Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

In the matter of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, District Judge Paula Xinis has ordered expedited discovery in order " Defendants have done 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.' [Noem v.] Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S. —, slip op. at 2. This includes evidence concerning: (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 District Court has ordered that the Plaintiffs are permitted to propound a limited number of interrogatories and requests for production of documents focused on the above areas of inquiry. The Court has further granted leave for the Plaintiffs to notice the depositions of the following affiants: Robert L. Cerna, Evan C. Katz, Michael G. Kozak, and Joseph N. Mazzara, each of whom has previously submitted one or more declarations in support of the Defendants' position in this litigation. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf

[not guilty]

This is prudent on the part of Judge Xinis. By voluntarily submitting declarations, the putative deponents have waived their privilege against self-incrimination as to the government's potentially criminal conduct. See Brown V. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 154-157 (1958).

[Kazinski]

Looks to me like Xinis is throwing in the towel at getting Garcia back.

But is hoping to get a pound of flesh back in compensation.

I note she still hasn't ordered the Administration to ask for Garcia back, which she knows she can't.

[not guilty]

"Looks to me like Xinis is throwing in the towel at getting Garcia back."

How so, Kazinski?

[Kazinski]

No further actions until the 23rd except depositions.

A federal judge ordered an “intense” two-week inquiry into the Trump administration’s refusal to seek the return of a man who was wrongly deported from Maryland to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

“To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done. Nothing,” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said at a court hearing Tuesday."

She clearly wants the administration to actively work to bring Garcia back.

She clearly can not order them to do so, and she knows it.

[not guilty]

How has the judge "throw[n] in the towel" by noting that the administration has done nothing to date? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Kazinski]

Did she order them to take any action?

[not guilty]

She is seeking additional information before ordering that. It does no good to order something that is not legitimately achievable.

IOW, she is giving the MAGA cult rope to hang itself.

[Drewski]

Yes, she ordered them to facilitate his release. These hearings are about their *ongoing* failure to do so. The order is still in effect.

[William of Brooklyn]

I don't think so. As mentioned elsewhere, the president of El Salvador has said "no." That's the end of the discussion, inasmuch as we're talking about a Salvadoran national in the custody of El Salvador. The only thing the government of the US could be held accountable for is violating the Order of Non-Removal for sending Garcia to El Salvador (as opposed to any other country.). And the Supreme Court clearly gave the administration an out as wide as a barn door with respect to the president's "preclusive and exclusive" authorities, as well as Curtiss-Wright. And they drove an 18-wheeler right through it. It's over. Garcia is not coming back, and there is nothing the District Court (or indeed the Supreme Court) can do about it. Indeed, even if the House were to impeach Trump, and the Senate convict him (neither of which is going to happen), Garcia is not coming back. The rest is just theatre about Xinis dudgeon at being powerless to enforce her will. HOWEVER, going forward there will still be challenges to mass removals, and more litigation as to what constitutes notice and due process in the Supreme Court's formulation.

[Krayt]

"In the interests of international comity, and because we're the biggest thing ever, could you send him back?"

"Sure!"

It's as easy as that. But the admin more likely actually told him to say, "Say you won't give him back. Then there's no point in even asking."

Let's not pretend here.

[Darwinnie]

Yes. And this is the guy who promised he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours just by calling Putin. Trump just does and says whatever he feels like with no care for whether it’s actually true.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not believe anyone is dumb enough to believe this is an independent leader saying no on his own accord, no matter how motivated they are by Trumpish devotion.

This is a pretextual evasion of a valid court order. Quit lying about it.

[William of Brooklyn]

It is an evasion, and yes, Trump *could* ask. But I question whether it is a valid court order (to direct the president to have Garcia returned.)

[Sarcastr0]

Do courts need to pretend to believe pretext? I learned they do not.

They have to establish it, but yeah.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a pretextual evasion of a valid court order. Quit lying about it."

What's the pretext? Neither Trump nor anybody else has pretended to want the guy back. He could, as many have pointed out, get the guy back by doing things that the judge can't order him to do.

No one has shown that he can get the guy back by doing things that the judge can order him to do.

[HazelMeade]

"Neither Trump nor anybody else has pretended to want the guy back. "

Which is exactly why Trump is in violation of the court order. He's been order to facilitate his release and treat the case as if he had never been deported. Making it obvious he doesn't want the guy back directly violates the order. So does continuing to lie about his being an MS-13 member.

Also, pretty sure his wife and kids want him back.

[HazelMeade]

"Neither Trump nor anybody else has pretended to want the guy back. "

If it's not a valid court order then the entire program of deporting people to a foreign prison is unconstitutional. We can't have Presidents shipping people off to foreign prisons and then using that as a pretext to deny them due process. "ooopsie, it's out of my hands now" means that any future president can "accidentally" put someone in a foreign prison and leave them there to rot forever without due process. It enables blatant abuses of power like we have never since since this country was founded.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which is exactly why Trump is in violation of the court order."

You think the court can order Trump to want the guy back? To pretend to want the guy back?

This is another aspect of the case that make things complicated. In addition to first amendment rights, Trump has prerogatives in the foreign policy domain that are outside the reach of the judge.

Presumably he could ask El Salvador not to return him, and use some of his foreign policy prerogatives to impede his return, without violating the judge's order to facilitate his return.

[Kazinski]

So the courts are just going to make the assumption that El Salvador is no longer an independent country, with its own policies?

On what basis?

And when did that start?

On January 20th?

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz is mixing up the leader and the country again.

[Kazinski]

Who is head of State in El Salvador? Bukele is the elected President of El Salvador.

But lets play that game too.

When did Bukele become a US Puppet?

Did he open CECOT with USAID money at the behest of the Biden Administration?

That would be a scoop.

[Sarcastr0]

Your comment is a clownshow, Kaz.

You want us to believe that the chortling press conference where this guy did exactly what Trump wanted in front of Trump was a totally above board arms-length decision.

No. Amazing you would think anyone would fall for that.

[HazelMeade]

If we're sending people to Salvadorean prisons and El Salvador is going to refuse to comply with our request to release those people when we say to, then we should stop sending people to Salvadorean prisons. It's that simple.

Give Trump an ultimatum. Either Abrego Garcia gets out or no more deportation flights to El Salvador. If El Salvador continues to refuse, too bad. No more deportation flights. Bad for them, but so what? If they can't be trusted to release people we send them, the deal is off. SCOTUS can do this.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You want us to believe that the chortling press conference where this guy did exactly what Trump wanted in front of Trump was a totally above board arms-length decision."

Why would anybody want you to believe that? Of course, you have offered no evidence that it wasn't, just vibes, but even if it wasn't, so what?

[HazelMeade]

He's being held at the behest of US. We're paying the $6 million dollars to them for the express purposes of holding the supposed gang member prisoners. Obviously it is within our rights to say "okay, not this one, please release him". He hasn't been convicted of anything in El Salvador so Bukele has no reason to hold him if we aren't asking him to. The only reason he's in CECOT is because we told the Salvadorean government to put him there. So we can certainly tell them not to. If he's refusing to release him it is because he knows Trump doesn't actually want him released.

[Kazinski]

Funny that, you quote the 6 million figure, and the agreed price is 25k per prisoner, but that only pays for the TdA members that were deported, it wouldn't pay for any Salvadorans.

As of a month ago NPR says ICE has deported 250 TdA members
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/16/g-s1-54154/alien-enemies-el-salvador-trump

250 x 25000 = 625,000

So Trump is not paying Bukele anything for incarcerating MS13 Salvadoran nationals, unless you can provide more evidence for that proposition.

I can't find any and I have been looking.

[HazelMeade]

Actually according to Senator Van Hollen who visited El Salvador today, they ARE being paid to hold Abrego Garcia. Apparently he was told that they are being paid to do so by government officials.

[tylertusta]

Actually according to Senator Van Hollen who visited El Salvador today, they ARE being paid to hold Abrego Garcia. Apparently he was told that they are being paid to do so by government officials.

Until the government admits to it, or until we see actual line-items, this could be the world's dumbest game of telephone.

[Drewski]

There's a complete lack of law in your copy-paste rant. If someone robs a bank, the law against bank robbery is still valid. That Trump may impede a court order to his subordinates does not invalidate the order. It may moot a portion of it but there's a high bar to a showing of futility that the DoJ does not even appear to be attempting to reach.

[not guilty]

William of Brooklyn, do you really believe that the president of El Salvador would refuse a request from Donald Trump to return Abrego Garcia to the United States? Especially if that request were coupled with a suspension of any payments remaining under the multi-million dollar contract and a notice of intention not to renew such contract?

Judge Xinis has ordered "that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." Asking El Salvador is undoubtedly an "available step[]". So is renegotiating the contract for payment.

[tylertusta]

Asking El Salvador is undoubtedly an "available step[]". So is renegotiating the contract for payment.

In my view, it would be unconstitutional for the district court to make that order. It's why I think that 'effectuate' caused enough of a problem at SCOTUS that they asked the district court to clarify what it meant.

Judge Xinis seeks to be clever by dropping 'effectuate' while expanding 'facilitate' to include all "available steps" that make the terms essentially synonymous.

[Commenter_XY]

Ask the DOJ to give the judge some Midol for her judicial cramping.

[not guilty]

XY, what does that contribute to the discussion?

[Kazinski]

I'm going to agree with you, but it seems to be a strange criticism coming from the man that seemed obsessed with the breast size of the attorney who pretty much singlehandedly derailed Fani Willis's prosecution of Trump in Georgia.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While a distinct touch, to steelman the riposte I’d note that not guilty does typically include substantive points alongside his inexplicably juvenile misogynistic and racist insults, and this could be said to be “contribut[ing] to the discussion” in a way that Commenter_XY’s cargo cult attempts at satire aren’t.

[not guilty]

Ashleigh Merchant's fake tits (evinced by before and after photos which I referenced) are an indicator of deception. Having menstrual cramps is not. (And how does XY claim to know?)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Please stop helping.

[David Nieporent]

+1

[Malika the Maiz]

Both are pretty bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I thought they were both pretty nice, although neither is an indicator of deception.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

They seem to point that way.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Ashleigh Merchant's fake tits (evinced by before and after photos which I referenced) are an indicator of deception."

I hadn't heard about this scandal. A lawyer misrepresented her tits to the court?

[Swede425]

I hope the law shines a light on this misdeed.
Headlights, as it were.
Bouncy, bouncy headlights.

[tylertusta]

Someone call the bar!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Ashleigh Merchant's fake tits (evinced by before and after photos which I referenced)"

Photos showing that her breasts increased in size of 10 years. Which would mean that 2/3 of the women I know and half of the men are liars.

[Bob from Ohio]

"indicator of deception"

Didn't you vote for Harris? She colors her hair. Deception!

I imagine you like Pelosi. All those face lifts. Deception!

Women using make up. Deception!

Spanx. Deception!

[Nelson]

God I hate it when I agree with Bob, but he’s right. Getting a boob job just indicates a desire to have bigger boobs. Whether she should or shouldn’t is a subject for personal beliefs and preferences, not lead to an accusation of dishonesty.

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

Don't forget, he's also a sickening racist.

[not guilty]

I am no racist, Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2. I simply refuse to genuflect to Clarence Thomas.

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

Can you share with us some of your favorite depictions of Thomas (or any other black with opinions you think aren't "black enough" or "authentically black".)

[not guilty]

I could, but I don't care to cast pearls before swine such as you. Matthew 7:6.

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

A Democrat citing the Bible? The the Real Bible of Israel even?

lmao, did your fingers catch on fire when you typed that?

[not guilty]

I was reared among Christian fundamentalists. But later in life, my karma ran over my dogma.

And I don't think the Gospel of Matthew is part of "The the [sic] Real Bible of Israel."

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

Sure it is. It's part of the New Testament.

The Real Bible of the Church of Israel.

P.S.

No one cares about your personal memoirs. That being said, throw fucking a couch in there and you might have a hit on your hands!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Somebody managed to get through a reference to Clarence Thomas without dropping any racial slurs. Progress!

[not guilty]

What on earth is this "Church of Israel" to which you refer, M.P.?

[Malika the Maiz]

More bad faith.

[hobie]

Why can't this judge order any manner of facilitation she wishes short of ordering them to return the man? Then hold whomever in contempt for failure to facilitate?

[William of Brooklyn]

Because there are limits to the court's authority.

[shawn_dude]

The President is (according to the USSC) immune to prosecution for illegal actions but the people he orders to implement them are not.

I believe this is the "pound of flesh" Kazinski was referring--the court holding people accountable for breaking the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The President is (according to the USSC) immune to prosecution for illegal actions"

This is not how I understand the immunity ruling.

Rather, the President is immune to prosecution for exercises of his powers of office, because on account of their being conferred on him by the Constitution, the highest law of the land, those exercises can't be "illegal".

So it's not that he's immune from prosecution for illegal actions. They're not illegal actions in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

It's been pointed out this proves way too much - allowing assassinations of political rivals, and accepting bribes for pardons etc.

It's also been pointed out that Nixon dug his reputation a grave when he said something as imperial as "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Now the GOP argues that he was right.

[Kazinski]

She know if she explicitly orders any "facilitation" that requires any official communication with El Salvadoran authorities will be struck by the Supreme Court.

So she has to pretend not to be ordering that, while at the same time ready to sanction as contempt any efforts short of that. And the only way to do that is to ignore the Supreme Court order to clarify her "directive".

Its a pretty fine balancing act.

[shawn_dude]

This fascination with what the court can and cannot do wrt its power is a strange angle on a case where the executive branch is trampling civil rights on a daily basis and thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the branch of government meant to interpret it. The MAGAts are gleeful at judicial impotence in the face of an authoritarian president who does what he wants, law be damned.

What that tells me is that a significant number of people have lost interest in the United States as a democratic republic and are looking to morph it into something else.

[Bob from Ohio]

"democratic republic "

Rule by a judicial oligarchy is not much of a democratic republic, its a juristocracy instead.

[shawn_dude]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with an autocratic president that refuses to abide by the constitution and the branch of government empowered to interpret it. It's not the courts who are illegally rounding up people and deporting them without legal warrants or due process. The courts haven't declared emergency power, absent any actual emergency, in order to assume authority granted to Congress.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that the President of El Salvador rendered everything moot by saying "do you think that I am going to facilitate the smuggling of a terrorist into your country?!?"

I think that dumb *unt of a judge should be incarcerated for treason. Or, more likely, for merely being a dumb *unt who doesn't understand that her domain doesn't include foreign countries.

Heck, why doesn't she just order Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine, and order Hamas to release all of the hostages? That makes about as much sense.

And I don't think the legal community realizes how this plays in Peoria -- it is eliminating the scintilla of respect which the legal community retained.

[Noscitur a sociis]

*unt

SPECIAL WARNING TO ALL READERS!!!

Right up till the time this book went in the mail there was practically a running feud amongst a number of people over the filthy and vulgar language. Pop argued hard that the least I could do was blank in the filthiest and the vulgarest.

“I can swallow the “damns” and the “hells” and even worse,” said he, “but as for the “f--s” they are simply too much for my eyes to bear. I wish you would blank them in, Hank.”

“I suppose I could blank them in at that,” I said, “but I cannot see where the gain is.”

“It will protect the women and the children,” said Pop.

Then Aaron whipped out this book called “Tom Jones” by an Englishman with the following underlined in ink in Chapter 10 of Book 4: “D--n un, what a sly b--ch ’tis.” “Read it out loud,” said Aaron to Pop.

Pop read out loud as follows: “Damn un, what a sly bitch ’tis.”

“Ho ho,” said Aaron, “you have blanked out the blanks in your mind.”

“But at least it is not there for the eye to see,” said Pop.

“How are the women and the children of England protected?” said Aaron to Pop.

“I do not know,” said Pop, “but they are protected nonetheless.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, a fig leaf but it is a fig leaf.

I think she is a clear and present danger whom the USSS should arrest.

[SRG2]

You're a fuckwit

[not guilty]

"I think that dumb *unt of a judge should be incarcerated for treason. Or, more likely, for merely being a dumb *unt who doesn't understand that her domain doesn't include foreign countries."

What you think means jack shit, Dr. Ed. 2. But I am curious. Do you claim that Judge Xinis has levied war against the United States? If so, based on what facts?

Do you claim that Judge Xinis has adhered to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere? If so, which enemies? What conduct by the judge?

Who do you claim would be two witnesses who could offer testimony as to the same overt act?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you claim that Judge Xinis has adhered to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere? If so, which enemies? What conduct by the judge?

Aid and comfort to MS-13.

Who do you claim would be two witnesses who could offer testimony as to the same overt act?

To acts committed in open court???

[Martinned2]

Stop trolling

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Stop feeding the troll.

[not guilty]

Please refresh my memory. When did Congress declare war on MS-13?

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

lol why do you think a Congressional declaration is necessary?

See how stupid you look with the constant goal seeking?

[not guilty]

"Enemies" is not a defined term in the statute proscribing treason, 18 U.S.C. § 2381, or in Article III, § 3 of the Constitution. However, the term "in pari materia" is a Latin phrase that translates to "in the same matter." In simple terms, it refers to laws or legal documents that deal with the same subject or issue. When courts encounter multiple laws or regulations that relate to the same topic, they often interpret them together. This helps to ensure that the laws are applied consistently and that their meanings are understood in the same context.

The word “enemy” is defined for purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. That Act and the federal treason prohibition are both designed to punish American cooperation with wartime enemies of the United States.

Per 50 U.S.C. § 4302, the word “enemy” is defined to mean:

(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.
(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”

Like it or not, treason is a wartime offense.

[Krayt]

If giving aid and comfort to enemies is a concern to you, you do not wanna know the admin's position on dictators rolling tanks through Europe!

[Malika the Maiz]

“I think that dumb *unt of a judge”

“Ask the DOJ to give the judge some Midol for her judicial cramping.”

Why in the world did people talk about MAGAns being sexist deplorables?

[Mr. Bumble]

Now go into your "your momma" schtick.

[Malika the Maiz]

Going into your momma is a you thing.

[bernard11]

I'm surprised that ward Dr. Ed is in allows patients to use the internet.

[bernard11]

You know, arresting a judge for treason because they rule against the President is really a mark of Fascism.

Hard to think of a better one.

[not guilty]

To the MAGA cult, that is a feature, not a bug.

[Riva]

And the nonsense from the TDS afflicting continues. I guess i have to repost an earlier comment.

This insane overreaction by legal professionals is quite entertaining, however embarrassing it is. The silly district court order was to “ facilitate and effectuate.” The SCt. order said, in effect, don’t really know what you’re saying so clarify with due respect for executive authority in foreign policy. They could have been (and should have in light of the lower court’s derangement) clearer and more forceful, but they certainly didn’t order the president to do anything. In fact, they ordered the district judge to get his head out of his ass. And I’ll add that no court can direct the president’s conduct in foreign affairs, just as the president couldn’t direct the courts in the exercise of the judicial power.

Some judges, and others in the legal profession appear to want a judicial coup. Not surprising. Hypocrisy is characteristic of Democrars.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Letitia James was referred to the DoJ for mortgage fraud. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

[Kazinski]

"In documents obtained by Fox News Channel's "The Ingraham Angle," the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, accusing James of mortgage fraud Tuesday.

FHFA Director William Pulte said in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that James appears to have falsified records to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms."

I know the Trump administration is going to be accused of weaponizing the legal system for revenge, but this appears to be exactly what the Biden Administration prosecuted Marilyn Mosby for:
"Greenbelt, Maryland – A federal jury today convicted Marilyn J. Mosby, age 44, of Baltimore, Maryland, on the federal charge of making a false mortgage application when she was Baltimore City State’s Attorney, relating to the purchase of a condominium in Long Boat Key, Florida. "

Its definitely a thing.

[Commenter_XY]

Letitia better start looking into accessorizing for her perp walk.

It is always sex or money. Mortgage fraud, LOL. How appropriate.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I know the Trump administration is going to be accused of weaponizing the legal system for revenge”

lol, now why would anyone do that?

[Martinned2]

Indeed. If she did the crime, she should do the time.

[Kazinski]

Mosby got 12 months of home confinement and 3 years of supervised release, but she was also convicted of perjury, and went to trial rather than just plead guilty and take a deal.

If James owns up to it I doubt she will get any time, fine and probation I would guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And, I presume, loss of bar card.

What's the chance she will try for jury nullification?

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

She should get the J6 Shock and Awe treatment to forever rid ourselves of these demons committing mortgage fraud.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure she'll do well in Gen Pop at Riker's

[bernard11]

Let's maybe wait for the outcome before we send her off to Devil's Island.

[Malika the Maiz]

Due process is only for Presidents and ex-Presidents.

[Commenter_XY]

Riker's Island would be more appropriate. We already know the outcome: Guilty AF.

[Bob from Ohio]

"take a deal"

Assuming an indictment, I don't think DOJ is going to offer much of a deal. Trump would enjoy having her go to trial.

[shawn_dude]

Which brings us back to:

“I know the Trump administration is going to be accused of weaponizing the legal system for revenge”

[Bob from Ohio]

I gave them a sword and they stuck it in and they twisted it with relish. I guess if I’d been in their position, I’d have done the same thing.”
– Richard Nixon to David Frost, 1977

[jb]

I have yet to see anyone here defend James for this, and it does seem pretty comparable to the Mosby case.

Trump is weaponizing the government in plenty of other ways, but holding government officials accountable seems like an important function of the Justice Department (although the Supreme Court keeps making this harder and harder).

[Krayt]

Congrats! And the challenger for the presidency of Turkey was arrested and declared an invalid candidate because his degree was cancelled because someone went 30 years back in time and found a problem with his transfer application

How many times do I have to hammer this? Things like warrants and fishing expeditions are not about planting false evidence. They're about looking through everything someone has to find inevitable issues, which tyrant kings know statistically must exist, especially for rich people with fingers in many pies.

"He's uppity. Go start looking for stuff. But try not to look like you're looking."

"How do I do that?"

Han Solo: "I dunno. Fly casual."

[ThePublius]

NY Post headline" "A Tish Best Served Cold."

[Bob from Ohio]

LOL NY Post headlines are a treasure!.

[TaioF920]

Nothing would make me happier than seeing that fat ape behind bars.

[Frank Drackman]

What's your wife got to do with this?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there any point to having a vice president?

The official responsibilities of the position are:

1. Being president of the senate. The vice president doesn’t typically take an active role, and I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be better to simply the senate elect a president rather than doing it de facto most of the time. (While not of enormous practical significance, this would also close the constitutional loophole that allows vice presidents to preside over their own impeachment trials.)

2. Casting tie-breaking votes in the senate. Even if we think it’s good policy for ties to go to the president, we don’t need a separate officer just to make that happen.

3. Being next in line for the presidency. Would there be any harm if the president (or Congress?) designate a cabinet secretary instead? Maybe some edge cases if the president-elect dies or is disqualified etc.?

Does the vice president serve any useful functions that I’m overlooking?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Would there be any harm if the president (or Congress?) designate a cabinet secretary instead?"

A President who was designated in such a manner wouldn't be able to claim the legitimacy of being elected.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mike Pence ended up pretty useful, in a way no one selected by the present Congress would have been likely to match. Any presumption that Vice Presidential tie breaking will always go to the President seems dubious.

The Vice President has some use as a potential witness to the goings on of an administration; if the President freezes out the Vice President, which has happened, it creates a political risk for the President. That is a check, of sorts, on the President.

For reasons of electoral influence, Vice Presidents chosen as running mates by Presidents have tended to be of different political generations. That has sometimes acted to check continuation of too-dominant rule of the nation by a single generation. There has been a tendency for one generation's members to consolidate power for decades-long intervals. That can lead to ossified politics and under-served generational needs, especially among younger generations.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Any presumption that Vice Presidential tie breaking will always go to the President seems dubious.

When is the last time that it didn’t?

[Michael P]

Wikipedia says John C. Calhoun was the only one to do that, voting twice in 1832 to defeat the nomination of Martin van Buren as the ambassador to the UK.

[William of Brooklyn]

I believe Charles Dawes is also in that club. And lest we forget, VPs also attend funerals...

And there is only one ticket in US history where the president and VP were born in the same year. Bonus points to anyone who knows which ticket that was!!

[Michael P]

By reference to Dawes, do you mean during the nomination of Charles B. Warren to be AG? That vote originally tied 40-40, but one of the "aye" voters switched to "nay" before Dawes arrived, so he never had the opportunity to break the tie.

Dawes did cast two tie-breaking votes, both nays, but I don't see evidence that either was against the preference of Coolidge or the Republicans in the Senate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"voting twice in 1832 to defeat the nomination of Martin van Buren"

Self inflicted wound. Should have got him out of DC. Then maybe Van Buren doesn't become VP and then President.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Initially it was the person who lost the POTUS election.
Can you imagine Heel's Up as Trump's Veep, or Trump as Biden's Veep?

[Krayt]

Still doesn't really explain what he does, other than waiting for the president's heart to stop beating.

I remember when Clinton's vp, Gore, was running, and part of his push was Clinton saying he "was the most involved vp evah!"

Then Cheney came along and smashed that record to all hell.

[Kazinski]

Kamala did cast more than 20 tie breaking votes.

But obviously the age of the last two Presidents is all the argument you need as to why a VP is necessary.

Other than that John Nance Garner was right:

The Vice Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss", who reportedly made the statement to Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy offered Johnson the job, which Johnson then promptly took.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Kamala did cast more than 20 tie breaking votes.

Sure, but you could give that power to the president directly, if you think the current arrangement is good.

[Kazinski]

Nah, that means he would have to be at the Senate, if needed.

The President actually does have a real job, making the VP perfect for that duty.

[Martinned2]

Why? He could literally phone in his vote.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Then we can authorize proxy voting by the president. That doesn’t seem like a full time job. (Harris, of course, was in the unusual situation of an evenly split Senate—Biden cast zero votes in his eight years.)

[Krayt]

But obviously the age of the last two Presidents is all the argument you need as to why a VP is necessary.

And the assassination attempts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Before the 12th Amendment, the VP slot went to the runner-up in the Presidential election, under the theory that someone who came *so close* to the Presidency was probably a well-seasoned, qualified person.

