Today in Supreme Court History: April 15, 1931

4/15/1931: Stromberg v. California argued.

Comments

[Drewski]

I see Somin was quoted by NBC in a story this morning, regarding Trump's proposal to sell American citizens to El Salvador as slave labor. "'It is pretty obviously illegal and unconstitutional,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School."

He is correct, of course, although now that MAGA has fully embraced just openly being evil I expect to see this treated as a real legal controversy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-floats-legally-questionable-proposal-deport-us-citizens-rcna201183

[Dan Schiavetta]

It will be hard to do "whataboutism" on this. Although it will be amusing to see the attempts.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, the DemoKKKrats only spent the last 6 years trying to put "45" in Prison over Bullshit, succeeding only in putting him back in the Oval Orifice for a Second, and if they don't learn their lesson, a Third Term. (22d Amendment only says you can't get "Elected" to POTUS for than twice)

Frank

[Krayt]

Tbh that is floated towards the end of any modern two-termer, including Obama and going back to Reagan.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See generally:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/04/wait-can-he-actually-do-that-part-14.html

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prof. Dorf’s argument is:

A federal statute provides that the Bureau of Prisons "shall . . . provide suitable quarters and provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States or held as witnesses or otherwise" (emphasis added). Thus, anyone enmeshed in the federal criminal justice system--certainly including the very very bad people Trump says he would like to send to prison in El Salvador--must be housed (and cared for) by the Bureau of Prisons.

However, plenty of federal prisoners are housed in state, local, or privately operated facilities pursuant to contracts with DOJ rather than in BOP facilities, and that’s been the case for longer than I can trace back. So while Prof. Dorf’s reading isn’t implausible as a matter of statutory interpretation, it’s not how any administration has applied it.

[Ridgeway]

I think Dorf is saying that management can be subcontracted/outsourced, but that the BoP still must retain ultimate authority. So the silly game the Trump administration is currently playing, claiming they have no authority or even influence over Bukele or the El Salvadorean govt, cuts against the argument they would have to make in order to send Americans to an El Salvadorean prison -- that the BoP maintains ultimate control.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, Prof. Dorf is definitely saying that BOP has to operate the facilities directly. See the next paragraph, for instance:

To be sure, the statute nowhere says that the federal Bureau of Prisons must operate all of its facilities in the United States, but crucially, it must operate, manage, and regulate all prisons or other facilities that house U.S. prisoners. It might, in theory, be possible for the Bureau of Prisons to operate a prison on foreign soil, but if so, it would have to be a U.S. prison operating under U.S. standards. Shipping U.S. prisoners to a prison operated by a foreign sovereign--as Trump proposes to do--would be plainly unlawful.

I do agree with your second sentence, which may get us to the same bottom line.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

His post references a private prison.

There, the 5-4 conservative majority held that there is no Bivens damages remedy against guards in a private prison run on behalf of the federal government.

[The cited case involves a "private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons."]

So, yes, the reply saying he meant "retain ultimate authority" seems appropriate. His blog post might have been poorly worded in some fashion, but he cites a private prison. He is aware.

He is using "operate," reading the post as a whole, to mean overall oversight and control. Thus: " Shipping U.S. prisoners to a prison operated by a foreign sovereign--as Trump proposes to do--would be plainly unlawful."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ignore the above comment ...

What legal authority do these "facilities pursuant to contracts with DOJ" fall under?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I checked with Prof. Dorf. He replied:

‪Michael C. Dorf‬ ‪@dorfonlaw.bsky.social‬

That's true. I thought about that after I wrote the post and now think I might be mistaken. But perhaps there's a difference in kind between the oversight over state and local facilities and those in other countries.

‪No, I was right. There are OTHER statutes that expressly authorize the BOP to contract w/ state and local authorities, which override 18 USC § 4042 for them. E.g., § 4002, which in authorizing contracts w/ "any State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof" tacitly excludes foreign countries.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"For the purpose of providing suitable quarters for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons held under authority of any enactment of Congress, the Attorney General may contract, for a period not exceeding three years, with the proper authorities of any State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, for the imprisonment, subsistence, care, and proper employment of such persons."

