Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

A federal district court in New Hampshire has issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Education in regard to its threat to withhold federal funds from public schools that have certain diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.65138/gov.uscourts.nhd.65138.74.0.pdf

The lawsuit was brought by the National Education Association, its New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development. The scope of the injunction is not nationwide, but it directs that:

Defendants United States Department of Education; Linda M. McMahon, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education; Craig Trainor, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education; and their agents, employees, representatives, successors, assigns, and any other person acting directly or indirectly in concert with them, are enjoined from enforcing and/or implementing the Dear Colleague Letter issued on February 14, 2025, including through the February 28, 2025 “Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” the End DEI Portal, and the April 3, 2025 certification requirement, against the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more plaintiffs or one or more of plaintiffs’ members.

The Court opined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims of unconstitutional vagueness, abridgement of First Amendment rights, and various statutory claims arising under the Administrative Procedures Act.

[Riva]

One has a first amendment right to receive public monies to discriminate? Who knew?

[David Nieporent]

Where do you see discrimination?

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

Literally every DEI and AA program.

HTH

[David Nieporent]

Sorry; I meant "Where would an informed person who was not a troll see discrimination?"

[Mr. Bumble]

One who pulled his head out of his ass?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't you hate it when somebody smarter than you makes you look stupid, so you have to call them names?

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

I'm reporting this comment to DOGE. It was a complete waste of time to read.

[VinniUSMC]

"Where would an informed person who was not a troll see discrimination?"

Why would it matter to you what an informed person sees? I suspect your law degree was printed on a Burger King receipt by Snooky.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahhh... "Snooky", and no Homo but "the Situation" was my favorite character.

[Joe_dallas]

Only a woke leftist would pretend DEI wasnt discrimination

[David Nieporent]

I reiterate what I said earlier in the week (as well as a week ago): "DEI" isn't a thing at all. It is a label that people slap on a bunch of different things, with people choosing the definition that best suits their agenda at a given moment. It could include, inter alia:

1) Actual racial preferences/quotas in hiring or admissions — 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.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I reiterate what I said earlier in the week (as well as a week ago): "DEI" isn't a thing at all.

DN - Living in fantasy land!

[David Nieporent]

Were you not smart enough to read the whole paragraph or just not honest enough to quote the whole paragraph?

[not guilty]

Part of the vagueness problem noted by Judge McCafferty is that the Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter does not define “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “DEI,” nor such things as what a “DEI program” is, the circumstances in which the Department believes DEI programs run afoul of Title VI, what such phrases as “social-emotional learning,” “race-consciousness” and “culturally responsive teaching” mean. As the Court opined at page 59 of the preliminary injunction order:

The ban on DEI embodied in the 2025 Letter leaves teachers with a Hobson’s choice. If they fail to abide by the ill-defined standards set forth in the letter, they leave themselves open to (1) their school’s decision to terminate their employment or curb their work in order to preserve essential federal funding, (2) public ostracization based on one person’s view of what “DEI” is, or (3) potential disciplinary proceedings that put their license at risk. But even if they endeavor to abide by the 2025 Letter’s requirements, they risk failing to comply with certification requirements necessary for retention of their professional credentials. All while not being afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what the 2025 Letter even requires of them. The Constitution requires more.

Well said.

[Riva]

I can appreciate crazy Dave’s point of view. I meant, what fun would it be to be a Democrat if you couldn’t exploit and discriminate? It’s their business model.

[Frank Drackman]

the DemoKKKrat party, exploiting and discriminating since 1619

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you really that stupid, David?

[David Nieporent]

Check your dissertation for the answer.

[Krayt]

I don't see how rescinding declarations of previous admins is "vague" or violates the First Amendment, which remains regardless. It may violate administrative procedures, I suppose.

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

This is more Trump Law.

Where previous presidents, using their Executive powers alone, can bind future presidents, so long as the future president is Trump and the previous president is Not Trump.

[Kazinski]

This should settle the question of just how in denial some peop!e are about whether Albrego Garcia is a gang member and human trafficker.

From the Baltimore Sun:

"When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was pulled over by the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022, he was driving a vehicle owned by a man convicted of human smuggling, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to FOX45 News."

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/04/24/fox45-abrego-garcia-driving-convicted-human-smugglers-vehicle-during-tennessee-traffic-stop/

From Tennessee Star:
Owner of SUV driven by Garcia deported in 2021, car was on ‘watch list’

Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, who Abrego Garcia claimed he was working for, had been previously convicted of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States.

In 2020, Hernandez Reyes, himself an illegal alien, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison for smuggling fellow illegal aliens in the United States after he was stopped by law enforcement in Mississippi in a car with passengers from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras. Homeland Security records indicate Hernandez Reyes’ “deport order” was reinstated in March 2021, as his 18-month sentence was nearing its end."

https://tennesseestar.com/justice/abrego-garcia-drove-suv-owned-by-convicted-human-smuggler-documents-confirm/jtnews/2025/04/23/

This is going to be amusing to see who and how many times the usual suspects claim "no evidence" now.

[AmosArch]

Undisputed illegal
'lawabiding' man who hid until caught
Multiple DV calls on him
Traffic criminal
Gangbanger uniform
Gangbanger tats coincidentally looking like MS13 reference
Caught with known MS13 members
Fingered by informant.
Involved in multiple busts including like you said a suspected human trafficking bust.
Alarm Bells up the wazoolike that would get someone deported before they were born in any sane country and this is the guy the leftoids exalt as the national exemplar of innocent victim of big bad trump. Lol.

[David Nieporent]

Or, to put it another way: Abrego Garcia was here illegally, and other than that there's no evidence he committed any crime.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and was rightfully deported.

[Moderation4ever]

No, he was denied due process and was sent to a prison in El Salvator not deported.

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

What were those hearings in 2019 if not due process?

[David Nieporent]

Trump got due process when he became a convicted felon in 2024. If he gets locked up tomorrow without trial, "Well, what about that trial in 2024" would not be a rebuttal to the complaint that he was not afforded due process.

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

Like the filthy, no integrity liar you are, you're deliberately munging some key facts.

If Trump had been sentenced in 2019, then fled for six years, then caught in 2025. If then went to prison to fulfill his original sentence, did he get due process?

That's Garcia. Not the lying, disgusting, twisted and immoral way you described it.

[David Nieporent]

Garcia did not "flee for six years." WTF are you talking about?

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

Garcia was put under lawful, due-processful, deportation order in 2019.

*fast forward six years*

Garcia was still unlawfully in the US.

[David Nieporent]

Garcia was put under lawful, due-processful, deportation order in 2019.

And then he was granted withholding of removal pursuant to that lawful due-processful order.

Where do you think he "fled" from, or to?

[Brett Bellmore]

Withholding of removal to El Salvador, and only El Salvador.

And he does have a legitimate complaint about being sent to the one country in the entire world he had a court order saying he couldn't be sent to.

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

See how David NoIntegrityPotent continues to lie about this?

Even after he's been dunked on over & over & over for his lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.

He's like one of my dumbass boars.

[HazelMeade]

Garcia did not "flee" anywhere. He had a work permit and was legally employed in Maryland.

[tylertusta]

He was deported under the terms of the INA.

Someone in the government goofed. At least one of three mistakes were made in the course of his deportation, but it was a deportation.

[jimc5499]

It's called extradition.

[Sarcastr0]

That's done at the request of the country the person's getting sent to. I don't see that here.

And what's the crime? Was there a trial and conviction?

[Zarniwoop]

No. Extradition is a formal process. It looks nothing like Garcia’s deportation.

Here’s the US-ES extradition treaty (I think, I have not verified it’s the most up to date version).

https://www.oas.org/ext/Portals/33/Files/TreatiesB/USA_biltreat_elsal_eng_1.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe rendition?

[David Nieporent]

It is not in fact called extradition. Extradition is when one commits a crime in country A and then country B sends one back to country A, at country A's specific request, so that one can be tried in country A. And one is entitled to a hearing in country B before one is sent back!

None of those elements are present here.

[Commenter_XY]

Call it whatever you like: rendition, extradition, deportation. That gangbanger POS isn't coming back, David. Ever. For all the caterwauling, where is St Abrego right now? That's right, in an El Salvadoran prison, where he belongs. He is truly home now.

Many, many more will join him, permanently exiled from this country, never to return. Suits me. These illegals can avoid that fate; use CBP-Home and self-deport. They have a chance to come back, with favored treatment.

For the next 4 years, illegal aliens will be aggressively located, detained and deported. Better get used to that now. Some of your hired help might be leaving.

[HazelMeade]

The problem is not that he was deported. It's that he's being imprisoned without trial at the behest of the US government. The fact that the prison is not on US soil is ultimately immaterial. He hasn't been tried or convicted of anything in either El Salvador or the US.
If Trump could just stick to deporting people, it would be fine, but that's not good enough, he has to imprison them illegally too.

[Frank Drackman]

Imprisoned? looked like Kill-more and the Senator were enjoying Margaritas at Carlos n' Charlies in Cozumel, maybe the Senator has done business with Mr. Garcia before?

[Heedless]

But what happens if ICE comes for you?

You've already rejected the possibility that the administration needs a hearing, or even to obey requirements that you not be deported, so off you go to prison in El Salvador. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200. There's nothing that can delay or stop your exit.

Now Trump is on TV saying that no one can make him bring you back, and besides you are clearly a bad guy because you got pulled over on suspicion of DWI in 2014 and you have the face of a child molester. All the usual suspects here clap like trained seals and accuse anyone defending your right to due process of being pro-child molester.

[shawn_dude]

This is very much an "Ends Justify the Means" thing for you, isn't it? You appear to revel in the cruelty of ejecting people here legally and for asylum. It's lawless and cruel and you're a fan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, he was returned to his own country -- what his own country chose to do with him is its business.

[HazelMeade]

No, he was sent to a prison in his home country, under the US's direction.
And don't kid yourself. They're holding him because Donald Trump wants him held. Illegally.

[shawn_dude]

Yes, returned to his own country in violation of a court order.
No, his own country couldn't care less; the US is paying them to imprison him. He's our prisoner, not theirs.

[David Nieporent]

...and was rightfully deported.

Did the law permit that deportation? So in what sense was it rightful?

[Mr. Bumble]

What Law? He received a final order of deportation and was finally deported.
Probably should have been more careful about sending him to El Salvador, but shit happens.

[David Nieporent]

What Law?

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) and 8 CFR § 1208.16.

[Thought about __ all my life]

But that abuses words and is illogical
Are you the decider of whether he broke any laws?
Notice that being here illegally is excluded from being a crime.
Silly, the stuff of highschool newspapers

[Riva]

Other than human trafficking in illegals as an illegal MS-13 gangbanger, you’re right on the money there, like always.

[David Nieporent]

Still struggling with the concept of evidence, I see.

[Frank Drackman]

8 other Illegals and Kill-more driving, were they a baseball team?

[Life of Brian]

no evidence

As always, there are two glaringly different standards for "evidence" on this board depending on the preconceived outcome being supported.

Here, "evidence" apparently means nothing short of a direct written confession. Huge piles of circumstantial evidence are decomposed and each individual piece is simply mocked if addressed at all.

I would extract every single one of my teeth and sell them on eBay if a single one of the long-time practitioners spouting this sort of hogwash actually held themselves and their clients to that kind of a standard in a real case.

[Sarcastr0]

If there's so much damn evidence then the administration should present it to a court.

But they won't. They've chosen instead to try him in the media. Their pet media outlets in specific; ones that aren't to keen on context or fact-checking.

Ones which you lap up without a thought.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, though far from a long-time practitioner, here comes one of the top "no [stuff that I want to be] evidence" offenders. Like flies to flypaper.

They've chosen instead to try him in the media.

I'm sorry, you seem to have lost track of which side is shamelessly using the media as a screamy-meemie megaphone to try to sway public opinion for this poor little innocent tyke -- precisely because that's the only realistic play they have and they know that very well.

[Sarcastr0]

You just deflected. Twice.

I will not engage with redherringdry no matter how bullshit it is.

[Life of Brian]

Yuh huh -- this clearly was the wrong thread for you to barge into leading with your jaw. Off to safer climes with ya.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember too that immigration law is civil -- with the preponderance standard.

[David Nieporent]

No, evidence can be direct or circumstantial. A confession would certainly be evidence (assuming it was clear that it was voluntary). So would someone testifying, "I saw him commit crime X." So would ordinary sorts of circumstantial evidence, like his fingerprints being on a weapon or the like. Or even him being at a crime scene, depending on the details.

Here's what's not evidence: him standing in a public place in broad daylight where no crime was committed. Him driving a car with some unknown people that someone else once convicted of a crime owned. (Hell, they didn't even charge him with a traffic violation, even though they claimed he committed one!) Conclusory hearsay about an unknown person saying nothing more than, "He's a gang member." Him having tattoos that nobody, until about two weeks ago, ever claimed were gang-related.

I will say that the application for a protective order is some evidence that he once assaulted his wife, but it's pretty weak since she never followed through and he was never convicted of anything. (It is not in any way evidence that he's a member of MS-13, of course.) (But if later-recanted allegations by a spouse of domestic violence are sufficient for you, then wait 'til you hear that Ivana Trump testified under oath that Donald Trump assaulted and raped her.)

[Life of Brian]

No, evidence can be direct or circumstantial.

Well, hey -- thanks for at least theoretically admitting that. Progress.

If only you hadn't spoiled it by immediately playing (again) the exact deconstruct-distort-and-mock game I called out above.

him standing in a public place in broad daylight where no crime was committed.

Just standing out there, right? Not with anyone in particular at all, much less two known MS-13 gang members, right? Not with a pocket full of an implausible sum of money, and not right next to where some drugs were mysteriously found that the people in the group most definitely did not throw when the cops approached, right?

And what in the world does your oft-invoked red herring about broad daylight have to do with anything? All real criminals are vampires?

Him driving a car with some unknown people that someone else once convicted of a crime owned.

Him 1) driving a vehicle 2) cross country from a border state 3) full of people who can't tell a believable story about where they live or why they're driving 1400 miles with no luggage 4) owned by -- and, don't forget -- admitting he worked for -- someone who had a known bad habit of using vehicles to move large groups of people around for illegal gain, is most certainly circumstantial evidence that he was doing a repeat. And again, please stop insulting our collective intelligence and pretending you wouldn't argue exactly that under circumstances where that was beneficial to your client.

Conclusory hearsay about an unknown person saying nothing more than, "He's a gang member."

Informant testimony is, of course, a very common source of evidence. Indeed, your attempt to smear it as hearsay actually concedes that it's evidence!

Him having tattoos that nobody, until about two weeks ago, ever claimed were gang-related.

He was already found to be a gang member many years ago, without the tattoos. There's been no other reason for the tattoos to come up since then. In short, so what?

[David Nieporent]

And what in the world does your oft-invoked red herring about broad daylight have to do with anything? All real criminals are vampires?

Unlike the MAGA people all over the Internet, I do not purport to be a gang expert, knowing all their habits and proclivities. (Even though I did watch The Wire.) Nevertheless, I find it rather dubious that gang members hold their gang meetings where they coordinate their gang outfits and get their gang tattoos and then plan and carry out their gangin' activities in very public places in the middle of the day. Seems less than prudent, like taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy. And thus a couple of people standing near each other in a very public place in the middle of the day are more likely to just be a couple of people randomly standing near each other than they are to be a gang meeting.

[Life of Brian]

[It's like a MIRV comment spray! Whee!]

Nevertheless, I find it rather dubious that gang members hold their gang meetings where they coordinate their gang outfits and get their gang tattoos and then plan and carry out their gangin' activities in very public places in the middle of the day.

You can "find it rather dubious" all you want and throw as many red herrings into the sentence as you please, but the rest of us are going to be quite comfortable that gang members interact with each other outside during the day. I'll grant you they're probably not going to do it right outside a police station or somewhere else they're actually likely to be overheard by people they're nervous might rat them out, but that's about it.

And thus a couple of people standing near each other in a very public place in the middle of the day are more likely to just be a couple of people randomly standing near each other than they are to be a gang meeting.

Four people. Two of them known gang members. Threadbare cover story that you're uncritically swallowing whole. Just stop digging.

[David Nieporent]

He was already found to be a gang member many years ago, without the tattoos. There's been no other reason for the tattoos to come up since then. In short, so what?

Wikipedia says that there are an estimated 10,000 MS-13 members in the United States and up to 50,000 globally. And yet this alleged obvious symbol of MS-13 membership has never come up with respect to any of those 50,000 people.
2) Also, I already explained "So what": they were so desperate to find anything that might suggest he was a gang member that they cited a Chicago Bulls cap, which millions of people wear. And yet they somehow overlooked his obvious MS-13 tattoos?
3) Also, nice try, but it's still false to say that he was found to be an MS-13 member.

[Life of Brian]

And yet this alleged obvious symbol of MS-13 membership has never come up with respect to any of those 50,000 people.

Oh, this is fantastic news. Please point me to the database of the tattoos of all 50k so I can check your work.

they were so desperate to find anything that might suggest he was a gang member

Speaking of desperate -- you keep lobbing this ridiculous phrase into the discussion. The government achieved all its objectives -- deportation order; no bail -- which is why he then had to pivot to the "I'm scared for my life of the Salvadoran gang that's a rival to the gang that... oops, that I'm totes NOT a member of" angle. Where exactly is the "desperation"?

it's still false to say that he was found to be an MS-13 member

You and your word games. Here's the verbatim language from the bail order: "The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13"

And from the appeal order: "The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in determining that he is a verified member of MS-13 because there is no reliable evidence in the record to support such a finding (Respondent's Br. at 6-9)."

Stop. Digging.

[David Nieporent]

Not with a pocket full of an implausible sum of money,

You're still insisting on being a douche about this, I see.

and not right next to where some drugs were mysteriously found that the people in the group most definitely did not throw when the cops approached, right?

You really need to learn to read better.

1. The police report does not say that he was "right next to" the drugs that were found.
2. Although it's a reasonable inference, the police report does not say that the people in the parking lot threw the drugs that were found. It says that two of them — not Abrego Garcia — tossed something away, but is very careful not to say that it was the drugs that were found. (In any case, what it describes as having been found doesn't exactly sound like drug dealers plying their wares.)

[Life of Brian]

You're still insisting on being a douche about this, I see.

I will most definitely reconsider my real-world-grounded perspective if and when you get over your little game of "you're absolutely, unquestionably, ridiculously wrong, but oh shucks, the only shred of evidence I might be able to provide in support of my bullshit assertion is PRIVILEGED so I can't share it."

You really need to learn to read better.

The police report does not say . . . Although it's a reasonable inference, the police report does not say . . .

Speaking of needing to learn to read better, I didn't claim I was quoting the police report. In any event, I'm glad we agree it's a reasonable inference. So you're going to remove that from your stock of distractive chaff going forward, right?

[Kazinski]

That and he was trafficking illegals in a van known to be used for trafficking illegals, owned by a man who was convicted for trafficking illegals, and who Albrego Garcia told officers was "his boss".

[David Nieporent]

What gives you the basis to say that some unknown people were 'illegals'?
What is a 'van known to be used for trafficking illegals,'? Why isn't it a 'van known to be used for delivering pizza'?

[Joe_dallas]

Denying the existence of evidence that everyone else sees. Even leftist media recognizes the evidence.

[bernard11]

No. "Everyone else" doesn't see it.

Your claims and inferences might be true, of course, but you're nowhere near establishing that.

Let's see. Day laborers hanging out in a Home Depot lot is not particularly unusual, and them conversing even though they don't know each other is pretty basic human behavior.

Somebody, not Garcia, threw something away. Which means nothing, regardless of what was thrown away.

He was "trafficking illegals." Well, just because Kazinski says so doesn't make it true. The TN Highway Patrol, not known for its sympathy for illegal immigrants, let him and his passengers go after a two hour stop. The inference that whatever was going on was innocent is vastly stronger than any basis you have for your claims. Do you think Biden called up the trooper and said "Let my people go?"

[Kazinski]

At that time THP couldn't arrest illegals because under Arizona v US, state law enforcement could not enforce immigration laws without federal authorization.

They weren't going to get that from the Biden Administration.

That's hardly a secret, I am surprised you didn't know that.

[Joe_dallas]

Apparantly its a secret to Bernard and DN -
DN continues to exploit the inaction of DHS and / or the instruction by DHS to THP to release the gang of 8 as proof there was no crime.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: DHS (you've now changed your claim from the FBI) is not empowered to "instruct" THP to do anything.