Then came Amendment 12, basically making the VP part of a ticket and giving both offices to the winning ticket. So the parties sometimes scraped the bottom of the barrel to get their VP candidates. But they might still award the post to influential members of the party.

So where am I going with this? The Secretary of State could be the designated successor, and I think it would be better, since the original design of the VPship has been lost sight of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is kind of what I’m getting at.

Under the original constitution, the vice president could have a served a role akin to the British leader of the opposition, though active utilization of the presidency of the senate. But if the vice president is guaranteed to be a political ally of the president, and (in what is for the best) doesn’t actively preside over the senate, I’m not sure what utility the office actually has.

[Commenter_XY]

Having an immediate backup on standby has a utility of it's own.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sure—but wouldn’t it be as good, if not better, if that was someone with an actual job to do while they were standing by?

[Commenter_XY]

The VP has an actual job. The role has developed and changed over time. The bucket of warm spit comment was appropriate when Garner uttered it, not so much today. Specific to present circumstance, VP Vance is getting valuable OJT for when he runs and wins the presidency in 2028.

Why try to fix it if there is nothing broken, Nas?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The VP has an actual job

The actual job being… what, besides the three things I named?

Specific to present circumstance, VP Vance is getting valuable OJT for when he runs and wins the presidency in 2028.

Why wouldn’t it be as good, if not better, if he was getting that “OJT” as the Secretary of State or Attorney General or whatever?

Why try to fix it if there is nothing broken, Nas?

The current office of the vice president is itself a fix. My question is whether that fix serves any meaningful purpose today that I’ve missed. (I note you haven’t identified any.) If nothing else, it’s a $200,000 dollar job we could send to the wood chipper, the sort of thing you used to find appealing.

[Don Nico]

Everyone seems to forget that Dick Cheney had considerable power as VP.

[Martinned2]

No, he had considerable *influence* *at the same time* as when he was VP.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
You have it wrong by confusing authority and power.
He did not have mandated authority, but Mr Bush gave him considerable power which he used with great effect.

[Martinned2]

1. None of that had anything to do with him being vice-president. Cheney's role is comparable to Steve Bannon in the first Trump administration and Elon Musk now. Neither one needed to have an official job title to play that role.

2. I tend to use the word "power" in the legal sense, which is basically the Hohfeld sense. You're welcome to use the term "political power" to describe what Cheney had, but that still doesn't make it contingent on him being vice-president.

3. To the extent that Cheney's power was something Bush gave him, it wasn't really power. (Or at least not his power.) That's more of a situation like: "You have to do as I say otherwise I will go to the president and he'll tell you to do what I'm telling you to do." That's not power, that's being a mouthpiece.

[Don Nico]

Martin, now you are quibbling about semantics and you still confuse power with authority.
Also you are confusing the position description with his job description as assigned and understood by POTUS.
Saying that the force of his actions during the Bush presidency was independent of his position does not pass the laugh test.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, I have to confess, feeding the woodchipper is enticing. /sarc

[Martinned2]

There aren't a lot of countries left with a US-style presidential system, but off the top of my head I can't think of a country with a US-style vice-president.

In France the president arguably has more power than the US president, and if the president is incapacitated the job goes to the presiding officer of the senate, and after them to the government: https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/constitution-of-4-october-1958#:~:text=Should%20the%20Presidency,by%20the%20Government.

[Martinned2]

In Brazil they do have a vice-president, it turns out: https://legis.senado.leg.br/norma/579494/publicacao/33296461#:~:text=Article%2079.%20The%20Vice%2DPresident%20shall%20replace%20the%20President%20in%20the%20event%20of%20impediment%20and%20shall%20succeed%20him%20in%20the%20event%20of%20vacancy.

[Martinned2]

As we've discovered recently, the President of South Korea is quite powerful too. No vice-president: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/jomunPrint.do?hseq=1&cseq=1777697

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, & Kennedy.
Harding, FDR, Harrison, Taylor.

18% of the Presidents were Vice Presidents who stepped in upon the death of the President. That's significant...

[Martinned2]

No one is suggesting that the office of the president should be left vacant if the president is killed or incapacitated.

[Mr. Bumble]

So in your plan we might have had, a President Schumer or Johnson or whoever.

[Martinned2]

No, I think a presidential succession act that results in a president being replaced by someone from the other party is a terrible idea, and quite possibly unconstitutional. (Although Will Baude disagrees, and I suspect he knows better than I do.)

The rule should be that the presidency should pass to a cabinet official. Most obviously that would be the secretary of state.

Note that the other countries I linked to upthread (e.g. France and South Korea) have a rule that a new election has to be held pretty quickly if the president dies or is incapacitated. In that situation it's less of a problem if the presidency is temporarily held by someone from the wrong party.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies".
Which "republic" is France up to now?
All human endeavors have flaws but the US system of government has worked pretty well.

[Martinned2]

The Fifth, which is the first one that has a presidential system. (Other than arguably the 3 years of the 2nd republic, which was overthrown in a self-coup before they'd even worked out how it was supposed to work.)

It's called learning from your mistakes, unlike the US which has a system that was so badly broken that it led to outright civil war, and brought the country close to civil war on a couple more occasions, and yet which is now so ossified that no one can even imagine doing things differently.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The original understanding (and text and other more logical than originalist methods of application) in the U.S. Constitution very well might have been that another election would occur soon after a vacancy occurred.

The practice that arose when William Henry Harrison died, with John Tyler stepping in permanently, was far from demanded by the text.

[Krayt]

Switching parties is completely unpalatable, but I don't think it would be unconstitutional.

It's like a retiring senator being replaced by a guy from the other party, but squared, er, 50-folded.

[Martinned2]

No, the unconstitutionality of it would be that the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are not "officers" in the sense of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C6-1/ALDE_00013693/

[Bob from Ohio]

" I suspect he knows better than I do."

After the 14A Trump disqualification fiasco, why would you assume Baude knows much about the Constitution?

[not guilty]

No love for Franklin Roosevelt. Dr. Ed?

[William of Brooklyn]

I am strongly of the opinion that the VP is a member of the Legislative branch, based on his ability to vote on legislation, his responsibilities to preside over the Senate, his absence of any executive authority, and his inability to be removed by the president.

[Sarcastr0]

Despite Dick Cheney's arguments back in the day, Veep appears in Article II, not Article I.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See Art. 1, sec. 3, cl. 4.

[Sarcastr0]

Appeared may not have been quite right, but the role is created and defined in Article II.

I thought we'd left the days of quasi legislative and quasi judicial in the past.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

his absence of any executive authority

But see the 25th Amendment.

Also, the vice president is currently a member of the Cabinet.

The vice president currently practices executive functions. Also, as to removal, that isn't the test of membership in a certain branch.

[Malika the Maiz]

Someone’s gotta drop Ohio State’s trophy.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m sure Marco Rubio could have shaken it like a water bottle.

[Stephen Lathrop]

MtM — My first thought, "Oh no! Musk cut it in half with the chain saw!"

[Sarcastr0]

What about the unofficial stuff? Going to funerals and the like.

Presidentin' keeps you busy; nice to have someone with President at least in the title to keep America's hand in for the rituals and nonsense that being a country entails.

[Martinned2]

The evidence suggests that presidentin' doesn't keep anyone particularly busy: https://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/the-most-golf-mad-us-presidents-of-all-time/

[Armchair]

"Is there any point to having a vice president?"

I'm going with the original explanation...someone to inherit the office in case the President dies (or leaves...or resigns).

There have been ~45 presidents of the United States. 8 of those has been vice Presidents who have taken over after the POTUS died. That's not an insignificant risk. 15% - 20% of the time, a VP is going to take over.

President is an important role in our democracy. One might argue it is the most important role. And...it should be elected in a Democracy. Not simply "designated" without the people choosing. Having a VP means the people elected that person, if they go on to take over the Presidency. The people have agency, a vote.

If you have a system where the President 15-20% of the time is an unelected individual...I would say that's a problem.

[tylertusta]

The first in line of succession is always the VP per the 25th Amendment. Congress or the President cannot unilaterally change that.

I think the VP's role as the successor is actually a great deterrent to groups seeking to use assassination as a means of regime change.

[Moderation4ever]

You need a person to attend state funerals when the President can or is not interested in going. Biggest job of the VP is to help get the President elected. After that you could put them into hibernation and just pull them out if needed.

[Bored Lawyer]

The VP is the only person in the Executive branch the president can't fire. That gives him a measure of independence that no cabinet officer has.

And the 25th Amendment assigns him the leadership role in having a sitting president declared unable to discharge his powers.

[Martinned2]

And the 25th Amendment assigns him the leadership role in having a sitting president declared unable to discharge his powers.

There's no reason why this role should be assigned to cabinet officers. (Nor is it, for completeness, a good idea to let the president fire whoever he likes for good reason, bad reason, or no reason.)

[mse326]

I think there are 2 real utilities at this point
1)It is a person who can step in as President temporarily without having another job they'd have to relinquish or sacrifice time doing
2) By not having a specific job the VP can focus on the big pictures of everything like the President does instead of hyper focus on 1 specific area so that if the President needs to be permanently replaced the replacement should already have the big picture knowledge of everything and can immediately govern rather that having to take time getting updated on everything outside their particular area

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It had more sense in the original version, especially since the runner-up became vice president.

The people do vote for the vice president, so that provides a certain degree of legitimacy to the vice president.

Perhaps, we should select the designated back-up in the way the 25th Amendment sets up for replacing a vice president vacancy: by a vote of both branches of Congress. This provides a certain national legitimacy.

We can also officially give the vice president more to do. They are currently a sort of ombudsman-type person.

As to ties, it would be best just to say a majority was necessary, like in the House of Representatives.

[Area Man]

I won’t repeat what everyone else has already said. But I want to point out that it’s a myth that under the original method of choosing a VP the office would always go to the opposition candidate. Indeed, that wasn’t normally the case. Adams was Washington’s VP, and Burr was Jefferson’s, meaning that most of the time the president and VP were politically aligned. The division only happened once, when Jefferson was Adams’s VP, and that was, of course, before parties or “factions” really solidified. (Burr essentially tried to steal the election from Jefferson, but they were from the same faction/party.)

[Martinned2]

Adams/Washington was before the emergence of political parties. In a system with two major parties, the original method of chosing a VP would predictably lead to the job going to the other major party nominee.

[Area Man]

Except that didn’t happen with Jefferson and Burr. Of the four elections held under the old system, only one led to a “party” split. It’s not clear why that wouldn’t have continued to be the case considering that each elector received two votes and would be expected to support their faction’s preferred candidates.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Latest Massachusetts Insanity -- college degrees for those with severe intellectual disabilities (aka mental retardation).

Yes, those with IQs under 70, who couldn't manage to graduate high school, will now be attending all state colleges and universities including UMass.

Which creates the issue of those too smart to be admitted under this program, but not smart enough to be admitted in general.

[Malika the Maiz]

You should take advantage of this program.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not IQ more than two standard deviations in *either* direction...

[Malika the Maiz]

I know, so you could take advantage of this program.

[Sarcastr0]

"The Board of Higher Education unanimously approved new guidelines to help state colleges and universities in Massachusetts run programs for students with disabilities.

The board was charged with establishing guidelines for a law passed in 2022 aimed at creating more higher education opportunities for students with “severe intellectual disabilities, severe autism spectrum disorders and other severe developmental disabilities."
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/higher-ed-board-approves-new-guidelines-students-disabilities

[Moderation4ever]

The proLife people tell us that all persons are special and deserve to be born. Once born we can forget about them. Is there anything wrong with having programs for these challenged people? I suspect that most of them will be trained in life skills. I don't think they will be going on to degrees in science, engineering or business. Don't worry they will not be taking your job or you kid's job.

[jb]

I don't think there's anything wrong with, e.g., life skills classes for people with severe intellectual disabilities. It's much less obvious that there's any benefit from sending them to college.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

1) Trump didn't run as a prolife candidate.

2) Your assertions about prolife positions need some citations.

[shawn_dude]

Besides bragging about overturning Roe V Wade, you mean...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That's Stephen Douglas, not Abe Lincoln.

[Moderation4ever]

First, I didn't say anything about Trump, and this is not about him. There is plenty of information and discussion on the topic of whether pregnancies with challenges, especially true for Down Syndrome fetuses, should be continued or terminated. Once these children are born I think people need to support and help them. So, when I hear about cutting social programs, important to people, or Medicaid , again an important resource for the challenged I am angry. Last estimate I hear was that it cost about $250,000 to raise and educate a child in the US. So, I like to hear Congress and state legislatures say that this is no problem and people will be taken care of.

[M L]

The antiLife people tell us that if you are going to be against killing persons, you also have to be for the government taking money to provide free child care, housing, food, health care, or whatever, or socialism, communism, etc.

Needless to say, it is one of the stupidest arguments ever.

"Once born we can forget about them."

Actually, I believe pro-life people are just as strongly opposed, if not more so, to born people being killed, as they are opposed to unborn people being killed. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Sarcastr0]

"The antiLife people" is such shit branding it's literally from a comic book.

"The Anti-Living are individuals infected by a corrupted version of the Anti-Life Equation, accidentally created by Darkseid in his attempt to acquire and utilize it. Neither alive nor dead, the Anti-Living are driven solely by their desire to spread more "anti-life" by either killing or infecting any living thing they can find."

But yeah, a government intervening to force someone to have a kid and then saying 'fuck off you were irresponsible good luck supporting yourself' is actually pretty immoral. And has quite a disparate impact, considering who has kids.

You'd have to be a Breitbart-pickled psycho not to connect the two things.

[M L]

If murder bad, then socialism.

You're right. It's so obvious, can't believe I didn't see it before.

[Sarcastr0]

socialism

I said nothing about socialism. The threshold of government support in my comment is 'not saying fuck off.'

Quit crying wolf, or when the actual socialism comes, you'll be too much of a joke to object.

[John F. Carr]

I didn't find recent reporting of this. A few years ago Governor Baker signed a bill allowing people with intellectual disabilities to attend state schools.

[bernard11]

You, unsurprisingly, have utterly misunderstood this program.

No one is handing out degrees to these people. They are just providing such educational opportunities as they are capable of deriving benefit from.

Too bad this wasn't around when you were younger. You might actually have learned something. As it is your mental disabilities were apparently unaided, so you spew out your stupidities and lies unconstrained.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston Mayor Wu bankrolled by ChiComs...

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/04/daily-caller-exclusive-anti-trump-resistance-leaders-campaign-bankrolled-by-dem-power-broker-tied-to-chinese-intel-agency/

[Frank Drackman]

"Who's Bankrolled by the Chicoms?"
"Wu"
"Who?"
"Wu"
"Who's Wu?"
"You Know Who, Wu!"
"Wu's who?"
"3rd Base!"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Assume for the sake of argument, unambiguous, outright defiance of the Supreme Court by the Trump administration. What ought a Court with members sworn to uphold the Constitution do to respond?

[Kazinski]

You have been assuming a lot of hypotheticals lately.

The Supreme Court will be careful not to overstep the bounds they warned Xinis not to overstep.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do you think they should do?

[Kazinski]

That depends on what Xinis tries to do.

If I were them I would just ignore any contempt hijinks unless she tries to order a cabinet official jailed, or she orders the administration to take some action that she does not have authority to order.

I already said I think she ignored their order to clarify her "directive", I think she is pretty constrained with what she can do, which she seems aware of:

"Xinis called that refusal “stunning” even as she agreed there is a legitimate legal debate about her own power to order U.S. officials to make a direct request to their Salvadoran counterparts."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/judge-launches-inquiry-into-trump-administrations-refusal-to-seek-return-of-wrongly-deported-man-00291942

Seems a contradiction to hold the Administration in contempt for not making a request she knows she can't order them to make.

[not guilty]

"If I were them I would just ignore any contempt hijinks unless she tries to order a cabinet official jailed, or she orders the administration to take some action that she does not have authority to order."

If and when a cabinet officer is jailed for civil contempt, what do you surmise that President Trump should do, Kazinski?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Send in the Marines...

[Kazinski]

What he always does, complain to the press.

He's not a lawyer.

[Bob from Ohio]

"cabinet officer is jailed"

All those years and your fantasy about Trump in prison never happened.

This fantasy won't happen either. Keep hope alive though!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think if Trump had lost the election, he would have gone to jail on either or both of the federal charges. Just a guess.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absent Trump v. United States, Trump would have been tried before the election, and would probably have lost the election.

[Commenter_XY]

What Kaz said.....just ignore it until a problem presents itself to the Court.

Judge Xinis is pissed, is flailing, and generally making an ass of herself b/c SCOTUS firmly put her in the judicial lane. I don't know what the judicial equivalent of Midol is, but she needs to take it. The illegal alien gangbanger Garcia isn't coming back, no matter what she says, or rules. She won't jail anyone. She will fume, and remonstrate, ride herd for 2 weeks, and write an opinion that a year from now, nobody will care about. It is irrelevant, and so is she.

Taking a step back: Have you stopped to consider the optics of rushing to the aid of an illegal alien gangbanger who is a member of a designated foreign terrorist group (MS-13)? How do you think that is viewed by 'Joe Sixpack'?

I really do hope Team D does send a delegation El Salvador to 'rescue' the illegal alien gangbanger. It shows where their priorities lie, and it isn't with American citizens who have been victimized by POS like Garcia and his MS-13 compadres.

[Malika the Maiz]

What is the evidence he’s a “gangbanger?”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Joe Biden's folk said so. Twice.

[Malika the Maiz]

1. Link
2. You tend to doubt “Joe Biden’s folk” quite a bit.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden's folk said so. Twice.

Hey, retard: who was president in 2019?

[TaioF920]

Let's assume he's not a gangbanger. He's a low IQ, low skill mestizo working a menial job and whose low quality genetics produced a special needs child. Why is he a good addition to America?

[Malika the Maiz]

We need workers to pay the disability for loafer morons such as yourself.

[TaioF920]

You're an idiot.

[Malika the Maiz]

As Orwell said, the recipients of charity are often bitter.

[Michael Ejercito]

You do not trust the government's say-so?

Colorado legislators trusts sheriff' say-so on who is ineligible to own firearms.

[Malika the Maiz]

And you think the latter is bad so stop with the bad faith.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If he did, he'd have literally nothing to say.

[not guilty]

"Judge Xinis is pissed, is flailing, and generally making an ass of herself b/c SCOTUS firmly put her in the judicial lane."

Did you read the same SCOTUS order I did, XY? The Court unanimously affirmed the order in substantial part.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, XY. Have you read the April 10 SCOTUS order or not?

[not guilty]

Man up and admit that you haven't read the order, XY.

[bernard11]

it isn't with American citizens who have been victimized by POS like Garcia

I am not aware of Garcia victimizing American citizens or anyone else. Has he been convicted of a crime in the US? Even charged with a crime?

No? then STFU, you damn bigot.

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1912567112733753563

His wife for one!

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1912512024606539922

[not guilty]

"His AG said they would facilitate Garcia's entry back in the US, which is as far as they went."

When, where and under what circumstances did the AG say that, Kazinski?

[Kazinski]

At yesterday's press conference in the oval office.

Bondi said that "if they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it – meaning to provide a plane"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/up-el-salvador-trump-admin-punts-return-wrongfully-deported-maryland-resident

[not guilty]

That is hardly what you described, Kazinski. It seems that President Trump is outsourcing his decision making to a Central American despot.

Facilitating Abrego Garcia's return would at a minimum entail a request therefor. Suspension of any remaining balance on the multiple millions that the U.S. is paying and announcing an intent not to renew that contract are matters well within the administration's discretion.

[Kazinski]

That is not what facilitate means.

I think the word you want is effectuate.

[Martinned2]

Funny how Trump's litigation strategy - both in office and out of office - often seems to amount to "that word doesn't mean what everyone always thought it meant".

[Mr. Bumble]

Bill Clinton was a great trend setter.

[Frank Drackman]

and I hate to admit I was wrong, but not a bad POTUS, almost embarrassed to say I never voted for him (Perot in 92', didn't get my ballot in time for 96')

[Kazinski]

Websters:
facilitate

"make (an action or process) easy or easier."

Providing a plane won't make it easier for Garcia to return to the US if he is released?

effectuate

put into force or operation.

The administration will facilitate Garcia's release and return by making traveling papers and a plane available.

They will not effectuate it.

[Malika the Maiz]

The Moops!

[Krayt]

"If they want to return him, sure!"

Those are weasel words sidestepping the US should request him back because it wrongly deported him, the honorable and legally correct thing to do.

That we told him to say, "I choose not to send him back" makes a mockery of even this weasel-word dodge.

[not guilty]

Judge Xinis in her most recent order elaborated at some length (pp. 3-5) on what "facilitate" means. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf

Have you read that order or not, Kazinski?

[Kazinski]

I'm slow.

Can you quote the part where she says they have to ask El Salvador to release him?

[not guilty]

"Can you quote the part where she says they have to ask El Salvador to release him?"

The April 15 order addresses what discovery is appropriate in the near future. The operative order setting forth the Defendants' obligations is the District Court's April 4 order, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.21.0_4.pdf , which was upheld in substantial part by a unanimous Supreme Court, as modified by the District Court's April 10 order. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0_1.pdf

The latter "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." Asking El Salvador is an "available step[]".

You conspicuously avoid my question as to whether you in fact have read the April 15 order.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski. Have you read the order or not?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — You give the lie to your own argument. Whatever you think, "facilitate," means, it does not mean, "thwart."

You argue that legitimate facilitation cannot extend so far as methods with capacity to deliver a successful return. No conceivable definition of, "facilitate," requires that limit.

If SCOTUS has decreed facilitation, it cannot thereby have made a defining outcome out of Trump's ambition to defy the courts. To get to that extreme and Constitutionally catastrophic result would take something more which SCOTUS has not said.

Perhaps in a later go-round SCOTUS will make you and your ilk happy with such an ill-considered decree. Then, the next D president could bundle your lot off to CECOT en masse. Just do it at night, sudden, and by surprise.

Sure, the Kazinski case was an administrative mistake. Too bad, but hey, separation of powers.

You might even find yourself bunking with Abrego Garcia. Ready for that?

Obviously, you think that could not happen. Your problem is that the next D president might not think likewise.

[Kazinski]

No, I am just reading the Supreme Courts order:

The application is granted in part and denied in part,...

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...

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.

So clearly by the Court's order term "facilitate" can not be stretched so far as to mean "effectuate".

And Xinis has ignored the Court's order to clarify her directive.

Why? facilitate and effectuate aren't the only two words in the dictionary.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Let's see what the court could do while staying within bounds you insist upon. How about a decision worded something like this:

"This court is not empowered to direct the foreign policy of the United States, and will not do so. However, to deprive Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of due process in the United States is not and cannot be an objective legitimately within the scope of U.S. foreign policy. Nor as a matter of law can his deportation without due process fall within that scope.

Accordingly, after finding facts to prove civil contempt by (names), and after sufficient warnings, and after a finding that contempt has nevertheless continued, those named officers of the United States are ordered to be jailed for whatever interval may be required to deliver Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia before this court to receive due process. Only the delivery of that due process can purge the contempt, close the case, and enable the release from custody of (names). Until that happens, this case will remain open.

The court warns that it intends during the interval prior to the closure of this case to require periodic updates, and accurate answers to questions the court may ask about progress toward delivery of due process for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. Other officers of the United States yet to be named, who fail to respond fully and forthrightly, will likewise be subject to penalties for contempt.

The question which means may be chosen to facilitate that due process outcome, to deliver before this court due process to Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, will remain at the sole discretion of the State Department of the United States."

Happy?

[David Nieporent]

Accordingly, after finding facts to prove civil contempt by (names), and after sufficient warnings, and after a finding that contempt has nevertheless continued, those named officers of the United States are ordered to be jailed for whatever interval may be required to deliver Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia before this court to receive due process. Only the delivery of that due process can purge the contempt, close the case, and enable the release from custody of (names). Until that happens, this case will remain open.

The problem is that inability to comply with a court order is not contempt. (Actual inability — not a smirking shrug.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does the inability have to be shown by evidence they tried in good faith, using the full range of options, and all failed? What does evidence of inability look like?

[David Nieporent]

The burden of proof is on the contemnor to show that s/he couldn't comply.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - Tell what part of the US constitution governs the Republic of El Salvador?

If the Government of El Salvador says NO - then arguing over the meaning of the terms effecuate or faciliate is a moot question.

[Commenter_XY]

Facilitate = we'll send a plane to pick him up.
Pres Bukele said: NFW. Garcia is a terrorist. We have the receipts, too.

Garcia, the illegal alien gangbanger, is never coming back.

[Estragon]

“terrorist”

Stewart Rhodes, the cosplaying weirdo whose sentence Trump commuted, is a terrorist.

This guy has lived here since he was 16, stayed out of trouble, raised two kids and worked a union job.

There really is no bottom with you deplorables.

[Joe_dallas]

did he really stay out of trouble?

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1912567112733753563

[Estragon]

His union wants him back, home with his family. Are they terrorists too?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=K31tuX1JnE0

[Commenter_XY]

No. Only Garcia, the illegal alien gangbanger, who belongs to MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, is the terrorist.

[Nelson]

I believe that, in the American legal system, one person saying something with no corroboration is referred to as hearsay.

That is what the “gang member” accusation was.

Take a larger view. Do you want a single person saying something with no corroboration to be called “evidence”? Do you want unfounded accusations to be a justification for any government action?

[Estragon]

It’s the testimony of one dodgy informant. Someone who was brought to ICE, by the way, by a cop who was on the “lying cops we can’t bring to court” list and got suspended shortly afterwards for reasons that remain unclear. And the story didn’t add up. It’s turtles all the way down but that’s the point— the arbitrary nature is intended.

If this person is a “terrorist” and beyond the reach of due process then anyone— INCLUDING the mouth breathing Trumpists who post here all day are too. Earth to XY!

“Any American who looks at the president’s actions and nods his head in approval is sacrificing his freedom whether he realizes it or not. To allow Trump the authority to seize and disappear immigrants at will is to close the curtain on democracy for citizens, too. You cannot have despotism for some and freedom for others.”

