussing a US restaurant.

Israel also has religion based laws that would violate the 1A here. Its like its a different country or something.

[Frank Drackman]

What's race-ist is your name (the Amurican Indians call it "Corn", just like we do) and thinking that "Native Amurican" is better than the legal title "Amurican Indian".

[Malika the Maiz]

So, Frank, you claim your third grade writing abilities are because you’re a second generation immigrant ESL home. Yet you also claim to have gone to American public schools as a child, to have been in this country long enough to have served in the first Gulf War, etc.

Are you a full of crap troll? Or just not very bright and unable to learn basic English writing skills in decades?

Or, to put it in a form Frank would be comfortable with:

Are you a full of Crap Troll (
Or are you just not very Bright and unable to learn basic English writing skills in decades).?

[Frank Drackman]

Owe no man hate, envy no man's happiness.
I think that's Shakespeare, also heard it on "Charmed"

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, busted, troll!

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Malika, I'll pretend you don't have a (redacted) and give you the "Dope" (the old meaning as in "Information not generally known about a subject", in fact, in the 70's "The Sporting News" had an annual publication "Baseball Dope Book" which wasn't about PED's but about obscure Stats, like "OPS" and "WHIP")
I didn't come from an "ESL home" but for my first 2 yrs pretty much the only language I heard was German from my Mutter and the German family she lived with while she finished her Nursing Screw-el in ATL and Dad was doing Pilot training in OK, hence the fluent Deutsch.
Entirely Pubic Screwel Ed-jew-ma-cated, hence the poor Grammar, (We only had enough Shekels to send 1 kid to Private Screw-el, and my Sister was the "Smart" one, I was always playing with my Balls*) and in 8 yrs of Auburn/Med Screw-el you know how many Engrish Grammar classes I took? 2, both freshman year college, and made a "D" and a "C",
Last "Essay" I wrote was my Med Screw-el "Personal Statement" that my Sister wrote for me (Took the MCAT the year before they started requiring an Essay, would have been hard to fit my sister in my pocket)
And in Medicine in the old days we just scribbled Illegibly, and now it's all on a computer, and oh yeah, I'm a Lefty, which is a minority that actually faces real discrimination (there's Black MLB Catchers, Third/Second Basemen and Shortstops, how many Lefthanded ones) Try writing an Essay left handed, the ink gets all smudged and your hand turns blue/black
Born in 1962 (July 4th, get a more Amurican birthday than that) Gulf Wah was 1991, do the math,

* Baseballs, Foo-Bawls, Basket-bawls, Tennis, and yes, my own

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Sure, Frank. You lived in the US from childhood for many decades going to schools through the doctoral level but never learned to write past a third grade level. Sure. You’re either a troll or a moron (though both being true is also likely).

[Frank Drackman]

So pretend I'm Dr. Jill Biden, or Parkinsonian Joe (are Law Degrees "Doctoral"??) Oh, and sorry, don't have the money for the rent in your head, I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, the wounded troll flails lamely as it limps off!

[MoreCurious]

As always, Drackman shows up to continue his campaign to poison the VC and then clams up and slinks off when he gets challenged. In case you're wondering if anyone here thinks you're clever, they don't. And in case you're wondering if anyone here would miss you if you left, they won't.

[David Nieporent]

All I see are a bunch of gray boxes… and people insulting him in response to those gray boxes. Just ignore him.

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

He calls them "Native American" when they're no such sort. Meanwhile, here I am a Heritage, Non-GMO, Organic, and Pureblood American and he refers to call me that, which is 100% true.

[Malika the Maiz]

I refer to call you that?

“I love the poorly educated!” DJT

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

I'm visiting the UK, so you better watch out or I'll call the police for you illegally bullying me. Hate speech isn't Free speech.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m sure you’re used to being bullied, like most wimpy incels.

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

Police!!! Police!!! Halp!!! This is an illegal comment!!! Arrest him, and since he's White give him an advanced sentence!!!

[Malika the Maiz]

Like I said, this wimpy incel knows how to squeal.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Is this racist and discriminatory?"

Yes, she is making hiring decisions solely on race.

This has been another short answer to stupid questions.

[Malika the Maiz]

Or a stupid answer to a short question.

Do you think the United Negro College Fund raising money for scholarships for black students in 1950 was racist? By your simplistic metric it was.

[Bob from Ohio]

She is making hiring decisions on race. A textbook civil rights act violation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I hear there’s a killer crab omelet recipe they could try.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sounds like real Pow Wow Chow.

Is that racist?

[Armchair]

Thoughtcrime now a thing in the UK.

Punished for praying silently
Adam Smith-Connor is far from a criminal. He is a veteran of the British Army Reserves who admirably served his country in Afghanistan, and he has since become a physiotherapist who seeks to help his patients navigate various injuries.

In November 2022, Adam was silently praying near an abortion facility. He had his back to the building to make it clear that he was not trying to disrupt anyone’s privacy.

Adam was praying for his son, whom he lost to an abortion 22 years prior. He was also praying for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion that day.

Despite the fact that Adam was praying silently and not disrupting anyone, multiple officers approached him and began questioning his actions. “What is the nature of your prayer?” one asked. The officers ultimately decided that Adam was in violation of a “Public Spaces Protection Order,” which created a so-called “buffer zone” prohibiting prayer, counseling, and other acts or “approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services.” Put more plainly, Adam was being punished for a thoughtcrime, standing and praying quietly inside a censorship zone.

https://adflegal.org/article/uk-army-vet-appeals-conviction-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility/

[Malika the Maiz]

Seems to me it was placecrime (taking the ALDF’s word on the facts, and what’s the ALDF doing with UK cases?)

[Martinned2]

The officers ultimately decided that Adam was in violation of a “Public Spaces Protection Order,” which created a so-called “buffer zone” prohibiting prayer, counseling, and other acts or “approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services.” Put more plainly, Adam was being punished for a thoughtcrime, standing and praying quietly inside a censorship zone.

I think everyone other than Armchair can agree that conspicuously praying outside an abortion clinic is reasonably described as an act of disapproval, and very much not a "thoughtcrime". But for some reason this guy's case seems to have been taken up by radical right nutcases in other countries, who seem conspicuously uninterested in the beams in their own eyes.

[Michael P]

Being arrested and threatened with jail for (silently!) expressing "disapproval" is thoughtcrime. The more observant will note that the police had to ask him what was going on inside his head before they decided he was guilty.

What planet do you come from?

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

Eurozone where up is down and thin mustaches and even thinner belts are all the rage!

[Martinned2]

A planet where women should have access to reproductive healthcare without being bullied and intimidated, which is an ideal that is unfortunately not yet achieved everywhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

Euphemisms, is there anything they can't do?

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can't tell if somebody is bullying and intimidating without asking them what sort of prayer they're silently engaged in, then they're simply not bullying and intimidating.

So, yes, it was thought crime.

It's sad that some women will feel bullied and intimidated by the mere knowledge that somebody somewhere disapproves of what they're doing. Perhaps this is because on some level they, too, disapprove of what they're doing, and that knowledge gets in the way of keeping the shame buried?

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

Well, listen, that's the exact same argument the APA makes as to why the LGBTQ degenerates suffer so much.

Not because of some diagnosed mental illness like the days or yore, but because of the "social stigma" induced by the mere knowledge that somebody, somewhere disapproves (e.g. their parents), of their lifestyle choice.

So why can't it be extended to women?

[Martinned2]

You're welcome to allow women to be bullied (and, per the above, apparently beaten up) in your own country. Just don't come to another country to tell them they're doing free speech wrong.

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

You disapprove of my Normal, 1776 Non-GMO Heritage lifestyle. Stop bullying me!!!

POLICE!!! POLICE!!! This foreigner is bullying me!!!!!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Per the above, the guy was silently praying with his back to the facility.

[Martinned2]

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say I'd do what he did, I said that he was arrested for silently praying, not for beating somebody up. And that it was thought crime, because they had to ask him what he was silently praying about before deciding whether or not to arrest him.

[Martinned2]

No, they didn't "have to ask him", they just did ask him, because outside the US police don't just go around arresting people willy-nilly. They try to start a conversation first.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And when thou prayest..."

"The Devil may quote Scripture for his purposes" seems apt here.

[Martinned2]

It's not my fault that this guy was doing prayer wrong. He was making a very loud point, just like that football coach from Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, and communicating with The Lord had nothing to do with it.

[Sarcastr0]

"The safe zone, introduced in October 2022, bans activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils."
...
"On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
The facts without the strident editorialism.

Textbook civil disobedience.

[Michael P]

Textbook totalitarianism.

[Sarcastr0]

The point of civil disobedience is to openly break the law and accept the consequences.

Do you think when schools have laws like this it's totalitarianism?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think when schools have laws like this it's totalitarianism?"

What laws? This was in a public place, not private property.

Oh, since when do schools have "laws"?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you think when schools have laws like this it's totalitarianism?"

Laws like what?

Laws against praying? Totalitarianism.

Laws against preventing Jewish students from going to class? Not totalitarianism.

I can understand why it's hard for an antisemite to see the difference.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The law was enacted by the previous government, you know, the Conservatives...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts once jailed a pregnant woman until her child was born so as to protect the child.

[Bob from Ohio]

"conspicuously praying "

conspicuously!

Explain how silently standing is "conspicuously" doing anything but standing? Little thought balloons come out of the head?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ah, you think it was mere coincidence that he happened to be praying there. Right?

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

Where's Sacastr0 to gaslight, patriot-shame, and tell you that's just an anecdote!!!

[Frank Drackman]

Thats why we fought 2 wars against those fucks

[Sarcastr0]

We have something similar about abortion clinics, eh?

Anyhow, I understand why Europe is a bit tighter with their speech restrictions than the US's 1A culture, but I disagree with it.

But MAGA has eagerly and authoritatively cut down on free speech over here way too much for this complaint to be anything more than hypocritical deflection.

[ThePublius]

And how has MAGA eagerly and authoritatively cut down on free speech over here way too much?

My recollection is that it was Obama and Biden attacking free speech, vis a vis social media, and Obama's attacks on the free press.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/barack-obamas-war-free-press

[Sarcastr0]

A red herring. Yet again.
Deflecting is such a weak defense it's nearly a concession you don't care about liberty when it's your side attacking it.

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

Finger wag, patriot-shame. Can you edit your comment and sprinkle in some gaslighting for the Sarcastr0 trifecta?

I need it for my bingo card.

[ThePublius]

So, you can't answer the question "And how has MAGA eagerly and authoritatively cut down on free speech over here way too much?"

I didn't think so.

[Sarcastr0]

You really are thick:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/14/monday-open-thread-101/?comments=true#comment-11001321

[ThePublius]

First, typical of you to insult me.

Second, what you posted is pretty thin gruel, no sources, no substantiation, no proof, or even intimation. Rejected!

[Sarcastr0]

You post that you want leftists PURGED.

Whining about name calling when you want me delt with just makes you a fragile authoritarian loser, as well as being very thick.