[Kazinski]

They could have authorized them to detain them.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure why they and them are here, considering your wandering acronyms, but you often end up with some big if's in these exchanges, I've noticed.

[David Nieporent]

Of course THP could arrest illegals; what you mean is that Arizona v. US said that THP couldn't arrest illegals for violating immigration law.

[not guilty]

"At that time THP couldn't arrest illegals because under Arizona v US, state law enforcement could not enforce immigration laws without federal authorization."

The state trooper(s) could have arrested for a driver's license violation, and while in custody he could have been interrogated about other suspected offenses. The fact that Abrego Garcia was permitted to go on his way after being detained on the roadside for two hours suggests that no suspicion about him was corroborated.

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

That's not proof! Only a Democrat judge can make determinations of facts!!

[not guilty]

The "human trafficking" allegations as to Abrego Garcia are likely bullshit, Kazinski. The Baltimore Sun article is behind a paywall, so I don't know what it says.

The traffic stop by the Tennessee Highway Patrol is a red herring. Abrego Garcia was detained for two hours while the THP checked with the FBI, and then he was sent on his way. That is a strong indicator that any suspicions were unfounded -- otherwise the feds would likely have suggested that the trooper(s) arrest him for the driver's license violation so that he could be interrogated while in custody.

But in any event, the question is not whether Abrego Garcia is a saint; it is whether he has been treated unlawfully by the federal government. As Justice Gorsuch said in another case involving deportation, "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, 593 U.S. 155, ___, 141 S.Ct. 1474 (2021).

[AmosArch]

Abrego Garcia is classic exercise in tail wagging the dog libtoid absurdity. The guy should have never come. Should have never been let in. Should have never stayed in. Should have never had the protection order granted in the first place. And the protection order is now moot along with his only reason for staying. And most libtoids don't even bother to really argue these points.

Instead all of this they just extract one ultimately irrelevant single aspect of the controversy in isolation and pretend that is the sole determining factor of a completely unrelated question to whether he gets a free lifetime pass to stay in the US forever.

[Martinned2]

Abrego Garcia is classic exercise in tail wagging the dog libtoid absurdity.

Says the guy who has spent the last three weeks bending over backwards to avoid admitting that the Trump administration was wrong even a little bit, even in a situation where the administration itself said in court that it made a mistake.

[not guilty]

The MAGA cult is desperate to talk about anything other than Donald Trump's making hash of the rule of law. That should serve as an admission that Trump's conduct is indefensible.

For all I know, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia may be an unsavory character. That doesn't matter when considering the conduct of our government toward him.

I have represented scores of vile clients, including defendants accused or convicted of premeditated murder (including one who shot his opponent in a state legislative race to death), felony murder (one resulting in the death of a police officer), hiring someone to kill his wife, a mother killing her five year old, a student who shot up his high school, a serial rapist, women who abused their own children, armed robbers, cocaine dealers and various other miscreants. I'm glad that some of them wound up in prison.

I am also glad that every one of these folks was afforded a full measure of due process. And I am damned proud of my role in helping to bring that about.

[TaioF920]

The difference is those vile clients were entitled to be in America, and thus, afforded due process. This Mayan was not.

[not guilty]

How do you claim to know that my clients "were entitled to be in America," TaioF920?

And everyone present in the United States, whether lawfully or not, is entitled to due process. "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993).

"Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).

"It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953).

"Therefore it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized." Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903).

As recently as this month, the Supreme Court opined:

“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).

Trump v. J.G.G., et al., 604 U. S. ____ (April 7, 2025) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

IOW, TaioF920, you are so full of shit that if someone gives you an enema, your remains will fit into a cigar box.

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

> traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law

What standard of fairness is it that if you're an illegal you get all sorts of extra rights and extra privileges while you await your decades for your hearing?

Is that fair to others who have sit in jails or prisons while they await their trials? Or pay bondsmen, without getting these extra-privileges?

Fairness would be sticking these people in camps until they get their hearings. Not lavishing them with driver's licenses, voter registrations, medicaid, scholarships, refundable tax credits, free housing, ebt cards preloaded with thousands of cash, free plane rides, and airport security line skips.

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

Are you equally proud of being a racist cog in a racist system that delivers racist justice?

[HazelMeade]

Even if he's a gang member (maybe, maybe not), you still have to get a criminal conviction to send him to prison. Being in a gang is not , in and of itself, illegal.
So far none of this gang member evidence is particularly scary either. He was loitering in a parking lot looking for day labor, and maybe driving some other illegal aliens around. BFD.
These are the terrifying criminal alien gangbangers we're supposed to be so afraid of they have to be locked up without due process? Day laborers and drivers?

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, I can basically agree with all your points, except that...

Mootness doesn't lift a protection order, it is a basis for lifting a protection order.

Look, this was a screwup, (They could have deported Garcia to basically any other country in the world, or they could have gotten the protection order lifted as moot.) and once they found out they'd screwed up, they got stubborn instead of fixing it.

And I think they're in the process now of fixing it, (He hasn't been in CENCOT for a week or two.) but don't want to be seen as doing it in response to the judiciary, because they think that would embolden the judiciary. But it was still a serious screw up, committed because

1. They're in a hurry.
2. The deportation program is having to be run on a shoestring budget, because Congress hasn't appropriated any extra funds for it.

Plenty of blame to go around here, and the judiciary aren't innocent by any means, but most of my ire is actually directed at Congress at this point. They ran on deportation just as much as Trump did, and why have they not funded it yet? Because their campaign promises were just lies?

Beginning to suspect that.

[Martinned2]

They ran on deportation just as much as Trump did, and why have they not funded it yet?

Has Trump asked Congress for the money you claim he so desperately needs?

Last I checked, the whole point of Project 2025 is to have Trump run the country on his own without ever asking Congress for anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

Has he?

House Passes Trump-Backed Budget Blueprint

Yeah, apparently he has. But Congress decided to take a two week Easter vacation before even starting on the actual appropriations bills, so he doesn't actually have the money to spend yet, and might not for months. Or ever if they get tricky and don't bother appropriating what they budgeted.

[tylertusta]

Budgets usually don't take effect until the next fiscal year. Any budget passed today won't take effect until October.

Trump has to work with a budget passed by a Democratic Senate and signed by Joe Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Usually". What you're describing is the default if Congress doesn't get off its dead ass and act. If they wanted they could appropriate money for him to spend next Tuesday, or just authorize him to move funds from existing appropriations to immigration enforcement as needed.

I'm faulting them for not doing that. They made campaign promises, and are showing no urgency at all about fulfilling them.

[tylertusta]

True in theory. However, Congress has a hard time passing continuing resolutions just to keep the lights on much less actually passing a new budget that overrides the previous fiscal year's budget.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Now you are talking about a supplemental appropriation, which as far as I know Trump hasn't requested.

You may recall that Biden tried to get a border bill that would have appropriated additional money through Congress. Congressional Republicans blocked it at the urging of Trump.

[tylertusta]

In that particular situation, no deal was better than a bad deal.

[bernard11]

In that particular situation, no deal was better than a bad deal.

Horseshit. It was a bipartisan deal worked out after lengthy negotiations. In the end, sucking up to Trump, some of the GOPer's who participated in writing it turned chickenshit when Trump disapproved.

[Heedless]

Double horseshit.

The "bipartisan" bill legitimized the level of illegal immigration during Biden's term, but offered extra money for asylum claim processing.

It offered to allow the massive wave of migrants to continue, in return for moving the adjudication hearings they never showed up for up by a month or two.

[Sarcastr0]

legitimized the level of illegal immigration
What does this mean?

[Heedless]

It established a crisis level for border crossings per day, but set it at such a high level that its provisions (other than the increased funding for immigration courts) were essentially all optional.

It provided Biden with political cover without actually requiring him to do any additional border enforcement.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not the most clear on what counts as Congress, it seems.

[Martinned2]

Perhaps not, but it does answer my question.

[bernard11]

Look, this was a screwup, (They could have deported Garcia to basically any other country in the world, or they could have gotten the protection order lifted as moot.) and once they found out they'd screwed up, they got stubborn instead of fixing it.

Calling it a "screwup" implies it was just a careless error, as if they were really after a different guy with the same name. Where was the "screwup" in grabbing him and sending him off without any kind of due process? That had to be intentional. Where was the screwup in sending him to prison? That had to be deliberate decision.

Did trump say, "Arrest Garcia and ship him off to CECOT immediately." Probably not, but he has certainly created the atmosphere where his subordinates would knowingly do something like that, expecting it to be well-received.

once they found out they'd screwed up, they got stubborn instead of fixing it.

What they decided was that they weren't in the slightest bit sorry about the screwup, and it was an opportunity to demonstrate how tough they were on illegal immigrants. So they spread a lot of BS and lies to try and keep the guy in El Salvador. "oopsie."

Not a case of stubbornness, but of a complete inability to admit error combined with an opportunity to demonstrate how "tough" they were. Assholes. Any decent human being would have done all they can to correct their error. It seems there are none in this Administration.

Suppose you, Brett Bellmore, were a witness in a criminal trial and your honestly mistaken testimony resulted in the defendant being convicted and handed a long prison sentence. If you discovered you had made a serious mistake (a "screwup,") how would you react?

Once again, you do the best you can to minimize Trump's wrongdoing - "screwup," "stubborn." Like, "hey, everyone makes mistakes, and no one likes to admit them."

[jb]

Two points:

1) If Trump is in a hurry, he probably shouldn't do things that is going to make the judiciary not give him the benefit of the doubt, which is exactly what's happened here. If they'd just promptly asked for him back and then had a hearing to lift the "some send to El Salvador" order they might not have the Supreme Court issuing late night orders to prevent efforts to deport a different set of people. (Then again, deporting those people under sketchy circumstances probably would have burned his credibility for the next batch.). He'd see better overall velocity by aggressively following the rules.

2) You're definitely right that if they actually want to deport people faster than Biden was they need more capacity in the immigration courts. On the other hand, I haven't seen Trump pushing for this so I'm not sure it's fair to put most of the blame on Congress. Trump probably can't be bothered to actually understand the problem or its reasonable solutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

They need more capacity to deport people hugely faster than Biden. Significantly faster than Biden? Probably about as achievable without more resources as securing the border turned out to be; You tend not to efficiently deploy resources doing something you don't mean to be successful at.

"On the other hand, I haven't seen Trump pushing for this"

Never assume news coverage is a representative sample of what's happening...

[jb]

Trump is not exactly shy about announcing what he's trying to do.

[jb]

Forgot to add: if you think Biden was disinterested in deporting people compared to Trump, and yet managed to deport more people than either Trump v1 or Trump v2, that seems pretty telling about Trump's ability to actually implement his policy preferences.

[David Nieporent]

Abrego Garcia is classic exercise in tail wagging the dog libtoid absurdity. The guy should have never come. Should have never been let in. Should have never stayed in. Should have never had the protection order granted in the first place. And the protection order is now moot along with his only reason for staying. And most libtoids don't even bother to really argue these points.

This libertarian will argue that all of those points are false. I will concede that he came to the U.S. illegally, which is not remotely the same thing as saying he should never have come, but the rest is wrong either because it's based on a false premise (that he was "let in") or because the "shoulds" have no basis.

Instead all of this they just extract one ultimately irrelevant single aspect of the controversy in isolation

The entire controversy is that one single aspect: whether the sociopathic Trump administration broke the law. Weird how the victimless "crime" of Abrego crossing an imaginary line on the ground troubles you so much, but Trump trying to get him killed — an actual crime — doesn't bother you. It's almost like Garcia is Hispanic and therefore you're okay with him being tortured.

[tylertusta]

Weird how the victimless "crime" of Abrego crossing an imaginary line on the ground troubles you so much

The fact that you refer to it in these terms gives the game away, Mr. Open Borders.

[David Nieporent]

Did I ever make my libertarianism a secret?

[tylertusta]

I wouldn't characterize your positions as libertarian. More like dressed-up progressivism.

[Mr. Bumble]

He's a cross dresser.

[Sarcastr0]

The MAGA gatekeeping that you gotta like trump or else you're a big fat liberal is just cult of personality wanking.

[tylertusta]

I give this reply a C. Unlike your reply to me down below, your use of colorful epithets detracts from the message.

The accusation of a 'no true scotsman' is, in my opinion, a mid-tier response tactic.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I wouldn't characterize your positions as libertarian. More like dressed-up progressivism."

What are the positions that David has advocated that you believe are inconsistent with libertarianism?

[tylertusta]

In my opinion, I think that being pro-murder of conservatives and Trump isn't exactly a libertarian trait:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/11/president-trumps-removal-letter-of-nlrb-member-gwynne-wilcox/?comments=true#comment-10911034

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/14/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-lift-universal-injunctions-against-its-bitrthright-citzenship-order/?comments=true#comment-10958785

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Do you actually think that those comments are evidence of him being "pro-murder of conservatives and Trump?"

[David Nieporent]

MAGA people are not known for understanding humor more subtle than a baseball bat to the head.

[tylertusta]

Do you actually think that those comments are evidence of him being "pro-murder of conservatives and Trump?"

Given that those two are just some of the recent ones in a pattern of statements he's made, I absolutely do believe that.

In my opinion, one does not make repeat statements about the killing his or her political foes in jest.

Once? A joke.

Twice? Kinda odd, but some people have weird senses of humor.

More than twice? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he wants his political enemies dead.

In my opinion, he's pro-murder, so long as it's conservatives generally and Trump specifically that are the ones dying.

[Kenneth Almquist]

David Nieporent said something about “executing the law.” Trump is the law. So David Nieporent is calling for Trump to be executed. QED

[tylertusta]

David Nieporent said something about “executing the law.”

You're not reading the comment that I linked. Reason doesn't display comment links right on some devices, so you'll sometimes need to scroll up a little bit.

Here was Riva's comment:

Humphrey’s Executor should be humanely euthanized. On second thought, forget the “humanely.”

And here was David's reply:

As long as we do the same thing to Donald Trump at the same time, I can go along with that.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'And here was David's reply:
"As long as we do the same thing to Donald Trump at the same time, I can go along with that." '

And you think that's evidence of someone being "pro-murder." That's goofy.

[tylertusta]

And you think that's evidence of someone being "pro-murder." That's goofy.

Euthanizing a human being against their will is murder.

I don't know how many murder-y statements someone can make before criticizing it becomes something besides goofy.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Euthanizing a human being against their will is murder. "

Believing that the comment actually advocates that anybody be euthanized is goofy.

[tylertusta]

I don't know what to say then. You need to get your moral compass checked.

[Riva]

That’s why I call him “crazy Dave”

[tylertusta]

I don't know the origin behind the account called "Please Daivd Get Help" but I have been wondering if its supposed to be about our mutual acquaintance David.

[Life of Brian]

For quite some time there was a loony tune named Daivd Behar who spray-posted worse than Lathrop/Martinned/Malika/etc., and with at least half more of a screw loose. He finally faded away a couple of years ago as I recall.

[Life of Brian]

This particular aspect of it, apparently so. I've been around here with you for many, many moons and I had no clue your nickname was Lil' Ilya.

[bernard11]

I've been around here quite some time also, and certainly understood that David is a libertarian and far from a liberal.

In fact, before Trump came along, he and I disagreed much more often than we agreed.

[Life of Brian]

Sure, but libertarianism doesn't automatically correlate with y'all-come open borders. That's the only aspect we're discussing here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, just because the LP is currently dominated by open borders maniacs, doesn't mean it's inherent. Back in the day, we were figuring on open borders as one of the final steps after everything else had been done; Only an idiot opens the borders while you're still a welfare state!

But the sensible people have abandoned the LP, since various 'campaign reforms' have rendered 3rd parties non-viable in the US.

[jb]

It's probably fair to say that a reasonable libertarian principle is "open the borders once the country isn't a welfare state".

But it's also fair to say that permissive immigration policy is completely consistent with a libertarian philosophy. Being pro-immigration does not make one not-a-libertarian by any reasonable understanding of the terms.

[Life of Brian]

But it's also fair to say that permissive immigration policy is completely consistent with a libertarian philosophy.

It wasn't clear if you meant this to be independent of the "once the country isn't a welfare state" part of your prior sentence. If so, I'm not familiar with that flavor of libertarianism. Not that I'm steeped in the theory by any means, but I thought I understood the general principle to be that I have freedom and rights only to the extent that it doesn't unduly impact your freedom and rights. I don't see how that squares with a scheme where any of the ~8B inhabitants of the world can freely come help themself to my tax dollars.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see how that squares with a scheme where any of the ~8B inhabitants of the world can freely come help themself to my tax dollars.

Why are you volunteering to give your tax dollars to them? That's certainly not part of the libertarian model.

[Life of Brian]

I'm learning all sorts of cool things from you today. Can you please shoot me a copy of the form you fill out to designate the uses of your particular tax dollars?

[HazelMeade]

People keep conflating deportation and imprisonment, and it's really annoying. The government probably could have deported him legally, if they hadn't been to lazy to go to court and challenge the withholding from removal order.

But that wasn't good enough. He just couldn't *follow the law* and deport people legally through the slow lawful process, that wouldn't entertain people enough. He had to round up a bunch of people without any criminal convictions and send them to a notorious prison in El Salvador to show what a big tough guy he is. Which is illegal and unconstitutional.

[Kazinski]

That an impressive pretzel you are twisting yourself.

Here is a local Baltimore outlet:

BALTIMORE (WBFF) — When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was pulled over by the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022, he was driving a car owned by a man convicted of human smuggling, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to FOX45 News.
FOX45 News confirmed the owner of that vehicle is Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes. In June 2020, Hernandez-Reyes pled guilty to “illegal transportation or moving of an alien,” according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office from the Southern District of Mississippi.

Hernandez-Reyes was involved in a traffic stop in December 2019 in Mississippi where there were nine people in the car. Human smuggling was suspected, according to the news release, and Homeland Security was notified. Eight of the nine were found to be in the United States illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, and after interviewing everyone, “it was determined that seven passengers were being smuggled from Houston, Texas, to different locations throughout the United States.”

During Abrego Garcia’s traffic stop, he was not cited for the driving infraction but was given “a warning citation for driving with an expired driver’s license.”

“During the stop, a standard law enforcement database check returned information that prompted notification to the (FBI),” a statement from a spokesperson from THP stated."

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/dhs-abrego-garcia-driving-convicted-human-smugglers-vehicle-during-tn-traffic-stop

So here you have evidence that Garcia was driving a van owned by a convicted human trafficker, and Garcia himself told troopers he worked for Hernandez-Reyes, which is why he was driving his van.

That does more than just suggest an ongoing criminal enterprise.

The only difference was the first incident was in 2019 when the first Trump administration would faithfully execute the laws.

The second incident involving Garcia was when the Biden FBI and DOJ had no interest in law enforcement, at least not concerning human trafficking.

[David Nieporent]

First, "human trafficker" is just political puffery. It makes it sound like kidnapping people, or at the very least smuggling them into the country in cargo ships or something. The actual offense is 8 USC § 1324 — merely knowingly driving illegal aliens around.

Second, no matter how many times you post it, Hernandez-Reyes and Abrego Garcia are different people, and knowing someone who committed a crime is not an offense. Neither the federal nor Tennessee government thought that Abrego Garcia had committed a crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They ARE kidnapped -- you don't think the coyotes bring them here for free, do you? No, they garnish their wages once they get here.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the basis for your extensive knowledge of illegal immigration, there is no evidence of any "coyotes" here and also that's not in fact what kidnapping means.

[bernard11]

The coyotes garnish their wages?

You know I've had employees who had their wages garnished, usually over tax issues. When that happens I get a polite but official letter from some government agency - generally a state revenue department - asking me a few questions and instructing me to withhold certain amounts from the garnishee's paycheck and send it to them until I heard otherwise.

Is that what the coyotes do?

[HazelMeade]

Unfortunately, for you, the Tennesse police ultimately did NOT detain anyone or conduct an investigation and hence there is no evidence that any of those people were having their wages garnished. We don't even know that any of them were illegal aliens. So all we know is that Garcia was driving some people around. Not a crime. And he owned a truck previously owned by a guy that smuggled aliens across the border. Also not a crime.