[bernard11]

XY simply refuses to understand your simple point.

I don't know why. Maybe he is too stupid, maybe he doesn't give a shit as long as someone gets deported, maybe he's a Trumpist jackass.

Who knows? What we do know is that he has no respect for rule of law, the Constitution, or anything else that gets in the way of his bigotry.

[Estragon]

“Only Garcia… is the terrorist”

A federal court has said Rhodes is a terrorist, after a full jury trial.

Garcia came to the US fleeing gangs when he was 16. Since then has started a family, stayed out trouble, and gotten a job.

His fellow union members want him back safe with his family. Are they terrorists too?

I realize parroting Steven Miller seems comforting but believe me— you are going to look back on the time of your life when you were doing all this posting with regret.

[Estragon]

“A federal court has said Rhodes is a terrorist, after a full jury trial.”

And Trump released him!

[bernard11]

Only Garcia, the illegal alien gangbanger, who belongs to MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, is the terrorist.

What buses has he blown up? Who has he assassinated? What plots is he known to have participated in?

You're a jackass.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you feel that way about Jan6 "terrorists"?

[Magister]

Insurrectionists, known to have participated in an insurrection, with video of them attacking police. Many of them were convicted with appropriate due process. But then they were pardoned by the man who summoned them to attack the Capitol and is now working to ignore court orders.

But yes, you are also a jackass.

[Krayt]

We told them to keep him and not let him go so we could throw up our hands and say, well, that's that!

[Malika the Maiz]

The Mad King, man of notoriously thick skin and free speech warrior:

“President Donald Trump bitterly attacked “60 Minutes” shortly after the CBS newsmagazine broadcast stories on Ukraine and Greenland on Sunday, saying the network was out of control and should “pay a big price” for going after him.

“Almost every week, 60 Minutes ... mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” the president said on his Truth Social platform. He called on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to impose maximum fines and punishment “for their unlawful and illegal behavior.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-cbs-60-minutes-2c8a32df63f3ec50cfffe94a26436fda

[Krayt]

Another thing that should not be, but there is a hook for that, making sure broadcast licenses, based on limited spectrum, are administered for the good of the people and equal time and blah blah blah.

I can barely see a daylight sliver of difference beween this and the proposal to require radio stations to give equal time blocks to the opposing political side on talk radion stations, whose purpose was to put on money loser blocks as punishment rather than follow-on conservative also-rans, still much more profitable.

The proper answer is to be opposed to all of it, not weaseling it's wrong for one side but wonderful and in the interests of The People with their ownership of scarce frequencies for the other side.

In short, more from the nigh infinite bag of situational ethics.

[Martinned2]

Predictably, the Europe-China rapprochement is picking up steam. Last week the prime minister of Spain paid a high profile visit to China, now the UK trade secretary has announced a visit: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/15/jonathan-reynolds-to-visit-china-to-revive-key-joint-trade-commission

[shawn_dude]

Trump, Making China Great Again.

Cannot get tired of all this "winning."

[Martinned2]

In Tennesee people invented a new tactic to protect their neighbour from ICE: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-tries-detain-man-tennessee-home-neighbors-form-human-chain-n1032791

[Brett Bellmore]

Not very smart; I'm pretty sure that's actually illegal.

But closer to actual civil disobedience than the usual Democratic protest, I'll give them that much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not only illegal, but the FBI has shot people for less.

[Martinned2]

Police in the US shoot members of the public for good reasons, bad reasons, and no reasons at all. That's not really a helpful yardstick for anything.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s got his fingers crossed, folks!

[SRG2]

If ICE didn't have a warrant, why was it illegal?

[Bob from Ohio]

§ 287.5 Exercise of power by immigration officers.
(a) Power and authority to interrogate and administer oaths. Any immigration officer is hereby authorized and designated to exercise anywhere in or outside the United States the power conferred by:
(1) Section 287(a)(1) of the Act to interrogate, without warrant, any alien or person believed to be an alien concerning his or her right to be, or to remain, in the United States, and"

They don't need a judicial warrant.

[SRG2]

They do if they're trying to seize someone, fuckwit.,

[Bob from Ohio]

"8 USC §1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;"

So much bluster when you are wrong. Well done!

[David Nieporent]

They do if they're trying to seize someone, fuckwit.,

Not in public. They have no authority to enter onto any private property (not generally open to the public) without a warrant — a judicial warrant, not an administrative one.

[Martinned2]

Who said anything about "Democratic"?

[Sarcastr0]

closer to actual civil disobedience than the usual Democratic protest

Protests are indeed not the same thing as civil disobedience.

[Bwaaah]

This is the Wednesday open thread. You can still post to Monday and nobody will be dumber for it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people invented a new tactic"

All that evidence of obstruction they shot and posted. Time for some indictments.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe. If ICE was attempting to pull people out of their homes and didn't have a proper warrant, there was nothing to obstruct.

[Bob from Ohio]

The man was in a van, not a home, and nobody tried to pull him out.

The obstructors helped him outlast the ICE agents, who went away eventually.

Maybe its not obstruction, let's let a jury decide.

[shawn_dude]

IANAL but if the van was in the driveway then there's the issue of him being in the "curtilage" of his home.

If the man was in his van and ICE was there to grab him, what method would they use if not "pull him out?" I suppose they could threaten the safety of his loved ones.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow came up with some damned, half-baked story about a whistle blower at the The National Labor Relations Board.

The guy appeared with his lawyer, to say or imply that information he became aware of as a data geek shows that DOGE activities to invade confidential records there coincided with essentially real-time leaks to a server with a Russian address. The guy also alleged that he knew of other such instances, in other government departments—including a department or departments holding nuclear weapons secrets—where data was also leaked to Russia during Doge operations.

Some of it sounded almost deranged. The story seemed to have broken prematurely, in order to give the guy what little cover he could get by going public, because he had received threats.

Whether this becomes a major scandal, or an outlandish journalistic embarrassment, remains an open question.

[Martinned2]

Why would you want to watch Rachel Maddow?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — Despite political bias Maddow is forthright about, she has a history of ground-breaking broadcast journalism. She does long-form story investigations on air, and gets away with it by being both comprehensible and right. Something no one else I am aware of in the history of broadcasting can claim.

For instance, it was Maddow who first broke the fake electors scheme story, and who nailed it down with evidence during her initial broadcast about it. How often do you see broadcast news practitioners do something like that?

Watch Maddow consistently, and you will hear news breaks that matter, and prove out, more frequently than you will from any other broadcast source. She continues to do that now, despite being stripped of some of her production staff by MSNBC, apparently as punishment for a spat with upper management. I doubt she will continue much longer on MSNBC.

Maddow has suffered some embarrassments along the way, An overplayed story about a Trump income tax leak was so thinly supported it amounted to nothing. Overall, her journalistic record has been stellar, and unique.

As always, news recipients ought to pay attention critically, and make allowances for bias from a source. To her credit, Maddow makes that part easier than most others do, and appears to take well-earned pride in doing it.

Tell me a better investigative news source in broadcasting, and of course I will watch that one too. Got any suggestions?

[Martinned2]

Sure, but it seems more efficient to let the professional press do the job of sifting the actual news from the garbage. If Rachel Maddow discovers something interesting you'll read about it in the New York Times.

[Frank Drackman]

Like when she released “45”’s tax returns? There was more in Al Capone’s vault

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fair enough. But in that case the NYT seems more backup than news source. I think having both works better than relying exclusively on either.

I disagree with any imputation that Maddow is not a member of the professional press.

[Martinned2]

She's a member of the professional press in the same way that Steve Doocy is.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Had to look up Doocy. Seems exceptional for Fox.

On the basis of your comparison, I conclude you do not follow Maddow.

Maddow researches and breaks important stories. Their importance is not diminished by her partisan selection of themes. She takes the reporting right down the middle, despite emoting in partisan fashion over import. I often wish she would tone that down, but I can live with it.

Maddow also commands the respect of better-quality expert guests than her rivals do. And Maddow is a better interviewer of experts than all but a few other broadcasters, none of whom work on television, as far as I can recall. I count NPR's extraordinary Meghna Chakrabarti as a Maddow comparable, for the breadth and depth of expertise which she can intelligently interpret, present, and not interrupt, on radio.

But Chakrabarti has not been the investigative reporter Maddow is. Neither were any of the great names from the golden age of television newscasts. Murrow, Cronkite, and Howard K. Smith all enjoyed the advantage of prior print journalism experience, but on air that background did not much translate into digging out and breaking important national stories.

Doing that has remained mostly the province of print journalists, and it has lately been a diminishing province. It is not clear where replacements for the likes of Seymour Hersh, David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, or Woodward and Bernstein will be coming from. Mention of Sheehan reminds me that Daniel Ellsberg turned out to be one hell of an investigative reporter himself, although he came by his investigative experience while practicing the profession of a military analyst. All those names are now journalistic history.

That makes Maddow all the more remarkable, and especially valuable as a news resource. Ms. Sober-Sides Maddow is not, but that appearance has come mostly from broadcast figures willing to be scripted and afflicted by producers.

Those may be to your taste. They are not mine. I prefer the experience of watching faux august news presenters escape to some other forum, where I discover that they got hired on the basis of genuine intelligence, insight, and experience—all destined to be suppressed on the air of their own shows. Chuck Todd and Joy Reid example that type.

Martinned2, who in American news broadcasting do you think of as more professional than any I have mentioned?

[Martinned2]

Investigative journalism doesn't happen in (American) broadcasting. But there are two kinds of people on cable news: people who report the news, and people who do opinion-type things designed to give their viewers the ideological perspective they like to hear. Maddow does that on MSNBC the same way Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilley used to do that on Fox. All of those people sometimes talk about stories that are actually worthwhile, and deserve to be given more attention, but that doesn't make them value-added on the news side.

News broadcasting is useful to the extent that it gives you access to primary sources (broadcasting the entirety of some press conference, Congressional thing, or an interview with some politician), or when it summarises on a factual basis news uncovered by others.

The only question is where you put someone like John Oliver in that framework. Arguably what he does isn't so much investigative journalism as just long-form explanations of things that not enough people understand. But it is, of course, profoundly ideological.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Matinned2 — Are you using, "ideological," as a proxy for, "partisan preference?"

[Bob from Ohio]

"professional press"

People who, until twitter and other social media proved otherwise pretended to be unbiased. Maddow is at least honest.

[Frank Drackman]

Because she's one of those Lesbos who would be attractive with a little makeup and longer hair, (check out Rachel's High School Yearbook photo) and gives the impression you could probably get her to switch teams if you had a good "Rap", I spent hours and hours on that type in my 20's.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

And by hours he means hiding in the shrubbery with his binoculars.

Could be why in decades of living in the US he still cannot write better than a third grader.

[jb]

I don't watch Maddow, either, and think your analogy to Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly below is roughly correct. But she's a much higher quality source than many of the places in the right wing rage-o-sphere that routinely get linked to here. If we're going to have to endure kooky right-wing takes, why not get a view into what the mildly kooky left-wing version looks like?

[bernard11]

I'm not a Maddow fan. She strikes me as unbearably smug, and I can't get past that to figure out whether what she says is worth listening to.

[Sarcastr0]

I was a big fan of her radio show - even got a coffee mug.

But that was a decade ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bernard11 — I do not usually see Maddow as smug. I mostly see her as forcing a posture of resolute good cheer, to cover up heartfelt dismay.

At long intervals, when causes she favors score signal victories, or when opponents suffer crushing setbacks, yeah, then smug. I might have a hard job to discern that, however, through my own smug-colored glasses,

[shawn_dude]

Maddow aside, (I saw this clip on Youtube)

The guy is claiming the Russians logged in using a valid DOGE account. That's a verifiable claim that, if true, would be unsurprising.

[Martinned2]

Today the UK Supreme Court is giving judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd. v The Scottish Ministers, the latest TERF nonsense to make it to the top court.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

[Martinned2]

In another example of how the UK Supreme Court has been moved to the right under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, the judgment has gone in favour of the pursuers: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

Is "pursuers" some European legal term? I didn't find that word in the judgement.

[Martinned2]

It's what you call the plaintiff in Scotland. (In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland they call this person the claimant.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah. I thought it might be something like that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not the men who are pursuing the women into the ladies room, 'cause they lost.

[Josh R]

I don't think the decision is a big deal. It's just a statutory interpretation, not different then the one SCOTUS assumed in Bostock.

To be sure, it will mean that the law doesn't require that trans woman will be treated as women (in for example, women-only spaces or scholarships). And that is insulting to trans women (and in some applications does not advance a legitimate interest, but in others it does). But for the most part, the law still protects trans people from discrimination (it's an explicit protected group).

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotlands-proposed-misogyny-law-will-protect-men-pretending-to-be-women-first-minister-says

WTF...

[Martinned2]

The whole point of me linking to primary sources is that you don't have to read garbage like that.

[SRG2]

They don't believe in primary sources.

[Michael P]

And yet the Supreme Court fundamentally agreed with that viewpoint, no?

[Martinned2]

Incidentally, the other two cases that will be decided today by the UK Supreme Court are also interesting.

Abbasi and another (Respondents) v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant)

On what basis can injunctions, granted in connection with proceedings initiated to determine whether it is in a child’s best interests that life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn, be continued once those proceedings have ended?

And, what is basically the same issue,

Haastrup (Respondent) v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant)

Was the Court of Appeal right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant Reporting Restriction Orders ("RROs")?

I used to walk past Great Ormond Street hospital to work every day, which is the UK's foremost hospital for children, and whenever there was a case where a small child might have their medical care withdrawn, the press used to camp out there for days.

[Martinned2]

These judgments are now out as well. I'm happy I'm not the one who had to decide this case, because it's a tricky one. The court upholds both injunctions, but shifts the law somewhat in the direction of making it less likely that a court will grant injunctions of this kind. See the summary in paragraph 182 here: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0052_0053_judgment_c4b0103af9.pdf

[Martinned2]

Incidentally, stuff like this would probably also give a lot of American conservatives the yips:

56. We shall begin by considering the High Court’s jurisdiction to exercise the prerogative powers of the Crown as parens patriae. That jurisdiction enables the court to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It was described by Lord Cottenham LC in In re Spence (1847) 2 Ph 247, 252; 41 ER 937, 938, in a passage cited with approval by Lord Halsbury LC in Barnardo v McHugh [1891] AC 388, 395:

“This court [ie the Court of Chancery] interferes for the protection of infants, qua infants, by virtue of the prerogative
which belongs to the Crown as parens patriae, and the exercise of which is delegated to the Great Seal.”

The jurisdiction is accordingly equitable and inherent in the High Court, which has inherited the equitable jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Court of Chancery. Although many of the authorities on the parens patriae jurisdiction are concerned with wardship, it is not a precondition of its exercise that the child has been made a ward of court.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I wouldn't expect anything better from a country that thinks it can ban public prayer.

[John F. Carr]

To translate from English into American, a court might order that nobody reveal what Boston Children's Hospital does to children because I might get angry.

And under English law Terry Schiavo might have died without so much drama.

[Martinned2]

Looking in on elections elsewhere in the English-speaking world:

- In Canada Trumpist Poilievre is still being crushed by PM Mark Carney. Their elections are on 28 April. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/

- In Australia there are elections on 3 May. Both major parties are polling seat losses compared to the last elections, but here too the Coalition (i.e. the conservatives, who are trying to explain frantically that they are not Trump fans), are on a major downward trajectory since January: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/10/australia-aus-election-polls-today-latest-opinion-poll-tracker-results-current-polling-survey

It looks like Anthony Albanese will get to keep his job, which is on the one hand normal, because Australian PMs usually get at least two 3-year terms from voters, but on the other hand surprising because as recently as January he looked like he was toast.

[Malika the Maiz]

Interesting comment from Balkinization contributor:

The Bank of the United States and the Unitary Executive

I'm sure somebody must have said this before, but anyway.

Under the unitary executive theory, why was the Bank of the United States constitutional? The Bank was led by a Director who could not be removed by the President. It was the most "independent" independent agency in our history. This was, of course, one reason why the Bank was unraveled in 1836.

Perhaps the answer is that central banking is not part of the executive power. This would explain why the Federal Reserve also sits outside the unitary executive. But if central banking is not part of the executive power, what else falls outside of that category?

Gerard N. Magliocca

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-bank-of-united-states-and-unitary.html?m=1

[Bob from Ohio]

The Bank was not a federal agency, it was a chartered corporation which was owned in part by the Treasury. It didn't issue regulations or have a direct role setting policy.

[A Japanese Student]

Yesterday, four people were arrested for selling AI-generated obscene images in Japan. Suspects allegedly used a free generative AI to make images of nude women without genital censoring.

This is a different situation from Ashcroft v. FSC; it does not involve child pornography, real or cartoon. This instead comes from the police interpretation of obscenity statute - that obscenity means uncensored genitalia. (For constitutional purposes, the courts claim to apply a balancing test that is more complicated, but I've never seen someone prevail in an obscenity prosecution that way.)

[not guilty]

That is also different from Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975). Photographic nudity alone, even when visible from a public street, is not sufficient to constitute obscenity.

[Frank Drackman]

But Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to commit the act

[not guilty]

How does one "slightly" penetrate a photo or motion picture, Frank?

[Frank Drackman]

Use your imagination

[Kazinski]

I know it when I see it.

[A Japanese Student]

If a judge actually examined the obscenity law as a matter of first impression, I don't think it would survive judicial review. Almost seventy years ago the Lady Chatterley's Lover Case resolved the constitutional argument, and judges cite it to this day despite changing circumstances.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An amusing account of the Chatterley trial is given in Levin, "Run It Down the Flagpole: Britain in the Sixties". The allegedly obscene phrase "womb and bowels", from the Chatterley book, was asked about so many times at trial that it began to sound like the name of a law firm.

[SRG2]

Supposedly the prosecuting barrister lost the jury when he said, "is this a book you would want your wife or servant to read?"

[John F. Carr]

A minor case that is interesting because prosecutors and judges are still adapting to the new immigration enforcement regime. A student's F1 visa was terminated by the Biden administration because she was charged with a felony. The criminal case was later dropped. No enforcement action was taken at the time because the government didn't update its database of foreign students. The Trump administration recently updated the database and ordered her to leave. She sued.

US Judge Patti Saris said these cases have been “popping up all over the country,” and that she was “googling” information about the federal [SEVIS] database and looking up the law regarding it.
Rayford A. Farquhar, deputy chief of the Civil Division of the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, told the judge: “We are new to this as much as your honor is.”
Farquhar said he did not believe, to his understanding, that terminating the SEVIS record would make the student removable from the US.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/15/metro/federal-judge-bars-ice-from-arresting-mit-student-visa-revocation/

[Dan Schiavetta]

The "new immigration enforcement regime" apparently involves deporting people with valid visas who were only charged with crimes (even after the charges have been dropped). This opens up wide avenues for deporting immigrants who have come here legally, and a feast of opportunities for shoot-first-ask-questions-later D.A.'s who want to move up in the Republican Party.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe Trump advocates negotiating on the basis of asking for the Moon, and ending up with New Jersey. Maybe this is a legal application of that principle: Fighting for something considerably more than they actually want, so that when the dust is settled, their power to do what they really want is unambiguously admitted by the judiciary, and they can get down to expelling people here illegally without judicial resistance.

[Sarcastr0]

Asking for a police state is not really some clever negotiating tactic.

Trump doing authoritarian shit is not an art of the deal masterstroke, it's an assault on our Republic.

It's not currently trained on people you consider humans, so you don't care. But there is no limiting rationale to prevent it from being so.
Can't prove your a citizen if you get no process!

And you faff about trying to explain away what the administration is doing and asking for.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again I will say: Illegal aliens are absolutely humans, just humans who happen to be in the wrong country. And while I advocate deporting them promptly, I wouldn't put ear tags on them like livestock, or force them to learn how to balance a treat on their noses; I want them treated as humans, but as human illegal aliens.

I'd prefer quite a bit more due process, to make sure no citizens get swept up in this deportation drive. That's going to require Congress getting off their asses and funding more process, though.

And your demand that I stop trying to understand Trump's tactics and strategy is duly noted and rejected.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd prefer quite a bit more due process

Nonsense. Your comments about this whole thing make it clear you don't care, so long as it's Trump behind it.

You can't claim you care and then defend Trump to the hilt when he abuses process to wreck the thing you claim to care about.

I want them treated as humans, but as human illegal aliens.
Can't be human if you don't have rights. It's just laughable for you to protest you're a good person as you cheer on evert abuse the Trump admin comes up with.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have no idea what it would look like if I ever were to defend Trump 'to the hilt', because I've never done that.

And, yes, illegal aliens have rights in the US, the big thing is that "remaining here" is not one of them.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think the Trump administration violated his due process rights?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I do.

I think that, even if they hadn't, he'd have ended up deported anyway. But they did.

By the way, while the due process violation bothers me, as does deportation straight to a foreign prison, the deportation itself does not bother me, because the guy was not here legally, and his excuse for being here illegally was just that: No more than an excuse.

This doesn't mean that the judiciary are now in a position to legally compel undoing a fait accompli. But they ARE in a position to legally compel the administration to not do that again.

Ideally, Congress will fund enough due process that the deportations can proceed expeditiously without the administration having a strong need to cut corners. Ideally. I don't really expect it, though, because the Republican majority is small enough to be dependent on a few RINOs who still don't want immigration enforcement.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t disagree with any of those points, except that I don’t think it will be RINOs that are to blame for not passing funding for expedited due process.

[bernard11]

Wait a minute.

If enforcement and process is underfunded we have two courses of action:

1. Ignore due process - the Trump approach.

2. Only pursue cases to the extent the budget allows.

Which do you prefer?

[Brett Bellmore]

3. Fund the damn process.

But you can't expect Trump to pick #2 when he ran on getting the deportations done.

And it's a bit late to complain about a lawless executive in this area after 4 years of Biden no less lawlessly refusing to enforce immigration laws.

[bernard11]

And it's a bit late to complain about a lawless executive in this area after 4 years of Biden no less lawlessly refusing to enforce immigration laws.

Look! A squirrel!

[bernard11]

3. Fund the damn process.

Well, given that it's your guys who have the power to do that, and won't, maybe your suggestion, however sensible (and it is) is not a practical solution.

Given that, your choices are #1 or #2. Which is it?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "And, yes, illegal aliens have .... (B.S.)"

Please note Brett responds to a comment about people "with valid visas" being deported with a comment about "people here illegally". He then mentions the Garcia case with this: "he guy was not here legally, and his excuse for being here illegally was just that: No more than an excuse."

So first we have evasion, then lying - because Garcia was living legally in this country by court order. Apparently the court's decision has been vacated in BrettMind, so he feels free to crudely lie about it.

All of which is pretty clear evidence Brett is still in Kool-Aid drinking, bootlicking, zombified slavish defend Trump at-all-cost mode. To be far, he's not pushing the "gangbanger" crap like C_XY above, a claim based on nebulous "evidence" that can't stand a moment's scrutiny.

[Nelson]

“Illegal aliens are absolutely humans, just humans who happen to be in the wrong country. And while I advocate deporting them promptly … I'd prefer quite a bit more due process.”

With the exception of nuclear energy, I don’t think I’ve ever said this to you, Brett: I agree with you completely.

[Krayt]

Trump doing authoritarian shit is not an art of the deal masterstroke, it's an assault on our Republic.

I love people with the sentiment certain politicians' actions are, without doubt, an assault on our republic!

Welcome aboard!

[Dan Schiavetta]

In negotiating, it's called overshooting and is perfectly legitimate. Almost everyone does it.

In public office, it's called reckless and irresponsible. In the court system, when lawyers do it, it's called unethical.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, Trump is approaching everything as though it's a business negotiation. He has a hammer, it's a pretty darned good hammer, and so he's treating everything he sees like a nail.

I do wish he had a more complete tool kit, not just that hammer, even if it's a really great hammer.

[Martinned2]

...and not a very sensible business negotiation either. Outside the world of New York real estate, businessmen value their reputations, because they know business relies on trust and on mutually beneficial deals.

[Brett Bellmore]

But Trump has about 3.5 years left as President, and possibly only 1.5 left with a Congressional majority, so his time horizon is fairly short.

[Martinned2]

It is if he only cares about himself. Hence the urgency in his attempts to get as many people as possible to "give" him as much money as possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is if he only cares about himself."

Ah, yeah, have I ever denied that? I've said that he's a narcissist, (Like anybody who runs for President isn't.) and wants to go down in history as a great President, and since the Democrats nuked their bridges to him from orbit, his only chance of that is to make Republicans happy.

In some ways this makes him a better President from a conservative perspective than somebody who has actual principles, but not conservative ones, because such a person, (Bush, say.) will be willing to take a political hit with their base out of principle, where Trump wouldn't be.

But in other ways he's worse, because he has no commitment (Or really any understanding of.) at all to conservative means.

This was actually a quite fair take, for Reason: Trump Is Giving Everyone What They Want In the Dumbest Way Possible

[bernard11]

the Democrats nuked their bridges to him from orbit,

You claim you are not a blind Trump defender, and then you say things like this, which belie your claim.

You begin your analysis of Trump's strategy and policies with the unshakeable belief that he is a genius and so has some deep plan which lesser minds can't comprehend. Of course that leads to absurd defenses.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think Brett has some good points here.

I get why conservatives who don’t care about means like Trump, he’s by far the most results oriented conservative administration. I just think a conservative can’t ignore means, it’s kinda central. Good on him for seeing some tension there, that’s imho literally the difference between conservatives and fascists (similar to the difference between liberals and communists).

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "the Democrats nuked their bridges to him from orbit"

Freaking amazing. Trump tried to steal a presidential election as a criminal enterprise and Brett still thinks the Dems are being meanie, nitpicking, and unreasonable. How does that Kool-Aid taste, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Democrats burned their bridges to Trump in a sea of nuclear fire in 2016, thus assuring that Trump would never pivot to the left. And then spent 4 years repeating that nuclear bombardment.

And so Trump has no interest AT ALL in winning the approval of Democrats.