And then you want evidence Trump is going after law firms for speech?

Yeah, you are a sealioning fragile authoritarian loser, as well as being very thick.

I do not have time to answer questions I know you have the answer to. Fuck off for a while. I'll rotate in some other MAGA idiot to keep my comments diverse.

[Commenter_XY]

So...no cite of objective data. Once again.

[ThePublius]

Typical Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

I see a series of reply guys I've muted are really riled by my not indulgent TP's laziness.

FFS he got the pretty equanimicatious Noscitur to note his combo of insistent-ignorant-incurious.

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

Everyone, come give Sarcastr0 his Good Boy Points! He's muted a bunch of patriots so he wouldn't be offending by their offensive patriotism!!!

Good Boy, Sacastr0. You're such a good boy. *tussles hair*

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

His proof of the entire MAGA movement's opinion is one comment on this board from Monday.

lmao, now when anyone else makes a similar claim in reverse, he instantly starts sea-lioning and demanding EVIDEEEEENNNCEEE!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"We have something similar about abortion clinics, eh?

The FACE Act only bans blocking and actual interference. If it banned silent praying a distance away from the entrance, it would be a 1A violation, no?

[Noscitur a sociis]

We have something similar about abortion clinics, eh?

Uh, no, we do not. Being a free country, our governments cannot criminalize expressing disapproval of abortion, and that’s so obvious that as far as I know no government has tried.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not the facts of the case. It wasn't about someone randomly expressing disapproval, it was violating a safe zone law. And it seems like it was civil disobedience; he wanted to get arrested.

"The safe zone, introduced in October 2022, bans activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils."
...
"On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused."

[Noscitur a sociis]

And the reason his conduct, such as it was, was deemed to violate the terms of the safe zone is that he was expressing disapproval of abortion.

And it seems like it was civil disobedience

And? We still don’t have laws in the U.S. that would permit this arrest, which is a good thing, and to the extent he was trying to call attention to the unjust laws in the U.K., that’s also a good thing. As a sagacious person once said, “Civil disobedience d[o]es not have an obligation to keep you feeling comfy.”

[Sarcastr0]

We have abortion buffer zone laws in the US. The Supreme Court has upheld them.

What distinction are you making?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Some American jurisdictions do place special rules on what people can do near abortion providers. In order to pass muster under Hill v. Colorado, those rules must be (and, as far as I’m aware, in all American jurisdictions that impose them are) much, much more limited than the rules being enforced against the defendant here: to the best of my knowledge, no American jurisdiction has a law that would even arguably reach his conduct.

[Sarcastr0]

So now we're just line drawing about distance.

"Thoughtcrime now a thing in the UK" is just melodrama.

In general, I like where America comes down on the side of robust speech protections.
But even putting aside the current administration's anti-speech activities, I find the 'Europe is a tyranny of thoughtcrime and speech restrictions" to be the narcissism of small details.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So now we're just line drawing about distance.

Incorrect. Doing what this guy did on public property could not constitutionally be criminalized anywhere in the United States, no matter how close you were to an abortion provider; that fact is so obvious that as far as I know no American government has attempted to criminalize it; that fact is something that should make us glad to be American; and the fact that other countries don’t do that is yet another reminder that our status as best and freest country in the world isn’t likely to change any time soon.

[Sarcastr0]

So the distinction your making isn't about the radius, its the scope of conduct being regulated.

The UK order:
"Safe access buffer zones will make it illegal for anyone to do anything that intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision to use abortion services, obstructs them, or causes harassment or distress to someone using or working at these premises. The law will apply within a 150 metre radius of the abortion service provider. "

The statute in Hill v. Colorado:
"(3) No person shall knowingly approach another person within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of one hundred feet from any entrance door to a health-care facility."

I'm not seeing a ton of difference.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm not seeing a ton of difference."

150 meters is 492.126 feet, about 5 times as Colorado

You also have to do something in Colorado. The UK one affects jut standing there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As the Court explained in Hill, the Colorado ordinance only “prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas.” The UK orders/statute do all of those things.

In theory, a law like the UK’s could be read very narrowly, which might not be a huge threat to freedom of expression. But British authorities have been very clear that they intend to apply the bans very broadly, and this case illustrates that they weren’t joking.

Here’s the UK Supreme Court on the topic (in a case, incidentally, brought by the attorney general of Northern Ireland who thought the law might violate even the insipid European free speech protections): https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0077_judgment_5438adad0f.pdf

If you think that’s something that exists anywhere in the U.S., I guess I give up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"We have something similar about abortion clinics, eh?"

No, we don't have any laws where cops have to ask, "What is the nature of your prayer?" to determine if the law is being violated.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor did these cops "have to ask" that question in order to enforce the law, as Parliament had created it.

They were talking to the guy for over an hour--I'm sure they asked a lot of unnecessary questions during that time.

[hobie]

So you don't like it when a government uses the power of the state to punish people for expression?

Noted

[M L]

Has been for a while. There are many such cases.

https://x.com/TPointUK/status/1858119890466418925

[Martinned2]

There's an interesting question, albeit one that is slightly premature: If the US withdraws from NATO, does that mean it will have to give up its military base on Greenland?

https://www.ejiltalk.org/us-withdrawal-from-nato-and-its-impact-on-access-to-greenland/

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

No, because we're going to make Greenland a territory as part of our NATO exit. Fuck those European freeloading un-democratic tyrants.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the remaining NATO would have enough balls to do anything if we didn't, and what about the bases in UK, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Greece?

[John F. Carr]

My recollection from NATO expansion talks is being a NATO member does not require a country to have American military bases. The base must be authorized by some other agreement between Denmark and the USA.

[Martinned2]

For sure. But the question is whether the US withdrawing from NATO would be the kind of change of circumstances that would count as a fundamental change of circumstances so as to make the US-Denmark agreement in question void.

[bernard11]

How could it be void unless Denmark objects?

Which they might.

[John F. Carr]

If this treaty is still in effect it may not survive the fall of NATO: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

[ThePublius]

Update on the British Steel story: here's an excellent, up to date article with some history, too:

https://edconway.substack.com/p/the-strange-unsettling-story-of-british

[Mr. Bumble]

An excellent piece that I read earlier this morning, although I don't think many here will bother.

[Martinned2]

It's fascinating that they recalled Parliament and passed a bill in a single day, rather than simply nationalising the company/assets. At least no one suggested declaring some kind of emergency...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/13/contents/enacted

[SRG2]

Teen killed parents as part of Trump assassination plot, says FBI

A high school student from Wisconsin killed his parents as part of a larger plot to assassinate US President Donald Trump, the FBI has said.

But wait!

In writings found by investigators, the suspect expressed white supremacist beliefs and called for Trump's assassination to start a political revolution, according to the search warrant.

[jb]

Finally, an actual false flag plot.

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

Do you think it was that same FBI agent who did the Whitmer Fednapping and J6 Fedsurrection false flags?

[Malika the Maiz]

You mean a non-existent one?

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

Steven D'Antuono.

Even though I see it constantly, it's still quite stunning how low-information you people are.

[David Nieporent]

Weird how Trump pardoned all those federal agents who broke into the Capitol on J6.

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

Uh, two things. You're mixing up your memories.

1.) Biden pardoned all the lying criminal police officers.
2.) The federal agents instigating J6 didn't get charged or, if they mistakenly did they got apologies from judges like Boasburg (see Ray Epps).

[David Nieporent]

The federal agents instigating J6 didn't get charged

So you're saying that the 1,000+ people prosecuted were not "false flag" federal agents?

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

Correct. For the most part, they were innocent Americans trying to stop the steal. That's why the DC Demons tortured them so much.

[SRG2]

Hahahaha! But seriously folks...

[Commenter_XY]

That young man has several screws loose in his head. Murder your parents?

Then again, anything coming from the FBI, I take with a huge grain of NaCl.

[rloquitur]

You know what's interesting---Israel seized a bunch of land from Syria. It's not going to give it back. And it is off the news radar.

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

Where is the Russia/Ukraine type outrage?

... that's rhetorical, we know where.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the Syria buffer zone, and the reason they seized it is that Syria lost control of it, and it was being used as a base for attacks on Israel.

Apparently, at this point, the Syrian government is defunct. The previous government fell, and the rebels have not yet gotten effective control over the country.

[Martinned2]

The current government has more control over the territory than anyone has had for more than a decade.

[Frank Drackman]

Which is "None", yes, we understand the concept of negative numbers.

[Sarcastr0]

Apparently, at this point, the Syrian government is defunct

Do you have a source for this? I don't believe that is correct.

[Martinned2]

He means Assad's regime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Presently what is left of Assad's regime is fighting the insurgents for control of the country, with neither seeming to have a decisive advantage.

Whichever wins will probably be worse than Assad, and that's a depressingly impressive accomplishment.

[Sarcastr0]

If you don't know what's going on, either don't post or just Google.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel just got a little bigger, Brett. They will never give uo Mt Hermon.

It will be annexed.

[Malika the Maiz]

Take what you want is a great defense to land grabbing claims!

[Commenter_XY]

More like, FAFO. The only language arabs understand is losing land.

[ducksalad]

And therefore, you should understand why Hamas and Hezbollah are more popular than the PA. They are the only organizations that ever managed to claw back any land.

[ThePublius]

Unexpectedly: Modelo Owner Complains Trump’s Crackdown on Illegal Immigration Hurts Sales

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/04/13/modelo-owner-complains-trumps-crackdown-on-illegal-immigration-hurts-sales/

[ducksalad]

Almost every week, 60 Minutes, which is being sued for Billions of Dollars for the fraud they committed in the 2024 Presidential Election with their Interview of Failed Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, mentions the name “TRUMP” in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s “BROADCAST” tops them all. They did not one, but TWO, major stories on “TRUMP,” one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is a War that would never have happened if the 2020 Election had not been RIGGED, in other words, if I were President and, the other story was having to do with Greenland, casting our Country, as led by me, falsely, inaccurately, and fraudulently. I am so honored to be suing 60 Minutes, CBS Fake News, and Paramount, over their fraudulent, beyond recognition, reporting. They did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn’t work for them. They are not a “News Show,” but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as “News,” and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing. They should lose their license! Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior. CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[Malika the Maiz]

The Mad King has thin skin and little care for speech rights.

[rloquitur]

Well, this is what happens when someone is prosecuted for lobbying the President of the Senate and individual lawmakers to vote a certain way.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m sure you’re familiar with this question, but wtf are you babbling about?

[ducksalad]

He's referring to January 6th prosecutions.

I'm almost ashamed that I understood.

[Sarcastr0]

Amazing translation, ducksalad - I see it now!

[JasonT20]

Oh, yeah. I see it now... "lobbying"

...

[Martinned2]

But sure, keep coming to Europe to explain that we're doing free speech wrong.

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

Stop illegally bullying him. You're breaking the law.

[ThePublius]

You think Europe is doing free speech right? Ha, ha, ha!