You want to convict someone of human trafficking, you need to conduct an investigation, take them to court, and try them. Sorry.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The "human trafficking" allegations as to Abrego Garcia are likely bullshit,

Your response to Kaz is absolute bullshit. Far too many news organizations are reporting similar facts to make it bullshit

[jb]

This is like on the Wednesday thread when you said far too many news organizations are reporting that the other occupants of the cars were in the country illegally. But there's still no evidence of that claim, including in the articles that Kaz is linking to.

Kaz is at least doing the work of trying to substantiate his position*

* and I do agree it looks bad for Albrego Garcia, but I also don't think that changes the fundamental problem here which is that he was deported to El Salvador despite an order prohibiting that, and (MUCH more problematically) the Trump administration refuses to make any effort to correct their error.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - Your response is on par with the BS comment from NG.

[Riva]

Obvious evidence of human trafficking by an illegal gangbanger is not bs. And, just so you know, even absent this obvious evidence, the illegal gangbanger has no f’ing right to remain in this country. More importantly now, he’s an El Salvadorian citizen in El Salvador.

To suggest a hypothetical along the lines the lawfare advocates couldn’t get enough of, should a judge order SEAL Team 6 to extract him from El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

Just like convicted felon Donald Trump has a right to stay out of prison unless he is sentenced to prison by a judge, Abrego Garcia had a f'ing right to remain in this country unless he was deported according to the law.

And you don't have the evidence to convict Garcia of littering, let alone "human trafficking [sic]" or being a "gangbanger" [which is not actually a crime].

[Riva]

Illegals have NO, ZERO, NADA f’ing right to remain in this country, They’re, wait for it, ILLEGAL. And illegal alien gangbangers are no exception. But the point is moot in this case because the gangbanger is in his homeland of El Salvador. It’s their decision.

You really do want a federal judge to order a SEAL team extraction, don’t you? Given the rate of their descent into madness, who knows? You might get your wish.

[Commenter_XY]

Those who prostrate themselves upon the Altar of Abrego will no doubt tell you, don't believe your lyin eyes.

[AmosArch]

I was sort of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and be neutral on whether he was actually involved with the gangs until I saw the tats. Even trying to 'think' like a prog its pretty hard to imagine why a supposedly 'law abiding' guy not involved in banging at all would tat himself up like that.

Also again trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but he seems to get into an inordinate amount of suspicious incidents for a completely benign 'lawabiding' man the media wants to portray him as. This is all in records from the past so you can't claim trump was following him around and targeting him even though some are still trying to imply that.

Just so many red flags when looking at it objectively.

[Martinned2]

You mean the tats that Trump photoshopped in?

[AmosArch]

You're talking about the MS13 legend next to the pictorial tats in the picture he held up. The pictographs themselves still pretty straightforwardly represent MS13, or are a pretty huge coincidence.

That you characterize it this way shows that you are intentionally being deceptive yourself or just heard it third hand from some leftwing deceptive source.

[Martinned2]

I'm talking about how Trump held up a picture that magically showed more tattoos than the man actually has.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-posts-image-kilmar-abrego-175852020.html

[AmosArch]

The article you linked to literally showed what I just explained. The MS13 letters themselves are clearly a legend to the tats. The media and you pulled the diversionary nonsense out of your butt that trump was trying to fool people when the actual tats themselves are pretty incriminating on their own. Why would a perfectly law abiding man going back and forth from crocheting and shuttling the kids to volleyball have tats like that?

[Martinned2]

What part of "digitally altered image" do you not understand???

[Joe_dallas]

photoshop tats?

[grb]

AmosArch : "The MS13 letters themselves are clearly a legend to the tats."

1. If that was their purpose, Trump would have blown the picture up so both tattoos and "legend" could be clearly seen. That would have been automatic if the photo was doctored for that aim. Instead, at the scale most people would see it, your "legend" just looks like more tats. Which was by design. This was faked evidence.

2. Thus Trump's accompanying text : "They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles." It being a day ending in "Y", Trump was trying to scam his dimwitted followers with more lies. Won't they ever learn?

3. And there's no secret language of symbols that translate into MS-13. Despite AmosArch's weaseling above, the tattoos look nothing like the letters/numbers "MS-13". There's not a single example anyone can find where the gang used a code of signs as substitute for its name. So even AA's sweaty excuse is just another lie, once removed.

The President of the United States used a doctored photo to fake evidence against a man. Given that, we need to see all this "new evidence" suddenly produced from nowhere tested in a court of law. Because when Garcia became a household name, the only proof against him was a Chicago Bulls cap, tattoos, and a highly iffy report he was leading the Long Island MS-13 while doing construction work in Maryland. Kinda strange the White House is finding new evidence at this stage, don't ya think?

That the U.S. president faked evidence against Garcia is getting a lot of attention overseas. It should get more here.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-posts-image-kilmar-abrego-175852020.html

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, the entire reason that Trump doctored the photograph (probably not him personally) is because nobody looking at those tattoos without Trump's additions would actually interpret them as MS-13.

[bernard11]

The MS13 letters themselves are clearly a legend to the tats.

Are you insane? The "MS13" is clearly just typed text. Anyone who looks at them and thinks otherwise is a fool.

As is Trump. He couldn't even find someone who is any good at Photoshop to put a bit of blur on the letters.

[Frank Drackman]

Peoples can get tattoos removed (Idiot)

[David Nieporent]

The pictographs themselves still pretty straightforwardly represent MS13,

Pretty straightforwardly! Except for not having any of the characters M, S, 1, or 3, and not looking like any of those characters, and no evidence that anyone has ever used any of those symbols to represent MS-13, and the fact that it requires that it be a puzzle using English rather than Spanish, and the fact that even law enforcement people who were claiming he was MS-13 didn't cite those, even though they were so desperate for evidence that they cited a Chicago Bulls cap. But you're definitely giving him the benefit of the doubt!

[Life of Brian]

and the fact that it requires that it be a puzzle using English rather than Spanish

Brown-skinned people aren't permitted to speak English? Wow.

[AmosArch]

Marijuana Leaf = M
Smiley face = S
cross that looks pretty much like a 1.
3 obvious black dots distinctly grouped up on the skull = 3

Not exactly a texas sized leap. But a pretty big coincidence. You're the desperate ones trying to deny it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
, even though they were so desperate for evidence that they cited a Chicago Bulls cap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Crips and the Bloods back in the day wore blue and red to distinguish themselves and killed each other over it. You can make that sound as petty and irrelavent too but its 100% true.

[David Nieporent]

Marijuana Leaf = M
Smiley face = S
cross that looks pretty much like a 1.
3 obvious black dots distinctly grouped up on the skull = 3

Not exactly a texas sized leap.

It's an utterly bullshit leap. Why isn't it "L," for "leaf," or "P" for "pot"? Why would a Spanish speaker use a word that starts with "C" for "S"? Why would he use something that does not in fact look like a 1, rather than just a 1? And why would he use something that looks nothing like a 3 and does not have 3 dots on it for 3? This is utter garbage, and you know it. There is not one shred of evidence that a single MS-13 member has ever created a puzzle to tattoo himself with to signify his membership. You might as well look up at the sky and see a cloud and claim it's in the shape of MS-13.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "You might as well look up at the sky and see a cloud and claim it's in the shape of MS-13."

AmosArch probably does. Deport that cloud!

[TwelveInchPianist]

You guys get that when you lie like that, you come off not looking any better than Trump, right?

[Martinned2]

If you insist on automatically disbelieving anyone who points out that Trump is lying, I really can't help you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You expect us to believe you can't tell the difference between a fake tattoo and a label?

[David Nieporent]

pretty hard to imagine why a supposedly 'law abiding' guy not involved in banging at all would tat himself up like that.

Are you 80 years old? Lots and lots and lots and lots of people have tattoos nowadays. (From a 2023 Pew report: 32% of Americans have a tattoo, including 22% who have more than one.) I find them utterly unappealing and unattractive, but I feel the same way about most piercings, and none of those doing these things to their bodies is asking my opinion. And in virtually none of them is it a sign of being in a gang.

Also again trying to give him the benefit of the doubt

Oh, yeah that's certainly a fair characterization of your attitude.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Only secretaries of defense should have tattoos.

[grb]

And his own personal makeup salon in the Pentagon!

[AmosArch]

Marijuana Leaf = M
creepy Smiley face = S
cross that looks pretty much like a 1.
3 obvious black dots distinctly grouped up on the skull = 3

What a coincidence! I'm sure that just spells out the name of his baby girl!

[David Nieporent]

Are you actually familiar with Arabic numerals? Because that cross does not "look pretty much like a 1."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, how is any of that evidence that Abrego Garcia got due process before deportation?

That question stands on its own.

But it also opens questions about why incongruities in the story that a vehicle on a watch list, owned by multiply-convicted bad guy Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, somehow passed a searching 2-hour traffic stop without anyone in it being detained. Presumably, the omitted due process hearing for Abrego Garcia would have been the right forum to get those questions answered.

[Commenter_XY]

St Abrego is now El Salvador's problem. And do you know what they did? Promptly jailed him. Some saint.

[Martinned2]

It's almost as if El Salvador is a brutal dictatorship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/el-salvador-travel-advisory.html

[Frank Drackman]

Of course, they're a bunch of primitive brown peoples

[CountmontyC]

What the link says

Country Summary: Exercise normal precautions in El Salvador. Gang activity has decreased over the last three years. This has caused a drop in violent crimes and murders.

U.S. government employees working in El Salvador are allowed to travel throughout the country during daylight hours. However, due to the risks, U.S. government employees are prohibited from traveling between cities or departments at night.

There are exceptions. U.S. government employees are allowed to travel at all hours between San Salvador and:

El Salvador’s international

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"This should settle the question of just how in denial some peop!e are about whether Albrego Garcia is a gang member and human trafficker."

The fact remains, the executives's own hearing officer prohibited him from being sent back to El Salvador, and he was.

Some people believe in the Bad Person Exception to the Bill of Rights, such that only good people can enjoy the benefits of civil liberties. But as the Justice Frankfurter dissent (paraphrasing what was cited here previously) said, many key milestones in liberty are won in cases involving not very nice people.

Miranda of the Miranda warnings was a rapist.

And so on.

[Martinned2]

And sometimes it's the other way around. As far as historians have been able to piece together Liversidge of Liversidge v. Anderson (1941) fame was just an innocent businessman, albeit one with an inclination for bending the rules here and there. He was simply the victim of some antisemitic civil servants.

Because it is always worth re-reading, here is the famous passage from Lord Atkin's dissent.

In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons, and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.

[David Nieporent]

This is going to be amusing to see who and how many times the usual suspects claim "no evidence" now.

You have conclusively proved that someone who isn't Abrego Garcia was convicted of a crime. Congrats!

What you have, of course, not presented, is any evidence that Abrego Garcia committed a crime, let alone that he is a gang member.

[Malika the Maiz]

But he drove a car that someone who committed a crime owns!!! What more do you need? That he knows people convicted of crimes?

[CountmontyC]

He claimed that the car belonged to his boss who is a convicted human trafficker and 8 people in it that I would be willing to bet that if their immigration status had been checked would be found out to be illegally present in the USA.

[David Nieporent]

and 8 people in it that I would be willing to bet that if their immigration status had been checked would be found out to be illegally present in the USA

Well, your willingness to bet is certainly an alternative to evidence.

But in fact there was so little evidence of crime at the traffic stop that the cops didn't even bother to check their IDs or immigration status.

[Joe_dallas]

They did -
they contacted DHS - who told THP to release them -

You denial of known facts gets old

[David Nieporent]

The claim was that they contacted the FBI about Abrego Garcia — not the other people in the car — although the DHS report about the incident doesn't even mention the FBI. But neither the FBI nor DHS can "tell THP to release" anybody. THP doesn't work for the FBI or DHS. If THP released them, it was because THP didn't see any actual crime.

[Joe_dallas]

I corrected myself

You have chosen to misrepresent the THP authority and the DHS authority.

Under Mayorkas/DHS , it was the active policy to release illegal aliens and the news reports stated that DHS instructed the THP not to hold them

[David Nieporent]

That is not correct factually or legally.

[Joe_dallas]

yes it is

[HazelMeade]

They contacted other law enforcement who didn't see enough evidence of any crime to detain them further.
That's all we know. You can speculate as much as you like about what evidence there might have been that they didn't look for, but you don't convict people based on speculation about the evidence that doesn't exist.
As far as I know they DID check the IDs of the other people in the car, and didn't find anything amiss.

Maybe they were being careful to only drive around people with lawful visas because they didn't want to get arrested and deported. See, I can speculate too.

[Joe_dallas]

summary of the Mayorkas policy during the biden administration

https://cis.org/Fishman/Justify-His-New-Border-Rule-Mayorkas-Fesses-Harm-Caused-His-Mass-Releases

[Malika the Maiz]

I mean, if driving the car of your boss, who is a convicted felon, makes you a deportable gang member, all those Trump aides driving his Tesla better be worried!

[Commenter_XY]

All the Trump aides are citizens, so no worries. 😛

[David Nieporent]

Doesn't matter; if they don't get hearings they don't get the opportunity to show that.

[Riva]

He doesn’t need to be called convicted of anything to be removed from this country. He can even turn in his MS-13 card. (Don’t know how that happens but would probably involve losing one or both hands). He was still an illegal. He had no right to remain in this country. Now he’s in his home country of El Salvador. Should we invade to get him back? Interesting that democrats can’t abandon their open borders obsession, even in the case of a deported illegal gangbanger. Who is the brain running the DNC? Is it AOC?

Oh, and, as an aside, you trolls certainly all parrot each other. Do guys get talking point memos every morning? Are you misinforming the public for free or is there still some USAID/NGO money in it?

[Moderation4ever]

It has been 41 days since the Trump Administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvator prison. A mistake the administration admits but has not corrected.

[Malika the Maiz]

You have to know MAGAns don’t care. They are working so hard to “other” him as a gang member and such because it’s Wilhot’s law all the time, every time.

[Commenter_XY]

Oooopsie!

[Frank Drackman]

wasn't a mistake

[Kazinski]

Well I got what I asked for:

"This should settle the question of just how in denial some peop!e are about whether Albrego Garcia is a gang member and human trafficker."

[HazelMeade]

Are you even slightly interested in finding out what Abrego Garcia's side of the story is? Or do you just take government officials word for it 100% of the time?
Let's note that he's being held incommunicado, and hasn't been allowed to talk to a lawyer, so is unable to respond to the charges and give his side of the story, which is what would happen in a court.
You're ok with locking people up and then having the government release an entirely one sided argument for why they are a criminal with no opportunity to respond?

[shawn_dude]

Silly question. If he took government officials' words for it 100% of the time, he'd believe the J6 convicts deserved prison (they did/do) and he'd have nothing bad to say about Biden. So it's not "government officials" that have his loyalty but some other mega authoritarian group of assholes.

[AmosArch]

Scrolled through the front page and gathered some stats

36 Trump posts: Maybe we should rename this place to the Trump conspiracy?

12 Prof. blackman

10 Mr. Somin

5 Prof. volokh

3 Post

2 Prof. Adler

4 Open thread which are automatically Trumpcentric

Unsurprisingly blackman is the only one aside from the thread users who writes supportive posts while everybody else generally is negative. Volokh likes to distance himself by posting another's opinion but it is typically antiTrump too.

18 'nonTrump' posts

8 are supreme court history blackman posts

5 Are eugene posts and the balance are posts from others. Mr. Somin exclusively posted about Trump in this period.

[Malika the Maiz]

Mad King promises to be a very active and his vassals whine that the he’s being covered too much here. Their seething sense of victimhood has always been strong.

[Moderation4ever]

Can you go back to the early days of the Biden Administration and report if the major theme of VC was Biden centric?

[Martinned2]

The Appeals Chamber of the ICC has given two judgments yesterday on appeals brought by Israel against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) to issue an arrest warrant against three Israeli officials. The Appeals Chamber upheld one appeal and rejected another.

Joshua Rozenberg, who is very good but also pretty pro-Israel, has a summary here: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/icc-reverses-israel-ruling

[Martinned2]

The judgment on both appeals is here: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd180b5913d.pdf

The issues are pretty tricky, but if I understand the judgment correctly the Appeals Chamber held that the PTC should have given Israel the opportunity to argue that the ICC did not have jurisdiction to issue these arrest warrants, and it should have assessed Israel's arguments on the merits in its judgment, rather than relying on the 2019 PTC judgment as res judicata.

But ultimately the Appeals Chamber has not given its own view as to whether there is jurisdiction, which might have helped a lot, because even if the 2019 PTC judgment doesn't formally resolve the matter, it would still be strange for a PTC in 2025 to disagree with the earlier judgment. Whether Palestine is a state or not, and if so whether Gaza is part of the territory of that state, is exactly the sort of thing that should be resolved at Appeals level sooner rather than later, so that we can all go on with our lives.

[Martinned2]

At the same time, the Appeals Chamber's reasons for not suspending the warrants seem oddly formalistic. You would sooner expect the sort of analysis you get on America's legendary shadow docket, whereby the Appeals Chamber might balance the equities and the likelihood of success on the merits. But of course that latter point is exactly what it doesn't want to talk about, it seems.

[Commenter_XY]

Any significance to the fact this decision was released on Yom Ha'Shoah?

[Martinned2]

I very much doubt it. I don't even think ICC judges are aware of Israeli public holidays.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm a Jew and I'm not aware of all Israeli public holidays (1/2 Jew, so I might know 1/2 of them)

[Martinned2]

Here is Kevin John Heller's write-up of the judgment, on Opinio Juris: https://opiniojuris.org/2025/04/25/the-appeals-chamber-decides-israels-appeals-and-refuses-to-suspend-the-arrest-warrants/

Highlights:

The Appeals Chamber’s remand is a pyrrhic victory for Israel. To begin with, the judgment does not explicitly rule out the Pre-Trial Chamber directly addressing Israel’s Art. 19(2)(c) argument and concluding that it doesn’t give Israel the right to challenge jurisdiction. That would mean Netanyahu and Gallant would have to challenge jurisdiction themselves pursuant to Art. 19(2)(a), because Art. 19(2)(b) limits a state to bringing an admissibility challenge.
(...)
[The res judicata point] is also a “win” for Israel — but it is unlikely to be a meaningful one. The Appeals Chamber’s judgment does not require the Pre-Trial Chamber to reject the previous Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision affirming the Court’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. All the judgment does is imply that, when it considers Israel’s jurisdictional challenge on remand, the Pre-Trial Chamber cannot treat the earlier decision as res judicata.

Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber’s Article 18 Decision and Article 19 Judgment will have almost no effect on the Palestine investigation. Israel did not file the appeals because it thought the Pre-Trial Chamber was trampling on complementarity or because it was worried it would not be able to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction. Israel has had the right to challenge the admissibility of the cases against Netanyahu and Gallant since the moment the warrants were issued. And Netanyahu and Gallant have had the right to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction from that same moment. What Israel really wanted was for the Appeals Chamber to suspend the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. And on that it failed. The arrest warrants are still valid and the obligation to enforce them is still binding.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...to issue an arrest warrant against three Israeli officials."

So, Europe's really itching to join the war on the side of Hamas? Unsurprising.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about?

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're the one talking about kidnaping Israeli officials.

[Martinned2]

No I'm not. And I'm also not talking about "Europe". Take your pills, you're hallucinating.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who's going to be executing this kidnapping you're fanaticizing about? Not Europeans?

[Martinned2]

Muted

[TwelveInchPianist]

That'll teach me. Don't bring reality into the LARP.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh no! the Mute! not the Mute! please not the Mute! Anything but the Mute!

[VinniUSMC]

Martinnazi, never change.

[Martinned2]

Aren't libertarianism and deregulation great?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/usda-withdraws-a-plan-to-limit-salmonella-levels-in-raw-poultry/

[shawn_dude]

You know, there isn't a lot that would get me to go vegetarian but that might just do it.

[Martinned2]

The Secretary-General of NATO visited the US yesterday, and he even blagged a meeting with the capo di tutti capi himself. So I guess Trump supports Ukraine again, at least until the next time he switches on Fox News.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the US’ European allies are united in seeing Russia as a “long-term threat” after he met with President Donald Trump at the White House.

“We all agree, in NATO, that Russia is the long-term threat to NATO territory, to the whole of the Euro-Atlantic territory,” Rutte told reporters outside the White House.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-presidency-news-04-24-25#cm9vtwf4l000k3b6nxymdwzuq

[Krayt]

Well, he's either mad at Putin, or "mad" at him, depends on his behind the scenes goals, but when your enemy is in a weak position, you can stick the dagger in.