You know, I was really afraid when Trump took office that he would pivot and govern from the center with crossover votes. It would have been the most natural thing in the world for him, and all it would have taken was Democrats not going nuts over his having won. But you couldn't do it.

[bernard11]

his time horizon is fairly short.

Which suggests that his maximalist approach to negotiations is poor tactics, since, at best, it lengthens the process.

Further, the other party is aware of the horizon, and will be slow in responding.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not when the 'negotiation' is the "I'll seize everything I want and then some at the start, and we can negotiate how much of it you get back" sort, which is what he's doing.

[bernard11]

That's not negotiation. That's extortion. No different from "I'll burn down your store unless you pay protection."

It's Mafia tactics, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

And of course if a court somewhere says "No. You can't do that," you will defend Trump to the hilt and yell about the judge being a traitor, etc.

You're disgusting.

[Sarcastr0]

The thing you need to remember about Nazi Germany is that Hitler was an amazing negotiator.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing you need to remember about Nazi Germany is that Democrats have called every Republican Presidential nominee since Wendel Wilkie "Hitler", and people stopped listening years ago.

[Sarcastr0]

You made the argument.

I'm just pointing out what such shallowness can do.

[bernard11]

You've repeated this lie endlessly. Maybe stop.

I mean, maybe you can find some lunatic who called Reagan, or Eisenhower, or Dewey, or Ford, or Dole, or McCain, or even Nixon, Hitler, but that lunatic doesn't equal "Democrats," your fanaticism notwithstanding.

[jb]

As I pointed out yesterday, some of Trump's tactics seem really counterproductive if the goal is to get the judiciary out of the way. Why are they going to let him move quickly with de minimis review of deportations when if there's a mistake he'll make absolutely no effort to correct them?

More generally: maybe it's cool to be outlandish in your negotiating tactics when it comes to real estate deals. When it comes to blithely using the power of the state to ruin real people's lives without any due process, maybe the same tactics shouldn't be rewarded or encouraged.

[Bob from Ohio]

" if the goal is to get the judiciary out of the way"

Is that the goal?

[Estragon]

Loathe to agree with the most despicable poster here, but have you considered that quick, efficient deportations with minimal judicial involvement and no drama may not in fact be the goal here? To state the obvious, the goal here seems to be boundary testing with the federal judiciary, to terrorize people, and to prime the population to accept a permanent state of exception. Many of the denizens here are already there on number 3.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most despicable poster here"

I'm blushing.

[jb]

I'm pretty reluctant to give Trump any big brain credit because I've never seen any evidence for it in his decision-making. (He has great political/showmanship instincts, but when it comes to getting anything useful done he's been universally terrible.)

I do think that he has two instincts right now: one is to get rid of immigrants as quickly as possible, and the other is to solidify his own power. I suspect he thinks he's solidifying both here, whereas it's almost certainly counterproductive to the immigration goal and likely not great for executive power either since he's chosen an issue where (initially at least) he couldn't get even a single vote from the Supreme Court to support his maximalist view of executive power.

[shawn_dude]

Trump appears to be following the Orban playbook regarding immigrants. Hungary has hardened its borders to near Soviet Iron Curtain strength and the population is still being fed fearmongering of immigrants in order to keep them compliant.

[David Nieporent]

I believe Trump advocates negotiating on the basis of asking for the Moon, and ending up with New Jersey.

It's a lousy strategy that no competent negotiator uses (at least not when dealing with other competent negotiators), which is why Trump thinks it's a good approach: he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person is like.

Strangely, however, he isn't applying this approach to El Salvador.

(To be clear: asking for more than one thinks one can get is not stupid; if one didn't do that one wouldn't have any room to negotiate. It's the staking out an outrageous position on the theory that if you ask for a zillion dollars you'll end up better off than if you only ask for a trillion that's stupid.)

[John F. Carr]

I think in this student case the new administration is enforcing old laws that went unenforced due to deficient procedures. If her visa was cancelled, whether under Biden for being charged with a felony or under Trump for being conspicuously pro-Palestinian, the student should have left. She remained without trouble because one of the government computers didn't get the message until recently. I had a foreign coworker who was mistakenly flagged by E-Verify as ineligible for work. Same sort of problem – too many databases, too little synchronization. Her visa status changed the previous year and E-Verify didn't know.

Massachusetts used to have a law requiring license suspension after three written warnings for traffic violations. It went unenforced because the computers weren't keeping track of written warnings. About ten years ago the RMV updated its computer system to keep track. Suddenly there were thousands of people demanding hearings to contest license suspension. Too much work! The legislature solved the problem by repealing the law.

[ducksalad]

That MA law sounds kind of harsh, assuming that (like in other states) a warning is something less than ticket.

Down here it takes four tickets, uncontested or found guilty, in a single 12-month period.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Judge Patti Saris"

Clinton judge. So not a lot of drama about which way she will rule.

Do any GOP judges ever get these cases?

[A Japanese Student]

I just watched "LegalEagle's Devin Stone Answers Criminal Law Questions". Devin's videos are one of the most accessible legal contents on the Internet.

Though he does make a mistake (and I recognized it quickly): at 24:06 (https://youtu.be/yfePuqHaJlE?t=1446) he claims that Section 230 would shield a website from copyright infringement claims. Section 230, in fact, does not apply to intellectual property law. Copyright is instead governed by 17 USC §512, aka DMCA.

[Malika the Maiz]

One more from the same Balkinization contributor:

Can the Supreme Court Remove a Solicitor General?
I introduce the following as an interesting hypothetical. Rule 8 of the Supreme Court's Rules states:

1. Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered. Upon response, or if no response is timely fled, the Court will enter an appropriate order.

2. After reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken, and after a hearing if material facts are in dispute, the Court may take any appropriate disciplinary action against any attorney who is admitted to practice before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order of the Court.

Query: Could the Court therefore disbar a Solicitor General from practice before the Court? Or would that effectively be an impeachment and conviction of that officer that is beyond the Court's authority? In the hypo, the person would still hold the SG office but could not perform that office's main function.

Gerard N. Magliocca

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/04/can-supreme-court-remove-solicitor.html?m=1

[Martinned2]

That one I thought was less compelling. From a legal (as opposed to practical and/or political) POV it seems perfectly possible to have a Solicitor-General who is not allowed to argue cases before the courts.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my general view, too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He has had some interesting comments here too:

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/

When Balkinization Blog allowed comments, GM's posts were such that both the liberal and conservative comments repeatedly joined in criticizing them. Might be a nod in his favor.

GM was a big supporter of using 14A, sec. 3 against Trump and others. He thought it was better than impeaching Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

I often don't agree with Magliocca, but he's always thoughtful, and not at all close minded, and a joy to discuss things with. Frankly, if the Conspiracy wanted a new member from the left, they could do worse.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree. I find him much more knowledgable about history than the vast majority of legal bloggers. His books on Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan were both excellent reads.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This doesn’t even seem like a colorable argument. Restricting the SG’s ability to practice before one court (even a very important one) isn’t tantamount to removal from office.

[Frank Drackman]

Amazing the concern for some Salvadoran criminal while hundreds of babies of color will be murdered today (OK, and some White ones too) with narry a word of protest (protest? You can go to prison for praying silently)

[Thought about __ all my life]

True, and Kamala facilitated the crushing of the Black community, while laughing !!
black women are 5 times
more likely to have an abortion than white
women. A recent study released by
Protecting Black Life, an outreach of Life
Issues Institute concluded that, “79% of
Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion
facilities are strategically located within
walking distance of African and/or
Hispanic communities.”

AND

“Since the number of current living blacks
(in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents
an enormous loss for, without abortion, America’s black
community would now number 41 million persons. It would
be 35 percent larger than it is currently. Abortion has swept
through the black community cutting down every fourth
member.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ-VBVp3GxU

[Malika the Maiz]

“79% of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are strategically located within walking distance of African and/or
Hispanic communities.”

You mean…in cities?

[Frank Drackman]

With apologies to Willie Sutton, that's where the pregnant minorities are. (OK, and in Rural Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, 1: No way you're going to get an Abortionist to live in Rural Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, 2: There is this invention called the "Automobile" which amazingly, even poor Rural African Amuricans have access to, and in this invention, they can drive to the "Big" Cities (OK, with Dobbs, make the invention "The Greyhound Bus") in Blue States where they can still kill their unborn babies.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Where are the people who don’t know how to use parentheses (other than in the mirror when you’re looking)?

The point that Faker Frank misses (along with basic English mastery) is the location of Planned Parenthoods relative to minority populations is not “strategic” but spurious. Most things in cities are near minority neighborhoods because the population of minorities in cities has become high.

[Frank Drackman]

Well maybe if Minorities weren't high all the time they wouldn't need so many Abortion Clinics in their neighborhoods.

[Malika the Maiz]

See, very worried about blacks!

Why couldn’t you learn basic English writing skills over decades of living in an English speaking country?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, PP was quite open about meaning to serve minority populations back in the day, and why: Sanger was a eugenicist. So it's a bit much to say that the current distribution of their clinics, and clientele, is just a coincidence. It's at best a downstream effect of what they originally set out to do: Reduce the number of minority children born.

[Malika the Maiz]

You should read Reason’s own Peter Bagge’s book about Sanger before spouting off on that. It’s in comic book form, so an easy read.

Perhaps more importantly this is not much of an answer because the demographics of city areas has vastly changed since PP’s beginnings. Hard to argue PP centers were strategically built to “target” blacks by saying they’re currently near areas with large black populations when the parts of most cities that have large black populations are not the same now as they were then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eugenics wasn't aimed exclusively at blacks. It was perhaps even more concerned about the "wrong" sort of whites.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t think this is responsive to this:

Hard to argue PP centers were strategically built to “target” blacks by saying they’re currently near areas with large black populations when the parts of most cities that have large black populations are not the same now as they were then.

Do you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Are all PP centers in the exact same location as 80 years ago?

[Nelson]

The neighborhoods aren’t the same as 80 years ago. Hell, the cities aren’t even the same. They’re much bigger.

[Nelson]

The whole “Planned Parenthood is practicing eugenics” thing is such bullshit. The fact that, eighty years ago, one founder was reportable a supporter of eugenics is as relevant as anything that happened in any organization eighty years ago: not at all.

[jb]

Also, what fraction are near white communities? My guess is 100%, but certainly higher than 79.

[Nelson]

The only one I know about locally is in the middle of Newark, a city that’s mostly white with mostly white students at UD. I know that conservatives want to attack PP in any way possible and trying to drive a wedge between two major liberal voting blocks makes political sense, but they need to stop trying to make fetch happen. Blacks don’t resent PP and never will.

[Frank Drackman]

it's way more than 10,000,000 "missing", 65million abortions since 1973 (in 2023, the year after "Dobbs" supposedly banned Abortion, still 951,000 dead babies) and from the Center for Disease Continuation,
"In the District of Columbia, New York City (but not the rest of New York) and the 31 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 42% of all women who had abortions in 2021 were non-Hispanic Black, while 30% were non-Hispanic White, 22% were Hispanic and 6% were of other races."
42% of 65 million is 27 million, and 1/2 of those were girls, who would have contributed another 30 million or so (gets complicated with the deaths from shooting, miscarriages)
but more like at least 50 million fewer Blacks thanks to "Roe"
If it was a law it would have been "The African Amurican Control Act of 1973"

Frank

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

I'd vote for that... Who wouldn't?

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

This is why I donate to PP. I told my wife "fuck the church, we're tithing to PP, they're doing the Lord's work!".

PP kills more blacks than blacks do! That's alot!

[Malika the Maiz]

Your mannequin is not your wife, incel.

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

It's "you're" in America, Tran Ho Ming

[Malika the Maiz]

Not for the possessive. I’m not saying you are a mannequin (though you likely share an anatomical characteristic), I’m saying the mannequin you call your wife is not.

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

Can someone help me speak Hubei to this guy so he understands what I'm saying?

[Malika the Maiz]

Hubei? It’s English you need lessons in.

[Malika the Maiz]

Frank, N-word dropper, pretends to cry over black babies.

Of course this is the same troll who says he’s been in this country for decades and since childhood but writes English at a third grade level because he’s “ESL.”

[Frank Drackman]

Malik the Maiz doesn't care about (unborn) Black People (HT "Ye")
OK, let's hear it, did I dangle my participle? split the infinitive with the bath water, end the preposition with a sentence?

Frank "What comes at the end of a sentence? You make an Appeal!"

[Malika the Maiz]

I care about the agency of born black women, unlike Faker Frank who either could not learn to write third-grade level English after decades of living in the US or is a psychotic troll.

[Frank Drackman]

You and your Grammar obsession, you're a DSM-5 diagnosis.

[Malika the Maiz]

What’s that, illiterate moron and/or psychotic troll?

[Frank Drackman]

It's a term any Ed-jew-ma-cated person would know, like the Quadratic Equation (and for the Nth time, it's an "Equation" not a "Formula") or what Yeat's "The Second Coming" is really referring to, the 50 State Capitols, or knowing the difference between Mitosis and Meiosis (and to make it even trickier, there's a physiologic process called "Myosis" and a disease called "Myiasis")
But since you're obviously a Simpleton, it's
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; latest edition: DSM-5-TR, published in March 2022) is a publication by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for the classification of mental disorders using a common language and standard criteria. It is an internationally accepted manual on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, though it may be used in conjunction with other documents.

Frank

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

Frank, you read it wrong. He was guessing his own diagnosis...

"illiterate moron and/or psychotic troll" was spot on.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh yeah, "Projection", one of those "Defense Mechanisms" (loses ever time to a .357)

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, the Pee Wee Herman response!

[Malika the Maiz]

I wasn’t asking what the DSM was troll/moron.

Why couldn’t you learn third grade English in decades of living in an English speaking nation?

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

>You and your Grammar obsession, you're a DSM-5 diagnosis.
>>What’s that, illiterate moron and/or psychotic troll?

Clearly "that" is referring to "DSM-5 diagnosis".

The fact that you had no clue what the DSM was is even funnier. lmao wow you stupid Chinese don't know shit about America.

[Malika the Maiz]

This poor incel has never heard of “what’s that, ___?” as the start of a patronizing comment. No wonder he hates the Department of Education, he understandably feels it betrayed him!

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

I don't know Bug cultural euphemisms or idioms, Chin Ho.

[Malika the Maiz]

You inserted one word too many.

[Bwaaah]

Malika: It's notable how consistently you need to intellectually spar with that which you allege to be a "third grader," and how easily that third grader gets you to jump through hoops. Contrary to your assertions, his words are obviously meaningful and significant to you.

[grb]

Bwaaah : "...how easily that third grader gets you to jump through hoops. Contrary to your assertions, his words are obviously meaningful and significant to you."

Why are you defending Frank's incoherent trolling?

[Bwaaah]

Because 1) it's not incoherent, and 2) it's rich in its content. (The patently offensive shit is pretty easy for me to ignore.) Malika, though sometimes somewhat thoughtful, is more routinely a content-less [angry] troll. Pick 'em both apart carefully. Malika's not even in his league.

[Malika the Maiz]

I admit I like laughing at the village idiot.

By the way, have you figured out what country you’re supposed to be from?

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

He doesn't cry over black babies, he donates to Planned Parenthood.

Just like I do. They killed more black babies than I could ever dream of! Now they're targeting spic babies too. They're great!

They're awesome. On my monthly checks to PP I do note however "this is only for aborting nigger or spic babies, not for any of that faggy stuff". So I don't like totally support Planned Parenthood. Only the good stuff they do.

[Malika the Maiz]

Keep fucking that goat, you got us now!

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

It's "Keep fucking that chicken", you foreign boob.

[Malika the Maiz]

Chickens too? I guess that comports with your diversity advocacy.

[not guilty]

"They're awesome. On my monthly checks to PP I do note however "this is only for aborting nigger or spic babies, not for any of that faggy stuff". So I don't like totally support Planned Parenthood. Only the good stuff they do."

That kind of rhetoric say it all about alphabet soup guy, who upthread had the temerity to label me "a fucking racist."

[Malika the Maiz]

Every accusation…

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

You and I both support Planned Parenthood. We also share the same reasons. I'm just upfront about it.

... and you are a vile racist. You admitted it. You also spent your career perpetuating more racism in the racist judicial system.

[Malika the Maiz]

From the guy who said: “this is only for aborting nigger or spic babies, not for any of that faggy stuff"

It’s all bad faith, all the time.

It’s what happens when women won’t hang out with you I guess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" who upthread had the temerity to label me "a fucking racist.""

Maybe your frequent reference to Justice Thomas as an Uncle Tom cause people to draw that conclusion?

[Martinned2]

Because I know that Tommy Robinson has many fans on this blog, and that many people here suddenly have a keen interest in the law of contempt of court, I thought I'd mention that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has just lost his appeal in the civil contempt case where the court threw the book at him because he kept repeating statements that had been found to be libellous.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Yaxley-Lennon-Judgment.pdf

2. In 2021, at the end of a libel trial, the appellant was ordered not to repeat the allegations complained of by the claimant in that case. On 28 October 2024, he admitted committing ten breaches of that order and that this conduct was in contempt of court. After hearing submissions from leading counsel for the appellant, the judge imposed a sanction of committal to prison for 18 months less 3 days which the appellant had already spent in custody on remand. The appellant has since been detained at HMP Belmarsh (for 4 days) and then HMP Woodhill.
(...)
32. Contempt of court is not a criminal offence. However, the sanctions for contempt include committal to prison, a fine, and other punitive measures. The court’s approach to the imposition of sanctions of this kind is similar in many respects to the way it deals with sentencing in crime. In a contempt case the court will draw upon general principles of sentencing and on sentencing guidelines for analogous criminal wrongdoing: Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, [2021] 4 WLR 103, [44].

33. The judge’s reasoning, which we have summarised above, reflects this. His reasoning also reflects some of the differences between the sanctions for contemnors and criminals. These include the fact that a custodial sanction for disobeying an injunction may include a “coercive” element, which the court may “remit” in whole or in part if the contemnor takes step to “purge” the contempt and applies for a reduction in the custodial term. The judgment also refers to the release regime for contemnors which is, as the grounds of appeal point out, different from that which applies in crime.

(Note that one of the judges on the case is Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, the Chief Justice of England and Wales. And Warby LJ is no slouch either, although his background is more in medial and privacy law than in this sort of thing.)

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

Hey, did you see that Spanish critic got 1 year in prison for publicly criticizing mass migration?

Free speech done right! Free speech doesn't include criticism of official policies!

[Malika the Maiz]

“Free speech doesn't include criticism of official policies!”

This might be funny (as intended) if it didn’t come from a bootlicker of the federal government and officials such as yourself.

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

Why do you think stealing my schtick is clever, without attribution mind you (which is illegal in the EU)?

Or are you bot trained on the brightest, most hilarious and clever comments on this board? Is that why you keep mirroring my comments? Because you're aping the best of the best?

That makes sense.

[Malika the Maiz]

Stealing your “schtick?” You mean your tendency to lick the boots of the federal government and officials? Yuck, that’s a “you” thing, not interested.

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

Sigh, I wish English was your first language...

[Malika the Maiz]

There actually does seem to be some confusion, you seem confused as to bootlicker applied to you. I think maybe it’s because you think you’re helping out the cause of your federal government gods and so you’re not licking their boots, you’re lovingly washing them.

[John F. Carr]

Under American law violation of the judge's order would be prosecuted as a crime. The prison sentence was imposed as punishment for past acts.

[Frank Drackman]

So I guess Congressman Van Hollen is (wait for it)
"Taking the message to Garcia"???
would be a shame if the Honorable Representative from Maryland gets popped with Hunter's Blow at Aeropuerto Internacional de El Salvador San Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (man, that's a tongue twister, lets just go by it's IATA Name, "SAL") "Midnight Express" style, would be just like a DemoKKKrat to smuggle Cocaine INTO Central Amurica.
Maybe he and Albrego could be Cell Mates, although I wouldn't wish Van Hollen on anyone.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Frank is hoping someone is taking the message on how to properly use basic English punctuation, capitalization, etc., to him.

[Frank Drackman]

You probably accuse Chestnuts of being lazy (when you're not yelling at clouds) I myself was a Grammar-Nazi once, (I still wince when I hear "Where's it AT?", "Back in the Day", "No Problem", and don't even get me started with "Nome Sane")
Then I realized, it doesn't matter, life is short, one day you're going to have a Glioblastoma, or get the Lou Gehrig's, or just a boring STEMI, and you'll think of all the keystrokes you wasted on me
Nome Sane?

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Frankly, I don't know why somebody would characterize you as mere shtick. You're next level, Frank. (Maybe next next level.) Even your wrong-speak is more thoughtful and in some measure substantive than a lot of the "serious" remarks around here.

You can tell from the comments, even of detractors, how many are paying attention to your remarks. But you're probably muted by more people than anyone else. I suspect every one of those muters will go to their grave remembering Frank Drackman.

Life is short.

[Malika the Maiz]

Troll recognize troll.

Ready to say what country you’re supposed to be from yet?

[Bwaaah]

What's your "country" thing about?

[Krayt]

Where is it at isn't really wrong. It is, however, redundant. Everything is at someplace.

Uh, except in quantum mechanics, which supposedly applies to macroscopic objects as well, so maybe nothing, ever, is "at" any particular place.

[ThePublius]

O.K., Karen.

You're as annoying as someone who complains that a comedian says things that aren't literally true.

[Malika the Maiz]

Look who’s worried about his favorite troll! It’s cute.

[hobie]

Is there any historical correlation with MAGAns always firebombing Jewish places or taking hammers to crack politicians' skulls? It seems to be more of a trend than a coincidence. I mean, they're awash in guns but they instead always choose these implements

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

Wait until you see that picture of that guy saying "Fuck Trump". That's why this is getting memory-holed faster than a J6 pipe bomber, the Epstein client list, a Las Vegas mass shooting, a tranny child murdering manifesto, or a truck exploding in front of a Nashville NSA collection center.

[ThePublius]

You're always struggling to find cases of violence coming from Trump supporters, at which you fail, while blissfuly ignoring all of the violence, every day, coming from the left.

"always firebombing Jewish places"

Baloney. Balmer is mentally ill, and is opposed to government in general.

"He also shared a meme in 2020 that argued that both Democrats and Republicans "would rather argue with other than work to solve the problems we are facing." It's not clear what his political affiliation is."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/know-arson-suspect-fire-pa-gov-josh-shapiros-residence-rcna201096

And somehow you conclude he's a MAGA guy? Pitiful.

[TaioF920]

Of course he's mentally ill. The liberals advocated for closing our mental hospitals in the 70s, and now we have these lunatics on the street.

[Malika the Maiz]

No fiscal conservatives joined in?

[TaioF920]

Not really. They only joined in after the costs skyrocketed because of liberal "reforms." It's very cheap to institutionalize our nutcases if you just throw them in a room and treat like them the animals they are.

[Malika the Maiz]

But some people naturally feel sympathetic to people like you.

[ThePublius]

More on this:

"Pennlive: police warrant says arsonist targeted Pa. Gov. Shapiro for “what he wants to do to Palestinian people”"

"Just to recap, we’ve now had a CEO murdered, two assassination attempts against a now-president, a governor nearly killed with his family, and businesses burned to the ground…all by left-wingers."

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a rip roaring start to the comments today.

[Frank Drackman]

Was that you that ripped one? Please, call your shots.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not me. Probably the dog.

[hobie]

One of Trump's demands for Harvard:

"By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse"

Isn't that just another form of DEI? And regardless, explain to me why this isn't straight up Animal Farm/USSR

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

It's funny, all Trump did was add "viewpoint" to standard Leftist dogma to make it offensive to Lefties...

lmao, strike viewpoint, and you drooling morons would be like "oh, he's so progressive! he's anti-racist!! diversity matters (not of viewpoints, just superficial things like skin color or lifestyle choices)."

[Frank Drackman]

You really are a Hayseed, did your neighbors steal your modem? Google it.

[hobie]

It's government regulation of thought, Frankie

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

No it isn't.

It's viewpoint equity driven by disparate impact. If there isn't viewpoint equity it's only because of systemic viewpoint discrimination. Discrimination is an evil that must be stamped out.

[Malika the Maiz]

See, it’s all in bad faith.

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

It's bad faith to use the reasoning we employed over the past 3 decades against us!!!

Waaaah, cry me a river Ho Dung Minh.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s bad faith to defend something by pointing to how it is like something you don’t believe in. I’m sorry that, like women, you don’t get that.

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

It's not bad faith to hoist someone by their own petard, Dingh Ho.

(That's a reference from the greatest playwright ever, a White man named William Shakespeare, y'all don't have those over in China. Or any artistic culture for that matter...)

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s interesting that someone with no petard would have a worldview based on hoisting others on their’s.

Sad. But interesting. Like what a woman says when this guy pulls down his pants.

[Ed Grinberg]

See, it’s all in bad faith.

As opposed to DEI?! Who are you kidding?!

[Malika the Maiz]

Whoosh!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the same sort of thing as DEI, only with the polarity switched, yeah. Mandating viewpoint diversity in the name of non-discrimination, instead of discriminating in the name of diversity.

It's both stupid AND futile. Not actually worse than what Harvard is doing now, but it kind of misses the point of what's WRONG with what Harvard is doing now.

I'll say it again: I generally support Trump's ends, but his means tend to suck.

I've said before, and I meant it: Trump is not a conservative. But he wants to be remembered as a great President, and he knows Democrats are guaranteed to hate him regardless of what he does, so he's 'dancing with the one what brung him', trying to make conservatives happy.

But as a not-a-conservative, he's doing it by means that aren't conservative, and which often miss the whole point of the original complaint he's trying to address.

[Sarcastr0]

You again just define DEI as whatever is convenient for you to defend the Administration's latest assault on our rights and civic institutions.

I'll say it again: I generally support Trump's ends, but his means tend to suck.
Again, this is bullshit. You keep saying you don't like Trump but when the rubber meets the road you have defended everything he's done from the big to the little.

These 'ends' of Trump you endorse seem to be just owning the libs. Which makes sense, since they want to put you in camps.

[Brett Bellmore]

Amusing that you say that in the context of me NOT defending the administration, but whatever.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the same sort of thing as DEI

Not actually worse than what Harvard is doing now

I generally support Trump's ends, but his means tend to suck.

