The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Wednesday Open Thread
What's on your mind?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
search and seizure question from TV.
Cop stops car for speeding, sees three bullet holes in it.
Cop decides to check trunk and finds body in it.
Is that going to be excluded?
Well, the initial stop for speeding is good.
The initial stop for speeding is good. Going into the trunk is iffier. Does anyone consent to the search of the trunk? Is there any indication other than the bullet holes that the trunk contains evidence of a crime, such as odor, blood, etc.? What interaction does the cop have with the driver? Is he nervous? Evasive? Cooperative? How is the trunk opened?
in the South and much of "Flyover" Country, bullet holes are like parking dings, so no PC unless maybe in a Blue State or the District of Colored People
That's real interesting Frank. I've spent the first 20 years of my life in the South and the next 30 in flyover country and I have seen a car on the road with bullet holes in it exactly once.
OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, (or is it extrapolating? confabulating?), or because mine was one of the cars, and the range I go to in Ali-Bama is frequented by guys who occasionally get their cars shot.
Cop shows don't necessarily accurately reflect the law (as you recognise), but I do find it interesting to think about the assumptions the writers of those shows make about what their target audience will and will not think is OK.
For example, I once saw an episode of Hawaii Five-0 (i.e. the modern remake) where the team went to apprehend some bad guys, and their solution consisted of preparing an ambush and gunning them down with automatic weapons without even an attempt at "surrender or I'll shoot". I'm sure the writers thought it was a nice TV version of Heat, but I'd have thought that even on TV the police should generally prefer to catch criminals alive. (And in Heat it was the criminals who opened fire on the cops.)
IANAL
If my car was the victim of a downtown shootout in February and I never bother to get the holes fixed, and having the holes gives "probable cause" (in quotes because I only know the generality of what that means), then doesn't that imply a cop can search my vehicle without consent at any time, no matter what, until I get the holes fixed? That doesn't sound right to me so I suspect the answer is "no" and would likely be related to other evidence or information the cop has. (Was there a recent shootout and a car matching that description was involved and sped away? Etc.)
Again, IANAL but I do watch crime dramas.
Fun stuff:
The Brokenwood Mysteries (Kiwi)
Death in Paradise (Brit/Carib)
Midsomer Murders (Brit)(Never live in Midsomer. Everyone should be dead after 22 seasons...)
I deal with traffic codes and car searches often. There is a two part inquiry: was the stop valid at inception? (here that seems good with the speeding) Second, was the search of the trunk reasonable in relation to what the officer knew based on his interaction with the driver? Was there consent?
The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement gives cops lots of leeway but here; the question cannot be answered because we don't have enough facts. If the officer asked driver about the bullet holes and driver says they are old OR for example, he bought the car at a discount because they were already there... and the guy wasn't nervous, sweating or acting evasive... maybe not. If he/she was nervous and acting strange maybe the cop gets the benefit of the doubt. Raw 'fishing expeditions' are supposed to be bad searches because the bullet holes have nothing to do with the initial reason for the stop.
But what if a vehicle matching that description was reported the day before leaving the scene of a shootout or armed robbery or something? Then ya. The courts are likely not to suppress any evidence there. Again, these are all facts not in evidence so its speculation. If the guy is charged with murder or some felony related to concealment of homicide or something then you have to of course try to suppress the search regardless. Even if its not likely to work.
A University of Kentucky Professor of Psychology and child development settled his lawsuit over being fired for heresy:
"Children deserve better than life-altering procedures that mutilate their bodies and destroy their ability to lead fulfilling lives," Josephson said in the release. "In spite of the circumstances I suffered through with my university, I’m overwhelmed to see that my case helped lead the way for other medical practitioners to see the universal truth that altering biological sex is impossibly dangerous while acceptance of one’s sex leads to flourishing.”
Joesephson was actually head of the department and one of the other professors and the some LGBtQ studies professors campaigned to get him fired for expressing his professional opinion.
The University actually claimed because it was his part of his job duties to have an opinion on the subject they were justified in firing him.
The settlement was only 1.6 million, and he was fired in 2019, so not a huge win, but because he was already retirement age and the Alliance defending freedom represented him in court, he probably came out of it just fine.
The University definitely did not want to face a Kentucky jury over this issue, so they settled.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2025/04/21/university-of-louisville-allan-josephson-transgender-lawsuit-settlement/83195656007/
Problem is that he's gone, and replaced by....
30 years I was told "they will die" -- the left knew that if it had complete control over entry, it would eventually control everything.
That's the problem with academic freedom. Everyone (except Trump) agrees that it isn't the government's job to say who should be a professor or what they should teach, but that doesn't settle the issue of who should decide instead. I don't think it's right that individual professors should be able to teach what they like, particularly not if they don't have tenure (to stay with US parlance). If a physics professor wants to teach his students that the Earth is flat, it should be possible to cart him off to the loony bin. And if he insists on teaching the physics he learned about in undergrad while ignoring all subsequent developments in the field, that also seems like something the department should be able to remedy.
"If a physics professor wants to teach his students that the Earth is flat"
I think you'll find there's a much greater consensus on whether the earth is flat vs. whether surgery performed on children can be harmful...
His professional opinion is actually what the preponderance of the scientific literature like the Cass report show.
There's no actual scandal when a university professor is fired for doing their job poorly.
Is there an indication that this particular professor was doing his job poorly?
With the facts at hand, which admittedly are not his personnel file or similar details, it looks that way. He's a scientist and was holding an opinion contrary to leading research. His approach to disagreement doesn't appear grounded in the usual methods one would take like peer reviews or conducting ones own research to expand the understanding of the impacts of sex reassignment surgery. He uses terms like "mutilation" which are emotionally charged. In his defense, he claimed the statements that led to his firing were not said in his official capacity which implies that he understands the connection between his role as a faculty member in pediatrics and his public statements at the Heritage foundation on pediatric issues. I tried to find any information on whether the faculty union (if there is one there) supported him (and good indicator of how his peers view his actions) but was unable to find any. It still looks to me like a scientist made anti-scientific comments in a religious conservative venue which would call into question the ability of the pediatrics department's ability to teach science and serve the public without bias.
holding an opinion contrary to leading research is at the heart of advancing scientific knowledge. "mutilation" is every bit as emotionally charged as the alternative "gender affirming care", just from the other side of the ideological barricades
"mutilation" is every bit as emotionally charged as the alternative "gender affirming care", just from the other side of the ideological barricades
Really?
yes
"He's a scientist and was holding an opinion contrary to leading research."
*Some* leading research but certainly not all.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4070174-why-europe-and-america-are-going-in-opposite-directions-on-youth-transgender-medicine/
"It still looks to me like a scientist made anti-scientific comments in a religious conservative venue"
HF is a conservative organization to be sure, but not really religiously based. Their values may align but that's not the same thing. And it's not clear (at least to me) that making his comments at a Heritage Foundation event is any indicator of how/what he taught in the classroom. No doubt there might be some students who found out and had objections, but I'd need more to say his job performance was substandard.
Cheers.
There's a difference between an individual university firing someone for questionable versions vs the government dictating viewpoints en-mass.
SCOTUSblog website got a redesign. It's mobile friendly now.
Checking the Mahmoud argument now, I am disappointed that none of the people discussed in depth the First Amendment implications for the children. A court order that directs a state actor to limit the kind of information children can receive, in my view, is unconstitutional; there is no parental override exception, because children have rights independent from parents.
The case is for children under 10 as I understand it, so no the children don't have any rights to select their own content independent of their parents judgement.
And I'd be very surprised if that's the case in Japan too. My late Japanese father and mother-in-law would be quite surprised too.
Well, children at that age can choose their own books and read it at the library; I certainly did, without asking my mom if she's fine with it.
I haven't seen parents object to elementary school curriculums in Japan, especially on religious grounds. It's not an issue here. (Though, also note that we don't have strong protection for freedom of speech either.)
You would not have found any of the books that were the subject of today's hearing in the children's section of a Japanese library.
And you know that.
And if your parents did object to anything you did find, then you would not have been permitted to continue reading it.
You know that too.
And while it may not be a religious issue in Japan, it is a cultural issue. And even today full frontal nudity is not allowed on Japanese websites.
Did these books have full frontal nudity?
Well considering that Japan doesn't even allow same sex marriage for adults, I doubt they have a lot of textbooks pushing it in primary schools or libraries.
That is a rather dumb response!! Did you go home and tell Mom what books to buy? Could you bring porn into the house ?
If your pareants had books that offended you were they taken from the house.
Religion is not a force in Japan, remember your God-Emperor on th e radio after hundreds of thousands were bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I couldn't believe your reply. Here in the West Japan is known for cruelty and isolated lives.
It's easy to say that there have been no similar objections where the curriculum is much less objectionable. Do elementary school curricula in Japan include pro-transgender indoctrination, content praising nuclear bombs or expounding how evil the annexation/occupation of Korea (Chousen) was?
Parents in Japan are not complaining? Perhaps Japanese elementary schools are not trying to indoctrinate children with offensive DEI/woke/transgender garbage?
"in my view, is unconstitutional"
I have crank views too.
Children under 10 often think they are dinosaurs or otherwise think irrationally. You want parents to have no control, so in effect you want the school district to have absolute control since kids that age are not going against their teacher's views.
Parents can control what they teach at home, or just home-school. Though I trust a qualified professional more than someone who happened to give birth to me. (Maybe US public education is not as reliable as ours.)
“ I have crank views too.”
No shit, Sherlock.
SCOTUSblog is being sold months after Tom Goldstein, a co-founder and Ms. Howe’s husband, was indicted on charges of tax evasion that the government said were related to his activities as an ultrahigh-stakes poker player. Mr. Goldstein will not be part of the site as it transitions to The Dispatch, Mr. Rothman said. A spokeswoman for Mr. Goldstein has said he has an “impeccable reputation” and intends to contest the charges.
The Dispatch will keep articles on SCOTUSblog available at no cost, though it plans to develop paid products for legal professionals in the coming months, Mr. Rothman said.
[Amy Howe will stay.]
https://archive.ph/1vKl5
To give you a good idea of how the Democrats advocacy for freedom of an MS-13 gang member and wife beater is playing out in public opinion, the National Republican Congressional Committee is offering to pay the travel expenses for any Democratic Congressmen who want to fly to El Salvador to advocate for Albrego Garcia's release.
The only catch is they have to agree to live stream their visit.
The NRCC is offering to pick up the tab for any House Democrat eager to hang out with their new poster child in El Salvador, a confirmed illegal immigrant, MS-13 gang member, and alleged domestic abuser.
We just have one condition: Livestream the whole thing. Snap plenty of selfies with your MS-13 buddies — the same violent criminals you’re trying to reimport into American neighborhoods to rape, kill, and terrorize law-abiding citizens.
“If out of touch House Democrats are so desperate to cozy up to violent gang members, the least they can do is let Americans watch the show. We’ll pay for the plane tickets, they just can’t forget to smile for the camera while they sell out their constituents.”
https://www.nrcc.org/2025/04/21/nrcc-offers-to-pay-for-house-dems-round-trip-to-el-salvador/
They gotta have some polling on this.
What a display, watching the progressive Team D Congress-critters prostate themselves at the Altar of Abrego. The only thing missing is a fire and a statue. The blue state paradises that elected these jokers deserve whatever they get: murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, prostitution, drug dealing and mayhem. I have no sympathy for the choices they made. Live with it.
Team D can hitch themselves to every wife beating illegal alien gangbanger they want. It is surely a winning formula for next November!
Even if we stipulate that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is an unsavory character, what is at stake here is the rule of law itself. Justice Felix Frankfurter, dissenting in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950), observed that "It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people."
During my career I represented scores or persons accused or convicted of heinous crimes such as murder (including one assassin), rape, armed robbery, abuse of their own children and drug dealing. I'm glad that many of them went to prison. I'm also glad that they received due process, and I'm proud of my role in helping to see that happen.
The guy has already had his deportation hearings.
He's had his due process. Wtf is wrong with you people.
The guy has already had his deportation hearings.
Cite?
You didn't know Garcia already had two deportation hearings in 2019 (the second being his appeal which he lost)?
lmao wow
Still no cite?
https://wearecasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia-filing.pdf
Yes, this citation says he was not shown to be a gang member.
You asked for a cite about deportation hearings. You were given one. Move those goalposts a little less, huh?
First of all, a hearing and an appeal is not "two hearings."
Second, you are confused about what happened in 2019; the thing that you're mischaracterizing as "two hearings" was about whether he had to be released on bond while his removability was adjudicated. Not about the substance of his situation.
Third, the outcome of the only actual merits hearing he later had in 2019 was that, although he was removable (he conceded that), he couldn't legally be sent to El Salvador.
David, don't be such a buzzkill. Your facts and details are inconvenient for some people, and it's not appreciated. He got his due process. Folks like Magnus keep repeating it, so it must be true. Why can't anybody see this?!!1!!!!11!!1!
>Third, the outcome of the only actual merits hearing he later had in 2019 was that, although he was removable
That's his fucking due process you anonymous internet nobody.
Well played, Magnus, well played.
“ That's his fucking due process you anonymous internet nobody.”
Gee, I wonder what part you cut off at the end there?
Oh, right. That he was barred from being sent to El Salvador.
Wait, an actual legal analysis from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about? I thought we were just supposed to accept the crazy take that Jesse keeps spouting off about.
“Remember, if someone is a bed enough person, it’s OK to ignore legal decisions.
Also, remember-remember that it isn’t about principles, it’s only about one person. And anyone who says otherwise is defending a terrible person, nothing else.”
-Jesse
Abrego Garcia
Magnus is mischaracterizing what happened and doesn't understand the applicable law, but yes, Garcia did get due process in 2019. The problem is the Trump administration defied the outcome of that.
Let's try this again, and then I can just copy & paste it as necessary in the future:
1. Garcia entered the country illegally in 2011.
2. In March 2019, he was picked up for "loitering" — and nothing else — at a Home Depot parking lot. They charged him with no crime, but they called ICE because they determined that he was here illegally; ICE came and got him.
3. In April 2019, he had a bond hearing — not a hearing on deportation — before an immigration judge as to whether he was entitled to release while awaiting his deportation hearing.
4. At that hearing, the govt presented flimsy double hearsay from an anonymous person to claim he was MS-13. Unsurprisingly, he was unable to rebut that, since he wasn't allowed to examine evidence or cross-examine anyone. All he could present was his own denial. Because the burden of proof in that context is on him, not the govt, the ruling was that he could be detained.because he had failed to prove that he was not dangerous (i.e., not MS-13). This was not a ruling that he was MS-13.
5. He appealed that ruling, but the appeal board ruled similarly that the evidence he supplied to the immigration judge was insufficient to prove he was not MS-13. Again: this was not a ruling that he was MS-13, let alone a second court finding that he was. As a result, he stayed in custody.
6. In September 2019, his deportation hearing was held before a different immigration judge. At that hearing, he conceded that he was here illegally, which made him deportable. But he argued that he couldn't be deported because (a) he was entitled to asylum; (b) he was at risk of torture by the ES govt if he went back to ES, and (c) risk of persecution if he went back to ES. The court rejected the asylum request as time-barred (If you don't seek asylum within one year of entry, you can't do so later); and rejected his torture argument b/c he couldn't show that the ES govt would torture him. But it accepted the argument that he was at risk of persecution, and so it granted withholding of removal to ES.
7. He was then released from custody, because they didn't believe the whole MS-13 bullshit, and because the law says that you can't keep someone imprisoned awaiting deportation for longer than six months if there's no realistic prospect of deporting him. (They couldn't send him to ES, and there wasn't any other country to send him to.)
8. At that point, the govt had three legal options: (a) leave him be; (b) go back to the immigration court and have another hearing to get the withholding of removal to ES vacated if there were grounds to do so; or (c) find a third country to deport him to, give him notice and an opportunity to contest that plan. The lawless Trump administration, of course, chose none of those.
Thanks for this concise and yet complete summary.
After #1, what matters? Illegal alien repatriated home.
Asylum is a thing. Civilised countries don't send people to their deaths. (But then again the US still has the death penalty, so maybe I shouldn't waste my breath.)
The MAGA movement is primarily characterized by its incivility.
Imagine a different sequence of events:
#1: Bob kills Alice
#2: Bob gets arrested
#3: There's a trial, and it turns out that Alice was trying to kill Bob and it was self defense. Bob gets acquitted of murder
#4: Bob goes home.
If all that matters is #1, we can just dispense with the trial and go straight to #5--Bob gets executed by the state. But it turns out we have due process for a reason. We even give trials and the benefit of the doubt to people who kill other people!
Bob is a citizen.
Bad example. 😉
You are not an intelligent person.
Is your theory that only citizens are deserving of any sort of due process?
Hope you don't do a lot of international travel...
Actually, XY's hypo is a good one.
Bob was an illegal immigrant.
Alice was drunk and stoned out of her mind.
Alice tried to kill Bob and Bob's daughter.
Bob heroically saved himself and his daughter by killing Alice.
The jury acquitted Bob in less than 30 minutes for justifiable self-defense and self-defense of others. In fact, both XY and I were on that jury. In fact, XY was the foreperson on that jury and XY led the charge to acquit Bob. due to the overwhelming evidence of self-defense!
Excellent example. 🙂
And, because this draws the ICE's attention to Bob, Bob DOES go home!
Bob is a citizen.
I missed that in JB's comment.
And, because this draws the ICE's attention to Bob, Bob DOES go home!
You mean, like, to Mexico not to a prison in El Salvador?
"You mean, like, to Mexico not to a prison in El Salvador?"
Well, yeah. You may have somehow missed it or just dismissed it, but I actually have said, repeatedly, that while I support Trump in deporting all illegal aliens, his means suck. And deporting people who have not been convicted of crimes straight to a foreign prison is among the suckiest of the sucks.
I mean, I understand why he's doing this: Congress has not given him the resources necessary to deport the accumulated illegal aliens in even a lifetime, so he's trying to give them extremely strong reasons to self-deport without his having to do the work. Replacing certainty of being caught with extremity of extra-judicial punishment, we see this every time the government sets out to enforce laws that it lacks the resources to enforce, like drug laws.
But motives are not justifications, and I'm not defending his deporting the unconvicted to a prison, because it happens to be indefensible. Deporting? Yeah, I'll defend that all day long. To a foreign prison? A bridge too far.
Then, why am I not freaking out? Because Presidents doing the indefensible is common enough that I'm frankly burned out over it. And because the alternative last November wasn't somebody who wouldn't do the indefensible, it was somebody who'd be pointing the indefensible at me and mine, instead.
You know what? I have never voted for Trump in the primaries. I like Rand Paul! I'd have settled for Ron DeSantis! But, NO, Democrats had to redouble the lawfare against Trump, right during the primaries, prompting Republicans to stupidly rally to defend him. He'd probably be a retired senior statesman during the DeSantis administration right now, if you hadn't done that, great job!
it was somebody who'd be pointing the indefensible at me and mine, instead.
Just exactly what indefensible thing do you think Harris was going to do to you that compares with what was done to Garcia?
“ After #1, what matters? Illegal alien repatriated home.”
Come on, XY. You’re better than that. You actually understand and accept nuance more than most of the right-wingers here.
You can’t only accept the parts of a legal decision that you like and ignore the rest. Yes, he was subject to deportation, but not to El Salvador.
I don’t actually believe you are comfortable with the Executive being completely unconstrained.
That sure looks like a long list of due process to me!
Some one notify the pearl clutchers.
And yet, the government violated the court’s decision and orders by sending to the only place on Earth he couldn’t be sent.
Due process (and the rule of law) means abiding by the rulings that result from a legal case. Did the Trump Administration do that? No.
He had a deportation hearing, not a trial. Why is he in prison?
You want to deport him, deport him, don't put him in a foreign prison.
He isn't in a foreign prison.
He is a Salvadoran in a Salvadoran prison.
What's in that prison for?
Belonging to an outlawed gang.
Has that been proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt?
As HM noted, no trial, Kaz? That's cool with you - prison with no trial?
Ask J6ers, jailed with no trial.
There were no J6ers jailed without trial. (Except the ones who pleaded guilty, obviously.)
Most prisoners in this country have had no trial. They did, however, have the opportunity for a trial, which they waived by pleading guilty.
Abrego Garcia hasn't had the opportunity to file a plea, because he hasn't been charged with a crime.
He's an alien. He shouldn't be entitled to due process, other than to show he's not a citizen.
The US constitution says that "no person" shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It does not restrict itself to US citizens.
El Salvador imprisoned him. Take it up with them.
The US flew him on a prison flight to El Salvador and the US is *paying* for his imprisonment there. Regardless, that doesn't alter the core issue which is that POTUS violated a court order, admitted it, and then grinned and said "ooopsie."
That's incorrect. We just went through this extensively in Monday's open thread.
Independent of whether we are paying for it, we put him there, alleging that he was a gang member, even though he had not been criminally convicted of anything. That, right there, is a violation of due process. It doesn't matter if El Salvador is holding him because we are paying them, or because Bukele wants to do Donald Trump a favor, or because they just don't have due process rights in El Salvador. In all three cases, the actions of the US government violated the fifth amendment due process rights of a person living in the US resulting in his imprisonment without charge or trial. Whether the prison is on US soil or not is not relevant. He was on US soil when they nabbed him off the street and he was on US soil when they put him on a prison plane.
And — setting aside that you're basing your conclusion on the assumption that the administration is telling the truth — when we "went through" it we saw that you were misreading what the administration actually said.
Reality, on the other hand, is that you once again mysteriously vanished from the thread after I pointed out that you were trying to replace the plain and simple language of what the administration actually said with your own tinfoil-laced reinterpretation.
That makes your sudden popping back up here, thumping your chest and declaring victory, particularly weird.
No, I correctly pointed out that you were misinterpreting the not-at-all-plain and simple language that the administration actually said.
That thread, of course, expired (I don't mean literally; I mean that people stopped posting on it because the next Open Thread was activated), so I didn't feel the need to repeat how you were wrong yet again.
Nice try, but of course you replied in another one of our exchanges in that open thread this morning. Maybe just take the L?
He's a citizen of El Salvador, not France.
Our POTUS talked to their President. Their President said, NFW. I guess St Abrego will have to stay home in El Salvador.
XY, how do you claim to know what President Trump did or didn't ask President Bukele?
A reporter asked Bukele about Abrego Garcia, but how do you claim to know that Trump did?
Can you list all the countries the US Constitution applies to?
This might help clarify your argument.
You must be intentionally daft or incapable of understanding English. The due process clause applies to any and all persons in the US. From whatever country they hail from.
So the only relevant questions: 1) is a human being involved 2) were they in the US when detained by US authorities? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, due process applies.
It doesn't apply to just citizens or just green card holders; it applies to any & all human beings. If you wish to deny the humanity of people based on their citizenship status, then make that argument and quit wasting time.
I mean, the person you're specifically responding to wants to deny humanity based on race, regardless of citizenship.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/23/us-news/illegal-immigrant-who-killed-young-couple-while-driving-drunk-could-be-set-free-after-serving-just-a-third-of-10-year-sentence/
This is an example of a filthy mestizo that these leftist lawyers like Nieporent want to give due process to.
The US attorney in LA is going to charge him with felony immigration charges. So, he will stay in prison, hopefully.
None of the libs here care about those two dead young people. Too bust crying about Garcia.
You don't give a shit about them either, Bob, so you can go fuck yourself. If you found out they were gay, or Muslim, or liberals, or that they were killed by the police, you'd be saying "Ha, ha."
Gay or Muslim, no. Liberals, yes.
I see liberals as responsible for that mestizo being here, so it is only karma if they are the victims.
Just like I love seeing liberal Jews in New York get attacked by the black "males" that they champion.
NG -- It was Obama/Biden who abandoned the rule of law causing this.
Next you'll be blaming Hillary...amirite?!
She WAS Secretary of State...
“ It was Obama/Biden who abandoned the rule of law causing this.”
I fear the unhinged rant that will result, but I’m going to take the hit anyway:
How so, Dr. Ed?
It'd be one thing if Trump foes were only standing on the principle that Garcia deserved to have his WOR terminated before being deported.
It's another thing to make an emotional argument ('Maryland father') while sending elected representatives down to drink margaritas with the guy while demanding not just his release in El Salvador, but his return to the USA.
lol, yeah, no emotional arguments from the Trump supporters!
I didn't say that there were no emotional arguments being made on the other side of the issue. I've even used some of them, but only in response to the emotional arguments that he has to be returned.
We're not dealing with a disinterested application of legal principles by the usual Trump foes here. Mr. Guilty should either stop pretending or he should encourage his political allies in these comments to tone it down to bring the conversation to where he wants it to be.
"We're not dealing with a disinterested application of legal principles by the usual Trump foes here."
No, you are. I don't give a shit about his fatherhood, I just think the Constitution says there must be due process for this kind of thing and it hasn't happened. So, peddle your emotional responses elsewhere, I don't care about your feelings.