[Noscitur a sociis]

I see that Prof. Dorf has updated his post, apparently in indirect response to me. But now that I’ve done a bit more research, I think his argument doesn’t work—although I also think that it would be unlawful to force American prisoners to serve a sentence in another country for different reasons.

Prof. Dorf now notes that another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4002, gives the attorney general authority to enter contracts for up to three years with state and local jails (but not foreign ones). He reasons that “Congress understood it needed to write” authorization for these state and local contracts, and since there’s no equivalent authorization for foreign jails, it’s not allowed.

Here, I think Prof. Dorf is just wrong. Under 28 U.S.C. § 530C(a)(4), “ the activities of the Department of Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division, commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof) may…be carried out through any means, including…through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with non-Federal parties”, unless otherwise provided by law. Section 4002 isn’t a grant of power: it’s a restriction on the general contracting authority DOJ otherwise enjoys.

Moreover, federal law expressly recognizes that some federal prisoners can serve their sentences in foreign prisons. Specifically, the attorney general is “to transfer offenders under a sentence of imprisonment, on parole, or on probation to the foreign countries of which they are citizens or nationals”. 18 U.S.C. § 4102(3). And here is the real reason why sending Americans to a foreign prison would be illegal currently. There’s no equivalent provision for U.S. citizens to be removed, or for foreigners to be placed in a third country. Moreover, under 18 U.S.C. § 4107, a judicial officer needs to find that the prisoner voluntarily consents to the transfer before it can take place.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Somin was quoted by NBC "

Moving up in the Resistance! law ranks. Be doing Maddow hits soon.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (decided April 15, 1997): statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to drug test was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment

Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (decided April 15, 1980): defendant’s refusal to cooperate in investigation of related crime can be aggravating factor in sentencing for heroin sale

Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 1975): A shipowner owes the duty of “maintenance and cure” to a seaman even if illness/injury due to his own negligence. Here the Court holds that this duty continues after he leaves the ship, until such time as a medical diagnosis is made that the incident caused a permanent (and hence no longer “curable”) injury.

Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U.S. 697 (decided April 15, 1963): in admiralty, can’t get indemnified for one’s own negligence (as stipulated in contract between barge owner and tower after bridge damaged by barge and bridge owner sued)

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (decided April 15, 1935): counterfeiting conviction remanded for new trial where prosecutor’s cross-examination was abusive and judge did not stop it (the footnote giving part of the transcript contains an almost comical instance of the prosecutor twisting an answer into a threat against the prosecutor himself) (why a new trial? wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?)

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Wynne, 224 U.S. 354 (decided April 15, 1912): no Due Process violation where statute allowed double damages and attorney’s fees if a railroad refuses to reimburse within 30 days for killing livestock even though amount demanded turns out to be more than true value

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (decided April 15, 2008): one seeking reimbursement for taxes under the Tucker Act (relating to government contracts) is bound by usual requirement and deadline as to making a pre-suit administrative claim to the IRS even though Tucker Act has separate statute of limitations provision with no pre-suit claim requirement

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (decided April 15, 1980): can’t enter a house to make an arrest without a warrant (as the Court admits, it hadn’t yet decided this issue, which is odd)

McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U.S. 21 (decided April 15, 1975): allowing retrial of Air Force officer to go forward despite refusal of prosecution to hand over its complete file from first trial (ironic because charge was copying classified documents and giving them to Communist contacts in Thailand)

Basham v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 699 (decided April 15, 1963): reinstating New York state court verdict under federal Employers Liability Act for trainman who dropped large spring (amputating finger) when platform moved; jury credited witness who saw platform moving against testimony of railroad that platform was immovable; in dissent Harlan calls this is a run-of-the-mill case and the Court should have saved time by leaving the state appellate process alone

[SMP0328]

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (decided April 15, 1935): counterfeiting conviction remanded for new trial where prosecutor’s cross-examination was abusive and judge did not stop it (the footnote giving part of the transcript contains an almost comical instance of the prosecutor twisting an answer into a threat against the prosecutor himself) (why a new trial? wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?)