Trump is not a conservative. But

he's 'dancing with the one what brung him', trying to make conservatives happy.
---
You spend most of your comment yelling at libs and apologizing for Trump.

This is your final shot, and oh boy is it indirect: "he's doing it by means that aren't conservative, and which often miss the whole point of the original complaint he's trying to address."

This heat couldn't warm a cup of tea.

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

BINGO!

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

Awesome finger-wag and patriot-shame.

One more and I'll bingo before my morning coffee is over! That would be record!

Come on Sarcastr0, I know you're now on the taxpayer's clock which means you have literally nothing of value to do. Help me get my Komment Karen bingo!

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "You keep saying you don't like Trump but when the rubber meets the road you have defended everything he's done from the big to the little."

Here's the most hilarious example: Brett Bellmore was a strong supporter of Ukraine until his Cult God decided to cut the country off at the knees. So what's a zombified Kool-Aid drinker to do? Brett immediately "decides" we can't afford to support Ukrainian because the budget deficit is too high. Federal debt is too great a problem. The deficit is a critical danger threatening the country.

But this is while he endorses the Trump budget and its trillions & trillions in new debt. Brett will always come up with an excuse for any action Trump takes, no matter how illegal, immoral, or unconstitutional. Accompanying the excuse as theatrical flourish, we'll always see a few crocodile tears on how "reluctant" Brett finds his slavish devotion. Trump could shoot a random stranger on Fifth Avenue and we'd get the same performance: Excuse ( "He was creating a maximalist negotiating position" ); Victimhood ( "The Dems are so unreasonable about Trump shooting strangers" ); Faux-Tears ( "I'm really conflicted about defending Trump's right to shoot strangers" ).

Remember, Brett insists Trump lies no more than average politicians & never about substance.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You keep saying you don't like Trump but when the rubber meets the road you have defended everything he's done from the big to the little.

Uh, isn’t he criticizing Trump’s conduct in the very comment you’re responding to?

[Sarcastr0]

He spent all his time hating DEI and Harvard. And at the end offered tepid, indirect, criticism of what Trump often does with ends and means.

You're technically correct, but I'd call it as praising with faint damns.

[jb]

It's the same sort of thing as DEI, only with the polarity switched, yeah.

It's absolutely a form of DEI, although not one that most actual DEI programs put in place.

One of the strongest rationales for DEI in the corporate context is that you get better decision-making with a diverse set of perspectives, and often characteristics like race or gender are seen as reasonable proxies to incorporating those perspectives. However, that can still leave you with a lack of certain type of viewpoints, and this is particularly common in institutions in big, Coastal urban areas.

You see this particularly in areas like moderation policies from Big Tech. I don't think there's a conscious decision-making effort of "let's suppress conservative viewpoints", but if essentially all of the people making the calls on the topic are liberal, there's a higher probability that the close calls are going to tend to swing in one direction. So viewed through this lens, organizations can and should be sensitive to viewpoint diversity. And when we apply DEI principles, we might say "oh, maybe instead of only recruiting from the Ivies, we should also do on-campus recruiting at Liberty" or "when we do organizational health surveys, let's see if people from one political affiliation feel as included as people from the other side".

I guess irrelevant these days since apparently no one believes in DEI anymore. But here's an interesting/relevant piece on the topic (including why many people don't look at the effort to improve viewpoint diversity at universities as good faith).

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure anybody ever DID believe in DEI as you describe it, though you did describe a common excuse for it.

[jb]

That's exactly how I've seen DEI rolled out in several organizations, e.g., do campus recruiting at HBCUs instead of just at Ivy+ schools, but with the same hiring standards as a way to improve racial diversity, or just switching the programming language that the intro to computer science class is taught in so that more women are interested in the field.

The problem is you guys aren't intellectually curious enough to go actually look at what DEI implementations look like in the real world; instead you just credulously accept whatever horrible examples anti-DEI folks manage to track down and assume that was the mainstream. Plus it probably helps to just assume that the people you disagree with have evil goals in mind when creating the programs.

[Absaroka]

I was curious what languages would have gender differences and found:

"switched from the Java programming language to Python, which more closely mimics the way humans communicate"

I've written many thousands of lines of both and ... I totally don't get that statement.

[jb]

The second half of the statement facially makes sense to me. I'm stealing some examples from this page which has a much longer comparison of the languages, but I think they're illustrative.

Here's how we create a loop to read the contents of a file in Python:

for line in in_file:

vs. Java:

while ((line = reader.readLine()) != null) {

And here's how we create an array and print its contents in Python:

stuff = ["Hello, World!", "Hi there, Everyone!", 6]
for i in stuff:
print(i)

vs Java:

public class Test {
public static void main(String args[]) {
String array[] = {"Hello, World", "Hi there, Everyone", "6"};
for (String i : array) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}

In both cases, the Python code is briefer, closer to human language, and easier to read/understand.

Now whether programming languages being closer to natural languages makes them easier or harder for one gender than the other to absorb is less obvious to me, but then again maybe the Harvey Mudd people did some research to support this thesis. I'd probably put it another way: fewer girls than boys were coming into college with existing programming experience, so teaching the intro course with a language with an easier learning curve probably meant that it was easier for those girls to ramp up and be successful. At this point, Python is a more popular language than Java for professional coding anyway, so it was probably the right bet for the college even independent of the DEI objectives.

[jb]

(Sorry, the whitespace got messed up! It looks like the site will actually allow for indentation even with BLOCKQUOTE tags, unfortunately. This makes all the code a bit messier, and the Python code syntactically invalid but I think the overall point comes across.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can use nested blocked quotes for levels of indentation. You can also use the “code” HTML tag for monospaced text (but Reason will still strip out leading spaces).

[Magister]

Testing indented code:
public class Test {
  public static void main(String args[]) {
    String array[] = {"Hello, World", "Hi there, Everyone", "6"};
    for (String i : array) {
      System.out.println(i);
    }
  }
}

Pink is weird but repeated   work.

[jb]

Thanks, Magister! So CODE tags and nbsp seem like the right solution.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s pretty remarkable that this is the “solution” for a commercial website in 2025.

[Magister]

A high standard of simplicity is set by machine or assembly code programming for a small computer.

Enthusiasts for high-level languages are often surprised at the complexity of the problems that have been tackled with such simple tools.

C. A. R. Hoare, Hints on programming language design

The inconvenience here is intended as a challenge to block excessive programming discussion nerdiness.

[Sarcastr0]

"More of Mudd’s women are translating their computer science degrees into careers in tech"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd%27s_Women

I wonder if this reference was on purpose?

Probably not.

[ducksalad]

A couple things.

When I started teaching (32 years ago) enlightened opinion was that there were zero differences between the sexes in how they engaged with programming and more generally math and science. Differences in outcomes were presumed to be the result of either implicit bias on the part of instructors, or if the instructors were not biased, invidious social conditioning before the girls even got to college. Now things have evolved to where female advocates for women in STEM insist there are innate differences.

On a totally different note: a couple years ago we (EE department) forced the CS department to split their intro class so that our majors could go back to C++ as their first language. We really need our students to be very conscious of how the data is stored and what physical operations are triggered when you put a "+" in a line of code.

[Sarcastr0]

When I was getting spun up to be a TA like 20 years ago, there was an intro to gender differences in learning engagement.

Though one thing I would emphasize is 'innate differences' are about trends in larger groups, and should not be taken on an individual basis.
The upshot is more about finding ways to engage broadly with different styles of learners, not Biotruths(tm) about women being bad at STEM, nor that they should be in separate classrooms to keep the boys from talking over them or other such reductionist nonsense.

[jb]

Like I noted above, I think the difference is more like "girls tend to have less exposure to programming prior to getting to the intro to CS class than boys do, so it's easier to engage them with a programming language with a shallower learning curve than "female college students learn better with a natural language approach". Like Sarcrast0 notes, we're overcoming years of social trends in the form of "programming is for nerds who smell bad" more than "female brains work differently than male brains".

I definitely think there's value in understanding how computers actually work, but today the work that most programmers are doing is so many layers removed from the metal that it's completely meaningless. Someone still needs to write kernels and debug low-level software problems, but at this point there's people whose jobs is primarily prompt engineering for LLMs. It's hard to see how understanding pointers or even binary math is going to ever be relevant for someone working that far up the stack.

[Sarcastr0]

When I was in physics grad school EVERY SINGLE woman had a story about some proff discouraging them from going into the field.

It's a small sample, and anecdotal. But good lord.

[Brett Bellmore]

No kidding. When I got started in computers in the 70's, you were programming a lot closer to the hardware, and sometimes in machine code if it was something that really had to be fast. These days you're so far from the hardware that my son took a video game written for a desktop computer and got it running on his Raspberry Pi.

Of course, today, to the limited extent I'm doing any programming at all, it's in a microcontroller, (The Teensy 4.1) and though I'm not exactly doing machine code, I have to be aware of the hardware level because I'm controlling hardware inputs and outputs.

[Absaroka]

"I definitely think there's value in understanding how computers actually work, but today the work that most programmers are doing is so many layers removed from the metal that it's completely meaningless."

I think that's a pretty mainstream opinion, and quite wrong :-). I've seen too many new-hire CS grads who can do a great job on something small where speed doesn't matter, that won't scale to the real world. This may not matter for javascript formatting a web page on the user's computer, but it sure as heck matters when the backend gets a big bolus of transactions.

On java/python, sure, 'hello world' is a lot simpler in python. Having to do all the declarations is a PITA on small stuff, but saves your bacon on a larger scale. My personal rough breakeven was 1000 lines; below that I would tend to use python, but above that java ended up better in the long run. Usually, lots of exceptions, of course, but writing a 500k line system in python sounds gnarly to me.

I confess to being a dinosaur ... the first machine I worked on was straight machine code, not even an assembler :-(. When I switched to a machine with an assembler, that was really cooking with gas.

[jb]

Absaroka--I think 10 years ago I would have agreed with you that a bigger emphasis on principles lower down the stack was important, but I'm really struggling to think of more than a handful of scenarios where understanding the C/C++ paradigm versus something like python would matter. Even in the context of C, compilers have gotten so sophisticated that they're making constant changes to what you've think you've coded so that what actually gets emitted is quite different from what you thought you were writing.

That's not to say you don't need to think about scaling or efficiency. Reading Knuth (or maybe a book on Parallel Algorithms these days) is going to be a lot more useful than learning pointer math or figuring out how to be careful with your buffer sizes. Understanding a layer or two down the stack from where you're working is surely useful, but it's hard for me to get from understanding how ECS buckets work to needing to know how ext4 maps inodes to blocks on disks.

(And I acknowledge that python and Java both have their place; I'm just agreeing with Harvey Mudd's general notion that python is a better language for an Intro to CS class.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"closer to human language"

I'm closer to being a MLB ballplayer than the governor of Texas but I'm not really "close" to being one.

If someone spoke like your examples we'd assume a stroke, or brain tumor.

[jb]

I'm not sure I'd go on the Internet and advertise the fact I can't figure out some of the most basic statements in computer programming.

[Bwaaah]

Bob's point is quite correct: "closer to human language" is a silly distinction in describing something that's not close to human language. For example, a random selection of 10 words from an English language dictionary, written down on paper, is similarly close to human language. And a choice from a Russian dictionary would be no less close to human language.

(sarc) Think of all the people in the world who aren't programming because all dominant programming languages use English [mnemonics] instead of the programmers' native languages. (/sarc)

The semantics of a programming language express relatively narrow bit manipulation functions, and are quite unlike human language in semantics, form, practice or use. The use of human language words in a programming language only serves as a mnemonic device (to help recall the un-human-language-like functions they imply).

I am skeptical of the idea that a person who is well-suited to being a programmer will be tripped up over the lack of likeness to human language. The appeal (and use) of programming is very unlike the appeal (and use) of human language. Make no mistake about it: programming in any language is hardcore rule driven, tedious and unforgiving, and does no more or less than bit manipulation. If you're attracted to that (which few people are), then your human language sugar coat will likely be of little relevance.

Coincidentally, the first programming language I learned was APL which uses special character symbols to represent its commands. Why did I learn APL? Because that's what they taught at my school. I was immediately enthralled when I saw what that first simple one-line program _did_, not _what it looked like_.

[Commenter_XY]

Or, jb, we are in private industry and we actually have seen (and experienced) how DEI is rolled out in the real world. Have you?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the people I personally know who've encountered DEI encountered the nasty sort of it, so I have reason to believe that's what DEI is like.

But I suppose, just like you have JFK 'affirmative action' (Affirmative action to avoid discriminating.) and you have LBJ 'affirmative action', (AKA "Quotas and timetables"), there could be some "Classic DEI" hiding among the "New DEI".

[jb]

I suspect this is a combination of sample bias (people are more likely to talk about something if it goes badly than if it's good/fine), and motivated reasoning. No one ever wants to think they got fired from their job or passed over for promotion because they weren't actually that good at it; much easier to blame DEI for some other person succeeding instead.

Having said that, I've definitely read about examples of DEI programs that don't work in the ways I am describing and seem to discriminate against certain classes of people (generally white men). I just don't believe that those are the mainstream programs and to answer Commenter_XY, yes I work in private industry. I'm even a white male so would prefer not to be discriminated against as well!

[Sarcastr0]

You admit there are different sorts of DEI right before you declare there is only the bad sort of DEI.

You're incoherent.

[hobie]

The fact remains that our country has millions of affirmed bigots and racists like most of the commenters here. Where you can say in one breath that you are enlightened and colorblind, then turn right around smear brown people til the cows com home. No black man, no matter how qualified, seeking a job from you Brett will ever get a fair shake. Until you repudiate your racism, DEI is very necessary

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure anybody ever DID believe in DEI as you describe it

That is because you conjured from nothing a DEI tailored for you to hate, and rejected everyone who told you how wrong you were.

[David Nieporent]

I'll say it again: I generally support Trump's ends, but his means tend to suck.

Trump only has means, not ends. The cruelty is the point.

[Don Nico]

"Isn't that just another form of DEI?"
No, and you demean both the pros and cons of DEI by that question.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not precisely the same as DEI, but it's wrong in the same kind of way as DEI. Dictating outcomes rather than just treating everybody the same and letting the chips fall where they may.

[Malika the Maiz]

The chips falling where they may might not be treating everyone the same. Think of different distributions of resources, networks or stereotypes.

Having said that, one should be ready to scrutinize attempts to use government power to solve this (or any) problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if differently situated people get treated the same, they get different outcomes. That doesn't make treating them the same NOT treating them the same.

To use my favorite analogy, my local grocery store charges the same price for ground chuck to every customer. Poorer customers can't afford it, wealthier customers can. Is it discriminatory to charge everybody the same price? No, of course it isn't, by definition.

Don't confuse equality of treatment, (Which is what the 14th amendment demands of state actors.) and equality of outcomes. I the real world, equality of treatment is almost guaranteed not to result in equal outcomes, but it is still what people are actually entitled to.

So, say that you're testing people for a meritocratic admissions process at a school. Sure, the ones who had tutoring, tiger moms, or just hit the jackpot in terms of IQ, are going to do better than the people who lacked resources, had parents who didn't give a damn how they did in school, or are just flat out dense.

But that doesn't mean you should warp the tests, and the rest of the process, to make sure that dense unprepared applicants do as well as bright and prepared applicants. Harrison Bergeron was a warning, not an instruction manual! And the reason you WANT genuinely meritocratic selection is because it's wasteful to admit students who are doomed to fail. It wastes resources, it wastes THEIR time and money, neither of which are limitless.

And it temps you to extend said warping into the teaching, the testing, the graduation standards, Then hiring, promotion... Once you abandon meritocracy at any step, you induce pressure to abandon it from end to end. And society has finite resources, and NEEDS the things these people are doing to be done right, so we can't afford to abandon meritocracy!

[jb]

The problem is that when there's systemic bias in the system, you end up excluding talented people.

Just as an example: imagine Cambridge had no wheelchair ramps. So as Steven Hawking's ALS kicks in, he's no longer able to enter the buildings. By your logic, we might say "Why should we build wheelchair ramps? Most people with ALS aren't going to be successful theoretical physicists, and we've been doing great physics for years just with people who can walk!" But it turns out that being able to walk up stairs and being a good physicist aren't actually meaningfully related, so we're just favoring able-bodied people at the expense of the brilliance of Steven Hawking.

Obviously there's jobs where walking up stairs is really important. So we don't want to change the firefighter's test so that it doesn't require walking up steps and we don't want to change the standards to get a physics Ph.D. to exclude being able to do good physics. But maybe there's no good reason to exclude physicists who can't walk, and maybe the remedy to that is not just saying "well fine, whoever can get to this room on the second floor can do their physics research--I'm not discriminating!", but rather to actually give a bit of a helping hand and actually build a wheelchair ramp.

[Absaroka]

"The problem is that when there's systemic bias in the system, you end up excluding talented people."

Exactly. My wife was a teacher. She sent a number of her students to the Ivies. She was talking to one young man about his plans, which turned out to be StateU. She thought he was as bright a student as she had ever had, and asked if he had considered the Ivies. Some kids didn't realize that financial aid could make those pretty reasonable for middle class folks, and he had grades and test scores comparable to other kids who had gone to Ivies. His answer was that he wasn't considering them - he said 'I'm a straight male Asian ... no way I can go to Harvard'. She asked around and, indeed, while his grades and scores would get a lot of people into an Ivy, they weren't good enough for an Asian-American to have much of a chance.

So "excluding talented people" cuts both ways.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that kind of blind admissions is bad for everyone involved.

Getting rid of the tyranny of the Ivies would go a long way towards solving a lot of the representation issues liberals complain about.

(I'm less into representation qua representation myself, versus more deeply understanding and building capacity in as broad a cohort as possible, and then doing the same thing with potential for research outcomes.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you somehow miss that Absaroka wasn't talking about blind admissions, but instead about Harvard engaging in systematic discrimination, the exact opposite of blind admissions?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean blind admissions of demographic groups, as I think is clear from context.

If it's not, consider this clarification.

I've told you over and over I do not support racial affirmative action. Even before the recent court cases.
You just can't help but put me in a box.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, by "blind admissions of demographic groups", you meant "quotas"? Because blind admission usually refers to ignoring a factor, not making it determinative.

[jb]

I think the University of Texas model of admitting anyone from the state in the top X% of their class is pretty interesting and definitely increased diversity without any sort of explicit racial preferences, but it did come with a lot of challenges around student preparedness from schools that historically hadn't been sending a lot of students to Austin.

There aren't easy answers to this stuff.

[shawn_dude]

This only works if they don't get more applicants than they can admit. The moment a program gets impacted--a common one would be nursing--then the school has to pick winners which requires some sort of ranking instrument. It's tempting to just say "use generalize testing scores like SATs" but those favor students from wealthier families and don't necessarily correlate to good performance in a particular major.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, support for first time college goers seems like the thorniest of all the issues in expanding our research workforce.

Well, that and a mad king doing a populist attack on experts and institutions. That's also pretty bad.

[Absaroka]

"then the school has to pick winners which requires some sort of ranking instrument. "

I remember day 1 of frosh calculus. The prof gave the usual pablum, then invited questions. Someone asked about grading. The prof said "right, thanks for asking ...(consults notes)... I grade on a curve, and I've been told to give 54% F's this semester". Wat was going on was that the university had capacity for X people in the upper division engineering classes. The number of freshmen saying they wanted to major in engineering (and a few other majors, like mine) greatly exceeded X. They let frosh calc decide who went on and who didn't.

I'm probably biased, because I made the cut, but ISTM like a pretty good strategy. To pass that class you needed two things - 1)a certain amount of ability and 2)a certain amount of work ethic. I certainly passed on a lot of weekend keggers in order to work the unassigned problems in the textbook. I came from a rural school with bad math teachers and no preCalc class, so I had to play catchup with urban magnet school kids. I'm glad they didn't just look at my HS transcript and slam the door.

The math majors took a much less rigorous Calc class.

Other majors also had 'survival of the fittest' courses. I started as a forestry major, and freshman Dendrology was the same, as in structured to fail half or more of the class, for the same reason.

[jb]

shawn_dude: Texas has addressed this by just changing the value of X. Originally it was 10, but it's slowly lowered and now it's top 5%.

Also worth noting that the entire class doesn't get admitted this way: there's still some fraction of the student body that gets admitted through a "normal" admissions process.

[Magister]

I remember day 1 of frosh calculus. The prof gave the usual pablum, then invited questions. Someone asked about grading. The prof said "right, thanks for asking ...(consults notes)... I grade on a curve, and I've been told to give 54% F's this semester". Wat was going on was that the university had capacity for X people in the upper division engineering classes. The number of freshmen saying they wanted to major in engineering (and a few other majors, like mine) greatly exceeded X. They let frosh calc decide who went on and who didn't.

I was at a university where the engineering departments used math classes to keep the number of majors down, but they did it by requiring relatively high grades, not by forcing math professors to fail an artificial quota.

[ducksalad]

Absaroka- yeah, there was a time back in the 70s when engineering programs *bragged* about how many they failed. It was probably, as you say, really about capacity, but they spun it as an indicator of selectivity and rigor. That all went away when the higher ups - and that specifically includes conservative state legislatures - started using retention rates as a key performance measure for funding.

At elite schools with more applicants than slots that shifted the game to picking the best high school students, with the understanding that they intend and expect to pass almost everyone they admit.

At lesser schools with more slots than applicants, the higher ups intended it as pressure to teach better, but in practice it felt like pressure to lower standards.

At some schools the threat was explicit: if you pass 70% you're a good teacher and can spend Fridays catching up on grading and research. If your pass rate is less than 70%, you're a bad teacher and will spend every Friday in "training" (often from DEI specialists!) on how to teach better.

----

I can't resist complaining about a misconception many conservatives had back in the affirmative action wars. Except for elite programs at elite schools that are deliberately limiting seats, it's almost never the case that letting in a DEI applicant displaced a qualified white male. Regional schools were trying to boost enrollment and therefore admitted every single person that met the posted objective standards.

People would imagine we had some committee of liberals that sat there giving preference to women and minorities. What they didn't get was that there was literally no admissions committee at all.

At most one could complain that one mistake - letting in an unqualified DEI applicant - required us to compound it by letting in an even larger pool of unqualified non-DEI applicants. Because just like the liberals, the conservatives prioritized equal racial outcomes over educational success.

[shawn_dude]

@Absaroka

Egads! I hate professors that do that. If 54% of your class fails, it means they suck as a teacher. I had someone attempt this in my grad program (I got near straight A's myself) but I was incredulous that this resulted in any benefit to students or the institution. A class failed because of administrative reasons rather than actual learning deficiencies can potentially force a student to extend their graduation date by a year. Rather, I've seen some institutions that have first years' declare "pre-" majors for impacted majors and then only admit the top x% as space becomes available in the actual major. Students denied the opportunity could change majors. When I changed from CompSci to MIS, I had to pick up and extra semester of business classes--which cost money.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There aren't easy answers to this stuff."

There are, but you don't like them. If school district A does a better job of preparing its students for higher ed than school district B, admit more students from school district A.

If parent A does a better job of preparing his kid for higher ed than parent B, prefer parent A's kid over parent B's.

[ducksalad]

Shawn: If 54% of your class fails, it means they suck as a teacher.

That's a pretty stark statement. I'd agree that if 54% are failing something is broken. It could be the instructor, but it could also be admissions, it could be advising, it could be the feeder program.

Those other possible causes are sometimes rooted in the feel-good but factually untrue slogan that everyone can do anything if only they try hard and the teacher is sufficiently heroic and inspiring. Trying to make reality align with this belief leads to unintended consequences.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, that and a mad king doing a populist attack on experts and institutions. That's also pretty bad."

In other news, the author of the fake study that claimed that black babies had higher mortality rates if they had white doctors resigned from the University of Michigan yesterday over plagiarism allegations.

[Absaroka]

"If 54% of your class fails, it means they suck as a teacher."

Not at all. It wasn't that you needed X level of competence to pass. It was that they only had e.g. 46 slots available in the upper level classes, and 100 people competing for those slots.

You could make the cut in the admissions office by taking the highest 46 SAT scores or GPAs or best holistic essays or whatever. My school, though, thought that the best predictor of success in upper level engineering classes was performance in freshman calc. So they just graded on a curve and took the top 46 performers. The bottom 54 could retake the class or switch to business or whatever.

I suppose they could have just taken the top 46 students without giving F's to everyone else. I dunno why they did it the way they did. Maybe they were trying induce stress because they thought the ability to handle stress was important? It wasn't like frosh calc was the last challenging class in the curriculum. If you couldn't hack it, maybe it's best to find it out your freshman year when you could switch majors than to find it out in thermodynamics your junior year.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a pretty common technique, actually, or at least was at one time. When I attended Michigan Tech in the 70's, it was freshman chemistry.

They didn't do it by grading on a curve, they just front loaded a lot of particularly difficult content; Those who could hack it learned more than they otherwise would have, those who couldn't went off and did something else before wasting their time for a couple more years.

[shawn_dude]

@Ducksalad Yeah... it's harsh, but in a university with, say, 25K students and around 1500 faculty with all the classes that implies, if 54% of class fails it's very unlikely it's an admissions failure if it's an undergraduate course. If it's a graduate course, that's different since admissions are often handled in part or whole by academic departments for those students. But in the case of graduate students, it's the faculty that admit them so my point still stands in part. (All universities are different. YMMV.)

In my experience, most students don't seek out advisors even when they should. Some universities, in the name of retention and national metrics, force students to attend at least once but in those cases the advisors are limited in what they can do by the high volume of cases. There are better methods for rationing access to impacted majors than artificially failing students and saddling them with an "F" in their GPA.

I had a professor declare in my undergraduate program that he only gave one A and two Bs in his class. (This was my networking class. He claimed the Internet was a fad. This was pre-AOL switching to the internet, mind you. I'm that old.)

[Sarcastr0]

Outsourcing your admissions cuts to a specific prof, even with the tool of exams, seems to have a single point of failure issue.

Like benevolent dictators, it works until it doesn't.