[JasonT20]

I seem to have missed the Presidents or PMs of European countries threatening to pull the broadcast license of networks for not bowing to them.

Maybe Martinned isn't saying that Europe is doing it right, just that we are no position to say that they are doing it wrong when we are doing it wrong.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are we counting Hungary? That seems a little unfair.

Anyway, I'm sure, "Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment" was just meant as the gentle encouragement of impartial and efficient law enforcement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whoever owns CBS needs Trump's approval to sell it.

[Martinned2]

I guess this will be DOGE's next target...

Hiring Subsidies for the Disadvantaged: Evidence from the Work Opportunity Tax Credit

(...) We find null effects on hiring, employment, and earnings across all specifications. Employers hire the same workers as in the absence of subsidies, and subsidies operate as a pure transfer to the firms.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Q-bpMIXPrhVYpcVII2eGfxSSEyzh8aX/view

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

Why shouldn't that be reformed? Too fascist not to let Big Business rent seek like that?

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

This latest America Last garbage from the Left is just mindblowing:
>Why Europe Fears a Flood of Cheap Goods From China

>President Trump’s tariffs on China could lead to a hazardous scenario for European countries: the dumping of artificially cheap products that could undermine local industries.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/world/europe/europe-china-dumping-tariffs.html

Artificially cheap Chinese products in the US? Yes!!!
Artificially cheap Chinese products in the EU? OMG THAT'S SO UNFAIR!! DONALD DRUMPFFFFF!!!!!!!

[JasonT20]

You know what would really help the U.S. in a trade war with China? Having a lot of allies among the other nations that trade with China.

Oops...

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

Did you see that part of how it harms the other countries to trade with China the same way we have been? Which is why they won't.

Or did you miss it? It was kinda key to my post.

[JasonT20]

Did you see that part of how it harms the other countries to trade with China the same way we have been?

That doesn't quite match what I'm reading in the article. The article seems to be saying that Europe wasn't seeing China dumping artificially cheap products on them, because they were doing that to us. Now, they worry that China will start trying to do that to them. Why would that happen, though, I wonder? Why isn't China dumping on them already? I would think that if it wasn't happening to Europe because they already have rules in place to prevent that, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about.

Maybe, the reason for them to worry is that supply chains aren't that simple. Maybe, the reason for them to worry is that international trade altogether isn't as simple as Trump would have us believe.

My point is that having a lot of trusted trading partners is a benefit because that covers a larger portion of all supply chains and consumer markets, giving us greater bargaining power with those on the outside that want to take advantage of us or otherwise boost their own economies at our expense. (And it is especially important to have a lot of trusted allies when those nations actively want to harm us as a primary goal, not just as a side effect of their own efforts to climb up higher.)

Trump and his followers seem to think that the U.S. is just so awesome and powerful that we don't need allies unless they are clearly subordinate to us and work for our benefit more than their own.

[Martinned2]

In many sectors, the correct answer is that if China wants to subsidise our consumption, we should let them.

[Jmaie]

"Trump and his followers seem to think that the U.S. is just so awesome and powerful that we don't need allies unless they are clearly subordinate to us and work for our benefit more than their own."

To be fair, the U.S. hasn't really treated our allies as equals for quite a while. It IS more apparent at the moment, though...

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone here get added to the Signal chat on Iran?

I wonder what Miller will end up deciding.

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

How long until you add a China flag next to your Ukraine flag and pronouns in your bluesky bio?

[ducksalad]

Seriously:

I think this is one issue where Miller's influence is limited. Trump thinks ground wars are for suckers, and has delusions that he is up for a Nobel Peace Prize*.

I'm betting he'll settle for something roughly approximating the JCPOA, with some kind of business/ownership deal on the side so he can claim he's won the money again. Trump Kishk Island Resort or something like that.

Then he, and his followers here, can spin it as a genius victory and he can fly to Stockholm to give his medal acceptance speech.

At least I hope so.

-------------------
*I'm all in favor of giving him one if it could coax him into doing anything incrementally less stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

I dunno - Miller was in the Yemen chat; dominant even.

I do agree that we probably won't see boots on the ground.

Not sure about some light bombing to look tough.

[M L]

Cringe . . .

________
This Is CNN: Taylor Lorenz Swoons over ‘Handsome’ Mangione

Disgraced former Washington Post reporter and erstwhile Vox Media podcaster Taylor Lorenz has gushed over accused murderer Luigi Mangione and defended his growing legion of fans.

Lorenz heaped praise on accused UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin Mangione while slamming the media for criticizing the army of youths who consider him a hero or role model, declaring he’s “handsome,” “smart,” “revolutionary” and “morally good” in a discussion about the accused’s online fandom.

“It’s hilarious to see these millionaire media pundits on TV clutching their pearls about someone stanning a murderer when this is the United States of America — as if we don’t lionize criminals,” she told CNN in a bubbly interview.

“As if we don’t stan murderers of all sorts. We give them Netflix shows,” she added.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/04/14/taylor-lorenz-swoons-over-handsome-accused-murderer-luigi-mangione/

[rloquitur]

Next time, Taylor is going to take care of herself before talking about this guy. She seemed ready to climax then and there.

[M L]

Hard to disagree . . .
__________
ATHENS, Greece — Greek Vice President and Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis told Breitbart News exclusively that President Donald Trump’s trade actions against the Chinese Communist Party, while difficult for much of the rest of the world, are important to help the United States lead the West into a new era of prosperity.

“I believe in the West,” Georgiadis said in an exclusive interview last week in his office here. “The West will not survive without a strong United States. The United States is the natural leader of the West. So, for me as a politician that believes in the West, a strong United States is a strong West. A weak United States is a weak West. I hope he will succeed.”

Georgiadis also said that while tariffs are a “very difficult decision” for all sides, Trump is trying to rebalance the U.S. economy after decades of decline. He said the weaknesses the West faces in its supply chain were exposed during the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/04/14/exclusive-greeces-vice-president-rooting-for-trump-in-trade-war-with-china-the-west-will-not-survive-without-a-strong-united-states/

[bernard11]

Hard to disagree?

Most of it is incoherent garbage.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you dispute the bit about supply chain weakness being exposed during Covid?

You know, it IS possible for someone to disagree with you, and none the less be perfectly coherent. As is demonstrated here.

[M L]

Right. I think Adam Smith counts as coherent, for instance. Smug "Econ 101" guys like bernard11 disagree.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240110223328/https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/07/28/interview-adam-smith-tariffs/

[Sarcastr0]

You may want to update your Economics from the 1700s. There have been some insights since then.

David Ricardo did quite a number on the mercantalism Smith espouses, but 50 years later.
I guess he isn't name checked by Breitbart so you may not have heard of him.

And then, you know, modernity.

[M L]

Please, since you are knowledgeable on the subject, go ahead and explain it for us in your own words. Why for example, does it no longer make sense to "lay some burden upon foreign industry, for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country." And why does it not make sense to offset domestic taxes and regulations with tariffs so as to "leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it."

Genuinely would love to hear an explanation.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point here is that there's a huge difference between "I disagree" and "That's incoherent!".

[Sarcastr0]

Brett:
Breitbart cheerleading Greece was incoherent.

Adam Smith was just wrong.
------
No, ML, I'm not going to walk you through the theory of comparative advantage. Feel free to look it up, like I did.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tfjk is a fun start.

ML has already already moved goalposts from
OG: tariffs against China being good for American prosperity
New: tariffs in certain sectors being good for American security.

This is the incoherence of a shitposter.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was able to read said cheerleading, and understood every sentence. You might disagree, but it was NOT "incoherent".

[M L]

Of course not. Literally nobody thinks you actually understand anything. If you did, you could explain it, in less words than you use to avoid doing so.

[Sarcastr0]

ML has already already moved goalposts from
OG: tariffs against China being good for American prosperity
New: tariffs in certain sectors being good for American security.
----
You have no interest in learning; you're sealioning.

[David Nieporent]

Do you dispute the bit about supply chain weakness being exposed during Covid?

Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow. I know that denying the obvious IS kind of your gig here, but denial really isn't just a river in Egypt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Greek govenrment is well known for its sophisticated understanding of macroeconomics, so consider this pressed in gold.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Was going to say something similar

[Ridgeway]

Personally, I am more curious about what the Greek Finance Minister thinks of our measles outbreak issues.

[David Nieporent]

Greek Vice President and Health Minister Adonis Georgiadis told Breitbart News exclusively that President Donald Trump’s trade actions against the Chinese Communist Party, while difficult for much of the rest of the world, are important to help the United States lead the West into a new era of prosperity.

How desperate does one have to be to find someone, anyone, who will defend the tariffs that are universally mocked by intelligent people that one touts an "exclusive" interview with… the Greek vice president and health minister? Really had to burn through the rolodex for that one. What's next, asking a guy who runs a Hallmark store in Bismarck, North Dakota about our foreign policy towards Thailand?

[Ridgeway]

More like asking the Treasurer of Lawrence Kansas her opinion on a dispute between Greece and the EU on the minimum fat content of feta.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump thinks we've been living in "hard times", and that he's the "strong man", when actually...

Sorry, Adonis. The US will not be around to help you this time.

[M L]

More and more immigration "fuels democracy" and "is essential for democracy itself" according to the open borders lobby.

If I'm not mistaken, we had democracy in, say, the 1920s, for example. We had democracy before the 1965 INA turbocharged immigration rates.

I guess by "democracy" they mean something other than what I think that word means.

___________
Laurene Powell Jobs’ Deputy: Hit Americans with ‘Surround Sound’ PR to Get More Migration

Americans must be hit by “surround-sound” PR to help reverse the public’s rejection of migration, says a co-executive director of a lobby group funded by billionaire heiress Laurene Powell Jobs.

“Pro-immigrant messaging must be strategic, relentless, and funded to scale at the speed of modern media consumption,” director Beatriz Lopez wrote in an April 9 article.

The goal is to manufacture an apparent public “consensus” for more migration, according to Lopez:

" coordinated [PR] content creates a sense of consensus — giving people a familiar framework to fall back on when forming opinions. Repetition isn’t noise; it’s how narratives take hold....
A well-informed public that sees immigrants as neighbors, workers, and contributors is essential for democracy itself...
Pro-immigrant forces will succeed if they offer an alternative vision of a modern immigration system centered on citizenship and safety that empowers working families and fuels democracy."

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/04/14/laurene-powell-jobs-deputy-promote-migration-with-surround-sound-pr-campaigns/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Immigration is probably the easiest way to grow a country with an otherwise declining birthrate.

If only the US had a long tradition of assimilating immigrants and growing stronger because of it...

[M L]

Haha!

Guy attempts to have AI-generated character appear as his lawyer in court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkmfZPt-gaw

[Commenter_XY]

How many more law firms whose staff members assisted the political prosecutions during 45's tenure will bend the knee this week? 😉

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Both knees, surely?