We are in a position of weakness now. Don't say we weren't amply warned from historical lessons.

[shawn_dude]

Trump just used his tariffs to get Vietnamese approval for his new mega resort in Vietnam. Maybe, when he refocuses on his Russian plans, he'll throw Putin a few more kisses.

[Martinned2]

A Trump 2028 hat can now be yours for the low, low price of $50: https://www.trumpstore.com/product/trump-2028-hat/

*Due to high demand, please allow 5-10 business days to process prior to shipping*

I guess ridiculous prices and shipping delays are what happens when something is guaranteed "made in America"...

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think I've ever bought any Trump merch, unless maybe you count that "Basket of Deplorables" shirt back in '16, and I thought of that more as anti-Hillary merch.

And it wasn't anywhere NEAR $50.

[Martinned2]

So we're going to just ignore the "Trump 2028" aspect?

[Armchair]

Wait till you see how much it costs for something "Made in the Netherlands"

[Martinned2]

That's why the Netherlands has been a strong advocate of international trade for literally centuries.

Meanwhile, our politicians still obey the constitution. Also something you can't take for granted these days.

[Martinned2]

80 years ago today US and Soviet soldiers met on the river Elbe: https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/zweiter-weltkrieg-handschlag-von-torgau-sieben-soldaten-und-ein-bild-fuer-die-ewigkeit-a-dcb386b7-fbd8-4c68-a715-9281ecbf8ebc

[Commenter_XY]

Singing the blues....ActBlue under investigation

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-memo-actblue/2025/04/24/id/1208189/

I don't expect anything to come of this, b/c ActBlue would never knowingly break campaign finance laws, and would never be willfully ignorant of foreign donations to American politicians. No way! 🙂

[Estragon]

“foreign donations to American politicians”

Wait until you hear about $trump!

[Kenneth Almquist]

For those of you who don’t want to click on the link, it begins, “President Donald Trump on Thursday directed the Justice Department to investigate the main fundraising platform used by Democrats...”

NewsMax isn’t even trying to pretend that this isn’t a partisan investigation.

The order Trump signed says straw donations are a problem, and directs the Attorney General to “investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make ‘straw’ or ‘dummy’ contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees.” I think Bondi will understand this to mean that she is to open an investigation of ActBlue. There doesn’t appear to be any public information on what steps, if any, WinRed takes to detect illegal contributions.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/investigation-into-unlawful-straw-donor-and-foreign-contributions-in-american-elections/

[shawn_dude]

Yet another step in the standard fascist handbook--defund your political enemies, arrest them if possible, and ensure your party never has organized opposition. Putin, then Orban, and now Trump.

[Martinned2]

The Baltic states (particularly Latvia, if I'm not mistaken) all have substantial numbers of Russian citizens living on their territories, who are there because they moved there during Soviet times, or were born there as children of people who moved there during Soviet times, but who did not and do not want to apply for citizenship in their (new) state of residence. All three Baltics have historically treated these people as a sort of quasi-citizens, but given that it's now been 35 years, and given that Russia is taking an increasingly aggressive stance towards them, their patience is clearly running out.

On 26 March 2025, the Parliament of the Republic of Estonia (Riigikogu) amended the composition of the electorate for local government elections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Estonian Constitution. The right to vote in local elections is now restricted to citizens of the Republic of Estonia and of the European Union. Prior to this amendment, Section 156 of the Constitution had granted voting rights in local elections to all permanent residents of a municipality who met legal age and residency requirements, irrespective of nationality. This broad eligibility included individuals from various countries, provided they were at least 16 years of age. A significant portion of these voters were Russian-speaking residents, primarily citizens of the Russian Federation or Belarus, or stateless persons originating from these states. The decision to revise the electorate was driven by Estonia’s recent historical experiences, the Russian Federation’s war of aggression in Ukraine, and increasing influence operations in both Estonia and Europe more broadly.

https://verfassungsblog.de/narrowing-the-estonian-electorate/

[Armchair]

What's wrong with just having citizens vote?

[Martinned2]

I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with that.

[Martinned2]

This is interesting: Does the NBA's new European basketball league somehow crash into the law that's developed over the decades mostly in relation to football?

https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/04/25/the-new-nba-fiba-league-reconciling-north-american-basketball-with-eu-law/

The blog post is right to emphasise that this case is different than the European Super League litigation because the NBA has the approval of the relevant sports federation. So this is not a case where the incumbent sports federation/league is trying to keep a new competitor out by means fair or foul.

But there are some other potential antitrust issues, for example the joint sale of broadcasting rights, which may or may not be OK depending on how they set it up. And salary caps are probably not allowed, for example. (Even though I think they're a good idea. Nobody listens to me...)

[Kazinski]

Leticia James Lawyer has responded to the allegations of occupancy fraud, and she could be off the hook, but the facts are still unclear enough to be sure:

"In seeking a criminal investigation, Pulte cited a two-page power-of-attorney form that James signed on Aug. 17, 2023, which states, “I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.”

The form gave James’ niece, Shamice Thompson-Hairston, the authority to sign documents on her behalf in connection with the purchase of the home in Norfolk, Virginia. Those forms are required when a person involved in buying a house can’t be present for the closing.

Lowell told Bondi that while the power-of-attorney form “mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence,” James had been clear about her plans, sending an email to her mortgage loan broker two weeks earlier making clear that the property “WILL NOT be my primary residence.”

But it is noteworthy neither the FHA or James lawyer is saying what the actual loan instrument says. I don't think either the power of attorney that claimed she would occupy it, or the email to the Mortgage Loan would put her in jeopardy or exonerate her.

If she signed the closing documents saying she was an occupant is really the only thing that matters, and if she signed the power of attorney saying she was an occupant, and her niece used that power of attorney to sign closing documents saying she was the occupant, then the only thing the email to the Loan Originator would do is make him part of the conspiracy.

https://apnews.com/article/letitia-james-mortgage-trump-investigation-e6f3fd527c7235dde754d5524a3170ec

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds complicated, let a Jury figure it out

[Brett Bellmore]

Continuing this conversation: Bernard: Just exactly what indefensible thing do you think Harris was going to do to you that compares with what was done to Garcia?

Me, specifically? Probably nothing personally, because aside from commenting online, I keep a fairly low exposure. Probably.

But, in general? Putting people in prison for exercising constitutional rights is pretty indefensible. The Biden administration was, and the Harris administration promised to be, at war with a fundamental enumerated constitutional right: The right to keep and bear arms.

I know that you don't LIKE that being a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, and you're fine with it being violated. But I don't have to reason on the basis of YOUR ideological preferences, now, do I? Biden put people in jail for exercising a constitutional right. Harris would have continued that. (That the judiciary largely permitted this didn't make it right, it made the judiciary complicit.)

Garcia, by contrast, had no right to be in the US, either constitutional or statutory. He was subject to a standing deportation order, and should, properly, have been deported years ago.

He WAS, however, judicially barred from being deported specifically to El Salvador, and ONLY El Salvador. And deporting him straight to a prison, though he'd been convicted of nothing, was a real dick move.

So, deporting him was not a violation of any right he had, but Trump went about it exactly the wrong way. While there IS no right way to attack a constitutional right.

[Frank Drackman]

He was deported the El Salvador, El Salvador decided he needed to be in a prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's not what happened. The prison part was by prior arrangement.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lying seems to be a lifestyle choice for “Frank.”

[Frank Drackman]

Bukele didn't want that piece of shit free in his country either. What's the over/under on how many peoples Kill-more has murdered during his 10 yr vacation in the US?

[Commenter_XY]

It was good enough for government work, Brett. 😉

[Kazinski]

How do you know that?

I am sure when we deport people to El Salvador, we let them know when suspected gang members are among them for safety purposes, but do you have any evidence its a condition imposed by us before we sent them back?

Its their own domestic policy to throw mS13 members in Cecot.

[David Nieporent]

So, deporting him was not a violation of any right he had,

That is incorrect. If one has a right not to be sent to El Salvador, then deporting him to El Salvador violates his rights.

(I just want to make clear, incidentally, that while there's no order prohibiting him from being sent elsewhere, that's not the same as saying that the govt can just put him on a plane to a random third country any time it feels like. (Even if the third country okays it.) He's entitled to notice and the opportunity to contest the suitability of that third country before they send him there.)

Biden put people in jail for exercising a constitutional right. Harris would have continued that.

No, Biden — loosely speaking; unlike Trump, he wasn't making individual decisions about who to target — put people in jail for doing things that Congress made illegal and that the courts upheld as illegal but that Brett decided according to Brettlaw was actually constitutionally protected.

[Riva]

Does El Salvador have any rights? Their president is disinclined to smuggle an illegal terrorist gangbanger into the US. Should a federal judge order an invasion to force compliance? (yes, my crazy friend, MS-13 us a designated terrorist organization) Maybe a TRO compelling international sanctions?

Yeah I know, you’ll pounce on the terrorist MS-13 status, and ignore the fact that, regardless of that, the former illegal is an El Salvadorian citizen in El Salvador. It’s their choice, not ours. Even if a federal judge doesn’t like it.

[David Nieporent]

1. I don't know what conception of rights would assign them to countries rather than individuals.

2. El Salvador's president would not need to "smuggle" him into the country, since the courts hearing his case, including the Supreme Court, have ordered that his return be facilitated. Bukele would simply have to hand him over to us, which would not normally be described as smuggling.

3. Still no evidence that he was ever a member of MS-13, let alone that he has been since February 20, 2025, when that gang was designated as such by the administration.

4. Whether he is an El Salvadorian citizen is irrelevant, as a matter of U.S. and international law. He could be Swedish, Korean, or have been born in Iowa, descended from those who came over on the Mayflower, and the legal positions would be no different.

[Riva]

What is your point? El Salvador has no choice under “international law”? What f’ing international law is El Salvador violating that requires them to accede to the rants…er orders of a federal judge? Are you claiming that they should be forced to comply with the demands of a federal judge? Should the federal judge order sanctions? You are now preening over the insane abyss where you somehow seem to think the federal courts can control US foreign policy and/or command military deployments.

[David Nieporent]

What is your point?

I thought it was pretty obvious, but I guess not to dumb people/bots.

El Salvador has no choice under “international law”?

Not only was that not my point, but it's closer to the exact opposite of my point.

My point was that whatever authority El Salvador has over Abrego Garcia stems not from him being a citizen of El Salvador, but from him being on Salvadoran soil. El Salvador would have the same authority regardless of his citizenship. "He's an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador" does not distinguish that country's control over him from "He's an American citizen in El Salvador." Trump's bootlickers like yourself could make the same "Shrug, smirk, there's nothing our courts can do about it" even if we're discussing an American.

[Riva]

We’re not discussing an American citizen. We’re discussing a former illegal alien gangbanger who is now back home in El Salvador. El Salvador is disinclined to let him go to the US. They say he is a terrorist gangbanger. So, what exactly do you envision as the role of the federal courts in this matter when the federal courts have no f’ing business in interfering in foreign affairs?

[bernard11]

So, you are retracting your claim that she was going to do things that directly affect you and your family.

And what you come up with is that she was interested in having more control. You don't like that, and think it violates the Constitution.

But there is no indication that she was planning to put people in jail for owning guns. How could she do that anyway? She'd have to get a bill through Congress, and past the Supreme Court. Quite a parlay, which is interesting in itself, because Trump obviously doesn't regard either of those things as an obstacle to what he wants to do.

So both want to do things you dislike, but Harris wouldn't be able to, precisely because the mechanisms set up in the Constitution wouldn't let her, while Trump doesn't give a fig about all that and just issues EO's.

Sorry, I don't believe you. I think your gun mania and general paranoia prevent from thinking clearly.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The Trump administration is pure evil:

https://gothamist.com/news/4-year-old-migrant-girl-other-kids-go-to-court-in-nyc-with-no-lawyer-the-cruelty-is-apparent

Even if you generally agree with Trump on immigration, this is indefensible.

[Martinned2]

Not that I mind a good pile-on, but hasn't that been going on for years? I remember hearing about 11-year olds who don't speak English being put in front of an immigration judge without a lawyer certainly during the Biden administration.

[Martinned2]

Here is a report from 2014 showing that only 43% of juveniles appeared with an attorney: https://tracreports.org/immigration/reports/359/

[A Woman of No Importance]

Assume that's true. Assume the Biden administration did it too. All that would prove is that they were evil too. But thanks for the whataboutism.

[Martinned2]

All that would prove is that they were evil too.

Yes, and the Obama and Trump I administrations before that too. What else did you think I might be trying to say?

[A Woman of No Importance]

I think you're trying to say that you're an idiot.

The point of bringing up bad behavior is to encourage that it stop. Pointing out that others have also behaved badly is not a step in that direction. You've now neutralized what otherwise would have been a powerful moral argument. Instead of now having a conversation about this practice is evil and needs to stop, we're now having a conversation about other people did it too.

So, to be clear, I raised the issue to encourage something be done about it, and your response deflects from that. I don't care that others did it too; they are no longer in power. Trump is.

In the future, maybe leave the what abouting to the Trump supporters, since that's usually the only argument they have.

[Martinned2]

WTF are you talking about? In what universe is the powerfulness of the moral argument against having 4-year olds who don't speak English argue their own immigration cases in court contingent on whether Trump is the only one who did it? It takes a special sort of American to think that this system isn't wildly offensive, regardless of who did it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but, but, Trump is worser.
On a positive note they weren't deported to CECOT.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The only person who is doing it now is Trump. Yes, it was just as wildly offensive when others did it, but bringing them up detracts from the fact that Trump is the *only one who is doing it now*. How, Trump supporters will argue, can the practice possibly be that bad when liberal heroes Biden and Obama did it too? Do you honestly not get that?

It's basically the Eichmann defense. Sure, I helped gas a lot of Jews, but so did a lot of other people. They're guilty too, so what are you looking at me for?

If you honestly don't understand that argument, I can't help you. I can assure you that Trump supporters do understand it, which is why they persist in making it. They know full well it's a distraction from the fact that he's doing it now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Take a break, the litter boxes need changing.

[Don Nico]

You'll never understand that this is not a hill worth dying on.

[Brett Bellmore]

Some people think it's important to point out even whenever it happens, other people think it's important to only point it out where doing so helps their side politically, and otherwise yell "Whataboutism!".

[Malika the Maiz]

And others bury their heads in the sand when their side does it only offering up a previous instance of the other side doing it. Hence “whataboutism.” See Bumble, Supra.

There’s an easy, principled way to avoid whataboutism:

Trump did x.

Yes, I saw that. And that’s wrong. I thought it was wrong when Obama did it too, but yeah, this is wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've basically got no respect for people who cry "Whataboutism". It's the cry of people who want a double standard, who want to be able to complain about the other side's misdeeds without having the fact that their side has misdeeds thrown in their faces.

Voting isn't A vs ideal. It's A vs B, and people who know their own side has serious deficiencies don't want them brought up, they want the conversation to be just about the other side's deficiencies, to MAKE it A vs a fake ideal.

I don't vote Republican because I think Republicans are great. They're not, they are, with race exceptions like Rand Paul, appallingly awful. I vote Republican because I'm not quite ready to give up on democracy, the Republicans and Democrats got together to make third parties futile, and I think the Democrats are MORE awful than the Republicans.

Republicans still trust the public with guns. Democrats don't. That says worlds to me about their respective views of the relationship between government and the people.

But they're both getting worse fast, and I think the day is fast approaching when I'm just going to give up on voting for lack of anybody I can stomach voting for.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s the cry of people pointing out double standards, because usually it works like I described. I point out Trump did something bad and you respond simply with “well what about Clinton!” It’s a literal deflection on partisan grounds often.

Like I said, a principled answer would be “yes, what Trump did there is bad. I thought it was bad when Clinton did it too, but that doesn’t make Trump’s doing it right. I wish we could have a policy that would stop both from doing that kind of thing.”

[A Woman of No Importance]

It basically means that nobody can ever be held accountable for anything since you can always find someone on the other side behaving badly. Hitler gets a free pass because what about Stalin, and Stalin gets a free pass because what about Hitler.

As I already pointed out, the conversation we should be having is about how awful this policy is and how much it needs to be changed. Instead, we are now having a conversation about how other people did it too.

And I can't shake the nagging feeling that part of that is because some of the commenters here don't see the problem with small children who don't speak English appearing in front of an immigration judge with no representation.

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

Don't worry, they're already selling Trump 2028 hats.

You'll at least have a candidate for the 2028-2048 presidential term.

[Sarcastr0]

Selective nihilism.

You'll get super mad about Travelgate or Butter Emails, but then shrug at lies and lawbreaking from your side because politics is dirty so why bother caring.

This is an open double standard; even you must see it.

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

... he says with no amount of self-awareness...

[A Woman of No Importance]

But the specific reason you're pointing it out is to deflect from the fact that Trump is now doing it, and it needs to stop.

During the Obama and Biden administrations, I was harshly critical of their deportation policies. Don't remember if I said so here or not. I'm not excusing it.

But they are no longer in power, and the focus of attention needs to be on those who are. Bringing up Biden and Obama is a distraction from that end.

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s nothing wrong with deportations allowing for proper due process to ensure the law was followed.

[Kazinski]

What should they do when they find a 4 year old that is not in the company of their parent or legal guardian?

Wouldn't you want them reunited with their parents and family?

Tell us what you would do with the 4 year old, or 11 year old, or 15 old.

I want to hear the "not evil" solution.

[Martinned2]

Assign them a lawyer.

[Kazinski]

They aren't being charged with any crime.

They aren't being punished.

Do lawyers have some special skill dealing with Children trying to figure out where there parents are, where they are from, making them feel at ease, finding out what they want?

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

You should reflect upon why you never heard of it then but now you been made to be super mad about it.

Who do you think is pulling your puppet strings?

[Krayt]

Assume that's true. Assume the Biden administration did it too. All that would prove is that they were evil too. But thanks for the whataboutism.

Hey, that both sides are evil, please correct behaviors and stop offering situational ethics defenses or attacks is my thing!

[Martinned2]

Here's an LA Times story from 2016 which, surprisingly, doesn't seem to be an April Fools story or something they copied from The Onion:

A federal immigration judge believes migrant toddlers can defend themselves in court, according to a deposition in a court case brought by advocates seeking government-appointed attorneys for the youths.

“I’ve taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience,” Judge Jack Weil said. “They get it. It’s not the most efficient, but it can be done.”

The startling statement from Weil, a Virginia-based judge responsible for training his peers, comes at a time when the number of young unaccompanied migrants crossing the southern border has sharply risen.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-immigration-judge-20160306-story.html

[Kazinski]

What do you mean "defend" themselves. From what? Being reunited with their families?

[Martinned2]

Apparently there was a class action suit about this in 2014-2016: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/14/us-children-face-deportation-without-lawyers

https://www.aclu.org/cases/jefm-v-lynch

It doesn't say what ultimately happened with that case.

[Frank Drackman]

They didn't call Barry Osama the "Deporter in Chief" for nothing

[Malika the Maiz]

Republicans certainly didn’t, they said he was part of the Great Replacement conspiracy, so your bad faith is noted.

Speaking of bad faith, have you figured out whether you’re the son of a Jewish migrant, lived here for over fifty years starting as a child went to college and got an MD but somehow learned to only write like a third grader like some moron or whether you’ve been pathetically doing some weird schtick making up such a backstory on a website for strangers?

[Frank Drackman]

Done tole you, done lost my job, how I sposed to get money to pay dat rent (in you Haid')?? and speaking of weird sticks, you're the one with a dick going by a chick's name.
Speaking of Schtick,
"Pope Francis, Floyd George, and John Lewis go into a Redneck Bar, The Bartender says........"
hey, you gotta think about that one, it's like reading a book, your imagination is always better than reality

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic poser, moron, or both?

Conservative populism, folks?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's easy to have good 'deportation' numbers if you count everybody turned back at the border as "deported", which is what Obama started doing. He wasn't racking up impressive numbers if you counted "deportations" in the manner they had previously been counted.

[not guilty]

"Not that I mind a good pile-on, but hasn't that been going on for years? I remember hearing about 11-year olds who don't speak English being put in front of an immigration judge without a lawyer certainly during the Biden administration."