An appellate court vacating a conviction has never been treated the same as an acquittal. The first trial is voided and the reversable error in the first trial means the defendant is considered as not having been in jeopardy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Even if the conviction was voided because of prosecutorial abuse ? Prosecutors could rake a defendant over the coals again and again, knowing they’ll always get another opportunity. Makes the double jeopardy rule seem meaningless.

[SMP0328]

The case can be dismissed with prejudice if the prosecutor knowingly triggered a mistrial. For example, if he felt an acquittal was likely or intentionally defied the trial judge's authority. If the prosecutor committed the same kind of conduct at the retrial, dismissal with prejudice would have been warranted.

[A Japanese Student]

Because Japan generally does not allow warrantless felony arrests, Payton is probably not applicable here. Police is authorized under statute to enter any buildings, without warrants, to arrest a person - but it would either require an arrest warrant, or be covered by two categories of warrantless arrest (suspects caught in flagrante and exigent circumstance).

In fact, Japan does not have the felony-misdemeanor distinction. If we were to adopt the Federal definition, then almost all crimes, save some regulatory ones, would be felonies - shoplifting, trespass, vandalism, DUI (though it's probably warranted given the public now treats this as attempted murder), and sharing memes online.

[apedad]

Re: Payton v. New York

As most things in law, the constitutional prohibition to entering a house to make an arrest without a warrant is not absolute either.

Exigent Circumstances: Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)
Hot Pursuit: United States v. Santana (1976)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Also: plain view, good faith mistake as to bad warrant

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"good faith mistake as to bad warrant"

The close-enough-for-government-work doctrine.

[Frank Drackman]

Steve's 58 Chevy was pretty impressive with those 6 Strombergs

[ReaderY]

I am shocked that it is business as usual here. Trump, having opened the door to creating an extra-legal framework to disappear undesirables to El Salvadoran prisons, having successfully demonstrating the impotence of the federal courts to stop him, and having announced plans for a large expansion of the framework to cover “homegrown” “criminals,” the Conspiracy responds with…silence.

Nobody should have any naivety about what Trump means by this. When Trump talks about “criminals,” he is talking about his political opponents and people of undesirable race.

He is setting up an American gulag archipelago, an American network of concentration camps, nominally not under American control for legal purposes. He is setting it up right under our noses. He is telling us he is doing it.

Nobody here is worried?

If he succeeds, we will all of us likely meet again in the place where there is no darkness.

[Dan Schiavetta]

See the first comment above.

Yes, this is horrible. If the courts have no power to return someone wrongfully deported, then Trump could deport me (a natural born citizen with no arrests) or you, with no need to pick up the pieces later. Better watch what you say. (Maybe I should hide behind a fictitious screen name again.) /no sarc

[Krayt]

The dangerous part is not in recognizing the judicial branch has no power to order foreign policy. Indeed, that itself is conceptually very dangerous.

The dangerous part is the "We got away with it, ha ha!"

He met with the president of that country and could simply have asked for his return for the United States' admitted mistake, but the plan was a dirty, half-assed rationalization to shine people on, "Their president declined, oh well, whatcha gonna do?", much like a couple arriving late to a man's company Christmas party, and the guy says, "She made us late getting ready..."

[ReaderY]

No, the “mistake” bit was just bullshit, a formula, fed to the courts to see how they’d react in a situation when he knows perfectly well he has no pretense of a legal reason to deport. It worked quite well. So now, if he deports, say, Hillary Clinton next, he can just repeat his success, have his lawyers recite the magic formula and tell the courts that it was a “mistake,” and he now has a Supreme Court precedent that says courts have to treat him with deference because foreign policy.

[Krayt]

Man, I hate it when politicians do something for an unsavory secret reason, and wrap it in a reasonable-sounding (at first glance) cover story.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Nobody here is worried?”

No, because as loyal regimers, they think everyone else deserves it and they don’t think they’ll be targeted. To the extent they are, either by administrative error, future use by political opponents, or because they ran afoul of the current regime, they expect liberal values and processes to save them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he is talking about his political opponents and people of undesirable race"

Mind reading.

Couple of intentional "hot mic" comments and you freak out. Gotta pace yourself man, still 45 months left.