[Commenter_XY]

This antisemite looks like a real prize.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pa-governors-mansion-attack-suspect-cody-balmer-admitted-harboring-hatred-toward-shapiro-police

Assuming he is sane (questionable), what kind of prison sentence does Balmer get? I assume he would be an old man, when paroled.

[Brett Bellmore]

However many years he spends in prison, it's probably not going to be enough of them, unless he dies in prison. (Ideally of old age.) Arson of an occupied building is attempted murder, and a particularly painful sort of murder at that.

[ThePublius]

I'm not so sure he's an antisemite.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't care one way or the other. He's an arsonist, that's enough.

[TaioF920]

Funny how Shapiro didn't seem to care when courthouses, Wendy's, stores and other buildings were burned in the summer of 2020, or when Tesla dealerships were firebombed recently. He's a piece of shit hypocrite.

[Estragon]

“Balmer was asked specifically what he would have done if Governor Shapiro found him inside of his residence, to which (Balmer) advised he would have beaten him with his hammer,”

I wonder if this, too, will become a laugh line at Trump rallies?

[ThePublius]

NYTimes:El Salvador’s Leader Says He Won’t Return Man Who Was Mistakenly Deported
In an appearance with President Trump, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador said that the question of returning a Maryland man deported in error was “preposterous.”

Now what?

[Brett Bellmore]

Now the judge orders the US to go to war with El Salvador, I suppose.

I was half expecting this; Burkele knows quite well that Trump doesn't WANT the guy back, and is only asking for his return because of a judge's order. So he probably figures he's doing Trump a favor.

[Commenter_XY]

Pres Bukele is a very sophisticated observer of US politics. He no doubt enjoyed today, in the Oval Office, immensely.

[Estragon]

“very sophisticated observer”

This is sort of laughable. He is certainly acting as if there will never be a different administration in power. How on earth it serves El Salvador’s— and his personal— long term interests to interfere in US domestic politics and to aid MAGA in defying US courts is unclear to me.

[TaioF920]

He's not a Maryland man. He's a Salvadorian who was squatting in the U.S.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lower level officials start fighting lawsuits seeking personal judgments against them for refouling a person to a torture camp in violation of the implementing statutes of the UN Convention against Torture.

https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1911431308003230179?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

https://x.com/dilanesper/status/1910475253157101829?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

Trump may be immune under our constitution; but the pilots, ICE agents, Steven miller, aren’t.

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

Well, first you have to redefine a regular high security prison as a "torture camp".

But otherwise, great analysis by that Esper fella!

[John F. Carr]

Doesn't the Westfall Act protect all the federal employees?

[Brett Bellmore]

Has it actually been established that this prison in El Salvador IS a "torture camp".

I mean, I'm sure it's not a vacation resort, but it takes more than lousy food and thin mattresses to qualify as "torture".

Note: I'm quite open to the possibility that it really does qualify as such, I'm just curious if you've got any evidence it does, besides people not wanting to be there.

[Martinned2]

It depends on whose definition you use. I can see how it might be only marginally more unpleasant than the state prisons in many US states, but then those prison conditions are the reason why the US often struggles to get even non-capital criminals extradited from Europe.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, now we wait for Trump to grow a conscience, and then the illegally detained individual will be returned forthwith.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

NYT Live Update:

"Deportations: In a visit to the Oval Office on Monday, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador said he would not order the return to the United States of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported. Despite a court order instructing the U.S. to facilitate the man’s return, senior White House officials said it was up to El Salvador to decide whether to do so."

During a Q&A, Bukele replied:

"How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous."

Trump also was quoted on tape saying to Bukele that "homegrown criminals are next" and talking about how El Salvador will need to build "about five more places."

Bukele's offer to take people included American citizens.

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

Well, now it's time for that totally unbiased judge to order the invasion of El Salvador.

[Krayt]

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lot of people don’t seem to realize that they’re developing, whether intentionally or not, the legal and political infrastructure for an extermination campaign.

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

Oh my! That's the most horrible in the entire parade of horribles! It's the beginnings of an extermination campaign!

Listen, LTG. Clearly not. I've been reporting you to DOGE for months and you're still here...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Under the legal regime the US government is now proposing, it could send citizens to a foreign country, without a hearing, where it has arranged for that country to kill them. So long as they are outside the border by the time a court action is initiated, there is no judicial process in the US available to them. Further no court can order or inquire into the arrangements made with the foreign country.

Which part of this is incorrect?

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

Why would they need all that extra rigamarole? They can just ship them to another country then drone strike 'em.

Citizen or not. Doesn't matter. Totally legal.

[Krayt]

Disasterbaters vs. Poe's Law, The Thread.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just because they’re setting up the legal infrastructure for it doesn’t mean it will happen. I just think any honest assessment of the legal arguments compels this realization.

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

On what planet can a US judge order a foreign nation to do anything?

That's not some new legal infrastructure, that's just basic reality.

[LawTalkingGuy]

She’s not, she’s ordering the Trump administration to do stuff.

But in any event: “I can send citizens to another country to be executed and there is no judge or law that can stop me” is the legal infrastructure for an extermination campaign.

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

Are you skipping any key elements to the Government's position on this matter?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The governments position is that judges can’t order them to do anything regarding foreign affairs even if it’s as easy as a phone call.

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

So yes. You're missing the part about "not being a citizen" and about "being a member of a recognized terrorist organization" and about "being authorized by Congress".

Makes sense you're so upset.
---
"The governments position is that judges can’t order them to do anything regarding foreign affairs even if it’s as easy as a phone call."

That's also correct. Last I checked no judge can impose their own foreign policy prerogatives. And that's not some new legal theory.

[David Nieporent]

The governments position is that judges can’t order them to do anything regarding foreign affairs even if it’s as easy as a phone call.

It's worse than that. The government's position is that providing information about whether it has made such a phone call, as well as what might have been said on that phone call, is also outside the purview of the courts.

[Estragon]

The endgame is clear here: CECOT as the new Manzanar

[LawTalkingGuy]

You're missing the part about "not being a citizen" and about "being a member of a recognized terrorist organization" and about "being authorized by Congress".

Those are the facts as alleged by the government. But the legal theory sweeps much more broadly. Again: he’s saying he can send citizens to foreign camps and no one can make him bring them back.

[Estragon]

I have the voltage guy boxed so I can’t see the original comment but I want to highlight that this

“being a member of a recognized terrorist organization”

is not an accurate characterization of the 2019 orders regarding this individual.

Besides, Trump likes terrorists— for example, Stewie Rhodes.

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

>I have the voltage guy boxed so I can’t see the original comment but I want to highlight that this

Hey, will someone award Estrogen his Good Boy Points? He's so pure, he doesn't read or listen to a SINGLE contrary opinion!

>is not an accurate characterization of the 2019 orders regarding this individual.

That's because the terrorist designation came in 2025. That's how time works. D'uh.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So yes. You're missing the part about "not being a citizen" and about "being a member of a recognized terrorist organization" and about "being authorized by Congress"."

If the government, through an administrative error, deports a US citizen who is not a member of a recognized terrorist organization, under circumstances not authorized by Congress, what can a judge order the government to do?

I'm not sure what the remedy should be, but ltg is correct wrt the scope of the theory. But it's not clear to me that a judge should be able to order the President to make a phone call to a foreign leader and as for someone to be returned, if the President doesn't want him returned.

[bernard11]

None of it.

But hey. You're going to have some oopsies.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Others handwave if they don't actively support it, especially while using dehumanizing terms for the people involved.

Plus, there's that annoying blogger with an open immigration fetish (/snark).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And a lot of people do...

[Estragon]

“Trump also was quoted on tape saying to Bukele that "homegrown criminals are next" and talking about how El Salvador will need to build "about five more places.”

The actual quote is alarming enough— as is the fact that it was obviously pre-planned with tape rolling.

The president is openly talking about sending US citizens to foreign concentration camps. That is bad— insanely so. But for me the worst part about this is the reaction of the other Americans in the room: laughter.

[Estragon]

Also: Trump may not be right about much, but let’s just say he has C_XY completely pegged here:

“People eat it up, that’s what people want to see.”

[ducksalad]

To be fair to C_XY and some of the other less insane Trump supporters here, they've either claimed or implied that doing it to citizens would be a different category, perhaps even a red line they wouldn't condone crossing. They claim quotes like today's are mere trolling. Distracting the libs so they won't interfere with making the country great again.

If and when Trump does cross their red line we'll see where they stand. I would hope a few will say it's illegitimate, unacceptable, and the courts and Congress need to escalate until it is resolved.

But I'm afraid we'd mostly see a mix of (a) moving the red line, e.g. setting it at natural born 3rd generation citizens, (b) lying or denial about the facts of the case, (c) gibberish about invasions and wartime powers, and finally (d) smirking proclamations that you can't do shit about it.

[Estragon]

“perhaps even a red line they wouldn't condone”

They will be justifying sending US citizens to foreign concentration camps, mark my words. Brett already has!

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

Is it people like you? That would be sweet!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"less insane Trump supporters here"

A thin qualifier especially with the last paragraph.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also arresting people AT citizenship interviews.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mohsen-mahdawi-arrested-citizenship-interview_n_67fd60b1e4b09c14eff576a0

What a low life POS move.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A federal judge, responding to a request from Mahdawi’s lawyers, quickly issued a temporary restraining order that he “not be removed from the United States or moved out of the territory of the District of Vermont pending further order of this Court.”

Hope there is no "administrative error" that leads him to be deported to the dangerous place he is being protected from resulting in "our bad ... sorry, out of our hands now."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why wouldn't there be? Donnie will have their backs...

(Maybe! cf., the J6 "hostages" were infamously allowed to rot in jail for four years, as that timeline suited Trump just fine.)

[Frank Drackman]

Hit the road Jack! or umm, "Mohsen"

[SRG2]

Education Secretary Linda McMahon confuses AI with A1, sauce brand capitalizes on blunder

What an idiot. Hence, perfectly qualified for a Trump cabinet.

[ThePublius]

It's obviously a teleprompter misread. I don't recall you mocking Biden when he did this - which was quite often.

[SRG2]

In what context would you misread AI as A1 if you knew both terms?

[ThePublius]

People go on autopilot when they read off teleprompters. They just read what they see, without thinking about it. She obviously read I as 1, which in many fonts are indeed tough to distinguish.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They just read what they see, without thinking about it.

Just the kind of leadership we need!

[ThePublius]

It happens. Yet, you were silent for four years when Biden was doing this.

[David Nieporent]

Whatabouting is stupid enough, but completely made up whatabouting takes it to a whole 'nother depth of mendacity.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s me all right, stalwart defender of Joe Biden’s public speaking embarrassments, general mental competence, and overall suitability to be president. I thought I could still sneak in and criticize someone for not knowing the term “AI”. But then you busted me. Darn.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, when he said "Lincoln Riley's" murderer was an "Illegal"?? but asked how many people had been killed by "Legals"???

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when there's a man wearing a dress, or stealing women's clothes.