Didn't California just keep opening new state schools to keep up with demand? Properly managed, that seems a decently supportable solution so long as your population didn't explode or you didn't fuck up your tax base...oh, I see.

[Absaroka]

"Outsourcing your admissions cuts to a specific prof"

It wasn't a specific prof.

AFAIK, they weren't doing it to be cruel. My guess is that their data said it was the best predictor of who could successfully complete the rest of the program and graduate with an engineering degree. That seems more efficient (and less cruel) than having people invest a couple of years and then fail out into some other major. It seemed to work fairly well, in the sense there weren't a whole lot of people flunking out in later years.

[Sarcastr0]

I concur that it's better than letting people fail for years and then kicking them out.

While a single class in theory will get at whether you have the requisite thresholds of ability work ethic to succeed, it's going to end up in practice being pretty arbitrary.

Still, I agree it's no worse than current admissions standards.

It leaves some talent on the floor, but not because of the testing being too harsh.

DEI folks in my office (no longer called DEI and who never did the stuff that makes Brett and the administration mad) are working on ways to address failures in soft skills preventing the success of students of high potential.
Setting up cohorts that can rely on one another as a resource to set expectations, check one another's work, cheer each other's success, etc. A weak attempt to give what family and/or a peer network can give since some first time college goers don't have that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It leaves some talent on the floor, but not because of the testing being too harsh."

It's a choice between type A and type B errors, really. Either you're leaving some talent on the floor, or you're putting some lack of talent on the table. Or in the middle a mix of both, of course. I guess it really comes down to which you consider worse: Wasting a couple years of everybody's time on somebody who's going to fail, or not admitting somebody who would have succeeded.

You can't optimize against both at the same time.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not either-or. This isn't a binary.

You're doing the equivalent of insisting a company only make product and never invest in capital improvement.

You are committed to not understanding.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, when it comes to graduation, it is kind of binary, actually. You either do or don't, and if you don't, it's probably best that you don't immediately, so you can go off and do something else, instead. The worst doctor in the graduating class at least gets to be a doctor, the best doctor in the group that fails doesn't. That's binary, isn't it?

Anyway, were it not for your own commitment to disagreeing with anything I say, you'd understand the point: The more you try to avoid leaving talent on the floor, the more you end up wasting resources on people who are going to fail. (Including their own time and money!)

So it really comes down to how much resources you have available to waste, and how valuable what they might otherwise have been expended on is.

If you're tacitly assuming resources are unlimited, and opportunity costs aren't a thing, of course, you're not going to see this conflict, and never risking leaving talent on the floor is an automatic conclusion. But what sensible person reasons on the basis of resources being unlimited, and opportunity costs not being a thing?

[Sarcastr0]

1. The purpose of schools is not to graduate the maximum number of people.

2. Spending money on capital improvements means less money to create products. Your logic would mean never do capital improvements.

3. 'resources you have available to waste' is some very hard question begging.

I'm not assuming unlimited resources; I'm talking about maximizing value. This has gone right over your head quite a few times now. I'm done trying with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. The purpose of schools is not to graduate the maximum number of people."

Tacitly, I assume that your goal is graduating people who know how to do something valuable. If the purpose were to graduate the maximum number of people, and nothing more, you'd just hand them a diploma as they walked in the door.

"2. Spending money on capital improvements means less money to create products. Your logic would mean never do capital improvements."

Look, I'm a professional engineer with over 40 years experience in a capital intensive industry. If your interpretation of something I say is that level of stupid, the problem is on your end, not mine.

"3. 'resources you have available to waste' is some very hard question begging."

No, not really.

"I'm not assuming unlimited resources; I'm talking about maximizing value. This has gone right over your head quite a few times now. I'm done trying with you."

You're talking about maximizing value while ignoring opportunity costs, so far as I can see. So you're maximizing value in one isolated part of the system, not globally.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when there's systemic bias in the system"

In the Ivy league? Oh noes. They're liberal there.

[shawn_dude]

Yeah, all those liberal law schools, business schools, and engineering schools--bastions of left wing agitation!

[Sarcastr0]

Accepting that rich people should get better opportunities because they can pay their way to success is a pinched, engineer's version of merit.

It fails to recognize the value of investing in capacity, not just in maximizing current results.

More importantly, it ignores an important part of America's exceptionalism. It is a deep part of our culture that our meritocracy recognizes talent not just the shallow capability wealth can buy.

Your way is to create an aristocracy where the rich are just better.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" It is a deep part of our culture that our meritocracy recognizes talent not just the shallow capability wealth can buy."

Huh? There are talented rich kids too. And talented rich kids are poised to have better outcomes because they have a better opportunity to invest in that capacity, as you put it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not "Accepting that rich people should get better opportunities because they can pay their way to success"

It's "Accepting that paying your way to success is still success, and it's success we're trying to generate, not some vaguely defined fairness."

Again, we have limited resources, and if somebody applying to study medicine is likely to learn how to practice it, I don't give a bucket of warm piss if it's because Daddy payed for tutors. I care that my doctor be competent.

Maybe Franky, whose dad couldn't afford the tutoring, would be just as successful as Franklin, whose dad could, if you put him through a year of remedial biology. But you don't know that, won't know that until the year of remedial bio is done, and meanwhile Franklin is ready to hit the ground running, and you've only got room for one of them.

The basic problem here is assuming unlimited resources in a world of scarcity, and based on that, assuming that it's cost free to pursue fairness rather than efficiency.

[Sarcastr0]

Allow me to repeat myself. You're being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
And even if you were not, you are shitting on the American dream.
That cultural stuff matters, and is not to be discarded for the pull of the now.
In your world citizens serve society, not vice-versa.

1. It fails to recognize the value of investing in capacity, not just in maximizing current results.

2. More importantly, it ignores an important part of America's exceptionalism. It is a deep part of our culture that our meritocracy recognizes talent not just the shallow capability wealth can buy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I repeat, you're reasoning as though we didn't have scarce resources which we need to deploy efficiently.

[Sarcastr0]

Penny-wise and pound-foolish is not only true when you have lots of resources.

But also *we have a lot of resources* as you yourself said in a pretty silly defense of tariffs, America is wealthy enough it has the luxury to make choices.

[ducksalad]

Kind of tangent issue but I think it's worth pointing out:

In the case of medical schools you're right that the seats are a scarce resource. That scarcity is at least partially artificial.

[Brett Bellmore]

In all cases it's a scarce resource, because it costs money to provide, and that money could instead be spent someplace else.

I really do think the problem here is reasoning as though everything was free, so that there's no cost to admitting people with a reduced chance of actually graduating and pursuing the career. Cost to the institutions, cost to society, cost to the people admitted, who have an elevated risk of wasting their own finite time and resources.

We ARE a wealthy society, but reasoning as though things don't have cost, and you need to deploy your wealth efficiently, is how you avoid becoming an even wealthier society, and even backslide.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not what scarce means.
You have excluded the middle,

[Sarcastr0]

Dictating outcomes rather than just treating everybody the same

Still not what DEI is.

[Brett Bellmore]

Still what it actually is, and just doesn't want to admit to being.

[Sarcastr0]

Says you, who have no idea what you're talking about and refuse to be taught.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to have trouble noticing that your whole argument consists of "says you", too.

Except, of course, that you're defending as not discrimination DEI at Harvard, which already stands convicted of discrimination before the Supreme court. So your argument seems to rely on the assumption that, of course an institution adjudicated as discriminating wouldn't implement DEI in a discriminatory manner...

[Sarcastr0]

Nope. Dead wrong on what I said, and what I think. Just eager to assume.

And still wrong on what DEI is.

Check out what I wrote in parens to Absaroka.

[Kazinski]

That seems like its pretty close to Equity to me, which is a huge mistake, and a core component of DEI.

I would support them being monitored for viewpoint discrimination, because that has been a problem, however I'm not sure there is a legal basis for it since Harvard is a private University and likely entitled to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, so I'd just prefer to cut off all federal funding for Harvard so I don't have to worry about it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'd just prefer to cut off all federal funding for Harvard so I don't have to worry about it.

Yeah, you would.

Burn it all down, eh?

[Bob from Ohio]

Plenty of universities have high quality research facilities.

Burning down Harvard is not "Burn it all down".

[Kazinski]

I am not the only one.

https://www.racket.news/p/burn-it-all-down

Of course Taibbi is talking about the International trade system which I personally thinks works pretty well, not 90% of the federal government, and its entire grant apparatus.

[shawn_dude]

"Viewpoint discrimination" like deporting greencard-holders who speak out against the Israeli government?

Liberty University might ask that you let Harvard keep their access to federal financial aid and grants.

[Kazinski]

Well now I have already said a few times that I disagree with revoking green card status over political opinions.

However I have also reconsidered whether whether chanting "behead the zionists" goes beyond just expressing political opinions.

Can't say I've actually reached a conclusion either way on that issue, which I admit is unusual for me.

[hobie]

We grant money to our best universities so that we remain the leader in science and technology. Chinese universities are already equating with our own, and students both from there and here are starting to matriculate there. Already China is ahead of us in quantum and battery technologies. But you're happier to squabble over brown people and burn our institutions to the ground

[Brett Bellmore]

Abandoning meritocracy is just a covert and more expensive way to burn it all down.

[Sarcastr0]

You claim we've abandoned our meritocracy.
And yet we kick a lot of ass in research; envy of the world.

Well, until recently.

Of course, this is just your usual cover for Trump's open destruction by claiming liberals have been doing equivalent badness just no one but you notices.

[hobie]

Lately I feel it is pointless to argue with our ruling MAGA class. The chaos and the cruelty are all that matters

[Brett Bellmore]

We've been abandoning meritocracy at a lot of these institutions recently, at an accelerating rate, but it takes time for the generation who went through no longer meritocratic institutions to arrive and start displacing people chosen on merit. Things don't happen instantly.

[Sarcastr0]

So no upshot but you’re sure it would get bad later.

That’s vibes.

Meanwhile Trumps damage has been manifest now. And you don’t care.

Methinks your motive is not concern for the meritocracy.

[Moderation4ever]

It has been 32 days since the Trump Administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador prison. A mistake that that administration admits but seems to have no interest in correcting. Most people will work to correct an error but that does not seem to be the way for the Trump administration.

[ThePublius]

"seems to have no interest in correcting"

It's moot at this point.

What could the correction possibly be? He's returned to the U.S., has a deportation hearing, and is sent back. What's the point?

[hobie]

What could the correction possibly be?

Due process

[Michael Ejercito]

I guess those who claimed he already had an existing deportation order are mistaken.

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

In your mind, using only powers of the judiciary, what due process can the executive be mandated to institute?

[ThePublius]

Isn't a deportation hearing due process? Isn't that what I said? By correction I meant something other than send him to El Salvador.

[Moderation4ever]

The point is that he would get a hearing he is entitled to have. That the way we do it in this country. Do we live in a country that has rule of law?

[ThePublius]

Do a hearing via Zoom from his cell in CECOT, save a round trip flight.

[grb]

ThePublius : "He's returned to the U.S., has a deportation hearing, and is sent back."

Sent back for what reason? He was here legally, has no criminal record in this country or anywhere, and the "evidence" supporting his gang membership is almost nonexistent.

[David Nieporent]

Sent back for what reason? He was here legally,

He was not here legally. There's an outstanding deportation order against him. It just couldn't be implemented because they needed to find somewhere to send him other than El Salvador.

[ThePublius]

What do we really know about Garcia?

1. did he enter the U.S. illegally?
2. is he an MS-13 member?

[Martinned2]

Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of dispute resolution mechanism where people could come together, present evidence, and hash this out? Maybe there should even be some kind of impartial decision maker to hear all that evidence?

[Frank Drackman]

But there is, Great Martinned2, there is.....
"The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch of El Salvador. It is composed of 15 judges and an equal number of substitutes. The magistrates are elected by the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador for nine-year terms, which are reviewed every three years. A two-thirds vote of legislators is necessary. Under the 1983 Constitution of El Salvador, the legislature also designates one judge as the President of the Supreme Court. This person is also then the head of the judicial branch and the Constitutional Court."

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

Very interesting.

Where did you find this?

[Frank Drackman]

This Super Secret Source, invented by AlGore, on the 3rd day, after He created the Internets. The Native Amuricans call it
"Wikipedia"

[David Nieporent]

1. Yes.
2. No.

[ThePublius]

re: 2 - how do you know?

[David Nieporent]

Because no evidence has ever been presented for it. Not in 2019, and not now. He has never been arrested. He's been working in construction the whole time; day-laborer-by-day-MS-13-leader-by-night seems a bit implausible. And of course the Trump administration itself released him in 2019 - not the sort of thing they'd have done if they believed he were MS-13.

If the administration had one shred of evidence that he had so much as jaywalked, they'd have released it to bolster their "liberals support illegal alien gang members" narrative.

[shawn_dude]

[[deleted -- ThePublius shared the link themself downthread.]]

[ThePublius]

I found this article about Garcia that may indeed change my mind about this situation. If this narrative is true, then I think he should be returned, and maybe even have a chance at citizenship. He missed the asylum window because he didn't apply for asylum within 1 year of his arrival here, but he was 16, in fear for his life, and his brother was a U.S. citizen living here. Who knows. We'll see, I guess.

Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What Do We Know?

[Malika the Maiz]

Kudos for rethinking your position upon discovering possible new facts.

[ThePublius]

ty

[ducksalad]

I thought for a minute you'd left the office door open and someone got to your keyboard....

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. Well, think again. I honestly try to be objective.

[grb]

Kudos for that!

[Bwaaah]

Here's the findings of the DOJ immigration review in 2019. There was no evidence presented in that case that he was connected to MS-13. I've been watching recently, but have not yet seen any compelling evidence that he an MS-13 member.

In fact, the evidence indicates that Abrego-Garcia (and his family) were targets of an El Salvadoran gang ("Barrio 18") that terrorized the citizens of the country quite like MS-13.

If anybody has a good source of evidence against Abrego-Garcia, I'm interested. But so far, this looks to me like a case of a real victim having gotten caught up, probably by mistake, in a larger political conflict over immigration.

[Commenter_XY]

We don't know what information El Salvador has, independent of us, Bwaaah. Garcia was repatriated home, and El Salvador promptly plopped his ass in prison. How come? Is Garcia an innocent angel? I don't know. Unfortunate mistake? Well there was certainly an administrative error. In a Fed bureaucracy this large, it happens (yet another reason to reduce it), mistakes do get made. Perhaps some good will come of it, but I doubt it. It is helpful to see where Team D priorities apparently lie (yet another 20 in the 80/20 divide); so yes, definitely caught up in the larger political conflict.

Garcia is home now. He is El Salvador's problem. Hopefully, this episode will serve as an object lesson to every illegal alien in America. You are going home.

I doubt she realizes it, but Judge Xinis is helpfully reinforcing and dramatizing that lesson for every illegal alien in America to see on TV, nightly. You will be caught and you ain't coming back. Do you think illegals are unaware of this case? Of course they are aware and following the case. They see there is talk and talk, but Garcia isn't coming back. They heard Bukele. They're not stupid at all.

There is an alien registration requirement. Comply with the law, and carry proof of same on your person if you are 18 or over. It is not a good idea for an illegal alien in the US to fail to carry their registration papers on their person. You could be very quickly deported in a greatly streamlined deportation process. It is as simple as that.

CBP-Home is an alternative that will preserve the alien's ability to return to the US, legally. A free ride home with an invite to apply to come back is not such a bad deal, comparatively speaking (meaning, much better than how they would be treated in other countries around the world).

[David Nieporent]

We don't know what information El Salvador has, independent of us,

Yes, we do. None. Or it would have been revealed. And it's not plausible that they would have 15-year old records about the activities of a 16-year old.

[Commenter_XY]

David, you don't know that = Yes, we do. None. Or it would have been revealed. You can hypothesize all you want.

We will never know with certainty. What we do know with certainty is Pres Bukele ruled out deporting Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, to the United States. That is not happening. And there doesn't seem to be a huge groundswell of public support in El Salvador to address this heinous injustice deport Garcia, either. How come? You know, one possibility is the people there know some things about Garcia that the people here don't.

You say that is impossible, I am not so sure about that.

[David Nieporent]

What we do know with certainty is Pres Bukele ruled out deporting Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, to the United States.

1) You are misusing the word "deporting."
2) Bukele did not in fact do that. He was careful not to do that. He coyly smirked and asked how he could do that since he couldn't smuggle Garcia into the U.S. (If the U.S. sent a plane, then that would not be necessary.)
3) Even if Bukele had ruled it out, that does not mean that pressure could not be brought to bear to change his mind — whether carrots or sticks.
4) No, it is not possible that the 6.3 million people living in El Salvador have secret information about a guy who left the country 15 years ago when he was 16.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

As Mary McCord pointed out, Bukele's use of the word "smuggle" would seem to be a careful admission that in fact the Trump Administration has never requested Garcia to be returned. After all, if they had, there would be no need for him to be smuggled.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not sure how much weight should be given for to an inference to draw from the precise formulation used in off-the-cuff trolling by someone who isn’t even a native English speaker.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with you in the abstract, but "smuggle" is such a specific word that it must have been carefully chosen.

[Kazinski]

I doubt it was intentional, it was in response to a reporters question. I'm sure he knew it was coming, but I think it was likely discussed in terms of don't say you were asked or not asked to return him, just deflect.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with David. President Bukele deliberately chose the word smuggle.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You and Kaz may well be right. It seems an odd word choice, especially for someone for whom English isn't the first language. Seemed prepared by him, but maybe not.

[Commenter_XY]

The Executive branch cannot be compelled to conduct foreign policy.

The POTUS talked to the President of El Salvador, who pointedly declined deporting an El Salvadoran citizen to the US.

[shawn_dude]

Members of the Executive branch can, however, be jailed for contempt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In a Fed bureaucracy this large, it happens (yet another reason to reduce it), mistakes do get made.

Having fewer people doing the same amount of work is famous for decreasing the rate of mistakes.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "Hopefully, this episode will serve as an object lesson to every illegal alien in America."

Except Garcia wasn't an illegal alien in America. Why do you keep lying about that? For that matter, many of the Venezuelans in the earlier deportation stunt were also here legally - with some "disappeared" after they showed-up for their legally-required immigration check-in. And their numbers also seem to be riddled with unsupported allegations of gang membership.

This was/is a public relations numbers roundup. You often see the same from politicians and police departments in cities : The cops are told to make mass arrests, they do so on tenuous or no grounds whatsoever, and the courts operate as a backstop - cleaning up after the empty stunt.

Only here there's no backstop. The operation is being run with the same dishonest & scattershot incompetence of DOGE or Liberation Day, but the result is innocent people being sent to a foreign hell-hole prison - their lives completely destroyed.

Why not giving the trolling a rest and deal with that, C_XY?

[Commenter_XY]

Garcia was an illegal alien in America, with a valid deportation order.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Except Garcia wasn't an illegal alien in America.

Can you elaborate?

[Bwaaah]

C_XY:
I don't dispute Garcia's status as an immigrant, nor the President's wide latitude in border enforcement and deportation initiatives.

I don't accept the reports of that individual as a "member of MS-13," as I have yet to see any evidence-based claim of that. (No, an unsubstantiated claim by a government official does not meet my evidentiary burden, by this administration or any other.)

I look forward to serious border enforcement, and within a serious enforcement regime, resumption of the invaluable process of immigration, legally, and in the large numbers that I believe benefit us all (including the can't-compete people who rely on public assistance).

In the meantime, I'd rather we have less of the baseless character assassination of immigrants as threatening criminals. That's much more false than true. Overwhelmingly, it appears to me that their only notable crime is being in the U.S., and even that fact is a recent change in administrative designation. (Yes, Biden created non-enforcement mechanisms that effectively rendered almost anybody to be "legal.")

My wife attended a good-bye party last week for a working resident [immigrant] (with no criminal history whatsoever) who is self-deporting on advice of ICE. "Good riddance" doesn't match the facts of the case when you see it up close for what it really is.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

+1

[Commenter_XY]

That working immigrant resident is preserving their chance to come back, Bwaaah. Having good character references helps significantly.

[Kazinski]

Many of these stories are heartbreaking, but I wonder why the Biden Administration for cynical political gain purposely flooded the country with millions of illegals and others of questionable status (temporary protected status).

If I were running things I would make case by case decisions, because many of these people are assets, but we know its not possible with the number of illegals they let in.

[Sarcastr0]

I wonder why the Biden Administration for cynical political gain purposely flooded the country with millions of illegals

Quit believing white nationalists.

"The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory espoused by French author Renaud Camus. The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory

[Kazinski]

Oh come on lets quit pretending it wasn't intentional, although I suppose incompetence can't completely be ruled out.

Nobody believes it was not an intentional policy, although some people lie about it.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh come on lets quit pretending it wasn't intentional
Nobody believes it was not an intentional policy, although some people lie about it.

The song of the conspiracy theorist - everyone who says you are full of shit is lying to you.

You want to end federal grants, cut 90% of government, and you seem fully bought into racist bullshit to the point you think everyone secretly agrees with you.

Way show your ass, Kaz.

[Kazinski]

Really? Vox seems to think it was in intentional too:

One of the main reasons Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election is the Biden administration’s record on immigration and the border — polls show it ranks up close with inflation among the top issues that drove swing voters to Trump.

And the recriminations about how Democrats got so out of step with the public on this issue are well underway. Part of the story, as The Atlantic’s Rogé Karma and others have written, involves a badly wrong electoral theory that held that support of unauthorized immigrants was key to winning over Latino voters. And part of it is the increased influence of progressive advocacy groups who pushed the party left."

Honestly I have to say I have definite opinions on most subjects I give any thought too, but I am definitely on the fence on one question:

Are you really this clueless, or lying?

I really don't think you could be lying, because there must be at least a little hope the lie could be believed, but how could anyone really be this clueless?

[Sarcastr0]

Are you really this clueless, or lying?

Your Riva impression is coming along nicely.

Ima wish you a good night.

[David Nieporent]

That does not say anything like what you claim.

[Kazinski]

I am not claiming he has been definitely been proved as a gang member, but a wife beater isn't a good look either.

His wife has filed two protective orders against him.

"Maryland court documents reveal that deported Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez, petitioned for an order of protection against him in May 2021. It's unclear if she was his wife at the time, or what the allegations were, but this is contradictory to her positive comments about him now."

https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2025/04/16/abrego-garcias-wife-filed-two-protective-orders-against-him-n2187921

[Bob from Ohio]

"in fear for his life"

Says who?

[ThePublius]

Read the article I linked.

[David Nieporent]

David M. Jones. As well as Abrego Garcia himself, and several family members.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jones took testimony from Abrego Garcia and Jennifer"

Legally sufficient perhaps but hardly compelling.

Well, if true, sucks to be him.

[hobie]

I was a flaming liberal ready to do war when Trump 2016 came around. But Charlie Sykes changed that for me. Here was/is a genuine conservative who was actually kind and listened and didn't speak like MTG. Here was a man I was willing to listen to and compromise with...even on abortion.

So thank you for saying that. It may not be apparent, but I concede points here from time to time as well. May we all take that further

[Frank Drackman]

They should have sent him to a Mexican prison? What's the mistake?

[Michael Ejercito]

Now here is something interesting.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/maryland-lawmakers-pass-bill-limit-future-liabilities-amid-120525141

Keep in mind, this came about because the Maryland legislature retroactively repealed the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.

And they did this solely to help trial lawyers, and to hurt the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts.

And now the state is facing billions in lability lawsuits from conduct that occurred decades ago.

[Martinned2]

Well, Maryland has that name for a reason...

[Bob from Ohio]

"And now the state is facing billions in lability [sic] lawsuits from conduct that occurred decades ago."

California passed a similar statute, and for the same reasons.

Now LA County is paying $4 billion in settlement claims, some from 60 years ago!

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

Karmelo Anthony's parents have purchased a new mansion and a Cadillac Escalade since starting their Gofundme legal fundraiser.

Isn't that the same crime those Build The Wall guys were convicted of? Or is it different because they're blacks and part of a current Democrat cause celeb? That typically grants people extra-legal status.

[jb]

If they're using legal defense money to fund their lifestyle, that would be the same crime as the Build The Wall guys.

Here's an actual article on the subject:

https://nypost.com/2025/04/16/us-news/karmelo-anthony-renting-900k-home-in-gated-community-with-family-bought-new-car-after-release-on-bond-in-austin-metcalf-murder-case-report/

Seems like they rent a home in a fancy gated community (unclear whether or not they lived there prior to the stabbing), and already owned at least one pretty nice car. There's also a new car parked in the driveway, but nothing in the reporting indicates that it was bought after the legal defense accounts were created. Notably, the new car is a sedan, so definitely not an Escalade. Might want to check your sources?

[Frank Drackman]

at my Doc's the other day getting my annual Prostrate Exam (my Chick Urologist moved, something about insufferable patients) had to settle on a Chick FP, perusing her "American Family Physician" Journal in the waiting room, they have a section "Diary of a Family Physician" where actual Docs share their Life and Death decisions, check this one out
"10:00am "a 32 year old transgender female (i.e. "Male") presents for her annual physical. We discuss increasing her gender-affirming hormones because she is interested in maximizing the feminizing effect of Estradiol. I order the appropriate laboratory tests to guide titration of her hormone dosage"
So this Quack's giving a man Estrogen and thinks he's doing a great job, what did Hippocrates say? "Fists, do some harm!"
Oh yeah, the Prostrate exam? I passed, normal size, normal PSA, (did you know 15-20% of Prostrate Cancers have a normal exam and PSA? you're welcome)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I had a normal exam, and the PSA was actually marginal, the only reason I ended up getting a biopsy was that I was seriously deficient in testosterone, and my doc wouldn't prescribe it with even a marginal PSA unless I submitted to the biopsy. Which uncovered the cancer. Apparently low testosterone actually IS associated with asymptomatic prostate cancer, though which way the causality goes is a good question.