[Estragon]

Pinochet fanboy feels at home in the new paradigm.

[Bob from Ohio]

Allende fanboy comments.

[Estragon]

Pathetic

[Bob from Ohio]

The alternative to Pinochet wasn't King Solomon or George Washington, it was a communist. Communists murder and imprison on a scale well beyond Pinochet's crimes.

[BBSquatter]

Couple of intentional "hot mic" comments and you freak out. Gotta pace yourself man, still 45 months left.

gives them plenty of time for chucking Molotov cocktails at Elon, Tulsi, pro-life centers, inciting violence ala Jasmine Crockett, burning down university buildings and attemping assassinations of Catholic Justices, Trump White House officials and any and all other deplorables. You can always trust a communist / Democrat

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I came by my skepticism of Trump by a fairly different route.

Instead of being alarmed by his disagreement with the progressive/woke establishment, I noted last year his points of *agreement* with that establishment. There was his indifference to the national debt (is he finally getting serious?). And there was his boasting of his prochoice credentials. So I distrusted him enough to vote third party.

Experience has shown that someone who is casually indifferent to the right to life, or actively hostile to it, can be indifferent to other rights as well - like, for example, the right to speak up for the right to life. In Trump's case, he's showing a lack of empathy to others' rights which is consistent with indifference to the unborn.

Needless to say, sending Trump back to private life and replacing him with a militant pro-abortion fanatic is not going to solve anything. If we're going to return him to private life (via impeachment or the 25A), then his replacement should be J. D. Vance, the constitutionally-designated spare tire and someone who actually seems to care about the rights of the smallest humans among us.

It's possible that the people crying "wolf" about every Republican have actually found a real wolf with Trump. If they did, presumably their nonpartisan country-above-politics concern will allow them to promote Trump's replacement with Vance, the constitutionally-designated successor. If not, if their purpose is to perpetuate the problem by putting *another* antilife fanatic in the President's chair, then maybe they're not being serious about their fears.

[Noscitur a sociis]

someone who actually seems to care about the rights of the smallest humans among us.

What makes you say that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"seems" - I don't really *know* any of these people.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Lefties SO worried that Trump will be successful where they've repeatedly failed: putting political enemies in prison.
An idiot, but an evil genius at the same time.
Pure projection. I'm starting to suspect that they actually love being lost in the political wilderness.

[LawTalkingGuy]

One core difference is that liberals used liberal constitutional processes: public trials, courts, hearings, and appeals, typically against people with a lot of resources and power to fight the government.

Trump by contrast is just disappearing random people without a public judicial or administrative process to a foreign camp where there are credible allegations of torture, slave labor, and murder.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...disappearing random people..."
A new term for illegal aliens illegally in the US?

[David Nieporent]

No. While Abrego Garcia was here illegally, many of the people sent to El Salvador under the fake invocation of the AEA were not.

[BBSquatter]

so go visit them in prison. it's what true virtue signalers always do, amiright

[Krayt]

This is what's known as "goalpost shifting".

[Swede425]

LOL!
Just like David Burge said about liberals and institutions: 1. Identify a respected institution. 2. kill it. 3. gut it. 4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
Very on point.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Liberals didn’t kill any institutions. They used the ones conservatives wanted and created against Republicans for once. And then the little bitch republicans cried about it and decided that lets them ignore all the laws.

Literally a complaint about being subject to the same laws as everyone else for once. It’s pathetic.

[Swede425]

He said, demanding respect.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why on earth would I want respect from you, let alone demand it?

[Krayt]

Europeans, including left of center, even complained at the time of the US going off the rails pursuing him so hard during his first term, with censorship and attempts to jail and remove from office.

"Who us? We have completely thought out cover stories for our meetings on how to git 'im!"

I said it many times, the greatest threat to democracy in the US was that balls out effort to censor, jail, remove from office, kick off the ballot, and expropriate his estate to the tune of $600 million, the way kings of yore did with uppity lords, and not Trump's actions, little of which I agree with, either.

Are people concerned with the current actions? Sure, and rightly so!

But you assholes built this bed, setting up a well-deserved over-reaction, and we all have to lie in it now.