Those who are quick to bleat "what about?" should heed the words of that noted philosopher, Ernest Tubb: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd9LriQ4vpE&list=RDyd9LriQ4vpE&start_radio=1

[jb]

Yes, this is an ongoing problem. It's really not reasonable to attribute it to the "Trump administration". It's a flaw in the US immigration system that Trump is definitely not going to try to fix.

[Riva]

Well, they could use federal law enforcement powers to target political opponents like the Big Guy did. Would that make you feel better?

[Kazinski]

"Those are children who arrive without parents or legal guardians — and typically instead come with aunts, uncles or older siblings, according to immigration attorneys."

What happens in the US when they find a 4 year old US citizen without parents or legal guardians?

A judge is going to decide what to do with them, and if at all possible they will be returned to their parents.

What do you suggest we do, steal them like the Russians did to Ukrainian children?

[Malika the Maiz]

White House For Sale!

“Buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars into President Donald Trump’s meme coin since his team advertised Wednesday that top purchasers could join Trump for an “intimate private dinner” next month, a Washington Post analysis found.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/24/trump-trump-memecoin-cryto/

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess they dug out Clinton's Lincoln Bedroom turnstile.

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

Conspiracy Theory!

[shawn_dude]

And he's using his tariffs to extort cash and favors from other nations. See: Vietnam and the Trump Organization's no-longer-stalled mega resort approval.

[Malika the Maiz]

I know proper handling of classified information is incredibly important to MAGAns here, so get ready to be infuriated:

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon’s security protocols set up in his office to use the Signal messaging app on a personal computer, two people familiar with the line told The Associated Press.

The existence of the unsecured internet connection is the latest revelation about Hegseth’s use of the unclassified app and raises the possibility that sensitive defense information could have been put at risk of potential hacking or surveillance.

Known as a “dirty” internet line by the IT industry, it connects directly to the public internet where the user’s information and the websites accessed do not have the same security filters or protocols that the Pentagon’s secured connections maintain.”

https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-signal-chat-dirty-internet-line-6a64707f10ca553eb905e5a70e10bd9d

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

No one cares about the War Mongers and their bullshit hit pieces.

They don't have any power anymore.

Why are you upset with Hegseth, you wanted us, and by "us", I mean the USA not "China", to bomb Iran too?

[Malika the Maiz]

Look at this bootlicker tongue washing the DoD’s chief as old ‘Hic Signals his dropping bombs on Yemen with “do you love teh Warmongers?”

If this guy ever left his mom’s basement who would help him put his pants on?

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

Why do you think there is this full court press against Pete?

It's because he stopped the Jews from bombing Iran. You're being played and put in service of war mongering Jews (BIRM).

China and Israel are in constant competition for who owns DC. When it comes to warmongering, your CCP falls second to the Jewry.

[Malika the Maiz]

“It's because he stopped the Jews from bombing Iran.”

And bombed Yemen instead. Totally not a war monger!

[Mr. Bumble]

Attacking pirates has a long tradition, going back to Jefferson.

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

Who do you think wants the US to bomb Iran so badly?

Besides disgraced ex-Senator John McCain looking up from his very hot and permanent retirement home?

[Malika the Maiz]

Your Mad King?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/trumps-bombing-threat-over-iran-nuclear-programme-prompts-backlash

It must hurt when the federal officials whose boots you lick kick you in the teeth. But that’s what it’s like to worship a Mad King I guess.

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

Nope. I'll give you one more guess, then no more prizes if you guess right after that.

[jb]

"Why do you think there is this full court press against Pete?"

Because he was ridiculously unqualified and now we're seeing the consequences.

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

Can you think of anything less empowering then using the mechanisms that granted you so much power in the previous decades just stop working?

Can you imagine? The IC had such a hold over elected officials because they could leak and run to the press to smear them. But now, they have no more power. Endless stories of Pete, no one cares (of the people that matter).

It's pretty awesome to see how impervious Trump has become to the IC's dirty tricks.

[jb]

Yeah, those bad old days when there was actually some attempt at accountability in government.

As far as I can tell, other than folks like you that will praise Trump no matter what he does, lots of people are pretty upset about this. See Brett's comment below as an example.

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

>Yeah, those bad old days when there was actually some attempt at accountability in government.

You think this is what accountability looks like? Smear jobs, leaks, and setups by people who disagree with his reforms?

>Because he was ridiculously unqualified and now we're seeing the consequences.

... of not having woke morons running the military into the ground you mean.

[jb]

If your principal goal was to fire a bunch of woke generals, then any number of candidates for the job would have been at least as effective as Hegseth. Many of those candidates would have had actual experience running large organizations, some of them even in the military.

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

Seems to be delivering pretty good results so far, so it looks like your fears are unfounded.

[Riva]

Are you still obsessing over this? Sad.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, obsessing over reckless handling of classified materials is pretty unprecedented, right?

[Riva]

I don’t obsess over Hillary’s illegal possession and destruction of classified material, neither do I obsess over the Big Guy’s illegal conduct.

[jb]

Yes, we can all tell you never think about those things, as evidenced by this post that mentions both of them despite only one being relevant in any way.

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

Hillary and Biden both mishandled classified information.

[Riva]

Said I didn’t obsess over it, but yeah sure, sometimes their gross, illegal conduct does cross my mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm actually looking forward to him being fired. He seems a bit careless.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I didn't trust my IT department, I might want a "dirty" line which bypassed them.

Likewise if I was worried about leaks in the classified system, I might use something independent of it.

[shawn_dude]

Likewise if I was worried about toxins in my filtered water, I might dive into a pool of toxic waste.

Your IT department probably dislikes you. I bet they constantly refer to you as a p.i.c.n.i.c.

[Moderation4ever]

On Wednesday's open thread a commentor asked if a child given access to books could be self-educated as some important American figures had. Notably people like Franklin and Lincoln. I would like to explore this idea further and ask if the world is actually moving away from a written information society and back to more of a oral/visual information society. Our most primitive ancestors passed information on through spoken word and visual demonstrations. The advent of written languages provided a huge step up as information could be store longer and shared to a wider audience through books. Today we live in a world where huge amounts of information are passed on through video images providing oral and visual passing of information. Google, YouTube, Tic-Tok and other platforms provide the user information in oral and visual format rather than as written word. A person can look up a recipe in a cookbook, but can just as easily see a video of how to prepare the recipe. The same is true for many other activities I might wish to engage in. I have notice that in doing home upgrades or repairs that products are skipping instructions and are now providing QR codes that direct the user to a video for instruction. Now I think reading is an essential skill, but it might be hard to explain that to a young person who can get all the information they need for their life from video. Why read Shakespeare when I can watch a movie. Why study the American Civil War when I can watch Ken Burn's documentary. Is the world moving to a new age when written language will be supplanted with oral language?

[Frank Drackman]

so why did you waste our time typing this (redacted)
You're right, Those old "Chiltons" Car repair manuals were worthless(Autozone still has them though),
I remember doing the Heater Core on my 1978 LTD,
"Step 1: Remove the Dash, Step 2: Replace Heater Core, Step 3: Re-install Dash" Of course Steps 1 and 3 took a week." So yes, Visual media are much better for manual tasks such as replacing a blown head gasket or a diseased Gallbag, but as good as they are, none of the Stephen King Movies are as good as the Movie in your Imagination from reading the book...
Same with sports, I love my 85 Inch 4K HD, being able to watch any MLB game I want (OK, some local black out restrictions may apply) Cricket from India, but there was something special about trying to pick up Denver Bears baseball games on KMYR...

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

A guy who (according to his own backstory) lived in an English speaking country from childhood and for decades writes like this. Or is a weirdo nut pretending all of that.

“I love the poorly educated!” DJT

[Frank Drackman]

Well because you're apparently culturally illiterate, I write in the "Gonzo" Style, an energetic first-person participatory format in which the Author is the protagonist and draws its power from a combination of social critique and self-satire, so like I said, ain't got no job, can't pay this rent, I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know, and speaking of Schticks, yours is the tiresome one, you probably wrote ABC telling them how unrealistic the "Chachi" character was with his long hair in a 50's Milwaukee setting, so lighten up Francis,

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

So it is a weirdo schtick! How utterly pathetic!

Walz was right, these people are pathetically weird.

[Frank Drackman]

You cite that light-in-the-loafers Sergeant Pepper-Waltz and have the balls to call someone else weird?

[ducksalad]

No, I don't think written language will be supplanted.

Speed and Recipient Control - the same amount of material can be read much faster than listened to. This becomes very obvious if you sit through a PowerPoint where the presenter insists on reading the bullets verbatim while the audience shifts in their seats. It's also easier to skim quickly to find the parts you want, or conversely to linger over the parts you want to focus on.

Tabular, numerical or mathematical material is close to useless in verbal form. Or for that matter, anything that requires juggling more than about five to six ideas/items at the same time.

Signs, especially for businesses, can't really be replaced with loudspeakers (although they try in some business districts in Mexico). You could replace everything with logos and Euro style warning signs, but that's really just creating a new hieroglyphic written language.

Anyway, I'll take a PDF supplemented with good illustrations over a video every single time.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You could replace everything with logos and Euro style warning signs, but that's really just creating a new hieroglyphic written language."

One of my chief complaints about modern software interfaces. If I'd wanted to learn 3500 icons, I'd have studied Mandarin Chinese. Although at least including hover text makes it less of an issue.

[ducksalad]

When Windows 11 came out I wasted almost an hour figuring out that "Copy" had been deleted from every single drop down and right click menu, and could be accessed only by an icon.

[Sarcastr0]

I think being an autodidact is possible. Because people learn a ton of different ways. There's bound to be some extreme outliers that doesn't need anything 'drawn out' even in this complex and fast-paced age.

Though even an autodidact talked to people. So the vision of mainlining documentaries is flat wrong.

[ducksalad]

Is this a good time to bring up a related issue?

People who believe themselves to be auto-didacts but actually aren't.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moderation4ever — A remark not original with Franklin, but mentioned by him:

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."

Passive information consumption, by someone who does not practice writing continuously and life-long, is a formula for cognitive atrophy. Expect cognitive atrophy to be an unfortunate outcome of generative AI.

So no, if ours is to be, ". . . more of a oral/visual information society," then expect it to be a generally less thoughtful society as well. Non-literate societies have their own charms and ways of knowing. The notion is thousands of years old that literacy, or its absence, marks a near-unbridgeable cleavage among social systems. Unless something happens to abolish literacy, expect that to continue.

About Franklin. It seems peculiar to suppose that Franklin—one of the most systematically literate men of the 18th century—examples an outcome a typical autodidact might approach. Franklin deservedly ranks near the top among world-historical Enlightenment thinkers, and doers.

Franklin's ostensible peers, in Europe and in North America, seem almost universally to have reckoned Franklin their intellectual superior. Given the intellectual company Franklin attracted, that is impressive tribute in itself.

Sixty years ago—remarkably recently, actually—Franklin's accomplishments remained under-appreciated. Most of his writings had not yet publicly come to light. In fact, only a few people then knew what a voluminous writer Franklin had been, let alone what intellectual qualities that writing disclosed.

Absent access to Franklin's full record, he then seemed a founder at least worthy of place on U.S. currency. But beyond that his reputation was derived largely from his deliberately self-obscuring autobiography, from Poor Richard's Almanac, and from what seemed a sort of sideline for practical insight and invention.

All interesting stuff, but not recognizable as substantively comparable to the nation's greatest founders. Franklin was not then counted a serious rival in this nation's founding pantheon for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton.

At about that time a gift of most of Franklin's extant papers—assembled over many decades by a private collector—began to be read, collated, and properly archived at Yale. The sheer volume of that collection took historians by surprise. Its contents surprised them too. That project is just wrapping up now, with more than 50 volumes publicly available for inspection and study.

As those works get more attention, expect Franklin's reputation to brighten yet more. To read what Franklin wrote is not only to understand what a great thinker he was, but also to understand how writing itself propelled him toward intellectual greatness.

Franklin socialized, he listened, he wrote, he advocated, he weighed attention and criticism his letters and publications brought back, he reconsidered, he re-wrote, he socialized more. Everything was ferment, written down, re-read, then modified, continuously, for a long, successful, and extraordinarily well-networked lifetime.

Franklin wrote himself into and out of political positions, schemes for social improvements, business opportunities, religious beliefs, and inventive theories, while advancing his insight into all of those. On diplomatic missions, Franklin wrote letters of praise for troublesome rivals so deftly accurate that those who read them recognized advantages to prefer Franklin ahead of the rivals.

Franklin taught himself genius; he had to. Franklin aspired to an originality of insight no one else could have offered him. Writing was the means Franklin used to make it happen. Few others will ever reap so much as Franklin did from effort to write, to read, and to reflect. But nobody who substitutes automated output for the mental activity to organize from scratch the process to compose words into thoughts will be the better for it.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Why did his wife plead for him? Because if she does not , the gang will kill her. I'm sure that the Feds knew exactly why and told her" You say what the gang members expect you to say and we will act on the horrors of his behavior that you are telling us and not the press"

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s sad enough to mindread, but to do so in deference of federal LEO agency power….

[HazelMeade]

Yes. It must be that. No possible way that she actually loves him.
Strange how none of her family or friends are speaking up. Don't they have her phone tapped? I guess the Trump administration is too ethical for that. Oh well.

[TaioF920]

The problem with the immigration system is that there are not enough courts, administrative judges and other staff. The whole reason these people come is that they know their hearings will be years out. Congress can decide these people don't get due process other than to demonstrate citizenship (and put the burden on them), but they have decided they do get due process but refused to fund adequate courts to get it done quickly.

[Malika the Maiz]

Who controls Congress right now?

The GOP should prioritize passing a budget that funds due process for migrants. If I thought they were getting basic due process (not what’s afforded citizens) you could deport away and I, and many others, would think it’s no big controversy.

[TaioF920]

What does basic due process constitute? Does it mean getting a taxpayer funded lawyer and interpreter for these cucarachas who don't speak a lick of English?

[Malika the Maiz]

Uh, should sides in an administrative process know what’s occurring during it? Yeah. Wouldn’t be much of a fair one otherwise.

It’s sad you know English but don’t understand it. Like a parrot, maybe?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, the GOP should prioritize funding due process for immigrants. Which isn't all that much process, really. An opportunity to claim "No, actually I'm a citizen!" with hefty financial penalties if you perjure yourself would be sufficient for the ones who don't have Green cards. The ones with Green cards have a statutory entitlement to a bit more than that.

[David Nieporent]

While I don't actually have a problem with this, I'm amused at the fact that you think many illegal immigrants have accumulated big 401ks you can seize. What sort of "hefty penalties" do you think you're going to impose?

Your proposal (which you've repeated several times in recent threads) seems to be based on the misconception that that the issue in deportation hearings is about citizenship. Rather, it's almost always about deportability.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think they've accumulated bit 401Ks. That would be kind of hard to do without legal status.

Doesn't mean they haven't accumulated any assets. And those should be on the line if they perjure themselves by falsely claiming legal status under oath. Otherwise they should get to take them with them.

David, the current administration has ended the prior policy of just letting illegal aliens stay. If you're here illegally, you ARE going to be deported.

[David Nieporent]

David, the current administration has ended the prior policy of just letting illegal aliens stay. If you're here illegally, you ARE going to be deported.

Not even responsive to what I wrote. Being a non-citizen does not mean you're here illegally. If ICE picks up a non-citizen and wants to deport him, the hearing to which you refer is not going to turn on the non-citizen falsely claiming to be a citizen. It's going to turn on whether there's a legal basis to deport him. (For example, if he's entitled to asylum.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"the hearing to which you refer is not going to turn on the non-citizen falsely claiming to be a citizen. "

And that's why I said, "by falsely claiming legal status under oath", not "citizenship". Citizenship is just one of the forms of legal status.

If you're accused of being an "illegal alien", you're accused of not having legal status in the country. The only relevant thing you can dispute is claiming that you DO have some legal status. If you don't want to claim that, the only remaining question is where you get deported to.

[HazelMeade]

So budget more funds to the immigration courts. Duh.
You want to deport a million people without due process because it's *cheaper* ?

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW:
"The FBI has arrested former New Mexico Magistrate Judge Juan Cano and his wife Nancy Cano for allegedly harboring an illegal alien with suspected ties to Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang known for trafficking, extortion, and violence.

The arrest comes just weeks after Cano resigned from his judicial post following a dramatic federal raid at his Doña Ana County residence, where agents apprehended Cristhian Ortega Lopez, an illegal immigrant now charged with unlawful firearm possession and gang affiliation."
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/breaking-fbi-arrests-democrat-new-mexico-judge-wife/

[Malika the Maiz]

Bumble trusts the FBI now?

[Armchair]

I've come to understand that liberals really believe some rights are superior to others. And if the rights come into conflict, the superior right should win.

As far as I can tell, the ranking is this.

1. Right to an abortion > Right to free speech > Freedom of religion > Right to bear arms.

Anyone else care to weigh in or add additional rights?

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with Scalia, ignoramus.

[Malika the Maiz]

Due process doesn’t appear to Armchair because no GOP President is currently on trial, but stay tuned!

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

Right to Domestic Terrorize to Save Sacred Democracy

That have that too. In fact if you get caught on camera doing $20,000+ domestic terrorism to American made EVs and you are a Democrat, well the Democrat attorney will practically give a medal of honor.

Not so if the very next day you're just some 19 year old regular White person doing the exact same crime only much lesser in nature. Then the very same Democrat attorney will throw the book at you.

[Malika the Maiz]

All whine, all the time.

[TaioF920]

The DA is a Soros lackey, Irish Catholic dyke. No big surprise. She and Soros belong in a gas chamber together.

[Malika the Maiz]

Totally not Nazis! Edgelord working it today! Get chased out of your neighbors’ shrubs again last night?

[tylertusta]

This reply is going to piss off most of the left wingers in these comments.

I'm going to quote a Josh Blackman post:

End the Epicycles of Roe

Five decades later, we are stuck spinning in a never-ending series of epicycles. Consider a few examples of how Roe has distorted our law:

Stare Decisis: "The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the 'central holding.' It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version." Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 993 (1992) (Scalia, J.).

Freedom of Speech: "Today the ad hoc nullification machine claims its latest, greatest, and most surprising victim: the First Amendment. Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Freedom of Speech: "What is before us, after all, is a speech regulation directed against the opponents of abortion, and it therefore enjoys the benefit of the 'ad hoc nullification machine' that the Court has set in motion to push aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice." Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 741 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Facial Challenges: "In fact, it is not clear that any woman would be deprived of a safe abortion by her inability to obtain a partial birth abortion. More medically sophisticated minds than ours have searched and failed to identify a single circumstance (let alone a large fraction) in which partial birth abortion is required. But no matter. The 'ad hoc nullification' machine is back at full throttle." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 1020, (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Tiers of Scrutiny: "These more recent decisions reflect the Court's tendency to relax purportedly higher standards of review for less-preferred rights." Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Severability: "H.B. 2 contains what must surely be the most emphatic severability clause ever written. . . . [JB: S.B. 8 said hold my beer.] But despite this language, the Court holds that no part of the challenged provisions and no application of any part of them can be saved. . . There is no possible justification for this collateral damage." Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2331 (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting).

Third-Party Standing: "And the idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the purpose of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning. Given the apparent conflict of interest, that concept would be rejected out of hand in a case not involving abortion." June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2153 (2020) (Alito, J, dissenting).

[Malika the Maiz]

“This reply is going to piss off most of the left wingers in these comments.”

He said, starting to pleasure himself….

[tylertusta]

Yes, I'm going to enjoy every minute of your hate-filled screeds.

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, a confession both strange and sad!

Have you considered trying to get a human girl to like you instead of your current strategy? Maybe a hobby like working out or bird watching?

[tylertusta]

Keep going.

[Malika the Maiz]

You plan to keep going on a route where you get joy from other’s anger? As your Mad King used to say: Sad!

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's the stuff.

[TaioF920]

The right of a gay man to bareback another man to completion is right after the right to abortion.

[Malika the Maiz]

It the place for excerpts from your dad’s diary, dude.

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

I, too, think homo-sex is vile, filthy and gross and use it as an insult as well.

Fellow heterosexuals united against degeneracy! *fist bump*

[Malika the Maiz]

We know you do, incel. Anyone getting any action makes you feel more deprived!

[shawn_dude]

Wow, a right-winger who admits that liberals place the right to bear arms in their top 4 civil rights! I'm amazed.