Okay, so if he was brought back to the U.S., a hearing held, and deported elsewhere, you'd be okay with it? And if no country would take him, if he was detained indefinitely?
"We're not dealing with a disinterested application of legal principles by the usual Trump foes here. Mr. Guilty should either stop pretending or he should encourage his political allies in these comments to tone it down to bring the conversation to where he wants it to be."
tylertusta, I have never pretended to be anything other than a partisan Democrat here. I am just as subject to confirmation bias as the next fellow. That is why I am careful to support my arguments with relevant legal authorities and original source documents where available.
The problem is not really that he was deported. The problem is that he's being imprisoned without a trial or a conviction. if they just dropped him off in San Salvador and left him free to go home and visit his Mom, hardly anyone would be complaining.
In this country, we give people a trial with lawyers and a jury and stuff before we put them in prison. Do grasp the difference between deporting someone and imprisoning them without charges, trial, or conviction?
When is he supposed to get out? No judge has sentenced him to a term. Is he in prison for life?
if they just dropped him off in San Salvador and left him free to go home and visit his Mom, hardly anyone would be complaining.
Wait, what? You think that, if they'd just sent him to the one place where a judge said he couldn't be sent, because he would be in physical danger there, hardly anyone would be complaining? That's a sad thing to be saying about the US.
He said he was in danger because of rival gangs, not the government.
Gangs are no longer a problem in El Salvador,
He did not say one word about rival gangs. Why do you feel the need to lie?
I thought he fought deportation claiming that return to El Salvador would be dangerous due to threat from the Barrio 18 gang?
He did. But he did not say that it was a "rival gang."
His testimony — believed by the judge — said that he was being pressured to join Barrio 18, not that Barrio 18 was mad at him because he was in a rival gang.
He said he was in danger because of rival gangs, not the government.
Even if that were true, what does that have to do with anything? Do you think that you can only get asylum if you're in danger from the government?
We'd still complain because the point is there was a court order that said we could not just drop him off anywhere in El Salvador. What's the point of emphasizing the due process if we're going to ignore a pre-existing court order. Rather, to your scenario, we might be less miffed if he'd been deposited into a welcoming country other than El Salvador because that would have been legal.
Given the situation in El Salvador has improved, they probably could have gotten the withholding from removal rescinded and sent him back, on a normal flight.
Thus, just deporting him back to El Salvador and releasing him isn't very far from the outcome they probably could have gotten legally, if they weren't too lazy to bother with all that confusing legal mumbo-jumbo.
What they could not have done is imprison him without trial.
It is orders of magnitude worse to deposit someone in a prison, without bothering to convict him of a crime, than it is to fail to get a court order that is probably a bit out of date rescinded.
"
When is he supposed to get out? No judge has sentenced him to a term. Is he in prison for life"
El Salvador is a sovereign country that can do with its citizens as it pleases.
Example -- what if a plane carrying Roman Polański were to make an emergency landing on US soil? He's convicted of sodomizing a 13-year-old, and the US would incarcerate him.
El Salvador didn't put him in prison--the US government did.
Abrego Garcia is not and was not convicted of anything in El Salvador. They're holding him because we told them to hold him.
Is that as true as everything else you say?
Is it possible to be dumber than Dr. Ed? Even if one tries? He claims that ES can do whatever it wants to Garcia because Garcia is a citizen of ES… and then uses as an example the US imprisoning someone who's not a citizen of the US, but rather of France and Poland?
He's using an example of someone that actually was charged, tried, and convicted of a crime under US law. Roman Polanski has received due process. Albrego Garcia has not, under either US or El Salvadorean law.
Yes, but he's using it in support of the proposition that a country can do whatever it wants to its own citizens, which makes no sense since Polanski isn't a US citizen.
(It should be noted that the proposition is wrong; it is recognized in the modern era that countries cannot do whatever they want to someone just because that person is a citizen of the country. But it's also wrong because, to the extent the country doesn't violate human rights obligations — e.g., no torture — it can do whatever it wants to someone regardless of whether that person is a citizen. Someone in a country is — as the 14th amendment is based on — subject to the jurisdiction of that country regardless of his citizenship.)
Nobody drank margaritas, you liar.
They were put on the table as a setup.
An unsavory character involved in the human trafficking of illegals and who has MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles. Wait there’s more. An unsavory character involved in the human trafficking of aliens with MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles who has (allegedly of course) assaulted his female companion, at least that’s what the restraining order claimed. Wait there’s more. An unsavory character involved in the human trafficking of aliens with MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles who (allegedly of course) assaulted his companion and is also an illegal alien who has had 2 prior court hearings and was under an order to leave the country.
Add up those deficits and you get someone who should have been thrown out of this country yesterday. But by all means Democrats, fight to the end for illegal alien gangbanger human traffickers.
has MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles=gangbanger
Well, yes. You certainly would say a dude was a nazi if he had swastikas on his fingers.
Another addition of simple answers to stupid questions.
And here I was thinking that those swastika people were very fine people. If Trump said that, it must be true.
Are you accusing Pete Hesgeth of being a Nazi?
“ who has MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles”
He didn’t.
“ An unsavory character”
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean he loses protections that were provided to him by a judge.
“ involved in the human trafficking of aliens”
Also a lie.
“ assaulted his female companion”
An accusation, not a judgement.
“ is also an illegal alien”
WOO HOO!!! You finally said something true!
“ who has had 2 prior court hearings”
DN addressed this above, but shorter: nope.
“ was under an order to leave the country.”
Yes! Another true thing! You’re 2-5! If you were the Jets, this would be called a “successful season”.
“ Add up those deficits and you get someone who should have been thrown out of this country yesterday”
Agreed. Just not to El Salvador.
Your sure use a lot of fancy words instead just saying "I masturbate to pictures of Donald Trump."
Agreed, is it too soon to start building gas chambers to solve this problem once and for all?
Reeks of flop sweat on the NRCC's part. But in any case, who cares? Right is right, and evil is evil. Regardless of polls.
Evil is evil, and the Democrat Party is losing in the polls because it backs evil. It wants men to beat women, gang members to be the only ones who get due process, leftist government employees to get away with arson, and illegal immigrants to be let loose in the country even when they are known terrorists. For example, the Biden administration let this guy enter the US and released him: https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/harpreet-singh-indian-terror-suspect-fbi-sacramento-arrest/
Even you can’t believe what you just posted. Even Jesse is probably saying, “Whoa, that’s insane.”.
As I said at least a week ago, Garcia and TdA and AEA are really just side shows, and their only real utility to the administration is getting people to self deport.
This is where the real action is, allowing the states to arrest illegal aliens and hold them until the Feds can deport them.
"Virginia task force arrests over 500 illegal immigrants, including over 130 gang affiliates"
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/fbi-ice-virginia-taskforce-arrests-illegal-immigrants-gang-affiliates/291-716f2961-c07f-4054-b4c8-e86250be984e
That is one state, and its also happening in Florida, Texas, and other red states.
Adams in NY also allowed ICE access to Rikers before a state judge shut that down.
I suspect most of the people arrested will voluntarily be deported rather than remain in jail indefinitely awaiting their "due process".
How broken your morality must be to think that a legit defense is 'all this lawbreaking isn't the real goal - the real goal is the performative cruelty it provides for our campaign of fear.'
I suspect most of the people arrested will voluntarily be deported rather than remain in jail indefinitely awaiting their "due process".
Don't put due process in fucking scare quotes. You're really a miserable excuse for a free man.
Is there proof the MD guy is a gang member?
What would you count as "proof"?
Start with something.
What would you count as "something"?
You don’t know what something means?
Do you mean "anything"?
You got nothing?
Tattoos
If having Tattoos makes you a gangbanger, then a very large number of Americans are gangbangers. Myself included.
Tattoos?
You people are stretching so far I'm surprised you haven't snapped. On second thought, many of you have snapped.
Not only are the tattoos not MS13 gang tats, they aren’t anything negative at all.
Unless you think merely having tattoos on your hands means you’re automatically a gang member? Because that’s not a reasonable assumption.
Hmm. Some might consider the MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles and his involvement in the trafficking of illegals as somewhat indicative.
Bot not programmed to cite?
He has some tattoos that someone has decided spell out MS-13 even though it requires you to think his El Salvadoran gang tattoos are an English rebus and for some reason don't have anything to do with normal MS-13 iconography.
Of note: when there was a hearing about his purported gang membership, these tattoos were not mentioned as evidence of his membership.
Well sure, it's pretty obvious that most people who get MS-13 tattooed on their knuckles have really nothing to do with MS-13. And his travels across country with a car load of illegals had absolutely nothing to do with trafficking illegals. They were probably all on vacation. And the allegations of assault? Everyone assaults (allegedly of course) their partners these days. Natural part of the relationship. And his illegal status? He probably just overstayed a visa and got confused.
Actually, "bro road trip" probably would have been more believable than their actual claim, which is that they were all on a 3-day drive from Texas to Maryland (with no luggage, and all 9 of them supposedly sharing Garcia's home address) "for work."
Not sure what you find unbelievable about that. Is this another example of your unfamiliarity with this segment of the economy? Construction firms that hire illegal labor do not put out posts on Indeed.com. They tell their current workforce, "Hey, we need more rebar workers, [or carpenters, or plumbers, or whatever] on this project. Do you know anybody who can do the work? If so, bring 'em by."
Certainly not unusual at all. In fact, quite consistent behavior for an illegal MS-13 gangbanger engaged in human trafficking. Maybe you should invite him to speak that next Democrat National convention? On video, of course, from El Salvador. Because he's a deported illegal who is a citizen of El Salvador.
The "human trafficking" meme is a red herring. Abrego Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, detained for about two hours, and then sent on his way after the THP conferred with the FBI.
That he was allowed to leave strongly suggests that there was no evidence of human trafficking.
Strongly!
Which only highlights the gross derelictions of law and immigration enforcement during the corrupt Biden regime.
"Bring 'em by" is a really interesting choice of words when we're discussing a 2800 mile round trip.
But seriously, now you expect us to uncritically swallow that the guy who's lived in Maryland for the past 10 years (and who just 2-3 years prior supposedly had to troll for work in the Home Depot parking lot) suddenly doesn't know a soul there or anywhere in the general area, but somehow just happens to know 8 guys 1400 miles away and out of the goodness of his heart drives down there and brings them back to Maryland without anything but the clothes on their backs?
If you transferred 10% of the credulity you have for nonsense like this to the funding arrangement between the US and El Salvador, we wouldn't be debating the latter at all.
In case some people are visually impaired, the letters MS-13 weren't part of the actual tattoos. That was something someone printed on the image to explain their interpretation of the actual tattoos - a marijuana leaf, smiley face, cross, and skull.
The tattoo is a hint, and that his claim for Asylum was based on being a “former” member, and with Gangs, like the CIA or Marine Corpse there are no “former” members
He's had a clean criminal record for the past 6 years. Has a steady job, got married to a US citizen, and had a kid.
Possibly he had some past association with MS-13 but I doubt he's been actively involved for years.
OK, I guess you could call Human Trafficking a "Steady Job", and OJ had a "Clean Criminal Record" before he didn't.
There's no proof of human trafficking. The fact that he was reportedly driving some people from point A to point B to work says nothing. He was not arrested. Police ket him go with a warning. Is a traffic stop really the best you can go ?
The FBI told the THP to release him
There is obviously more to the story than you are willing to acknowledge
Given the US government never charged him with any crime, whatever else there is to the story likely doesn't concern him. Maybe one of the dudes in the car was an FBI informant informing on one of the other dudes in the car.
If they wanted to charge him with human trafficking they could have done so. Zero criminal charges is zero criminal charges.
Fun facts: the DHS report on the stop does not say anything about the FBI telling the Tennessee police to release him, and also the FBI cannot tell the Tennessee police to release him, since the Tennessee police do not work for the FBI.
No, the FBI cannot mandate that the THP detain or release anyone, but if there was anything to the suspicions worth investigating further, the likelihood is that the feds would have requested the trooper(s) to arrest Abrego Garcia for the driver's license offense so that he could be held and interrogated.
That he was permitted to go on his way suggests strongly that there is no "there", there.
dec 2022 to april 2025 would qualify as "years "
A traffic stop. What's next? Parking tickets?
Citation needed for publically avialable information?
first arrest in the company of two other m13 members
Traffic stop with 8 other undocumented aliens
Cite.
If you require a cite, you haven't paid any attention to this story.
The information is publicly available and several commentators here have posted links.
Are you intentionally uniformed?.
And yet you don't post a link. Why is that?
its publically available
do your homework
So you can't cite?
- Do your homework
- I provided a link Monday
-
Look at this bitch, can't even provide a link for what he claims.
It's easy, control and c amateur-expert epidemiologist, climatologist, economist, etc.
Why can't you do it?
I gave the link monday and several others gave you a link to publicly available information
At this point you have demonstrated that you are nothing more than a dishonest prick
So you don't know how to link or are physically unable to link?
I say you're a pathetic punk who is bluffing. Post the link to say otherwise if you have any spine.
Malika
Try google
Garcia
tennessee trafic stop
undocumented
human trafficing
quite a few search terms available.
This seems to be Malika's M.O. Ask for a cite today, get it. They then ask for the same cite tomorrow as if yesterday never happened.
Very common tactic, especially for trolls on niche platforms like this.
The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog hosted by several professors of law. Citations are an important part of both scholarship and law. It's common practice here to post citations, even if that isn't the case on the rest of Reason.
HTH.
Shawn - he is asking for the a citation to a heavily news reported news event and publicly available information.
He is not asking for a legal citation.
The last point is he is the one choosing to remain intentionally ignorant of what is now generally well known information
Example: Prince George's County police report from 3/28/2019: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-04/Kilmer-Abrego-Garcia-Documents.pdf
You can dispute that report's contents. But like most of your comments, your intent to restart this conversation from the beginning is plainly tactical and malicious. And it makes you look as devious as Elmer Fudd.
A police report! Well, that's dispositive!
I like how you even knew this was the obvious response of any non-cultist and tried to set up a block.
"Traffic stop with 8 other undocumented aliens"
AFAIK, this isn't correct, or at least is not known to be correct. A traffic stop did happen with a van full of other people. None of the reporting I've seen has any information about immigration status of the other people.
There's a chance the guy is an MS-13 member. He was definitely in the US illegally. If not for the "don't send back to El Salvador" order, I'd have no problem with deporting him. But the order matters, and the fact that the Trump administration acknowledges they deported him in error and won't do anything to correct the error is a big problem. The American people obviously want stricter immigration controls. Rather than trying to do an end run around due process, why doesn't Trump just focus on deporting people where it's actually straightforward to do so and doesn't run into issues like this. Seems like it would be both more effective and less controversial.
Then again, Trump is an idiot who can't help but get in his own way. We see it here, we see it with the Harvard case, we see it in the DoD leadership, and we saw it continuously in his first administration. Rather than complaining about the courts being against him, maybe complain about the fact that the administration can't do anything competently.
jb 25 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Traffic stop with 8 other undocumented aliens"
"AFAIK, this isn't correct, or at least is not known to be correct."
Far too many news organizations are now reporting the information.
"Far too many news organizations are now reporting the information."
Can you point to one that actually does any fact checking, or any primary source that supports the claim? Here's the DHS statement on the matter:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/18/dhs-releases-bombshell-investigative-report-kilmar-abrego-garcia-suspected-human
Note that it does not make the claim that anyone else in the car wasn't in the country legally.
It's not just that they deported him. They put him in prison, with no charge or trial, based on an uncorroborated claim from a confidential informant and some flimsy reasoning based on his clothing. No lawyer, no trial, no opportunity to defend himself. And now they are playing innocent and refusing to do anything to get him out of prison.
I don't even care if he doesn't get back to the US. He should be allowed to legally apply for a green card via marriage, which they would probably try to block, unjustly. But he shouldn't be in prison at all. Nobody should be imprisoned without being charged, tried, and convicted.
Trump is an idiot who can't help but get in his own way.
Indeed. If he could limit himself to making sure everyone on these flights was legitimately a convicted criminal, he would probably still be deporting people under the AEA. He just couldn't help trying to juke the stats by shoving a few people on the flights that didn't belong there, and now the courts have blocked him.
He could deport more people if he obeyed the law!
As I mentioned, the problem is that he and his gang whipped up hysteria about dangerous illegal aliens during the campaign, and so the demand for such people to parade in front of the cameras before making them suffer far exceeds the supply. So he's reduced to rounding up people for Op/Eds and traffic tickets and such.
There were police statements about seeing him associating with known MS-13 members where drugs and lots of cash were present. A confidential informant also said he was a member of the gang.
Whether that's sufficient proof in an immigration context is in the eye of the beholder.
Police statements, oh my!
This goof doesn't read the Short Circuit round up on fridays!
Malika proved me right in just one comment.
For my next trick: someone is going to vent their spleen in another reply.
"I knew my supposed proof was weak and said so, and sure enough someone called me on it!" lol
Damn. I'm good at this.
Master of Weak Sauce indeed!
------------The Joke→
(Your head)
No, there weren't. There was a single police statement that said he was in the same parking lot as three other Hispanic people, two of whom were allegedly known MS-13 members. It does not say anything in the police report about him "associating with" them. A small amount of marijuana was found in the parking lot, not associated with any of those people. And there was nothing about "large amounts of cash." (He had a week's worth of pay on him — about one third of a cabinet secretary's worth — and there was nothing about any other cash at all.)
And there was allegedly a confidential informant that was never questioned. And of course all of this comes from a dirty cop.
It was, in the eye of an immigration judge, sufficient to hold him before his immigration hearing. That's it.
Well Abrego ain't a problem for us anymore. He is El Salvador's problem.
"A republic, if you can keep it."
That does seem to be your problem...
(In El Salvador that ship has sailed a long time ago.)
Unless and until Abrego Garcia is afforded the process to which he is entitled in American courts, it is a problem for us, XY.
The country is materially safer without St Abrego in it. I don't see the problem.
How is the US safer without him in it?
A unanimous SCOTUS held that our government must "ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
Our POTUS talked to their President. Their President said, NFW.
Case closed.
$6M dollars does a lot of talking.
And their "president" calls himself the "coolest dictator" which implies he's not limited by his own nation's laws.
There is no evidence to support your claims.
The administration claims that it is still negotiating. Now, are they lying? Probably; that's what they do. But it belies your "case closed" claim.
SCOTUS disagrees.
I pointed out the other day how utterly wrong your "just in the same parking lot" theory was and why, and you're still spreading it.
This time, I'll just paste in the actual language from Garcia's very own rendition of the story in the complaint:
Again, and as I give you credit for knowing full well given your ~20 years in this business, that is not a point he would have voluntarily admitted unless there was incontrovertible evidence to that effect and he knew that.
You tried this howler before as well, and departed the thread when I questioned it. Even assuming he was stringing together 40 hours a week from his day labor (which seems pretty generous given that the one data point we have is that he was hanging out in the parking lot at 2:30 in the afternoon on a Thursday), that comes out to $30/hr, or roughly 150% of the median individual income. What's your support for this facially ridiculous notion?
Um, it's not a theory. Someone made a claim about what the police report said. I accurately corrected that person; nothing in the police report says they were together.
One of us handles employment law cases involving undocumented construction workers, and one of us apparently doesn't. $30/hour — which, by the way, very mistakenly assumes only a 40-hour week — is not an unusually high figure for construction work. (If I weren't bound by privilege, I could post hundreds of pictures of checks and payroll records.)
Reread your own comment, for crying out loud. You purportedly corrected OP's "police statements" to only one statement. And by then saying "it does not say anything in the police report" you intended the reader to conclude that report was the only source of operative facts at play. That's not pedantry -- that's carefully chosen language.
The fact that you're clutching at the skirts of privilege and can't provide a single public statistic even vaguely supporting your claim just further supports my gut reaction that you're FOS.
You really, really want to die on the hill of "these jobs that Americans supposedly won't do because they don't pay enough ackshully pay way more than most of the jobs Americans actually do"?
Do you think retail sales clerks and busboys and receptionists and construction workers are interchangeable? If they hired American workers for these jobs — not for the average job — they'd be paying them (including benefits) over $50/hour.
1. You're continuing to just flap your arms and not provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims.
2. Whatever higher-wage jobs you're cherry picking from your ooo-can't-tell-you-it's-privileged Manhattan-area experience says nothing at all about how much a day laborer trolling for gigs in a Maryland Home Depot parking lot makes. I strongly suspect that's the reason for #1.
I am not about to risk my law license to win an argument in the VC comments section. Sorry. If you want to use that to declare victory on a topic you admittedly know nothing about, well, you do you.
You're somehow risking your law license to provide a piece of publicly available evidence about the typical wage for an illegal day laborer in Maryland? Whatever, dude. You could at least come up with something even vaguely more creative to throw over your shoulder as you lunge for the exit.
It's technically called a straw man. Rather than address what I stated, he redefined it onto his own terms in order to refute it.
I hope he doesn't do this in his day job.
Um, the immigration judge at the bond hearing did not make any findings based on a complaint that wasn't drafted until 6 years later. The police report was in fact the only source of operative facts at play. And it does not say what people are claiming.
You're just dead set on pretending not to get this, aren'tcha?
Last time: he admitted it in the complaint because he had to. The only plausible reason he had to is because there's hard evidence to that effect. Ergo, there's something out there -- regardless of whether you've personally put eyes on it -- other than the single police report making the rounds right now.
I welcome you to provide a plausible alternative theory. To save us both some time, "nuh uh" is neither plausible nor a theory.
1) This continues to be a red herring, because TylerTusta's claim, to which I was responding, was that there were police statements about it, and there weren't.
2) The "plausible reason" he would "admit" that he saw some people in a parking lot 6 years ago and chatted with them is that it's both true and uninteresting, rather than some smoking gun proving MS-13 membership.
3) Note that even if there were "hard evidence" — which seems pretty implausible — he would not "have to" put it in his complaint at all, since it's not even relevant to any element of any cause of action in his lawsuit. So your idea that he was forced to admit this, which proves how damning it is, is just wrong.
4) And if you want to draw inferences from tea leaves, the GFIS itself did not in fact mention that he was observed talking to these people — something that would be odd if it were such a powerful piece of evidence. Indeed, at the bond hearing, the judge recited only that he was "arrested in the company of" gang members — not that he was interacting with them. Again, weird given how flimsy the evidence was.
So now you're shamelessly and rather awkwardly pivoting from two solid days of assuring us he was just in the same general parking lot as the known gang members, to now saying it's absolutely immaterial that he was huddled up talking with the known gang members.
I suppose for the next phase, we can expect to hear that it's ackshully a good thing that he was huddled up talking with the known gang members.
That's one way to put it. Another way is that you're a shameless liar.
1) It is absolutely immaterial to the fact that he was illegally deported.
2) It is absolutely immaterial to the supposed "finding" that he was an MS-13 member, because that fact was nowhere in the record. They did not rely on it; they relied only on the claim that he was in the same parking lot.
3) Your desperate and pathetic attempt to call it "huddled up with" is, well, desperate and pathetic.
4) No, him chatting with them in broad daylight in a public place is pretty meaningless. But (stop me if you've heard this one already) even if it were probative, that's not the basis for the government's claim.
This is a really interesting approach from the person who -- even after repeatedly being led by the nose to a document filed by Garcia himself -- persisted in claiming that he was just in the same parking lot as the others.
It's also rather telling that you resort to this sort of invective given your routine and calculated efforts to deceive the reader of your posts with your little cutesy word games and carefully calibrated half truths.
I believe we call that "pounding the table." And probably a pinch of projection.
Now, since you've apparently skulked away from yet another thread after painting yourself into a corner, wanna fill us in on exactly how you're going to lose your law license for citing publicly available data on typical wages for an illegal day laborer in Maryland?
Apparently, you've never gotten into a casual conversation with someone standing in line next to you.
Never happens.
On the other hand, a recent YouGov poll shows Trump's approval on the immigration issue -- normally his strongest -- dipping into negative territory. See https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/04/approval-of-trumps-immigration-policies-declining
I read the Harvard lawsuit. Not sure it shows the bold defiance the media attribute to it, especially with regard to expressive freedom. It does defend in broad terms Harvard's right to teach as it pleases. But I wonder how well it defends students' expressive freedoms. I am concerned especially about treatment of pro-Palestinian advocacy.
It is not clear to me that Harvard has not conceded Trump's demand to treat advocacy against Zionism as anti-Semitic and punishable. Both student speech itself, and right to assemble look compromised. Can any of you lawyers take a look and tell me if I have mistaken what the suit says about those?
I'm so glad to see the Left finally standing up to this sickening Jew worship by the government.
Someone call DB! Oh, he hung up….
do you have a problem with Berstein defending his tribe?
Hypocritically? Yes.
Man, lot of Jew-Hate this morning! You should have heard what my Goy half said to the Hebrew half yesterday!
Are you Jewish or is that part of your psychotic backstory?