Thanks, clever think tankers! Your clever, lawerly presentations of facade reality covering up git im! make the entire nation suffer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“But you assholes built this bed, setting up a well-deserved over-reaction, and we all have to lie in it now.”

The entire MAGA movement is based on the same logic of domestic abusers.

[Krayt]

When I pointed out the disgusting parallel a few weeks back, where Turkey arrested the president's likely opponent in the upcoming presidential election, where they went digging through his 30 year old college transfer application and (claimed to have) found a defect, and got the U to cancel his degree, so they could ban him from the ballot because it required a degree, what did someone around here say?

"I like when this happens." They liked the concept of improperly-motivated fishing expeditions to get an opponent to preserve your power.

This is the left wing equivalent to the other guy around here who, when pointed out how akin Putin is to Hitler and the Sudetenland, said, "I like Putin."

I expect, in the sarcastic words of Bill Maher, "the Smart People" to be better than that. I guess clown noses know no political affiliation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump’s political rise was fueled by the birther conspiracy theory. Literally going back to his birth to try and discredit Obama.

[Krayt]

As an aside, I don't disagree with your posts, though I think birther as controlling motivator is a rather weak claim. I still stand by "it feels soooo good to watch him punch Democrats in the nose, hard.

Which, by the way, is what motivated the opposition to go to such extreme lengths against him. 1, 2, 3, outcomes like clockwork.

And here we are.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“it feels soooo good to watch him punch Democrats in the nose, hard.”

What a pathetic world view. And he’s not punching “Democrats” he’s punching everyone, yourself included.

[SRG2]

But you assholes built this bed, setting up a well-deserved over-reaction, and we all have to lie in it now.

That's bullshit - the two things are not remotely commensurable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Look what you made me do” is the defining feature of both domestic violence and Republican governance.

[Krayt]

Yes, and Trump pissing you off made you go to Turkey and Venezuela-like extremes to remove him from office and get him off the ballot.

Look what he made you do!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump didn’t piss us off, he tried to illegally stay in power despite losing an election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"repeatedly failed"

They did put a large number of the January 6 protestors in prison. Complete with stacked juries and hostile judges. So they can now claim to use "liberal constitutional processes".

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Complete with stacked juries and hostile judges.”

Oh fuck you, you pathetic excuse for a lawyer. You whine all the time about “criminals” not getting their just desserts and disdain every procedure that protects them in some minimal way.

Then some of your buddies get in the sights of law enforcement and suddenly all the protections guaranteed by the constitution, that every other defendant is guaranteed, aren’t enough and it’s unfair.

If we used your approach to criminal justice:
most of the Jan 6th people wouldn’t have lawyers and they’d all be denied bond. After all you don’t believe in a right to counsel for the indigent and you decry releasing people routinely. They’d all be sentenced to the max because of “justice” or whatever bullshit you’re spouting white-knighting for victims that you don’t actually care about.

You’re the most pathetic of people: a dish-but-can’t-take crybully. No wonder you’re a transactional lawyer, you’re too much of a little bitch to even take the slightest pushback. I’ve seen prosecutors with higher tolerance for adversity than you. And that’s fucking embarrassing man.

[Swede425]

Bob,
Look how hostile they get when you call them out...
"Fuck you", "pathetic excuse", "whine", "bullshit", "white-knighting", "crybully", "little bitch", "fucking embarrassing man".

Hey, at least he's on here showing his ass instead of out vandalizing Teslas or cheerleading assassination attempts.
Which is nice.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah I’m hostile to shitheads who whine about being subject to the same rules as everyone else for once and then think that’s an excuse to throw them all out. What of it?

[Swede425]

Sir, calm down.
I'm sure no spittle was flung during your well reasoned and even tempered screed. I trust you're getting enough fiber in your diet?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Whether I’m calm or not doesn’t change the underlying facts: MAGA wants to throw out the law because a small subset of them experienced it for once. That’s pathetic loser behavior regardless of my emotional state when I point this out.

[Swede425]

Of course.

Will you be needing anything else?
A glass of water?
A hug?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, I want you and your entire political movement to go fuck themselves.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I never would have guessed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Will you be needing anything else?
A glass of water?
A hug?"