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

Well we can see that Malika's shift has started.

And also, Sarcastr0 must be on the clock at work. He doesn't post much when taxpayers aren't picking up the tab.

[Malika the Maiz]

The great thing about living in his mom’s basement is that the only shift he has to do is from one side of the love seat to the other.

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

I haven't pitched you a peanut yet, so please don't start dancing for me, my little CCP Monkey. *tussles hair*

[Malika the Maiz]

Stop quoting what your mom’s special friends tell you when they come over, this is a legal blog.

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

Nooo!! My one weakness!! Must roll for bravery
*rolls d20*

I got a 3. :/

[David Nieporent]

I posted this yesterday in the dying embers of one of the threads about Trump's lawlessness on deportations:

The government's idea of what constitutes due process was just revealed in a filing in SDTX. Notice only in English, and 12 (!) hours to assert one's rights.

https://x.com/ValOnTheBorder/status/1915499242359078940

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

Seems reasonable.

[Malika the Maiz]

A phrase never applied to Magnus!

[Riva]

Lawless deportations of illegals?

You guys run with that message in 2026. It’s a winner.

[David Nieporent]

1) No, these are legals. This is about the AEA. If someone is illegal, he can be deported without resort to the AEA. The AEA is only needed when there are no legitimate grounds for deportation.
2) Once again ignoring the Supreme Court's JGG decision, I see.
3) The last resort of the sociopath when he knows he cannot defend a policy as either legal or moral is to start talking about elections. Hitler was popular. So what?

[Riva]

I know you guys lie but this is rather pathetic. Put some effort into it. Those subject to removal as enemy aliens are a subset of all illegals in this country. But they’re all illegals.

And the nazi insults are getting a little stale aren’t they? Actually nazi projections may be a better description since that comparison more accurately applies to the Biden regime.

[David Nieporent]

Those subject to removal as enemy aliens are a subset of all illegals in this country. But they’re all illegals.

I would get mad at the blatant dishonesty and call names, but a bot programmed to lie isn't worth worrying about. The Alien Enemies Act is not about illegal aliens. Indeed, there was no such thing as illegal aliens when the AEA was enacted. And Ludecke himself was a "legally admitted resident of the United States."

[Riva]

In the present case, my crazy gaslighting friend, are any of the TdA gangbangers claiming to be legal residents or even citizens?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you need to read the 2nd and 3rd pages, too. You know, the part where they go over in excruciating detail the translation services provided to aliens who don't speak or read English, or who are just flat out illiterate?

[David Nieporent]

The "translation services" are that someone reads it to them, not that the document is given to them in a language they speak. But if oral notice is adequate, then why do they bother to provide written notice in English? Answer: neither they nor anyone has a good faith belief that oral notice is adequate, so they need to create a fig leaf that written notice is being provided. But they are deliberately making it useless.

Obviously if someone is actually illiterate, then oral notice is the best notice possible. For anyone else, it is not.

[Zarniwoop]

Ugh, links to documents on Xitter blow goats.

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69862833/jav-v-trump/

Dkt#49: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.49.0_2.pdf

[Malika the Maiz]

Due process is only for GOP President billionaires. Let’s give it to them elites!

[tylertusta]

I remember when Stephen Lanthrop wishcasted about denying Trump due process due to the need to get Trump convicted of everything before November.

Good times.

[Malika the Maiz]

I like that this is not only whataboutism, but an irrelevant bit since I am not Lathrop and agree with him on very little. But nice try, Ty!

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

You're definitely not Stephen. He's an American.

HTH

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m definitely not Magnus, I’m not a virgin for example.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh shit no liberal can disagree with Lathrop!

[tylertusta]

Come on, you can do better than a straw man.

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

lol no he can't

[tylertusta]

He actually did better than a straw man in his next reply.

I knew he had it in him!

[Sarcastr0]

If that's not your position why the fuck does Lathrop matter?

[tylertusta]

I give this new reply a B.

The inclusion of emotional swear words sometimes backfires, but here it's giving just enough oomph to elevate the criticism. I would have otherwise given you a B-minus if not for the 'fuck.'

However, the 'arguing in bad faith' shtick is so overused that it's basically cliche. I suggest spicing it up, perhaps with an appeal to moderation, or even some of the motte-and-baileys that you use very well (and I mean that as a compliment).

[Malika the Maiz]

Tyler hears he’s arguing in bad faith so much it’s like water to a fish.

[tylertusta]

From Sarcastr0? Yes, I do get it from him a lot.

When he can't use some of his usual rhetorical fallacies to criticize people, he'll fall back on saying people aren't arguing in good faith.

[Malika the Maiz]

Tyler demands a better response to his irrelevant whataboutism!

[tylertusta]

I absolutely do demand better from the usual suspects here, Malika.

[Malika the Maiz]

You might want to offer something of value to respond too.

The Party of Personal Responsibility, folks!

[tylertusta]

B-minus.

Trying to play up an imaginary crowd detracted from the impact of that statement. If you had excluded it and just said "You might want to offer something of value to respond too." then that would have a stronger impact.

Sometimes less is more.

[jb]

Good thing Stephen Lathrop is not in charge of deciding who gets due process, I guess. He has quite a large number of weird opinions.

[tylertusta]

I am forever thankful of that.

[Malika the Maiz]

Some good news:

“For the fifth year in a row, the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay is doing well after decades of combating drought, disease, loss of habitat and overharvesting.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources said in March that its annual fall oyster survey showed that the “spatfall intensity index” — a measure of how well oysters reproduced and their potential population growth — again hit above a 40-year median.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/04/24/chesapeake-bay-oyster-population/

[Stephen Lathrop]

That is more accurately a survey to show that 4 decades of previous oyster reproduction in the Chesapeake have been disastrous. But of course improvement above a disastrous standard remains improvement.

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

Trump just put Disparate Impact on the chopping block.

Which Democrat judge do you think will vacate this EO?

[Malika the Maiz]

But he relies on it in his critique of academia…

[Moderation4ever]

How about SCOTUS, 1971 in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?

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

I think:
>Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.

Is safe. Even with that case. And this part is especially good:

Sec 3. Revoking Certain Presidential Actions. The following Presidential approvals of the regulations promulgated under 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 are hereby revoked:
(a) the Presidential approval of July 25, 1966, of the Department of Justice Title VI regulations (31 Fed. Reg. 10269), as applied to 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2) in full; and
(b) the Presidential approval of July 5, 1973, of the Department of Justice Title VI regulations (38 Fed. Reg. 17955, FR Doc. 73-13407), as applied to the words “or effect” in both places they appear in 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3), and as applied to 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(6)(ii) and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(c)(2) in full.

And I don't see how any judge can overcome ( I mean they will claim they can because they want the racist policy to persist):

Sec. 4. Enforcement Discretion to Ensure Lawful Governance. Given the limited enforcement resources of executive departments and agencies (agencies), the unlawfulness of disparate-impact liability, and the policy of this order, all agencies shall deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2)–(3), 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(6)(ii), and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(c)(2).

[jb]

Well, good thing Trump is going back and undoing the work of that famous woke libtard Richard Nixon. Now we'll finally all be safe from racism!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We Need Proof of Life for the Makeup Artist Trump Sent to El Salvador

https://archive.ph/hYEBz

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a symbol. Symbols are convenient representations of wider things. Trump's treatment of noncitizens,* including deporting them without proper due process, has overall been horrendous. And, unlike one contributor here, the public has shown its displeasure.

Hernández Romero, who fled Venezuela in part because of the persecution he’d faced as a gay man, tried to come to America the right way. After making the grueling journey north, he was arrested the first time he attempted to get into the United States and sent back to Mexico. But there, he did what he should have done in the first place, downloading an app from Customs and Border Protection and making an appointment to claim asylum.

And then the infamous tattoos were found. The recklessness in picking people up, detaining them far from home, and trying to deport them is worsened by who is involved. Some people are targeted for mere speech. They repeatedly are not the stereotypical monsters Trump and others describe in dehumanizing terms:

As Bloomberg reported, around 90 percent of the migrants sent to CECOT have no criminal records aside from immigration or traffic violations.

People deserve due process of law, even those accused of horrible things [Trump received lots], but the stories of many of the people targeted make things that much worse.

Here is a striking summary of CECOT:

https://archive.ph/ySyYY

==

* I have already seen one discussion of an American citizen wrongly being caught within the vortex and others will be too.

[ReaderY]

Wanted to suggest an alternative interpretation of the Trump AEA proclamation. This interpretation is more favorable to the administration’s position, but it still loses.

Under this interpretation, the President has proclaimed that Venezuala, the country and government, has invaded or conducted a predatory incursion into the United States through its instrumentality the TdA. In invoking the AEA, Trump in his discretion has limited AEA enforcement to only Venezualian citizens who are TdA members, rather than all Venezualian citizens as he could have.

This interpretation favors Trump’s position in two critical ways. First, because it alleges a country and a government have waged war on the United States, a key AEA element is satisfied at the motion to dismiss stage. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it insulates the administration from judicial review of its decisions about TdA membership status and makes TdA membership irrelevant to judicial proceedings.

The reason it would do this requires understanding what is and is not judicially reviewable under Ludecke vs. Watkins. Ludecke held that federal courts review whether a proclamation meets the statutory elements of the AEA, including (in the absence of a declared war) the existence of an invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign country or government, and the alleged alien enemy’s status as a citizen of that country or government. However, if the President in his discretion chooses to limit enforcement to only a subset of the citizens of the enemy country, the judiciary does not and cannot review membership in that subset.

If Trump’s proclamation is interpretated in the way proposed, then a Venezualian citizen’s membership in the TdA would become exactly like Ludecke’s own status as a “dangerous” German citizen. Because subset definitions are purely matters of prosecutorial discretion, not statutory construction, any errors in identifying members of the subset are judicially unreviewable. So ICE would be completely entitled to identify TdA membership status by tattoos, baseball caps, or any other criteria that it in its discretion cares to have. Since all Venezualian citizens could legally be subjected to the act if it applied, exempting some of them is a matter of pure executive grace and discretion.

Of course, under this interpretation, the courts still review whether or not Venezuala, the country, has engaged in an invasion of or predatory incursion into the United States. And on this element, I think the Administration’s position ultimately falls to the ground with every bit as loud a thud as under the interpretation the courts have currently been using. Even though decisions about membership in TdA become irrelevant and not subject to judicial review under this interpretation, the result is the same. Because Venezuala has not engaged in an act of war against the United States, no Venezualian citizen, TdA member or not, is an alien enemy, and none can be treated as such.

There have been many comments made misinterpreting Ludecke as saying presidential AEA proclamations are not subject to judicial review at all, in their entirety. This is simply not true. The misinterpretation, however, does come from something that really was said in Ludecke. The Supreme Court really did say that a portion of an AEA proclamation really is not judicially reviewable. The unreviewable case is when the President limits enforcement to only a subgroup of the enemy country’s citizens. In that case, courts can review only whether the petitioner is an actual citizen of an actual enemy country or government, and not whether the petitioner is or isn’t a member of the subgroup to which the proclamation has limited enforcement.

As noted above, it is definitely possible to interpret the current proclamation in a way that enables the administration to take advantage of this Ludecke non-judicial review feature by insulating TdA membership determinations from judicial review. However, the Administration still loses even under this interpretation.

[Bored Lawyer]

Because Venezuala has not engaged in an act of war against the United States

Are you saying that (a) actively encouraging TdA to do mischief in the US is not an act of war, and Venezuela would have to do some other act to be an act of war; or (b) there is no evidence that Venzuela did (a)?

I am thinking here of foreign countries (e.g,, Iran) funding and encouraging terrorist operations on U.S. soil. Would that qualify in your view?

How about funding a group to fire on US (and US allied) shipping in the Red Sea?

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

ReaderY wasn't aware of the assertions that TdA received training by the Venezuelan government and is a defacto governmental organization.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think perhaps he was assuming a court would find that the assertions were wrong.

[tylertusta]

I would think that at the very least there should be some review of whether someone is a member of an organization under an AEA proclamation if only to determine whether someone is actually an alien.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason the group membership element isn't subject to review is that it represents an exercise of executive branch discretionary leniency towards people NOT members of the group. Since under the terms of AEA *everybody* from that country is deportable, so you're legally deportable whether or not they're right about the group membership.

[tylertusta]

I get that.

My thinking is that if you scoop up a bunch of people from Al Qaeda and say "I'm going to deport you to your home country" you should at least check to see if their home country isn't the United States.

Because at that point of the process you'd have discovered that some of them aren't "aliens." They're US citizens.

(And probably should be tried for treason or something equally serious).

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Since under the terms of AEA *everybody* from that country is deportable ....."

This surprised me, so I checked and - yes - it's wrong. Below is a link to Trump's AEA proclamation which says this:

"I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

Of course the proclamation is riddled with lies. Trump's own intelligence agencies found no link between Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan government. But I bet even Brett knows the claim is made-up bullshit. He just doesn't care.

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-reason-behind-alien-enemies-act-contradicted-new-intel-2061341

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The AEA originally applied to males who were 14 and over. The law was later changed to include all persons:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

Note that the AEA includes a provision for time allowed to settle one's affairs before they are removed unless they are "chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety."

There is also a section regarding "Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges."

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Under the AEA, Trump could have claimed all Venezuelans are subject to deportation."

The AEA does not cover ten-year-olds. So, no, "all" Venezuelans are not subject to deportation.

[ReaderY]

The AEA here refers to the Alien Enemies Act, the statute passed by Congress, not the proclamation. You checked only the terms of the presidential proclamation, not the terms of the AEA itself. Brett Bellmore’s description of the situation is correct. Under the statute itself, President Trump could have declared all Venezualian citizens deportable. The enforcement limitation in the proclamation was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

[tylertusta]

The enforcement limitation in the proclamation was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Nitpick: It was definitely discretionary, but I wouldn't call it prosecutorial discretion.

Maybe CINC discretion?

[grb]

ReaderY : "Brett Bellmore’s description of the situation is correct. Under the statute itself, President Trump could have declared all Venezuelan citizens deportable."

Since everything about Trump's use of the AEA is a lie, I don't have a stake in the minute details. However, I understood Brett's comment to read this: Under Trump's evocation of the Alien Enemies Act, all Venezuelans are subject to deportation. I did not understand his comment to read this : Under the AEA, Trump could have claimed all Venezuelans are subject to deportation, not just TdA members.

Of course that's a subtle difference & when subtly and the law mix, I'm too frequently wrong. (Using my best DeForest Kelley voice) : I'm an architect, damn it, not a lawyer.

[ReaderY]

No. Brett was paraphrasing my original comment. Let me clarify. Under the AEA, nobody is subject to deportation unless there is a presidential proclamation saying so. But when a presidential proclamation says so, courts only review cases where people challenge their deportations/detentions for whether they meet the statutory terms, not whether they meet any additional terms set by the president in the proclamation.

It’s still the job of Executive Branch officials to obey the proclamation as written and enforce any additional terms in it. But if they don’t, the President can fire them for insubordination or incompetence, but there is no judicial review.

[David Nieporent]

Under the statute itself, President Trump could have declared all Venezualian citizens deportable.

I mean, he obviously could not, since there is no declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion by the government of Venezuela.

[Bored Lawyer]

[Moved]

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

The NY Times is now putting out sob stories with titles like "21 Years Later, Deported back to a 'Home' He Barely Knew"...

While leaving out "After coming illegally, kidnapping a citizen, then serving 15 years in prison..."

lmao Trump played the fuck out of you idiots.

[rloquitur]

"Just like convicted felon Donald Trump has a right to stay out of prison unless he is sentenced to prison by a judge, Abrego Garcia had a f'ing right to remain in this country unless he was deported according to the law."

Pretty much says it all. He'd be in Guatemala by now and a free man if we could trust that Xinis wouldn't order his return. And no he didn't have a right to remain in this country anymore than I have a right to torch Teslas if I am not going to get prosecuted.

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

Well you do have the right to torch Telsa's in certain Minnesota jurisdictions. At least in how they're applying the law, one can infer it.

[David Nieporent]

Now you're just parroting administration tweetaganda. The part about "coming illegally" seems to be your typical fiction, but the part about his crime was discussed extensively in the article.

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

Which Democrat Judge do you think is going to overrule the USDA and force them to give food snaps to illegals?

I mean, whose the shittiest, dumbest, most partisan hack judge out there? (That's not on SCOTUS so you can't say PB&J).

[ReaderY]

If Congress provides that they should be given to illegals, then the USDA has to give them to illegals. If you don’t like it, take your beef to Congress. The USDA has to enforce the law as written. It has no right to overrule Congress and “rule” based on its own opinion about things.

I notice that in your comments you repeatedly write as if Congress didn’t exist, as if executive branch were the only law there is and all court decisions disagreeing with it were lawless.

Bullshit. Congress not only exists, it’s the boss around here. Trump had better recognize acknowledge who’s boss, suck up, and obey if he knows what’s good for him, or he’s going to get his ass whooped.

[David Nieporent]

take your beef to Congress

ISWYDT.

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

Congress has been outsourcing their power to the Executive for generations. I'd be surprised if there is a law that plainly states that illegals should get food stamps.

[rloquitur]

New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2025/04/24/us-news/trump-admin-lashes-out-at-sob-story-about-illegal-migrant-convicted-of-kidnapping/

[Estragon]

“But I am this giant store. It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there.”

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

Why do so many of you Democrat lawyers on this board continue to practice in a racist system that even your ABA declares is racist?

Why do you continue to perpetuate racism by being White in a system that's racist? And you don't do anything about it other than collect your grimy racist paychecks that were stolen from a POC?

Is it the same reason as to why Sarcastr0 continues fascistically work for a Fascist Regime helping them usher in Total Christo-Fascism?

[rloquitur]

Isn't a Second Circuit decision on Douglass Mackey "due" soon?

[grb]

Michele Fiore is former Las Vegas city councilwoman and state lawmaker. Federal prosecutors said she raised more than $70,000 for the statue of a Las Vegas police officer fatally shot in the line of duty, but looted the fund to pay for her daughter’s wedding, personal plastic surgery, and rent. She was tried and found guilty in October of six counts of federal wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Her sentencing was scheduled for next month.

So why bring up this sordid person? Because Trump's Brotherhood of Corrupt Politicians now has a Sister. Yesterday he pardoned yet another crooked pol. But he's made a habit of doing that, pardoning his fellow criminal politicians. Here's a now-dated list:

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

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

https://apnews.com/article/trump-pardon-michele-fiore-nevada-fraud-cf56ef8b302b8111e47cf52d5a606d19

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

[rloquitur]

Eric "Marc Rich" Holder declined to comment.

[Malika the Maiz]

Whataboutism as a political worldview.

[rloquitur]

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/

Wow, Go Kash.

Give this judge the J6 no bond treatment.

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

And the two years in solitary confinement treatment.

Shock & Awe.

[David Nieporent]

1) Bill Clinton was and is not "the left."
2) You did not in fact point out any hypocrisy, as the Rich pardon was widely condemned.
3) It was 25 years ago.
4) You are just pathetic. You know how terrible everything you support is, so you just reach back decades, centuries, millennia ago to try to find something bad that someone else did. Every time. All the time. It's like 120% of your posts.

[rloquitur]

First of all, lighten up, Francis. The comment was cheeky.

Second of all, Holder got appointed AG with the support of the left and Dems.

Third, I don't support this pardon.

[Malika the Maiz]

No, whataboutism pure and simple. You have no principles and try to live with yourself by pointing to anyone on the other side that lacks them as well. Pathetic.

[Bob from Ohio]

Best part of the article:

"a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal,” Gimbel [her lawyer I guess] said.

So sad.

[rloquitur]

The same idjits who lauded putting Peter Navarro in chains.

[David Nieporent]

The same idjits who lauded putting Peter Navarro in chains.

I was not aware that Franklyn Gimbel said anything at all about Peter Navarro's arrest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal..."

More evidence that judges think they are above the law. Is anyone surprised?

[David Nieporent]

1) A judge didn't say this; her lawyer did. So it's not what "judges" think.
2) It's pretty normal in cases of non-violent crimes where there's no worry about flight or danger for the government to call the person (or the person's lawyer), inform him there's a warrant, and let him turn himself in. Whether you view that as unwarranted¹ (no pun intended) kid gloves treatment or not, it is commonplace and not an issue of being "above the law." The person is still prosecuted; there's just one less incidental indignity along the way.
​
​
¹I can see the arguments on both sides.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A judge didn't say this; her lawyer did. So it's not what "judges" think."