HH (Half Hebrew, like Henry Hill said in Goodfellas, the "Good" half) and I'm shocked! shocked! to find gambling, I mean, that as obsessed with me as you are, you missed out, the Jewish Mom is like 3/4 of my "Backstory", umm, sorry, gotta take her call.
OK, like I said, you need to go back to Season 1 to get caught up.
Seriously, it's like you watched all 7 years of the Sopranos and said
"Duhhh, so Tony was in the Mafia?"
Frank
So your backstory is true and you’re a moron who couldn’t learn to write as good as a third grader?
As *well* as a third grader...
ouch 🙂
C'mon Willy, Malika's a Spook, they don't talk good Engrish, you gotta Sprechen dee Ebonics, Nome Sane?
We've talked about this. You're only Jew from the waist down.
The waist down of men is highly researched area by Magnus.
I don't have to be an expert to know that Jews, like Chinamen and Pajeets have tiny peckers. They even make teeny tiny condoms just for Chinamen, Jews, and Pajeets.
It's common knowledge to us Normals.
Magnus has long been experienced and fascinated by peckers. Too much information about his oral habits!
You know, in principle it's possible to be opposed to Zionism and not anti-Semitic. It even happens sometimes on the individual level.
But on an organizational level, you do not tend to find opposition to Zionism isolated from antisemitism. They're joined at the hip. That's because anti-Zionism is mostly promoted by anti-Semites.
And you see this at Harvard. Defense of anti-Zionism by a university with a long and well documented history of discrimination against Jews. Student organizations that proclaim they're merely anti-Zionist, but when you look into them they have organizational links to Hamas.
This is why Harvard is so determined to avoid that audit of its admissions. Because in all likelihood they never did stop discriminating against Jews, and despite losing Harvard v Students for Fair Admissions, they're still illegally discriminating against other groups, too. And they don't dare let their foes have the data to prove it.
Oh hey another conspiracy found by Brett.
Also lol at calling the demands the admin made an audit.
I'm curious: Are you denying that Harvard has a well documented history of discrimination against Jews? Against Asians? Or do you somehow think it's irrelevant?
It's irrelevant. You're making a accusation about current behavior.
You know you can't back that up. So here you are, wanking about affirmative action when affirmative action was legal.
Your relegating a comment to wanking... well it is wanking.
I'm saying they have a history of discrimination, including quite recently against Asians, and when they object to a transparency measure that would make it impossible to conceal current discrimination, anybody who looks at that history would conclude that they're probably still discriminating, and that's why they don't want transparency.
Want to apply that standard generally?
They're not objecting to transparency, Brett.
Did you even read the Administration's demand letter?
Seems like you wrote your own version and are going off of that.
harvard apparantly objecting to transparancy
It was never legal to discriminate against Asians in admissions. Harvard claimed what it was doing wasn't discrimination, the court said the facts showed otherwise, and Harvard was violating a law that was passed in 1964.
Are you just going to pretend Grutter never existed? That's pretty disingenuous!
Sacastro mentions Grutter but is obviously unaware of the facts
A) finding of fact at trial court - blatant quota
B) de novo at CA6 - Accepted UM pleadings as facts
C) ignored actual facts
D ) see SC dissent
“Are you denying that Harvard has a well documented history of discrimination against Jews?”
History? Sure. Recently?
Is “Right Now” considered “recently”?
The other day you were claiming that the church's extremely well-documented history of child abuse should be forgotten.
Harvard does have a history of discriminating against Jews, but that stopped about 60 years ago. You have a guess as to what
percentage of the faculty is Jewish?
In the wake of Oct.7 there have been some unfortunate incidents and serious errors of judgment, but to claim the school is systematically antisemitic is right-wing noise.
(anti-Asian, OTOH...)
I didn't say anything about "forgotten". I said that you had to look at the extensive measures they take today to prevent repetition.
Bernard11 — Someone capable to recognize stereotypical Asian appearance, and familiar with the Harvard campus, would be bewildered by an assertion that Harvard discriminates against Asians.
To assert otherwise requires application of some discriminating (if not discriminatory) metric, systematically calculated. Questions about relevant metrical standards (and motivations for choosing them) get big in a hurry.
Standards favored by those who accuse Harvard of anti-Asian discrimination tend to lean heavily on a legally unsupportable presumption that Harvard owes the world a particular standard of meritocracy that American law does not require, and probably could not Constitutionally require.
Worse, there is copious evidence to show that accusations of discrimination against Asians have been leveled against Harvard in service of a perverse motive to force Harvard to abandon affirmative action for blacks.
Perhaps you knew all that already. It surprises me how many people who do know that persist in thinking Harvard is a hotbed of malice toward Asians.
You've been told repeatedly that you are utterly out of your depth here, not understanding the legal issues at all, let alone how to analyze discrmination claims.
I don't think it's a hotbed of malice toward Asians.
I do think that their admission standards include subjective assessments of personality which tend very much to negatively affect Asians' chances of admission.
Whether that is intentional or not, I don't know. It is similar to their decades ago practice of regarding Jewish applicants as too aggressive, or studious, or something.
"I don't think it's a hotbed of malice toward Asians."
For what it's worth, I tend to agree. Harvard discriminated against the Jews, (And maybe still does.) out of actual malice. Asians? They don't hate them, it's just a matter of somebody having to be the designated fall guy, once you've got a designated winner.
"I do think that their admission standards include subjective assessments of personality which tend very much to negatively affect Asians' chances of admission."
I think you've got the causality mixed up here. They adopted subjective assessments of personality in order to deniably discriminate against Asians.
You think they woke up one day, and said, "Let's displace objective standards of merit with subjective measures of personality! It will be fun!", and then discovered to their horror that it resulted in discrimination against Asians? Yeah, right, did NOT happen that way.
"Worse, there is copious evidence to show that accusations of discrimination against Asians have been leveled against Harvard in service of a perverse motive to force Harvard to abandon affirmative action for blacks."
Kinda, and there's nothing perverse about it. It's a zero sum game, (Percentages, and the sum is 100.) and the way they improve the odds of blacks being admitted is to artificially suppress the odds of Asians being admitted. Whites in the middle are just along for the ride, hardly touched at all.
Two sides of the same coin, discrimination in favor of blacks, discrimination against Asians. Can't have one without the other. Does that mean Asians should just suck it up and accept being the designated fall guys?
Bellmore, before you decide by law to privilege Asians, you have to produce evidence to show discrimination against Asians. If Asians are already getting admitted in numbers above their proportionate fraction of the population, about the point you hit that threshold it gets harder to just assume adverse discrimination; at that point it gets easier to suspect arbitrary privilege instead.
So population proportions, compared to admission proportions, ought to mark a point for thoughtful reckoning. Admissions above proportional fractions make it appropriate to take a close look at practices of the admissions process, with an eye to distinguish which practices are subject to legal mandate, and which not. We need also to bear in mind the advantage to preserve a scope for private liberty, exercised beyond reach of the law.
Confining the argument only to the Harvard case, I contend that an argument to admit Asians in proportions ahead of blacks, amounts to privileging Asians, and does not redress discrimination at Harvard. More the opposite. How can it not be evident that admissions practices which further suppress the numbers of already under-represented blacks amount to discrimination against blacks?
I have nothing at all against academic meritocracy. It would be absurd to suggest Harvard does not practice it. I am fine with that. It is a big part of what makes Harvard what it is. But I insist that academic meritocracy—and questions about the extent it is to be practiced, and who should benefit or suffer as a result—must remain entirely in the hands of private institutions. I am not charmed by ostensibly legal arguments which anyone can see amount to tacit expressions of a legal presumption in favor of academic meritocracy, despite the absence of even a syllable of law in support.
In private context, academic meritocracy can remain an aspect of ordered liberty. In any courtroom context, to enforce academic meritocracy amounts to imposition of tyranny by law.
There is no place for legally mandated academic meritocracy in American constitutionalism. It would be a disaster for courts openly to rule it in. It would be a disaster for Congress to attempt to establish academic meritocracy by law. It would be a disaster for the notion of a republican form of government to impose academic meritocracy by Constitutional amendment. There is simply no room for academic meritocracy enforced by law in American constitutionalism.
Wise Americans will remain content to leave people and private institutions alone to practice meritocracy as they please, but to do it only without legal compulsion. Thus, it is not good for courts to base decisions on meritocratic presumptions which are not in the law, and then write decisions which evade mentioning what happened.
I think that is what happened in the Harvard case. I think the net result is worse discrimination at Harvard, not an improvement. And I see no appropriate role for the courts to force that outcome.
"Bellmore, before you decide by law to privilege Asians,"
I'm face palming here, I really am. Not wanting ANYBODY legally privileged is my whole point.
"you have to produce evidence to show discrimination against Asians."
Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
" Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to com-
ply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may
never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereo
type. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has
resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respond-
ents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions
programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zero-
sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others nec-
essarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.
The basic problem with your whole thesis above is the assumption that, absent discrimination, groups would naturally be admitted to Harvard in proportion to their population numbers, so if a group is being admitted in that proportion, there is no discrimination. And that if you propose any change at all that would cause a departure from proportionality, it must be discriminatory.
This is nonsense on stilts. We live in a world where different groups are, on average, differently situated in all sorts of manners, and where the absence of discrimination practically guarantees departures from proportionality. Where achieving proportionality, if that is your goal, typically requires the sort of discrimination that is illegal for institutions that are entangled with the government, or subject to civil rights laws.
You are making the opposite assumption, Brett. So what does that say about you?
I mean, in this case we know that Harvard (etc.) took race into account in admissions, and predicted all sorts of terrible consequences for African-American admissions if they weren't allowed to do so, so that kind of answers itself.
No, Sarcastr0, I'm making the opposite observation.
Yeah, if you're the beneficiary of illegal discrimination, if the illegal discrimination goes away, your situation worsens. News at 11.
No, Brett, you're not observing anything.
You are assuming some soft bigotry via low expectations, to coin a phrase.
In the real world, one needs concrete evidence of Harvard's illegal actions before one starts accusing Harvard of doing illegal stuff. Not just 'these numbers don't pass Brett's vibes check.'
That disparate impact is the default rather than extraordinary, in the absence of discrimination, is a commonplace observation. No matter how much you'd rather it weren't.
My favorite example: Blacks are, on average, poorer than whites. This means that simply charging uniform prices for products exhibits disparate impact!
Disparate impact, rather than being a sign of discrimination, is inevitable if you DON'T discriminate, in a world where different groups are differently situated.
Yeah, like the guys who were opposed to Slavery except for the ones they owned. Like the White Supremercists did with Idaho, the Blacks with DC, and the Hispanics with California, we Jews need an Amurican "Homeland" or, like with the Injuns, a "Reservation" I'm thinking Miami, it's nearly Tel Aviv on the Atlantic as it is now.
Shit, do some reasearch , huh
More than 80 percent of Harvard faculty respondents characterized their political leanings as “liberal” or “very liberal,” according to The Crimson’s annual survey of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in April.
A little over 37 percent of faculty respondents identified as “very liberal”— a nearly 8 percent jump from last year. Only 1 percent of respondents stated they are “conservative,” and no respondents identified as “very conservative.”
Anyone who has spent any time on these campuses know that. They were supporting gay marriage as a "human right" as early as the mid-90s.They're insane.
This guy’s time on these campuses is janitorial.
Na und? You ever cleaned up after a group of (redacteds)??? A gaggle of monkeys would make less of a mess
Is the redacted your family?
West Virginia banned food dyes last month, now MAGA is doing it nationwide. I really don't get you mask-hating patriots. I thought y'all were against the nanny state
What does FDA stand for?
That ship sailed long ago.
In fact it sailed with Carolene Products which the FDA hauled into court in the 30's for selling canned milk that was skim milk reconstituted with coconut oil.
Actually its pretty good, if you get a can of evaporated (not condensed)milk in SE Asia, its likely reconstituted from powdered skim milk and coconut or palm oil.
If you get a iced coffee with milk there that is likely what you are drinking.
I say we ban drag queens from reading books about lesbians that work in a Cheeto factory where masks have to be worn on the assembly line
"I" say "We" --- isn't that just silly
Your whole point is to override 'we' !!!!!
Interesting. Because no books have actually been banned. You want to degrade yourself reading this obscenity? Knock yourself out. Just because this garbage is not available at taxpayer expense to minors does not mean it was banned. I would find it surprising if you were not aware of this, but there is a universe of obscene material available out there that is not stocked in elementary school libraries.
"is not stocked in elementary school libraries. None of"
Bot malfunction!
Speaking of bot malfunctions.
Your story has become tiresome.
"Filled" milk is about the only sort you can find in the Philippines; That butter fat is too precious to leave in the milk, it always gets replaced with coconut oil.
Which is fine, but was it deceptive advertising? American singles are only 50% cheese, is it ok to call it cheese? Real American cheese exists and costs about 2x as much.
I think the problem is its too expensive to transport and refrigerate fresh milk to a tropical country like Philippines that doesn't have dairies, an infrastructure for refrigerated transportation and storage.
So if you are going to ruin the taste of the milk by making it shelf stable, why not take all the water and butter fat out first before transporting it thousands of miles across an ocean and make money at both ends in the process?
The economics of extrac
It's not like the Philippines don't have ANY dairies, but for the most part local milk will be incidentally produced, and consumed by the farmer's family.
Wave them hands a bit faster and flight may be achieved!
The sad thing is -- in the cities -- filled milk was safer than whole because it was canned. Heated in the canning, and then would blow out the end of the can if bad.
Carolene Products wasn’t “hauled into court” by the FDA: it was criminally indicted for violating a statute passed by Congress.
Noscitur! It had been a tick; I was hoping you hadn't gone on to greener pastures.
Though if you see any of those, let me know!
You don't even understand your own argument!!!
Some things are harmful, right?
Banning harmful things is not the same as being for the nanny state.
Is some unidentified uncredentialed hack "Hobie" to override even the medical establishment EVERY TIME !!! YOu would then be the Nanny Dictator, the crystalization of what you supposedly are railing against.
That's literally what the nanny state is.
Basic protections isn't the "Nanny State".
You liar.
My government actions are teh good!
Stooopid.
Let's take some examples:
Lead in gasoline.
Lead in interior paint
Electrical building codes
Clean water standards.
Testing prescription drugs before approval.
Now do
no 16 oz Coka-Cola
no Hostess Twinkies
no vaping
Can your brain distinguish any difference
How about food dyes (which is the topic here)?
Yeah, there's increasing research indicating that a lot of these dyes are bad for your health, albeit in a more subtle manner than arsenic. The limits on their use were based on gross toxicity, and are obsolete in light of more recent findings.
We've just learned more biology in the last 50 years than they knew when these dyes were originally approved.
Of course Queenie comes out pro-Big Food.
Trump * -1 = Queenie's opinion
You think food dyes bans are scientifically based ok use of government but Big Gulp bans are nanny state?
I think one can make a meaningful distinction between *substances* being harmful, and the government regulating such substances, and *habits* (such as overconsumption of food or other habits) being harmful, which is too close to micromanagement of individual lives (aka the Nanny State.)
Sure, one can make that distinction. You're still nanny-stating.
I'm fine with some well thought through nanny-statism, myself.
My issue is that RFK Jr. has no scientific integrity, and just goes off of the latest alt-science bullshit.
Look at this lil' statist bootlicker!
Have food dyes in small amounts of consumption been shown to be harmful?
I think there's a fundamental difference between banning toxic substances in food, and telling people how much not toxic food they're allowed to consume.
For that matter, I'd probably have just gone with a warning label myself. The truth is that these artificial dyes are likely no more dangerous than a lot of natural substances in food that get a pass just because nobody paid them a similar level of attention.
But, the reality is that there is some research showing them to be less harmless than they knew half a century ago.
Alt-science bullshit by banning all the food dyes already banned in most other countries!
He's such a Whack-a-doo!
Brett, how do you define toxic?
"already banned in most other countries!"
Cite?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=artificial+food+dies+banned+in+europe
This idiot thinks some European countries are "most other countries!"
There's actually a lot of countries, and he didn't learn how to count that high.
But that can't be the fundamental difference, because toxic/not-toxic are almost never binaries. As you know, the dose makes the poison.
"Brett, how do you define toxic?"
THAT is a perfectly fair question. So I'll treat it seriously. Indeed, basically everything we eat and drink is potentially toxic at SOME dose.
Remembering that I said I'd have settled for a warning label, and not a ban...
I think you have to look at the dose response curve.
You basically have three sorts of dose response curves for chemicals.
You've got the chemicals that are harmful at some high dose, continue to cause diminishing harm all the way down to zero. These are the unambiguous toxins. Lead would be an example of this: There's no significant concentration at which lead is perfectly harmless, though there are concentrations below which it is, for all practical purposes safe.
You've got the chemicals that are harmful at some high dose, but the harm declines to zero at some point substantially above zero concentration. Nitrogen gas, for instance: You CAN be poisoned by it, but not by any concentration you're going to encounter short of Scuba. These are situational toxins, and there are a lot of them, and we deliberately consume a lot of them.
Then you've got the chemicals that are harmful at some high dose, and actually beneficial at some lower dose. Basically all the essential nutrients are like this, but so are a lot of chemicals that you'd get by without just fine. Hormesis is a thing, after all, and a lot of toxic at high dose chemicals are beneficial at low doses.
I'd say that you've got no business ever going out of your way to add a classic toxin to a food, though below some concentration it typically won't be worth worrying about if some finds its way in anyway.
For the others, the real answer is, "it depends".
The food dyes in question appear to be something like classical toxins, but very weak, and fairly subtle. (Which is why they weren't recognized as such fifty years ago!) But possibly they fall into one of the other categories instead, depending on individual biochemical quirks.
But, given that there are natural food dyes that actually have health benefits, such as quercetin, the case for using the synthetic ones that are at all dubious isn't very good.
the real answer is, "it depends"
You missed being able to back up the fundamental difference you saw between regulations of toxic substances and nontoxic foods.
But you have laid out a very well founded and detailed justification for an expert agency.
Said agency should probably not make rules based on the whims of it's political leadership.
"You missed being able to back up the fundamental difference you saw between regulations of toxic substances and nontoxic foods."
We're just going to have to agree to disagree, then, because I think I did exactly that: Just because water intoxication is a thing doesn't mean you've got an excuse for some government agency to regulate the size of water bottles, or how many you can have on hand at any given time.
Because when we're talking about substances which are not, in fact, harmful, over a wide range of dose, with individual variation, it's best to just tell the government to go pound sand, and let people make their own choices.
Oh, I'm not saying there are no limits. I'm saying you didn't say anything to specify them.
some are known mutagens in large quantities. It is a task for the FDA to determine safe level. Similar story with respect to the extract of bitter almonds
Don Nico: 105 CMR 410
Especially something that is just for appearance, there is more of a debate about tradeoffs with something like a preservative to retard spoilage.
Recall this "fact check" from the NYT which kind of proves RFK's point:
“Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version,”
“The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ according to the ingredient label,”
This is 'chemicals are bad. Get the chemicals out of our food' unscientific nonsense.
He's also got the thing about seed oils. More pseudoscience.
He's got an agency full of experts but 'doctors won't tell you!' BS is where he ends up.
His report on autism has evinced some of the worst scientific integrity I've seen. He's got a pretty big plan on where it's gonna come out.
Wait 'til you see what he thinks about sugar.
From NYTimes:
"It is not known how a worm made its way into Mr. Kennedy’s brain, but he has speculated that it may have come from eating undercooked pork, perhaps in India."
Apart from eating some pizza vomit on a sidewalk in Calcutta during a soccer riot, I can't think of a loonier thing to do in India. Thank god this man isn't in charge of US health
Yes, a lot of it is nonsense, same as the Organic fetish.
But I do prefer natural unprocessed food, beef, chicken, pork, fish, but I don't much care what they were fed. The only processed foods I regularly consume is barley extract, and the only ultra processed food is corn extract.
"thing about seed oils"
I don't know about RFK's "thing" but are you denying that rancid oil is a health hazard?
"This is 'chemicals are bad. Get the chemicals out of our food' unscientific nonsense. " No, I'd say that your blanket defense of food additive direct your your local chem lab is nonsense. Just as "no GMO" food is nonsense.
But if it floats your boat go for it.
"as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ "
The other day I broke chemicals down into several categories: Classic toxins, toxic at all doses. Situational toxins, which are toxic at high levels, but not at all at some lower level. Chemicals that are harmful at high concentrations and beneficial at lower concentrations.
The evidence I've seen is that BHT is actually one of those last; It has a modest protective effect against stomach cancer.
“ Banning harmful things is not the same as being for the nanny state.”
And is food coloring “harmful things”? There doesn’t seem to be much factual support for that assertion.
Of course, this is the department run by a guy who thinks vaccines cause autism, so whack-a-doo beliefs are par for the course.
I thought y'all were against the nanny state
It depends who's the nanny
I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics class. Now I don't.
Instead, I think marijuana use causes refer madness: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/20/health/marijuana-dementia-wellness/
(Obligatory nod. There's also an amusing irony in drug users celebrating Hitler's birthday. The 80th anniversary of his death is a week from today; and Moms Mabley is appropriate to that: "I was always taught never to say anything about the dead unless it’s good. He’s dead. Good!")
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Next you'll be saying guns facilitate death
That study controlled for a lot of variables in the regression finding that marijuana use predicts dementia. What do you propose as the casual factor that they missed?
Mike, you didn't read the MAGA memo?
Science . . . bad.
Only the worship of SCIENCE is bad. And there is a lot of bullshit "science" done by well known scientists. Particle physics provides many such examples.
apedad: Statistically valid and duplicable science good, if it also shows its data.
Bureaucratic fiats are bad.
Unless it’s climate change. Then it’s a hoax.
Unless scientists sensed before hand a connection (not always correct of course)one wouldn't look for cause at all.
Lack of marijuana use does not cause dementia. many psychos are marijuana users that is all you need to know. Lack of self control is probably the root failing and just as abuse of alcohol links to sexual depravity without saying all drunks are perverts.
Ever hear of the null hypothesis?
We are talking a link like smoking and lung cancer, or sexual intercourse and pregnancy. Not absolute.
It doesn't say that marijuana use predicts dementia. It says that use heavy enough to require hospitalization is correlated with dementia.
“However, this is not a study that anyone should look at and say, ‘Jury’s in, and cannabis use causes dementia,’” Myran said. “This is a study that brings up a concerning association that fits within a growing body of research.”
(Myran is a coauthor of the study.)
I don't know what factor they may have missed. Maybe something that causes both dementia and heavy use. I note they did control for substance abuse, but if this is self-reported it might not be the best regressor.
Regardless, multiple regression is a pretty tricky procedure, and any such study merits a very careful look.
Anyone who thinks any one study firmly establishes anything is foolish. But Mikie is the guy who said there were no intentions to deport the migrants hours after the video of the airport trip and the government lawyer saying they reserved the right to do that.
It's like smoking and lung cancer -- there's a good possibility...
No, it's not like that at all.
There is not nearly, by orders of magnitude, the same amount of evidence.
Okay but don't make the worse mistake of saying if things correlate there can't be causation !!!!
many folks SEE the link between marijuana and anti-social behavior,they don't need statistics.
Yes, stoners are so well-known for their raging anti-social behavior. Duh.
They’re annoying and vapid, but they don’t hurt anyone else.
"Someone who has an emergency room visit or hospitalization due to cannabis" seems quite a rarified group to generalize to ordinary use.
But sure, lets say we do more studies and nail down that pot use increases the odds someone will develop dimensia.
Ain't no way that's worth the war on drugs.
Can’t believe I’m agreeing with you Sarc, until a few years ago I smoked a Spliff a day (for the Glaucoma, like Vito from the Sopranos I had a note from my Doctor) did it for 20 yrs except when in California when I’d use the Edibles,
Had to give it up a few yrs ago for my government gig, which requires an annual drug screen, but you never know when
And watta ya know, turned out I didn’t even have the Glaucoma
But Dementia? If anyone’s gonna get it..,,,
Did I tell you I smoked a spliff a day for 20 years?
That explains a lot.
I had a friend in high school how OD'd on weed. It was in all the newspapers at the time.
How OD'ed?
By smoking too much weed you retard.
Holy shit, you didn't get I was making fun of your grammar. How much weed have you smoked this morning (be careful, Republicans don't like smoking weed!).
You asked how my friend OD'd on weed. I answered.
Now you're crying about it.
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings by answering your question.
"I had a friend in high school how OD'd on weed."
This idiot doesn't see the grammatical mistake here!
Look at this.
I pitched this little monkey a peanut and he dutifully danced for me.
lmao
You were making fun of his typo (which seems kind of pointless), when you should've been making fun of his substance. There is no known LD50 for marijuana, and last I checked a few years ago, there has not been a single recorded death from marijuana use. (To be clear, one could get high and thus get in a car crash and die, but I'm talking about the actual biological effects of marijuana.)
“ I had a friend in high school how OD'd on weed. It was in all the newspapers at the time.”
No, you didn’t. As far as I know, no one has ever overdosed on marijuana. It’s one of the things that picks out the anti-drug wingnuts, when they claim you can OD on weed.