Watch out, I once asked him if he wanted a tissue and he has been stalking my comments and screaming at me for years now.

Responses to me are about 75-80% of his total comments here now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Bob,

Remember the context of the comment: I described a child who was shot by police while lying on the ground because they were aiming for her non-threatening dog. I said it was horrible that qualified immunity denied her a remedy.

Your response: need a tissue? You were mocking empathy for a child shooting victim. That demonstrates your low character.

The reason I “stalk” you and “scream” at you is because you purport to be a member of my bar and yet maintain these shockingly disgusting and immoral views. I do this to be a constant reminder to you that your colleagues in the bar find you and your views abhorrent.

You should never have a moment where you forget that.

So unless you want to reform your character or at least acknowledge that you are a bad person with bad views, the comments will keep coming. If you mute me, they’ll serve as a reminder and warning to others about who and what you are.

[Swede425]

Bob,
He sounds super sane and totally not unhinged in any way.
Make sure this guy never finds out what your name is or where you live, unless you like the idea of bunnies boiling on your stove.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m more sane than an apologist for Pinochet who mocks child shooting victims.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He sounds super sane and totally not unhinged in any way.
Make sure this guy never finds out what your name is or where you live, unless you like the idea of bunnies boiling on your stove."

Oh yeah. I also refrain from any comments about my work anymore. Who knows what this dude would do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Probably just advise people and other lawyers to avoid you professionally and personally due to ethical concerns. But that shouldn’t be too hard, because I don’t know anyone who needs a shitty person to be their shitty lawyer

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I am shocked that it is business as usual here.

A couple of contributors have been very concerned. (One more than once said "are you worried yet" etc.) One said he supported Kamala Harris (Orin Kerr openly voted for Clinton in 2016.)

At least two (maybe more) are blatantly pro-Trump (one praised him openly), though they are miffed about a few things.

Orin Kerr sneered at someone (who is admittedly somewhat annoying*) when he asked about Kerr's opinion about the current situation, asking for unnecessary clarification on details. He's not interested in posting much here.

Last time, his position was "we are stuck with Trump; the sane Republicans have to work with him, so we have sane people in government." He sarcastically responds to JB, but has not used this blog to openly discuss how bad things are.

One cares mostly about Israel. Another mostly about crime victims. Another about guns.

Eugene Volokh voted Libertarian; afterwards repeatedly posted criticisms of Democrats from one of those op-eds he finds impressive, basically blaming them for losing.

He finds Trump's pressure on law firms bothersome, but his conservative leanings come out. His lack of posts even on 1A Trump issues is telling.

I'm not too surprised. The pro-Trump comments here know this is fairly friendly ground, more or less. One critic responded to someone very concerned with a comment about people being "hysterical." Even those critical of Trump often do not want to support Democrats. Deep down, many of them still think Democratic control would be worse.

==

* I am, of course, never annoying.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Deep down, many of them still think Democratic control would be worse."

Consult experience and see whether or not there is some basis in such concerns, to put it mildly.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. I consulted. There isn't.

If the specter of 2021 (or 2009 or 1966) bothers people, btw, I suggest they try to get some Republicans to form a coalition with the Democrats. It might temper the so-called blow.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That advice cuts both ways, you know.

"Okay. I consulted. There isn't."

It's good to know that Democratic administrations didn't promote abortion, defend federal cops' immunity from lawsuits for abuse, supervise the content of social media, and all the rest. Because it would be worrisome if it had actually happened.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's good to know that Democratic administrations didn't promote abortion.

It promoted the right to choose an abortion.

Ending that as a constitutional right net has not reduced the abortion rate much at all. In fact, evidence suggests it has risen some because of lack of reproductive health services.

Those who oppose abortion are better off not denying people the right to choose and instead supporting a variety of things that Democrats either support or have not blocked.

defend federal cops' immunity from lawsuits for abuse,

The Republicans, of the two parties, have been better at stopping this sort of thing? The same? I'm sorry. TRUMP has been?

This is not a serious claim. It's trolling.

supervise the content of social media

How, especially aside from fictional claims, have Democrats been worse than Trump on this?

and all the rest. Because it would be worrisome if it had actually happened.