It's not what judges think, just what they pay people to say?

"it is commonplace and not an issue of being "above the law.""

That's not what the judge('s lawyer) said, she complained that a person who is a judge was being treated like a common criminal.

[David Nieporent]

That's not what the judge('s lawyer) said, she complained that a person who is a judge was being treated like a common criminal.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not sure you can even understand it for you.

[Kazinski]

This is the guy she helped evade ICE:

"The criminal complaint said a fight occurred after Flores-Ruiz was accused of playing music too loudly in the home. The complaint alleges Flores-Ruiz punched another person 30 times, then struck a woman who tried to break up the melee."

[David Nieporent]

I assume you accidentally forgot the allegedly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why assume? Why not just read his comment?

[David Nieporent]

I did read it. And he omitted the allegedly. I assume that was inadvertent, but reading his comment won't tell me that one way or the other.

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

He should preemptively pardon all his supporters retroactively going back 10 years for any and all possible crimes.

[grb]

You can't pardon "stupid"......

[David Nieporent]

What does the word "retroactively" mean in that comment?

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

The exact same thing Biden did for his Crime Family, and the COVID Tyrants, the J6 Instigators, Perjurers, and Congressional Evidence Tampering Saboteurs, and those Treasonous Generals who secretly told China he would undermine any US war plans on their behalf.

HTH

[Malika the Maiz]

What is it about MAGAns and weird capitalization fetishes?

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

Speaking of fetishes, why did your mom star in so many of those German videos? Where was your Dad this whole time? Do you even have one? The way you act, probably not.

[rloquitur]

How would you know that she did?

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

She has her own shelf in my collection.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He should preemptively pardon all his supporters..."

The Biden approach?

[SRG2]

The cultists cannot help the whataboutism - it's too deeply ingrained.

Still, it's natural that Trump feels sympathy towards fraudsters.

I wonder when he's going to pardon the GOP poster boy George Santos.

[rloquitur]

https://freebeacon.com/campus/exclusive-internal-documents-reveal-pervasive-pattern-of-racial-discrimination-at-harvard-law-review/

Unreal.

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

Now we know how Obama became editor...

[David Nieporent]

The self-proclaimed party of free speech really doesn't like free speech.

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

Discriminating against Whites is "free speech"!

Have you no shame? Seriously.

I'm reporting you to ICE. You may not be foreign, but your values are.

[David Nieporent]

Even Nazi hate speech is free speech.

[rloquitur]

But gassing Jews is not.

[Bored Lawyer]

Free speech means the government can't interfere with it. Does not mean the rest of us have to like it, or must refrain from criticizing it. Which is Civics 101, which I am sure you know.

[David Nieporent]

That is correct. We can all say that the HLR's DEI fetish is silly, or stupid, or abhorrent. But the linked article was about trying to take legal action against the publication (or the school, even though the publication is an independent legal entity).

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

Are there any laws on the books against discrimination? Or has Congress and the relevant Federal Agencies done nothing about discrimination since it's entirely a free speech issue?

[David Nieporent]

There are many laws on the books against discrimination. Many of them involve pure conduct, and thus do not represent a free speech issue. Others, like what articles to publish in a periodical, do represent a free speech issue. You may recall, for instance, that Prof. Volokh posted a bunch of times in recent years about a beauty pageant in which a putative contestant who was trans was excluded, sued, and lost, because of the 1A. You may remember the 303 Creative case in which the Supreme Court held that the web designer could not be forced to create wedding websites for gay couples because of the 1A.

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

You are either deliberately misrepresenting the article after reading it, or just making shit up without reading it. Either wouldn't surprise me.

There's plenty of talk in the article about discriminatory actions.

[jb]

Actions about what articles to publish? Maybe you're not familiar with what the first amendment is all about...

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's about time: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/25/fbi-arrest-judge-hannah-dugan-milwaukee.html

[Frank Drackman]

I hope CECOP has vacancies

[Frank Drackman]

Oh wow, that Hannah Duggan's a really hot model, you sure this is legit?

[rloquitur]

No lookism, please.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Duggan"
Is that an example of your Gonzo style or just plain incompetence?

[Estragon]

“From now on, I am going to intervene in these cases and relieve of their office judges who are obviously failing to realize the requirements of the day.”

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

I think all these shitty Democrat judges getting arrested is a warning shot to the rest of the shitty Democrat judges participating in their coup de'tat against American Democracy.

[ScottK]

A person with so many degrees ought to know how to spell coup d'etat, dontcha think?

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

I don't have that many in real life, Scott.

HTH,
Dr. "Big Balls" Esquire.

[BBSquatter]

Dr. "Big Balls" Esquire

Careful. The George Soros paid trolls are gonna get hot and heavy with their grooming tactics. Next thing you will know, they will start quoting from the Maryland LGBTQIA-eieio grade school books.

OTOH, it appears Dugan had no balls and now she will get a chance to change her pronouns to "he" given her his looks could stop a truck

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan arrested, charged with 2 felonies in ICE case

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested April 25 by federal authorities and is being charged with felony counts of obstruction for her role in helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest after he appeared in her courtroom last week, officials confirmed. Dugan, 65, is scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Dries at 10:30 a.m. April 25 on the second floor of the Federal Courthouse in downtown Milwaukee, according to two federal sources.

Brady McCarron, spokesman for U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C., confirmed Dugan was arrested at about 8 a.m. at the Milwaukee County Courthouse and is in federal custody. McCarron said Dugan is being charged with two federal felony counts: obstruction and concealing an individual.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/breaking/2025/04/25/milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan-arrested-by-feds-at-courthouse/83270885007/

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

That's a she? lol no fucking way. Must be related to Mrs. Schumer. Ugh.

Also "LGBTQIA" is now offensive. In Canada and the UK if you don't post it as "LGBTQIA2SMS-13" you're committing a hate crime.

[Jacob Grimes]

Anyone ever had to defend against ADA website accessibility lawsuits? My understanding is that they are nearly impossible to defeat, especially when there's also a brick and mortar store that exists.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the Braille keyboards in the drive-throughs....

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

The ADA ends up mandating certain design choices and content choices for websites (i.e. support for screen readers for the blind).

Web developers pretty much ignored it for years. Until recently. I guess the patent troll lawyers moved on to another shitty ambulance chasing lawyer graft.

[David Nieporent]

That is in fact a bread-and-butter aspect of my law practice now; my firm represents more victims of those lawsuits than any other law firm in the country.

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

A friend of mine pitched me on funding an AI powered tool that could be incorporated into their DevOps pipelines to verify ADA compliance.

He said where he works (a large online brand), they get hit with these ADA nuisance lawsuits all the time.

Maybe I should circle back to him and greenlight it... It's weird have anything in common with you. We don't share anything else.... I have these other things that you don't:
1.) Love of country
2.) National pride
3.) Hot wife
4.) Faith
5.) Integrity

[Frank Drackman]

Are you “American made” like me? (Even if 50% is German)

[Jacob Grimes]

I was wondering what those plaintiffs would say at a deposition about their claimed interest in all the 50+ websites they attempted to buy stuff from in the past few years. Do they have stories ready? The blind man was really into power tools and women's clothing?

[David Nieporent]

I don't need to wonder, but unfortunately, I can't tell you specifically for ethics reasons. Let's just say this: the merits of these cases matter so little to their resolution that the plaintiffs' attorneys do at best a perfunctory job of prepping their clients for those depositions.

[ThePublius]

"victims of those lawsuits"

What does that mean? Who's a victim of a lawsuit? Are you using the term victim instead of plaintiff? Or, perhaps defendants unfairly sued under ADA?

[David Nieporent]

I was using it to mean the last of those: defendants unfairly sued under the ADA. (Whatever one thinks about the ADA itself — and I have thoughts as a libertarian — there is a huge difference between an individual with a legitimate gripe about his experience and the serial plaintiffs that just sue en masse because they can.)

[grb]

Jacob Grimes : "Anyone ever had to defend against ADA....."

For a few years I worked in an architectural office with the nephew of one of the major congressional sponsors of the original ADA legislation. Overall, I don't have anything against the regs, irksome as they prove in some specific cases. But it was useful to have the nephew on hand if caustic comments were necessary for cathartic purposes.

[Jacob Grimes]

I can envision a few scenarios in which a lawsuit over website accessibility could be justified, but dealing with my first one now makes me think it's all just a shakedown scheme by attorneys, aided by disabled people who think they are improving lives and not just increasing liability premiums.

[grb]

Jacob Grimes : "... makes me think it's all just a shakedown scheme by attorneys..."

It's both. Necessary rules so handicapped people can live ordinary lives and a pure shakedown racket by some attorneys. There are people whose entire career is serially filing hundreds of ADA lawsuits. A lawyer hooks up with a handicapped person, and they go out looking for moneymaking opportunities. Usually the cases are settled for cash, and the duo hunt for their next victim. I only have to deal with the brick and mortar stuff of clearances and dimensions, which usually isn't that bad. But it's still easy to run foul of the rules somewhere and approval by the building permit officials is meaningless with an ADA lawsuit. That said, I have nearly forty years in the profession and don't recall any of my projects being sued.

"This is good news for the established advocacy groups, but it also affords an opening for more entrepreneurial sorts, like Miami attorney John Mallah. For the three years leading up to 2001, The National Law Journal reports, Mallah launched ADA complaints against more than 700 Florida businesses, typically settling for $3,000 to $5,000 (and sometimes more) in legal fees and a promise from the defendants to fix the violations."

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-ada-shakedown-racket

[David Nieporent]

Here's the thing: with respect to physical ADA compliance, the DOJ has published regulations that are quite detailed. Slopes of ramps, widths of doorways or aisles, heights of counters and sinks, etc. So complying may be burdensome, but is generally pretty straightforward for a competent ; one can use the regulations as a compliance checklist. And if you do that, you're generally protected in litigation. But despite repeated begging from the business community, DOJ has declined to publish similar regulations with respect to websites. (Other than government websites.) So there's no safe harbor. Yeah, there's WCAG guidelines, but those are often vague, and even if you could definitively comply with them, if a plaintiff pleads that he had difficulties with any aspect of the website, well, how much do you want to spend to prove him wrong? That's not to mention the fact that a person in a wheelchair needs to actually travel to the public accommodation that he wants to sue, so there are natural limits. Whereas someone can sit on his sofa, visit 50 websites in an evening, and then file 50 suits.

[Frank Drackman]

ahh, the ADA, brought to you by the same guy who gave us the Gulf Wah and who's best moment was vomiting all over the Japanese Prime Minister

[grb]

President Donald Trump's administration moved a Venezuelan man who had worked in construction in Philadelphia to Texas for possible deportation after a federal judge had issued an order blocking his removal from Pennsylvania according to court records.

A plane transporting the man took off on April 15 from an airport in the state capital Harrisburg about a half hour after U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines issued an order temporarily blocking the administration from moving him out of her western Pennsylvania judicial district or the country, Justice Department lawyer Laura Irwin told an April 17 hearing, conducted as a conference call.

Judge Haines was nominated by Donald John Trump.

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

>Judge Haines was nominated by Donald John Trump

Can you explain why that detail is important?

[ducksalad]

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/25/friday-open-thread-17/?comments=true#comment-11019972

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/25/friday-open-thread-17/?comments=true#comment-11020322

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/25/friday-open-thread-17/?comments=true#comment-11019874

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

Yes. I say "Democrat" before judge because I believe the justice system is corrupt and partisan and these judges aren't fair but biased partisans.

A Rule of Man, one could say. So I'm curious when others say "Trump Judge" or "Republican appointed judge" if they're saying it for the same reasons?

That makes sense right? We use the adjectives because we know our judges are ideologues and partisans and don't fairly apply the laws, right?

[Zarniwoop]

Looks like he ended up being in the TX proposed class covered by the 1am S.Ct. order, so the attempt at Three Card Prisoner Monte didn’t work.

[grb]

Below is a link to legal reporter Chris Geidner, analyzing how the Trump administration is telling the Supreme Court one thing and doing something else. Maybe Alito will deign not to notice. Thomas too, if that's Harlan's position. But I suspect the other Justices will take note. Geidner:

"An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official on Wednesday contradicted the Department of Justice’s arguments that are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding when the Trump administration could seek to remove people from America under President Donald Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation. After Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices that the Trump administration has agreed not to remove people under the AEA while a habeas petition is pending, an ICE official has told another court that is only the “general case” and multiple exceptions apply.

https://www.lawdork.com/p/ice-contradicts-doj-on-aea-removals

[ThePublius]

Who's Harlan?

[David Nieporent]

It's a reference to Harlan Crow, Thomas's very generous benefactor.

[Estragon]

Harlan was the one who graciously agreed to let James Ho conduct his swearing in for the 5th circuit in his home memorabilia museum. Harlan flew even Thomas down from DC on his private jet for the festivities!

It remains unclear if the swearing-in was conducted on a certain signed memorabilia item as well.

Harlan is also Clarence’s mom’s landlord.

[grb]

1. I admit the last one floored me, Thomas didn't just sell his mother's house to Crow, he did so with the old lady still inside.

2. People have repeatedly asked whether Crow would be friends with Thomas if the latter didn't have his SCOUS seat. With the bracing honesty that comes all too easy to rich people, Crow has admitted that's an open question. But more interesting to me is whether Thomas would be friends with Crow without an open spigot of continually flowing cash. After all, the Justice is unquestionably a smart guy. And Crow has his freakshow garden of despot statues and happily hangs mediocre art on his walls just because the painter also committed genocide. Asked what the two talk about, Crow said "dogs".

3. Thomas' big break came with a position in the Reagan White House & some think he got the nod via an exercise in perfect branding. While giving a speak to a right-wing group, he brutally trashed his own sister as a welfare parasite. And it worked: The audience cheered and cheered. That might have been the deciding factor when Reagan offered Thomas the post a few months later.

And the sister did go thru three years of hard times while caring for an invalid relative, but has been a upright & productive citizen before and since. Meanwhile, it’s Clarence Thomas who has proved to be the welfare queen. He’s the one who can’t live within his means. He’s the one who goes around palm extended for handouts. He’s the one addicted to freebies.

[ducksalad]

It looks like the current administration strategy is (a) at the Supreme Court, be polite and keep up the nominal appearance of participating in the process in good faith, while (b) in lower courts, engage in open disrespect and evasive behavior.

This could be because they still hope to win SC approval of some Trump policies, in the hope of making them stick after he's gone. Therefore they don't want to unnecessarily provoke the middle four (Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh).

But I think on the big stuff - gutting birthright citizenship, zeroing out due process except for people the president decides to acknowledge as citizens, presidential usurpation of control over election laws - the administration's hopes are delusional. They need 3 votes out the middle 4 and they simply aren't going to get them. It appears Trump's staff, particularly Miller, are lying to him about the level of support he has at the SC.

[Zarniwoop]

It looks like the current administration strategy is (a) at the Supreme Court, be polite and keep up the nominal appearance of participating in the process in good faith, while (b) in lower courts, engage in open disrespect and evasive behavior.

If the S.Ct. has to rule at 1am on Friday night/Sat morning, the S.Ct. has already indicated someone lacks good faith concerning due process.

And then lower courts (D.Colo for example) take notice of the evasive behavior and put a stop to holiday weekend gamesmanship, by deciding class-wide notice period of 21 days and not the 24hrs the gov’t ludicrously still argued.

Whoever in the Trump administration (*cough*Stephen Miller*cough*?) is pushing this approach is really, really bad at playing any sort of long game.

[shawn_dude]

Speaking of Stephen Miller. He just *looks* "evil." The half-lidded eyes and watery smirk as if he's a moment away from a hand-wringing, cartoonish, muahaha! He's a young clone of Mr Burns from the Simpsons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today, a coalition of ten organizations representing a broad swath of mainstream American Jewry – including three of the four denominations – issued a joint statement rejecting the false choice between confronting antisemitism and upholding democracy.

https://jewishpublicaffairs.org/press-release/jewishcommunalstatement/

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

How come when they say "Jewry" it's totally ok, but when I say "Jewry" I'm all of a sudden Hitler?

And not the historical real Hitler, the bad one the Jewry invented.

[Roger S]

Other Jews complain that the new Hitler has seized power.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Breaking:

George Santos Is Sentenced to More Than 7 Years in Prison

Prosecutors wanted Mr. Santos, whose pattern of lies led to his expulsion from Congress, to receive a lengthy sentence to “protect the public” from future fraud.

But, Trump remains in power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/nyregion/george-santos-sentencing-prison.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"But, Trump remains in power. "
I would say that you're better than that (not that you'd care) but you're not.

[tylertusta]

Good riddance, I say.

[Roger S]

7 years in prison seems extreme to me. Yes, he lied, but Congress is full of lying politicians.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's almost a requirement.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He did not just "lie." Fraud is not mere lying.

The NYT summary:

Mr. Santos last year pleaded guilty to charges of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and admitted to a host of other schemes including money laundering, lying to Congress and fraudulently receiving unemployment benefits.

Wire fraud and aggravated identity theft are not mere lying. The "lying" includes "373,000 in restitution he owes his victims." Also, another article cites a "$200,000 forfeiture" he agreed to pay. Mere "lying" is not involved.

https://archive.ph/O6JMT

I am open to carping about the sentence, though he is not a great example of someone worthy of mitigation.

[ducksalad]

It pains me to agree with Roger S on anything.

But looking at the list of things Santos did, the only one that strikes me as a serious criminal offense is misuse of donors' credit card numbers. Seven years seems on the high end considering that in the federal system you really have to serve almost all of it.

The rest of it appears to be telling outrageous lies about his biography and living the high life off a campaign account. If it were up to me most of campaign finance law would be abolished. As for the lying, it would be a bad look for a democracy to be arresting 3/4 of Congress every cycle.

[Estragon]

He’ll get his eternal reward— of that I’m sure, if for nothing else than his treatment of Sapphire and her owner. Truly the lowest of the low. I express no opinion on the propriety of the current sentence other than to say it would not surprise me to see him pardoned.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/22/1150136390/george-santos-dog-gofundme-anthony-devolder

[ducksalad]

That does seem scummy.

[Bob from Ohio]

Needs a pardon.

[shawn_dude]

I'd say he's guaranteed to get one except he's a brown-skinned drag queen with nothing more to offer Trump.

[Zarniwoop]

I ran across the reporting of the summary judgment hearing on Wednesday in the Perkin Coie case.

It’s pretty brutal for the gov’t. Report’s impression is that the gov’t is going to lose.

Notably, Perkins Coie is asking the court to enjoin the portions of the order relating to revocation of security clearances, too (they didn’t ask at the TRO stage, but are asking now). I think there’s a decent chance they’ll prevail on that too.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-reporter-s-notes-of-the-april-23-perkins-coie-hearing

[rloquitur]

The security clearance revocation reversal would be a joke, and the government should defy that order.

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

Would it surprise you to see some Judge actually rule that the government must give clearances to specific people?

[Zarniwoop]

Ah, someone who reflexively bows down before the king. Maybe go read the not-a-transcript reporting, and tell us how strong you think the gov’t’s position is.

[rloquitur]

On the security clearances, very strong.

[Zarniwoop]

Here’s the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/

Entries 39 (MfSJ by Perkins Coie), 143 (gov’t opposition), and 148 (Reply) are worth skimming if anyone wants to see how overmatched the gov’t is in this case.

The quality of the gov’t lawyering is … not strong.

[David Nieporent]

Not surprising. DOJ jobs are prestigious and it's hard to give one up, but nobody intelligent and ethical wants to work for Trump defending stupid and unethical things he has done. Especially when he goes around firing any one of them that does say something intelligent and ethical. So he's going to get to the dregs quickly. Either true believers — who can't be competent or they wouldn't be true believers — or clock-punchers who will do whatever they're paid to do, but without enthusiasm.

[David Nieporent]

The quality of the gov’t lawyering is … not strong.

LOL; all you have to do is look at the TOC in #143 to see that.

ARGUMENT
I. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Section 1 of the Executive Order
II. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Section 2 of the Executive Order
III. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Section 3 of the Executive Order
IV. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Section 4 of the Executive Order
V. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Section 5 of the Executive Order

To reiterate: LOL. That's like what you'd see if you were taking a CLE on brief writing, and they were first giving an example of what not to do. The section headings are supposed to summarize one's arguments, to provide a road map for the court. (To be clear, I just mean that's what good lawyers do; I'm not saying that the govt lawyers broke any rules, here.)