Estimated LD-50 is about 3 pounds, smoked, actually. It's like those compounds where the 'toxicity' mechanism is death by obstructed bowel, because you actually die by choking on the amount necessary to kill you, not by being poisoned.
I suppose, though, somebody with an appropriate underlying pathology like maybe liver damage might be killed by a considerably smaller dose because the THC wouldn't clear their system fast enough.
I'm trying to imagine any of the signers of the American Declaration of Independence being a product of today's public education system, and coming up empty. When you look at their biographies, one thing that stands out is that they were all avid readers, even the shopkeepers.
One wonders: if you just sent a child into a library for three hours every day and let them read whatever they wanted, and otherwise let them roam free after doing their chores, would they be better educated?
Probably depends on which public schools you use to make the comparison. The best public schools? No way. Many of their graduates would already know the meaning of, "auto-didact."
You might look back on the educational system of the day to have some answers. Most of the common people would be illiterate, certainly woman and the enslaved. Tradesmen and shopkeepers were likely educated but mostly to a functional level. Leaders like Jefferson, Hamilton and others were educated by high level tutors, usually clergyman. These tutors would teach these wealthy men Latin, Greek, the classics and philosophy. You are right that tradesman and shopkeepers, Franklin for example, did expand their education by reading. Franklin also founded discussion groups were men read and then help educate others in the group. A person with a basic education can become self-educated if they have time and motivation. Lincoln was a self-educated lawyer could a person get a law license today without having attended a law school?
They'd play video games on the library's computer for three hours or play on their phones. Some tiny percentage of them would read but most of that would be fiction.
Your suggested method falls prey to the "you don't know what you don't know" issue. A structured approach to learning by people who understand the subject and how learning happens is going to work a lot better.
Also... can you imagine going to a surgeon who is self-taught? Or even, can you imagine an insurance company insuring such a surgeon? Or a hospital willing to let them perform surgeries on premises? Some things can be self-taught (I occasionally hire such people) but it's very rare to find people who can advance far enough in a field to be competitive on their own. They exist, sure, but they're very rare.
It sort of depends. Good public schools can be quite excellent - the top 20+ kids at my high school, in a wealthy suburb near Bahstahn, went to Hahvahd/MIT/Yale/other Ivies/etc.
But some of the commenters here obviously had a football coach for a history teacher.
I actually DID have a football coach for a history teacher. A Civil war obsessive football coach, so we might not have learned much about other eras, but, darn it, we knew the order of battle at Picket's charge!
OK, I can simultaneously give ADHD respect to that type of obsessive attention to detail, and be skeptical that it's good overall prep for the big wide world out there.
The guy I had for American History (class for seniors at my HS) showed us the Woodstock movie in the last week before graduation. When Arlo Guthrie gets out of the helicopter, he froze-frame, pointed to some young beaded hippy talking to Arlo and excitedly said "THAT'S ME!". But his teaching of historical trends and causality was actually pretty deep most of the time.
U. S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado has issued an order regarding what kind of notice the government must provide to detainees Under the Alien Enemies Act prior to deportation. The substance of the order is that: "Respondents shall provide a twenty-one (21) day notice to individuals detained pursuant to the Act and Proclamation. Such notice must state the government intends to remove individuals pursuant to the Act and Proclamation. It must also provide notice of a right to seek judicial review, and inform individuals they may consult an attorney regarding their detainment and the government’s intent to remove them. Such notice must be written in a language the individual understands."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.243061/gov.uscourts.cod.243061.35.0_1.pdf
Makes sense to me.
It is not surprising that you think it makes sense for a court to invent regulations and procedures out of whole cloth as long as they only hamper Republicans.
This is in response to the administration showing they could not be trusted to implement less directive orders in good faith.
Not surprising you are also a fan of judicial dictatorship via one-sided imposition of arbitrary rules. The Biden administration repeatedly demonstrated that ot could not be trusted, and yet we didn't have a rash of such rash judicial orders then -- much less advocacy from you and ng in favor of them.
Tu quoque much?
In the words of the noted philosopher Ernest Tubb, two wrongs don't make a right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwNvQTe96pk&list=RDFwNvQTe96pk&start_radio=1
Deflecting to Biden with a handwaving 'couldn't be trusted' is lame as hell, Michael. Aspire to be better than some bot.
Deal with the fact that your complaint is not apropos - this order has a reason to be so directive.
Great Komment Karenning!
You're on a roll and you're not even on the clock yet milking taxpayers!
According to Michael P, telling the government that it can't arrest people without evidence and then send them to a foreign torture site without even giving them a hearing is "dictatorship." Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
Michael P must be very strong, therefore.
That you admit that due process "hampers Republicans" says a lot about Republicans, but nothing about the courts.
That you characterize what happened here as a court "invent[ing] regulations and procedures out of whole cloth" says a lot about your lack of understanding of the legal system. (Hint: due process is written in the constitution.)
Can you point out where:
"Respondents shall provide a twenty-one (21) day notice to individuals detained pursuant to the Act and Proclamation. Such notice must state the government intends to remove individuals pursuant to the Act and Proclamation. It must also provide notice of a right to seek judicial review, and inform individuals they may consult an attorney regarding their detainment and the government’s intent to remove them. Such notice must be written in a language the individual understands."
Is in the constitution?
The Fifth Amendment provides that "No person shall . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]"
Sorting out what process is due in a particular situation is the role of the judiciary. Article III, § 1 states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). Judge Sweeney has done an admirable job here of giving practical meaning to the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause in this situation.
Have you read the order, Magnus Pilatus, alphabet soup? Yes or no?
Reading is teh hard. Newsmax does that for him!
Have you read the order? Yes or no?
I read the order. It does not even pretend to relate the 21-day limit or other requirements to existing statute, regulation or precedent. That's why I characterized the provisions as intended out of whole cloth.
It's possible that detainees subject to deportation would have a 21-day notice that would afford them the opportunity to challenge said deportation, but would a blanket 21-day notice work? ("All persons not legally present in the United States are hereby notified that they are subject to deportation 21 days from the issuance of this notice. All such persons have 21 days from the issuance of this notice to file a motion why they should not be deported.")
No, that would not work. Judge Sweeney ordered at page 34:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.243061/gov.uscourts.cod.243061.35.0_1.pdf
Notice to individuals necessarily entails individualized notice.
"I read the order. It does not even pretend to relate the 21-day limit or other requirements to existing statute, regulation or precedent. That's why I characterized the provisions as intended out of whole cloth."
That is a flat out lie, Michael P. The relevant precedents and authorities regarding what process is due cited in the order include:
Judge Sweeney synthesized these authorities and crafted her order to direct what procedural safeguards are needed to implement the Supreme Court's April 7, 2025 directive that “The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”)
"Synthesized" and "crafted" are just wishful substitutions for "made up." Not a single one of those citations mentions any definite time frame at all, much less three weeks.
Perhaps for that same reason, she made no attempt to tie her 21-day period to any of that authority. She simply mentions on page 28 that the competing proposals were 24 hours and 30 days, and then stated it would be 21 days with precisely zero further explanation or rationalization.
Life of Brian, what part of
Are you pretending to not understand?
Do you think “gov’t proposed 24 hours, plaintiffs proposed 30 day, judge chose 21 days” constitutes an appealable abuse of discretion?
Seriously, this is the lamest critique of a district court judge I’ve heard on the VC in a while.
I understood the "reasonable time" language just fine -- and even addressed it in my comment, if you take a peek.
What I said was that the 21 days was made up and unjustified. You don't claim otherwise, and in fact calling it "discretion" really just concedes the point.
Ironically, in this very case she issued a TRO on day 3, and that's actually pretty slow compared to some of the other cases we've been watching recently. SCOTUS said they needed to be able to seek relief, not spend weeks interviewing various cadres of BigLaw bleeding hearts and mulling over exactly which one they would prefer to jam in their mostly cookie cutter petition.
The parties requested 24hrs (unreasonable) and 30 days (meh, maybe a bit long). The judge, exercising basic and uncontested judicial discretion, provided an answer somewhere in between - but leaning towards the party not demonstrably exhibiting bad faith in their arguments.
That's as complicated as the explanation needs to be. Scholarly treatise not required. Citations to decades of precedent not required. It's a court exercising routine scheduling discretion, move along, next issue please.
Cue the butthurt from people who see bad faith by the gov't regarding "reasonable notice" as a feature, not a bug.
"Ironically, in this very case she issued a TRO on day 3, and that's actually pretty slow compared to some of the other cases we've been watching recently."
Uh, no. The application for writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 12. The TRO issued ten days later on April 22. On April 14 the District Court issued an interim order pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction, Defendants were prohibited from removing Petitioners from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until the District Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885285/dbu-v-trump/
Yesterday's TRO vacated the April 14 interim order. If you had, you know, read the TRO you should have known that, LoB.
Ah, found the pedant. On day 3 she issued an order that prevented the deportation of the plaintiffs, which of course is the concern addressed by the 21-day notice period under discussion. Let us know if you have anything meaningful to contribute to that.
Why? Based on what? And what suddenly makes 21 reasonable? If 24 hours is unreasonably short, why isn't 21 days unreasonably long? Because you/she say so?
Again, she just plucked a (nice round) number out of the air with no explanation of why she felt that met the standard (on both ends) of reasonableness and no tie whatsoever to real-world considerations. Between that and the inevitable reflexive TRO issued before even attempting to weed out clearly frivolous petitions, each and every individual can now throw a minimum of 6 weeks of sand in the gears.
I guess we can take some small amount of comfort in the fact that (at least until the BigLaw whiz kids refine their game a bit more) they'll be in custody in the meantime. Of course, that means custody and deportation rates will be tied to available detention capacity. I say bug, Le Resistance says feature!
LoB: you're deeply fixated on something profoundly stupid. Makes me wonder what right-wing agitprop web site is pushing this outrage-du-jour.
Pretty much, yes. They're within the range suggested by the parties. Someone has to be the person that weighs them and picks a number. That's ... the judge, and that's the end of it. Their job is to say "okay, between 24hrs and 30 days ... I'm making the call at 21 days. Moving on ..."
Based solely on experience and their professional judgment about the case, ideally. But perhaps right out of their posterior orifice! Maybe just "woke feels"! Or the color of the gov't attorney's tie! It's frackin' discretionary, and will be upheld unless it's so completely unreasonable that it's overturned under an extremely deferential "abuse of discretion" standard.
District court judges get to make this call. It's part of their job. That they do every day. That they will pretty much never get reversed on.
You're making a big deal out of something that even Josh Blackman hasn't whined about. That should tell you something.
Right. It's called making a judgment call, which is what judges do.
It's not even clear what LoB's actual whine is about. Is he contending that her choice is too long? (But if so, how did he decide that?) Is he saying that 21 days is fine but she should have somehow included some mathematical equations to derive that figure? Is he contending that there shouldn't be any set amount of time at all? (But as I noted a few minutes ago, how would that work? The government gives someone 1 day's notice, and then… what? If 1 day's notice isn't sufficient to obtain a lawyer and file a habeas petition, then it's also not sufficient to obtain a lawyer to file a motion to extend the time to file a habeas petition?)
I suspect that it's not actually the 21 days part (or 20, or 22). The problem sounds more like actual limits that can't be maliciously evaded then excused with a smirking "Oopsie! We did it again" from Karoline Leavitt.
No, we're happy that the judge did the right, necessary thing here. She gave people a chance to assert their rights, in the face of the bad faith efforts of this administration.
Hey, Mikie, when the news came out about the ICE bus trip and the government's lawyer stating they reserved the right to deport the migrants Saturday, undercutting your silly faith in them based argument, did you fall on your butt or your back? I imagine being a faithful toady of the Mad King you're very used to being undercut and was wondering what an experienced person does in that situation.
District court judges set deadlines every day. They do not write a scholarly treatise every time they decide between one side asking for 24 hours and the other side asking for 30 days. That's a mind-boggling stupid criticism of the court.
Especially where the gov't is requesting 24 hours, and less than a week ago an attempt to apply a 24hr notice period resulted in the Supreme frackin' Court having to issue an emergency ruling at 1am on Friday night/Saturday morning. So there's one obvious data point: the gov't request is ridonkuous.
I doubt the judge gave it more than 30 seconds of thought, and that it went something like this: "Let's see, between a plainly irrational request for 24 hours and 30 day ... hm, 30 days is a bit long. 21 days. Next question."
And that's perfectly reasonable. It's what district court judges do all the time. And failing to write a scholarly treatise is certainly not an appealable abuse of discretion.
She may indeed not have given it more than 30 seconds of thought, but that doesn't at all mean that's a reasonable approach for a decision that is effectively binding the hands of the executive for an arbitrary amount of time regardless of individual circumstances.
Aside from not even beginning to understand what "reasonable" means and how courts work, the notion that "individual circumstances" could play a role here are insane. You want the government to arbitrarily pick a different amount of notice for each detainee, and then have each one go to court to litigate over whether the notice was sufficient for that person (which would of course beg the question because if the notice wasn't enough time then they wouldn't be able to go to court to litigate that threshold issue)? That's nonsensical. JFC. Just admit that you don't know anything about the actual practice of law.
SCOTUS said that the notice needed to be reasonable and adequate to give them time to challenge the government's attempts to kidnap them. As an actual practicing lawyer for three decades, the judge would likely have a very good sense of what a reasonable amount of notice is. It's not dependent on a mathematical formula.
"SCOTUS said that the notice needed to be reasonable and adequate to give them time to challenge the government's attempts to kidnap them. As an actual practicing lawyer for three decades, the judge would likely have a very good sense of what a reasonable amount of notice is. It's not dependent on a mathematical formula."
The woeful kvetching here from dilettantes who have never attempted to persuade a judge or jury of a damn thing in their lives make the comment section of this blog a much less pleasant read.
You're still not getting it. The question isn't whether you are satisfied; it's whether the judge's decision is anything other than obviously whackadoodle wrong.
Show us that the judge's decision is clearly, obviously unreasonable. "I'm butthurt that the judge didn't agree with the gov't a few days after 24hrs notice was embarrassingly shot down in flames" doesn't cut it.
Jeez LoB, you're a glutton for punishment, eh?
Or a pedant too dunning-kruger to realize he's getting owned.
Nah, I'm actually enjoying watch the smug jeering pile up -- not because a judge is doing the right thing, or even a necessary thing, but because a judge came up with a way to push the envelope JUST far enough to throw some material stones in the road with the administration's deportation operations while (for now) remaining relatively insulated from challenge.
Just confirms what's actually going on here at bottom.
LoB - If smug self-congratulations on your own laughable ignorance of how Federal judges judge and how Federal courts work is where you're at ... well, I'm sure that's nice for you.
Let's give you a gold star participation trophy and move on.
Well, hopefully you've gotten that off your chest -- I'm sure after the past few weeks you really need to latch on to anything that even vaguely feels like a win.
The thought experiment is childishly simple. Had the judge chosen 2 days notice rather than 21, I'm exceptionally comfortable that you would not be solemnly stroking your chin and muttering about the supreme goodness of judicial discretion and would suddenly be interested in discussing the actual merits of her choice. But you like this, so you're larding it up. Free country and all, but no need to waste our time pretending otherwise.
ope failed to close blockquote, and too late to edit again. Please consider everything double-quoted as unquoted, and I apologize for any confusion.
Meh, I guess you haven't yet gotten it off your chest. As an old colleague of mine liked to say, if I had any feelings, they'd be hurt. Get your ass handed to you IRL today?
Shrug, I'm bored, and you proposed a thought experiment of two days notice. I agreed that 2 days would also be ridiculous - since 24-48hrs required unprecedented court action a mere week ago. You then ducked. Quack, m-fer, quack. But thanks for asking!
If you want to ever provide some basis for your proper value between 1-30 days in this case that you pull out of your posterior - providing, of course, a detailed multi-page analysis - and explain why the Federal judge is so obviously wrong to select 21 days that reversal is warranted ... oh who am I kidding, you're bitching into the wind.
Interestingly, not one of those many words were directed to denying my working diagnosis. Hope you have a better day today, and also hope (for your sake, not theirs) that there's an associate available for you to bark at for your legal briefing demands.
" Such notice must be written in a language the individual understands."
There are over 7,000 languages. Now the government must print documentation in all 7,000 languages or it violates due process!!
lmao "Admiral job".... The Aristocrats!
Au contraire. The proponent of removal must provide notice to each prospective in a language that he understands. Ascertaining what language(s) that is in the first instance is up to the authority seeking deportation. Determining whether that portion of the order has been complied with is subject to review in a habeas corpus judicial proceeding.
But I suspect that alphabet soup guy knows that and is just being silly.
So they have to be prepared to support every one of Earth's 7000+ languages.
Are you stupid or are you just acting like it?
"So they have to be prepared to support every one of Earth's 7000+ languages."
No. Only the languages spoken by detainees whom they propose to deport.
The court system routinely deals with non-English speakers and provides translators where needed. Immigration officials can do the same.
What if he's deaf/mute and a retard who can't read? (like a government school graduate)?
The fifth amendment.
If he doesn’t like that one, I believe you can use the 14th as well. Is that correct?
If he doesn’t like the Constitution itself, maybe he should go somewhere that doesn’t protect individual rights, like Russia.
The due process clause of the 14th only applies to states, though, and this is about the federal government. So the 5th is the more appropriate cite. (Though certainly caselaw about the 14th can illuminate the 5th.)
That you ignore most of my comment to quote two words out of context and thereby mischaracterize my argument is, sadly, entirely in character for you. I was pointing to the blatant hypocrisy you folks exhibit on this topic. No amount of whining "tu quoque" erases the hypocrisy or removes the double standard where court action that hampers Democrats is supposedly invalid for various reasons, while court action that hampers Republicans is supposedly overdetermined by numerous clauses in the Constitution. It only shows that you want rule of man rather than law.
Whataboutism as a life philosophy, MAGA!
You weren't talking about hypocricy in your OP about inventing regulations and procedures, and how due process hampers Republicans.
Which is what DMN was replying to.
So quit being full of shit.
“ court action that hampers Democrats is supposedly invalid for various reasons”
I must have missed that part. At worst, NG, DN, and the other posters who often cite precedent have said they believe something was wrongly decided. That isn’t at all the same thing as saying it’s invalid.
Do you think that the alien should be given time to get his affairs in order before being deported?
The gov’t argued that 24hr notice, only in English, with no mention of right to seek judicial relief, was sufficient.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, argued for 30 days and actually-effective notice.
Once the gov’t acknowledged that some notice is required, then they’re “just arguing about the price” as the old joke goes.
And the court found that a reasonable number closer to plaintiffs than the gov’t. No “invention” of regulations required; just practical implementation of directives from the Supreme Court.
But it surely didn’t help that the Colorado court could look at the example from a few days earlier in TX of the gov’t trying to put people on planes with 24-48 hours notice over Easter weekend, when they hoped courts would not respond fast enough (they were wrong). There’s no good-faith basis to assume that the gov’t wanted the notice to be effective notice.
Interestingly, she didn't try to take a nationwide bite on this one: it only applies to "Petitioners and the provisionally certified class they seek to represent, namely: 'All noncitizens in custody in the District of Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua and/or its implementation.'"
Yeah, I do think the ACLU and others should ask for the proposed class members to be nationwide, and district-wide in the alternative. Doesn’t hurt to ask, and would prevent the gov’t from playing Three Card Monte with prisoner locations.
Perhaps, but that 21-day judicially created delay isn't the law, NG.
Setting reasonable time frames for types of actions is what district courts do. It's a basic part of the job. And there's no "law" for 20 days or 22 days, either.
The decision on proper notice period at this stage of the case is - with a few centuries of precedent - well within the discretion of the district court. That's all there is to it. Expecting a scholarly treatise explaining why 21 days instead of 20 or 22 days is absomurfly bat sheet crazy.
The gov't made a manifestly unreasonable request - as evidence by the fact that their attempt to remove TX detainees on 24-48hrs notice just a few days ago resulted in the S.Ct. issuing a virtually unprecedented emergency order at 1am.
So you're the district court. Are you going to say "well, the gov't asked for 24hrs, plaintiffs asked for 30 days ... so 25 hours sounds 'reasonable' to me"?
FFS this is a stupid hill for y'all to die on.
And just three days ago you, C_XY, said:
Well, that sure didn't age well: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1007/356074/20250421045901596_AARP%20Supp.%20Appendix%20Reply%20pdfa.pdf
Whinging that 21 days "isn't the law" immediately after the gov't got stopped in the act after providing clearly insufficient notice (except for an extremely fast S.Ct. bench slap) is remarkably obtuse. The gov't acted in bad faith, and that's what happens. FAFO.
I remember when John Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of Commenter_XY to say what the law is." Or something like that.
Sick Leave Wins at Risk as States Mull Ballot Initiative Limits
Lawmakers in GOP-majority statehouses are looking to rein in the policymaking power unions and worker advocates have found via ballot initiatives, including through rollbacks of paid sick leave measures voters approved in November.
Missouri is the epicenter of this year’s effort, alongside Alaska and Nebraska which all have new sick leave laws that legislators are looking to repeal or revise.
One Missouri bill (HB 567) would repeal voter-backed paid sick time requirements that are slated to take effect May 1. Missouri lawmakers sent another bill (SB 22) to Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) giving state officials more power to write the initiative summaries that voters see on ballots.
Proposals from Florida to Montana have sought to tighten the rules around citizen-initiated ballot measures, which 26 states allow to varying degrees. Current endeavors are heightened, partly because of Republican lawmakers’ frustration with left-leaning advocates succeeding on recent policy ideas the lawmakers oppose—from abortion rights and Medicaid expansion to $15 minimum wages and paid sick time.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/sick-leave-wins-at-risk-as-states-mull-ballot-initiative-limits
Democracy, elections, citizens controlling government, etc., are awesome . . . until they aren't.
2020 called and wants it's "Big Steal" back.
I don't support democracy, and never have. Next?
Good lil’ fascist.
Democracy is a bad form of government if you allow low IQ men and women to vote.
I agree low IQ women such as yourself should not be allowed to vote.
“I love the poorly educated!”-Trump
"We manufacture the poorly educated!" - Government schools
This guy’s really bitter about how he thinks public schools made him so dumb.
I'm smart enough to understand the data.
Too bad they don't teach you that in China.
"I'm smart enough to understand the data."
Sure you are! As you've been told so much, you're "special" 🙂
In America, they have "gifted" programs. I don't know what they do in your bug culture. It's foreign and weird what y'all do.
I'm 100% American. Unlike your mother's lovers. Is that why you were in the "special" classes?
You're 100% American like General Trump's Tasty Chicken Nugs are 100% Chinese.
Interestingly, tasty nugs is how your mom refers to my balls.
"Sick time" is weird. You're either sick, or you're not. It doesn't make sense to have some kind of budget for how much you're allowed to be sick.
Have you ever supervised a large workforce? Unfortunately there are those who will abuse unlimited sick leave...
Then fire them for fraud.
The idea is to allow a generous amount of sick leaver on the assumption that not everyone will use all or most of it.
That way those who are sick have the time they need, but the company doesn't go broke because too many view sick leave as just a funny kind of vacation that requires a lie.
Unfortunately this often doesn't work very well because a lot of people do take the second view.
Then fire them for defrauding their employer.
And how would you do that, exactly? John, looking for a long weekend, calls in on Friday morning with some sort of claim of illness - stomach problems maybe.
Do you send someone to his house to check? How does the checker check? Sure, if it's later reported in the newspaper that John won the Friday golf tournament you've got him, but what if he's a poor golfer?
Eh, where I work they just take your word for it, because it's all coming out of one pool of hours anyway, so you've no incentive to lie.
In the US, "sick time" is really "paid sick time" rather than "unpaid sick time." Hourly workers especially fall prey to this. They often only get paid if they work so getting sick could mean financial hardship.
Also, some companies track various leave types as an account payable, which has other impacts on any mandated reporting and taxes.
I read my Mom's copy of "Fear of Flying" (Spoiler Alert, the title is misleading) in 1974, but I had to do it in private, like I did with my Dad's Penthouse magazines, but I've got a really crazy idea, why don't they teach kids proper Engrish (that's why mine is so bad, I was reading Erotic Novels in Engrish class) Math, Science, instead of books about transsexual puppies.
Frank
So, Frank, are you a desperately lonely psychotic inventing complex backstories to a group of online strangers or a semi-epsilon moron who, according to said backstory, has lived in the US beginning as a child for over fifty years and never learned to write English at a third grade level?
This is the kind of person MAGA attracts!
You got spunk in your ears?(stupid question, a holes a hole with you Queers)
Done tole you, done lost my job, how I sposed to get money to pay dis Rent? I’ll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don’t know
This poor, pathetic psychopath comes here on the reg with a made up backstory and when called on it says “why are you focused on me?”*
Or in Frankie talk:
why You(focused
on Me?(
Firing on all cylinders today, Malika? You look like the Black Knight. Your obsession with Frank Drackman leads you to render yourself as his road kill.