[TaioF920]

Why do Democrats think every peasant from Latin America has a human right to settle in the United States?

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

I want to start a new fun game for Open Mic Mondays:

Here goes today's challenge: "What's a phrase never before uttered in all of human history?"

The best one (as determined by votes) will be this week's winner.

I'll start:
"I'm so proud that my son is gay."

Gauntlet thrown. Top that, geniuses!

[Krayt]

The comedian who did that as a bit was risky but very funny.

You are not, taking it seriously.

[Frank Drackman]

Rodney D did it 50 years ago,
"I have a cousin who's gay, in our family tree, he's in the "Fruit" section. We knew he was gay in High School, other kids were dissecting Frogs, he was opening Flys"
"But turning gay, it could happen to anyone, it could happen to you, (pointing), it could happen to you,
OH, it DID happen to you!"

Frank

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

Hey, that's a Big Ball original. I posted the same thing here many many years ago, around that Obgerfell disaster or when Volokh did a 180 on his stance regarding bespoke, custom design craft cakes.

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

Here's a headline you can only see in %CURRENT_YEAR%:

Multi-Millionaire Bernie Sanders Rages Against ‘Oligarchy’ at $779 a-Ticket Coachella Festival

[SRG2]

This ‘Maga Mom’ had advice on ‘How to win an argument with the left’, but it really wasn’t the flex she seemed to think

"When they [liberals] get in your comments, here’s how you win. Don’t speak facts. Don’t speak statistics. Speak common sense."

[John F. Carr]

Judge Myong Joun of the District of Massachusetts refused to block a state court order prohibiting protests near a high profile criminal trial (the never ending Karen Read case). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a similar order in her first trial last year.

Thus, because the Second Order is content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69832339/grant-v-trial-court-of-the-commonwealth-of-massachusetts/

The order is content neutral on its face. Its effect is biased because the pro-defendant side has been protesting.

[John F. Carr]

In other District of Massachusetts news, an ICE agent beat a state court contempt citation which had been removed to federal court. The agent arrested a removable alien outside a courthouse. Just doing his job, he said. Obstructing justice, the angry judge inside the courthouse said, because the alien needed to attend his trial. The office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts decided not to oppose the agent's motion to dismiss filed in federal court. As in the federal system prosecution of indirect criminal contempt is a matter for the executive branch. The angry judge does not ordinarily have a say.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69832305/massachusetts-executive-office-of-the-trial-court-v-sullivan/

[Brett Bellmore]

While I think this was the proper outcome, (The judge was nuts to think that defendants before him could not be arrested on other charges while not in the courtroom itself, especially if they're federal charges.) I have to say that this whole 'remove and dismiss' procedure has a certain "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:" vibe to it.

Not murder in THIS case, of course, unlike Horiuchi's.

[John F. Carr]

Tales from the culture wars.

A Republican member of the Massachusetts House amended a bill to add a prohibition on allowing boys to play on girls' sports teams. A Democratic member responded with an amendment allowing the executive branch to kill the law by studying it to death. The governor is rainbow left rather than traditional left, so her administration won't let it take effect. And we're back where we started. I thought it was interesting that both amendments passed. Let's do this conservative thing. Let's talk about this conservative thing instead of doing it.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/11/ban-on-students-participating-in-opposite-sex-sports-teams-passes-mass-house-but-state-review-is-needed/

[Frank Drackman]

Not letting Dudes play women's sports is an "80/20" Ish-yew, as Kums-a-lot and Sergeant Pepper-Waltz found out to their Chagrin. Sort of like sending El Salvadoran criminals back to El Salvador.
OK, maybe a "70/30" Ish-yew in Tax-a-chussetts

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, that's how bills are usually killed

[rloquitur]

https://nypost.com/2025/04/13/opinion/1199-seiu-boss-george-gresham-accused-of-corruption-but-no-democrat-will-investigate/

And Dems believe in mandatory payments to unions by workers.

[Kazinski]

Letitia James is being accused of Real Estate fraud:

A declaration buried in legal filings states her intent to make a Virginia house her principal residence:

“I HEREBY DECLARE that I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

Those words appear in black and white in a Specific Power of Attorney, signed by James and filed in Norfolk on August 17, 2023, authorizing her relative Shamice Thompson-Hairston to act on her behalf in a transaction that included the declaration. They were not written by a lawyer acting on James’ behalf. They were her words. Her intent. Her signature."

https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/04/01/exclusive-ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-declares-virginia-home-her-principal-residence/

And in another instance it appears she fraudulently claimed a 5 unit building as only 4 units. This seems like a minor inconsistency, but 4 units is the cutoff for residential real estate and commercial real estate, and can enable someone to access to a significantly lower interest rate for falsely claiming only 4 units.
https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/03/21/ag-letitia-james-building-permits-raise-serious-questions/

One more important note since these are federal regulations and laws she is violating they would be federal crimes, not state
crimes. Since I am out of links here is a helpful AI blurb on occupancy fraud:
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) can investigate and take action against instances of occupancy fraud, which is a form of mortgage fraud where a borrower misrepresents the property's occupancy status to obtain a more favorable loan. This type of fraud can involve a borrower stating they will live in the property (owner-occupied) when they actually intend to rent it out or use it as an investment property. "

[tylertusta]

The irony of Letitia James being crooked isn't lost on any of us.

[ThePublius]

She really painted herself into a corner on this. It's even possible that her prosecutions are invalid.

[jb]

What's the theory under which the prosecutions would be invalid?

Having said that, it seems bad. Kind of penny-ante white collar fraud, but given her job it's pretty inexcusable.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. The New York attorney general doesn’t generally conduct criminal prosecutions.

2. A chief prosecutor committing an unrelated crime doesn’t generally invalidate the office’s cases, particularly not the ones from before the crime was committed.

[David Nieporent]

She really painted herself into a corner on this. It's even possible that her prosecutions are invalid.

What prosecutions would those be? Hint: none. She's AG, not a DA. And what is the theory that would make any prosecutions invalid?

[ThePublius]

"If James declared Virginia as her principal residence—which the power of attorney clearly shows was her intention—she may have triggered an automatic vacancy in the office of Attorney General under New York law—potentially invalidating her authority during the very period she was prosecuting her highest-profile case."

https://whitecollarfraud.com/2025/04/01/exclusive-ny-attorney-general-letitia-james-declares-virginia-home-her-principal-residence/

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn’t the whole point that she didn’t actually move to Virginia?

At any rate, when a New York official vacates an office by operation of law through changing residency, but remains “in possession of the office under an existing appearance of right, which has misled the whole community” and “continued to occupy it without dispute, and with the general acquiescence of all the officers of the” jurisdiction, the person is a de facto officer, and their otherwise official acts cannot be retroactively invalidated. In re Collins, 77 N.Y.S. 702 (3d Dep’t 1902). So her “prosecutions” are going to be just fine, regardless of what happens to her.

[jb]

Can't simultaneously argue that she did fraud by falsely claiming to be a resident of Virginia, and that she can't be AG because she is actually a resident of Virginia.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Have you met many Trump supporters?

[Mr. Bumble]

She and her father also signed as husband and wife in the Brooklyn house purchase.

[tylertusta]

Bill Shipley makes the case that Judge Xinis is over her skis, that Garcia cannot return to the United States, and that this case lacks a remedy that Judge Xinis can effectuate (heh).

https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/the-case-for-not-correcting-the-mistake

[Noscitur a sociis]

The paywall cuts off before it gets to anything substantive—care to give us an overview?

[tylertusta]

I highly recommend reading Shipley's comments and substack pieces.

Basically, Shipley's thesis is this:

- Garcia is under control of the El Salvadoran government, and the judge lacks the authority to order another government to release someone.
- Garcia's wife's claim to a right to have her spouse be present in the US was already foreclosed in Department of State v Munoz (2024).
- Garcia also requests that the US government breaks a contract/deal/agreement with a foreign nation, something that the judge cannot do.

Essentially the case can go nowhere even if the government tries to 'facilitate' Garcia's return.

[David Nieporent]

- Garcia also requests that the US government breaks a contract/deal/agreement with a foreign nation, something that the judge cannot do.

Sez who?

[Kazinski]

I doubt there is an express or implied contract for Bukele to keep Garcia for us, for the simple reason that he is an Salvadoran, and their responsibility. I don't think the Trump Administration would want to set a precedent of paying a country to take back their own citizens.

[tylertusta]

How does that not intrude into areas that SCOTUS said "exceeds the district court's authority?"

[David Nieporent]

Why would a court ordering the executive not to spend money that it was never authorized to spend anyway in order to rectify an illegal action by said executive exceed the district court's authority?

[tylertusta]

That assumes that the government is still spending money on Garcia's confinement in El Salvador.

Why would the US government pay El Salvador to house their own citizens that they are obligated to take back?

[David Nieporent]

That assumes that the government is still spending money on Garcia's confinement in El Salvador.

It doesn't actually assume that at all. While we can't be certain because the administration is pretending that its arrangement with El Salvador is secret, I find it highly unlikely — as I said the other day — that there are line items for individual hostages. Rather, I deem it very likely that it's a lump sum payment for "services." So they're paying for his confinement like everyone else's.

[tylertusta]

I haven't seen any evidence that El Salvador is being paid to house El Salvadoran nationals, secret or otherwise. All I see is speculation and assumptions.

Paying for TdA members? Maybe. El Salvadorans? I doubt it. El Salvador is obligated to take them back without being paid, so why would we pay them?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I see "doing the right thing" has yet to make an appearance...

[tylertusta]

That's a moral and subjective argument, not a legal one.

Does a judge's authority extend to such a point that he or she can right all wrongs regardless of the constitutional and statutory boundaries that were established to prevent that?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, no one can "make" Trump do the right thing. I think that's pretty clear.

[ThePublius]

This is an interesting short opinion piece on tanks in the Ukraine/Russia war.

German tanks are failing in Ukraine for the same reasons they lost World War II by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon

Another link in case the Telegraph is paywalled:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/german-tanks-failing-ukraine-same-121239547.html

It's really remarkable how history repeats itself. German tanks too complicated to fix in the field, and too few in number. Russian tanks can be repaired by a truck mechanic, in-situ, and quite numerous.

It reminded me of a part of a Patton biography I read. He was instrumental in making tank warfare practical in WWI, using Renault FT-17 tanks with American crews. In training Patton had the tank crews completely disassemble their tank and put it back together, so they would be so familiar with it that they could fix it in the field. Brilliant!

(Patton was fluent in French language, and when he returned in WWII, he knew the roads, the countryside, and so on, which was a huge advantage.)

[tylertusta]

I think that, like most articles on the war in Ukraine, the author is drawing conclusions that are premature, incomplete, incorrect, or all three. It doesn't help that the author's British superiority bleeds through the article every chance he gets.

He's all of the right kinds of military alarmism that the media likes to give a platform to while simultaneously subscribing to pop culture's take on history. He's like a 90's History Channel viewer that now writes articles for the Telegraph.