[Zarniwoop]

Yep, the way it was explained to me in ye olde law skool was “the judge should be able to read the TOC and understand what your arguments are.” Two years of clerking confirmed that this is, in fact, very good advice.

Contrast to the TOC written by a bevy of high-powered lawyers (Dkt. 39):

I. PERKINS COIE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIMS
A. The Executive Order Violates the First Amendment
1. The Executive Order Retaliates in Violation of the First Amendment
2. The Executive Order Constitutes Viewpoint Discrimination
3. The Executive Order Burdens Protected Speech and Associations

B. The Executive Order Violates Perkins Coie’s Right to Due Process of Law
1. The Order Deprives Perkins Coie of Liberty and Property Interests
2. The Executive Order Was Issued without Notice or a Hearing
3. The Executive Order Is Akin to a Bill of Attainder
4. The Executive Order Is Impermissibly Vague

It doesn’t stop there, but that should illustrate the point for non-lawyers (and the occasional Top-200 graduate).

The gov’t’s response doesn’t even address the legal arguments; it confines itself to the sections of the EO. And the judge called him out on that at oral argument.

[Zarniwoop]

Indeed. This is tangential to the merits, but illustrates the staffing point you raise:

At the government’s table was just one lawyer: Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson. Lawson and acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle—who is also Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff—have been the only government attorneys who have signed Department of Justice submissions in the case.

Bloomberg’s take on the case staffing is also pretty brutal:

Lawson being on his own at hearings could be a sign that many in the Justice Department don’t support the orders, said Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at Selendy Gay.

“The fact that no one else is willing to sign briefs or stand up in court may reflect that they don’t have a deep bench of people who are willing to publicly stand behind these arguments,” Aganga-Williams said.

And

“Lawson may feel compromised because he is a political appointee, he serves at the pleasure of the president,” Butler said. “So even though Trump is not his formal client, he may be wary of making representations in court that the administration does not like, even if those arguments are correct on the merits.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/trump-lawyer-for-big-law-attacks-says-little-as-losses-rack-up

[David Nieporent]

“The fact that no one else is willing to sign briefs or stand up in court may reflect that they don’t have a deep bench of people who are willing to publicly stand behind these arguments,” Aganga-Williams said.

Many of these lawyers are going to leave the DOJ at some point and want to get jobs at good law firms. I doubt the law firms are going to forget who was going after them.

[rloquitur]

Ok, Perkins Coie, we can do this the hard way, also.

[David Nieporent]

If the lawfaremedia description of the argument is accurate, we see a continuation of the pattern of the government either deliberately keeping vital information from its lawyers or incompetently doing so.

[Zarniwoop]

Why not both deliberate and incompetent?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news:
"Lucretia" James lawyers up. In true political fashion she didn't hire a lawyer but had the AG's office retain Hunter Biden's former scumbag lawyer Abbe Lowell.

[Estragon]

“Scumbag lawyer”

Can you expound on this a little? Sometimes these throwaway lines are an interesting peek into online magaworld.

What makes him a “scumbag” in your estimation? If nothing else, he certainly has a reputation as a formidable attorney.

[Mr. Bumble]

"U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi accused lawyers for the Democratic president's son of “misrepresenting the history” of the case when they said in court papers filed last week that no charges were brought in the investigation until after Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss was named special counsel in August 2023.

“These statements, however, are not true, and Mr. Biden’s counsel knows they are not true,” wrote Scarsi, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, a Republican."
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/07/25/judge-threaten-sanction-hunter-biden-lawyers

[Estragon]

I am aware of this kerfuffle. Thank you for responding. There’s a longer backstory to this issue, which I doubt you are interested in. I suppose it’s worth noting Scarsi didn’t ultimately impose sanctions, as far as I’m aware.

I was anticipating some kind of baroque very-online argle bargle actually, so this is a letdown, in a strange way.

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way, would one of you learned practitioners care to explain the justification and propriety of the AG's office retain counsel for a matter that relates to personal real estate transactions that began in 1983 (when "Lucretia" signed a mortgage application as her fathers wife)?

[David Nieporent]

If I were James, the argument I would make would be that Trump's people are arguing that this relates to her eligibility for her AG job and that in turn affects the validity of the litigation she engaged in as AG.

[rloquitur]

You mean "if I were Trump", right?

[rloquitur]

Or not. I see now. Trump hasn't filed papers to that effect, right?

[grb]

David Nieporent : "If I were James...."

I'm glad I'm not James, but a MAGA-style defense is easy to envision. After all, the Cult says it's irrelevant Trump committed multiple crimes because he was unfairly targeted. Their take on Adams: It's irrelevant he committed multiple crimes because he was unfairly targeted. Their take on Marine Le Pen: It's irrelevant she committed multiple crimes because she was unfairly targeted.

Hell, even the sleazy pol Trump just pardoned yesterday has the shtick down pat. Yes, Michele Fiore looted a fund created to honor a slain policemen, using the money for personal uses including plastic surgery. But her crimes were irrelevant because she was unfairly targeted.

Given we've heard this all-purpose excuse against criminality hundreds upon hundreds of times from the Trump Cultists here, I'm not sure why they think Letitia James' crimes should count.

[rloquitur]

Yeah, this is a shitty pardon.

[shawn_dude]

Race, gender, or the fact she took a legal swing at Trump.

[not guilty]

"If I were James, the argument I would make would be that Trump's people are arguing that this relates to her eligibility for her AG job and that in turn affects the validity of the litigation she engaged in as AG."

If Ms. James does not have separate counsel representing her individually as well, she should. Her interests and those of her office may converge, but it is possible that down the road they will not.

For example, during much of President Clinton's second term he was simultaneously represented by David Kendall and Robert Bennett as his personal lawyers and Charles Ruff as White House Counsel.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump backtracking yet again:

President Trump, nearing the end of his first 100 days back in the White House, says his campaign pledge to end the war in Ukraine on Day 1 was not a serious promise.

In an interview with Time magazine, published Friday, Trump was asked about his claim that he could end the war immediately, and he blamed the media for the way it was perceived.

“Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news,” Trump told the outlet. “Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5267497-donald-trump-russia-ukraine-war-pledge-jest/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I can understand the argument that no one should take him seriously regarding such exaggerated claims, though people do seem to take him seriously. Then, when he cons them once again, they try to convince themselves they were not conned.

[grb]

The cover of the Economist : https://tinyurl.com/4yttnyyb

[Zarniwoop]

On the plus side, China canceling 12,000 metric tons of pork shipments will probably reduce grocery prices here in the U.S. Are we winning yet?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5266321-china-cancels-us-pork-ships/

[grb]

I have a question for Trump's faithful cultists in this forum re this exchange:

Confronted with a question on the total lack of deals so far to alleviate his trade war, Trump told Time magazine that, actually, he had made “many deals," though he offered no details. “Not one has been announced yet. When are you going to announce them?” a Time reporter asked.

Trump responded, “I’ve made 200 deals.”
“You’ve made 200 deals?”
“100%”

Asked with whom he had made the deals, Trump instead set off on an explanation of why he implemented global tariffs. A Time reporter interrupted him to ask again when the deals would be announced, and Trump said “over the next three to four weeks.”

So how about it, Trumpsters : Do any of you believe any of this?

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

I believe the reports that came out today about China rescinding many of it's tariffs.
and the EU ready to negotiate for fair trade
and Russian ready for peace.

hbu?

[Zarniwoop]

Three to four weeks? That’s about how long it took him to announce his detailed plans to replace the ACA with something “so much better”!

No … Trump getting asked a factual question, then saying he’ll announce something in “a few weeks” is what poker players call a “tell”.

[Jmaie]

"Trump responded, “I’ve made 200 deals.”
“You’ve made 200 deals?”
“100%”

Finally, solid proof that Trump is a white supremacist!

[Sarcastr0]

"if this were Biden, well, first of all, he wouldn’t do an interview because he was grossly incompetent.

We spoke to him last year, Mr. President.
Huh?

We spoke to him a year ago.
How did he do?

You can read the interview yourself.
Not too good. I did read the interview. He didn’t do well. He didn’t do well at all. He didn’t do well at anything. And he cut that interview off to being a matter of minutes, and you weren’t asking him questions like you’re asking me."

[shawn_dude]

And this is what the "G" in MAGA stands for... GREAT jumping Jehoshaphat that man is senile!

[The Turtle Dove]

State judge just arrested in Wisconsin. Obstruction is the claim. Apparently helped deft to leave via the jury entrance to avoid ICE.

If a judge was arrested for an action in the courtroom relating to a deft's appearance before her, this would be, as they say, a problem.

Mr. D.
-------

"I took a seat in the grandstand of philosophical self-detachment to fall asleep watching the cannibals do their death-dance."
(Eugene O'Neill)

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

>If a judge was arrested for an action in the courtroom relating to a deft's appearance before her, this would be, as they say, a problem.

it was about her secreting the illegal out her back door to avoid the awaiting ICE agents.

[shawn_dude]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fbi-director-wisconsin-judge-arrested/index.html

Milwaukee County Circuit judge

[Helvidius]

"...investigators said that plainclothes federal agents went to Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 with the intention of arresting Flores-Ruiz."

How is that even lawful? Don't federal officials have to conform with state laws? And doesn't Wisconsin, just like every other state, have a common law privilege from arrest for persons attending a court of record, or traveling to or from said court? How would a federal judge, who has to apply substantive state law (to include state common law), get around that when adjudicating in federal court?

[Krayt]

She could order them not to violate state law. Whether they listen or not is another issue. She did order them out of the court, which they did.

As mentioned, secreting them out may have violated federal law.

As this web site pointed out four years ago, even if Trump's claims were true, that doesn't mean he gets to violate law, any more than OJ gets to bust into a hotel room, guns drawn, to reclaim his stolen stuff.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Don't federal officials have to conform with state laws?"

Not in the performance of their duties. Federal law takes precedence over state law.

[shawn_dude]

I had to go back and look to see if she was a Federal judge or a state judge. I suspect, if the latter, she might have more leeway.

"Witnesses told investigators that Dugan confronted the federal agents in a public hallway, where she repeatedly demanded they leave, saying they needed a different kind of warrant to make the arrest. Dugan ordered the agents to speak with the chief judge of the courthouse."

This portion suggests they didn't have the right kind of warrant. If that is true and they didn't have a warrant for the action they're claiming she obstructed, is that a defense?

[Moderation4ever]

I predict the DOJ quietly drops the case. They want the headlines, but they don't want the trial. With ICE disappearing people, I think the judges protecting a person in her courtroom will win the PR battle. Could be wrong but don't think I am. So, mark the tape.

[rloquitur]

I think you're wrong. The charges really cannot be dropped---the judge will claim vindication, and how does it look to let this judge off when some mom helping her son give the cops the slip will get the hammer.

I'd like to see this judge ruined personally and professionally by this. A couple years in the slammer and losing her ticket.

[Martinned2]

What "PR battle"? The Trump administration went to war with the rule of law, PR has nothing to do with this. This is the point where the American people either go demonstrate in their millions, or wake up in a post-democratic America.

[SRG2]

Another Trump celebrity bimbo nomination - this time for surgeon-general:

Trump’s surgeon general pick promotes misleading claims about her education, new investigation shows

Prior to her nomination as Surgeon General she has been employed as a New York City medical director with CityMD, a group of urgent care facilities and also has appeared on Fox News and other TV shows.

However, according to CBS News, Nesheiwat only completed her residency through the university’s family medicine program in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and did not obtain her medical degree there.

Ok, she's plumper than Trump normally goes for in his nominations, and isn't blonde, but fits the general pattern of being a good-looking underqualified person with TV appearances..

[Moderation4ever]

Trump's meritocracy again makes DEI look good.

[Kazinski]

Standard and Poor has downgraded Los Angeles credit rating by 2 spots, to AA- and given it a negative outlook, meaning they expect further downgrades.

This, along with the fires, has to be at least one of the reasons:

LA County Reaches $4 Billion Tentative Settlement in Thousands of Sexual Abuse Cases
https://lacounty.gov/2025/04/04/la-county-reaches-4-billion-tentative-settlement-in-thousands-of-sexual-abuse-cases

[shawn_dude]

And yet, California is now the 4th largest economy on the planet.

You'd think MAGAts would love California like they love Trump! It's famous for having a lot of orange(s), it's associated with tons of gold, it's worth lots of money, it's always on TV, it adores junk food, and crimes happen there.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty good explication of liberal goals from Buttigieg I came across. It also does a good job of explaining why I'm a liberal not a leftist.

"I want everyday life to be better."

You get up in the morning. I want you to be able to get up in the morning and the first thing you do is you commute to work and, by the way, if you're on EV, I want that to be affordable for you or if you're on public transit... I want you to have good public transit to get to where you're going and then when you get to that job, I want you to be paid well."

"And if you're about to have a kid, I want you to know that you're going to have parental leave when you have that kid. And if you don't want to have a kid, I want you to have the the right to choose whether to have a kid which means access to birth control and and abortion and those things that give you the freedom to decide on that."

"And if you already have a kid, when you pick them up at school, I want that school to be good, not having its funding slashed while they set fire to the Department of Education."

"And then when you get home, I want you to be in a neighborhood that is safe and where you can breathe the air because we didn't let them get rid of the clean air act and you don't have to think for one moment about whether the air you breathe or the water you drink is clean and clear, which actually takes a lot because it means the government has to constrain those actors that would make you unfree by polluting the air and polluting the water."

"And then when you go to bed, I want you to know that your family's going to be fine, even if it's family like mine, despite there being some supreme court justice who wants to obliterate your family because it doesn't match his interpretation of his religion."

[TwelveInchPianist]

I want pretty much all of those things, and I'm not a liberal.

I mean, I want your school to be good even though it had its funding slashed when we set fire to the department of education. I want your air to be clean no matter what the means, etc. but other than that, what's to disagree?

[Sarcastr0]

"I want good schools but also to slash their finding." is not a serious comment. It is at best market worship and at worst just dumb.

And you in particular have shown in past years you would rather own the libs than work for anything in the OP. Especially when it comes to schools and trans people. Being angry at those two things is all you post about these days.

Look at the comment below for an example of your main motive around here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol your whole comment is unserious. It's easy to want things. It's even easier to say you want them.

Your response is also unserious. Very typical.

"Look at the comment below for an example of your main motive around here."

To point out when schools do dumb things? Why is that bad? I get that you're 100 percent behind schools who punish students for their speech, but many people are not.

[Sarcastr0]

I get that you're 100 percent behind schools who punish students for their speech
Unserious.

You say you want good things, but then you in the next breath say you'll sacrifice them to own the libs.

You've not talked about wanting nice things for years; it's been nearly all attacks on schools and raging about trans people.
Dunno why I bothered to hope you might in good faith want better things.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"it's been nearly all attacks on schools and raging about trans people."

Yes, because I want good schools, and I don't want people encouraging children to cut their dicks off, and I don't want men stealing women's trophies. Why do you want so many bad things?

[Sarcastr0]

So when you hear "And if you already have a kid, when you pick them up at school, I want that school to be good, not having its funding slashed while they set fire to the Department of Education" you think culture war bullshit.

Your comments are not about getting good things. Your comments are all about owning the libs.

You say the OP is trivial, stating goals everyone has. But upon being pressed, you don't have those goals at all. Or if you do they are way down on your priority list.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So when you hear "And if you already have a kid, when you pick them up at school, I want that school to be good, not having its funding slashed while they set fire to the Department of Education" you think culture war bullshit."

Huh? You're the one sneaking culture war bullshit in. Why isn't it enough to want the school to be good?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You say you want good things, but then you in the next breath say you'll sacrifice them to own the libs."

Where did I say that?

"I get that you're 100 percent behind schools who punish students for their speech
Unserious."

Not at all. You just object to my comment complaining about the practice.

And generally, "I think the government should give us nice things" is an unserious, virtue-signaling worldview.

[Sarcastr0]

"AFAIK, this school did not have its funding slashed. It probably should."
This is you saying 'sure I want good schools. But I'll slash their funding for one stupid act if it owns the libs.'

And as I noted there is your history of consistent negativity. When's the last time you had an aspiration, instead of just anger and resentment?

"I think the government should give us nice things" is an unserious, virtue-signaling worldview.
Well you should look at the party you support and what it wants. Because it turns out the OP is a controversial view these days.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is you saying 'sure I want good schools. But I'll slash their funding for one stupid act if it owns the libs.'"

Why do you think this is a good school? What makes you think it was just the one stupid act? And why owning the libs as opposed to saving money/discouraging bad behavior? What would you do about schools who do this sort of thing?

Don't you want good schools who don't do stuff like this?

[Sarcastr0]

All you can do is focus on stuff that makes you mad, not stuff that you want. In fact, you have contempt for someone stating the things you claim to want.

That's a problem.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I said, I realize that schools punishing students for their speech doesn't make you mad.

But it makes decent human beings mad.

[SRG2]

You want all those things but you won't vote for the politicians who might deliver them

[TwelveInchPianist]

Which politicians might deliver them?

[TwelveInchPianist]

School suspends thirteen-year-old for gluing Dr. Pepper cans together in the shape of a rifle. Off campus.

AFAIK, this school did not have its funding slashed. It probably should.

[Drewski]

"AFAIK, this school did not have its funding slashed. It probably should."

It would at least be interesting to see the reaction if Trump cuts educational funds to a farming town that's 97.3% white, has 20 foreign-born people in it, where 40% of adults are military veterans, and where most people voted for him.

[Kazinski]

Interesting study out about concealed carriers are more effective at stopping mass shooters than police, and suffer for injuries and fatalities than police do.

"A report released on April 3 states, “…[A]rmed citizens reduce the number of deaths in active-shooter incidents significantly more than the police do. In fact, armed citizens reduce the number of people killed by 49 percent, while the police increase the number killed by 16 percent in comparison to the omitted class (shooters who are arrested later or stopped by unarmed citizens or stop of their own accord).”

In addition, “Civilians with permits stopped the attacks more frequently and faced a lower risk of being killed or injured than police. Officers who intervened during the attacks were far more likely to be killed or injured than those who apprehended the attackers later.” The study—co-authored by Carlisle E. Moody, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at the College of William and Mary, and John R. Lott Jr., from the Crime Prevention Research Center—notes, “This result isn’t a criticism of law enforcement, it simply reflects the tactical realities they face. Their uniforms make them visible targets, and longer response times give attackers more opportunity to cause harm."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5205768

I think the rather problematic response of police in shootings like Columbine, Parkland, Uvalde, indicate police wouldn't mind if someone armed on the scene handles it first.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Multiple cases so far have involved a reckless speed that has led to mistakes and possible mistakes.

Where was the need to deny time for the parents to discuss and agree upon the fate of their child or wait even a few days to clarify the father's wishes?

The child, whose redacted U.S. birth certificate was filed in court and showed she was born in New Orleans in 2023, had been with her mother and sister during a regular immigration check-in at the New Orleans office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday. Officials there detained them and queued them up for deportation.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportation-donald-trump-00311631

[ducksalad]

The rush and cutting off the phone call after 60 seconds sound wrong already, but more details need to come out to really know how bad this one is.

It very well could be the mother had sole custody and sincerely wanted to take the child with her. But one would want to know if ICE applied pressure to make that happen; for example, by threatening that they couldn't guarantee what would happen to the child.

We also need to see what the ICE position on returning the child will be. The proper position would be that the father is free to go down there and bring back his child, or the child can come back when she's old enough the travel, and either way they would put up no obstacles. But it's possible they'll use it as a test case to attack birthright citizenship.

[DZM212]

ICE now deporting US citizens with no due process. Can't wait to see how Blackman defends this one

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1915920342171713698

"In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process,
IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16, 2025, at the Monroe Federal Courthouse, 201 Jackson St, Monroe, LA, 71201. "

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee

[Life of Brian]

Back in the real world, a 2-year-old girl born in the US accompanied her mother and older sister who were deported to Honduras, because the mother wanted her 2-year-old daughter to be with her.

WTF are you suggesting should have happened instead?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Tom Petty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW3UO14xuCI

VERSUS

Tom Petty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8

[not guilty]

This is not good news for President Trump:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/trump-poll-approval.html

Trump's overreaching should portend ill for Republicans in next year's midterm elections.