You might want to place your losses elsewhere.
I like to laugh at the village idiot. You like to defend him because you think he's on your side.
What country are you posting from?
Malika be talkin bout the back rent, she be lucky to get da front rent, she ain't gettin' none of it!
Malika: "You like to defend him because you think he's on your side."
By my view, the only side Frank Drackman appears to be on is Frank Drackman's side. (Even there, he quite regularly stands opposed.)
"Sides." That's a small box you live in.
Malika: "What country are you posting from?"
Gimme a hint. What's your *thing* there?
Shouldn't Judges Soto-major and Kagan recuse themselves from cases involving ed-jew-ma-cation of children, as neither has(have? had? see, I was too busy reading "Tropic of Cancer" instead of learning Grammar) any? Like the late great Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz said about Pope Paul VI's views on Abortion,
"He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules!"
(you don't want to know what he said about getting (the) Blacks to vote Rupubiclown)
but that's todays DemoKKKrats for you, for "Blacks Only" Dorms, Rights for Salvadoran Gang Members, and reading dirty books to your kids,
Frank
Now Frankie, I hope you were a good little Hasidim and celebrated Passover where god retroactively aborted every innocent, first-born child in Egypt
I prefer Purim, you culturally illiterate Putz
It is quite ironic that the most strident opponents of abortion rights claim to be serving God. If the Old Testament is believed, Yahweh is a major league baby killer.
He put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, causing the poor infant to suffer for a week before dying. The Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tenth Plague did not exempt the babies from the carnage.
Yahweh and his Chosen People were also huge fans of genocide, including the mass slaughter of infants and children. All quotations here are from the original Revised Standard Version.
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3 (emphasis added)
"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added)
"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21
"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34
"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6
"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40
I read these quotes with a John Cleese/Life of Brian voice.
Biggus Dickus
Is what apedad said true, Frankie? All that god-ordered baby killing? And what's with all the donkey killing? Donkeys never hurt any one!
The Bob Jones case is fascinating with respect to the current debate about Harvard.
For those who need a reminder, basically what happened is this. Bob Jones University (a private religious school) had a ban on interracial dating, that they said was due to their religious beliefs. This belief wasn't challenged. Instead the SCOTUS said that even if the religious belief is real. Instead the ruling was this. "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs."
That's fascinating. The first amendment rights of the University were outweighed by the Government's "fundamental overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education." Now, hypothetically if Bob Jones ended it's "official" ban on interracial dating, but used "unofficial" means to keep the ban in place, do you think that the government's interests in eradicating racial discrimination would be served?
How does this apply to the current day situation with Harvard?
Harvard has two problems. 1. Its use of racial discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action. 2. Its selective use of enforcement mechanisms to combat discrimination against some races and ethnicities far more heavily than discrimination against other races and ethnicities, creating a de facto system of unequal discrimination.
Now, the defenders of Harvard will argue that there's no "official" policy in place...it's simply unofficial policies. And they'll argue that Harvard has free speech rights that need to be defended. But then that comes up against the Bob Jones decision, where the government has a "fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education." So, how does the SCOTUS reconcile the two issues, if Harvard is to be defended.
1. Simply overturn Bob Jones completely?
2. Decide that only "official" actions that affect racial discrimination at an educational institution can result in removal of tax exempt status, and that "unofficial" policies that mimic the official policies don't count?
3. Decide that the Government no longer has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education?
4. Decide that a burden placed on an institution's religious beliefs in such a context is acceptable, but a burden placed on an institution's free speech rights is not, essentially demoting religious freedom to a secondary right?
Again..how does the SCOTUS mesh the two, if it is to defend Harvard?
Shouldn't the Hah-vud grads on the court have to "Ra-cuse Dem-Selves"????(HT J. Sessions)
That's because black worship is the one ideal in modern liberal America to which all others must yield.
blacks have been demoted in favor of MS-13 gangbangers.
That's their new religion. Coming soon parades and MS-13 pink washing. In 5 years, "MS-13" will be some sort of sainted group like NAACP or teachers unions.
blacks are still numero uno in terms of not being held accountable for their screwups.
Conservative populism, folks!
blacks are one below "White Democrat politicians & bureaucrats".
I saw a stack of ten-year pardons that says otherwise.
1. Harvard hasn't had it's nonprofit status pulled, so this is not fascinating or currently relevant.
2. You put out plenty of nonsupported nonsense about Harvard. But nothing that is happening *currently*
Like, you think Harvard still has affirmative action?
They had it when it was legal, and stopped when the Supreme Court said it's not legal anymore.
There is no ongoing policy like there was in Bob Jones.
A pretty simple but vital issue in your argument in service of authoritarian, anti-American spite.
2. Yes, Harvard still has de facto affirmative action. The statistics bear this out, especially when compared to schools which actually dropped affirmative action. Harvard simply substituted a more "enhanced" essay component to achieve a "diverse" student population.
Its minority (Black/Hispanic/Native American/Pacific Islander) enrollment percentage is unchanged from before the decision to after the decision. Unchanged....
The proportion of Black first-year students enrolled at Harvard this fall has declined to 14 percent from 18 percent last year,
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/harvard-affirmative-action-diversity-admissions.html#:~:text=The%20proportion%20of%20Black%20first,members%20of%20other%20minority%20groups.
Right in line with their percentage of the US population.
Jan 23, 2025The Black population of the United States is growing. In 2023, an estimated 48.3 million people self-identified as Black, making up 14.4% of the country's population. This marks a 33% increase since 2000, when there were 36.2 million Black people living in the U.S.
Armchair said unchanged. 18=/=14, ya goof.
Armchair said minority, and then specified the minorities. Not "just" African Americans.
if it was only the qualified Blacks it'd be more like .14% if that.
Frank Drackman, worried about black fetuses!
Also, either a sad psychotic or a moron by his own admission.
Conservative populism, folks!
Maybe if 60million + hadn't been aborted the % of Ed-jew-ma-cated Knee-Grows would be higher
Yes, Harvard still has de facto affirmative action.
If that's true, the administration can bring an action in court.
They won't. Because you and I know you're just spouting speculative bullshit.
"Its minority (Black/Hispanic/Native American/Pacific Islander) enrollment percentage is unchanged from before the decision to after the decision. Unchanged...."
From this we are to assume, what? That "Black/Hispanic/Native American/Pacific Islander" persons couldn't get into Harvard without some sort of assistance not provided to non "Black/Hispanic/Native American/Pacific Islander" prospects? That's a pretty shitty and racist take.
I'm pleased that Option 5 (official discrimination against whites and asians doesn't count as discrimination) is no longer on the table.
Trump is withholding funding (and wants to withdraw Harvard's tax exemption) for more than those two alleged problems. Namely, he wants to control Harvard's curriculum. Unlike in Bob Jones which consisted of an attack on conduct, that's a direct attack on speech and academic freedom.
So...that looks like you're going with Option 4. Religious freedom is an inferior right to freedom of speech.
Remember, Bob Jones was not just an attack on conduct. It was an attack on Religious conduct. Remember "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs."
Replace that last statement with "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their freedom of speech" and consider the differences here.
Is religious freedom REALLY so inferior to Freedom of speech in such a context? That the government's overriding interest in ending racial discrimination outweighs a University's religious freedom...but not its freedom of speech?
That's a hard argument.
So...that looks like you're going with Option 4. Religious freedom is an inferior right to freedom of speech.
I presume you mean fee exercise?
You just making up new law here and getting mad everyone else is going with the *actual* law?
It is inferior under either Smith (which requires only rational-basis review for laws that only incidentally burden religious belief), or the more forgiving form of "strict scrutiny" used in pre-Smith Free Exercise cases.
"It is inferior"
Interesting view. Same amendment. But one class of rights is "inferior" to a different class. I must have missed that part.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" ..."But the freedom of speech is a superior right to that of free exercise of religion"...
It's the view of SCOTUS (and Volokh).
The text doesn't help because both "freedom of speech" and "free exercise of religion" are ambiguous. Most directly, does "free of exercise of religion" cover disobeying a neutral and generally applicable law? Not according to SCOTUS. The analog to "freedom of speech" would be a law which is targeted at conduct but incidentally burdens speech. But as a practical matter, that means free exercise gets less protection than freedom of speech.
No right is unfettered. You can't use freedom of speech or freedom of religion to justify making death threats against someone.
But the argument that goes "well, freedom of religion is inferior...you can't make death threats based on that, even if your religion says you need to...but freedom of speech is superior, so death threats based on freedom of speech is fine".
That makes no sense at all.
The SCOTUS has said a few times before that certain "items" were inferior to others..., despite the Constitution. It hasn't worked out well in the past.
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.
True threats are not protected for either religion or speech.
“ So...that looks like you're going with Option 4. Religious freedom is an inferior right to freedom of speech.”
That’s a false dichotomy. They are never in direct competition, leaving only one or the other standing in a fundamental-rights Thunderdome.
But the right of religion to be projected out, affecting others, should always be restrained. You can be whatever religion you want. You can’t force anyone else to accept a negative consequence of your religious choice unless they have specifically chosen it for themselves. As the old saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. And your religion is the fist in this case.
Religious people have this weird belief that their religious rights are superior to everyone else’s.
Religion doesn’t create a superior class of people. As long as your religion doesn’t impact anyone else, have at it. The minute it impacts anyone else, it is neutralized by the exact same right that’s possessed by the other person.
But if religious practice inherently impacts someone else’s fundamental rights, it should always be neutralized. Equal and opposite forces. Religious people (especially evangelical religious people) think that anything that makes them slightly uncomfortable about someone else’s behavior should be supreme. It shouldn’t.
The problem for Harvard is Title 6; they're toast b/c they violated the civil rights of Jewish students. That is why they're losing contracts.
Pretty sure you just made that up.
It's not what the administration is saying. nor does it justify the demands the administration is making.
You're a bootlicker using protecting Jews as increasingly tattered cover even the administration has abandoned.
That is precisely what SecEd McMahon is saying = Harvard is in trouble for title 6 issues.
The letter sent to Harvard by HHS, DOE and GSA goes far beyond what could be considered Title VI violations (and doesn't mention Title VI).
However, I am looking forward to "SecEd McMahon" announcing "Heeeeeeere's Johnny!"
U of M has changed their DEI programs to be about the DEI I keep getting told is a lie to cover anti-white racism:
“In the months ahead, the university will increase investments in student-facing programs.
These investments include:
-Expanding financial aid: As previously announced, the Go Blue Guarantee has been expanded to benefit all families with an income of $125,000 or less. Other ways to further reduce the cost of attendance will be explored.
-Enhancing mental health support: Mental health resources will be increased to better support all students.
-Expanding the Blavin Scholars Program [The Blavin Scholars Program and Scholarship is designed to promote success for University of Michigan students who were formerly in foster care]: Given its exceptional impact, a plan will be developed to expand this program to serve even more students.
-Strengthening academic success: U-M will explore ways to enhance student success through improved advising, counseling and pre-professional guidance, as well as continue investing in innovative approaches, such as 24/7 AI tutors and a personal AI assistant for every member of the community.
-Fostering community and belonging: U-M will seek opportunities to expand student life programs that strengthen community, promote a sense of belonging and expand accessibility.
-Preserving key student spaces: The university remains committed to maintaining vital student spaces, including the Trotter Multicultural Center, the Spectrum Center and various multicultural spaces in residence halls, all of which are open to all students.
-Celebrating cultural and ethnic programs: Cultural and ethnic events that enrich our campus and foster a vibrant, inclusive environment will continue to be supported."
This is great - it's basically DEI updated with insights gained over the past 50 years, especially the past decade.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/u-m-announces-important-changes-to-dei-programs/
I'm not sure how you can assert that DEI wasn't about discrimination, and at the same time tout that U of M is changing their programs to no longer be discriminatory, including shutting down DEI offices.
Looks like they've essentially admitting it was a fair cop, and they'll stop doing it.
It's Schrodingers Racism.
More like motte and bailey racism.
Do you have an issue with U of M's new funding plan?
You continue to be unable to understand what DEI is.
Practioners do not seem to understand what DEI is either.
You ever spoken to a practitioner? Because I do on a regular basis.
It's actually pretty different than what rightwingragefeed.com insists they're saying!
The problem is not really failure to understand, but that "DEI" refers to lots of different things, and people choose the definition that best suits their agenda at a given moment. As I posted last week, it could include, inter alia:
1) Actual racial preferences/quotas — virtually always illegal.
2) Outreach policies and programs — generally legal, though the devil is in the details.
3) Diversity training — generally pointless, but generally legal.
I'd put it more as DEI can encompass a lot of different things.
It has a concrete definition, it's just broad in it's potential approaches.
The Michigan proposal really hits all the latest hot ideas DEI I've heard about.
I'm sure in 10 years some will be old and busted, but for now this is cutting edge stuff.
Favoring people based on race is discrimination. I don't know how much simpler this needs to be explained to you people.
Definition games aside, what do you think of U of M's policy as I outlined in the OP?
$125,000 isn’t that much, especially if you’re trying to send a kid to Hah-vud, in the 90’s U Mass Med Screw-el was harder to get into because 1: it was a lot cheaper 2: doesn’t really matter where your MD is from and 3: Noon Conference didn’t look like the Noon Prayer in Qom (that’s in Iran)
More shenanagins and injustice out of Wisconsin....the "change the date" line item veto ploy.
So, line item vetoes have a purpose...but not to rewrite the law entirely. In Wisconsin, the budget passed kept a funding increase until the 2024-25 school year. But Gov. Evers did something "clever". He struck the "20" and the "-"...so now the funding increase is until 2425.
This is just an absurd abuse of power. But Wisconsin's Supreme Court just upheld it...on a partisan 4-3 vote.
Things like this break our trust in the law.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/22/expensive-wi-supreme-court-seat-already-paying-off-for-wealthy-leftist-donors/
You know that joke that always ends in "The Aristrocrats"?
This is just that, but with "The Democrats"
Did you bother to check the WI veto language in its constitution?
And there's precedent:
Wis. Senate v. Thompson, 144 Wis. 2d 429, 424 N.W.2d 385 (1988).
I'm pretty functionalist, but this formalist take has been locked in for decades.
Rule of law can be a bitch, eh?
So are paybacks
Frank “ a bowl of cold Revenge please”
This is payback. This type of thing has gone on for years with each side using the veto when they have the Governorship.
An abuse of the law is still an abuse. The intent of the law was clear, that a new sentence or word couldn't be formed. It's implied that one also shouldn't be able to create a new, larger number by eliminating single digits.
It's exploitative to do it otherwise.
Look at Sarcastr0 thinking it's perfectly normal for a governor to take a 1 year budget item and transform it to a 400 year budget item.
Nothing new created!
The Democrats!
If he was really smart he’d claim to be Dyslexic and make it until 5252
That's what the text says, that's what the precedent from 50 years ago says, and they never changed the constitution.
I'm all for functionalist ant intentionalism arguments! They are foreclosed here by a quite directive text, and a longstanding precedent. And no amount of empty foot stomping will change that.
I've got no dog in this fight, except that fidelity to the law means fidelity when it's stupid as well.
I doubt you understand that; never seen a post from you that wasn't outcome oriented.
"and they never changed the constitution."
What part of "They amended it twice since then" do you not comprehend?
How is the mere fact of amendment relevant, if the amendments are not on point to this action?
Imagine that argument in court.
They are fairly on point, and "They never changed the Constitution in 50 years" when citing language that was adopted by amendment during those 50 years is simply wrong.
Sorry, I thought it went without saying I meant hadn't changed the Constitution *in relevant part*.
Silly man.
In fact, the Wisconsin constitution has been amended multiple times to roll back abuses of the veto power while still retaining a line item veto, and the response has always been to find new and more inventive abuses.
For instance, the 1988 ruling you cited resulted in an amendment stating that “the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters." Then in 2008 they amended it to prohibit “creating a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences.”
A governor approaching this with the intent of not being abusive, would have treated the 1990 amendment as covering numbers, too.
This latest abuse has kicked off another amendment drive, which may just end with the partial veto being entirely taken away, as state Governors just can't be trusted to be remotely reasonable in its use, and the judiciary aren't inclined to force them to be.
So much for textualism. So much for formalism. Your objection is hypocritical in the extreme.
I've said over and over again that to explicitly try and write a law to encompass every exception is to invite failure.
That's why you leave terms open. Why you don't exhaustively define stuff like invasion and emergency.
You've rejected that argument. Tried to engineer it all. Well, this is what you get. Your argument to reject it is to ignore precedent and wank about unintended implications of the text?!
Do you see the hypocricy in YOU making that argument?
No, I'm saying you're literally citing a court ruling in defense of this that the people of Wisconsin went out of their way to override by amending their constitution.
The case stands not for the particular functional upshot, but for the general proposition of a formalist reading of the text. Given it's detailed nature, I can't really argue with that take.
If WI wanted to adopt much less prescriptive language, they could have. They didn't, and they left the latest loophole in.
Again, I'm no formalist. But I don't see any way out of this formalist analyst from the court.
And, separately, you really have become utterly unprincipled and purely outcome-oriented. Your analysis here would prevent all the emergency and invasion shenanigans you claim to be legit.
It's easy to say the governor gets line item veto power in appropriation bills but only used in a nice way, and really impossible to write that in such a way that everyone agrees that all and only nice uses of the power are included. The power was granted in Wisconsin as a reform to prevent the legislature from including a mass of unrelated stuff in its appropriations; the biennial budget bill in Wisconsin contains a huge amount of what the legislature passes, so an alternate of not allowing the legislature to combine unrelated subjects in a single piece of legislation would be unworkable.
Any restriction based on grammatical units is going to suffer from either legislative or gubernatorial trickery. "Only strike complete sentences" could mean a future legislature would pass an entire budget consisting of one immense sentence. The constitutional amendments reined in specific tricks - the "Vanna White veto" where the governor constructed new words out of letters left in from multiple words, and the "Frankenstein veto" where parts of separate sentences were stitched together. The most restrained amendment to address the most recent trick would forbid increasing numbers by combining two numbers; but reducing a number from 350,000 to 250,000 was previously upheld without much controversy (on the argument that a larger number includes all smaller numbers).
Any restriction based on grammatical units is going to suffer from either legislative or gubernatorial trickery.
Agreed. Amazing they still went with the 'be directive and try and imagine every loophole' but they quite clearly did.
Were I in charge of an amendment to address this loophole, I wouldn't just say 'and now messing about with numbers' I'd rewrite entirely to say something like 'Appropriation bills may be approved in their entirety or on a program-by-program basis.'
Not super clear, but leaves plenty of discretion for courts to declare shenanigans.
But it's kind of futile to leave discretion for courts to declare shenanigans, when, as here, they don't WANT to.
You don't know anything about the WI Supreme Court. But here you are telepathically finding bad faith.
What a joke.
Here are your choices if you want to use the legislative process to get something sustainable and lasting done:
1. Say what you want as best you can.
Have an institution of professionals and experts that includes layers of review, rules incentivize independence, and is insulated from political pressures.
Trust them to handle the edge cases.
2. Trust no one, do it all yourself
Write a very prescriptive and lengthy explanation of what you want, trying to include all edge cases and exceptions.
Fail. Whine about it.
Wisconsin's Govenor has one of the most, if not the most, powerful line-item veto in the country. While the state Constitution has been amended a number of times, no one has ever tried to eliminate or truly rein in the veto power. Why may you ask? Because each party wants the power when their guy is Governor. This case isn't something new, it merely a continuation of the power struggle between Wisconsin's Governor and Legislature and it has been going on most of my adult life.
That's news to me. So the silliness isn't just bad drafting and crap attempts to correct it - it's each side thinking they can game the janky system so they keep the system janky?
So you don't like partisan, anti-democratic shenanigans coming out of Wisconsin, eh?
[deleted]
Pete Hic’ Hegseth would like you to join a Signal discussion! Topics: war plans and merit based hiring!
What's funnier than watching you clowns regurgitate these manufactured political hit jobs?
Watching them fail because no one gives a shit about these fake moral panics anymore.
lol eat a bag of dicks you CIA traitors
Magnus isn’t upset by drunken incompetence, he’s had a lifetime of it being around his dad!
At least my Dad was around... unlike you and 80% of the blacks.
I was around your house a lot. Remember the happy noises from your mom’s bedroom?
That shit got Queenie banned.
Was it? Were you the complainer?
It would be interesting if teasing someone who made blatantly racist comments got the teaser banned. Mustn’t be uncivil to individuals, but entire groups, go nuts!
Stating a fact is not racist.
Another Fact, Black Men don't have larger Cocks than White Men (OK, the Asian Stereotype is true) and I should know, I've seen alot of Men's Cocks. OK, you get the occasional Long Dong Silver, but you've got as many Milton Berles/John Holmes
Wow, that came out wrong, I'm a Doctor! and yes I'm a Gas Passer, but we do see Cocks, and I've even put in a few Foleys to help out the Sturgeons, and I used to work a 1/2 day in a "Free" Clinic where I'd see the occasional Cock, and used to do "Camp Physicals" at Sin O Gogue' for the famblies too cheap to go to their fambily doc.
Frank
Stop it or Malika will be cumming all over the thread.
Malika just subscribed to your substack.
"Black Men don't have larger Cocks than White Men (OK, the Asian Stereotype is true) and I should know, I've seen alot of Men's Cocks."
Not the place to discuss your oral habits.
Do again, Frank. Malika's just about there.
Hegseth seems to be like a kid showing off his new glock to all his friends
And you know how that turns out sometimes...
...and in other news:
Crazy Eddie (Sam Antar) is on a mission from God to reveal "Lucretia" James forty year history of mortgage fraud.
It’s interesting that the MAGAns here recite that García is a gang member and therefore not deserving of due process when they seemed all about due process when their Mad King was convicted of dozens of felonies.
Wilhot’s law.
Well, gang members generally commit REAL felonies, not novel hyper-attenuated indirect felonies.
I live in terror of my neighbor listing payment for an NDA as a legal expense, doesn't everybody? [/sarc]
But, of course Garcia was deserving of due process. Due process would have resulted in his deportation anyway, you know. Just not to El Salvador.
What " novel hyper-attenuated indirect felonies"?
Is that even a thing?
"What " novel hyper-attenuated indirect felonies"?"
Trump's lawyer obtained an NDA from a prostitute, to keep her from blabbing about his infidelity with her. (OK, "Escort", but really just a high end prostitute.) Said lawyer then billed the Trump organization for obtaining it, and Trump's accountant listed it as a legal expense.
Under NY law, this was at most a misdemeanor, if you really wanted to claim that paying for an NDA wasn't a legal expense, which is kind of silly. A misdemeanor well past the statute of limitations.
A NY prosecutor then construed the payment to be a federal campaign finance offense, though the feds didn't so construe it, and precedent is against that interpretation. Having done so, he claimed that the bookkeeping entry was an effort to conceal a crime, which elevated it to a felony that wasn't subject to that statute of limitations.
So, never done before, hence "novel".
Dependent on an uncharged federal crime, hence "indirect".
Claiming listing paying for an NDA as a legal expense isn't accurate, hence "hyper-attenuated".
But, of course Garcia was deserving of due process.
I hear the paradox of tolerance means this is wrong.
I hear you're an idiot, but I think you're just obsessive.
Oh that's right, you think the only process needed is a moment to produce your papers. Nothing about addressing unsupported allegations of gang membership!
After all, "be radically tolerant as to those who are already insiders, but...exclude the intolerant."
Or his two deportation hearings.
Don't forget about Garcia's two deportation hearings he had.
Also, he had two deportation hearings, in case you missed it.
One deportation hearing, then an appeal which he lost. So again, Garcia had two deportation hearings where he had his chance.
Did you know Garcia had two deportation hearings already?
Not one. But two. He had two deportation hearings.
Edit:
Just for the record, Garcia had two deportation hearings already. Not one, but two actual hearings before a actual Article 2 judges. Catch that? A hearing, and an appeal. Garcia got both of them. Can you believe? He got two deportation hearings.
Does Magnus not know how to cite (like he doesn't know what an actual naked girl in real life looks like)?
I remember you.
You bought into the whole narrative of pEcEfUl PrOtEsToRs being kidnapped and taken away in uNmArKeD vAnS.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/20/whats-happening-in-portland/?comments=true#comments
---
We should realize that the FBI has done this.
What matters, according to the body of law over arrests and apprehensions, is if there was probable cause. Whgat the arresting officers were wearing, what the vehicle used to transport the arrested person looks like, has no bearing.
Surely we do not expect them to continue to detain Pettibone even if they came to the conclusion he had not committed any crime.
Federal agents have the authority to arrest persons for federal crimes anywhere in the U.S.A..
Again, we have a body of law determining the propriety of arrests and apprehensions.
----
In response, all you can mumble is about how the Constitution has minimums, not maximums.
You simped for violent rioters.
I said this: "The Constitution sets a minimum, not a maximum from what we should expect as the land of the free."
I'm not seeing your issue.
How many times do you have to be told.