[ThePublius]

Are you kidding me? Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a former British Army officer and tank soldier who commanded the 1st Royal Tank Regiment. From the article, "I spent thousands of hours in the ancient British Chieftain tank as well as the current Challenger 2 (CR2)."

If you don't mind, I'll respect his opinion and analysis over yours, some rando on the 'net.

I've read LOTS of history of tank battles, tank technology, biographies including several of Patton and Rommel, and what the Colonel says rings true.

What's your point or motivation to refute this? Are you just trolling?

What are your credentials or expertise on this topic, to refute his? Have you been a tank commander? Been to the Ukraine war?

What gives?

[tylertusta]

Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a former British Army officer and tank soldier who commanded the 1st Royal Tank Regiment

He's appealing to his own authority when he's trading on his record to generate clicks for the Telegraph. I'm no tanker, but one doesn't need to be to understand that things are not as simple as he makes it out to be.

For starters, take this claim he makes:

"The first issue identified is how difficult it is for Ukraine soldiers to mend these tanks and keep them battle worthy. If the engine breaks down it must be taken hundreds of miles for repair in a specialist facility, whereas the old, simple engines of the Russian tanks can be easily fixed by any automotive mechanic, in situ if necessary."

What he's left unsaid is that Ukraine doesn't have a lot of experience with the Leopard 2- or any Western tank, for that matter. Up until 2023 Ukraine's only experience was for Soviet tanks as their primary tank was the T-64.

Ukraine also has to content with several tank designs that they have to support, each with different engines. The M1 Abrams doesn't even use a conventional engine and it's even harder to repair 'in situ.' The Colonel's beloved Challenger is yet another MBT that Ukraine has to support and likely has similar logistical problems.

Any problems with the Leopards are going to be fixed with time and training. It's a V12 engine that they teach 19-year olds how to support.

The Colonel brings up the myth of German production numbers in WW2. He says:

The Germans lost WW2 because they could not match the mass the Allies could generate. For instance, in the later stages of the war the Allies produced around 60,000 Sherman tanks, which eventually overwhelmed the more sophisticated and capable Tiger and Panther tanks because the Germans only had a few thousand of these.

I'll address this comment further down. It's bad history and a simplistic view of the war.

The biggest problem I have with the Colonel's position is that he comes to a conclusion that just isn't supported by his position. He's arguing that Ukraine is losing a ton of Leopards for the reasons he described, but in actuality they're losing some Leopards because it's a war, and Ukraine is using the vehicles they have. Ukraine was gifted more Leopards (1 and 2s) than any other western tank, so it naturally follows that they would be losing more (all else being equal).

Ukraine was gifted 60 M1 Abrams but has been confirmed to have lost over 25% of them of them- does that make the M1 Abrams a bad tank? Yet according to the Oryx database, Ukraine has only lost less than 13% of their Leopard inventory. Does this mean that the Leopard is better than the Abrams?

The answer to these questions is no.

I'll take accounts from Ukrainians who are fighting a tank war over his no matter the good Colonel's pedigree.

I've read LOTS of history of tank battles, tank technology, biographies including several of Patton and Rommel, and what the Colonel says rings true.

Patton, Rommel, and Guderian.

Historians take biased sources into account, especially when those sources have their own agendas. Guderian, for example, was trying to rehabilitate himself and his fellow generals after WW2, so he blamed everything on Hitler (who was conveniently dead and couldn't defend himself). See the "Rommel Myth" and the "Myth of the clean Wehrmacht."

The additional myths of German technological superiority in are perpetuated by high-school level history by folks like dear Colonel de Bretton-Gordon.

What's your point or motivation to refute this? Are you just trolling?

It's a trope that if the Germans just built more tanks that they would have been better off- German equipment was better and if they just had more then they would have won!

The reality of it is that Germany didn't have enough fuel to support their war machine even if they could build more tanks. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were constantly low on fuel supplies, a problem that became critical in the latter half of the war.

Germany's fuel problem was so large that they demotorized several infantry divisions into straight-leg infantry units to free up their fuel. Fuel shortages made it impossible for Germany to train new pilots, and it kept armored formations from being able to maneuver. The Nazis had to hoard fuel reserves to make the Battle of the Bulge happen to the detriment of operations elsewhere.

[Roger S]

That is a common complaint about German cars today. They are over-engineered in a way that makes them difficult to repair.

[ThePublius]

It's called Teutonic Overkill. It's been so forever. I had to junk an 8 year old BMW because it became to expensive to repair.

[Kazinski]

My 8 year old Sportswagen is getting in that territory.

I loved the car new, but plastic oil pan with no skid plate probably saved 5-6 ounces but it only takes one rock with a 4" clearance to require a new engine.

[SRG2]

BMWs are like that. Mercedes, not so much. There is a fantastic repair shop in Freeport called Pit Bull Motors and they specialise in European, particularly German, cars. Steve, who runs it, counsels against buying BMWs because of all the things than can go wrong that can be difficult, it not impossible, to repair, but is all in favour of Mercedes, which require expertise but can be properly and reasonably repaired.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define reasonably.

[SRG2]

No likely repair costs a significant fraction of the car's value or worth, unlike say the full beam unit of a modern BMW.

[Armchair]

Two different things going on there really.

1. Too few in number.
-That's not a manufacturing issue...or even a cost issue necessarily. The real issue there is that NATO hasn't transferred over as many tanks as they could or have. It's an issue...but not one directly related to tank design.

2. Too hard to fix.
-Comparing a T-55 with a Leopard 2 isn't quite the same as WWII. It's like comparing fixing a Model-T with a 2020 Toyota Camry. Yes, the Model-T is a lot easier to fix in the field. It's also nowhere near as good, breaks down a lot more in the field, and is more likely to get you killed. You really need to compare things in the same generation in which they were built.

[tylertusta]

The author is advocating for more tanks in the Royal Army. I agree that the Brits should do that. However, as you and I both noted, his supporting arguments rest of incorrect readings of history and of the nature of the war in Ukraine.

The painful fact is that Ukraine has already lost more than five times as many main battle tanks that the UK has in inventory (≈1100 v ≈200). Losses aren't high because of drones, or because engine replacement takes so long. Ukraine has lost so many tanks because it's been in a ground war for the past three years against Russia.

That by itself should be reason to build more tanks.

[Kleppe]

Are the libertarians still arguing that a court can compel the United States to compel a sovereign nation to deport one of its own citizens to the United States, so that the United States can in turn deport him back to El Salvador because he is an inadmissible alien?

[SRG2]

The libertarians would argue that as he was under a legitimate protective order and should therefore not have been deported to El Salvador, the government should fucking fix the problem they created by fucking up in the first place. Some libertarians might also note the rank hypocrisy of those who want El Salvador to keep him where he is

[Kleppe]

"the government should fucking fix the problem they created by fucking up in the first place"

What is the remedy? And don't say "facilitate," "effectuate," etc. What are you actually demanding the United States do?

[SRG2]

They could start off simply by asking El Salvador to return him. They have not done so.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Can a judge order a President to ask another foreign leader to do something that the President doesn't want him to do, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs, not to mention due regard for the President's first amendment rights?

[David Nieporent]

Sure.

[Commenter_XY]

The Court cannot compel the Executive to conduct foreign policy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nor can the Court "compel the Executive" to adhere to the Constitution.

[Kazinski]

Nor will they.

Two things should be apparent by now:

The Administration doesn't want to ask.

The district court does not have the authority to make them ask.

[Josh R]

Step 1: deport someone you don't like without any due process.

Step 2: deny the courts jurisdiction to get him back because it's a matter of foreign policy.

Result: the end of due process, all hail Dear Leader. Do you guys not see this is bullshit?

[tylertusta]

The solution to the problem you fear is for Congress to impeach and remove, not for the Judiciary to take over as the Executive.

[SRG2]

IOW there is no enforceable remedy for a citizen to whom that happens.

That is the point at which it becomes justifiable to resort to violence.

[tylertusta]

And the mask comes off.

[David Nieporent]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting...

Maybe even the lefties will figure that out someday?

[Josh R]

Impeachment and removal can't happen to Dear Leader because he controls one of the two parties.

Not permitting the President to do an end-around on due process through the pretext of foreign policy is not "taking over the Executive."

[tylertusta]

A Court directing the President to conduct specific foreign policy goals is taking over the Executive by definition.

The remedy here is impeachment. People should convince ytheir congresscritters to do something instead of fetishising about an imperial judiciary because they're too lazy to do that whole 'democracy' thing.

[Josh R]

The courts preventing the executive from using foreign policy as a pretext for an illegal act is not directing specific foreign policy goals.

[tylertusta]

The court isn't 'preventing' anything. The violation of due process already occurred.

All that remains is redressing it.

What the district court sought to do was 'fix' the due process violation by ordering the Executive to take affirmative steps in foreign policy, something which the district court lacks the authority to do. The district court can't order the Executive to negotiate a treaty just like it cannot direct Congress to ratify it.

Go talk to your congresscritter and tell them that they should impeach Trump if he doesn't secure the release and re-importation of a foreign terrorist.

[Josh R]

Good thing the district court has not ordered a negotiation of a treaty.

[tylertusta]

Instead, the district court ordered the administration to 'effectuate' his return to the US.

How the administration would go about taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil without conducting foreign policy is unclear, but its probably impossible.

[Josh R]

The district court withdrew the "effectuate" order after SCOTUS weighed in.

[tylertusta]

My point is that the district court felt that it had the power to order it in the first place (to much fanfare from the commentariat).

[Josh R]

Your point is now settled law. Nonetheless, Trump must facilitate his release or some sort of remedy will be ordered. Both what the scope of "facilitate" and what the remedy might be remains unsettled.

[tylertusta]

Both what the scope of "facilitate" and what the remedy might be remains unsettled.

Judge Xinis has now clarified her order to define the term and the types of steps that she wants the government to take. She says:

Defendants herefore remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante...

First, in the “immigration context” as it were, facilitating return of those wrongly deported can and has included more extensive governmental efforts, endorsed in prior precedent and DHS publications. Thus, the Court cannot credit that “facilitating” the ordered relief is as limited as Defendants suggest.

She then cites instances where the government engaged in diplomacy to secure a non-citizen's return.

She's right back at 'effectuate' through her definition of the word.

[Commenter_XY]

You're as Libertarian as you are Ethiopian, lol.

[SRG2]

I did not claim to be here - I am merely aware of the arguments.

FWIW I score highly libertarian on the Political Compass but I'm too pragmatic to call myself a Libertarian.

[David Nieporent]

You can call yourself a libertarian without calling yourself a Libertarian.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think the whole 'we won't give him back' was just a normal choice, and not done for pretext on the request of the administration?

No, actually, I don't believe you think at all.

[Kleppe]

S_0 claims Bukele would leap at the opportunity to return Maryland Man to the United States, BUT FOR the U.S. government REQUESTING that he keep his own citizen.

Remarkable.