I was kind of cheesed about it being conducted in an alcove off the hallway, not an actual room, not even a drape. Then they pull out this thing that looked like a cross between a SF prop rifle and a nail gun, and I find out that the highly painful local anesthesia shots had worn off while they were trying to find an actual room. Not my best day.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you feel a little prick?
Would you like to?
No Homo, that's Anesthesia humor, and in the old days, when the patient was under, we'd joke about the patients with Tatoos, in the 80's and even 90's a Tatoo meant you'd been in Jail or the Military, or were the girlfriend of someone who had (Remember one old Broad, a "Biker Old Lady" had "Sweet" under 1 Nipple, and "Sour" under the other*)
Now it's the rare case when somebody doesn't have a Tatoo

Frank

* the Surgeon said "They're mislabled"

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I felt like I was being repeatedly violated with a nail gun. Because that's essentially what was happening, and the local had worn off...

[ducksalad]

After reading this I'm cancelling my doctor's appointment for next week.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wuss.

[dwb68]

Illegal alien gets deported. No reason needs to be given for that. Period.

If Garcia has a civil rights cause, he should sue under 1983. He might win.

Judge Xinis is going to get Boasberged. These depositions are getting silly. Garcia aint coming back.

Worse, the Progressive left are playing right into Trumps hand. They are sticking up for an illegal alien gang member instead of ordinary Americans. Trump loves this fight, and hes winning.

And before you hyperventilate about deporting Americans, ICE agents are not going to allow themselves to be sued for incorrectly deporting Americans. Qualified Immunity won't cover that. They will lose it all.

[Michael Ejercito]

I once read that already-deported aliens can continue to challenge their deportation even if not physically present inside the United States.

Is this true?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe so, though whether the authorities in El Salvador will actually permit him to is the real question.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Illegal alien is returned to his native country.
Power-hungry judge orders foreign state to ship him to US.

[David Nieporent]

No such order was ever issued.

[dwb68]

That is exactly what Xinis is trying to do ("effectuate")

[David Nieporent]

Xinis's orders were and are not directed towards any foreign state, as Dr. Ed had claimed.

[Malika the Maiz]

What is the evidence he is a gang member?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Biden's people were convinced he was, QED....

[Sarcastr0]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/16/wednesday-open-thread-12/?comments=true#comment-11005623

[Malika the Maiz]

Ed, what’s wrong with you? This was asked and answered with you above, as Sarc notes. You didn’t respond but then repeat here.

So, what is wrong with you?

[SRG2]

What's wrong with him is that he's a malign fuckwit

[dwb68]

It doesn't matter whether he was a gang member or not. Illegal aliens are deportable for any reason whatsoever. They are here illegally lol.

But since you asked, the judge that issued the order in 2019 agreed that the evidence he was a gang member (from the informant) was credible, and he was hanging out with other known gang members.

[shawn_dude]

The informant was one of the arresting officers and they were suspended shortly after (for undisclosed reasons.)

The facts about this accusation are available at Lawfare.

[A Japanese Student]

Nope. Because this is a federal case, you need to bring a Bivens - good luck surviving a motion to dismiss. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017); Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022) (declining to extend Bivens)

[David Nieporent]

If Garcia has a civil rights cause, he should sue under 1983. He might win.

He cannot. § 1983 only applies to state, not federal.

Judge Xinis is going to get Boasberged.

The Supreme Court has already upheld Xinis's order.

[dwb68]

"The Supreme Court has already upheld Xinis's order." -- not quite. They told him "effectuate" was a non starter.

[David Nieporent]

They told him "effectuate" was a non starter.

Once again, all the people who claim to know so much about the case don't know that Judge Xinis is a woman.

And SCOTUS did not in fact say anything of the kind.

[dwb68]

The order is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/24

[A Japanese Student]

Not a big deal IMO, the Supreme Court makes that mistake as well. cf. Andrew v. White, 604 US --- (revising the opinion to use feminine pronouns for Judge Johnson of OCCA)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"all the people who claim to know so much about the case don't know that Judge Xinis is a woman."

What does her being a woman have to do with the case?

[Bob from Ohio]

How does DN know how she "identifies"?

He's not a biologist after all.

[David Nieporent]

Legally, nothing. Duh. But it's a reflection of some people's lack of actual knowledge about the case. They're just reciting talking points they heard somewhere without ever having done any reading on it at all.

[Michael Ejercito]

One side calls for decarceration and defunding the police.

One side accuses the police of habitually hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men.

One side accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist.

One side enacted this law.

https://reason.com/2025/04/15/colorado-will-soon-require-a-discretionary-permit-to-acquire-semiautomatic-rifles/

S.B. 3 makes the freedom to acquire a broad class of commonly owned firearms contingent on a local law enforcement official's approval, which can be denied if that official deems the applicant dangerous.

[Martinned2]

Yes, what America needs is definitely more shoot-outs between the police and civilians!

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

That seems awfully close to illegal bullying.

Be careful, Martinned2.

[Brett Bellmore]

Make up your mind: Should the government respect explicitly enumerated constitutional rights, or not?

[Martinned2]

It should, but it shouldn't interpret the stupid ones any wider than strictly necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

The courts should inteprete them honestly, it's up to the people who draft constitutions to not draft stupid ones, and if you think you've got a stupid constitution, convince enough people to agree with you to get it amended.

[Sarcastr0]

Yet again, everyone who doesn't agree with Brett is lying.

[apedad]

And creating conspiracies!

Don't forget conspiracies.

[ThePublius]

No, we need fewer criminals, fewer gang bangers who have no respect for the law or others.

[apedad]

Weird thing to say when you're voting for and actively supporting a convicted felon.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which felony is that?

[apedad]

Jurors in the New York criminal trial against former President Donald Trump have convicted him of 34 felony counts of falsified business records.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what? He's served his sentence, paid his debt to society, etc. What's the problem?

[Michael Ejercito]

There is always a risk of a ahootout.

There is a clear difference between the police entering a hine to rescue a kidnapped, captive girl and entering a home to arrrest someone for peaceful posession of a firearm despite the lack of training.

The people who enacted this law clearly have no problem with gang violence in the inner city.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is your argument that someone proposing a permit law for semiautomatics must be ok with gangs because it prevents people from getting semiautomatics and battling gangs?

As someone who doesn’t like this CO proposal, that’s bonkers. At the very least someone could honestly, if wrongly, think that such a law could hurt gangs by making it more difficult for them to get semiautomatics.

And your “they must hate black people” angle is more bonkers.

[Michael Ejercito]

Most rank-and-file voters sincerely believe that these laws will stop school shootings and gang violence, which is almost exclusive to impoverished, inner city neighborhoods. Some of them may very well live in these nrighborhoods.

But they did not enact this law nor enforce this law.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, of course. They're anti-life. Thus the sympathy for violent criminals / disdain for law-abiding citizens (which, naturally, includes disarming them).

[jb]

As you can see in the cases of Philando Castile or Tamir Rice, having a gun hardly contributes to black citizens' safety.

[Michael Ejercito]

How do two cases prove that?

[Bob from Ohio]

He's trying to be sarcastic.

Rice, of course, did not have a gun, just a toy with the orange stopper pulled out.

[Malika the Maiz]

You support the Back the Blue guy, this is fundamental bad faith.

[Bwaaah]

Reminder: When seconds make a difference, police are minutes away.

[Super Scary]

Well despite all that stuff they are still the group that thinks the only people that should have guns are those police they hate so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whatever happened to the lawsuit about the Massachusetts DPH secret COVID Android tracking app?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bap-IcA-W4

[John F. Carr]

The case is moving along at the usual pace of federal litigation. Last year the judge dismissed Maura Healey from the case and allowed the remaining claims to proceed. The case has been paused until 2026 while settlement negotiations continue.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65756192/wright-v-massachusetts-department-of-public-health/

[Frank Drackman]

Quote of the Day, and if any of you Poindexters know where it's from I'll wear Red and White (or Black) for a whole week (like anyone knows what THAT's referring to)

"Most of the miseries of the world were caused by wars. And, when the wars were over, no one ever knew what they were about."

Frank

[ThePublius]

Frank(ly), my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Frank Drackman]

Medium Rare? an Aristocrat!

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's about WW-I where no one really knew what WW-I had been about when it was over -- I forget the source. (Great Gatsby?)

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s Gone With the Wind, ya goof.

[Frank Drackman]

Frank(ly) my Dear, you're dumber than the dumb kid in the Special Ed class, but tomorrow is another day.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll help you out there, "Dr" Ed, you're thinking of "The Second Coming" by Yeats, honest mistake,
stupid, but honest

Frank

[hobie]

We've only been quoting the damn poem here for months and it still hasn't sunk in for poor Ed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have got to see this dissertation!

[Malika the Maiz]

One can see why a Confederate apologist would think the cause of wars are things trivially forgot!

[Bob from Ohio]

I just read that Wilkes was supposed to be 21 years old at the start of GWTW. Leslie Howard was 46!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't agree with the ranking (sesame leads the way for me) but agree (even if I'm not Jewish) that bagels are a fine issue for debate:

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2025/04/the-new-yorker-aint-what-it-used-to-be.html

[ducksalad]

The proper ranking is 8,6,5,3,2.

Stuff with sweet/fruity inclusions or made from flour other than white should not even be on the list.

[Estragon]

I generally agree with the ranking although salt should be lower and chocolate chip… what even is that?

Pleasantly surprised to see pumpy number one.

Here’s a question I was contemplating. Does a properly constituted “everything” bagel have salt as a topping? I have a strong opinion but I want to hear what you have to say first.

[ducksalad]

Yes, it should, although that's often missing. Preferably sea salt, medium grain (larger than table salt, less than pretzel salt).

[Estragon]

UGH. Truly a misguided individual! Plus, sea salt? Maybe in the Hamptons!

Back when I was bangin it was those giant white chonks that could double as sidewalk de-icer.

Salt bagel people are deeply troubled. They can have their own weird bagel but it should not infect a perfectly good everything.

[ducksalad]

Well, I'm a southerner, what do I know. To me it's foreign cuisine.

[Frank Drackman]

Confederate Secretary of State was a Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure JD was also.

[ducksalad]

I listened to at least 50 episodes of Grandpa Jones reciting the dinner menu on Hee Haw, which makes me an expert. Never heard bagels once....

[Frank Drackman]

I'll play,
"What's for Supper Grandpa!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

[Estragon]

Oh I see. You are forgiven.

[Sarcastr0]

2,4,11.

That's all.

That's the list.

No schmutz on my bages.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL!

I'm a garlic bagel guy, the sort of garlic bagels that they keep in a kind of isolation ward, away from the rest. Proper garlic bagels turn anything in the same display case into garlic bagels.

But if I have to I'll settle for cinnamon and raisin.

Yes, I DO like pineapple and anchovies on my pizza, why do you ask?

[Frank Drackman]

So you're that one guy who orders them

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't love it or anything, but blueberry bagels are fine.

Not a fan of salt on bagels. Leave the salt off my hot pretzels, too.

[ReaderY]

It’s a curious thing about the New Yorker. Waiting for Passover to do the bagel article is part of a pattern. They assume their audience is intimately familiar with the biographies and ouevres of obscure 19th and 20th century German philosophers, French impressionists, and English poets and drop names and refer to incidents and characters accordingly. But they never refer to a Bible story or character as if they expect their audience to have any clue what it’s about. They add the sort of explanatatory details they never add for these other things. And on the rare occassion when they review books about religion, the reviewer often adds a sort of prefatory personal anecdote about for example the one time the reviewer was in church and had no clue about what was going on as a way to reassure the reader that of course the reviewer doesn’t have any sort of personal knowledge of or interest in the subject being reviewed.

They write for an educated audience, and the pattern suggests that they regard any sort of knowledge of or expression of interest in religion of any kind is a clear contraindication of being an educated person.

I have sometimes wanted to satirize them by sending them a book review starting out with an anecdote about the one time in my childhood when I found myself starting to read a book but of course didn’t make it past the first page, followed by an assurance that as an educated person with good taste I of course have no interest in and know absolutely nothing about books and, like the reader, have no interest at all in ever acquiring any, and the reader can rest safely and confidently assured that as a person of sound mind and taste I am only doing the review for the money and am certainly not one of those uneducated morons who is, horrors, into the subject reviewed.

[Commenter_XY]

Thank you for remembering that, ReaderY; no chametz, and the observation regarding timing of the article.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Just got back from visiting my son on Long Island. Correct answer:

Plain, Egg, Egg Onion. Those are the real bagel options. All the rest is goyishe crap. Cream cheese, lox or whitefish is acceptable. My only issue with Long Island bagel places is that they use way way too much cream cheese.

[Bob from Ohio]

1, 2 and 4. The rest I wouldn't feed to my worst enemy.

"cream cheese and the lox. (Or whitefish"

All horrid. Just because we had to put brine on salmon and white stuff on fish to preserve it 500 years ago doesn't mean we still have to do it now.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose they are tastes from my childhood that I love. But you are right, objectively weird. One of those things.

The lox mixed in with the cream cheese is good also. If you need a lighter dose.

[ReaderY]

There are reports that one one of the main purposes of DOGE is to provide a simple, extra-legal way to disappear undesirables, removing them from government databases entitling them to identities and benefits. There are reports that DOGE has been cancelling the social security numbers of immigrants, even ones legally obtained.

The same approach could be used to disappear citizens as well. Retirement benefits, passports, all sorts of benefits could simply be vanished, thrown down the cyber equivalent of memory holes. Same with citizen status itself. Potentially birth certificates.

This is the advantage of Musk’s efforts to replace humans with “artificial intelligence.” “Artificial intelligence” simply isn’t concerned with what is actually going on. Nor will it talk back or whistle-blow.

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

You dropped a key part...
>There are reports in the comment sections of the DailyKos and on Reddit ...

[jb]

...says the guy who routinely posts flagrantly incorrect statements.

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

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-pen-phone-and-stray-voltage/

Read a book dude.

[Estragon]

It’s a little unclear what they’re up to other than vacuuming up every single bit of data they can get their hands on for some self-serving purpose. The reports in this regard are somewhat alarming.

What they are most assuredly NOT doing is rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” at any kind of meaningful scale.

[ReaderY]

It depends on your definition of “waste, fraud, and abuse.” By business efficiency standards, Mubuti Sese Seko ran one of the tightest and most enviable ships around, hardly a dime wasted providing salaries to workers or services to his public, nearly every dollar of income realizable as nearly pure profit.

[ThePublius]

"What they are most assuredly NOT doing is rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” at any kind of meaningful scale."

That's complete baloney. DOGE has done more to root out waste, fraud and abuse than any administration in the last century.

[David Nieporent]

DOGE has found essentially zero waste/fraud/abuse, unless you redefine those to simply mean "spending on different priorities than I have." Their tweets about the money they saved have pretty much all fallen apart.

[ReaderY]

That’s what they say. Not much in the way of evidence. There’s certainly a lot of evidence they often screw things up so badly that after they’ve gone the people they’ve fired end up getting rehired with backpay plus overtime to cover their idle time. If the DOGE bulls had taken the considerable sums of money they are collecting in fees, and, instead of making these big shows of forcing their way into the china shop and stomping around and smashing things, and had instead simply rolled up the money and smoked it, the public might end up being a lot better off after the dust settles.

[Commenter_XY]

https://doge-tracker.com/

That points to their evidence. I find it amusing, myself. Rather cheeky (predictions portion).

https://doge.gov/savings

That is where you find the 'receipts' for what they say they saved. The goal is 4B daily.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "That points to their evidence"

Except "their evidence" is riddled with lies, contracts counted in billions when they're actually only millions, contracts doubled & triple-counted, and - as per below - contracts "canceled" after they've already been executed.

"Nearly 40 percent of the federal contracts that President Donald Trump’s administration claims to have canceled as part of its signature cost-cutting program aren’t expected to save the government any money, the administration’s own data shows."

"Data published on DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” shows that more than one-third of the contract cancellations, 417 in all, are expected to yield no savings. That’s usually because the total value of the contracts has already been fully obligated, which means the government has a legal requirement to spend the funds for the goods or services it purchased and in many cases has already done so."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nearly-40-percent-of-contracts-canceled-by-musks-doge-are-expected-to-produce-no-savings

Musk is a liar. His numbers have been demolished as worthless after each new release. Why bother to defend something that's a joke and will continue to be proven so as more evidence emerges? Do you really think the DOGE clownshow will survive the test of time?

[grb]

ThePublius : "DOGE has done more to root out waste, fraud and abuse than any administration in the last century."

Citation required (and good luck with that). I'll grant Musk has talked about fraud, but everything he says falls apart after the briefest glance. Lately he's been repeatedly claiming that forty percent of all telephone calls to the Social Security Administration are fraudulent. Musk has been repeated corrected on this; the actual stat is 40% of a specific kind of fraud occurred by phone call, but he keeps repeating the lie regardless.

Which seems strange, doesn't it, ThePublius? If you've really found all that fraud, why continue to tell obvious stupid lies about pretend fraud? Why continue to lie about all those 150yr old's receiving benefits? Why not document the (real) fraud you've found in the DOGE reports - where it's nowhere to be found?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/us/politics/elon-musk-social-security-fraud.html#:~:text=This%20is%20misleading.-,Mr.,all%20telephone%20calls%20being%20fraudulent.

[Estragon]

If you actually believe that, you are deluded.

Even if you take musks claims at face value (and why would you?) they went from $1 trillion immediately to 150 billion (85% less) in the months upcoming.

The inspectors general that Trump fired did better than that and their results weren’t speculative.

“We wanted a swift, lean government that stopped strangling innovation and infrastructure. Instead we got chain-saw-style firings, total devastation of state capacity in exactly the way most likely to strangle innovation more than ever, and the worst and dumbest people in the world gloating about how they solved the ‘grift’ of sending lifesaving medications to dying babies.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"most assuredly NOT doing is rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse”"

So? that's just the cover story. The real purpose is to crush the federal civil service. Made some good progress there.

[hobie]

And if anyone doesn't believe that Musk and his bros haven't slipped all the private info and government data into their own servers for future use, then they haven't been paying attention

[ThePublius]

That is the most deranged, leftist fantasy I have yet heard.

[grb]

"But according to an official whistleblower disclosure shared with Congress and other federal overseers that was obtained by NPR, subsequent interviews with the whistleblower and records of internal communications, technical staff members were alarmed about what DOGE engineers did when they were granted access, particularly when those staffers noticed a spike in data leaving the agency. It's possible that the data included sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases and corporate secrets — data that four labor law experts tell NPR should almost never leave the NLRB and that has nothing to do with making the government more efficient or cutting spending.

Meanwhile, according to the disclosure and records of internal communications, members of the DOGE team asked that their activities not be logged on the system and then appeared to try to cover their tracks behind them, turning off monitoring tools and manually deleting records of their access — evasive behavior that several cybersecurity experts interviewed by NPR compared to what criminal or state-sponsored hackers might do.

The whistleblower's account is corroborated by internal documentation and was reviewed by 11 technical experts across other government agencies and the private sector. In total, NPR spoke to over 30 sources across the government, the private sector, the labor movement, cybersecurity and law enforcement who spoke to their own concerns about how DOGE and the Trump administration might be handling sensitive data, and the implications for its exposure. Much of the following account comes from the whistleblower's official disclosure and interviews with NPR.

"I can't attest to what their end goal was or what they're doing with the data," said the whistleblower, Daniel Berulis, in an interview with NPR. "But I can tell you that the bits of the puzzle that I can quantify are scary. ... This is a very bad picture we're looking at."

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-musk-spacex-security

[DaveM]

There are reports that DOGE employs a coven of witches to dance around fires at night deep in the woods, to better cast hexes on recalcitrant bureaucrats.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you saying the reports are fanciful?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he's implying that they're fanciful.

[ReaderY]

Did these people seriously think they were dealing with a guy who would keep his word and wouldn’t reneg on “deals” and demand more the minute he thought he had the leverage?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/law-firms-deals-trump.html

[hobie]

Be reasonable. When has Trump ever thrown anyone under the bus who had tried to please him? Has anyone heard of Jeff Sessions since 2017?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that utility workers are entitled to worker's compensation benefits for COVID caught on the job during the lockdown. By statute infectious diseases are covered "if the nature of the employment is such that the hazard of contracting such diseases by an employee is inherent in the employment". The governor asked essential employees like utility workers to remain on the job while everybody else sheltered at home. The claimant lineman kept working and caught the virus from a coworker. The insurer denied coverage. An administrative appeal ordered payments. The SJC affirmed using a deferential standard of review.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/04/15/p13712.pdf

As Jimmy Webb wrote,
I am a lineman for the county,
If I get sick they'll pay a bounty.

[rloquitur]

This sounds right. Work comp laws protect workers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Given the premises, that simply working during Covid was an undue risk, but that it was none the less necessary for utility workers to be subject to it, it seems a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, the first of those premises was Coca for Cocoa Puffs, but having adopted it, they had to reason on the basis of it.

[SRG2]

Dimon and Blankfein

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump’s D.C. U.S. attorney pick appeared on Russian state media over 150 times

Nominee Ed Martin did not initially disclose his RT and Sputnik appearances from 2016 to 2024 to the Senate. The State Department has said the networks act like arms of Russian intelligence.

https://archive.ph/ZBnXn

Martin’s frequent appearances, reviewed by The Washington Post, drew rebukes from some national security analysts, who accused him of amplifying anti-American propaganda on Russian outlets that the State Department last year said had moved beyond disinformation to engage in covert influence activities aimed at undermining democracies worldwide for President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Former U.S. national security officials and analysts said Martin’s RT and Sputnik appearances, and his failure to disclose them, raise questions about his judgment and candor. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington is the largest in the country and has wide jurisdiction to prosecute important national security offenses, former officials said. Its leader should be alert to the threats and risks posed by Russia and other influence operations from overseas, such as the ones the office has prosecuted in recent years involving Russia and other foreign actors, they argued.

Given that multiple people in the Administration have questionable connections to foreign leaders, including Tulsi Gabbard and Trump himself, this alone might not be enough for Republicans.

The official line:

Asked about Martin’s pro-Russian stances and media role, a White House official said: “President Trump made a brilliant choice in selecting Ed Martin to serve a full, permanent term as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. With a distinguished record of service, Ed is the perfect leader to restore law and order and make our Nation’s Capital safe and beautiful once again.”

Trump is so brilliant. Isn't he the coolest? (/snark)

[A Woman of No Importance]

There has been much discussion on the question of whether Trump is actively working for the Russians, with Trump supporters claiming anyone who thinks he is simply suffers from TDS.

I don't know if he is or is not, but I do have a question. What exactly would a Russian agent in the Oval Office be doing differently from exactly what Trump is doing? Wrecking our economy with his tariffs? Destroying NATO and other alliances that took decades to build? Undermining Western values like the rule of law, pluralism, free speech and a free press? Cozying up to authoritarians while turning his back on democracies?

At this point, it almost does not matter if he is, or is not, a Russian agent, because we're going to end up with the same result.

[grb]

A Woman of No Importance : "What exactly would a Russian agent in the Oval Office be doing differently from exactly what Trump is doing?"

A spot-on question. Maybe Trump is compromised. Or maybe he's just trying to destroy this country's economy and international standing out of childish spite. Or maybe he has Daddy Issues from his childhood and Putin fills a void.

Regardless, he's pretty much doing everything the Russian leader wants.

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

Especially goading NATO countries to increase defense spending and to cut their reliance on Russian energy exports!

Thats totally pro Russian. Meanwhile your side encourages NATO to fall short of defense commitments AND encourages European countries to rely on Russian energy exports! That's like the most anti-russian policy stance I have ever seen!!

[A Woman of No Importance]

Are you familiar with the expression "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"? Because that's what your examples consist of.

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

Can you explain? I don't get how your analogy applies.

[A Woman of No Importance]

Putin's ultimate goal is to control Europe, either through direct annexation, as in the case of Ukraine (with the Baltic republics next), or through bullying and economic coercion. A temporary (emphasis on temporary) increase in NATO funding for its own defense, and reduction in reliance on Russian energy, are not inconsistent with that goal. Because what he really needs to accomplish that goal are (1) an assurance that the US will not interfere with whatever he does; (2) as much political and economic unrest in Europe as he can get; and (3) dividing and conquering.

It's a chess game. That you give up a pawn because you're planning to take someone else's queen in two moves doesn't mean that it was bad strategy to give up the pawn, even though it would appear so if all you know is that he gave up a pawn.

Asking Europe to fund its own defense will create economic instability throughout Europe because Europe engaged in long term financial planning based on the US providing its defense. And if it has to shut down social service programs in order to do so, that leads to further unrest.

So yeah, the ship is sinking.

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

Trump was goading NATO to increase their defense spending (to what the treaty states) and to get off Russian energy back almost a decade ago. Of course you people were making the same claims back then. But just imagine had he been successful in 2016 to get NATO to stop violating their treaty obligations?

>Asking Europe to fund its own defense will create economic instability throughout Europe because Europe engaged in long term financial planning based on the US providing its defense. And if it has to shut down social service programs in order to do so, that leads to further unrest.

Oh wow. So if the US doesn't subsidize European welfare states we're pro-Russian? Good grief.

This is beyond stupid. Even more so when you try and support it.

[A Woman of No Importance]

No, not subsidizing Europe doesn't mean we're pro-Russian and I'm really surprised someone who claims multiple degrees would think that.

What it means is that if a Russian mole were in the Oval office, that's exactly what he would be doing, which is what I said in the first place.

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

>Asking Europe to fund its own defense will create economic instability throughout Europe because Europe engaged in long term financial planning based on the US providing its defense. And if it has to shut down social service programs in order to do so, that leads to further unrest.

You literally just made that part of your argument. Holy moly. If we don't subsidize these European countries with increasingly hostile-to-freedom ideals, we're destabilizing them and thus doing exactly what Putin wants!!

lmao you people are retard. It's so tits that "retard" is back on the menu.

[David Nieporent]

Trump was goading NATO to increase their defense spending (to what the treaty states)

As always, false. The NATO treaty doesn't state any such thing. There is no obligation for NATO countries to spend any specific amount of money on defense.

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

This is just so stupid it's hard to believe actual adults believe this garbage.

[A Woman of No Importance]

If you're referring to most of your comments here, I agree.