He already had deportation hearings. Two of them.
Most people know this, but then again, you're a bug so you're not even "people".
An infinite number.
Even sarcasmic admits that Abrego Garcia received due process, just not enough ( despite what Congress said).
I'm not sure what process you think I admit he got, but the big thing is this:
"due process, just not enough" is an oxymoron.
And. Yet. No. Cite.
You were provided a cite but ignored it and moved a goal post. This is why us Patriots hate your kind.
Oh, yeah. A virulent racist who doesn’t like orders by judges and thinks the Executive doesn’t have to abide by the other two branches just screams, “Patriot”.
I know you are angry because we don’t like in the Jim Crow South, but try to be less transparently full of shit.
Your beliefs haven’t constituted Patriotism since the 1960s.
Sometimes it's best to just block the manic troll. He's admitted he posts in bad faith.
Oooh, you're out to earn more Good Boy Points!
Praise him! He's a Good Boy!
No cite?
"Wilhot’s law."
Crooked Timber comment! So, you are Sarcasto's alt name.
This 2012 Psychology Today article, from before Mr. Trump came on the political scene, identified 50 characteristic traits of a dangerous cult leader.
Can you identify a single one that Mr. Trump doesn’t have?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders?amp
I am going to propose, for your serious consideration, the idea that Mr. Trump should be best understood as a cult leader and his effect on others best understood as a cult effect.
While both Europe and Asia have had political cult leaders whose cults hace consisted of political ideologies, this has not happened in the United States before on any scale. In the United States, cult leaders have focused on religion as their niche, and while there have been many, their cults have been much smaller in scale. Doubtless cultural differences have been responsible.
Mr. Trump is the first manifestation in the US of a distinctly political cult. While Mr. Trump is claiming to be protecting distinctly American values, his cult, as a cultural phenomenon, is actually a foreign import.
Because cults have been so associated with religion in the United States, his cult hasn’t been noticed or treated as such.
Isn't part of being in a cult that you don't know you're in a cult? Our mask-hating hillbillies here shouldn't be able to profit from your article.
Pretty close to 50 out of 50.
I'm not so sure about:
9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub-adults as part of a ritual or rite.
Unless something else comes to light, by both trial and admission, Trump prefers digitally raping non-cult members
Counter-point: Laura Loomer. The rumors were in her brief stint in the 'inner circle' on his last campaign... her job was blowing Trump. But because she is so inherently toxic, the other inner circle couldn't stand her presence. So they convinced Trump to kick her out.
Then she started talking shit about the other inner circle members.
Its really a case study in something...gross. But ya know. Leader of the free world has to set the example for the children. Cheat on your 3rd wife kids! But be so ridiculous in everything else you do that this somehow doesn't matter. Just like with Stormy. His cheating on Melania wasn't the story. (is that just a given?) It was stormy allegedly lying about his tiny mushroom and violating the NDA that was important.
Continuing a discussion with David from Monday's thread:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/21/monday-open-thread-102/?comments=true#comment-11016179
When you gave me items, those items are now mine to do with as I want, including storing in the shed.
The transaction for the shed is separate from the transaction where I received items (that are now mine to do with as I see fit, including to put in the shed). No amount of dissembling can turn them into the same transaction.
It's my shed. You're putting your things in there. I'm putting my things in there. That doesn't turn my things into your things even if you're helping to pay for the shed.
Hey, it's your analogy you doofus.
No. I didn't give you items; I gave you items to hold on my behalf.
Your statement in the hypothetical is in direct conflict with known facts. The US didn't send Garcia to El Salvador so he could be held on our behalf as is alleged for Venezuelans under the AEA. He was sent back permanently under the INA.
To go back to the hypothetical:
1. You are paying me to hold onto some of your things.
2. You also gave me other things that are now mine to deal with as I see fit.
3. Even if I store them in the same shed, the items in #2 are not your items in #1.
And, as it turns out, Garcia isn't even being held in CECOT anymore, so:
4. I moved my stuff to another shed away from your stuff in the first shed.
You are assuming your conclusion. We're paying a lump sum to ES to do, basically, whatever Trump wants them to do for us. What is your basis for claiming that holding Abrego Garcia for us is not part of that?
You're asserting that the terms of the payments allow for it.
Prove it. Don't assume it.
There's more evidence of Garcia's affiliation with MS-13 than there is evidence that the money being sent to El Salvador is being used to keep him there.
Given that he hadn't lived in El Salvador in 14 years, leaving when he was about 15 years old, and had never been convicted of any crimes there, why would they immediately lock him up when he got there… unless we told them to?
That's an inference, not proof. There's a rebuttal you're neglecting to account for, however:
A US immigration court judge and an immigration appeals court found that he was a MS-13 member by our own legal standards, includes at least some level of proof. Garcia also (reportedly) has gang tattoos.
Garcia was sent to El Salvador, where gang membership in MS-13 and gang tattoos lands you in jail immediately. The El Salvadoran government doesn't need our permission to lock him up; by their own laws he's already a criminal just by virtue of his membership.
I don't know what you think the word "proof" means in this context. Other than a confession from Trump or Bukele, all we have, all we can have, is inferences from the available evidence. Another piece of evidence is that Trump has refused to actually disclose the agreement between him and Bukele, including in this litigation.
Incorrect. As I described in my loooonnnng comment of 7 hours ago, there was no such finding. Not even once, let alone twice.
There are no such reports — just a doctored photo by Trump, which of course postdates his kidnapping and so can't be the basis for it.
So, you got nothing. No policy, no document, no whistleblower account of a seeekrit deal between the US and El Salvador, just a vague sense of "Trump is bad, therefore evidence of it is self-evident."
As I'm sure you've heard in your profession:
If you step outside and the ground is wet, the sky is cloudy, and people are carrying wet umbrellas, it's acceptable to infer that it was just raining.
However, you're reaching a conclusion not only in the absence of any evidence that supports it, but it's also contrary to the evidence that we do have.
There's a phrase for that: a conspiracy theory.
"That's an inference, not proof."
Inferences based on evidence (or the absence of evidence) are proof, tylertusta. Consider this pattern criminal jury instruction used by courts in the Sixth Circuit:
https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/sites/ca6/files/pattern_criminal_jury_full-24.pdf
Meanwhile, inferences not based on evidence are not proof.
The reported terms of the deal make it clear that we are only paying for TdA members:
EL SALVADOR, March 15 (Reuters) - The United States is set to pay El Salvador $6 million to imprison 300 alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang that it deports to the Central American country, for one year, the Associated Press reported on Saturday, citing an internal memo.
"El Salvador confirms it will house these individuals for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on their long term disposition," AP quoted a memo from El Salvador's Foreign Ministry as saying."
There is the cite, so unless you can show some other source, its clear you are the one assuming the conclusion.
You: "TdA members"
Your quote: "alleged members"
Couldn't find something better to try to nitpick about, eh?
Well since nobody is alleging Garcia is TdA, it still rules out that the administration is paying El Salvador to incarcerate Garcia.
It does not, since at no point did anyone (including Trump or Bukele) say that El Salvador's service to Trump was limited to imprisoning TdA members.
I guess that doesn't count?
Correct, it does not. Note the word "specific," which would be gratuitous if your interpretation were valid. On the other hand, it's entirely consistent with the claim that there's no specific "$10,000 for Abrego Garcia" line item in the agreement.
Well, that's one way of pretending that words mean something other than what they say.
I really hope your arguments in court are more coherent.
I dont get this.
why would Abrego Garcia seek asylum in the U.S.?
I mean, America is the only country where children are killed in school shootings between rival juvenal gangs.
America is the only country where children die because their parents can't afford health care.
why seek asylum here?
would not Abrego Garcia be safer in El Salvador?
El Salvador should be granting asylum to Americans!
It's funny you think this is cute. Do you think American liberals see El Salvador as a utopia?
Follow up, who dresses you every day?
Brett, re: America vs. Europe: "We treat aliens badly, (For some value of "badly", anyway.) they treat citizens badly. You don't think that's a relevant difference?"
Beyond the blatant outgroup abuse it endorses, this ignores the treatment of American citizens who work in the federal government, at universities, are students at universities, work at law firms, work at science journals, or who work at broadcast networks.
We have a mad king with an administration eagerly persecuting anyone who displeases him.
We have in an impressively short amount of time discarded any standing to lecture Europe about their protection of liberty versus our own.
Oh, Vance will still do it; he'll just look like a huge and ridiculous hypocrite.
Firing wasteful and bloated bureaucrats is exactly the same as arresting people for tweeting government criticism!
Sincerely,
Not a Bloated and Wasteful Useless Bureaucrat Who Undermines Democracy
I make no apology at all for distinguishing between citizens and aliens. None. Governments are simply not similarly situated with regards to the two.
Somin gets a lot of mockery over his open borders obsessions, and even he doesn't pretend that citizens and aliens are legally interchangeable.
You're not just distinguishing of course, that's quite the strawman.
You're saying it's cool to treat one group "badly."
And over the past month you've made it clear that this means as in no due process, no free speech, living in constant fear of secret visa revocation, government kidnappings, etc. etc.
But you missed my bigger point about US citizen speech being curtailed, for groups considered outgroups by MAGA.
Snicker. Apparently, your view of the world is that, once we get someone like Mahmoud Khalil in our midst, we have to keep him unless he commits some crime. No. This guy is a horrendous person.
Let's do a thought experiment--let's say some student wanted to go to class wearing pro-Israel gear. Think that would have been a peaceful trip to class?
I hope Khalil enjoys wherever the heck he winds up.
You think people wearing pro-Israeli gear should be deported?
Jew hater.
Huh? I am talking about a hypothetical--Columbia student decides to go to class (or just walk around campus) wearing a t-shirt with the blue and white design of the Israeli flag. The mob would have attacked him.
You're using a hypothetical as a load-bearing factual assertion.
That's not gonna fly.
But even if it did, your causality doesn't work.
And even if it did, you're still well within protected speech.
I wouldn't get tea with this dude, but that doesn't mean I don't think he has a right to free speech.
You are a lot more narrow in the freedoms you support.
Don't apologize. The US treats illegal aliens far better than the rest of the world. Try being an illegal alien in India, or China, or Iraq.
POTUS Trump was elected, in part, b/c of his immigration policy. Illegal aliens do not belong in this country. Period.
Illegal aliens do not belong in this country. Period.
Not part of the Volk, right?
Not withstanding your snark, yes, illegal aliens do not belong in this country.
This is just the Christian Nationalist version of ordo amoris.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/23/pope-francis-jd-vance-meeting
He's a wife-beater, and we don't want him.
Alleged wife beaters don't get due process?
He has been deemed deportable. They just sent him to the wrong place. Judge Xinis can keep fulminating. She's actually keeping him locked up. Bukele isn't incented to let him go since she will order him back here. He probably could push him across the border into Guatemala. However, we can't trust that Xinis wouldn't order him back anyway. An order which, were I the President, would get completely ignored.
"just"...
That's OK then.
It's like a court finding someone guilty of tax evasion, and then the government "just" giving him the wrong penalty by accidentally executing him. Oopsie...
Also, it's not as simple as "just sent him to the wrong place" anyway. It's not like there was one plane heading to El Salvador and one heading to Nicaragua, and they accidentally put him on Plane A instead of Plane B. Doing the latter would also be illegal. If they find another place willing to accept him, they can't just chain him up, blindfold him, shove him on a plane, and then ship him there. They have to give him notice of their proposal, so that he has the opportunity to object to that other place if necessary. (Maybe he'd be subject to persecution or torture in that third country; he has the right to litigate that.)
No one is surprised what level or probity rloquitur requires.
This is such a huge scandal:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/04/feeding-our-fraud-ellisons-elisions.php
Keith Ellison is one of the most horrendous people in politics, and the competition is fierce.
Want to know why the DC Circuit is especially shitty and corrupt?
https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/23/dc-courts-are-such-a-mess-because-leftist-judges-not-potus-pick-their-colleagues/
>But starting in 1973 (and slightly before), with the advent of D.C.’s “Home Rule,” Congress radically altered not only the structure and jurisdiction of the district’s courts but also the method by which their judges were selected. Congress ostensibly enacted these “reforms” to give local leaders a greater say in who sat on D.C.’s newly created courts and to make the process “nonpartisan” and “apolitical.”
DC judges aren't appointed by the president, but by shitty DC swamp rats and other judges.
That's why they're such pieces of shit. Just like every other DC lifer. Garbage humans.
Says guy who licks boots of federal officials.
That would be the "Science is Real" crowd . . . .
Yeah, science is a thing. "The Science" is just a cudgel.
Never forget they actually tattoo'd Pfizer love messages on themselves because God-king Fauci praised Pfizer.
When you lick the boots of your favorite federal officials, do you spit or swallow?
I don't dip. LOL.
Your high school science class doesn't place you as knowledgeable.
Why do we have racemization in SN2 reactions?
Because of the Metric System???
Um, not to call you stupid, but you're stupid. That procedure is about local judges, not about federal Article III judges. The DC Circuit is the latter, and they are in fact appointed by the president.
And in fact, local judges of the District of Columbia still must receive Senate confirmation.
By the way, Khalil's brief is due today regarding withholding of removal. It will be interesting to see if he uses Zadvydas v. Davis to get parole or release.
I don't why they wouldn't at least make the argument.
I am hopeful they will. That case, along with Plyler v. Doe, needs to go.
With you, cruelty is the point. You especially seem turned on by cruelty to children.
With Khalil, Judeocide advocacy is the point. It is why he is leaving.
Zadvydas says that if there's no prospect of deporting him, he's entitled to release after 6 months. Since none of the predicate facts apply here, I don't know why or how you think he would "use" Zadvydas.
Today the European Commission issued the first fines under the Digital Markets Act. Despite earlier comments that the point of the exercise was compliance, not punishment, the amounts are still chunky. (Though less than recent antitrust fines.)
Apple got a €500mln fine for not allowing "app developers distributing their apps via Apple's App Store (...) to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases."
Meta got a €200mln fine for implementing a "consent or pay" model without giving "users the required specific choice to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads' service."
At the same time some new investigations were announced and existing investigations discontinued. Lmk if you care.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085
This analysis from MLex that just came out will amuse some people here:
My take? Apple and Meta didn't donate millions to Donald Trump for nothing. These kinds of cases were exactly what they had in mind, and they will want to see a return on their investment.
The purpose of politicians (not politics) is to get in the way until paid to get back out of the way.
Historical system working as intended, by them. The joke is thinking the EU is the noble one here.
If that's really what you think I feel sad for you.
They paid Trump to be seen with him at the inauguration. New ask? New payment!
They paid Trump repeatedly in the last year, and if he thinks his end of the deal was a photo op, he's in for a big surprise.
So far all we have is a statement from "a White House spokesperson". Everyone knows that's worthless unless Trump himself says the same thing on Truth Social. But for the record:
If this is Trump's final proposal for the Russia-Ukraine war, it's a victory for Putin.
It's a victory for the ethnic Russians who were being ethnic cleansed and genocided by the Norm Eisen's and Victoria Nuland's of the world.
An insidious lie.
Given his record so far, I would say "final" proposal might be more accurate.
We were told "Liberation Day" was absolute and final. But within days it all fell apart in a chaotic mix of wild-eyed panic, bunglefest flailing, and embarrassment once their "formula" was exposed as something written by a grade-school child in crayon.
Putin gets rewarded for the invasion, and pays no price. Ukraine is given only vague promises that what Putin will be annexing will be limited to what he has currently.
Matt 25:29
So you're saying it's his final solution?
And? Let's be realistic.
Ukraine is losing. They've been losing for the last two years. Any gains they made in Russia have been eliminated. Their 2023 counter-offensive was a bust. The front lines have moved 40 km in the wrong direction. Ukraine's not going to take that land back militarily with what they have. And there's not going to be a change that allows them to.
The US isn't going to commit troops. Europe isn't going to commit troops. Both the US and Europe have been half-assing the military supplies for years...providing 10 tanks when Ukraine needs 1000 tanks. Providing 10% of the heavy ammunition Ukraine really needs. And I see no change happening there.
So, yes, this deal sucks. But it's better than the alternative. Which is fighting for another year, having the front lines pushed another 40 km in the wrong direction, having thousands to tens of thousands more people die, and then getting the same deal...just with more Ukranian territory lost. Or worse, Ukraine just completely collapsing and losing all its freedom.
You want to turn this deal down? Convince us there's an alternative that better. Convince us something will "change". Go on more than just hopes and prayers. Tell us something...or say you'd just prefer for Ukraine to completely collapse.
You were rooting for this shit for ages. Quit with the 'so tragic' angle.
Ukraine should accept this defeat rather than a worse defeat (that might not happen)? Even if that were so, Trump should be blaming Putin and himself, not Ukraine.
"(that might not happen)?"
As I mentioned...give me a reason it won't. Convince us something will change. What's your logic? Other than keep doing the same thing....
"Trump should be blaming Putin and himself, not Ukraine.
Trump wasn't President for the last 3 years of this invasion, dragging his feet.
There are two reasons the worse death won't happen:
1) It's a stalemate right now with current levels of Western support. That could remain without this deal.
2) Assuming Russia goes on to win without a deal, they could just as easily win with a deal by rearming an invading later (in that case the worse death happens no matter what).
This deal is a joke. It requires major concessions from Ukraine for almost nothing from Russia. Hopefully, the EU and UK again come to stop the madness.
1) It is not a stalemate. As pointed out, Ukraine is losing. Those battlelines keep going backwards.
2) That's true of any peace treaty. But, more importantly, it also gives Ukraine a chance to rearm properly, with full defense obligations from Europe. And gives Putin an opportunity to stop the war.
No, it's a stalemate. "They're moving backwards a few miles a year" is not "losing."
Ukraine's losing. Every major battle since the end of 2022...they've lost. Bakhmut...lost. Avdiivka...lost. Ocheretyne...lost. Chasiv Yar...lost. Toretsk...lost. Kurakhove....lost. Vuhledar...lost.
These have been hard fought battles...but Ukraine's lost every one ultimately.
Pretending it isn't so doesn't serve anyone.
Neither does repeating Russian propaganda.
You've been echoing this RT line for like 3 years now. That's not how losing works.
Or good faith.
No, there aren't full defense obligations from Europe in the deal (it's all ambiguous shit). And, that's likely not enough.
Making the same terrible argument over and over again, thinking it will convince us: what's your logic in doing so?
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right and Russia is eventually going to defeat Ukraine. What about this proposal does anything at all to prevent that? What about it puts Ukraine in a better spot than it's in now? If there were U.S. security guarantees/NATO membership for Ukraine, that would be one thing. But this actually rules those things out; it provides Ukraine with zero.
"What about this proposal does anything at all to prevent that? "
1. Peace stops the war.
2. Peace gives Ukraine time to rebuild
3. Peace gives Ukraine time to rearm
4. Peace saves the lives of tens of thousands
5. Peace may actually stop future advances by Russia. "Knowing" a new offensive would cost Russia a 100,000 more deaths...makes it less likely in the future. And gives a reasonable solution now.
This absolutist "we can't give up the war ever" concept would mean that, for example the Korean war couldn't ever end (Yes, I know, technically it's just a cease fire).
Remember... Ukraine's not going to take back the land it lost, unless something dramatic changes (like the US entering the war..which it won't). And Putin's not going to give the land back.
You didn't answer my question; you just repeated your false premise that Ukraine can't win. What about this proposal does anything to put Ukraine in a better position vis-à-vis Russia than it is now?
What about this proposal is "peace," rather than just a temporary ceasefire to allow Russia to rebuild and rearm without the crippling sanctions currently on the country? Right now Ukraine is getting heavily armed by the west (minus the Putin lackey in the Oval Office) and Russia has to scrounge for money to buy stuff from Iran. This proposal does nothing to strengthen Ukraine, but strengthens Russia immensely.
Armchair and his ilk do this playing with the timeline thing, where they use the fact that Trump's fucked things for Ukraine as the reason why Trump is justified to fuck things for Ukraine.
You and Sarcastr0 and David and Professor Post have been completely wrong for three years re: UKR.
Why are you suddenly right?
That's one interpretation. Another is that you've been wrong about Ukraine for three years, confidently proclaiming their defeat multiple times.
No, it's worse than the alternative. Hell, Ukraine would do better by negotiating directly with Russia; at least then it would only have to make concessions to Russia, whereas this proposal actually involves Russia and the U.S. carving up Ukraine.
This deal is worse than Ukraine being completely annexed by Russia?
Interesting view there Comrade Neirporent.
Russia does not have the ability to "completely annex" Ukraine, not unless Trump assists his master Putin.
"Russia does not have the ability to "completely annex" Ukraine, "
Of course it does. It's done it before. It can do it again. It doesn't need US help to do so.
The Wall St. Journal:
"The Trump rout is taking on historic dimensions. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed almost 1,000 points on Monday and is headed for its worst April performance since 1932, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The S&P 500’s performance since Inauguration Day is now the worst for any president up to this point in data going back to 1928, according to Bespoke Investment Group.
Worries about trade restrictions and the prospect of President Trump firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell have investors bracing for greater losses ahead. Corporate earnings reports are rolling in, along with executives’ tariff-dented outlooks for the months ahead. Few think the administration’s negotiations with trade partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain.
Meanwhile, counterweights that usually strengthen when stocks fall—such as government bonds and the U.S. dollar—are also under pressure, leaving investors with few havens to wait out the storm.
“It’s the hallmark of the ‘no confidence’ trade,” said Scott Ladner, chief investment officer at Horizon Investments. The Charlotte-based firm trimmed its U.S. equity position several weeks ago to favor more international stocks. “It’s impossible to commit capital to an economy that is unstable and unknowable because of policy structure.”
By "because of policy structure" he means "because we have a weak, unstable and immature idiot as President".
Shed almost 1,000 points on Monday . . . and has gained over 2,000 points since then.
Stock market isn't the most important thing and obsessing over its daily fluctuations is dumb. But most importantly, the WSJ is a joke. They are die hard globalists, scum.
WSJ Editorial Board’s Work to Undermine Donald Trump Has Persisted for a Decade
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2025/03/27/wsj-editorial-boards-work-to-undermine-donald-trump-has-persisted-for-a-decade/
The reactions of the markets (stocks, bonds, currencies) is what is causing Trump to cave. And then, he puts his foot back into the anti-globalist waters, and the markets tell him the waters are shark infested. So, he caves again.
Yes, that is the pattern.
Even if somehow it ends up a net gain, the volatility by itself is bad for everyone.
It's almost as if...if you had the power to manipulate the stock markets, could you and your pals make a killing?
Volatility is opportunity for folks who have access to info to predict the swings.
So... Trump and his pals? If he's the one creating the swings, he can certainly take advantage of them.
What market reaction? The 60/40 investor with some international doesn't notice much of anything, maybe -3% for the year. That is just a bad day on Wall Street.
If by reaction, you actually mean volatility, different convo. I would argue long term investors need volatility to make it for 30+ years.
It was all down until Trump caved. He was especially spooked by the bond markets.
And gold was going for record prices... which put a dent into his Whitehouse-cum-Kremlin palace remodel.
That blaze of gilt looks tawdry and tasteless, absent the right selection of paintings for context. Intersperse the objets d'lucre with contextually-appropriate paintings depicting scenes of piety, and everything would settle back in balance. Trump should get Putin to ship him crates full of Russian icons.
That is factually untrue. Int'l index funds were up, and remained up. If you have a broad-based int'l index fund, you're up 6% YTD.
Try harder with the market-based psychoanalysis. You have a future in becoming a CFA spouting the financial porn.
How much international, XY?
The domestic market, which is after all the one Trump has the most effect on is down substantially. The Schwab 1000 fund has dropped more than 9% since Trump took office.
The market is up today.
Wonder if that had anything to do with Trump apparently backing off his trade war with China? What do you think, XY.
Permit me to direct a bank-shot comment to XY, whom I have of course muted.
By whimsical on-tariff/off-tariff gyrations, Trump sets himself (and the nation) up for a commercial catastrophe. Why would any retailer take a chance to import and stock tariff-paid goods, while there remains a threat to be suddenly undercut by a decrease or abandonment of the tariff?
By what means might an alert retailer try to hedge against that threat? Maybe by trying to replace as many imported goods as possible with domestic alternatives, driving prices for those to unsupportable high levels—which would likewise collapse if the tariff were removed.
Tariff policy is ill-suited to transactional-style art-of-the-deal negotiations. Few commercially-relevant policies are comparably vulnerable to unsteady management.
As a daily reader of the WSJ, I find the description "work[ing] to undermine Donald Trump" to be pretty laughable. Sometimes their op-eds agree with his goals, and sometimes they disagree. That sounds more healthy for readers than either of the All Trump Touches is Right and Good or Trump is the Anti-Christ and Hitler Wrapped in One approach that most newspapers have taken for the last decade.