Mary Ann and the Professor? Trans people?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Those who oppose abortion are better off not denying people the right to choose and instead supporting a variety of things that Democrats either support or have not blocked."

So opponents of abortion shouldn't support prolife centers which advice women about alternatives to abortion? Because Democrats have certainly tried to block those.

And if the abortion rate is still high, bear in mind that we haven't moved from Roe v. Wade to right-to-life, but from Roe to Stephen-Douglas-style popular sovereignty.

https://iusetiustitium.com/little-giant-constitutionalism/

In general...as Leo Tolstoy would probably have said if he'd thought about it, every bad politician is bad in his or her own way.

Incidentally, you continue to speak of "choice," while hip, with-it supporters of abortion simply call themselves...pro-abortion. You sound like some news archive from the 1990s with Bill Clinton talking about safe, legal and rare.

[John F. Carr]

If our parties were less monolithic we would be less afraid to vote for the wrong side. Back in the 1980s there were a lot of defections from the party line. Having 50%+1 seats was not sufficient to advance most of the party's agenda.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is still some overlap. During the Biden Administration, multiple pieces of legislation had significant Republican support.

A same sex marriage bill had around 10-11 Republican senators. The gun law had significant support. Infrastructure legislation did too. Senate Dems joined with Republicans to add district court judges. House Republicans waited until after the election, which led Biden to veto the bill. A law was passed to reform the electoral vote process.

The two parties also manage to join together over the years on certain things, including crafting budgets. Maybe, Republicans should be able to join with Dems to limit Trump some.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The facts of this case must have made some worried:

Yetta Stromberg was charged with violating a California law prohibiting displaying a red flag in a public meeting place after displaying a red flag daily at a children’s camp in the San Bernardino Mountains. The youth camp for working-class children was maintained by a number of different groups and organizations, some of which were either openly Communist or had expressed sympathy for the Communist Party's goals.

["Yetta" reminds me of the grandmother on The Nanny]

Yetta was 19 when she was arrested. She received a sentence of one to ten years. She was the camp director. Yetta was a U.S. citizen, but she was promoting communism.

The red flag was deemed a "sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government or as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action or as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious character is guilty of a felony."

The majority found the law too vague, especially since free speech was involved. People had the right to "free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means."

The 1930s were a dangerous time. Giving people the right to oppose the government lawfully served as a safety valve to those who wished to use violence. The defendant, being a young woman, might also have helped the majority decide the way they did.

Imagine a camp today with a Palestinian flag flying. Perhaps some of the campers are the children of noncitizens.

[A Japanese Student]

Parricide Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 15, 1971): Appellate court cannot expressly include time served when vacating on defendant's appeal because it is automatically included

Extraordinary Appeal Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 15, 2008): Where oral pronouncement and written judgment conflicts, oral pronouncement controls (judge sentenced defendant to 6 months in jail (suspended for 5 years), but the written judgment said 1 year and 6 months; cf. United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823 (CA5 2003))

Robbery-Murder Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 15, 2008): No warrants needed to film someone in public or to seize contents of a dumpster

Accessory to Dangerous Driving Causing Death Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 15, 2013): Defendants drank with the principal, recognized him being drunk, saw him drive to another bar at excessive speed, and most importantly, nodded when the principal suggested driving with the defendants while waiting for the bar to open - which, the Court holds, constituted accessory (Knowingly riding in a drunk-driven car is now per se criminal)

Special Kokoku-Appeal to Order on Bail (Third Petty Bench, decided April 15, 2015): Lower court erroneously found abuse of discretion (should have deferred to district court); reinstated bail against defendant alleged to have molested an 18-year-old (defendant pled not guilty)

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts case law says knowingly riding in a stolen car is criminal. On the civil side, failing to intervene when the driver does something crazy can be contributory negligence. Technically, comparative negligence which bars recovery entirely if the plaintiff's fault exceeds the defendants'.

I feel like merely accepting an offer of a ride with a drunk driver would not be a crime in America. Doing anything to encourage a reluctant person to drive drunk would be soliciting a crime or accessory before the fact.