[Commenter_XY]

No, not remarkable at all. He is a bureaucrat.

[Sarcastr0]

Countries do not own their citizens.

Bukele is doing and will do what the US asks of him.

Even you know this.
You're just making an incredibly weak appeal to incredulity to try and pretend otherwise.

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

>Bukele is doing and will do what the US asks of him.

>Even you know this.

Does every country do what the US asks of them? Or just the lesser Brown ones?

[Magister]

Small countries who are doing business with the Trump administration generally will in small matters like this.

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

"Generally will" is much different than Sacrastr0's claim of "will".

So I don't see how a judge can require repatriation when it requires the participation of a foreign sovereign not under the court's jurisdiction.

[Magister]

I qualify only because a foreign leader might have an irrational attachment to some small matter; maybe he won't release the guy who stole his girlfriend in high school, and is willing to risk millions in foreign aid and the enmity of the biggest superpower. Some people, like MAGA, will cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Otherwise, the definition of small matter is sufficient qualification; the man in question lived in the United States for his adult life and El Salvador does not appear to have pursued his return on their own account, and so is unlikely to fall under the modest exception for some El Salvadoran internal consideration.

[David Nieporent]

to deport one of its own citizens to the United States

No. Returning Garcia to his home is not "deporting" him.

so that the United States can in turn deport him back to El Salvador

No, because that would be illegal.

[Kleppe]

"Returning Garcia to his home is not "deporting" him."

CECOT is his home.

"that would be illegal"

Only when you cut out the part where I correctly identified him as an inadmissible alien.

[David Nieporent]

CECOT is his home.

Maryland is his home. CECOT is a prison where he's been kidnapped to.

Only when you cut out the part where I correctly identified him as an inadmissible alien.

Irrelevant here. He's not removable to El Salvador.

[tylertusta]

No, because that would be illegal.

Only if the Withholding of Removal remains. Do you think that it will?

[SRG2]

Jonathan Chait:

Trump Is Running Economic Development In Reverse

The combination of tariffs and cuts to scientific research seems designed to move America down the value chain.

The typical pattern for economic development involves moving a nation’s economy up the value chain. A poor country develops export markets by specializing in low-wage manufacturing. Eventually, these industries develop higher levels of sophistication, adding more intellectual value—first they build toasters and cameras, then cars, then robots. These industries generate tax revenue that can support better schools and other forms of public investment, feeding back into the developmental cycle. That’s how the “Asian tigers” (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) enjoyed rapid economic growth over the past two generations, and it’s the pattern other developing countries are hoping to follow.

Donald Trump is basically running this play in reverse.

It's possible that Trump thinks that construction and traditional manufacturing are "real" contributors to the economy and he doesn't understand anything else.

Regardless, what he is doing is turning the US away from a 21stC economy to a 1950s economy. And the peasants cheer.

[Commenter_XY]

I'd watch China, SRG2. By Memorial Day, China will be in a world of hurt. They won't have any more US Treasuries to sell to prop up their currency. By the end of Q3, they will have mass unemployment.

The Dragon will transmogrify into a mewling marsupial..

[Martinned2]

They won't have any more US Treasuries to sell to prop up their currency.

Why not? Because Trump is going to cancel them all?

[Brett Bellmore]

From the context, I'd assume he meant by then they'd have sold all they hold.

China, last number I saw, held about $760B in US treasuries, they'd have to dump pretty aggressively and persistently to sell them all.

[Martinned2]

Yes, that was my point. If China really did sell all its Treasuries that quickly, yields would shoot through the roof. I have no idea why anyone in the US would think that is a good thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hypotheticals, is there anything they can't do?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and this sort of exposure is exactly why you do NOT want to have a huge national debt! Because in a comparative moment it can go from, not exactly sustainable, (We are, after all, borrowing the interest payments!) but from unsustainable to an acute crisis.

That which can't go on, won't go on, and you don't necessarily get to pick when it stops going on. Sometimes your enemies get to pick.

Now, why would anyone want that to happen? If the choice were between it happening, and not happening, you wouldn't want it to happen.

If you'd concluded that the choice were between it happening today, or happening five years from now? You might very well decide it was better to get it over with, particularly if you thought that the longer you put it off, the worse it was going to be, and the higher the odds of somebody who'd screw up the recovery being in power.

Now, I don't know if that's what's going through Trump's head. But it has been obvious, despite all the political interests in denying it, that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal path, and is a crash at some point is practically guaranteed.

So it is entirely possible for somebody to conclude that the longer the crash is put off, the more severe it will be, and that it's best we do it now. The corollary to "never let a crisis go to waste" is frequently, "never waste an opportunity to have a crisis", and it isn't just Democrats who can reason like that. Republicans can start thinking that, too.

[Martinned2]

So your solution for this problem is to run the US economy into the ground? Which fixes the debt how, exactly?

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say it was my solution. I was answering your implied question: "I have no idea why anyone in the US would think that is a good thing."

The above is why somebody in the US might think it is a good thing.

I think there's still a sliver of a chance that we could get out of this without a crash, if we did some things I think we're highly unlikely to do: Amendment Constitution to prohibit going any further into debt, radically deregulate industry to spark an economic boom. I think the US economy has a lot of potential yet to grow rapidly, and grow us out of this problem, if Congress can be stopped from growing the problem at the same time.

But I could see somebody with better political judgment than mine thinking that this isn't politically possible, and that the best thing is to just get it over with.

[David Nieporent]

That which can't go on, won't go on, and you don't necessarily get to pick when it stops going on. Sometimes your enemies get to pick.

No, when you're the most wealthy and powerful country and the world's reserve currency, you actually do get to pick. And right now Trump's picking to cause a crisis ASAP.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, David. An economic crisis like this is kind of like a war. You can decide if YOU are going to start one, but you can't decide if somebody ELSE is going to start one.

We've exposed ourselves economically to the point where China probably does have the capacity to crash our economy, if they don't mind the risk of going down with us.

[Sarcastr0]

We've exposed ourselves economically

We don't live in a political thriller.
China is as economically bound to us as we are to them.

If you actually thought our debt as an existential risk, you would support a tax hike and quick. You don't. Because you don't actually care.

Trump's now scorpion/frogging it. Except that's not our nature, just his dumbness.

[Jmaie]

"I have no idea why anyone in the US would think that is a good thing."

Those who rely on treasuries for income might find it a good thing. Especially retired folks with no appetite for risk.

So all depends on what "through the roof" ends up being. We have seen low yields since the 2007 financial crisis, historically they've been higher. In the 80's, MUCH higher.

[Martinned2]

You realise that people who hold Treasuries don't get paid more when market yields go up?

[Jmaie]

You realize that people holding treasuries tend to purchase new ones when the old ones reach maturity?

[SRG2]

They don't need to sell USTs to prop up their currency. What Trump forgets - the last time it was an oversight, this time it's forgetfulness - is that the US is not the world's sole trade counterparty. China can and will do trade deals with other countries instead, cutting the :US out.

Trump's activities have threatened the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. but as most people - including you, evidently - have little to no understanding of how this all works, they wouldn't know to care.

[Commenter_XY]

It is Passover. Let's see where China is by Shmini Atzeret.

The USD will still be the world's reserve currency. China will have mass unemployment (unless they make a deal with The Donald, involving a massive loss of face). The rest of the world cannot equal the US market, and frankly, China doesn't have a lot of countries knocking at their door to expand business with them, and invite their influence.

We will know by the end of June whether China has been selling their US debt.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Harvard has decided to defy Trump. Harvard is more conservative than Trump, and better at being conservative. Harvard v. Trump is a cultural and political mismatch that Harvard can win comfortably. Harvard can expect to win in the courts too, but will scarcely need judicial help to triumph anyway.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm glad to see that Harvard has abandoned its traditional neutrality in order to defend issues of principle, even against fellow conservatives.

Fight fiercely, Harvard
Fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them our skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless we have the will
How we will celebrate our victory
We shall invite the whole team up for tea
(how jolly!)
Hurl that spheroid down the field, and
Fight, fight, fight!

https://genius.com/Tom-lehrer-fight-fiercely-harvard-lyrics

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2025/04/14/anti-israel-columbia-university-protester-arrested-ice/

He can join his friend Khalil on the deportation plane.

C-Ya!

[Martinned2]

Isn't free speech great?

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

You are illegally bullying him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

First, they came for the...

Oh, who cares!

[Commenter_XY]

Why do these Leftist terrorist wannabes always look like they are a walking freak show?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/04/doj-charges-man-in-arson-attacks-on-new-mexico-gop-office-tesla-showroom/

[Martinned2]

To pwn the Trumpists, presumably? Because that's what US political debate has become now: a bunch of online-only nutcases trying to irritate each other by destroying the country.

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

Wow, another illegal bullying comment. You're quite the lawbreaker. I hope you're on a VPN, because I've reported your illegal online harassment & bullying to appropriate officials in the UK.

I also hope you're not White, because that means life in prison in the UK.

[SRG2]

I think you'll find it's not restricted to the left.

Your boy Cody Balmer - who looks like Jesus as painted by El Greco.

[Commenter_XY]

That guy is a walking creepshow, too.

[Estragon]

“Wannabes”

They should be real bona fide terrorists like the leader of Meal Team Six, Stewart Rhodes, I guess? Nothin freaky about that guy! How’d he lose that eye anyways?

On one hand, we have a father from Maryland who came to the US when he was 16 and stayed out of trouble… who Steven Miller claims is a “terrorist” based on nothing more than his own say so (why is Steve always so angry?).

On the other hand we have an adjudicated terrorist roaming the halls of the Senate. Will Trump send Rhodes to CECOT too? He’s homegrown and could probably do with a low-cal prison diet for a while.

Serious question… should this “wannabe terrorist” serve time in El Salvador in your opinion?

[Magister]

How’d he lose that eye anyways?

"Rhodes accidentally shot himself in the face with a .22 handgun after dropping it, leaving him using a prosthetic eyeball."

[Martinned2]

This latest step in the trade war is interesting: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-15/china-tells-airlines-stop-taking-boeing-jets-as-trump-tariffs-expand-trade-war

Aircraft construction is the one major area where China doesn't have a realistic capability yet. In the short term, a boycott against Boeing is good for Airbus, but in the longer term it might mean that we go from a world where there are two companies making civilian aircraft (one of which makes planes that are actually safe to fly) to a world where there are three.

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

What are two types of aircraft this guy would never step foot in?

1.) One piloted by DEI hires
2.) One built in China

[David Nieporent]

You're likely on the no fly list anyway, so it's moot.

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

I know. I am. DHS put me on the No-Fly list back when I first donated to Trump in 2016.

[ThePublius]

"(one of which makes planes that are actually safe to fly)"

Screw you, Martinned2.

"A recent analysis of airline incident data from 2010 to 2019 suggests that Boeing aircraft have a lower frequency of crashes per million flights compared to Airbus.However, both manufacturers have implemented extensive safety measures and maintain impressive safety records overall, with similar fatality rates per million flights for their core narrowbody models.
Despite Boeing's historical reputation for reliability, a closer examination reveals that the safety performance of Boeing and Airbus aircraft is quite comparable, with their newest models aligning closely in terms of accident rates."

https://www.mightytravels.com/2024/04/comparing-airline-incident-rates-a-factual-analysis-of-boeing-vs-airbus-safety-records/

[Martinned2]

A recent analysis of airline incident data from 2010 to 2019

As the boilerplate voiceover goes for Dutch advertising of investment products: "Historic results offer no guarantees for the future."

https://thetexasorator.com/2024/11/22/inside-boeings-five-long-years-of-scandal/

[Martinned2]

Let's check in with the Financial Times, "the paper for people who own the country" (to borrow part of a Yes, Minister joke).

At around noon on April 14 2025, America ceased to have a law-abiding government. Some would argue that had already happened on January 20, when Donald Trump was inaugurated. On Monday, however, Trump chose to ignore a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling to repatriate an illegally deported man. He even claimed the judges ruled in his favour. The US president’s middle finger to the court was echoed by his attorney-general, secretary of state, vice-president and El Salvador’s vigilante president Nayib Bukele. The latter is playing host to what resembles an embryonic US gulag.

https://www.ft.com/content/4c4b0f14-3e85-4436-94de-204d3f518f3c

[Mr. Bumble]

Pullitzer material.

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

>On Monday, however, Trump chose to ignore a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling to repatriate an illegally deported man.

Uh, that's not what the SCOTUS ruled.

[ThePublius]

It's well known the FT hates Trump, so you can discount anything they say on this topic.

[Martinned2]

Hating Trump seems like the only rational position. That said, I think you're projecting.

[ThePublius]

Sure, go ahead and hate. But don't simultaneously pretend to be objective.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In a way, I feel fortunate to be alive during this time.

As student of history, to see such an abrupt transformation not only of a government but of a whole country, from thriving democracy to fledgling autocracy, in real time is surely a "once-in-a-lifetime" privilege?

I'm also very glad to be living thousands of miles away from it (but, unfortunately, not far enough).

[Sarcastr0]

There is a term for what you describe that lefties like to use - the "cool zone." Cool to read about. Invariably bad to live through.

[Brett Bellmore]

US Army to control land on Mexico border as part of base, migrants could be detained, officials say

I actually suggested this during the first Trump administration: Build a really long and skinny military base on the border, and combine training and border enforcement. And suddenly border enforcement is, legally, just military base security, a perfectly ordinary and legitimate military activity.

And a drop in the bucket relative to US military spending.

[Martinned2]

With the added benefit that all sorts of migration offences automatically become crimes against military security, so that the punishment can be even more draconian!

[Mr. Bumble]

A plus all around.

[ThePublius]

"so that the punishment can be even more draconian!"

No.

Why do you participate here if you hate America? Aren't there any U.K. or Dutch legal forums in which you can participate? Or is it that you're afraid of the U.K.'s draconian punishment for speech?

[Martinned2]

What do you mean "No"?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/11/trump-gives-military-jurisdiction-federal-border-lands/83052001007/

The consequences DOD taking control of federal land at the border aren't immediately clear, he said, but it could result in more severe criminal charges for migrants who cross the border unlawfully.

Migrants who cross the border on land under the Defense Department’s jurisdiction “would have trespassed on a military installation,” Isacson said. They could be subjected to charges beyond “entry without inspection,” a federal misdemeanor.

[ThePublius]

You used the word draconian. Draconian refers to laws or their application that are excessively harsh and severe.

There is nothing excessively harsh or severe about apprehending illegal border crossers, regardless of who does the apprehending.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Good to see the word policeman's job has been so ably filled. Do you know someone important?

[ThePublius]

Senselessly snide. Nice job.

[ducksalad]

Cool! They could also "build" long skinny military bases crisscrossing the whole country in a grid pattern, so citizens can't get from one city to another without asking permission to cross a military area, agreeing to waive their 4th Amendment rights, and being subject to military courts.

The One Simple Trick theory of constitutional interpretation.

[Brett Bellmore]

The differences are that,

1: The federal government already owns this land, Trump is just transferring control from one department to another.
2: Control of border crossings is an ordinary activity of governments, unfree AND free, as only a few maniacs like Somin denies.

[Sarcastr0]

Legal or no, you're supporting an end-run around the Constitution to deny people rights.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What part of the constitution says that the military can’t be used for border security?

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

You're not really expecting an answer are you? He's Komment Karen. His job is to finger-wag, patriot-shame, and gaslight.

Not actually engage.

[Sarcastr0]

Migrants who cross the border on land under the Defense Department’s jurisdiction “would have trespassed on a military installation,” Isacson said. They could be subjected to charges beyond “entry without inspection,” a federal misdemeanor.

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

I can't find your quoted text in the Constitution.

Do you have a different copy than the one that is generally available? A secret one, perchance, that only you and George Soros know about?

[ThePublius]

What rights? Foreigners have a right to illegally enter the U.S.?

[ThePublius]

Why do you hate America?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why do you hate freedom?

[ThePublius]

How do you get 'hating freedom' from wanting to secure the border?

[M L]

Whaa?

I thought the US military was only for defending some far flung foreign lands and their borders. Not the US's own borders.

[Martinned2]

Let's check in on US-Russia relations:

The US has blocked a G7 statement to condemn Russia for its Palm Sunday missile attack on Ukraine's city of Sumy, which killed at least 35 people and injured over 100, including children.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-15/us-derails-g-7-condemnation-of-russian-missile-strike-on-ukraine?srnd=undefined

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

Omg Trump is Kompromat!!!

This proves it!!

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

So apparently Biden can create a broad class based parole program for illegals without any Congress grant.

But Trump can't terminate the parole program for illegals because of Congressional laws requiring individual case adjudication. According to Judge Indira Talwani.

This foreign judge just invented legal requirements that didn't exist and now we have DACA all over again. Where a previous President's actions under their sole authority binds a future President's actions. Of course this only is legal when the future President is "Trump" and the previous President's aren't "Trump".

[tylertusta]

There's a reason why Congress removed Federal district courts from hearing immigration removal cases, and we're seeing that reason play out in several district courts.

[Frank Drackman]

Jackie Robinson is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice,

[David Nieporent]

Another example of Trump defying a court order, that the fascists here assured me never happens.

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/15/white-house-ap-court-order?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social

[Noscitur a sociis]

While Trump himself claimed that he always follows court orders, I’m pretty sure the usual suspects here have been openly cheering for him to disobey them, including this order specifically, to teach those so-called judges a lesson (or something).

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

The ruling said there were certain classes of events from which reporters can't be barred.... and thus events from which a reporter can be barred.

Of course, you being you, never bothered to consider that maybe this situation falls into the latter.

But who gives a shit about facts when you got ignorant insults & smears to share?

[David Nieporent]

Of course, you being you, never bothered to consider that maybe this situation falls into the latter.

Or, alternatively, I both bothered to consider and did consider and then determined that this situation did not fall into the latter.

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

>His ruling stated that under the First Amendment, the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints.

Guess what a closed Oval Office event isn't? (Here's a hint, one of those "certain government events" from which a journalist can't be barred.)

[David Nieporent]

Guess what a press conference in the Oval Office is? (Here's a hint; it's one of those "certain government events" that the judge — appointed by Trump, FTR — expressly ruled that a journalist couldn't be barred from.)

[ThePublius]

The Oval Office has limited capacity. Who determines who can attend? The press? A judge? Or the President's staff?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you should read the judge's order and find out.

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

David's feelings determine it.

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

>Because of its wide reach, the AP has traditionally always been included in “pools” for coverage of presidential events in places like the Oval Office and Air Force One. McFadden cautioned that his ruling does not necessarily herald a return to those days.

“The Court does not order the government to grant the AP permanent access to the Oval Office, the East Room or any other media event,” he wrote. “It does not bestow special treatment upon the AP. Indeed, the AP is not necessarily entitled to the ‘first in line every time’ permanent press pool access it enjoyed under the (White House Correspondents Association). But it cannot be treated worse than its peer wire service either.”

https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/ap-wins-reinstatement-to-white-house-events-after-judge-rules-government-cant-bar-its-journalists/

[ThePublius]

Fascists? Are you kidding? Do you even know what that term means?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Trump and his bootlickers like yourself check all the boxes at this point. Including disappearing people without due process.

[ThePublius]

You don't know, or are willfully ignorant, of fascism. First, Trump supporters, and myself, are as far away from being communists as can be. And, fascism grew out of Italian communism. Fascism is a phenomenon of the left, not the right, just like Nazism.

[David Nieporent]

You're pathetic.

[ThePublius]

Likewise, I'm sure. Why don't you back that up with some data or logic - not about me, but about fascism.

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

Take the Fascist Manifesto (as published) and have ChatGPT update the language to modern times.

There's about 3/4ths overlap with the current Democrat party plank.

You can do something similar with the NAZI Party's 28 Point Plan. Lots of overlap.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

English is a living language, and "fascism" is an evolving term, I'm afraid. Obviously, the current usage does not perfectly align with the historical origin of the term, but it's really the best we've got at the moment (and is only likely to become more apt as time marches on).

And I have good news! It is also less and less likely to relate to "communism" as it is more fully developed in relation to Trump and his cult of bloodthirsty fanatics. Isn't language wonderful?

In any case, numerous former Trump Administration officials have explicitly applied the term to Donald Trump, and even JD Vance once referred to Trump as "America's Hitler".

("I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler," he wrote privately to an associate on Facebook in 2016.)

Trump 2028: Making American Fascism Great Again

[ThePublius]

"Trump and his cult of bloodthirsty fanatics"

Really? How many assassination attempts on Biden? Obama? Trump? Who's bloodthirsty, really?

Typical leftist tactic to redefine terms to suit them. Fascism is fascism. Period. Feel free to make up a new term to suit your purposes.

[Magister]

Fascists can easily be subject to more assassination attempts; there were scores of attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler, and only one assassination attempt on Franklin Roosevelt in a similar time frame (plus one attempted coup, much as Biden was targeted). Obama received more death threats than any other president, largely from white supremacists, who now support Donald Trump.

January 6th insurrectionists perpetrated violent attacks on law enforcement; Donald Trump has steadily encouraged violence from his followers.

[ThePublius]

That's quite a load of B.S. you've just delivered. First, saying that since fascists previously in history were subject to assassination attempts makes Trump a fascists is laughable. And then you say "Obama received more death threats than any other president" - wouldn't that, then, by your logic, make Obama a fascist?

You leftists are pitiful.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's not me calling him a fascist; it is the people who know him best--much better than you do!

(Also, FYI, I am much worse than a "leftist": I'm a libertarian.)

[Magister]

I'm not saying that makes him a fascist, although of course he is a fascist; I'm saying that your argument that assassination attempts against him but not against non-fascists are not an argument against that label, and that there is more politically motivated violence from the right wing.