Fair perspective, but a few thoughts. First, the article I linked gives quite an entertaining history of the overall disposition of the WSJ editorial board toward Trump. They have been decidedly against him at every pivotal turn, and begrudgingly tolerant at best at other times. Second, they are steadfastly opposed to core elements of the Trump realignment/movement and campaign promises: first and foremost, they are staunchly pro-open borders, and secondly pro "free trade" in the particular sense of allowing extremely unequal playing fields and advantage to foreign industry, selling out America and obliterating domestic manufacturing and the working class.
and secondly pro "free trade" in the particular sense of allowing extremely unequal playing fields and advantage to foreign industry, selling out America and obliterating domestic manufacturing and the working class.
This is utter uninformed, ignorant horseshit.
I know that's not a particularly useful refutation, but this has been discussed endlessly here without making the slightest dent, so I think you can take it as, "go back and try to learn something before you repeat MAGA idiocies.
Someone's forgotten that the WSJ is owned by Murdoch who also owns the "Trump is God" FOX News corp.
"The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed almost 1,000 points on Monday and is headed for its worst April performance since 1932"
I mean, this is just silly. April 1932 saw a roughly 18% drop, as of the Monday close the S&P500 was down half that. And Monday's drop has been completely erased. At the moment, for April, the S&P500 is down 3.5%. Not great but not great-depression level either.
(Don't mistake me, Trump's trade war sucks. But this sort of breathless commentary gets tiresome.)
Tend to agree. This is second hand of the clock stuff.
Y'all want to see something awesome?
https://x.com/NetanelCrispe/status/1914922140987494785
Look at those people standing up to the Jews! About time.
Where's Baruch Goldstein when you need him?
Heard some "Talking Head" on PMS-NBC talk about how Pope Francis would be "Looking down" at all of the fuss over his death.
Borrowing from 45/47,
"Maybe he's looking up"
Even if he did make it through the Pearly Gates, I hope Sinead O'Connor tears up his stupid photo.
and why the "Francis"?? his name was Jorge Mario Bergoglio, why not "Pope Jorge"??
I mean besides it sounds like the guy who does my Landscaping.
Frank
During my memory we have had a Pope John, a Pope Paul, two Pope John Pauls and a pope whose given name was Jorge, the Spanish equivalent to George. Am I the only one hoping for a Pope Ringo?
You forgot Benedict.
not guilty : "Am I the only one hoping for a Pope Ringo?"
I'm more a Robert Zimmerman fan myself & Pope Dylan has a nice ring to it. I've also NEVER been known for good timing, but last week watched The Conclave.
I also saw the new Soderbergh film, Black Bag, and it was great. He reminds me a bit of Hitchcock, continually churning out top-notch filmmaking, whether the movies are considered "serious" cinema or not. At least he got his Oscar. Five nominations for Best Director, and Hitchcock never once received the award.
As for Black Bag, it benefits from a great performance by Michael Fassbender, playing a slightly obsessive-compulsive spy passionately devoted to his wife, Cate Blanchett playing a slightly reckless spy passionately devoted to her husband, and great cast of secondary characters as suspects in this spy-mystery.
Francis is the same root word as Frank. You shouldn't mock the name.
Dammit, you're the only one who picked up on that, no life?
As an atheist I would say that Francis's consciousness likely ended with his life. He is neither looking up nor down. I respect the good work he did while he was here and suspect that this is the part that will really live after him.
His Corpse would supply enough calories to sustain a Somali fambily for a week, where are they?
This is the grave of Joshua Bowen Smith.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/04/erik-visits-an-american-grave-part-1870
Prof. Erik Loomis has reached 1870 posts (rather impressive) in his series of "Erik Visits an American Grave" and then writes a mini biography of the person buried there.
He also has a "day in labor history" series.
Thanks! (I assume the Prof. is retired and has time to travel -- sounds like something I would want to do when I get to that point.)
No, he only sounds like an old man. He does this in his spare time.
That's really cool. Thank you for share.
Repeatedly throughout these comments you see Trump's bootlickers frantically insisting Garcia is MS-13, knowing there's almost zero credible evidence to support the charge. If you want a gauge on how little proof there is, just look to the White House. Lacking real evidence against the man, they're fabricating fake proof.
Trump posted a picture of himself holding a photo purported to be Garcia's hand. This was the text:
"This is the hand of the man that the Democrats feel should be brought back to the United States, because he is such ‘a fine and innocent person,’" Trump’s post says. "They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles."
And, sure enough, letters spelling out MS-13 run across his knuckles. But those letters are completely fake. PolitiFact:
"The figures M, S, 1 and 3 and the words below the symbols don’t appear in other photographs of Abrego Garcia’s hand, including the one taken by Salvadoran government officials (and shared on X by El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele) when Abrego Garcia met with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on April 17. We asked the White House whether "MS-13" is tattooed on Abrego Garcia’s hand or whether the photo had been altered, perhaps to show that each of the pictorial tattoos represented one of those letters or numbers. The White House did not respond to our inquiry."
Know what's really sad? Google this ugly farce, and half the entries are from the international press. People overseas are amazed the President of the United States would try to frame someone with a crudely doctored photo. That kind of sleazy criminality fascinates and appalls them. Here? It's just another day ending in "Y". Everyone knows every other word from Trump is lying. There's only space in the papers for every fourth Trump ethical transgression.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/22/abrego-garcia-finger-tattoos-trump/
Woah, Politifact weighed in! They even gave themselves a Pulitzer!! They're so respected and trusted!
That's some serious fact-checking. Did you alert Justice Roberts? He might have a few more midnight laws he needs to write!
""The figures M, S, 1 and 3 and the words below the symbols don’t appear in other photographs of Abrego Garcia’s hand, "
No shit, Sherlock. The figures M, S, 1 and 3, and the words below are intended as translations of the tatooed symbols. You'd have to be a moron to think the caption on a photo was part the thing photographed.
But that's par for the course for Politifact 'fact checking'.
Well, you sure did make up an explanation based on what you thought the facts were. Here are the actual facts in the link:
"The photograph shows a left hand with four tattoos, one on each finger — a marijuana leaf, a smiley face with the letter X for eyes, a cross and a skull.
The hand also displays, in a printed font, M, S, 1 and 3 above these tattoos. The words for the symbols also appear below each one in a small typeface.
"This is the hand of the man that the Democrats feel should be brought back to the United States, because he is such ‘a fine and innocent person,’" Trump’s post says. "They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles.
The figures M, S, 1 and 3 and the words below the symbols don’t appear in other photographs of Abrego Garcia’s hand, including the one taken by Salvadoran government officials"
Nothing about captions. The White House doctored a fake picture and lied to the American People.
Two Points (to demolish Brett's transparent weaseling):
1. There was ZERO indication in Trump's post that the letters photoshopped on Garcia's knuckles were added as a "translation". That was never mentioned. Instead, (as I quoted) Trump said "he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles".
Kinda hard for a non-zombie Cultist to believe it was necessary to put phony letters across the picture in just the right spot to appear as real tattoos to make that point. Normal people just see an attempt to scam the dupes. You (of course) follow behind to abase yourself with more cleanup duty.
2. And there's ZERO evidence any MS-13 gangster ever used the "secret code" your phony "translation" is supposed to expose. That has never happened. Not even once. No documented instances. Absolutely no occurrences. So even though you twist yourself into rubbery knots to excuse the photoshopped photo, even your lame excuse leaves Trump faking evidence to frame Garcia.
Sarc, grb:
I'd urge you to be a bit gentler with Brett. He just effectively accused Riva of being a "moron" for believing that Abrego Garcia literally had MS-13 on his knuckles. (As Trump intended his base to believe.)
Apparently Brett's retained some vestiges of self-respect and isn't willing to drink the Kool-Aid straight. A Kool-Aid cocktail or punch, perhaps, and too much of it, but he's got some limits.
To be fair to Brett, the photoshopped letters were clearly designed to scam viewers taking a casual look (or the deeply stupid). That why they were placed where they were. That's why Trump said what he said. It was all predicated on three assumptions:
1. People would look at Trump's True Social post and see what Riva saw, MS-13 tattooed across Garcia's knuckles (just as Trump said!).
2. Some people would obviously see thru this crude con, but what of it? Trump doesn't care when his lying is exposed; he just lies more. He assumed (correctly) he could hustle his dupish followers with a faked picture and there'd be no consequences. He assumed (correctly) his cleanup crew of cult slaves would trail behind him making excuses. He assumed (correctly) people like Brett wouldn't care he used fake evidence to frame a man.
3. And as I note above, even Brett's Kool-Aid excuse doesn't cut it. Because a "translation" needs a language to translate from, and there's no single occurrence where the tattoos on Garcia's hands form any kind of secret code that spells out letters. There's no evidence of the gang EVER using symbols to spell out letters.
So Brett's excuse why those letters "had" to be photoshopped on AG's hands? It's as phony as the doctored picture.
Here's Trump's photo
Sourced from his wife.
I thought it was pretty damned obviously a caption, at least the letters and numbers above the tattoo. The saturation is completely different, they don't follow the skin contour. It just jumps out at you that these are not features on his hand.
Now, the text *below* the tattoos, that could mislead you, though a close look makes it obvious they aren't part of a tattoo. Somebody was, perhaps, being a little too cute there. But I don't see how anybody mistakes the letters and numbers above the tattoo as anything but a caption.
1. "Somebody was, perhaps, being a little too cute there." Manfully conceded, Sir!
2. "Caption" of what? Why put a "caption" there? You claim above it was a "translation". OK: Translation from what? Because there's not a single instance of MS-13 using symbols to stand for letters. And exposing that lie makes a lie of your excuse the letters and numbers had to be located just-so to match corresponding symbols.
So your excuse makes zero sense. Don't get me wrong, Brett, it's a very clever excuse, however fact-free. It's just totally fraudulent. Why not try the theory "somebody was, perhaps, being a little too cute there"......
For that matter, why not take a break the next time Trump does something so sleazy and contemptible as you fake evidence to try and frame a man? Why not rush out with these lame excuses every other ethical calamity?
I don't put any faith at all in so-called "gang experts," but still, I wanted to see if they had said anything on the topic. If you Google, you can find stuff all over the Internet where they're making all sorts of claims about the symbology and profiles and habits of gang membership. But there was not a single link I could find via Google from before the Abrego Garcia story hit the news claiming that any of those symbols meant what the MAGA crowd claims it means, let alone that the combination of them represented MS-13 membership.
That's why Trump had to doctor the photo — because nobody looking at it would otherwise think "Oh, yeah, that clearly says MS-13."
The disinformation is running thick today. You should be grateful President Trump doesn't practice the same vile authoritarian censorship methods employed by the corrupt Biden regime.
1. Brett provides us with a blowup of Trump's photo, knowing in the typical viewing size (see link below) it's easy to see the letters as tattoos - which is why they're placed where they are & why Trump said what he did ("he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles").
2. Brett's got no explanation for why Trump said what he did. How could he? The answer is too obvious. But he takes a stab at explaining the letter/number location by claiming they're a "translation". So you have to go beyond all the internet back&forth on "typical gangster tattoos" and find someone who says the MS-13 has a secret language where symbols translate into letters.
And that's a much more limited and precise claim. And no gang expert I've read says it's true. In fact, they say the exact opposite: There are no previous examples of it ever happening and the practice would be against typical MS-13 behavior. But - hey - if Garcia can be a high-ranking MS-13 official in Long Island while living in Maryland, maybe he's also blazing new trails in High Gang Iconology.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kilmar-abrego-garcia-hand-b2735920.html
I also went to the trouble of providing a blow up of Garcia's hand that didn't come from Trump, and showed the tattoos minus the captions.
I found it trivially obvious that they were not part of the tattoos. Maybe others are less quick to spot details like that.
Congrats for your perception skills. I (for one) have been climbing the stairs to my office for almost fourteen years and still fail the Sherlock Holmes test of knowing the number of treads & risers. But the real question is whether Trump doctored a photo to con viewers with fake evidence of Garcia's guilt? Did he then say, "he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles" in furtherance of that aim?
The answer to both questions is clearly yes. As I noted above, the real surprise isn't that Trump would do something so contemptible. Nor the half-assed nature of the con. This is a man who has spent years lying about a stolen election without ever bothering to come up with a consistent story from one huckster speech to the next. This is a man who changed the direction of a hurricane with a sharpie. This is a man who almost destroyed the world economy with a formula written by a child in crayon. Trump is lazy, grotesquely stupid, and has a toddler's attention span. He is almost always focused on the most immediate hustle or scam.
The real surprise is how little U.S. attention this latest skeezy act got. The international press, yes. People overseas were amazed to see a U.S. president do something so gross and loathsome. But here? We've got a tanking economy, a Pentagon in chaos, Trump's cabinet in shrieking shambles, and the criminal-in-chief logging a new ethical transgression every other day. Here people barely noticed.
"The real surprise is how little U.S. attention this latest skeezy act got. "
“Well, they can call it whatever they want,” Reid said. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
Are you under the impression that being this skeezy is unusual in American politics?
I'm not going to compliment Trump on his honesty, but neither am I going to pretend that he's earth shatteringly less honest than his predecessors. I guess I don't find him shocking in that regard because I haven't been turning a blind eye to how dishonest previous Presidents were.
Brett joins the crowd of anecdotal punch left shitposters.
Brett, the fact that Reid's dirty trick made headlines shows it was not the norm.
Selective moral nihilism like you're doing is not a defense, it's just lowering yourself not to care.
So noted. You suck. The rest of us are going to continue not choosing suckage.
I'm kind of familiar with your habit of dismissing any proof something is hardly unprecedented as a meaningless anecdote. Doesn't impress me.
You are using the tu quoque fallacy to 'prove' Trump's lie is OK.
Awful job.
"Trump's lie is OK" ≠ "Trump is hardly unusual in lying".
I'd never claim that Trump is a good man on any absolute scale. He's not. Like any man, he has his good points and his bad points, and his bad points are pretty impressively bad by normal standards.
Less shocking by politician standards, of course. But I'd gladly reject him in a moment if I had a better alternative available. I TRIED to reject him during the primaries, but I got out-voted! In the general election I didn't have that better alternative.
You know, Sarcastr0, you're forever misusing logical fallacies, and this is no exception.
Tu Quoque
But I'm not saying Trump isn't a liar. Ergo I'm not saying that Trump isn't a liar because of something about you, specifically, or your political group.
I'm saying that, for a President, Trump being a liar isn't unusual. For a President, Trump being a law breaker isn't unusual. But what I'm not denying is that he lies and breaks laws.
You're forever screwing up tu quoque and ad hominem, in this exact way.
And the reason you're doing this is because you hate things being put in context.
Sarcastr0: "Your shit stinks!"
Me: "Well, duh. So does yours. That's what shit does, you know."
Sarcastr0: "Tu quoque!"
I'm saying that, for a President, Trump being a liar isn't unusual. For a President, Trump being a law breaker isn't unusual. But what I'm not denying is that he lies and breaks laws.
Which is wildly inaccurate. Trump lies consistently, continuously, blatantly, about anything and everything, if it suits his purpose. It's an overwhelming avalanche of bullshit.
You try to make light of it because other politicians sometimes lie, but that's ridiculous. Quantity matters.
Riiight. Super-ultra Hitler appears again.
Obama bombed weddings, had dozens of people extra-judicially killed, including US citizens. Has Trump done that yet?
Reagan illegally trafficked arms to Iran, in contravention (Yes, that was a pun.) of an explicit statutory ban. Has Trump done that yet?
Clinton had the White House staff collecting and destroying evidence in legal proceedings, and suborning perjury on his behalf. Has Trump done that yet? (Note the "yet", the term is young...)
Don't believe your lying eyes. Just because there are photos of the illegal shaking hands with a scum bag Democrat and prominently displaying MS-13 tattoos on his knuckles does not mean the illegal has MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles. It's obviously just....wait a sec...my mistake, that is an MS-13 tattoo on his knuckles.
I've had suspicions for several weeks now.
Fess up: you're a never-Trumper doing an elaborate months-long parody. Constantly incrementing the level, keeping it just within the ever-expanding bounds of plausible.
It was the "lying eyes" and "shaking hands with a scum bag Democrat" part that was just too much to be true.
You do understand that everything I referenced is unquestionably true, don’t you little man?
Tell us again how you are not a reflexive defender of Trump or a cultist.
Your comment is just pathetic. I guess cult members never quite understand that that's what they are.
He did the same thing to Hurricane Dorian with a sharpie!
grb, if you want to hitch your wagon to the wife beating, illegal alien gangbanger, feel free. Why, there is strong support among the American electorate to allow wife beating, illegal alien gangbangers to come and stay in America.
By all means, continue to prostrate yourself at the Altar of Abrego. It is surely a winning formula for 11/26!
If the American people are willing to look past Trump's sexual assault and fraud, I'm not sure why you're so confident that they would mind Garcia's alleged crimes. Unless you're implying that the American people only mind crime if it's committed by brown people. But that can't be right, surely?
The DemoKKKrats are missing out with their Alfredo Garcia obsession,
"Willie Horton" is still in jail in Maryland (lot of Criminals in Maryland apparently)
Yes "That" Willie Horton, for you Millennials, Google that Shit
In jail for what? raping a White Woman? what do they think this is, the 1950's? White Women will get raped by Black Guys and like it!!!
Seriously, Senator Van Holland should go see Willie Horton in jail, maybe drink a Colt 45 and smoke a blunt, talk about all the white women they've raped
Frank
In the Kilman Armando Abrego Garcia matter, District Judge Paula Xinis yesterday issued an order to compel discovery, with a deadline of 6:00 p.m. today for the Defendants to comply with some aspects thereof.
Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2)(A)(vii) authorizes a district court to treat a party's failure to obey a court order to provide discovery as contempt. I wonder how long it will be until some defendants in Maryland are jailed for civil contempt.
As Justice Gorsuch wrote in another context, "If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them." Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S.Ct. 1474, 1486 (2021).
"how long it will be until some defendants in Maryland are jailed "
Keep hope alive!
NG, I think I'd like to see that; Judge Xinis jailing members of the Trump administration. My motivation is rather different than yours, I suspect. 😉
She's being abusive, and that's a horrible look. "Judge, to be 100% candid with you, my client thinks that you are abusing your authority. For the world to see, President Bukele made it clear that he is not going to return the wife-beater to America. We asked, he said no, and we're not going to try to change his mind, as we don't have to, and you have no power to order us to. This makes the discovery requests abusive and vexatious."
We didn't ask. We told him to say he wouldn't so we could facetiously claim what you say.
Bringing us up-to-date, Bret Stephens in the NYT:
"When the president completed his extraordinary political comeback in November, he was at the summit of his political power. He has eroded it every day since. With Matt Gaetz as his first choice for attorney general. With the needlessly bruising confirmation fights over the absurd choices of Hegseth, Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. With making an enemy of Canada. With JD Vance’s grotesque outreach to the German far right. With the Oval Office abuse of Volodymyr Zelensky. With the helter-skelter tariff regime. With threats of conquest that antagonize historic allies for no plausible benefit. With dubious arrests and lawless deportations that can make heroes of unsympathetic individuals. And now with threats to the basic economic order that sent gold soaring to a record high of $3,500 an ounce and the Dow on track to its worst April since the late Hoover administration."
He also notes that the more reckless Trump is, the more he forces his minions to abase themselves to defend him. You see that lack of self-respect throughout these comments from his zombie cultists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/opinion/trump-hegseth-powell.html
Woah, the NY Times is criticizing Trump? That's totally super serious guys. It's over!
"Abase themselves to defend him."
The wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration, was forced to move to a safe house with her children after the government posted their home address to social media.
The headline speaks of a DHS "slip-up" though that is perhaps overly generous.
https://newrepublic.com/post/194289/abrego-garcia-wife-hiding-dhs-address
This reminds me (somewhat) of Christine Blasey Ford being required to leave her home with her family and hide out for months on account of the harassment she received. She discussed it in her autobiography. The situation there is different in some ways.
Both cases do show the multiple aftershocks of events.
Someone should be fired over that. Like seriously. No place for that. None. Period. Full stop. She has a kid for pete's sake.
So why are some comments missing the "reply" button? As example, Super Scary's above...
At some point, a comment thread is stopped & no more replies are allowed. An unlimited comment thread would get unwieldy.
I am taking about in an active comment thread. Super Scary posted a comment a couple hours ago, the comments above and below allow replies but not his...
(Not that I want to reply to his comment, but it's odd that it's not an option.)
I only see a few comments from the poster here, and the only one with no reply available is at the end of a subthread.
If this was the comment:
"You asked for a cite about deportation hearings. You were given one. Move those goalposts a little less, huh?"
It's because he's 9 reply level in. This is Joe's point as well. It's a limit written into the software.
What you can do is reply to the post Super Scary replied to and your reply with drop below Super Scary's.
.
The website's discussion software limits the "nesting depth" of comments to ten levels. Once there, to add a comment, you reply to the parent comment and your comment gets appended at level 10. At that level, it can be helpful for you to include the name of the commenter to whom you are replying (if relevant).
Its always been that way, but it does seem a little arbitrary, that you can only beat a dead horse 10 times.
Well played, sir, well played.
Of course you're always free to start over which is a regular feature of the comments.
Do you get a prize at level 11?
If only there was a level 11, Jmaie could have had the last word.
Even at level 1, it can be unfeasible to reply to you, Frank. The "Reply" button effectively becomes an invitation to chew on oneself. (See efforts of Malika the Almathea, for example.)
I've been in the Video Games Black Hole, 1993-1995 all I remember is trying to beat par on Torrey Pines on Links 386
"It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."
Justice Kagan Enters the Debate on the National Injunction
Samuel Bray | 9.14.2022 6:58 PM
Um, I guess that statement is no longer operative.
Precedence, laws, fairness, justice, and the Constitution come second to Saving Democracy From Fascism.
This is why we hate you and the 'rat party:
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/04/23/heartbreak-and-anger-as-ca-set-to-release-illegal-immigrant-convicted-of-killing-teens-in-dui-crash-n2188195
One of the major differences in thinking style between conservatives and liberals is that the former are influenced and argue from specific cases, while the latter are influenced and argue from general statistics. Specific cases make better stories, general statistics are better representations of reality.
There are general reasons why we despise you as well. The fact is that the people responsible for this outrage are truly evil and worthy of hatred.
There are general reasons why we despise you as well
I am sure cockroaches and termites despise SC Johnson.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the general statistics of black violent crime?
Or the tremendous growth in LGBTQMS-13 identification among the youth?
Like how African-Amuricans kill other races at more than twice the frequency other races kill them?
Want to reduce Black on Black/White/Yellow/Brown murder? Kill more African-Amuricans (legally of course, i.e. Capital Punishment or Life Sentences)
Frank
No. This is a pretty weak excuse for you to hate what you have already decided to hate.
You have agency. Hating Democrats is a decision you made. These anecdotes you post from redstate are just validating your existing desire.
Plenty on the left make the same decision re: MAGA.
You are both making bad emotional decisions.
Sarcastr0 : "...to hate what you have already decided to hate."
Someone with more patience than me should go thru the last three or four general comment threads. In them I swear rloquitur has produced at least a dozen separate reasons why he "hates" normal people. It seems his hate has a thousand mothers - with every one a harlotry strumpet.
Because you're racist?
you're a Race-ist! Double Infinity!!!! no Double Stamps!
No one could possibly expect Representative James Comer (R-Ky.) to stop being a clownish buffoon just because of the new administration. I ran into a story about him, the Environmental Protection Integration Program (REPI), and The Nature Conservancy in the National Review.
So here's the deal : The REPI works with land conservation groups to preserve areas around military bases with easements. The Nature Conservancy is a conservation group, founded and headquartered in the United States. Several of the people in the NR comments were helpful about it, explaining how the group works with hunters, fishermen, hikers, and politicians of all parties to preserve recreational & wildlife habitats.
So what's the problem? The Nature Conservancy is now an international organization, including offices in China. Per Comer, that means this ultra-American organization - beloved by hunters and wildlife enthusiasts - is actually a Chinese front. Therefore REPI agreements with the group during the Biden years are evidence of "corruption".
Of course that's as ludicrous as any of the other drivel Comer produced for his dimwitted and gullible followers. It's very illustrative to compare the criminality & sleaze that oozes from every Trump pore with all the comical attempts to find something (anything!) unethical by Joe Biden. They were at it years before the '20 election. They were at it continually during his presidency. They're at it still. And garbage like this is all ever find.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/comer-investigates-biden-era-sale-of-land-near-military-bases-to-ccp-linked-groups/
So let me get this straight. If your outfit has a branch in China (for arguments sake lets say this organization is Tesla) that would make the head of Tesla a presumptive manchurian candidate? My eyes are open! I'm gonna take back all the bad things I said about the policy arm of Q-Anon
Isn't this an example of someone trying to "flood the zone" ineptly?
The Biden administration's ""Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism" just got declassified.
I only scanned it but some parts are very bad from a libertarian perspective, although not surprising: going after assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and ghost guns (4.1.1a), roping in private industry to do policing (2.2.1b), targetting "iconography, symbology, and phraseology" (3.1.2b), pushing vaguely defined "new legislative authorities" for police (3.2.1a).
The proper response is to call out and oppose those who promoted this, and to be more vigilant against it in the future. Unfortunately the actual response will be much opposiite, along the lines of "Biden attacked ordinary people's civil liberties, therefore Trump gets to attack them too!"
Tons of shade to Biden on this.
Has there been anything like a 'Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism' that wasn't a horrorshow for civil liberties?
Not that I know of. But it is nice to see you admit the Biden administration was a civil liberties horror show. On multiple fronts.
Now be fair, Brett, and say something about Trump and civil liberties
I don't expect Trump to be great on civil liberties, (Especially if you're not a citizen!) but he's been abused enough by the surveillance ecosystem that I expect he won't exactly be their cheer leader, either. Nor they his.
Such civil liberties violations as will be happening will doubtless be pointed in a direction less congenial to the left; If your idea of freedom of speech is being able to get government money for saying what you want, and not what the government wants, he's going to suck. The government is going to be a lot more interested in people organizing riots, firebombing pro-life centers and Tesla dealerships.
If this inspires the left to get behind intelligence service reform, great.
So we can expect some comprehensive privacy legislation, finally? Because I don't think anything has been done on that front since House Republicans killed APRA last year.
I suspect we can anticipate Trump pushing some kind of FISA reform, a few things like that, because Trump was personally on the receiving end of that sort of abuse.
The APRA seems more aimed at private sector abuses, which by definition aren't about civil liberties unless being done at government urging.
The problem, of course, is that the Republican Congress seems absolutely determined to be completely useless. So even if Trump happens to want a reform bill, the odds of Congress actually getting off their dead asses and putting it on his desk are slim.
My hope is that we'll someday see some FISA reforms. Section 702's renewal will come up again next year. That would be a good starting point.
Unfortunately, the Resistance will want to entrench the abuses and whitewash the misconduct of the FBI during the Carter Page warrant debacle.
In theory Trump doesn't need Congress to do a lot of reforms that would be internal to the Executive branch. Just to make them stick past his time in office.
I'd like to see, for starters, a mandate that federal agents wear badge cams on duty, and that ALL interactions with suspects and witnesses be recorded. None of this "memorializing" shit after the fact; Everybody understands, I think, that the reason the FBI relies on after the fact hand notes, rather than recordings, is so they can lie about what got said during interviews.
For the foreseeable future, anything Trump does through executive action can and will be undone as soon as the next Democrat becomes President no matter how sensible.
Congress really, really needs to start passing laws to actually maintain any reform to protect against future Democrat shenanigans. There's a limited window of opportunity right now where Democrats are reeling from the their November drubbing and they are unable to wage an effective filibuster in the Senate.
That window is closing- if it hasn't already.
I think you misunderstand what's going on here. This is a weird campaign to make Trump dictator. For them to go to Congress and get legislative authorization for what they want to do would be to concede that he's not a dictator.
Also, you have a rather strange definition of "drubbing."
I would like to see the FISA court abolished.
Are you loving those texts to personal phones that the government is sending to Columbia and Barnard staff asking if they're Jewish?
Who needs privacy limits when you're fishing for antisemitism!
Didn't Reason run an article last week or so, to the effect that Trump was giving his supporters everything they'd asked for, but in the stupidest possible manner? I think that was pretty much spot on.
The actually trying to deliver on campaign promises part is refreshingly novel, but, God, you wish they were less clumsy about it.
You're leaning on the 'this is pretty great, but also I don't approve' straddle a lot these days.
You're militantly opposed to understanding that somebody can approve of a goal, and yet find the means chosen to pursue it appalling.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the 2nd Trump administration is going to be a failure. He's trying, hard, to do the right things, but in a gobsmackingly hamhanded manner. And Congress is being no help at all, and our system is not set up for Presidents to be able to do everything without Congress acting.
But, then again, it's only 3 months in, maybe they'll hit their stride after all. And who knows how awful the 2028 Democratic nominee will be, we're talking about a party that would think it was a good idea to put David Hogg in charge of something important. If there are further depths of self-destructiveness to plumb, the Democrats will locate and explore them.
Because that's not a thing. It's one thing to argue, "I want that outcome too, but I think B is a better/faster/cheaper/more efficient way to get there than A." People disagree over means all the time.
It's another thing to argue, "I want that outcome too, but I don't think mass murder is the way to achieve it." When someone chooses means that one thinks are "appalling," one does not "Yes, but" it. One says, "I oppose that person because he does appalling things."
" When someone chooses means that one thinks are "appalling," one does not "Yes, but" it. One says, "I oppose that person because he does appalling things.""
And that's great to say, and if I had the ability to wave a magic wand and, poof, Trump would be replaced with Ron DeSantis or Rand Paul, I'd be waving it so hard I'd be setting up a breeze.
But I don't have that wand, and we're basically stuck with Trump for the next 4 years, barring medical misadventure, or Trump deciding it would be fun to throw illegal aliens out of helicopters Duarte style. (There's a terrifying amount of room for Trump to be more appalling in his means than he is today; Nothing he's doing today would have raised an eyebrow a century ago.)
So, what do you mean by opposing Trump, if you don't mean opposing the appalling means, that doesn't boil down to opposing the quite admirable (IMO, anyway) ends?
I basically have to hope that, after an appallingly clumsy start, he settles down to pursuing the same ends with more reasonable means. And that lightning strikes, transforming Congress into something that isn't a mass waste of skin.
'I'm a realist. That's why I can't take moral stands. Except for all the time when it's not MAGA.'
You're not going to thread this needle, Brett.
Admirable ends?
Like wrecking the world trade system, arresting and deporting people for an innocuous oped that he disagreed with, trying to pressure the Fed to do what he wants, abandoning Ukraine to his Russian master, ignoring due process, trying to destroy our university system, etc. -you mean stuff liker that?
Yes, admirable ends like deporting illegal aliens and legal aliens who ally themselves with terrorist groups. Admirable ends like trying to stop a war that's killing enormous numbers of people. Admirable ends like trying to get universities that are violating civil rights laws to stop.
And admirable ends, Brett, such as supporting Israel when they are fighting an existential war for their existence.
To be fair about this, I will forever be grateful to President Biden for standing by Israel in her most desperate hours. He did a great thing in standing (almost) alone within Team D to support Israel. The man, despite his many faults, deserves credit for that.
I'm not exactly appalled that they are going after "assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and ghost guns,"* and would have to look up what "iconography, symbology, and phraseology" means.
A plan having vaguely "new legislative authorities" also doesn't appall me without knowing more, including what actually be passed. Private policing can be problematic, though again would like to know details. Acknowledge I'm not a full-fledged libertarian. Then again, few people are from what I can tell.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-Strategic-Implementation-Plan-for-CT-April2025.pdf
---
* Guns are going to be regulated & these types of guns in the area of domestic terrorism would be correctly an area of concern.
That phrase immediately reminded me of this:
https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search
It might be nothing more complicated than making the general public aware of these symbols in order to make it harder for domestic terrorists to identify each other and hide in plain sight.
That is quite the list. I see a problem assessing 100% as a hate symbol...
You guys flip your shit when ever some evil vile demonic govie that does those things gets shit canned by DOGE.
You're right on what the proper response should be.
Unfortunately, the natural reaction to lawfare is just more lawfare.
Did they actually carry out that "implementation plan"? Because it might be a good idea if they did.
What's the Samson Option that everyone seems to be talking about these days?
Why don't you tell us. I'm not interested in joining "everyone" until I know who is trying to get their Google search stats boosted and why.
I haven't checked, but from the context of political catastrophism we often hear from this magnus fellow, I'm guessing this has to do with some creepy analogy with Samson pulling down Dagon's temple on himself, killing many Philistines in the process.
Alternatively, this could be an example of Internet commenters fighting with each other, and one commenter outtalking the others - you know, the jawbone of an ass.
Umm, Duh!! (wow, I'm saying "Duh" to an MBA/MD/JD/PhDx2(MS (More Shit) Piled Higher)
"Samson" used to be the code word for Israel's project to produce Nuke-ular(HT Jimmuh Cartuh/"W") Weapons i.e. the Bomb Demitri, the Hydrogen Bomb,
Since they've had them for the last 40 years or so I haven't heard it for awhile.
Frank
"India acts: Indus Waters Treaty put on hold, Attari checkpost closed, Pak nationals have 48 hours to leave"
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/atari-border-closed-indus-waters-treaty-scrapped-no-visas-to-pakistani-nationals-mea-after-pahalgam-terror-attack-9961627/
Which US judge will order an immediate stay?
Whichever one has jurisdiction over India.
Does she not remember her husband was lead singer of "War Pigs"?
I would think their assault on good music would warrant their immediate expulsion. There’s enough ear bleeding noise in this country, no need to import more from Ireland.
"If God had a name what would it be?
and would you call it to his face,
if you were faced with him?"
(HT J. Osborne)
"One of Us"
OK, you Homo's who wasn't humming along to this 30 years ago?
Yeah, right the same Homo's who didn't cry when Old Yeller
got shot,
Frank
Did you hear what Pope Francis said to Melania when he met her? Mary Magdalene was a whore, too! You are in good company. 😉
As a former Seattle resident and a former city employee, I don't find this problem surprising, however my interest is piqued by wondering what kind of boner-killers they have in mind:
Seattle neighbors who live near a park favored by LGBT nudists are suing the city over a rash of sex perverts who are allegedly driving to the park in order to publicly masturbate. It’s gotten so bad that the city of Seattle is seeking Requests for Proposals (RFPs), with initial consideration to build “public masturbation deterrent infrastructure.”
https://mynorthwest.com/jason-rantz/seattle-nude-park-deterrent/4079292
Large inflatables resembling Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi should do the trick
Does it take you along time?
Does it make you some upset
Look at some Blondie Album covers
Judge Xinis has now stayed discovery for the next week after a filing of a sealed motion to stay by the government. The ACLU opposed the motion.
The plot thickens!
It's weird -- the plaintiffs' response is indeed labeled an opposition, but then Xinis's order says she's staying discovery "with the agreement of the parties." Almost has the signature of standing down to try to hash out a settlement, though it's hard to imagine what that might look like in this case.
Mahmoud argument was just bananas.
One crazy moment moment - when Alito misstated what was in the book ("And one girl objected to this marriag), and then another Kagan (I think) said "well, didn't the child actually object for a different reason - she said it was because she was afraid her uncle would spend less time with her when he's married", and the advocate said (basically) "well, we disagree. She [the little girl in the book] may not have said what she really felt, and she may have actually been objecting to gay marriage".
That exchange aside, the lack of a limiting principle was astounding. And Eric's only argument was to say "well, don't worry about it Judge, people just won't try and get bonkers religious freedom opt outs! Our limiting principle is that we guess that the bad things just won't happen!". Brilliant.
My guess is that when non-Christian claimants bring these claims, they're going to suddenly throw everything out the window and start evaluating the "reasonableness" of religious beliefs (which of course we've never done, but I wouldn't put it past this court).
"My guess is that when non-Christian claimants bring these claims"
Hypothetical outrages are simply the worst!
True. No non-Christian in their right mind would even attempt such a thing, unless they were trolling (like the Jewish abortion people) or had too much free time on their hands (like those prison inmates). And they were always going to lose anyway.
These non-Christians' hypothetical future court defeats have me preemptively OUTRAGED!
My guess is that when non-Christian claimants bring these claims, they're going to suddenly throw everything out the window and start evaluating the "reasonableness" of religious beliefs.
The lead plaintiffs in the case are Muslim. (The name Mahmoud might clue you in.) So your "guess" is, charitably, full of hot air.
BL, this is a parents rights issue, correct? Is there a federal role in parenting, or is parenting the province of the state (and under their police power)?
As an example, I always thought marriage was the province of the state (under their police power), but became federalized when DOMA was passed during the Clinton Administration.
If I am a parent, I make the final decisions on what is best for my child, and their education. Either our children belong to parents who gave them life and care for them, or they belong to the State.
It sounds like the only answer here is to relocate from MD to another state.
people still acting like laws mean anything now. lol
Today in "the Trump administration is definitely committed to the rule of law", and definitely wouldn't dox its (political) opponents:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-wife-safe-house-b2738214.html
Trump was "not happy" with Russia's massive overnight attack, which killed nine people in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. In a rare rebuke directed at Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump said, "Not necessary, and very bad timing".
Super harsh! But imagine how much harsher he'd be if Russia was a real enemy like Canada and Denmark. Or Ukraine. Meanwhile, Trump has become bored with the whole Russia invasion problem and now threatens to take his ball and go home. No doubt stopping all assistance to Ukraine along the way. Which I'm sure would please Putin immeasurably.
A coincidence, I'm sure......
So what would you have Trump do?
What's your peace plan?
My peace plan is to support Ukraine until either (a) Russia gives up; or (b) Ukraine does.
Easy for you to say, safe in Whitelandia.
Ukraine can't "win" and Putin can't afford to lose.
By support I assume you mean military supplies, but what happens when there is no one left to use them?
What should Europe's role be in supporting Ukraine?
Europe has provided more support than the U.S. That's both in sum dollars and (by a greater margin) as percentage of GNP. Of course we've still provided the most of any one country but please remember: We were once the Leader of the Free World (before Trump).
Now we're nothing more than another gangster regime on the make.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Why isn't Europe leading the calls for peace? There is just no way Ukraine can "win".
Continuing the fight just feeds bodies into the meat grinder (on both sides).
I'll ask again, what is your plan?
Because that's not a reasonable thing to seek under current circumstances.
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more compelling.
Mr. Bumble : (translated) : "Why isn't Europe leading the calls for Ukraine's surrender?"
As for my plan, I can only repeat what the estimable David Nieporent said above : I would provide material support to Ukraine as long as they want to fight for their country's survival and independence. And I'll add this:
1. Putin's strategy since his initial invasion collapsed has been to rely on the West's weakness. He originally assumed Europe would be the weak link given their dependence on Russian energy, but was wrong. He next hoped Neville Chamberlain would be elected President of the U.S., and there got the result he wanted. This war is extraordinarily costly for Russia and being able to rely on America's weakness with a Trump victory was a godsend for Putin.
2. Of course Ukraine can win. There are a zillion examples in history to illustrate that, but you might as well use the USSR in Afghanistan as the go-to one. Needless to say, steady support for Ukraine is essential to make that possible, and that's very hard with Neville Chamberlain in the White House.
As long as we're playing the "I'll ask again" game — even though I did answer the first time — I'll ask again: what does Ukraine actually get out of Trump's proposal? In what way is Ukraine better off?
I still don't know what you think that refers to. And it's easy for you to tell Ukraine to surrender from safely in the U.S.
In your opinion. And even if true, Putin is 72 years old; he won't be around forever.
And continued extreme sanctions on Russia.
I guess that would fall under (b) in my comment.
I would hope it would be as much as they are capable of. But our support should not be conditioned on that.
...and just what would be a "win" for Ukraine, a Russian surrender?
If you think that is likely you have not studied history.
You still don't gasp that this is a question for Ukraine to answer.
Because Russia has never surrendered before? (In any case, "surrender" is not really the right word choice. Russia leaving Ukraine would be a Ukrainian win.)
"...Russia leaving Ukraine would be a Ukrainian win.)"
which will not happen while Putin is alive and in charge.
Then let's hope he dies soon. (I feel quite confident he will die eventually.)
David Nieporent : "I feel quite confident he will die eventually"
(With awe) : Nostradamus has nothing on you, sir!
David, have you given thought to the possibility that we (America) don't have the resources for (a).
No. Not even for a second. It's a ludicrous proposition.
(If we actually didn't have the resources to, in conjunction with all of our allies, stop the Russian army, what would that say about the last 7 decades of military buildup in the U.S.? And what would we do if we were attacked?)
Kazinski used to give us poll updates complete with Candide-style cult commentary. I haven't seen that valuable service recently, so will step in (minus the optimism and dog-like devotion):
Trump’s approval rating in the latest Fox News poll is 44% at almost 100 days in office. This is compared with 54% for Joe Biden, 62% for Barack Obama and 63% for George W. Bush at the same point. And DJT has finally outpaced himself in the race to the abyss: Trump’s approval rating was 45% at the 100-day mark of his previous term in office.
Of course presidential approval almost always plunges much further from this point. Plus this is early in the process of Trump gutting the U.S. economy, the damage from his DOGE stunt has yet to manifest itself, and people are just starting to weary of the Toddler-in-Chief's childish antics. I suspect we're looking at uncharted territory here. Shades of Jules Verne : Voyage au centre de la Terre.
Philip Bump has a fascinating look today at American public opinion. It starts with this:
"Perhaps the best analogy for the first three months of Donald Trump’s second presidential term comes not from American history but from Looney Tunes. We’re in the Wile E. Coyote Moment where actually all the key changes have already happened, writer Julian Sanchez offered this month, and we’re just waiting for folks to look down.
That seems right. Trump and his allies have ripped through any number of systems that constitute and bolster the United States, but the full extent of damage hasn’t yet become apparent to most Americans — and may not for years. We’re still jogging straight ahead, unaware that there’s no more cliff underneath us."
Wearing sack cloth and ashes yet?
You realize Bump was shortened from Bumponalog.
Wanna know how bad things are? We have the Trump Administration saying one thing & the despotic Chinese government of communist dinosaurs saying another. So who's likely lying thru their teeth? Sadly enough, the United States is far more probable.
"A Chinese official on Thursday said that claims that Washington and Beijing are in active talks about tariffs were "all fake news." Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun said that the two sides have not consulted or negotiated on tariffs at all, but signaled that Beijing would be open to talks on an equal and reciprocal footing."
Plus, this just highlights the emptiness of Trump's boast everyone was "kissing his ass". And that highlights the three reasons for this tariff fiasco:
1. He's too ***king STUPID to understand what a tariff is.
2. He's so lazy he wants magic solutions that don't require any discipline or long-term effort. Remember, Trump has signed less legislation at this point in his term than any president in the past seven decades. If it requires more work than signing an executive order, he's not interested.
3. Having a diseased mind & hollow soul, Trump needs all this fantasy deference to his kingly power.
And those are the reasons why Trump is destroying the economy he inherited. Think voters will notice when the bills come due?
https://punchbowl.news/article/white-house/trump-bills-first-hundred-days/
I didn't think it would be this easy to get the Left to be openly cheering for the CCP. We've always known they wanted what the CCP has but for the rest of us, Lefties have even daydreamed about it in NYT opinion pieces.
But man it sure is something else to see people like grb, just outright coming to the table on behalf of the CCP.
this just highlights the emptiness of Trump's boast everyone was "kissing his ass".
Yeah. whatever happened with those 50 (or was it 70? - don't recall) countries that were crawling to the White House on their hands and knees begging to make a deal, any deal?
But where are the deals? There ought to be deals.
Interesting letter from a group of congressmen to Brad Karp of Paul Weiss, among other BigLaw spineless invertebrates. It’s almost as if this capitulation wasn’t actually the brilliant strategic gambit that CXY and others assured us it was…
https://min.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/min.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/04.24.25-letters-to-law-firms-on-trump-administration-agreements-all.pdf
BigLaw spine index here: https://abovethelaw.com/2025/04/biglaw-is-under-attack-heres-what-the-firms-are-doing-about-it/
The NYT reported the other day that Trump is essentially trying to rewrite his agreements with these firms. These firms caved so easily because they thought they could finesse the terms of the agreements, basically citing the pro bono work they already do as satisfying their putative obligations. But while Trump is not smart, he is cunning, and he knows how to be a bully when he senses weakness. And so he now wants to have them do stuff that could not remotely be called pro bono in any human language that now exists or has ever existed.
Yes these brilliant legal minds seemed to not have absorbed a basic childhood schoolyard lesson: giving the bully your lunch money does not, in fact, insulate you from greater future bullying demands.
Were these guys all homeschooled or something?
I must admit to being curious about the difference between being smart and being cunning.
There's many a street corner criminal who's dumb as a box of rocks in every way except the rote workings of his sleazy hustles. Trump himself is pretty much the premium example of that. Plus he's deeply stupid about history, science, and economics. Expand the range further to the overall culture and his ignorance is so all-pervasive, the man's sum knowledge wouldn't even cause the needle of a meter to twitch.
Maybe this will help explain things :
"Trump said in a series of interviews that he does not need to read extensively because he reaches the right decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I already had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”
Trump said he is skeptical of experts because “they can’t see the forest for the trees.” He believes that when he makes decisions, people see that he instinctively knows the right thing to do: “A lot of people said, ‘Man, he was more accurate than guys who have studied it all the time.’ ”
Trump said reading long documents is a waste of time because he absorbs the gist of an issue very quickly. “I’m a very efficient guy,” he said. “Now, I could also do it verbally, which is fine. I’d always rather have — I want it short. There’s no reason to do hundreds of pages because I know exactly what it is.”
Trump claimed he never read any market research for his real estate deals either."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-doesnt-read-much-being-president-probably-wouldnt-change-that/2016/07/17/d2ddf2bc-4932-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html
Which of course explains why Trump's business career is filled with such bungling and gross stupidity as well, with megalomania being the prime manifestation of that. It's not everybody who can bankrupt multiple casinos. Nor do you find many "businessmen" spoon-fed hundreds of millions in capital (with a silver utensil) who waste their time on petty scams like Trump University or the Trump Foundation. But DJT's had a small-time criminal's mind all along, despite the privilege of his upbringing. To be fair, he wasn't so much an imbecile as to blow all of Daddy's money, just scores upon scores of millions.
Wrapping it up: Trump can barely speak above a grade school level, is seldom capable of coherent sentences, and is wrong / ignorant most times he attempts to use facts. So the fact he has a scam artist's skill in exploiting human weakness doesn't preclude his blazingly obvious dumbness.
Oh, a letter from some Congress-critters. Well Estragon, that really is quite serious. A sternly worded letter. That letter will show them! 🙂
In the meantime, the law firm survives without the cost of lengthy litigation or having to shut their doors to government work (unlike the dumb ones that litigate against an opponent with governmental resources).
“Sternly worded letter”
I predict these spineless moves will continue to look less and less savvy as time goes on and any perceived advantage in not having to fight unlawful Trump orders now will be increasingly outweighed by long term reputational damage and potential adverse downstream legal effects as outlined in this letter.
To pick just one small example, I am curious to know the answer to this question:
“What mechanisms, if any, are present in the Paul Weiss agreement to ensure that the administration will not be able to require more from the firm beyond the provisions already within place?”
If the answer is what it seems to be, i.e. “none” any potential client with an operating brain cell is going to stay as far as possible away from these guys. Sooooooo savvy!
It's not even clear that there is an agreement, as what Paul Weiss claimed the agreement was is different than what the administration claimed it was.
You mean they torched their reputation in exchange for… nothing?! Where can CXY send his retainer for such savvy and clever representation?
Baffled why Trump's Cabinet is a lunatic asylum of loons, leeches, lightweights and freaks? Yes, part of the reason is DJT saw the most important positions in the U.S. government as just another opportunity for trolling fun. But even more so, he didn't want any hectoring adult voices telling him things he didn't want to hear. Brat child that he is, Trump still must find it hard to stick fingers in his ears & make loud noises until his cabinet officials stop talking. Yet sometimes it's unavoidable:
During a private meeting in the Oval Office on Monday, the CEOs of Walmart, Target and Home Depot reportedly told the president that supply chains could freeze and prompt stores’ shelves to go barren if he doesn’t rein in his sharp tariff plans, and meddles with the Federal Reserve. “The big box CEOs flat out told him the prices aren’t going up, they’re steady right now, but they will go up,” an administration official familiar with the meeting told Axios. “And this wasn’t about food. But he was told that shelves will be empty.” According to a separate official briefed on the meeting, Trump was told that if he doesn’t change course, the impact could be noticeable in as little as two weeks.
The next day, Trump caved on his previously announced 145% rate targeting China. Has anything DJT said about tariffs had a shelf-life longer than three days? I bet those CEOs won't get another White House invite again!
You rabid Trump haters are turning this forum into crap.
It’s a curious complaint. Guess it depends on what you mean by “crap” I suppose. Thoughtful, polite, strictly on-topic legal discussions befitting an ostensibly legal blog largely disappeared from these comments long before the emergence of Trump.
All I can say is if that is what you are truly hoping for a return to— be the change you want to see.
We've come a long way since right-wingers pretended to find corruption in the antics of little Hunter Biden. Now the president openly sells "intimate" access to anyone who ponies-up the right pay-to-play amount. Of course he's done it before. After the '16 election, Mar-a-Lago doubled its fees and those who paid were assured of the chance to make their pitch to the president. But now Trump has ditched any transparent pretense in clubs & membership dues. Now it's just a naked transaction : Cash equals access.
"President Trump's meme coin, which had slumped 88% from its most recent high, got a boost Wednesday after its website invited the top 220 holders of the digital token to an "intimate private dinner" with the president."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-coin-dinner-with-president-meme-coin-price/