[Super Scary]

"He's a Russian agent!"

Wowzers, it's like I'm back in 2015 again.

[A Woman of No Importance]

OK, so my whole point whooshed over your head. I didn't say he's a Russian agent; I said if he were a Russian agent, he'd be doing exactly what he's doing now.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"What exactly would a Russian agent in the Oval Office be doing differently from exactly what Trump is doing?"

No Trump supporter can answer that question. Or has, to my knowledge, even tried to.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'd say the best way to deal with the Garcia situation is to sue the kidnappers for false imprisonment.

As far as precedents awarding federal officials immunity from such suits, I think that's wrong, and that there's a right to sue if you're injured by (for example) false imprisonment. Congress needs to provide a remedy, but if it doesn't (and only if it doesn't) then state law can fill the gap until Congress acts.

If he gets back from El Salvador, that fact could limit the amount of damages, thus giving an incentive for officials to work things out with their Salvadoran colleagues.

[SRG2]

Congress needs to provide a remedy,

I think they did, and the courts eroded it to non-existence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For claims against federal officials?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is called qualified immunity, so I have heard.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Qualified immunity originated in causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That is a statute passed by Congress, but it doesn’t allow claims against federal officials. It is available in Bivens actions against federal officials, but those aren’t brought under a statute passed by Congress. Try to keep up.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

NEW: Judge Boasberg finds probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for their decision not to turn the planes around on March 15.

[Josh R]

Three questions for "not guilty":

1) Can a criminal contempt order (it appears Boasberg is claiming this is a criminal violation) be immediately appealed (i.e., is it considered a final judgment)?

2) Can Trump pardon someone held to be in criminal contempt?

3) Does the fact that Boasberg no longer has jurisdiction over these cases make a difference?

[John F. Carr]

See page 2 of the order, document 81 at the link I posted earlier.

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320.

The cited case involved a civil rights march that proceeded in defiance of a court order. The organizers had a First Amendment right to organize a protest, a later opinion determined. They did not have the right to disobey a court order when there was an opportunity to appeal it. Convictions affirmed. I believe there is no binding precedent on the situation of this case where the order was, in hindsight, invalid but the government had only an hour or so to seek appellate review.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not not guilty (I promise!), but:

1. Yes, a finding of criminal contempt is appealable like any other criminal conviction.

2. Yes, Trump can pardon a finding of criminal contempt (by a federal court) in the same way he can pardon any other federal crime.

3. Since the Supreme Court has unambiguously ruled that Boasberg does not have jurisdiction, he cannot issue any prospective orders, and to the extent he purports to, no one can be held in contempt for violating them. In United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a criminal contempt finding by a court that lacked subject matter jurisdiction because “this court, and this court alone, could decide that such was the law” and that the injunction therefore had to be obeyed until the lack of jurisdiction was announced. I will note that this is inconsistent with earlier cases. See, e.g., In re Sawyer, 125 U.S. 200 (1888); Ex Parte Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (1887); Ex Parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 (1885). And the leading case on the duty to obey improper injunctions, Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967) is careful to note that it doesn’t involve a problem with the issuing court’s jurisdiction, as do most of the subsequent cases discussing the issue. And Judge Boasberg’s apparent attempt to coerce prospective compliance with the order doesn’t help, in my view.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I should perhaps add that in addition to United Mine Workers (which, to be clear, supports his position), Judge Boasberg offers a few other arguments. One is the supreme court’s decision I. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992). But that was about Rule 11 sanctions, which don’t necessarily present the same considerations. He also notes In re LaFande, 919 F.3d 554, 561 (D.C. Cir. 2019), which does read Willy in this way, but in dicta (the holding is that the district court “indisputably had jurisdiction”).

Finally, Judge Boasberg asserts that he did have jurisdiction after all, because when the Supreme Court was talking about the district with jurisdiction over a habeas action, it really meant venue. I don’t think that’s a viable reading if Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), so here I think he’s just incorrect.

[tylertusta]

How does one "rectify" criminal contempt as Judge Boasberg says he gave the government an opportunity to? Isn't that reserved for civil contempt?

[John F. Carr]

See page 43 of the order.

First, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt — that is, to remedy its violation by voluntarily obeying the court order. See Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 75 (1957) (“[A] court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues.”); cf. 9A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2465 (“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”). The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.

The Wright book is Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure (3d ed. Apr. 2025 update).

[John F. Carr]

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/.

ORDER: Given the finding of probable cause for contempt set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that: (1) If Defendants opt to purge their contempt, they shall file by April 23, 2025, a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so; and (2) If Defendants opt not to purge their contempt, they shall instead file by April 23, 2025, declaration(s) identifying the individual(s) who, with knowledge of the Court's classwide Temporary Restraining Order, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16, 2025. Signed by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on April 16, 2025. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/16/2025)

[Bob from Ohio]

"declaration(s) identifying the individual(s) who, with knowledge of the Court's classwide Temporary Restraining Order, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody "

So what if the declaration says: "The President of the United States"?

[John F. Carr]

Suppose Trump ordered Bondi not to turn the planes around and Bondi accepted his decision. Trump is not in contempt due to separation of powers. Bondi is potentially in contempt.

It could turn out no person willfully disobeyed a court order.

[Bob from Ohio]

But its more fun if Trump plays the colonel in a Few Good Men, don't you think?

Except no arrest will follow.

[Riva]

The matter was remanded back to allow this lunatic an opportunity to clarify his order showing due respect for the authority the executive branch in conducting foreign affairs. Rather than follow the instructions of the supreme court, the lunatic judge doubles down on crazy with this order, He should be reprimanded and impeached, I don't care in what order.

[jb]

Bad bot. Wrong case.

[Riva]

All that AI out there and you clowns can do nothing but parrot the same inane insult. Make an effort you moron. And I don't know what case you're referring to you bleeding imbecile. I'm referring to Boasberg.

[David Nieporent]

I'm referring to Boasberg.

No, you're not. You said, "an opportunity to clarify his order showing due respect for the authority the executive branch in conducting foreign affairs." That was Xinis in the Garcia case, not Boasberg in the JGG case.

[Riva]

Nope and go away.

[David Nieporent]

Concession accepted.

[Riva]

Time for the House to impeach this lunatic judge.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jaime Santos‬ ‪@jaimesantos.bsky.social‬

Revision: we’re not heading for a special prosecutor, we’re heading for a preemptive criminal contempt pardon. But don’t worry—the Supreme Court said in Ex parte Grossman that a misuse of the power to pardon criminal contempt can lead to impeachment.

Jaime Santos
‪@jaimesantos.bsky.social‬
And it also said that the possibility of a president issuing “successive pardons of constantly recurring contempts in particular litigation” is “so improbable as to furnish little basis for argument.”

[Santos is an appellate lawyer & she is speaking a bit tongue in cheek.]

[John F. Carr]

The author of Ex parte Grossman was William Howard Taft, who may have had a greater than usual respect for the power of the presidency.

We might see three votes to distinguish pardons of all the president's men from ordinary pardons. Probably not five votes.

[Michael Ejercito]

The planes have not returned yet?

[John F. Carr]

The planes returned with some passengers El Salvador refused to accept. See page 9 of the judge's order.

[dwb68]

Oh lord, not content to be smacked down by the supreme court, Boasberg is starting contempt proceedings. He didn't have jurisdiction. He knew it, and told the plaintiffs to dismiss the habeas items. Trying to issue a contempt finding when he didn't even have jurisdiction because the lawsuit was forum shopped wont end well for the judiciary.

[Riva]

I repeat. Time for the House to impeach this lunatic judge. He is not fit for office.

[Michael P]

Someone stridently argued, in the context of Boasberg and his lawless orders, that the only time a judge should be impeached for official acts was when they acted without jurisdiction. Well...

[Bob from Ohio]

Its al so stupid, just Resistance! grandstanding. If it was Trump, he's immune. If it was someone else, all Trump has to do is issue a pardon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think they are trying to make this grounds for impeachment but that is a moot issue without 67 Senators -- but couldn't any contempt of court be appealed up to the SCOTUS level if they granted cert?

Trump plays 3 dimensional chess -- maybe this judge will force SCOTUS to issue a definitive ruling on the power of Federal district judges.

[O Tempora]

Does this judge have jurisdiction to institute contempt proceedings for an alleged violation of an order he had no jurisdiction to issue in the first place?

[John F. Carr]

Yes.

[Jmaie]

"Given that multiple people in the Administration have questionable connections to foreign leaders, including Tulsi Gabbard "

I've heard Sen. Schiff's comments on Ms. Gabbard, he only mentioned her meeting Assad. Am curious what other foreign connections are you referring to?

Thanks.

[Frank Drackman]

Wonder if Representative Van Holland is flying to El Salvador Commercial, or on a US Government Jet? Part of the route is through the "Bermuda Triangle"
Just saying,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bermuda Triangle is liquid methane leaking out of the ground -- it somehow gets lifted up into the warmer and lower pressure water above and expands by a factor of something like 600%-800%.

This becomes a massive bubble that would sink a ship (VHF won't go through water so you couldn't get a mayday out) and as methane is lighter than air, I can see it displacing oxygen and bringing down aircraft.

But whatever happened to the Logan Act???

[Zarniwoop]

California to sue over imposition of tariffs:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5251486-gavin-newsom-california-lawsuit-donald-trump-tariffs/

[Frank Drackman]

I saw that Movie, "California Suit"
Alan Alda, Jane Fonda, Michael Caine, and the "Great in Everything" the Late Great (Dr) Bill Cosby

Frank

[John F. Carr]

CNBC has a followup story on the "infinite money" viral trend from last year. A widely shared video showed how check deposits at some ATMs would become available to spend immediately. Deposit a large check and withdraw money before it bounces. Free money!

The first round of lawsuits targeted people who owed over $75,000 and could be sued in federal court. Now JPMorgan Chase is going after smaller debts in state court. Some people have declared bankruptcy. They might not be able to discharge the debts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/jpmorgan-chase-infinite-money-glitch-bank-lawsuits.html

If a bank account is closed with a negative balance the account holder is put on a blacklist. Some people may be spending several years unbanked.

[Brett Bellmore]

And justifiably so. Finding out about a new way of embezzling money from a bank that they haven't yet foreclosed doesn't make it not a crime.

[David Nieporent]

It's not even a new way! Check kiting has been around forever! Yes, this involved an ATM, but the scheme was no different.

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

There was a mass school shooting in Texas yesterday.

I'm going to give everyone one guess as to why there are no histrionics or moral panics today.

Make your guess before clicking the link:
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1912560669972656331

[Frank Drackman]

He's a Mormon? a Moose-lum? Jewish? Hispanic? Asian? from South Africa?
Not much of a "Mass Shooting", nobody killed, Heck, Alec Baldwin killed more people

Frank

[ducksalad]

I successfully guessed why *you're* concerned about a no-fatality local news story.

[Michael P]

How many shootings at a single school need to happen in a relatively short span of time before you start to care?

Ja'kerian Rhodes Ewing, the suspected shooter from 2024, has a hearing in Dallas on April 22.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/wilmer-hutchins-dallas-school-shooting-tracy-haynes

[Sarcastr0]

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, so the first thing obviously is our number one priority is Americans. So we don’t want to see an American who happens to be living in London or happens to be living in Europe post something online about American politics or any politics, and all of a sudden they’re facing ramifications over there or they’re denied entry and something happens – “Oh, we’re denying them into our country or we’re going to arrest them because they posted something while living overseas.” So our number one interest is the impact that it has on Americans.

https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-with-mike-benz/

[jb]

LOL

[David Nieporent]

Is he subtweeting Trump, or is this an utter lack of self awareness?

[Sarcastr0]

What does your heart tell you?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"And then it was, like, in 2016, oh, we had this foreign interference in our election."

Sounds bad. Who was involved with that? What did they try to do?

"Donald Trump talks just like a Russian spy, he talks just like a terrorist, and so do the people around him."

Sure. That's off. He talks more like a Russian mob boss.

"So you look at it and say, American taxpayers, through the State Department, were paying groups to attack Americans and to try to silence the voice of Americans."

Is this about Trump's attack on law firms, universities, and such?

"best way to counter disinformation"

Not electing your boss?

[Commenter_XY]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/04/more-than-a-dozen-students-at-uconn-have-their-visas-revoked/

Too bad, so sad. Looks like UConn is missing some foreign students, probably the ones who like to harass Jews. They can cheer for hamas from home. C-Ya!

[ReaderY]

I am asking for serious legal opinions only.

Men in plain clothes come out of an unmarked car and, without identifying themselves or any further ado, immediately surround an occupied vehicle and start smashing its windows with sledgehammers.A bystander starts shooting, killing one or more of them. It turns out they were ICE agents beginning to arrest an illeged illegal alienwho was one of the ovcupants in the vehicle.

1. Does the bystander have a defense of self-defense (specifically defense of another) under these circumstances if the defense could establish that the defendent did not know, and a reasonable person would/could not have known, that these were law enforcement agents?

2. Does it matter whether or not the person they were attempting to arrest was actually here legally, or perhaps actually a citizen?

3. Does it matter ICE was under a court order not to arrest the person? Does it matter if the particular agents were not specifically named, but only their superiors? (Do “law enforcement agents” acting in defiance of a court order retain the protections against civilian self-help enjoyed by law-abiding law-enforcement agents?)

[David Nieporent]

1. Yes, in theory. But he'd better pray to every god that exists that there's video and audio footage, because otherwise those men are going to claim they identified themselves.

2. No.

3. No. Setting aside that I'm not sure what a "court order not to arrest somebody" could possibly be, a claim of defense of others requires an objectively reasonable belief based on the available information; information that isn't known to the actor can't be relevant.

[ReaderY]

I think we are living in a world where at least in most blue states and urban areas, the chance is not so low that a jury will contain at least one and perhaps a few people who would tend to look on ICE’s claims with some skepticism, maybe even credit the arrestees’ and bystanders’ testimony, together with the objective evidence. If they had intended to identify themselves, why all the care to conceal their identities? And they might still believe the bystander’s claim that even if they did identify themselves, he didn’t hear them.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think the bystander has a self defense claim, ReaderY. In your example, the ICE agents were not detaining the bystander, or attacking him, or threatening him. The bystander opened fire without making an attempt to ascertain what the situation actually was.

Where is the self-defense in your example. Your example of 'defense of another' sure sounds like attempted homicide.

I don't think it is a good idea for an armed bystander to involve themselves in an altercation, in public.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm trying to imagine in what hypothetical universe surrounding an occupied car and starting to smash its windows with sledgehammers, without identifying yourself or stating a purpose, isn't going to be viewed as threatening, without some additional detail like the car being on fire or stuck on a railroad track with an oncoming train. And my imagination is failing.

Of course, I'm also having a bit of trouble figuring out why, in this hypothetical, ICE are going to be doing this, without identifying themselves or first demanding the passengers exit the vehicle.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, I'm also having a bit of trouble figuring out why, in this hypothetical, ICE are going to be doing this, without identifying themselves or first demanding the passengers exit the vehicle.

ACAB. Especially ICE.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll admit that, when that show "Cops" was running, and I got dragged into watching it, I saw plenty of things where my reaction was, "Really, they're doing that knowing there's a camera running? What do they do when there isn't?" But it was always something that at least had a plausible motive, it wasn't the cop equivalent of the knockout game.

What's their motive for failing to identify themselves?

[David Nieporent]

"FYTW."

[Brett Bellmore]

"EWTSAA"

So, basically, you start out assuming ICE are horribly evil, so you do find it plausible they'd just randomly start attacking a car with a sledgehammer without any sensible motive.

[ReaderY]

This might help refresh your imagination.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbJ3MxaSClI

[David Nieporent]

Where is the self-defense in your example. Your example of 'defense of another' sure sounds like attempted homicide.

The standard for defense of others is the same as the standard for self-defense.

[ReaderY]

The smashing windows in plainclothes without identification example is close to a real event. Here’s a video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbJ3MxaSClI

In the video you can make out the word “Police” on the front if you look closely. But it would be hard to see from a distance, especially by an observer who could see only the back.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there additional information suggesting that there agents “without identifying themselves or any further ado, immediately surround[ed] an occupied vehicle and start smashing its windows with sledgehammers”?

(I’d add that, other than the low video quality, it doesn’t look like it would be at all difficult to see that their ballistic vests say “police” on them.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Additionally, it's pretty conspicuous that the video starts where they've already begun the forced entry, so it really doesn't tell us that they failed to identify themselves, or request entry, or were then refused entry.

I'm pretty sure that if the police told me to step out of my car, and I just locked the doors, at some point they'd start breaking windows. And it would look pretty bad if you just omitted everything that came before that step.

[Michael Resanovic]

There should be no pardon for praeminure. And no statute of limitations.

I'm not saying that happened here, but it really needs to be made a thing.

[Commenter_XY]

No more foreign alien students for Harvard?

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-850409

Pres Garber ought to fire Claudine Gay immediately for leaving him a disaster. Harvard will lose Fed gov contracts, lose their tax status (I don't agree with that move), and now the foreign student money spigot is about to be turned off.

One empathizes....almost. Veritas! 🙂

[jb]

Are you under the impression that Harvard wouldn't be able to admit a class of full ride American students if it wanted to?

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they're using the meritocratic admission of foreign students to mask the non-meritocratic admission of Americans, and absent the latter would have to make American admissions more meritocratic to keep their graduation rate up?

Harvard is quite proud of their 4 year graduation rate of 86%, and 6 year rate of 97%. Perhaps it would look a lot worse if they didn't have the foreign students; According to the statistics I've seen, they are MUCH more rigorously screening the latter for academic merit.

[jb]

Harvard has vastly more well-qualified applicants than seats. They can admit any sort of class they want. Maybe you're right and they'd want to change the composition of their domestic students if the foreign ones went away, but XY's schadenfreude over their potential inability to admit foreign students would have zero effect on their bottom line if they don't want it to.

[David Nieporent]

The thing about this is that it reflects how fundamentally unserious the Trump administration is. If it actually cared about any of this, it would (a) make arguments that don't blatantly violate the 1A, and (b) target a university that didn't have the resources to defend itself. But it wouldn't pwn the libs to go after, I dunno, NYU. They'd rather sneer about (trying to) take down Harvard even though, at the end of the day, they're going to lose big time.

(And when they do, they'll rant about liberal judges rather than looking in the mirror.)

[Sarcastr0]

at the end of the day, they're going to lose big time.

I fucking hope so.

IRS is trying to pull their nonprofit status
DHS is trying to pull their ability to host international students
Research agencies are ordered to stop work on all grants

The government's job is now to persecute whoever Trump wants. To the cheers of the worst people in this comentariat.

The Courts are slow, and the Supremes are uncertain.

May these anti-intellectual aholes fail, and may America learn it's lesson from this brush with populist authoritarianism.

[ducksalad]

Can you believe it? A Judge ruled against us on 530,000 Illegal Migrants (that Joe Biden flew over the Border in his program to transport Illegals into the Country by airplane) saying that they can’t be looked at as a group, but that each case has to be tried individually. Based on the Court System, that would take approximately 100 years. What is going on with our Courts? They are totally OUT OF CONTROL. They seem to hate “TRUMP” so much, that anything goes! We are trying to bring our Country back from the destruction caused by the Democrats and Crooked Joe Biden. I won on a Policy of Common Sense, and what Common Sense do we have when we have to have 530,000 trials? This Radicalized Judge is saying that Sleepy Joe Biden can fly more than half a million Illegals into America, IN ONE DAY, but we have to hold many years of long and tedious trials to fly each and every one of them back home. Where is the JUSTICE here???

Quite the logistical feat. Maybe Biden was more capable than we thought.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hyperbole, of course, but the point is that they weren't brought in on the basis of individual assessments, so why do they have to be kicked back out on that basis?

[ducksalad]

Hyperbole, of course

I call it cognitive decline.

they weren't brought in on the basis of individual assessments, so why do they have to be kicked back out on that basis?

Because past violations of proper procedure aren't a good justification for even more violations?

Because the most important purpose of due process is to make sure the people you round up actually are deportable aliens, rather than US citizens?

Because it's known that the government makes mistakes and "mistakes", and this administration likes the mistakes, and works hard to make sure they aren't undone, to the extent of holding multiple press conferences to gloat over the mistakes' irreversibility?

Because every argument the government has made about foreign policy, court jurisdiction, and the smug irreversibility of their mistakes applies with equal force to US citizens?

Because the government has, in my opinion quite intentionally, refrained from denying they could do it to US citizens, and refrained from promising they would undo it if they made a mistake involving a citizen?

Because, quite selfishly, I don't want to myself or someone I love to get "mistakenly" and irreversibly deported?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because past violations of proper procedure aren't a good justification for even more violations? "

Yeah, that's "the ratchet", and the ratchet encourages violations of proper procedure, by saying that you get to keep the results even when an administration that wants to cease what you did comes in.

[Sarcastr0]

Give it a fancy name if you like, but deciding to discard your principles because you believe the other side has been doing so is bog-standard partisanship over principles.

[ducksalad]

How is deporting US citizens or legal residents "undoing" a past violation?

And before you answer, I would respectfully ask that you unambiguously address the following:

(1) Should a US citizen or legal resident mistakenly accused of being an illegal alien get a court hearing? Yes or No.
(2) Should a person who claims they are US citizen or legal resident mistakenly accused of being an illegal alien get a court hearing? Yes or No.
(3) Does your insistence that there be no hearings align with your answers to (1) and (2)? Yes or No.

Given that the administration and its supporters openly gloat about mistakenly accusing people, I won't accept any argument that such mistakes don't happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course they should get a hearing. The question is, how much of a hearing? The equivalent of a trial?

I think initially you should get a very cursory hearing where you have an opportunity to assert that you're a citizen or lawful resident. With a substantial fine in addition to deportation hanging over you if you turn out to have been lying about it. This by itself would dispose of at least 95% of the cases, and then more attention could be paid to those who assert citizenship or legal status.

But, as I keep saying, there's no substitute for Congress funding the damn system, and the failure to do so has been deliberate, a covert way of making it impossible to deport people who the public WANT deported. Every day they don't act on this my respect for the Republicans in Congress drops further, and it's already in the basement and excavating a hole in the foundation.

[Sarcastr0]

The administration is still stuck on 'do they get a hearing.'

That looks like police state shit, but I hear it's actually because they're incredible negotiators.

[ducksalad]

OK, not an entirely unreasonable position.

I don't believe Judge Boasberg said everyone gets the equivalent of a trial. IANAL but I think his order was they can use habeas corpus to get in front of a real judge. (Assuming Trump was referring to Boasberg - we can't be sure and Trump may not know himself.)

In normal times I would say having immigration "judges" in the executive branch screening cases is at least a nod toward due process.

However, these are not normal times. The administration and its supporters (1) are asserting that every single executive branch has the sole job of implementing the president's agenda, (2) actively firing DoJ employees for admitting in court that a mistake were made.

I have to assume they view immigration judges as just employees with no independence. Therefore, Trump expects and requires immigration judges to support ICE deportations, including the mistakes, as a condition of employment. Or at best, they are expected to understand when it's a genuine mistake versus an intentional mistake and support the latter.

At this point we all know that Abrego Garcia was an intentional mistake.

[tylertusta]

Congress has stripped Article III courts of jurisdiction to hear most immigration matters (with good reason, as Boasberg's antics amply demonstrate why certain cases belong in specific venues).

... actively firing DoJ employees for admitting in court that a mistake were made.

That isn't an accurate characterization as to why the attorney was fired. He wasn't fired for saying that a mistake was made by the government in deporting Garcia.* He was fired because he criticized his client (the government) in open court.

“The first thing I did when I got this case on my desk is ask my clients the same question,” adding that he did not get a direct answer.

I challenge any of the lawyers here to let us know if criticizing their own client to the judge is something that they should be doing, and what the professional consequences would be.

At this point we all know that Abrego Garcia was an intentional mistake.

Sigh. It's a shame that people reflexively assume malice when incompetence is a far more likely answer. Trump's detractors should be the first ones understanding how incompetent his administration is. Garcia's deportation is as simple as someone checking for people with orders of removal, but that person didn't check to see if they had a WOR.

Keep in mind that the same ICE also took steps to adhere to Boasberg's idiotic initial TRO by removing five TdA members off of the planes before they even took off. That doesn't jive with an administration that is intentionally breaking black-letter law.

[jb]

Since Trump seems hell bent on getting the Courts to slow down his deportations as much as possible, I've been wondering if he'll even manage to deport as many people as Obama did, much less Biden.

And of course, his point is stupid anyway: why do you need to have a court hearing to garnish someones wages, but you can just give them money? why do you need to have a trial to put someone in prison even though the President can pardon them en masse? Because when you use the power of the state to do something bad to people, there needs to be some checks and balances to make sure you're not making a mistake. (Doubly so if you're apparently completely unwilling to fix any mistakes you make.)

[ducksalad]

I'm not surprised that Trump made such a point. He never has shown an ability to do that kind of moral reasoning, and his cognition is declining further with time.

What does surprise me is that an otherwise intelligent commenter, who I am quite sure once knew why we have due process, now seems to have lost the capability to understand it. Or is so angry about past violations that he wants to indiscriminately harm people and cause collateral damage.

[M L]

Significant archaeological finding of ancient altar in Guatemala that was used for human sacrifices, especially children

CBS quotes some random academic: "We see how the issue of sacrifice exists in both cultures. It was a practice; it's not that they were violent, it was their way of connecting with the celestial bodies,"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tikal-altar-guatemala-jungle-used-sacrifices-mayan-teotihuacan-cultures/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-killing-children-is-a-source-of-connection/

[David Nieporent]

Fourth Circuit firmly and decisively rejects Trump's hail mary arguments against Judge Xinis's latest orders on the Abrego Garcia case, in an opinion written by RINO Cuck Harvie Wilkinson, who's probably gay too, including rejecting

1. the notion that Xinis has ignored SCOTUS's ruling;
2. the idea that Trump can pretend that facilitate means whatever he wants it to mean;
3. the idea that we have to agree that Garcia is MS-13 because Trump says so, without bothering to undergo the due process to prove it;

The opinion is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf