Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fuck the Catholic Church.

Protestants have two rules about funerals -- 1, you don't speak ill of the dead, and 2, you don't badmouth anyone else. And here I was thinking that the Catholics were Christians...

The attack on Trump was beyond the pale.

And the Vatican has walls...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-gets-called-out-in-front-of-millions-at-pope-s-funeral/ar-AA1DF1y2

[Martinned2]

Lord knows I don't care about the pope's opinion any more than I care about anyone else's, meaning that they're welcome to try to convince me but that's it. That said, it is the consistent view of the Vatican across decades that Trump-style policies are evil, and it seems on brand for them to use the occasion to say so.

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/04/26/popes-vs-philosophers-whose-ethics-of-immigration/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Separation of church and state?!?

[Malika the Maiz]

Has nothing to do with this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And our flags are at half staff because???

I don't remember this being done for Pope John Paul II.

[Martinned2]

The internet is your friend: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/04/images/20050402-3_w9w6873webjpg-515h.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No need for them to re-invent the wheel; the Catechism lays down the following in Paragraph 2241:

"The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

"Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/answers/catechism-of-the-catholic-church-2241-23282

This all seems to contemplate a generally welcoming immigration stance, but it falls short of open borders.

There is room for discussion of the meaning of "to the extent they are able," and of "the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption," which seems to encompass respecting the receiving country's "material and spiritual heritage."

America's laws on immigration seem to me to be fairly generous, and Congress gave them an overhaul in 1965 to be open to immigrants from all over the world.

One could argue that Congress did its part, but of course if Congress' laws are to have any meaning at all they need to be actually enforced when U. S. capacity, as determined by Congress, is considered as a measure of what we're "able" to accept by way of migration.

And we can certainly argue that among juridical conditions to which immigration is rightly subject, are the requirement to apply for a visa and be subject to vetting based on investigating the suitability of the would-be immigrant and taking into account our capacity to absorb the immigrants.

And conditions on immigration can include things like "don't commit crimes."

[Kazinski]

Current immigration law puts a limit of 675,000 immigration visas a year.

[Martinned2]

Be sure to tell the rest of the world that, so that they can adjust the levels of evil and mayhem to the US preferences.

[Martinned2]

(And, of course, maybe take that into account when deciding which countries to drop bombs on yourselves.)

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

This comment breaks EU laws on bullying. Reported to The Hague.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Current immigration law puts a limit of 675,000 immigration visas a year."

I would like to see a cite for that, because if the law were like that, then I think I would have seen Somin denounce Congress for their stinginess.

[David Nieporent]

If only there were a service on the Internet that allowed one to put in search terms and get results.

[Jerry B.]

https://immigrationroad.com/visa-bulletin/immigrant-visa-annual-limit-and-cap.php

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"675,000 is a "flexible" cap, with certain categories of immigrants exempted from the limit (for example, immediate relatives of U.S. Citizens and certain special immigrants)"

So, no, 675,000 is not the limit. I thought it was too low a number.

[Brett Bellmore]

In practice it's actually more of a floor than a ceiling.

[Kazinski]

Yes its also low because it doesn't include other visas that provide a path to citizenship like H1B, or student visas.

But it is the amount of immigration visas directly authorized by Congress, outside things like immediate relatives, (which includes parents and children, but not siblings) where there is no limit.

[Life of Brian]

Hey, here's one -- from Congress itself, no less!

This worldwide limit, however, is referred to as a permeable cap because immediate relatives are exempt from numerical limits that are placed on family-sponsored immigration (described below) and thereby represent the flexible component of the 675,000 worldwide limit. In addition, the annual number of refugees is determined not by statute but by the President in consultation with Congress. Applications for asylum are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis without a statutorily mandated limit (see the "Refugees and Asylees" section). Consequently, the actual total number of persons who receive LPR status annually has exceeded 1 million in all but 3 of the past 20 fiscal years.

[gdanning]

That limit does not apply to several categories, including permanent residence based on asylum. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

In recent decades, more than 1,000,000 have been issued per year. https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-immigrants-get-green-cards-every-year/country/united-states/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I don't see why that should be binding on a largely Protestant US.

[shawn_dude]

No religion is "binding on a largely Protestant US." That's the whole point of First Amendment's provision on religion, yeah?

And while the US has a large number of Protestants, don't forget that the conservative majority in the USSC are all Catholics. You ought to ask yourself if it's okay for an elected or appointed official to make decisions based on their own faith rather than in a religious-neutral manner. If it is okay, then USSC justices might hold us to a Catholic standard and we'll all have to come along for the ride.

Fun question: which denomination of christian church does Trump attend on Sundays?

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you realize that Gorsuch was raised Catholic and that the Episcopal church essentially is, there are 7 Catholics, a Jew, and whatever Jackson Brown is.

That is too many.

[David Nieporent]

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[Martinned2]

By the way, what do you think of Trump falling asleep during the service? I guess it's not his fault, it's not like he's familiar with the experience of going to church. As far as I can tell he goes about as often as I do.

https://bsky.app/profile/mrsbettybowers.bsky.social/post/3lnqbyijdv223

[Dr. Ed 2]

What language was the service in?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Maybe this is a good time to remind that photographs depicting scandalous conduct are no longer worth publication, because who can tell which are the fakes.

That will continue until private editing prior to publication gets restored as a journalistic standard.

[Don Nico]

Amen, Stephen. We all need to become as skeptical was Thomas was 2000 years ago.

And even if your journalistic standard gets back at least in intent, I am afraid that present technology is such that one should "trust no one and assume nothing.

May you have a good week.

[Martinned2]

Yes. Stephen was right to make that comment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — I disagree. With private editing prior to publication back in place, reasonable basis to trust the marketplace as a whole could be restored.

The electronic publishing ecosystem would revert to a former competitive and decentralized condition which still characterizes legacy media, which mostly still do rely on private editing. Competitors of all ideological stripes would compete, as previously, mostly on the basis of reputations carefully curated for the trustworthiness of their content. That style of publishing puts a headwind so stiff in the face of fakery that whatever fakes do achieve publication almost always get blown down before they can spread virally.

Note also that technology to create fake content could do little to disrupt the reliability of the editing, or diminish that headwind. Editors mostly have not staked their publications' reputations on a foolish presumption of privately-held special insight into the truth or reliability of some particular item of content. Instead, private editors judge reliability on the basis of known sources and fully-informed provenance. No matter how reliable a prospective content item may appear on its face, a careful editor is not likely to publish it without knowing for certain it came from a reliable source. That is a decision which an unedited giantistic platform is incapable to choose.

I get that internet utopians—and some libertarian ideologues—would continue to oppose private editing. They would do it largely on grounds that expressive freedom must include liberty to publish as much fakery as all would-be fakers want to circulate, for all their diverse and too-often destructive reasons.

Not the least of those reasons will be the worst of them, to discredit and thereby destroy a diverse, competitive marketplace of ideas beyond reach of government control. That is what we see coming along now. Vast amounts of money can be mobilized to accomplish that destruction, and already are being mobilized, both here in the U.S., and abroad.

Even leaving the giantistic internet platforms aside, collapse of integrity among decades-old broadcasting and cable franchises has suddenly become a salient news story. When the news director of the 60 Minutes franchise resigns in protest of government interference with content, a new sort of crisis has announced itself.

None of those crises would be so serious if publishing were once again decentralized, and back under the control of a myriad of mutually competitive private publishers and private editors. No one should pay much attention to cries of outrage from would-be media fakers. Everyone can see by now that giving them what they demand has been tried. It proved unwise stewardship of the truth, and destructive to the public life of the nation.

[Kazinski]

Wake me when he throws up on a Cardinal, or a Prime Minister.

[BBSquatter]

Anonymous sources report that Democrats Rep Jasmine Crockett, Sen Chuck Schumer, David Hogg, Rep Frederica Wilson, Rep Maxine Waters, choose a Democrat any Democrat, are calling for "taking down" Catholics, Christians, Heterosexuals, White people and any and all LGBT, Blacks, Latinos and Asians who disagree with DNC Talking Points

Not to worry, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and DC Interim US Attorney Edward R. Martin are on it, thankfully.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's old enough that I'll cut him a bit of slack.

I'm glad you at least skipped the "blue suit" stupidity. Some idiots published carefully cropped photos and claimed that Trump outraged people by wearing a blue suit to the funeral.

Uncropped photos showed that about 40% of the men in the crowd, including Biden, were wearing blue suits...

[Martinned2]

As long as it isn't a tan suit, I don't care.

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

You don't care today. I'm sure you were up in arms yesterday before it was revealed to be yet another TDS hoax

[Malika the Maiz]

The tan suit thing refers to an Obama administration era incident, ya goof!

[jb]

Wait, wasn't being old one of the big knocks against Biden? But now for Trump it's a reason to cut him some slack.

At least the motivated reasoning is really obvious.

[Brett Bellmore]

The slam against Biden wasn't that he occasionally fell asleep at boring events, it was that even when he was nominally awake he wasn't really all there.

[Martinned2]

How is that different from Trump? Or is Trump's defence that he hasn't been "all there" in all the time since he first ran for office, so nobody can really tell the difference?

[jb]

I mean, the sobriquet was literally "sleepy Joe".

[Riva]

No. Dementia was the Big Guy’s problem, not age. And if you’re upset at Biden’s mid-election replacement, take it up with the democrats and their internal coup against their corrupt demented leader.

[MoreCurious]

Liar. Every photo of that funeral shows that Biden was wearing a black suit.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it's the difference between black and subdued blue that we're talking about. If you wanted to argue that Trump's suit was a considerably more vivid blue than Biden's, I don't think I'd disagree.

Here, look at this. Jill is wearing black. Joe is wearing a subdued blue. The difference is fairly evident.

Now, I will gladly grant that somebody took an AP photo and turned up the saturation on it to the point where anybody who wasn't color blind could see who was wearing a shade of blue. That's why the Babylon Bee's news site, NotTheBee, said, "But someone helped us out here by highlighting all of the blue suits at the funeral."

[Sarcastr0]

This is desperate.

One dude standing out.

Wanking about dark blue vs. black is hiding behind semantics when to your eyes it's really obvious.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, actually several dudes were standing out.

As you can see here, unless maybe you ARE color blind. I count at least five people in that partial crowd photo who are wearing about as vivid blue of suits as Trump. Note that this is the AP photo straight from the AP site, so if anybody manipulated it, it's the Associated Press.

Was Biden wearing the same shade of blue as Trump? Not remotely. Was Biden wearing black? Again, no. There was no official dress code for dignitaries attending the funeral, you know.

Yet again I'm in awe of what petty things the left decides to obsess about when it comes to Trump. No matter what he does, your demand for awful exceeds the supply, and you need to create more awful to fill the gap.

[Sarcastr0]

OK. If you go 8 rows back, you'll find another blue suit.

Trump absolutely stands out.

He doesn't really have a mindset of how funerals work since all the ones he's attended are not about him.

[David Nieporent]

Here, look at this. Jill is wearing black. Joe is wearing a subdued blue. The difference is fairly evident.

Not to me, but that may say more about my eyesight. I routinely have to ask my wife, "Is this suit here hanging in my closet black or dark navy?" because I just can't tell. (They should really put that on the label.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get you. I can distinguish colors fairly well for a guy, but my taste in them is atrocious, which is why I always let my wife approve of my clothing if we're going anywhere important. Saves me having my wife ask me if I'm really going to be wearing that, at the door as we're leaving. (All married men know that the answer to that question is always "no".)

I still can't believe I interviewed for Johns Hopkins as a teen in a powder blue western leisure suit. No, more specifically, I can't believe my parents let me...

[Commenter_XY]

My wife does the same, saves me from my atrocious fashion self.

[shawn_dude]

Sleepy Donald Trump. It's a meme.

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

Are you still in a tizzy over the Blue Suit hoax?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, wait, he is! He just hadn't mentioned it.

[BBSquatter]

These trolls are beyond pathetic. Clearly they were deprived a Renaissance classical liberal arts education. Instead Act Blue sends trolls with defective minds

[hobie]

‘Build bridges, not walls,’

appears to be all that was said. Still, Ed would rather denounce Christianity than tolerate a slur against the Orange Caligula

[Michael P]

Good fences make good neighbors, but leftists want good (submissive) subjects instead.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Good fences make good neighbors”

Totally worked in Germany for decades!

[Sarcastr0]

Your reaction to "build bridges not walls' is Great Replacement nonsense.

Man I wonder what you'd say to "But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

[Michael P]

You should comment more based on what people actually write and less based on your fervid imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

"leftists want good (submissive) subjects instead."

That's Great Replacement shit.

You gonna deny it?

[Bwaaah]

Why are you so obsessed with what you call the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory? Nobody advances the relevance of that theory except for you.

More of your mindless Broken Record analysis.

[Martinned2]

Nobody advances the relevance of that theory except for you.

It must be nice living in a liberal bubble like that. Is this your first time on the Volokh Conspiracy?

[TaioF920]

He didn't denounce Christianity. He denounced the heathen Catholic Church that appointed that commie to pope.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly. What was wrong with Pope Benedict?

[TaioF920]

He was not as conservative as I would have liked, but far better than Borgoglio.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Nobody thinks you ae a nice person, just so you know.

[BBSquatter]

You are citing the Daily Beast. LOL. Was Joyless Reid not available?

Here is the official Vatican news source on Trump and Zelensky meeting prior to the funeral of Pope Francis. It was glowing.

Trump and Zelensky discuss peace plans in St. Peter's Basilica

Just before the funeral Mass of Pope Francis, the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine met for a "very productive" discussion on the ongoing war in Ukraine.

By Joseph Tulloch

From the very beginning of Russia's war in Ukraine, Pope Francis continuously offered to mediate to help bring about peace. He appealed for an end to the war at almost every public appearance, and his prayers for "martyred Ukraine" became a familiar refrain.

The late Pope's calls were, above all, calls for dialogue - for key players to come together and find a way to put an end to the conflict.

On Saturday, just before Pope Francis' funeral Mass, such a dialogue took place between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Photos showed the two Presidents seated face-to-face in St. Peter's Basilica, deep in conversation.

A spokesperson for the White House called the discussion "very productive". President Zelensky, meanwhile, said that it had been a "good meeting," adding that the pair had "discussed a lot one on one."

"Hoping for results on everything we covered," President Zelensky wrote on social media. "Protecting the lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out."

Recently, that ceasefire had appeared less and less likely. The last time Presidents Trump and Zelensky met in person, the discussion devolved into an acrimonious verbal brawl. Earlier this month, President Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened to "walk away" from efforts to broker a peace deal. And just two days ago, Russia carried out its deadliest air attack on Kyiv since the beginning of the year.

On Saturday, the discussion seemed far more productive. President Zelensky said it was a "very symbolic meeting, with the potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results."

If those results do manifest themselves - if the 'just peace' so often spoken of by the late Pope is achieved - it might just be Francis' first miracle.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/trump-zelensky-peace-plans-st-peters-francis-funeral.html

[Martinned2]

Funny how talks between Trump and some foreign leader are almost always described as "very productive" "very successful", or something like that by the White House, while the other side tends to be less enthusiastic.

In this case:

Zelensky also called it a "good meeting," noting that they discussed "a lot one-on-one."

https://kyivindependent.com/european-hopes-rise-after-meeting-at-vatican/

[Martinned2]

And the Vatican has walls...

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the treaty that your big hero Mussolini made with the Pope in 1929, which set up the current arrangement? Or is this just a talking point you heard about on Newsmaxxx?

https://www.uniset.ca/nold/lateran.htm

[Riva]

Plenty of TDS inflicted trolls here who share your Catholic bigotry. Looks like you scunge have found some common ground.

[David Nieporent]

The "attack [sic] on Trump."

Also, as pointed out (by me) the other day: the Vatican's walls [which only partially surround the enclave] have gates that — like those of Reagan's city on a hill — are open.

[Riva]

Probably wasting my time, but maybe on some topics, like Catholicism and the Vatican, you should stop commenting due to gross ignorance? Let's add Reagan, otherwise known as Ronaldus Magnus, to that list too. You think one can just move into Vatican City? Maybe a child born there is automatically a citizen? And Reagan's amnesty was a one off (which he later recognized as an error) in exchange for border protection which never materialized because of deceitful democrats. Some things never change I guess.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, deceitful Republicans, too.

[Riva]

Sure, I’ll accept that.

[Martinned2]

To start us off, a fun story about Greenland's adventures trying to join FIFA: https://www.ejiltalk.org/greenlands-application-for-membership-to-the-international-football-community/

[SRG2]

Thanks for that!

[Stephen Lathrop]

With regard to many deportations to El Salvador, members of the Trump administration remain in apparent contempt of court. Each day which passes costs at least loss of liberty for victims of no-due-process deportations. Each day which passes ameliorates by one day whatever punishments perpetrators of that contempt will suffer.

It is past time for the courts to act and charge named individuals with civil contempt, and to fine them, or to jail them, until they agree to serve justice according to law.

[Martinned2]

What's your over/under on how much longer it will be before Trump has a Federal judge arrested?

[Stephen Lathrop]

What you posit demands sober reckoning for a whimsical prospect; it is a trick I would pay to see done by someone capable to perform it, but that is not me.

[Riva]

So, are federal judges above the law? Who knew? I thought no one was above the law. Make up your damn minds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that throwing the lawyers bringing these bullshit cases will suffice.

Although throwing a Federal judge or two in jail (in Gitmo) would be nice.

[Martinned2]

Speaking of Trump arresting federal judges: https://www.thedailybeast.com/wh-press-sec-suggests-doj-could-arrest-supreme-court-justices/

[NvEric]

Contempt is with the wrong courts getting involved.

Due process is according to the situation and the law involved, not a fixed course of action. Illegal aliens have duties to follow and will receive their due process allotted to them by the methods listed in whatever law applies to them. Immigration courts are under the President's branch, not the regular court systems. Obama deported many illegals in abstention which is done when the person does not show up or has not kept in contact with the system as required by law.

Trump is doing the same exact thing as is his duty to do so.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Illegal aliens have duties to follow and will receive their due process allotted to them by the methods listed in whatever law applies to them.”

Like that guy in El Salvador did?

[Michael P]

"Illegal aliens have duties to follow and will receive their due process allotted to them by the methods listed in whatever law applies to them."

Are we talking about the guy with the MS-13 tattoo on his knuckles, who was caught trafficking people multiple times -- at least once in a car belonging to his MS-13-linked supposed boss after he supposedly turned his life around and went straight?

[Martinned2]

We weren't talking about anyone specific, I don't think.

[Malika the Maiz]

“who was caught trafficking people multiple times -- at least once in a car belonging to his MS-13-linked supposed boss after he supposedly turned his life around and went straight?”

Cite?

[David Nieporent]

Are we talking about the guy with the MS-13 tattoo on his knuckles, who was caught trafficking people multiple times -- at least once in a car belonging to his MS-13-linked supposed boss after he supposedly turned his life around and went straight?

No, we're not talking about an imaginary person with a bio you just created in your head.

[Malika the Maiz]

He should collaborate with the guy behind the Drackman persona here.

[Commenter_XY]

St Abrego is an illegal alien gangbanger, David. He is home now.

And he is never coming back.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, Trump is such a weak, disrespected failure around the world that I can see him being unable to convince Bukele. Just like Putin has been laughing at Trump vis-à-vis Ukraine.

[Foxwhelp]

The fact that immigration "courts" are Article II courts is not a reflection of any legislative attempt to remove power toc adjudicate immigration controversies from Article III courts. Article II "courts" are merely a layer of administrative review meant to give agencies an opportunity to correct their own mistakes and possibly forestall the need for judicial review and so reduce the burden on the federal courts. Federal courts have, by statute and under the constitution the ability to review the decisions of immigration "courts" and that is how the system was meant to work.

[David Nieporent]

To follow up on this, Article III courts generally can't review discretionary decisions of the immigration decision. But they can review decisions for factual and/or legal error.

[Foxwhelp]

Sure. But one simplifies when one suspects that the person one is talking to traps muskrats for a living.

[A Japanese Student]

Japan's House of Representatives passed the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendments. The bill now heads to the House of Councillors and is expected to pass soon.

The bill allows online proceeding in most criminal matters; it also deals with electronic evidence, and for the first time authorizes a gag order against disclosure of subpoenas.

The main opposition party, CDP, has successfully amended the bill to limit the duration of the gag order. The judge must now include the expiration date in the order, and no order can last for more than a year.

There is also a separate movement among legislators to amend the Code, in order to ensure justice for the wrongly convicted. Suggested reforms include allowing judges to order disclosure of exculpatory evidence in postconviction proceedings, and banning Government appeal of decisions granting postconviction relief. News reports say that the executive is trying to sabotage this effort; they do not want the legislators to mess with the law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Compare that to Canada where all the press is permitted to report is if the perp who killed (at least) 12 with his assault vehicle (a) got bail or not and (b) how much it was if he got it.

And yes, assault vehicle. 12 dead, 90 injured, that's far more than soime nut with a gun could ever do.

[Martinned2]

Is it? https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note in that report 13 mass shooting instances reported so far this year from Texas, none reported from New England. In fairness, Texas has ~ twice the population of New England.

[Satchmo_Lives]

How many of those are gang related? How many of the people doing the shooting bought guns through legal means? How many would have been prevented if current laws were enforced--including immigration?

Houston April 20, 2025: drive-by shooting at after hours club no suspects listed.

Garland (Dallas County) April 18,2025: shooting at apartment building. Suspects are underage and not named. One charged with convicted felon in possession of a gun. Victims were named Esquivel and Guzman.

Wilmer-Hutchins High School (Dallas County) April 15, 2025: Tracy Denard Haynes Jr (17) has been charged with the reported motive as a dispute over a dice game (KXAS: NBC affiliate Dallas, Tx)

Crosby, Texas (Harris County--Houston) April 12, 2025: convenience store shooting reportedly spilling over from a block party.

Houston March 23, 2025: shooting at Latinas Sports Bar by suspect Jose Miguel Briceno.

Houston March 02, 2025: bar shooting by suspect Kendrick Montgomery

Dallas Feb. 2025: drive-by shooting by suspects Alvarez and Sanchez

I just did the first seven out of thirteen in the order listed by the referenced website. See any patterns developing? Sure one pattern is the two most liberal counties in Texas with soft on crime policies have more shootings. People should infer the same meaning as your post implied re New England. Oh, since when is Maine not a part of New England (April 02, 2025)?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Good catch. I did overlook the only example in New England.

But this?:

Sure one pattern is the two most liberal counties in Texas with soft on crime policies have more shootings. People should infer the same meaning as your post implied re New England.

That strikes me as anti-coherent, unless you intend to argue that New England is tougher on crime than Texas. Which, of course, is an argument New England's typically tougher gun laws tend to justify.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the argument would actually be that, if you can deduce from "Texas" having more 'mass shootings' than "New England" that Texas policies are responsible, then you can equally deduce that "the two most liberal counties in Texas" having more 'mass shootings' than "the rest of Texas" is ALSO due to the difference in policies.

Only the policy differences run in opposite directions in these two cases, so what can you draw from this? Save that facile reasoning based on absurdly limited data isn't very useful...

The first thing I'd notice is that 'mass shootings' are so rare that you can't hope to achieve statistical significance. The next is that 'mass shootings' are such a small fraction of even shooting deaths that they should never be driving policy.

The third is that, since most 'mass shootings' are gang and/or organized crime related, maybe you should direct your attention to suppressing gangs and/or organized crime, not screwing with the people who aren't committing them.

[Magister]

It seems unlikely that most mass shootings are gang or organized crime affiliated. Mostly the shooters use legally acquired guns (young school shooters stealing them from older family members); mostly they have a personal grudge against whatever or whoever they target. Organized crime probably prefers not to draw attention with mass killings, but gang shootings can be indiscriminate and probably could respond to making guns less available.

More shootings seem likely in the most populous counties, with large cities, which tend to be more liberal. It may be that large cities in Texas are in the worst position; stuck with the state level gun policies, densely populated, and unwilling to ship suspected malefactors immediately to torture prisons.

But the major mass shootings seem pretty spread out in Texas; Allen Mall shooting, Uvalde, Midland-Odessa, El Paso Walmart, Santa Fe High School, Sutherland Springs church, Dallas police shooting, Fort Hood. By contrast, the previously listed seven shootings killed a total of 3 people.

[Kazinski]

Fun drama over Shadeur Sanders dropping from an anticipated 1st round selection all the way to the 5th round.

former Den Rep Jamaal Bowman said: "Former Democratic U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman joined the debate Friday, suggesting the United States fear of 'strong black men' was behind the drop.

Bowman also likened the 23-year-old's predicament to NFL legend Eli Manning, who refused to play for the San Diego Chargers after being selected with the No. 1 pick in 2004.

Bowman said: 'The NFL doesn't like [Shedeur]Sanders because he wears gold chains and talks like a rapper. They don't care that he's a leader, intelligent, tough and completed 77% of his passes with no O-line and no running game. He's entitled but Eli Manning wasn't entitled when he refused to be drafted by San Diego?' Bowman wrote on X.

Steven A Smith said: "This is a damn disgrace,” Smith wrote. “How in the hell is @Shedeur not off the board, not drafted yet. Y’all still think this doesn’t have anything to do with teams hatin on @DeionSanders. This kid is a first rounder. In a different way, this is Kaepernick all over again…..being kept out. A damn disgrace. I don’t care what anyone says!”

And Trump piled on:
"What is wrong with NFL owners, are they STUPID?” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Deion Sanders was a great college football player, and was even greater in the NFL. He’s also a very good coach, streetwise and smart! Therefore, Shedeur, his quarterback son, has PHENOMENAL GENES, and is all set for Greatness. He should be ‘picked’ IMMEDIATELY by a team that wants to WIN. Good luck Shedeur, and say hello to your wonderful father!”

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/dallas-cowboys-donald-trump-shedeur-sanders-draft-controversy-quarterback-snub-conspiracy

[Armchair]

Sigh...

Sanders had a number of issues. It's not some discrimination against "strong black men"... (remember Cam Ward went first, followed by Hunter, then Carter).

1. Sanders interviewed extremely poorly from what I've heard. Just not prepared, didn't seem to care overly. As a QB, that's critical and just a problem.

2. Sanders had fine stats as a QB in college. Most of them do. Under the hood, there were some concerns though. Sanders wasn't really mobile. He took a lot of sacks. He took a long time to throw. He had a high completion percentage, but a lot of it was at, or behind the line of scrimmage. No "elite" athletic traits.

He's now going to be battling for the QB3 spot in Cleveland

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t think interviewing matters. There’s no lack of NFL quarterbacks who don’t interview well.

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

The rumor is Shedeur was intentionally sandbagging interviews with certain teams that he didn't want to play for.

Further, these absurd cries of racism by his camp reveal better reasons to not have drafted him. Who'd want this toxic, self-absorbed landmine in your locker room?

Besides the Browns, of course...

[Armchair]

"I don’t think interviewing matters."

Either did Sanders apparently. See what happened

[Satchmo_Lives]

Really? I guess being a QB is the only job where trying to convince the people who matter you should be hired means nothing.

One of the intangibles that GMs and coaches look for is a player's "motor," or drive, or want to. Some of the biggest busts are players who don't really love playing football (it is a very hard 350 days job), but they do love the money. Does Shadeur really love football? Sounds like he may not have convinced people he does.

He also has leadership issues regardless of what the media tells you. At least on one occasion he threw his offensive linemen under the bus after a poor outing. The o-line might have deserved it and they were bad all season, but you don't do it publicly. Blame your daddy for not getting better players.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t think many NFL teams would pass on a talented player for wearing bling, anyone who watched the draft should question that. There must’ve been something the scouts didn’t like about Sanders despite his college accomplishments, maybe like Tebow.

[Martinned2]

Didn't the Yankees (different sport, I know) recently drop their "no beards" rule?

[Malika the Maiz]

Iirc the beards have to be well maintained or something.

[Frank Drackman]

like Malika's

[Malika the Maiz]

Related:

“The son of Atlanta Falcons defensive coordinator Jeff Ulbrich orchestrated Friday’s prank call to Shedeur Sanders amid the quarterback prospect’s fall in the NFL draft.

The Falcons released a statement Sunday apologizing for 21-year-old Jax Ulbrich’s hoax after it was reported that the NFL was investigating the prank, in which the caller purported to be New Orleans Saints general manager Mickey Loomis.”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/27/son-of-falcons-coordinator-admits-to-prank-calling-shedeur-sanders-during-nfl-draft

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/02/13/massachusetts-school-of-law-affordable-rigorous/

you'd never know that it was NOT ABA accredited...

https://www.mslaw.edu/accreditation-and-bar-eligibility/

[Dr. Ed 2]

China's sea grab is a real problem"

https://archive.is/O0KFK

[Dr. Ed 2]

As is China's cutting cables.
https://archive.is/em1xw

[Kazinski]

This is ridiculous:

"MANDEL: Ontario must cover U.S. surgery for trans patient who wants a vagina — and to keep her penis"

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/mandel-ontario-must-cover-u-s-surgery-for-trans-patient-who-wants-a-vagina-and-to-keep-her-penis

The idea that a country advanced enough to require the state to pay for extra decor fans o be created while leaving the original intact, wouldn't be advanced enough to do the surgery under its own nation canal Health Care system is just ridiculous.

How bad is it when Canada has to send its patients for routine surgery to a country where the health care system is so bad that half the nation applauds when a health insurance executives are summarily executed in the streets?

[Malika the Maiz]

This seems to be an equivocation on “health care system” or “bad,” switching from an assessment of it’s capabilities to its access (when some people say our health care system is “bad” they mean it has crappy access for people, not crappy capabilities for those who can pay).

[Riva]

So then they’d be great if they were really good st tge gender mutilation of mentally disturbed patients?

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m not sure what you’re saying given your mutilated English here. Please perform diagnostics.

[Riva]

Parrot troll and spelling Nazi. Actually a good fit. But since your trans crazy views are so abhorrent, worth reposting with obvious typo corrections (well obvious to anyone but a parrot troll spelling nazi). So here you go little clown:

“So then they’d be great if they were really good at the gender mutilation of mentally disturbed patients?”

[Malika the Maiz]

Good reboot, bot. I don’t think any health care system would be great based on mutilation of mentally ill persons, whether that’s what’s going on here, I can’t conclude without more evidence

[Riva]

So, the parrot troll now rejects the gender mutilation insanity? At least it's making some progress.

[Malika the Maiz]

Readjust your programming, what are talking about, bot? Please utilize appropriate software and make intelligible this time.

[Riva]

Not sure I understand why the parrot troll is so afraid and intimated by the question but parrot trolls are not exactly renowned for their intellectual courage. And it doesn’t help that this one appears to be particularly dim.

[Armchair]

Oh it's bad...

The 15th's leading cause of death in Canada is Euthanasia. It's increasingly rushed.

Can't get to see the doctor because of long wait times for your surgery or cancer? Year plus wait time? No problem. You can see the Euthanasia doctor in less than 90 days.

Once they kill you off, you're not a medical expense anymore.

[Martinned2]

You're also not suffering anymore. Isn't self-determination great? I am personally libertarian enough that I like living in a country where the government isn't going to force me to live on while I'm suffering and want to die.

[Armchair]

You COULD be not suffering if the doctors were actually able to treat you in a timely manner with actual beneficial treatments and medicines for your condition.

But that doesn't seem happen.

[Sarcastr0]

So your thesis is: Canada has bad quality-of-life care, which leads to more assisted suicides.

You've provided zero proof either bad quality-of-life care, no baseline for assisted suicides, nor any causal effect.

This appears to be just the negative hater type of nationalism writing a whole-ass story.

[Michael P]

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2024 for wait times, denialist.

Assisted suicide was illegal there until recently -- what do you think the baseline was for that?

Maybe you like sitting there, fat dumb and ignorant, but the rest of us aren't fat or dumb, and we know how to remedy lacking facts.

[Sarcastr0]

So no baseline.

And Americas class-gated care is kinda not mentioned.

You call me ignorant when you don’t even know what your argument is.

[Michael P]

As I suggested before, the baseline (through 2015) was zero. And I said we are all sometimes ignorant, but the rest of us are unlike you in that we can find information like https://www.statista.com/statistics/1189529/total-reported-number-medically-assisted-deaths-canada/ .

Go denialist somewhere else, denialist.

[Sarcastr0]

That's now how baselines work.

A cause is highlighted for driving a rate up. You need a baseline to make that argument.

What do you think I'm denying, even? You don't even have the shape of an argument.

[Malika the Maiz]

Ever notice how MAGAns get so upset at the idea that someone who makes a claim should provide a citation or evidence to back it up? It’s part of the whole Dear Leader cult thing I guess.

[Armchair]

"It isn’t as if the truth isn’t coming out. A recent official report by the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario contains many disturbing conclusions that should — but won’t — derail the euthanasia train. For example, a mentally disturbed, suicidal man was euthanized because doctors decided he had a bad reaction to Covid vaccines. From the Vancouver Sun story (my emphasis):

Identified as “Mr. A,” the man experienced “suffering and functional decline” following three vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2. He also suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and personality disorders, and, “while navigating his physical symptoms,” was twice admitted to hospital, once involuntarily, with thoughts of suicide

“Amongst his multiple specialists, no unifying diagnosis was confirmed,” according to the report. However, his MAID assessors “opined that the most reasonable diagnosis for Mr. A’s clinical presentation (severe functional decline) was a post-vaccine syndrome, in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

There were no “pathological findings” at a post-mortem that could identify any underlying physiological diagnosis, though people’s experiences can’t be discounted just because medicine can’t find what’s wrong with them.

In other words, there is a good chance that the poor man was mentally ill and not physically sick."

---Killed off---

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, so an NRO editorial. With an anecdote. By someone who a quick Google turns out to be a big anti-suicide advocate.

I'm not some libertarian who thinks euthanasia must be good policy because freedom. I think it should be carefully regulated to avoid coercion, and be humane, legal, and rare.

I don't know if Canada's policy does that. I do know you're posting zealots and anecdotes doesn't support your 'USA! Because everyone else sucks!!" hater nationalist cheerleading.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Ya know, facts contained in an editorial, like a published coroner's report, are still facts.

[Joe_dallas]

Armchair - Good point

Life expectancy in the US after discovery of disease is typically much longer than in Canada and Europe for most diseases.

[Martinned2]

How about life expectancy in general?

[Joe_dallas]

Adjust for accidental deaths, murders, suicides, differences in counting infant mortality, there is minimal difference.

At age 65, the US life expectancy is around 18.5 whereas the top country switzerland is 20. There is also worldwide an average 1 year increase in life expectancy for every 10 degrees N latitude Up to about the 60th parallel.

[Martinned2]

Oh, that's alright then. As long as you adjust for everything that is different, there isn't really any difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

We've got great medicine and bad habits. The former can only do so much to compensate for the latter.

[Sarcastr0]

We're good if you're well off, and have a job.
Otherwise things get difficult.

Comparisons to Europe, apart from lumping disparate approaches together, tend to leave our coverage issues off.

[Joe_dallas]

Martin
In other words - you have no interest in understanding the data

[Frank Drackman]

Youth-in-Asia would be preferable to reading your posts

[Malika the Maiz]

Why don’t you make up a personae that doesn’t read them? Give it a French-Canadian style instead of a person who writes third grade English this time!

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

And it's mostly White people.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you have any citation for Canadians being able to get assisted euthanasia in 90 days?

[Armchair]

Try Google.

[Malika the Maiz]

How about the person making the claim do that?

[Frank Drackman]

Here's how you do it, take a Bottle of 100 Extra Strength Tylenol 500mg tablets, 50gms of Tylenol total, Lethal dose is 12 gms, you're done without the mess of a gun, and the pollution of Carbon Monoxide

[Joe_dallas]

As always Malika has no intention of becoming self educated.

[Malika the Maiz]

I have no intention of accepting a stated claim that’s not backed up. You should look into that.

[Armchair]

When something like this is easily available online with a minimum effort, you're just wasting people's time.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you have nothing to back up your claim?

[Brett Bellmore]

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

It would be more accurate to say that the actual killing is to happen "no sooner than 90 days", but access to start the clock ticking is immediate.

[Sarcastr0]

This sets a minimum number of days. It is not relevant to Armchair's thesis.

[Brett Bellmore]

It most assuredly IS relevant, on multiple counts. It's the source of that "90 days", for instance.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks, I guess, for proving Armchair doesn't understand numbers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Things are maybe not as bad as Armchair is suggesting, (Yet!) but they ARE pretty bad, in that the wait time for killing yourself IS shorter than for a lot of life saving treatments, and they absolutely do push euthanasia as a cost saving measure.

Which is the usual trend you see in countries that legalize euthanasia, I should note.

[Sarcastr0]

The wait time for killing yourself IS shorter than for a lot of life saving treatments

I'm not sure that's going to create the perverse incentive you seem to believe it will.

Also, below: "apparently average wait times for euthanasia are not being tracked in Canada."
So you're going on vibes again, looks like.

But even vibes is miles ahead of Armchair's using numbers flat wrongly, so you got that going for you.

[Malika the Maiz]

Ok, see, that is helpful. I think this shows as a matter of law one *could* get the treatment after 90 days. Now, my question is, are the waits for other procedures Armchair points to, are they by law or by practice? And by practice what’s the wait for assisted euthanasia? And how relatively complex are the respective procedures and resources available for each? Otherwise we’re comparing apples and pineapples.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did some looking around, and apparently average wait times for euthanasia are not being tracked in Canada, which is itself somewhat suspicious given the predilection of bureaucrats to track everything. I'm guessing they're not really eager to have that question be easy to answer.

[Malika the Maiz]

You have a hunch about a coverup, color me shocked!

[Riva]

If they were, would that make them “great” in your broken little mind? You must think Nazi healthcare was really great for the jews.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is this a response to me? I do think respecting people’s autonomy is great.

[Riva]

Respecting people's autonomy is not equivalent to mutilating the mentally disturbed, and that becomes a special kind of evil when children are the victims.

[Malika the Maiz]

We are talking about assisted euthanasia in this part of the conversation bot, please perform diagnostics.

[Riva]

Not sure the parrot troll understands. Euthanasia is a vile abuse of medicine, like trans mutilation surgery. The parrot troll apparently embraces both. Could it be any more repulsive?

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, Bot got caught confused about this topic. Instead of performing diagnostics accessed angry response option.

Bot thinks someone exercising autonomy over their own self is vile. Please delete authoritarianism files.

[Riva]

Well, I guess the parrot troll tantrum hasn’t nearly running its course yet. So now I think it’s best to leave it here alone to play with itself. I’m sure it’s had a lot of practice.

[Jerry B.]

"...trans patient who wants a vagina — and to keep her penis..."

So. If anybody tells them to go fuck themselves, they can.

[Mr. Bumble]

Dr. Mengele would be so proud.

[not guilty]

What is it with the peckercheckers' fixation with other people's genitalia? I'm not a mental health expert, but I wonder to what extent that evinces mental illness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You don’t think taxpayers should question whether they should have to pay for a surgery where someone gets a vagina in addition to his penis?

Why do you hate democracy?

[Malika the Maiz]

I absolutely think taxpayers can question and veto this.

Should government get to prevent it on their own dime?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Should government get to prevent it on their own dime?"
No, but you have to wonder about the doctors who would preform this type of operation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not for adults.

[Kazinski]

They point out that not only are taxpayers on the hook for the surgery and pre and post op treatment which will be hundreds of thousands, they also had to pay for the lawyers on both sides and court costs too which is also well into 6 figures.

[Martinned2]

My theory is always that these guys once accidentally masturbated to TS porn, and then went into a lifelong gay panic.

[Kazinski]

At least for me I am just aghast at their perceived entitlement to taxpayer dollars.

Nut they aren't alone.

https://www.californiafamily.org/2023/11/4-million-ca-taxpayer-dollars-have-funded-trans-surgeries-for-inmates

Hey can do what they want with their own money, or privately funded charities, but having a very few number of people chew up an enormous amount of public health resources for elective surgery borders on evil.

[Kazinski]

It was national news in Canada, ask them.

The Toronto Sun isn't a right wing rag, but apparently they are pecker checkers too.

[Martinned2]

The first names have been announced for the new German cabinet. Shockingly, none of them seem to have been recruited from a job as a shouting person on cable news.

https://www.politico.eu/article/merz-fills-new-german-cabinet-with-conservative-loyalists/

At the Foreign Ministry, Johann Wadephul, a seasoned defense and foreign policy expert, is set to lead Germany’s diplomatic efforts at a time of rising global tensions. In a major economic move, Katherina Reiche — a former energy executive and ex-lawmaker — will head the Ministry for Economy and Energy, overseeing Germany’s reindustrialization plans.
(...)
On European affairs, Merz appointed strong voices from his conservative Christian Democratic Union: Serap Güler joins the Foreign Ministry as state minister for international cooperation, while Gunther Krichbaum, a veteran on EU policy, takes the role of state minister for European affairs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Just about every country has more competent leadership than we do. And it's our own fault.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are SOME advantages to having everything turned upside down occasionally by massive, bloody wars, I suppose. The last time we did that here was in the 1860's.

[Martinned2]

That depends on how you look at it. In the US the authorities exchange gunfire with the citizenry on a daily basis. And we were talking just the other day about how much military effort was required to get the former Confederate States to even pretend to do some desegregation.

[TaioF920]

And the last 60-70 years have shown that the South was right about desegregation and quote unquote civil rights.

[Martinned2]

But I don't think the US is screwed up because of lack of military occupation. The presidential system, at leat the US version of it, somehow seems to incentivise the appointment of lackeys over competent administrators. It has done that since Andrew Jackson, if not longer.

[Martinned2]

On reflection, I think the issue is that executive branch appointments get little to no scrutiny either formally in the Senate or informally through political pressure. In parliamentary systems they usually don't have confirmation hearings (though the EU does), and theoretically each party in government chooses its own ministers, but there is a heavy political cost to choosing an incompetent bellend, because the other party/parties in government will have no compunction about exposing their incompetence.

In the US, where government officials are rarely pushed into resignation as long as the president still backs them, Senate hearings are supposed to create an incentive to nominate competent people. But that only works if the Senate is prepared to block nominations every once in a while. And they don't seem particularly willing to do that, even if the Senate is controlled by the other party than the president's.

[Brett Bellmore]

My actual claim is that WWII effectively "rebooted" governments in Europe, while the US government and political system is like a computer that's been running continuously without a reboot for 160 years. Everybody knows all the exploits and weaknesses of the system, important safeguards have been subjected to 'work arounds' that people have grown used to over time, and our political class have effectively become a self-perpetuating oligarchy which reacts very badly when outsiders achieve any political success.

While it's nice not to have bloody warfare in your country at intervals, we do need some sort of 'reboot' to reduce the parasite load on government, and flush all those exploits and work arounds.

[Martinned2]

Most European countries didn't get rebooted at all. Germany and Itlay did, of course, and France, but Austria still uses its constitution from 1920, for example. And most countries that were occupied basically kept going as before.

But yes, I have commented in the past on how England and the Netherlands ended up with different constitutional and other legal rules today because Napoleon came and rebooted everything in 1810. The last French law that still applied in the Netherlands was only repealed when I was in law school.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, even where the constitution wasn't formally replaced, the war produced a massive turnover in the governing elite.

[Magister]

Nothing producing a massive turnover in the governing elite in the US in the past century? At the very least, acknowledge that the Republicans currently controlling all branches of the federal government would have horrified Eisenhower era Republicans.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore opposes Burkean conservatism, but fails to notice how little practiced it has become. Communism, same story.

But not Jim Crow. Bellmore complains there is not enough of that left around. Bellmore applauds whatever politics promote Jim Crow resurgence—for principled reasons, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

While it's nice not to have bloody warfare in your country at intervals, we do need some sort of 'reboot' to reduce the parasite load on government

This is just radicalism for it's own sake. Based on...yep, vibes.
And of course coming from someone comfy and insulated from any chaos.

[Malika the Maiz]

Jesus, that is Ozymandias levels of sociopathy.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice ref.

[Brett Bellmore]

What? I said it's NOT nice to have occasional spasms of murderous warfare, not that it was nice. Sure, there are advantages to it, but we'd be better off finding a way to gain them without the wars.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Sure, there are advantages to it”

JFC

[Don Nico]

Sure, think again.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Who will be in charge of rebuilding the Wehrmacht (or Bundeswehr or whatever Germany wants to call the New German army possessing its own nuclear weapons).

[Martinned2]

The assumption is that Boris Pistorius, the incumbent defence minister and presumed incoming SPD leader, will stay on defence. But that hasn't been confirmed yet.

[Don Nico]

Thank you.

[Michael P]

Does the modal German minister still hate free speech?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump today asked to set the DoJ on media companies publishing polls he didn't like.

[Riva]

Yeah, right, little communist girl who never smiled, I’m sure that’s clearly what he said. I do recall though that you bozos couldn’t get enough of the lawfare thugs targeting Brandon’s political opponents, so I don’t understand your objections.

[Malika the Maiz]

You might want to reset your search parameters Riva-bot.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2025/02/25/dismissal-sought-donald-trump-lawsuit-pollster-ann-selzer-des-moines-register-iowa-poll/79442387007/

[Riva]

That civil litigation is not lawfare you ignorant parrot troll.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your search parameters are malfunctioning. Please engage diagnostics.

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/trump-calls-to-investigate-fake-low-approval-polls/article_a50ec654-61ea-5910-809e-814de2103130.html

[Satchmo_Lives]

"These people should be investigated" is not telling DOJ to go investigate. Grow up. Everything Trump says is not the first step to Armageddon. Get back to me when there is an announcement the DOJ is investigating pollsters for their results.

[Martinned2]

Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?

[Malika the Maiz]

Lol, yeah, maybe the person who is head of DOJ and who the DOJ says they need to align with more meant amateur sleuths should investigate!

[Riva]

The parrot troll doesn't understand that investigating election fraud, let alone simply talking about investigating election fraud, is not lawfare either. Indicting your main political opponent in the midst of a presidential election, now you're talking lawfare. Working with fat slob DAs and other corrupt local prosecutors on more indictments is also lawfare. Trying to remove your opponent from the presidential ballot, lawfare again little troll. Using state resources on meritless fraud charges to bankrupt a political opponent, even a parrot troll should be able to recognize this as lawfare by now. I hope that helps this parrot troll and all its little troll buddies.

[Malika the Maiz]

This bot! It wrote civil suits were not the same as directing government to investigate political opponents and then when presented with just that goes into error.

Please perform diagnostics.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I take it by "set the DOJ on media companies" you mean the DOJ rescinding Biden-era protections that kept the government from investigating journalists' devices re illegal leaks?

The DOJ should get back to tracking Latin Mass Catholics and PTA members.

[Malika the Maiz]

He meant your Cult Leader literally asking the departments he heads to investigate, goofball.

[Martinned2]

No

[bernard11]

The first names have been announced for the new German cabinet.

Karl, Heinz, Johann, Hermann, Franz, and Ludwig.

No Adolf's in the group.

[Commenter_XY]

They are all non-entities. They will accomplish nothing of note. They will not address the burning issues: immigration, energy.

VP Vance nailed it in his Munich speech.

[Martinned2]

Alba Ribera Martínez is a Spanish academic who does the Lord's work by following every development around the Digital Markets Act closely and by writing about it, so that I don't have to.

Here is her summary of last week's Commission infringement decisions against Apple and Meta: https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/04/28/the-dmas-teeth-meta-and-apple-fined-by-the-european-commission/

[Martinned2]

Here, have a photograph of Mozart's wife: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5157200.stm

[Martinned2]

Similarly weird, I think there is a sound recording somewhere of Ulrike von Levetzow, the unwilling subject of Goethe's Marienbad Elegy, telling the story of how the poet fell madly in love with her in 1821.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'd rather think of Elizabeth Berridge in "Amadeus".

[Frank Drackman]

me too

[Satchmo_Lives]

I almost immediately thought bullshit. A photograph in the 18th century? I tend to think of Mozart as the late 18th century guy. I don't forget he died relatively young, but I didn't connect his generation would have lived longer. His wife living to be 80.

So, nice find! I had a great-great grandfather who was a photographer. I have a pretty good collection (150 or so) of ancestors on Daguerre and tin types

[hobie]

On Sunday NPR had a segment on American doctors that had recently worked in Gaza. What the doctors were most disturbed about were all the transcranial head shots of children. They described how invariably the children's pupils were fixed and dilated, meaning they were essentially dead.

Normally this could be explained away as the casualties of war. Except that there have been thousands of videos posted on line from Israeli soldiers. They are not shy about filming their exploits. I've seen a lot of the rummaging about apartments, playing the pianos of the deceased, wearing the women's clothing and doing dance numbers.

But there's also been a large amount of sniper videos; with hundreds involving children. A little child walking alone down the street under the grainy, green filter of the rifle scope, then suddenly falling to the ground.

You stupid hayseeds worshipping the ground Israelis walk on, but they are no less savages than you or I

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like wishcasting on your part, Arthur.

[Life of Brian]

"Arthur" -- LOL.

[Don Nico]

The Hamasniks can stop this immediately by unconditional surrender.

[Martinned2]

Can they? It sounds suspiciously from statements by Ben Gvir and other Israeli government officials as if unconditional surrender would still result in massive ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

[Don Nico]

You mean like those demanding the "right of return" want to do to Jews? Or like every Arab country ethnically cleansed the Jews in 1947-48?

Maybe you like the idea that Gazans will prefer to live in the rubble for decades. Are you objecting to letting those who wish to leave become true refugees?

[Martinned2]

Gibberish. If you try it in sane English I might be able to work out whether I agree with you.

[Don Nico]

Simple Martin.
Palestinianism is the doctrine that no Jews should live in Palestine, that unlike other refugees who understand that a time comes to move on, the Palestinian position from either the PLA or Hamas, is that Palestinians remain refugees forever as long a Jews live nearby.
And what don't you understand about the idea that some Gazans will prefer not to live in the rubble.

[Malika the Maiz]

“unlike other refugees who understand that a time comes to move on”

Wow. I mean, an oft cited justification for the current state of Israel is that some Jews never moved on from the area after the Romans crushed them, y’know?

[Don Nico]

That is correct there has always been a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.
It has nothing to do with Jews claiming to be refugees.

[Martinned2]

Palestinianism

This is not a word. (Except in the sense that you've just invented it.)

the doctrine that no Jews should live in Palestine

Which is something that many people believe, and that is very bad. I don't think it's made better by Israeli attempts to genocide and ethnic cleanse the Palestinians out of existence.

other refugees who understand that a time comes to move on

Like who?

And what don't you understand about the idea that some Gazans will prefer not to live in the rubble.

I understand that just fine. That's the whole point of why Israel bombed Gaza into rubble in the first place. (Well, that and killing as many people as possible.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for it, it's apparently been a word about 40 years now.

[Jerry B.]

"other refugees who understand that a time comes to move on

Like who?"

The ones who have been restricted to camps in the surrounding states by the governments of those countries, who might want to be Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. instead of propaganda tools.

[Martinned2]

Is anything stopping them? One Palestinian in Jordan married the King. I don't think they held her at gunpoint to prevent her leaving the camp.

[Don Nico]

Like who?
Like every other group of refugees around the world.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, hamas can release the hostages, and end the gaza war. Then hamas must lay down their weapons, and surrender to the IDF. The gaza war would be over.

They (hamas) won't do that. Israel has the lists of hamas members, the ones they thenmseklves created. So I personally prefer that the IDF kills all hamas members on those lists, and then turns the Mossad loose on the remainder, and kill them too, no matter where those hamas members are on Planet Earth.

[Joe_dallas]

NPR is notorious for making shit up.

[Malika the Maiz]

joe_dallas is notorious for making shit up.

[Joe_dallas]

The NPR article cited by Hobie is bull shit. As usual, you display a complete ignorance of historical dishonesty of NPR reporting

[Malika the Maiz]

Didn’t you get caught replying to your own sock puppet here?

[David Nieporent]

He took high school biology, which makes him an expert.

[David Nieporent]

You've seen hundreds of videos of Israeli snipers killing little children? Are you sure you're not mixing it up with video game footage?

[Joe_dallas]

Nice of you to admit NPR makes shit up

[Commenter_XY]

Judge Dugan does a nice perp walk..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-director-posts-photo-of-arrested-wisconsin-judge-s-perp-walk-possibly-violating-doj-policy/ar-AA1DG2dB

Does she get jail time?

[Martinned2]

Frogs in boiling water...

[hobie]

...like a magabillie in boiling koolade

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

Or your neighbors in boiling grape drank.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm from the dirty south, where we invented "Drank" (and with Slavery, Coca Cola, and Delta Airlines the "Drank" is looking better and better)
it's "Purple Drank" and it started back when you get still get OTC Cough Syrup with Codeine/Promethazine, mix it with grape Koolaid, Mad-Dog 20/20, and you've got a House Party (and multiple gunshot victims)
Like the Atrocity of the Vodka Martini, it's been molested, now with Dextromethorphan/benadryl containing Cough preparations replacing the Codeine, and do your current Hood Rats even know what brand "Mad Dog" was?
Never sampled the Drank myself, House Parties in the South are like the 3rd rail for white peoples, you go there, you die

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

“Hey, I'm from the dirty south”

Or at least his made up “gonzo personae” is supposed to be.

MAGA really appeals to sad weirdos!

[Frank Drackman]

she does sort of resemble a Frog

[Michael Ejercito]

That is the situation criminals find themselves in.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It’s funny how this episode has gotten so many Dems to start claiming that judges should be above the law.

[Don Nico]

AG Bondi is going for 6 years.
Then, Dugan can help fellow inmates file their appeals

[not guilty]

What effect will this have on the willingness of crime victims to appear in court if they are brown skinned, whether they entered the country lawfully or not, if ICE agents are staking out courthouses?

[Commenter_XY]

We'll hunt them down the hard way, NG. That is all it means.

[not guilty]

The crime victims who may dishonor any subpoenas? How many wife beaters are you willing to see go unpunished?

XY, I am truly surprised and disappointed that anyone of your tribe is as copacetic as you about living in an autocracy. How did that work out for Germans in the 1930s and 1940s?

[Commenter_XY]

We don't live in an autocracy, NG.

[not guilty]

We will if your hero Trump has his way. Even if he does outsource the concentration camps.

I wonder, XY. Do you cry "NEVER AGAIN*"?
* Unless Donald Trump directs it.

In the struggle for liberty and the rule of law, you are a damned quisling.

[Don Nico]

I don't claim to know, but that does not excuse Dugan's alleged criminal act.

[Commenter_XY]

Works for me = 6 years in prison

[Moderation4ever]

No, they charges are quietly dropped. The Trump administration wanted the headlines, not a trial where their tactics could be questioned in court.

[Frank Drackman]

"they" charges??
is this "Watermelon Man"?? you turned Black over night?

[Malika the Maiz]

Need to invent a character with some self awareness….

[Life of Brian]

"Their tactics"? Please say more. The only attempt at substantive (i.e., non-tribal) defense of Dugan I've seen so far grossly misrepresented what she did.

[shawn_dude]

IANAL but I'm curious as to whether an improper warrant for the arrest of an immigrant can lead to an obstruction charge. How do you obstruct an action that ICE isn't authorized to perform?

If my take is correct, this is just another Trump abuse of power designed to beat any resistance out of lawyers and judges.

[David Nieporent]

If the facts are as alleged, I don't think so. I mean, yes, Trump of course escalated this unnecessarily, but there's a big difference between protecting someone's rights and sneaking the guy away.

[shawn_dude]

JoeFromTheBronx posted this downthread:

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/coming-for-the-judges

It seems to rebut the claim regarding "sneaking." You might find it interesting.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think we need to be too cute by half here. He was scheduled to be in court. Not only did she (as I understand it) suddenly terminate that proceeding for no legal reason, but she allowed — indeed, directed — him to leave through a separate entrance not accessible to the public. I can't see any explanation for those two things other than that she was trying to help him evade the ICE agents. That this wasn't a particularly effective approach doesn't mean that this wasn't her intent.

The rest — that the ICE agents chased him down the street rather than grabbing him in the elevator, or whatever, as well as the fact that the manner of arrest of the judge was gratuitous — is after the fact and not relevant to her intent at the time she undertook those acts. It's entirely relevant to the politics of the situation being played by Trump's people, but not to her mens rea.

To be sure, I have not carefully analyzed the elements of the offense of her arrest, so it's possible she failed to satisfy one or more of them. But we don't need to pretend she wasn't trying to help him get away.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

him to leave through a separate entrance not accessible to the public

As noted at my link, and in the affidavit supporting that complaint, "After leaving the Chief Judge’s vestibule and returning to the public hallway, DEA Agent A reported that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were in the public hallway."

Also, at the link:

As attorney and Wisconsin Elections Commission chair Ann Jacobs observed, the judge telling Flores-Ruiz to go out the jury door instead of the main door doesn’t change the fact that both lead to the public hallway where I.C.E. agents were waiting. Presumably Judge Dugan understood that. Yet in that hallway, two agents saw Flores-Ruiz there and then do nothing about it, permitting him to leave the building before chasing him down and detaining him.

Her "intent" would seem to include knowing that he would leave through an exit that goes to a "public hallway."

Also, it is not just that the capture was staged in a "gratuitous" way, but that it is relevant to talk about how he allegedly had to be chased, etc., which is put out as evidence that she helped him elude capture, leading to difficulties. Which sounds rather overblown given the facts.

He links to Marcy Wheeler's account, the provides further reasons, including evidence that the exit would make it more likely he would encounter the officers.

At the very least, let's be careful with assumptions.

suddenly terminate that proceeding for no legal reason

I'm not sure how much this adds to evidence of her guilt. After interacting with the officers & talk about the type of warrant, she ended the proceeding. She didn't have to have a "legal reason" to do it. What if it just played out normally and she did the same thing -- sent him out the same exit? What changes?

It remains that the guy would end up in a public area & "one of them rode down the elevator with him and his attorney and the other alerted the other officers" (quoting Wheeler).

If the judge tried to hide him, she didn't do a very good job of it. I think the link is useful without necessarily saying it is a full exoneration. I'm also not going to try to closely parse all the details of which we do not have a full account of from both sides, from what I can tell.

[Life of Brian]

That article cites to the account I alluded to above, which is chock-full of pretty egregious distortions and misrepresentations.

My rough paraphrase of what actually happened, per the complaint:
1. When seated for her morning hearings, Dugan learned agents were there to arrest Flores-Ruiz, left the courtroom, and confronted them in the hallway.
2. After arguing with them for a bit, she ultimately sent what she thought was all members of the arrest team to the chief judge's chambers -- overlooking one (DEA Agent B), who then stood outside the public entrance to the courtroom.
3. She reentered the courtroom, adjourned Flores-Ruiz's hearing, and sent him and his attorney out the jury door in the back of the courtroom to a non-public area of the courthouse (where the jury, bailiffs, etc. typically are).
4. Florez-Ruiz and the attorney went through the non-public area and exited into a different hallway than the one in front of the courtroom where overlooked DEA Agent B was waiting.
5. Right around that time, DEA Agent A apparently got tired of the rope-a-dope in the chief judge's chambers and came back out into the hallway, where he saw Flores-Ruiz and the attorney and followed them into the elevator. (With an arrest team of 6 and in a public space like that, I presume he followed their protocol to keep him in sight while waiting for backup rather than trying to play lone ranger and take him down himself. And given what happened next, Flores-Ruiz and the other attorney likely didn't realize who he was at the time.)
6. Other members of the arrest team maneuvered to intercept them. Once they had a critical mass, they announced themselves fo Flores-Ruiz, who took off running.

Given that, I found it really disappointing that the original author cited in Joe's article (an attorney) chose to deliberately distort the above facts into "all she did was send Flores-Ruiz out a door that leads to the hallway where ICE agents were waiting!"

First off, the jury door in the back of the courtroom "leads to" the hallway in the same sense that my driveway "leads to" the interstate highway. Enough subsequent turns and you can get anywhere, but that's hardly the point.

She then compounds the distortion by claiming that the jury door "leads to the public hallway where I.C.E. agents were waiting." Again, five out of the six team members were still in the chief judge's chambers when Dugan kicked off her backdoor play. ONE member of the team -- the one Dugan had overlooked -- was waiting in the hallway next to the public entrance in the front of the courtroom -- the place where parties and attorneys walk in and out. The fact that the jury door (eventually) let out to a different hallway in the same courthouse is ridiculously beside the point.

Zoom out: If the judge was willingly sending the man out into the arms of the ICE agents, she wouldn't have bothered sending him on a different path out of her courtroom, and he wouldn't have taken off running when he suddenly realized that he HADN'T just successfully snuck out of the courthouse after all. This sad attempt to play "nothing to see here" relies on nothing but quarter-truths and word games.

[David Nieporent]

Once they had a critical mass,

Nothing to do with Dugan, but I love how politicians always love to kiss cop ass and talk about how brave law enforcement is, but these people are too scared to arrest a single known-to-be-unarmed person without a squad of six agents.

[Life of Brian]

Really weird that you would pounce on that word fragment when in the prior paragraph I specifically explained my thinking on their arrest protocol and the drivers behind it. If he had played cowboy by himself and some innocent member of the public had gotten hurt, I suspect the word "bravery" wouldn't be anywhere in your vocabulary.

[David Nieporent]

I love the use of words like "procedure" and "protocol" to explain away why cops did something, as if that somehow negates criticism of that thing. If their "protocol" requires the use six people to arrest a known-to-be-unarmed person, their protocol reflects their cowardice; it doesn't explain it.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently they should just call you next time, big boy. You can hide behind your keyboard and snark-post him into submission!

[TwelveInchPianist]

As the saying goes, if you're in a fair fight, you fucked up.

[Life of Brian]

A couple of helpful time stamps in the complaint that I forgot to include, that sharpen the picture even further.

Flores-Ruiz entered the courtroom at 8:43am. This is before step 1 in my timeline (before Dugan came out, confronted the team, and sent them to the chief judge's chambers).

DEA Agent A ran into Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out in the hallway at 8:50am, less than 7 minutes after Dugan first came out.

So apparently DEA Agent A must have stepped back out of the chief judge's chambers very quickly indeed -- more quickly than Dugan had counted on.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"IANAL but I'm curious as to whether an improper warrant for the arrest of an immigrant can lead to an obstruction charge..."

There was nothing improper about the warrant. An administrative warrant doesn't allow them to go into non-public spaces to make the arrest, but there's no evidence that they did that.

[Riva]

Leftist lunatic trolls oddly silent on Dugan. I thought this was the new poster child for their open borders insanity? Maybe if she joined a gang she’d heighten her appeal?

[Moderation4ever]

You need to broaden the scope of your reading Dugan getting a lot of support.

[Malika the Maiz]

“You need to broaden the scope of your reading”

Bots don’t really “read,” do they?

[damikesc]

What? Democrats are siding with a criminal AGAIN?

That seems so unlike them.

The judiciary has a massive problem. It is time for it to be dealt with.

[hobie]

So you don't like people siding with criminal politicians, eh?

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s got little self-awareness…

[hobie]

You noticed that too?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump completed his sentence and payed his debt to society. What’s the problem?

[Michael Ejercito]

Hard to tell.

We would need to find out what the evidence is.

[not guilty]

The criminal complaint and supporting affidavit are here: https://wisconsinexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Dugan-Crim-complaint.pdf

The charges are quite a stretch. Now that Pam (Bottle) Blondie's and Kash Patel's dog and pony show for the cameras has played out, I expect the matter will go away quietly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(Bottle) Blondie's"

Have to reset the "Days without Sexist Comments" sign back to zero. Funny how it never gets past one or two.

[Martinned2]

Good little rant on Crooked Timber:

I thought it was a platitude, but given the sea of self-congratulatory discourse about Europe (here’s an example for those who read Italian, but there are plenty) we seem to be surrounded with, maybe it bears saying after all. So here you go.
Europe is not a worthy ideal because the region has had the best art, philosophy, and literature in the world, or because its history and its present constitute a beacon of civilisation, freedom, and rights. It is not the only part of the world that has distinguished itself for amazing creativity and innovation, and it has been on the wrong (very wrong) side of history for much longer than it has not. If Europe is worth championing as a political ideal, it is because, however imperfectly, it represents the quite opposite thought: that we can gather around an acknowledgment of our mistakes, a reckoning with our crimes, and create something better because of it, motivated by the desire not to repeat those mistakes and those crimes. In that, its founding values are unique, and maybe uniquely modest. De facto, that has only happened fairly superficially, very selectively, and often hypocritically – but it has been one central regulative ideal for the past 80 years, and one still worth supporting. If you go on and on about how great Europe is and always has been, you actually betray that very ideal.

https://crookedtimber.org/2025/04/28/which-europe-is-worth-defending/

[Kazinski]

Europe's culture is overrated, if it was all it was cracked up to be Jerry Lewis would not have been awarded France's Legion of Honour.

And there might actually be some watchable European movies.

But certainly Italian food is worth the hype.

[Martinned2]

I recently watched all of Yorgos Lanthimos's movies. Most of them are very weird, and some of them are breathtakingly good.

[Don Nico]

There are definitely more watchable European movies (and TV series) than American ones that are most commonly tripe on toast.

[David Nieporent]

There are definitely more watchable European movies (and TV series) than American ones that are most commonly tripe on toast.

I think revealed consumer preference strongly suggests otherwise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"European movies (and TV series)"

British, perhaps. But not European if you mean from EU countries.

Are EU tv shows even available here?

[Frank Drackman]

Ate Pizza almost every single day of my "Combat" deployments to Italy (unlike Sergeant Pepper Waltz, I did get Hazardous Duty Pay, sleeping in the back seat of an FA-18D was very dangerous) and you only had 2 choices, Pizza Marinara, or one with some Capicola topping, one thing the Eye-talins couldn't really get right was a nice Steak, I tried the "Cavallo" one night
Tastes like Horse

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

“almost every single day of my "Combat" deployments to Italy”

During the great Final Fantasy police action!

[Frank Drackman]

I know, it was sort of an open joke, but during William Juffuhson Clintons term, the US flew over Bosnia to make sure the Serbs (was it the Serbs? I never understood that whole conflict) weren't flying or doing meany things on the ground, if you flew 1 mission in a month, that month's pay was not only tax free ("Combat Tax Exclusion") but you got "Hazardous Duty Pay" that month, some $400 if I remember correctly, real Shekels in 1996.
It was an open Joke because there was a mad dash of the Headquarters Weanies trying to get on an EC-130 Flight the first week of every month, Air Farce Colonels would fly over from the Pentagon for the same reason,
as a "Flight Surgeon" (No, you don't do Surgery in flight) I was "required" to fly 4 hrs a month, is it my fault I made sure it was a flight that qualified for the Bennies????
Is that enough of an "elaborate back story" for ya?

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s exactly the amount that I’d expect from a sad desperate person.

[MoreCurious]

Fascinating! Even when he's pretending to tell a real story experienced by a real adult, he still sounds like a third-grader.

[bernard11]

one thing the Eye-talins couldn't really get right was a nice Steak,

Try Tuscany.

[SRG2]

There is no monolithic "European culture",

[Dan Schiavetta]

Europe is composed of countries that have a history of internecine warfare against each other. They act more or less as a unit now. This is something for the rest of the world to emulate.

[Brett Bellmore]

The upside of one world government, (Which is what you're suggesting here, I take it.) is no more refugees.

The downside is that it's because there's no refuge.

The more centralized policy making becomes, the more likely it becomes that some awful mistake will be imposed universally, instead of just locally.

[Martinned2]

Hence subsidiarity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed. Or as we call it here, federalism.

But central governments in federations have a regrettable tendency to centralize power and subvert subsidarity. It's tough designing counter-measures that prevent the balance from tilting one way or the other over time.

I think we had a pretty good design until the direct election of Senators removed the last theoretical lever state governments had to push back against the federal government.

[Malika the Maiz]

Are you claiming to be back into subsidiarity now? How about all those GOP state governments telling localities what to do on so many issues these days?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's subsidarity as a policy, and subsidarity as a constitutional mandate, you know. Almost no US state has the latter, the way the federal Constitution does.

And the federal Constitution explicitly prohibits subsidarity in respect to decisions as to whether or not to respect constitutional rights.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’m talking about things from fracking to Confederate statues, where GOO state legislatures have told what local governments they can or cannot do in their localities and don’t involve constitutional rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I pointed out that subsidarity is a constitutional principle between the federal Constitution and the states, but is NOT a constitutional principle within most states.

So the failure to properly have subsidarity between the states and the federal government is a constitutional violation much of the time, but not so much within the states.

[Malika the Maiz]

So you only believe in this as a principle set out in the US Constitution, not as a general political philosophy? Then why talk about it in regards to the EU or world?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe that subsidarity is a good principle, but it is not the ONLY good principle, so I don't have to support the decision of subsidiary units of government to violate basic civil liberties.

[Malika the Maiz]

The basic civil liberty to maintain a Confederate memorial?

[bernard11]

This is horseshit, Brett. You've completely changed your tune in the space

Falling back on subsidiarity between the states and the feds being in the Constitution is ridiculous. Having it between states and localities is not barred.

You've shifted from a general principle - subsidiarity is a good idea - to a formalistic notion - state subsidiarity is required, so there's no use talking about it - in the space of a couple of comments.

Simple question. Is it a good idea for state legislatures to overrule municipal governments, especially when the municipality in question is the population center of the state?

That is, do you like subsidiarity, or do you just like it when you like the outcome?

[bernard11]

I don't have to support the decision of subsidiary units of government to violate basic civil liberties.

But that's not the limit of the relevant issues. (Yeah,you've got guns on the brain, but that's not all that's involved.)

Oh, and I'd say the states have a pretty sorry history of violating all sorts of civil rights.

[apedad]

Earth just had COVID without a centralized govt.

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

... caused by central governments, then mismanaged by central governments

[Martinned2]

Fortunately there's always the WHO to coordinate when a pandemic breaks out. O, wait.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/

[damikesc]

WHO performed so well. Really. Amazing job.

[TaioF920]

Like the European Central Bank's deranged monetary policy, for example.

[Don Nico]

Led by a EC unelected by the people of Europe.
When the EU finally commits to and begins to build a true Armed Forces, I'll listen to you.

[Martinned2]

Led by a EC unelected by the people of Europe.

WTF are you talking about? They are all at least as democratically elected as Elon Musk.

When the EU finally commits to and begins to build a true Armed Forces, I'll listen to you.

The whole reason why the US encouraged the Europeans to integrate is to *avoid* them building armed forces. Make up your minds, what do you want? World conquest or peace?

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

That comment is illegal. Why do you commit so many of the same crimes that you cheer on when your own White countrymen are getting jailed over?

[Martinned2]

Since you asked, conveniently the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute published its annual data today:

World military expenditure reached $2718 billion in 2024, an increase of 9.4 per cent in real terms from 2023 and the steepest year-on-year rise since at least the end of the cold war. Military spending increased in all world regions, with particularly rapid growth in both Europe and the Middle East. The top five military spenders—the United States, China, Russia, Germany and India—accounted for 60 per cent of the global total, with combined spending of $1635 billion.
(...)
Several countries in Central and Western Europe saw unprecedented rises in their military expenditure in 2024 as they implemented new spending pledges and large-scale procurement plans. Germany’s military expenditure increased by 28 per cent to reach $88.5 billion, making it the biggest spender in Central and Western Europe and the fourth biggest in the world. Poland’s military spending grew by 31 per cent to $38.0 billion in 2024, representing 4.2 per cent of Poland’s GDP.

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/unprecedented-rise-global-military-expenditure-european-and-middle-east-spending-surges

[Frank Drackman]

What hallucinogen are you on? lets see, the UK certainly isn't part of the "Unit", Northern Italians don't like the Central Italians, who really don't like the Southern Italians, and the Sicilians? they run everything. And when Germans talk about the "NFL" they aren't talking about how Deion's kid outsmarted himself, they mean the "Neue Funf Lander" the 5 States that used to be part of East Germany and how they're still pulling the country down, Austria doesn't belong to NATO, and the Swiss stay out of everybodies business.
Other than that, intelligent comment!

[Malika the Maiz]

The Mad King: “as you know, the cost of eggs has come down like 93, 94% since we took office.”

Yeah, I know I bought eggs for 40 cents a dozen this week!

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

That's still pretty expensive where you live. What's that? like a months wages?

[Malika the Maiz]

Magnus has no grasp of costs. Living in your mom’s basement does that.

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

I've read the data on Qinghai, where you live.

[Malika the Maiz]

With the controls your mom has on your internet access you really can’t be sure of the limited information you get.

[Frank Drackman]

No, it's your nappy haid', you won't clean out the cobwebs, I'm subletting the place

[Malika the Maiz]

I like to laugh at crazy, sad people who invent detailed backstoried personae to comment on a legal website, I admit it.

MAGA really attracts the desperate nuts!

[grb]

Frank always reminds me of the character Buckaroo Banzai. If you don't recall the 1984 film, Banzai was simultaneously a physicist, neurosurgeon, test pilot, and rock star. Of course the movie was a comedy, but that also fits. After all, Frank's only a joke.

[MoreCurious]

It's hard to think of Frank as a joke when everything he writes simply emphasizes how pathetically desperate for attention he is.

[Frank Drackman]

My Erectric Guitar playing is more like a tragedy, for all the creativity we leftie's are supposed to have, I can't recognize an out of tune note for the life of me, still have my Strat though, only time it was in tune was right out of the box

[Brett Bellmore]

In related news, our 'illegal immigrant' chicken, (She just showed up in the backyard without passing through customs.) was on her way to being deported with extreme predjudice, as she'd started digging in the garden. Then we found her nest, and are now harvesting her eggs.

So, tentatively she's a DACA chicken now. Assuming she doesn't dig up anymore tomato seedlings.

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

We let our chickens into our garden to eat bugs, but not before the plants have come in. They'll tear seedlings up.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump’s dropping poll numbers were in the news over the weekend, especially regarding immigration. It seems to me a majority of the American public wanted something to be done about immigration, but Trump has overreached and is now undermining that support. Will the undermining last?

On the flip side think of the incredible success of the movement for civil rights for gays and lesbians in recent decades. How much did adding the T and Q to that movement overextend and threaten to undermine it?

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

Those polls were fake & gay, a hacky psyop to smear his "First 100 Days".

[Malika the Maiz]

And Magnus knows fake and gay!

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

Yes, I'm very familiar with Chinese/Democrat politics.

[Malika the Maiz]

His mom brings him Panda Express sometimes and he watches Fox.

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

I'm reporting you to Teemu for your insult of Ji.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is Teemu one of your dolls, I mean “action figures,” your mom got you?

[Frank Drackman]

No TEMU's this site that sells Dildos made by Slaves in Chy-na much cheaper than the ones you get from "Adam & Steve.com" you should check it out

[Malika the Maiz]

His made up personae knows a lot about dildos. Method acting?

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not a big poll watcher, but Trump seems to be aware, and would like to persecute the media about it:

"Great Pollster John McLaughlin, one of the most highly respected in the industry, has just stated that The Failing New York Times Poll, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll, about a person named DONALD J. TRUMP, ME, are FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS. The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll has only 34% Trump Voters, unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are. These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you’re at it. They are Negative Criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I WIN ELECTIONS BIG, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse. They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone, or anything, can do about it. THEY ARE SICK, almost only write negative stories about me no matter how well I am doing (99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!), AND ARE TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! I wish them well, but will continue to fight to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

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

He makes a pretty good point. These organizations should be investigated for any illegal actions.

[Riva]

What has the media honestly reported lately? The “Maryland man” distortions? Biden’s decline? The Russian collusion hoax? The laptop lie? The Charlottesville lie? The Covid lies? And, closer to home here, the fraudulent Iowa poll. It’s rather hard to find something they were honest about.

[jb]

Even if you just assume (arguendo) that all of Riva's examples are good job of media inaccuracies, that's what, six bad story lines over as many years?

Seems like there's a lot of room for honest reporting in the middle of that, on the order of thousands of stories.

[Riva]

Not just six, just got tired of typing, and comments should be brief. And WTF? Not “bad story lines.” Blatant f’ing lies used for political purposes to prop up the media’s preferred candidate/party. The Russian collusion fraud was one of the biggest political scandals in our history and the laptop lies likely influenced the outcome of a presidential election. In term of impact, those lies would alone be sufficient to damn the media as worthless biased hacks.

[Malika the Maiz]

“The Russian collusion fraud was one of the biggest political scandals in our history”

Your search function is faulty. Please perform diagnostics.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

[damikesc]

Holy hell, you STILL believe in that?

Just checking, are you retarded or joking?

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, you’ve got nothing!

You’re used to hearing that, no?

[jb]

FWIW, this is why I decided to let Riva continue to think its assertions about the stories being false were correct for the purpose of the overall discussion. It's extremely tiresome to try to debate the underlying facts on the underlying stories again and really serves no purpose at this point.

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

We genuinely do live in different realities. All those things Riva listed were actual happenings.

But not to a handful of Democrats and their political masters.

[SRG2]

I wil bet you didn't read it then or now and are under the mistaken impression it was produced by Democrats.

[Riva]

I doubt it even knows but I’m leaning more towards the former.

[jb]

Kind of missing the overall point, I guess.

[jb]

I decided to go take a look at the data for the NYT poll, which is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/25/us/elections/times-siena-poll-toplines.html

Looks like they have 38% Trump voters, 38% Kamala voters, 16% "did not vote" voters, and 7% "someone else/don't remember/etc.". So that doesn't seem crazy. They also have slightly more people that solidly identify with the Republican party (30%) than Democrats (28%), although once they try and get the Independents to choose a major party Democrats end up with a 46/44 edge.

Overall, doesn't look like a particularly unrealistic panel at first blush.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They also have slightly more people that solidly identify with the Republican party (30%) than Democrats (28%),"

That actually checks with recent polling ; The Democratic party is suffering badly lately.

CNN Poll: Democratic Party’s favorability drops to a record low

Trump still has time to pull it out, but he needs to, or he'll be a drag on the party come the midterms. But political capital has to be spent to be retained, and if a year from now he's racked up some serious wins, he won't be in bad shape.

[Sarcastr0]

Favorability != identify with.

Schumer's been shitting the bed in how to oppose Trump.

Not to say the Dems are sitting pretty, but you need to be careful with your terms.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "Schumer's been shitting the bed in how to oppose Trump."

Schumer's biggest "mistake" for most people was not shutting the government down. And while I understand folk's frustration, I think he was right. Every time the GOP has done in the past, I said it was a pointless losing move. Inevitably it backfires; the White House only has to stand it's ground and let public dissatisfaction grow at the party screwing-up the day-to-day functioning of the government.

Of course I'm still pissed from 1995, so there's that. Twenty-one of the existing 35 works known to have been painted by Vermeer were on exhibit at the National Gallery of Art. I had waited until the last week of the show, but planned to drive to DC and see it. Then Newt Gingrich shut the government down in a snit, because Bill Clinton made him exit Air Force One via the back door. My chance was lost. Twenty-one of thirty-five Vermeers!

That's enuff to sour you on government shutdowns for life....

[Brett Bellmore]

"Every time the GOP has done in the past, I said it was a pointless losing move."

Half the times "the GOP" shut down the government, it was the Democrats shutting it down and it being reported as the GOP. It was a pretty good deal for the Democrats, having the media in their corner.

I think Schumer decided that they'd lost their lock on the media, and might actually get blamed this time.

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck's sake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, when the Republicans vote for a bill to keep things running, and Democrats kill it because it doesn't increase spending enough, that's Democrats shutting down the government, not Republicans. Even if you think that Republicans are obligated to avert the emergency by giving Democrats everything they demand.

[Sarcastr0]

Time will tell on the shutdown as the 2026 budget rolls out.

Schumer's milquetoast demeanor, stay out of it tactics, and general being ancient don't seem well postured for the moment. And I join the many folks who are not thrilled he's the Dem leadership. I think Dem approval is suffering for that purpose.

Pritzker has been taking him to task for it. His vision is pretty negative for my taste, but it's hard not to see that catching fire given where we are. And it might even be right!

[damikesc]

"Of course I'm still pissed from 1995"

...you should be REALLY pissed that Clinton, like Obama after him, INTENTIONALLY made the "Shut down" hurt you. That was their explicit intention.

[grb]

Undoubtably. If only Clinton had surrendered to Newt's tantrum demands, everything would have been sweetness & light, correct?

Geez, rightwingers! Brett is a few comments above claiming the party that shut the government down - the Republicans - didn't shut the government down because it's the other side's fault for not giving-in to their demands. Therefore (per Brett) the fact the Republicans shut down the government doesn't count.

And here you are peddling the same crap. Do rightwingers ever take responsibility for their actions?!?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, actually I said that sometimes it was the Republicans shutting it down, sometimes the Democrats, but that Democrats used to be able to rely on the media reporting that it was the Republicans in both cases.

And Schumer is probably not so confident that's still guaranteed.

[grb]

Sigh. Below is a Wiki link with a list of shutdowns. Please explain which ones in the last plus-30yrs were secretly caused by the Democrats with that truth concealed by the Evil Media.

1. Not the two Clinton shutdowns of '95 & '96; the GOP controlled both houses of Congress.

2. Not the Obama shutdown of 2013. It was Tea Party-driven and an attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act.

3. Not the Trump shutdown of 2018/2019. That was the Ann Coulter shutdown, launched by DJT in a panic after she criticized him for no wall funding.

That leaves the Trump shutdown of Jan 2018, launched by Democratic filibuster in order to win concessions on DACA. Of course that's exactly how it was reported at the time.

Why do you do this Brett? Why do you always talk brain-dead conspiratorial gibberish that can't survive a moment's scrutiny? Ya know, when I was a tiny little kid I loved conspiracies: UFOs, Loch Ness, secret plots & schemes, hidden forces & clandestine groups.

But then I grew the f**k up. It's never too late.

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

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

>Schumer's biggest "mistake" for most people was not shutting the government down.

This is just so stupid. The government doesn't "shutdown". 80% of the government continues, and the people who are furloughed get back pay. 80% of the government is unmoored from any politics and Congress has set it up it be self-perpetuating with their "mandatory spending" fakeness.

It's pure stupid theater. All of these fights are over less than 20% of the top line budget. And the fights are so viscous because that $1-2T is where all these politician's graft and corruption is squeezed out of. For example, young Ms. Clinton's $3M wedding and $10M mansion kindly paid for by USAID dollars.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The Democratic party is suffering badly lately"

Here's a quick primer on political polling in this country:

We are (roughly speaking) a 50-50 nation, Democrats & Republicans. Each side has plus-minus 35% of solid support with the remainder fading in intensity as you approach the sum number. In the end, the fickle undecideds in the center flit between parties and decide national elections.

When a side (Democrat or Republican) suffers a humiliating disaster (such as the last election) the people of that side react with scorn and anger against their own. But it's only a spasmatic reaction; come next election they inevitably return to the fold. We've seen this kind of thing play-out over and over; by now it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know what you're saying, but the Democrats seem to have managed to alienate some key constituencies this time around, in a way you didn't see before.

Whether it will stick is another question. The reason the parties tend to remain in equipoise is that when they start alienating constituencies they trim their sails. This time around the Democratic party seems to be redoubling on some of those issues instead of trimming.

But they have plenty of time before the midterms to change that decision.

[Sarcastr0]

the Democrats seem to have managed to alienate some key constituencies this time around

That is not supported by the polling, as grb laid out.

I'm too partisan to really do a lot of political diagnosis. You CERTAINLY should be hesitant saying what the state of the Democratic party is.

[Michael Ejercito]

Wait until they hear about Judge Hannah Dugan.

[grb]

Malika the Maiz : " ... especially regarding immigration."

It's extremely ironic if you've been following the comments here over the last few weeks. Some of our regular rightwingers have greeted reporting and criticism of Trump's immigration policies with smug joy. They didn't mind DJT broke the law. They didn't care he ignored legally required due process. It didn't bother them he was destroying people's lives with his haphazard crude stunts.

See, they thought any criticism of Trump's immigration actions was a unforced error by the Left. However unjust and lawless, to criticize or even take notice was (per them) a defense of brown-skinned people which was (per them) falling into Trump's trap. Commenter_XY was particularly gleeful about this, but there were others as well.

Try and get your head around that, will ya? In their minds, Trump could lie, break the law, be crudely unjust & cruelly petty - but as long as this was directed against brown-skinned people, no one would notice or care.

But it seems like they badly underestimated the respect for law, justice and fairness found in the American public. Granted, Trump is only slightly underwater on immigration in the polls I've seen, but his actions there have been the same clumsy bungled mess as DOGE or Liberation Day. There's more reporting yet to follow. And people are noticing. They are caring.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump’s dropping poll numbers"

Looks like he's not getting re-elected in 2028!

[shawn_dude]

"How much did adding the T and Q to that movement overextend and threaten to undermine it?"

Short answer: none. Very few people could even articulate what "queer" means in this context outside of "LGBT."

OTOH, the rise of the right and the effort to re-establish traditional gender roles has had a huge impact on trans and non-binary people, but also the rest of the "LGB" part of the alphabet soup. (See: drag queens/kings and other gender-bending aspects of the culture.) But that has less to do with "adding the T" than it does the political rise of religious conservatism which has the entire "LGBTQ" populous in their crosshairs. They do intend to try eliminating the right to marry in much the same way they did the right to an abortion. If anything, the past success of LGBTQ rights efforts has forced them to moderate their language in order to gain votes. But their goals haven't changed--bring back sodomy laws and push all the queers back into the closet.

Consider, as lesson in this tactic, all of the promises they made to only deport the violent criminals. Now they've deported US citizens, people with green cards, people with legal protections, and grad students who write non-violent opinions in schools newspapers.

So maybe the LGB folks who "added the T and Q" (which is itself a lie*) shouldn't be blamed for the stuff assholes were going to do anyway.

*1969. Look up: Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera.

[Don Nico]

Meanwhile in Israel, the PM still cannot fire the head of the secret police, who did not even inform the PM when the initial movements of the Oct pogrom were detected.

[Martinned2]

No, the PM cannot fire the head of the secret police without the consent of the Attorny-General. Does compliance with the law as a concept somehow confuse you?

And no, even if the head of the secret police refuses to drop investigations into the PM and his friends, that still isn't enough reason to fire him.

[Ed Grinberg]

Martinned2 wants to see Israel destroyed ... but while it still exists, he wants it to be corruption-free!

[Frank Drackman]

We survived Pharoh and Hitler, we'll survive Martinned2

[Armchair]

Question for the legal proletariat.

Had an interesting discussion with Mr. Nierporent a couple days ago.

He felt that it was entirely legal and legitimate for a academic journal to reject the articles submitted by certain people, based purely on the color of their skin. Not based on the content of what was said, mind you, but based on the color of the skin of the author. Something about editorial discretion.

Now of course, Mr Nierporent has argued in the past that the social media organizations like Facebook and Twitter also have editorial discretion. So they could, for example, simply ban any African Americans from being able to post anything, ever. Even on the marketplaces. Under the auspices of "editorial control"

I believe this would be illegal and violate civil rights, despite any arguments about "editorial control" and that that editorial control arguments should apply purely to the content...and not the race of the author.

But what do all you say?

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

I say his legal principles are as gerrymandered as his Democrat voting district.

[Malika the Maiz]

I doubt VDare has to post articles by blacks or The Final Call ones by whites, but colleges that get federal money probably have to play by different rules.

[Armchair]

The particular journal in this case was the Harvard Law Review that was discriminating on the basis of the author's race.

Last time I checked, Harvard got quite a bit in federal money.

(OK, last time I checked that was money was suddenly frozen....but you get the point)

[Malika the Maiz]

You asked for what I’d say, I said.

[David Nieporent]

Harvard Law Review and Harvard University are different institutions. HTH.

[Zarniwoop]

I think that you're doing you usual pseudo-legalistic schtick, namely setting up an under-determined hypothetical so that you can cry "gotcha, libz!"

In your hypo, in what ways is a generic, no-other-details "academic journal" the same or different from bookface? Or are they identical for your purposes? What same or different laws and regs might apply to one and not the other?

[David Nieporent]

He felt that it was entirely legal and legitimate

Can't keep from lying, can you?

[Armchair]

What lie?

legal: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
legitimate: conforming to the law or to rules.

I accurately described your position.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously he doesn't feel you did.

Maybe next time use quotes.

[David Nieporent]

I said it was legal; I did not say it was legitimate. It's cute how you just looked up the word and chose a definition inapplicable to this situation, rather than the one you actually meant: "conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards," because the definition you are now citing is entirely redundant with "legal."

[Armchair]

I am amused how you can define what "I meant"...but it's illegitimate for me to define what you "felt"...

Defend yourself properly. You made your views quite clear. Or hide and dodge.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you find clumsy JAQing off to be a useful rhetorical tactic elsewhere?

Because this boils down to a lame attack on DMN based on you writing his arguments for him.

Expressive association brings in the 1A here, so long as they prove their choice of who to invite is an integral part of the journal's identity.

[Bored Lawyer]

He felt that it was entirely legal and legitimate for a academic journal to reject the articles submitted by certain people, based purely on the color of their skin.

This is misleading, in that it conflates two things: law and morality.

It's perfectly legal. You want to publish a magazine or blog only by authors of one race, that's legal. It's not a public accommodation, and in any case that's protected by the First Amendment.

It's also immoral, and subject to criticism like anything else.

There is an important distinction between what government can do and what individuals can do. The Bill of Rights generally restricts government. Government can't ban speech, no matter how vile. Individuals can, and indeed have the right, to call out vile speech as vile.

As I said in the prior thread, this is Civics 101.

[Brett Bellmore]

And then when the individuals are doing using government resources, you're back to being restricted. Because the government can't outsource to the private sector what it can't do itself.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not necessarily. Just because someone takes government money does not mean they are subject to the Bill of Rights. If the government hires a private party to conduct government functions (think private prisons), then yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree that, just because the government buys some nails at a hardware store doesn't mean the hardware store is bound by the Bill of Rights in everything it does, as a constitutional matter.

That's why the civil rights laws are written to depend on the interstate commerce clause, instead.

If the journal is getting any government funding, it's in trouble if it discriminates, but the trouble is statutory trouble.

[Sarcastr0]

If the journal is getting any government funding, it's in trouble if it discriminates, but the trouble is statutory trouble.

This doesn't seem consistent with supporting the administration tearing through the Ivy league, citing no statutes just 'DEI' and pulling all funding.

[Armchair]

"It's perfectly legal."...

Is it? First amendment rights are not unfettered.

In regards to this situation, what's seen most frequently these days are advertisements, especially in the housing field, that are discriminatory. If you put an ad out there that says "Whites only can apply" for housing, that's illegal and will be shut down. Sure, you can argue "Freedom of speech" and "editorial discretion" in making such an post...but you'll lose. The government has a compelling interest in ending racial discrimination and there have been million dollar lawsuits settled over it.

I have to assume the opposite case would also be illegal. If an organization which offered advertising space to the public, but then said "black people can't advertise here for housing wanted or offered" and then tried to defend themselves on freedom of speech grounds, it would be shot down.

Now, you might have a case with your magazine example if the editors kept it small and specifically reached out to their selected authors. If their selected authors happened to be of the same case...that's a stronger argument for editorial discretion. But that's not the case here.

The HLR reaches out the the public in general for submissions. It acts as a commercial non-profit organization soliciting articles widely. It then picks and chooses from those offered. This is more akin to a classified ads section in a newspaper, rather than the main text of the newspaper where editors have reporters that work under them.

Now, the US government has a vested interest in eliminating racial discrimination in commercial interests open to the public as well as in educational organizations. The HLR fits in both those buckets. It openly solicits articles (like classified ads) from the public, and acts as part of an educational organization. To openly discriminate on the nature of the authors who submit content (and not on the content itself)... is likely a step too far. Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte regarded discrimination in regards to freedom of association...but much of the same logic likely applies here.

[Sarcastr0]

The HLR reaches out the the public in general for submissions

You sure about that?

I would also point out the nature of a publication is speech; that is not true for employment or housing.

Don't just make statements as though you know when you don't! Look up expressive association, as I said above.

[Armchair]

"you sure about that?"

Yes.
https://harvardlawreview.org/homepage/submissions/

The nature of the NTY is "Speech" as well. They can't publish an ad that says "white only"

[David Nieporent]

Key word: "ad."

[Armchair]

An advertisement is not speech?

[David Nieporent]

It is commercial speech.

[David Nieporent]

1) HLR does not "reach out to the public for submissions."
2) It would not matter if it did, because it is not even a little tiny bit like the classifieds section of a newspaper. It exercises editorial judgment in deciding which articles to publish.
3) The examples you gave — advertising for housing — are commercial speech. Commercial speech is entitled to a lower standard of protection under the 1A than non-advertising.

[Armchair]

1) Yes...it does. By its own website.
2) And yes... it does matter. The NYT is not "required" to publish all classified ads, it can exercise judgement. It's EXACTLY like that.
3) The examples included Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte which was not commercial speech.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems you have your own facts (https://harvardlawreview.org/homepage/submissions/ seems to indicate not the public),
You have your own law (an idiosyncratic take on the scope of the law of expressive association)
And you have your own made up arguments to knock down.

At this point you clearly don't need anyone else to have a good time!

[David Nieporent]

Um, Rotary wasn't a free speech case at all.

And like I said, classified ads are commercial speech, which gets a lower level of protection than actual speech.

[not guilty]

"He felt that it was entirely legal and legitimate for a academic journal to reject the articles submitted by certain people, based purely on the color of their skin. Not based on the content of what was said, mind you, but based on the color of the skin of the author. Something about editorial discretion."

Armchair, since David (whose name you can't even spell correctly) has a boatload more credibility than you, please tell us what words he used that you are referring to.

[Moderation4ever]

I read, in my local newspaper The Wisconsin State Journal, about another voting scheme to try to address they current state of two-party domination of our politics. Called Fusion Voting, the idea is to have a moderate centrist party that would select candidates from existing parties to form a new slate of candidates under a United Wisconsin party. In effect candidates could be listed under two parties. Their own and the United Wisconsin party. I don't know that it will work, doubt it will be allowed, but good to see people trying to improve our politics and get more voice to centrists.

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

That's a pretty interesting idea. For me, that would turn into a Uni-Party who not to vote for list, but our current electoral system needs legit competition.

But, nonetheless, I like the idea of new parties, or other innovations that aren't specious subversions like ranked choice voting.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there's basically no solution to the evolution of a political duopoly save some form of proportional representation. All the other schemes are too easy to game, or actually are ways to reduce the duopoly to a monopoly.

[Malika the Maiz]

Meh, we got pretty darned close when Perot ran. He should have kept in the race that first time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps he should have. Though he was actually an independent candidate, not third party, despite the fact that he had to create a 'party' in order to get on the ballot in some states.

But Perot is something of a sore spot for me, because the same year that Perot was gifted ballot access in numerous states, by having the legal requirements waived, my party at the time, the LP, was required to comply with those rules, at ruinous expense.

Perot got ballot access as a gift, because he was seen by Democrats as a useful spoiler. We accomplished it the hard way.

[Krayt]

Perot's goal was to get Bush the Elder unelected, not to push any particular philosophy. I don't know what drove it, but they had both been big players for decades.

Drops out the night before Clinton is to give his acceptance speech at the D convention, so everyone has to tune in to see what he says.

Gets back in later to re-split the ticket just in case. That plus "It's the economy, stupid!" to divert from the fading big mo of Gulf War I did the trick.

And the lesson of all of it? That your successful war you glow from should not be done too early in your administration. If it is, e.g. Afghanisan, do another one a year and a half later that'll make it to your re-election.

Anyway, I leave you with that cynical thought of the day.

[Sarcastr0]

Perot's goal was to get Bush the Elder unelected, not to push any particular philosophy

I don't think that's true.

The history is complicated, but Perot had a pretty well defined set of views.

Here's a pretty engaging documentary about the Reform Party, it's appeal, and how Pat Buchannan dramatically wrecked it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqaW1LrMTY&ab_channel=SecretBase

[Krayt]

Oh I remember it well. The guy who went on to be one of his managers had a whole presentation on how ripe the US was for a new, 3rd party, i.e. ripe enough to roll one and take over.

I bought into it. A month later, along comes Perot. It was a setup.

I don't know what Bush did, but he was head of the CIA in the 70s, and Perot supposedly rescued the NYSE when it got into trouble, as the request of Nixon, so they were both players.

Anyways, pols and operatives did what they do, do something for a reason, then conjure acceptable surface arguments.

That was the last time I let a politician use me like an ignorant True Believer.

[Sarcastr0]

It was a setup.

You think Perot was some kind of controlled opposition-type operation?
Because of some Nixon request NYSE thing he did??

You're low-key tin foil crazy, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

The whole suddenly dropping out of the race when it looked like he might win some states thing didn't clue you in, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

You think Perot was a Democratic trick. Of course you do. You're a conspirophile who does not often set foot in the real world.

All evidence points to Perot got lied to by Scott Barnes, and trusted him enough to be taken completely.

No evidence points to Perot being anything but what he was - a wildly successful third party candidate who pulled votes from both sides.

[Frank Drackman]

Voted for Perot in 92' and would have in 96'(only erection I missed) and no, I didn't make George Herbert Bush lose, Clinton was my second choice.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, recent UK polling for some local elections suggest that the new mayor* of Western England could end up being elected with 27% of the vote, representing less than 10% of the electorate. Isn't first-past-the-post great?

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/greens-lead-labour-tight-race-10132789

* The English seem willing to call all sorts of directly elected executives "mayor", even if the place they're in charge of is plainly not a city. The West of England Combined Authority runs both Bristol and Bath, as well as a bit of land in the wider area.

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

[Frank Drackman]

Sucks when the people don't choose who you think they should choose, doesn't it?

[jb]

In some states, something like this is already possible. For example, in New York, the Working Families Party routinely chooses candidates from a mainstream party (typically the Democrats in this example) so someone could just vote the Working Families line and end up casting votes for whatever mainstream candidates the party had elected to include on their ballot line.

I'm skeptical this would actually change anyone's voting behavior, though, especially for high-visibility races.

[Brett Bellmore]

It mainly makes it easier for a third party to retain ballot access, (For which you typically need a minimum vote percentage for some particular office.) while still running its own candidates in some races.

[David Nieporent]

New York has fusion voting, has for a long long time. It doesn't really function the way you describe, and doesn't have any meaningful impact. You don't have any centrist parties nominating some Republicans and some Democrats. Instead, what you have is some relatively fringe left/right parties nominating the Dem or GOP candidate, respectively, for a few offices, which allows the particular candidate to appear on the ballot twice, giving him/her an advantage, while allowing the fringe party to run up vote totals for that one race which allows the party to keep its all-important ballot access.

[Krayt]

I keep saying the exec signing laws is so important, all mini-parties must band together into giant ones to try to seize that brass ring.

We have coalition government. They just have settled it all out before the election, not after. Party planks? Those are just the mini party central goals.

As long as the exec signs the law, this process, two giant parties, will form naturally.

[Frank Drackman]

White House placed dozens of posters of Ill-legal Aliens who've committed violent crimes on White House lawn, MSNBC already saying they're going to censor it by blurring the photos, you know, like they did with the people jumping to their deaths on 9-11.

[Moderation4ever]

It has now been 44 days since the Trump Administration mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvator prison. The administration has not moved to correct its mistake.

[Frank Drackman]

for the gazillionth time, it's not a "mistake", they sent Kill-more Garcia's back to his home country, as the Techno-Nerds love to say
"It's a "Feature" not a "Bug"

[Malika the Maiz]

“But in court papers filed Monday, the government admitted that "on March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna199010

Btw-since you’re making up a backstory to periods gonzo routine here why don’t you add something about doing a vaudeville circuit with your parents when you are young? More entertaining.

[Frank Drackman]

Why don't so add something about doing it with your parents?
I mean vaudeville, not "doing it"

Frank "I don't know Mr. Bones, what IS in the bag???"

[Moderation4ever]

Frank, I am just repeating what the administration said, are you calling them liars?

[tylertusta]

Well, maybe they haven't. Maybe they have. Discovery was stayed until the 30th.

[not guilty]

How differently would history have turned out if the ruler of Egypt had grabbed Mary, Joseph and their infant and sent them back to King Herod?

[damikesc]

He is, literally, never coming back here.

Give it up.

[Frank Drackman]

I thought you meant Hey-Zeus for a minute there, but then realized you meant Kill-more
wouldn't bother me if neither returns during my time on this moral coral, Heaven doesn't look like that much fun, and the other place (pretty sure I'll be there if Hey-Zeus has any say) looks worse

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Convert to Islam, blow yourself up (take a few Jews with you) and enjoy 72 virgins in paradise.

[not guilty]

I recall the story about Osama bin Laden waking up on the other side surrounded by 72 women, the most attractive of whom looked like Janet Reno on a bad day. The punchline: well, why did you think they are still virgins?

In another version of that story, the women are beautiful, with the punchline: what do you mean they have to remain virgins?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not bad.

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

That's pretty good. Janet Reno or Chuck Schumer's wife.

[Mr. Bumble]

So your implying Chuck is a eunuch and his wife is still a virgin?

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is Jack Marshall's take on the arrest of Hannah Dugan.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/04/26/pssst-somebody-tell-sen-klobuchar-that-she-neednt-work-so-hard-at-embarrassing-minnesota-with-gov-walz-doing-such-a-bang-up-job-of-it/

[Sarcastr0]

25% of community college applicants in California are now AI bots scamming the Pell Grant system.

https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2024/04/financial-aid-fraud/

I know the housecats around here are not in favor of Pell Grants, but for those of us aware of their value, this is a problem I'm not sure how to address.

[Brett Bellmore]

Require applicants to show up in person at their local DMV to fill out a hardcopy application?

[Sarcastr0]

Like, hand written?

Captcha still works for now, I think.

[ducksalad]

I'm pretty sure that a good AI can now do better on a captcha than the average person. Unless it's so hard that some real community college applicants are failing it.

Have you noticed that a lot of them have just gone back to a simple "I am not a robot" checkbox? They're just so that, if necessary, the site can make a case that the bot operator committed fraud.

[jb]

The "I am not a robot" checkbox is actually checking a lot of things:

https://medium.com/a-dose-of-curiosity/how-does-the-i-am-not-a-robot-checkbox-work-c24d426a82a1

Having said that, Captchas are just designed to filter out relatively high volume bots. For something like a Pell Grant, actually making someone show up in person seems reasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, it's at least hard to bypass, at least until the androids get really good at passing in a few years. Captcha is getting to be a joke; As ducksalad says, by the time you make it hard enough to weed out the AIs, it's failing a substantial percentage of the humans, and that's only going to rapidly get worse over time.

[Life of Brian]

From a quick read, it seems to me the recent spate of fraud exploits the intersection of 1) full up-front payments delivered directly to the recipient, 2) lax identity verification, and 3) online-only enrollments that never actually require the applicant to put in an appearance.

Tweaking any one of those three likely would stem the tide, and addressing #1 by paying the schools directly and only for tuition/fees actually incurred should eliminate it altogether.

So this seems very solvable if the will exists to solve it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Agreed, in my day the payments went through the school to the enrolled, that could fix number 1.

[shawn_dude]

Agreed. If the Pell grants went to the school, that would largely close this loophole.

I've not heard of this happening to CSUs or UCs. Considering that attending a CSU is about $8K/year in tuition, a $7K Pell grant seems high. And, from an admissions process perspective, I'd think that it should be trivial to provide confirmation for at least those students that show up in person or successfully complete a course and apply for a subsequent grant.

[Commenter_XY]

Rescind Pell Grants, until fraud is eliminated.

[Frank Drackman]

18 U.S. Code § 1071 - Concealing person from arrest
U.S. Code
"Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

[Michael Ejercito]

What Hannah Dugan is accused of doing (accused being the key word here) meets this definition.

[Malika the Maiz]

If Duggan did what’s being alleged-knew a federal agent was there to investigate or arrest a person-and helped them get away I’m fine with her being arrested and charged.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll let Pam know you approve

[Malika the Maiz]

His persona talks to baking sprays.

[shawn_dude]

I'd add that the federal agent had to be there with a valid warrant. If they just popped in for a chat (or arrest) absent a valid warrant, neither the judge nor the immigrant are obligated to cooperate. (AFAIK)

[not guilty]

The ICE agents outside Judge Dugan's courtroom did not have a judicial warrant; they had only an administrative warrant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Which shouldn't be a problem in a public hallway, especially since the Chief Judge said he was fine with ICE making arrests in public hallways.

[ducksalad]

So if a federal judge issues an arrest warrant for a illegal alien, and then ICE agents spirit him or her off to El Salvador, the ICE agents can be sentenced to up to five years.

Is that what you and Frank are saying?

[apedad]

Here's the DOJ press release.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-two-cases-involving-judicial-misconduct-and-obstruction-law

As M-the-M says, if the allegation is true then I don't have a problem with the arrest.

[Zarniwoop]

DOJ memo on application of AEA (obtained by public records request). From USA Today:

Trump administration officials directed law enforcement nationwide to pursue suspected gang members into their homes, in some cases without any sort of warrant, according to a copy of the directive exclusively obtained by USA TODAY.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/25/trump-venezuelan-gang-deportations-alien-enemies-act/83253074007/

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25915967-doj-march-14-memo-alien-enemies-act/#document/p1

[Sarcastr0]

It's like they're going through the Constitution to try and abrogate every amendment except the 2nd and 3rd.

[Commenter_XY]

Don't be so sure about 3A. 😉

[Life of Brian]

Doesn't this just collapse into the broader objection to how alien enemy status is determined? Though I'm sure I may have overlooked some sort of two-bit frothing somewhere on the interwebs, I haven't yet seen anyone seriously argue that an actual alien enemy can successfully end a public pursuit simply by "touching base."

[jb]

Presumably general doctrines like hot pursuit still apply, but I don't think that's really the question.

The question is more: once someone is on the "AEA list" does that mean the government can just go into whatever they think the person's residence or place of employment without getting a particularized warrant for that place? Even if you assume that the "alien enemy" has no protection under the fourth amendment, the workplace piece feels off to me. Generally ICE can't just barge into private parts of a business without a warrant. It doesn't seem like that should change just because they've been declared an Alien Enemy. Even if the law supported that idea (which I don't think it does), it seems to run directly into the Fourth Amendment.

[shawn_dude]

For the Fourth Amendment issue, which you set aside for the argument, does it matter if a US citizen resides in the same home (spouse, child, renter) and ICE doesn't have a valid warrant?

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was thinking, that this was a lot of hot air about "hot pursuit".

As JB says, "generally" ICE can't just barge into private parts of a business without a warrant. But hot pursuit isn't "generally".

I think the key considerations are, "Did you have a legal basis for arresting the guy", and "Were you following them at the time, rather than just guessing they were there".

[jb]

The memo doesn't seem to be about hot pursuit, though:

After a supervisor issues a Warrant of Apprehension and Removal and deconfliction is complete, officers shall use all available tools to immediately apprehend validated Alien Enemies wherever they are found in the United States, including, but not limited to, inside Alien Enemies' residences and workplaces. Prior to entering an Alien Enemy's residence to apprehend an Alien Enemy, officers must have reason to believe the validated Alien Enemy is present inside the residence.

According to this, as long as someone in ICE has a reasonable suspicion someone on the AEA list is in a building, they can just enter to try to arrest them. So no, I don't think this just boils down to how people are being put on the AEA list.

[David Nieporent]

Did you catch how it also tells the agents and the agents' victims that said victims are not entitled to a hearing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They can take their children with them -- or give them up for adoption.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/27/us/children-us-citizens-deported-honduras/index.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

[Martinned2]

So I guess I'll have to quote the ECJ's Ruiz Zambrano judgment to you people again, for what must be the 100th time. Something, something, definition of insanity...

Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union.

43 A refusal to grant a right of residence to a third country national with dependent minor children in the Member State where those children are nationals and reside, and also a refusal to grant such a person a work permit, has such an effect.

44 It must be assumed that such a refusal would lead to a situation where those children, citizens of the Union, would have to leave the territory of the Union in order to accompany their parents. Similarly, if a work permit were not granted to such a person, he would risk not having sufficient resources to provide for himself and his family, which would also result in the children, citizens of the Union, having to leave the territory of the Union. In those circumstances, those citizens of the Union would, in fact, be unable to exercise the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62009CJ0034

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that would actually be anchor babyism. But of course you guys don't have birthright citizenship in the first place.

[Martinned2]

We don't have ius solis to the degree that the US has, no. The children in Ruiz Zambrano were EU citizens because otherwise they would have been stateless:

19. On 1 September 2003, Mr Ruiz Zambrano’s wife gave birth to a second child, Diego, who acquired Belgian nationality pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Belgian Nationality Code, since Columbian law does not recognise Colombian nationality for children born outside the territory of Colombia where the parents do not take specific steps to have them so recognised.
(...)
22 Following the birth of their third child, Jessica, on 26 August 2005, who, like her brother Diego, acquired Belgian nationality, on 2 September 2005 Mr and Mrs Ruiz Zambrano lodged an application to take up residence pursuant to Article 40 of the Law of 15 December 1980, in their capacity as ascendants of a Belgian national. On 13 September 2005, a registration certificate was issued to them provisionally covering their residence until 13 February 2006.

23 Mr Ruiz Zambrano’s application to take up residence was rejected on 8 November 2005, on the ground that he ‘[could] not rely on Article 40 of the Law of 15 December 1980 because he had disregarded the laws of his country by not registering his child with the diplomatic or consular authorities, but had correctly followed the procedures available to him for acquiring Belgian nationality [for his child] and then trying on that basis to legalise his own residence’. On 26 January 2006, his wife’s application to take up residence was rejected on the same ground.

And, as far as I'm concerned, the problem with wanting to abolish ius solis in the US isn't that it's inherently wrong, but that you can't do it with an Executive Order. Given how often we are told that the American people hate anchor babies, and that it is definitely still possible to amend the US constitution in a meaningful way, you have to wonder why the Republicans don't just propose an amendment to the 14th amendment to sort this out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, because things can be pretty darned popular, and still have no chance of being originated as amendments from Congress.

The better question is why they haven't started the ball rolling for a constitutional convention. THAT doesn't require a supermajority vote in Congress. A simple majority will suffice, and it's not even subject to the presentiment clause.

I think part of the answer is that at least a portion of the GOP caucus are still hoping to keep the bait and switch con going. And a Convention would be outside their power to sabotage once it was called.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The ECJ makes me wonder how Hitler remaining in power would be worse *today*....

[David Nieporent]

Well, the ECJ isn't rounding up and murdering millions of people, you moral retard.

[Malika the Maiz]

Conservative populism, folks!

[SRG2]

////

[Dr. Ed 2]

They wouldn't be doing that 5 generations later...

[Krayt]

Oh, so that's what Jesus would do!

[ReaderY]

Professor Volokh and other Conspuracy members have made vigorous defense of broad interpretations part of their life’s work. The theory is that human beings are perfectly capable of sorting out honest people from predators and truth from fiction.

But a great deal of the history of the last century or so suggests that this is not so. Propaganda efforts in totalitarian countries have been highly successful. And social science experiments that are now over half a century old designed to explore this success largely repeated and confirmed it. Festinger and colleagues’ cognitive dissonance experiments, Stanley Milgrim’s obedience to authority experiments, the Stanford prisoner experiments, and others all showed that people will believe, or say they believe, things one might think they ought to know to be lies and engage in behavior one might think they ought to know to be wrong, under certain conditions.

These conditions include a monopoly on communication and authority. When people hear everyone around them saying the same thing, they are loathe to contradict it. When they hear autjority saying it, they are loathe to disobey.

These conditions include traditional answer to this has been to have a cacaphony of voices, to ensure that people arenmt always exposed to the same consistent message. But modern technology and social patterns have enabled the creation of social niches that are in effect cognitive and communications bubbles in which people are exposed to monologues in a manner that more or less mimics the effects of bubbles created by totalitarian propaganda.

Further, a number of recent decisions that are presented as pro-free speech, including First Amendment restrictions on government applying limits to campaign spending, ownership by conglomerate media and social media companies, treating social media as publishers and owners rather than transmitters of their users’ messages, and the increasing influence of for-profit considerations on the content of messages.

My question is, what if anything can be done about this? Well-intentioned First Amendment arguments, combined with increased control of communications by completely unregulated mega-oligopolists who bend to political pressures due to government’s ability to manipulate their profit potential (Think Jeff Bezos), seem to be moving us in a direction where we are more controlled by propagandists telling us whatever will advantage them than by speakers interested in being honest with us.

[Sarcastr0]

Will Baude for a while had a pretty interesting podcast called 'Dissenting Opinions' where lawyers talked about their nonstandard takes on well known cases.

There were a number of bangers, including the inaugural episode on speech.
https://dissenting-opinions.simplecast.com/episodes/free-speech-capitalism-with-genevieve-lakier

It advocates for treating political speech like commercial speech. After all, isn't politics in a republic basically someone selling themselves as a product?

[ducksalad]

When Jeff Bezos can order me arrested and jailed I'll start to think he's a comparable threat to letting the government put speech controls in place.

Until then, sorry, we just have to live with it.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure I agree. Soft power may not have as high a ceiling of oppression, but it can sure do some newspeak nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

And certainly has been.

I think there's a lot of promise in the 'community notes' approach to fact checking, which you see on X, and which FB is in the process of adopting.

The algorithm identifies clusters of users who tend to agree with each other, and then promotes 'notes' that gain cross-cluster agreement, rather than agreement exclusively inside clusters. So that you have to persuade people who don't normally agree with you for your 'note' to be promoted.

It's a clever system for promoting anti-bubbles.

But, of course, it does rely on the platform wanting to pop those bubbles...

[Sarcastr0]

X is...not a model of high-quality diversity of discourse.

[Brett Bellmore]

By which you mean that it's not being properly censored to avoid offending you.

[Sarcastr0]

I come to the VC; don't lecture me on being a snowflake.

I mean it's become wall to wall women haters, open Nazis, and porn.

Maybe the fact checking is very good, but it doesn't really come into play on X these days.

X fucked something up, and it isn't that they got rid of a liberal safe space.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you know this, because...?

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "X fucked something up, and it isn't that they got rid of a liberal safe space."

Indeed, the New York Times ran an article about three people who had thriving X accounts until they criticized Musk. Then their visibility on the social media program plummeted precipitously as they were suppressed behind the scenes. And here's what's really funny: All three were criticizing Musk from the Right.

Didn't matter; they were censored regardless. Because as he's shown repeatedly since taking over Twitter, all this talk about free speech is so much hypocritical bullshit. Like Trump and the rest of today's Right, Musk regularly suppresses speech he doesn't like.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html?partner=slack&smid=sl-share

https://newrepublic.com/post/194300/elon-musk-critics-x-repercussions

[Sarcastr0]

I like to check in on cesspools like Free Republic and X every once in a while.

It's a mess. Their user numbers have got to be low.

I like catturd who keeps yelling his user count has been throttled. Naw, dude you post on a dying website.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Important people used to read comments…now nobody important reads comments. Every comment section is a steaming pile of manure. Blogs are just as bad including Substack…just a piles of steaming manure stinking up the culture and poisoning our society.

[Martinned2]

If Jeff Bezos can have Alexa spy on you in your house and pass what it hears on to the authorities, I'm not sure how different that is from having you arrested himself.

[ducksalad]

Maybe we really are a country divided. Almost nobody I know is frivolous or foolish enough to have Alexa (or the various knockoffs) in their house. But it's a big business so somebody must be buying them.

[apedad]

Those "bubbles" have to confront each other at the govt (local, state, and federal) level (elections, policy debates, courts, etc.), and that's what keeps us going.

We have the added luxury of having a federal systems which requires a certain amount of power sharing, so again "bubbles" confronting each other.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem, I think, is the judicial interpretation of Section 230 as granting platforms complete editorial control without liability.

Section 230's original aim was to permit platforms to engage in consensus moderation of content that was widely viewed as objectionable, without ending up liable for the cases where they failed to moderate something they should have. But the courts interpreted the catchall at the end of "material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" as an open ended grant of editorial control, they didn't have to be at all reasonable in declaring something "objectionable".

And once the platforms had gained a substantial amount of market power verging on monopoly, they started engaging in ideologically biased moderation. I ran into that myself on FB, a private group I'd been a member of for years suddenly started getting shut down over vague allegations of offensive content, when nobody in the group could see any problem, and nobody outside the group ever saw the content. Except for a bunch of third party busybodies FB had outsourced moderation to...

I think the solution has to be to rejoin editorial control with liability for content. If we do that the market will again bifurcate into large platforms that engage in next to no moderation, (And thus aren't liable for content.) and small heavily moderated platforms which invest the work to be safe despite liability.

We could also see some enforcement of section D, which provides for the platforms facilitating third party filters chosen by the users themselves, which is how all but the minimal consensus moderation was expected to happen. Right now, rather than facilitating such filters, the platforms actually interfere with their operation. (Because, surprise: People like to filter out commercials!)

[David Nieporent]

Section 230's original aim was to permit platforms to engage in consensus moderation of content that was widely viewed as objectionable, without ending up liable for the cases where they failed to moderate something they should have.

As always, that is literally the opposite of true.

[Brett Bellmore]

As always, you're free to document your naked denials. It's not like I invented this take on Section 230 out of whole cloth.

Interpreting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)

"Section 230(c)(2) is thus best read as immunizing Internet companies' private enforcement of rules analogous to restrictions on "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, [or] harassing" communications—not to enforcement of completely different restrictions that the companies might make up. Using this understanding, "otherwise objectionable" might thus cover other materials discussed elsewhere in the CDA, for instance anonymous threats (sec. 502), unwanted repeated communications (sec. 502), nonlewd nudity (sec. 506), or speech aimed at "persuad[ing], induc[ing], entic[ing], or coerc[ing]" minors into criminal sexual acts (sec. 508).

But "otherwise objectionable" would not cover speech that is objectionable based on its political content, which Congress did not view in 1996 as more subject to telecommunications regulation, and didn't try to regulate elsewhere in the CDA. And this fits the logic of the rest of § 230. The subsection, which was titled "Online Family Empowerment" within the Act, is focused on increasing user control and encouraging providers to create environments free from overly sexual, violent, or harassing material. The policy findings in § 230(b) expressly mentioned

user self-help technologies that would "maximize user control" over what they receive,
"blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material" (which fits the statutory subsection title, "online family empowerment"), and
"vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer."

Those findings didn't discuss encouraging broader blocking (by online providers, as opposed to by users) of offensive or dangerous political ideas."

"In the brief legislative history, every legislator who spoke substantively about § 230 focused on freeing platforms to block material that was seen as not "family-friendly." For instance, Representative Cox, one of the bill's sponsors, explained that section 230 would give parents the ability to shield their children from "offensive material … that our children ought not to see…. I want to make sure that my children have access to this future and that I do not have to worry about what they might running into online. I would like to keep that out of my house and off of my computer. How should we do this?"[26] "We want to encourage [internet services] … to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see."[27] Other legislators took the same view."

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY: Interpret 1A strictly, starting with: Congress shall make no law....and move on from there. That means states can make laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Spain has found out that Pixie Dust doesn't firm the electrical grid.

[Martinned2]

So your theory is that Spain's grid failed because they used it to transport the wrong kind of electricity?

[Dr. Ed 2]

More taking out more than was being put in, not transmitting ENOUGH electricity.

[jb]

I've seen no reporting that indicates what the root cause was. Good thing Dr. Ed 2 apparently has better sources than anyone else on the Internet.

[Martinned2]

I was talking to someone just now who is in Spain atm (his electricity just came back on), and he said it was apparently a "rare atmospheric phenomenon" (details to be added).

[Dr. Ed 2]

"
Spain's state electricity network operator Red Electrica, which is now gradually restoring power to the country and neighbouring Portugal, said a 'very strong oscillation' in the electrical network caused Spain's power system to 'disconnect from the European system'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14655733/How-huge-Spain-blackout-struck-days-grid-ran-entirely-green-power-time.html

Sounds to me that they weren't able to maintain voltage and the grid "went island" like it is supposed to -- to prevent another 1966 blackout. "Island" means disconnect from the grid and then shed your load to the point where you can maintain voltage on what you are yourself producing. (AC voltage drops upon load, hence the term "brownout" where incandescent lights gave less light at a lower voltage.)

The flip side is that if you produce too much electricity, your voltage goes up and that's even worse.

Hence if you have steam or hydro "firming up" your load, you're not using it but can if you need to. Beyond that you need to talk to an EE but the problem is that they went "all green" and didn't have turbines.

Atmospheric abnormalities can mess up grids, but more likely to do so when you are at capacity. And the nice things about incandescent light bulbs is that they served as ballast resistors -- they consumed more electricity at higher voltages and less at lower, thus serving to moderate swings in either direction.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other thing to remember is that if your voltage goes up, you have to disconnect power plants to bring it back down, and once you disconnect them, they stop generating.

The problem with this is that electromagnets are used to generate electricity -- you spin a coil of wire inside a magnetic field go generate electricity, except electricity is needed to generate that magnetic field.

So you do what is called a "Black Start" -- some special machines don't require external electricity to start generating, and you use those to produce the electricity you need to start *one* big turbine, and then use what it is producing to start a few more, and eventually you get to where you can start sending electricity to your customers.

Of course everyone's refrigerators, ACs, water heaters, etc will start once they are reconnected so you have to do it slowly and will get a spike with each circuit you reconnect.

And each generator you reconnect has to be exactly in phase with the rest of the grid, and this would be true of green power as well.

[Kazinski]

Its a factor, I don't think its controversial that wind and Solar isn't as reliable as hydro, coal or gas.

A lull in the wind, or gusts, a cloud covering an entire solar array for 10 minutes does create instability on the grid.

"
Yahoo Finance
Yahoo Finance
Search query
Search for news or symbols
trump tariffs live
Bessent says it's 'up to China' to deescalate trade war
The Telegraph
Blackout risk ‘made worse by net zero’
Matt Oliver
Mon 28 April 2025 at 1:15 pm GMT-7 7 min read

In this article:
RED.MC
+0.73%
Internet Companies Hate When Seniors Discover These Discounts On High Speed Connection
Wise Consumer Daily
•
Ad
A man with a torch leads the way as a subway station lies in darkness during a power outage
Madrid’s transport system ground to a halt after the Spanish energy grid suffer mass outages - Adri Salido/Getty Images
A reliance on net zero energy left Spain and Portugal vulnerable to the mass blackouts engulfing the region, experts said last night.

In what is believed to be Europe’s largest power cut, tens of millions of people were left without electricity, while flights were grounded, trains halted and whole cities were left without power, internet access or other vital services.

The cause of the initial fault in the region’s electricity grid is still being investigated, and the EU has insisted that there were no indications that it was a cyberattack.

However, energy experts have blamed a heavy reliance on solar and wind farms in Spain for leaving the region’s power grid vulnerable to such a crisis."

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/blackout-risk-made-worse-net-201539284.html

[Martinned2]

A Spanish acquaintance of mine who is an expert on energy markets, just now on LinkedIn:

As for what caused the blackout? A drop in frequency—from 50 Hz to 49 Hz—appears to be the most commonly cited reason online. However, as of now, the system operator has not issued an official explanation. A sudden frequency drop can be triggered by many factors, and the operator has a range of tools to manage such disturbances. Why those tools were insufficient in this case remains unclear.

I agree with some of the reflections I’ve seen on LinkedIn today: a high share of solar PV, like we had yesterday in April, can make managing grid disturbances more challenging. Still, there are mechanisms to mitigate that risk—if correctly implemented.

Part of the upshot is that Spain may well need better interconnectors with France and possibly Italy. Interconnectors are one way for the system operator to balance the system, and it seems like the Spanish SO somehow ran out of tools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amherst College has to obey the law...
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/28/with-black-enrollment-down-amherst-college-faces-an-identity-crisis/?p1=hp_secondary

Poor, poor Amherst College....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Poor, poor feminists....
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/04/25/meet-the-first-openly-transgender-woman-to-compete-in-the-miss-maine-beauty-pageant/

[Krayt]

Unlike physical sports, this is a competition where men born-male bodies would be at a disadvantage.

Cachet aside.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, no. Women have a higher percentage of fat then men do, hence it's easier for a man to be skinny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mass SJC rules MBTA can be sued for driver who assaulted another person.
https://commonwealthbeacon.org/courts/mbta-can-be-sued-over-assault-by-bus-driver-sjc-rules/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I have read a couple of books (including one on humor) by Father James Martin, who was also on the Colbert Report.

His interview about Pope Francis was interesting.

https://archive.ph/BILSg

Martin has been particularly concerned about building a bridge to the LGBT community (he wrote a book on his efforts) & noted Pope Francis told him to continue his work.

He also noted that Pope Francis appointed some important women to top positions. One of particular note is Sister Raffaella Petrini, who recently became the first woman "President of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State, and President of the Governorate of the Vatican City State.”

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/02/15/woman-governor-vatican-city-249941

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Karla Cornejo Villavicencio's The Undocumented Americans (accent over the "i" on the cover) is recommended.

It was published after the first Trump Administration but obviously remains relevent. She also published a fiction book last year that reflects her life (she went to a Ivy League school etc.) in various ways. Kate Shaw, of Strict Scrutiny, highly recommeded it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People wearing swimsuits when they vote is not a thing around here.

I think a Halloween theme -- people can vote in costume (no masks) -- would be a fine idea.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=149671

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a problem with barefoot.

[not guilty]

Do President Trump's agreements with the bend-over-and-grab-your-ankles law firms violate 18 U.S.C. § 201? Subsection (b)(1)(A) provides that whoever:

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A) to influence any official act
* * *

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

The law firms have agreed to provide eight or nine figures worth of pro bono legal services -- a thing of value -- to persons sympathetic to Trump in order for Trump to rescind an existing order or to decline to issue similar orders -- official acts.

Subsection (b)(2)(A) provides that whoever:

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act
* * *

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

That seems to cover Trump's conduct.

[hobie]

You're proposing lawfare on an administration committing lawfare contrary to their positions on lawfare

[not guilty]

We will likely have to wait until 2029 to see how things shake out.

In Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024), SCOTUS gave us a tripartite framework for analyzing whether a former president is subject to criminal prosecution for acts or omissions occurring while in office. A former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. With respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, his immunity from prosecution is absolute. As to official acts outside his core constitutional powers but within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, a former President is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of immunity from criminal prosecution.

The opinion of the Court there did not expressly address which category includes acts which are purportedly official acts, but which are actually ultra vires. The opinion, however, gives some clues there.

"No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily 'stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" 144 S.Ct. at 2327, quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). "If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere 'individual will' and 'authority without law,' the courts may say so." 144 S.Ct. at 2327, citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring).

SCOTUS "conclude[d] that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority", 144 S.Ct. at 2328, while acknowledging the limits thereof:

But of course not all of the President's official acts fall within his "conclusive and preclusive" authority. As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes "acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress," or in a "zone of twilight" where "he and Congress may have concurrent authority." 343 U.S., at 635, 637, 72 S.Ct. 863 (concurring opinion). The reasons that justify the President's absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.

144 S.Ct. at 2328. These citiations to the Jackson concurrence in Youngstown should be read in conjunction with the rest of that opinion, to-wit:

When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive Presidential control in such a case only be disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.

Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579, 637-638 (Jackson, J., concurring).

These authorities indicate that if President Trump leaves office alive, he will be subject to criminal prosecution for ultra vires actions which violate federal criminal statutes.

[Commenter_XY]

Would you like to bring back drawing and quartering, NG?

[not guilty]

No. Why do you ask?

[Zarniwoop]

The likelihood that Trump won't attempt a self-pardon (because Biden made him do it!) approaches zero IMHO.

[grb]

not guilty : "That seems to cover Trump's conduct."

So what covers this?

The price of Donald Trump's cryptocurrency soared after the US president promised to host two special events for top investors. Along with a gala dinner at the Trump National Golf Club in Washington DC, there will be "an ultra-exclusive private VIP reception with the President" for the top 25 coin holders. As reward for funneling the most money to Trump for a worthless product, they've been promised an "intimate" meeting.

As there ever been anything like this, corruption-wise? People paying cash directly into a president's pocket are granted special (and intimate) access to that president.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8g2kpzx0go

[SRG2]

I was discussing with a Ukrainian friend about what might Putin actually have on Trump. He didn't think my analysis was implausible.

1. The pee tape?

I think that was a modification to a likely true story from a while back that Trump paid a hooker to piss on the mattress that Obama had previously slept on. It doesn't fit what we know of Trump.

2. Money laundering?

Trump likely helped oligarchs launder money via Deutsche Bank through his properties. Whether it was actually illegal doesn't matter - it would be too easy to explain it away as helping Russian biznissmen or, you can't blame a property developer from seeking foreign financing, In any event, it wouldn't be anything that Trump couldn't argue away. Certainly, no cultist would care and they'd have no difficulty defending it.

3. Hookers?

The Russians are quite capable of honeypotting, but would it make a difference in Trump's case? It wouldn't change anyone's mind about him if the Russians disclosed that he'd fucked some hookers in Moscow - indeed, I suspect most people think it likely he did anyway, and only a few cultists would argue otherwise - and not because they didn't think it was true.

4. Underage hookers?

We know Trump likes them younger, though not illegal. (Hence my joke, how can you say Trump's anti-Semitic? We know he's a Hebephile!) He has said as much, in the Epstein context. So would he shtup a 18yo hooker? Sure. And so what.

BUT - could the Russians find 13yo or 14yo girls who looked old enough to be legal, and set Trump up with them? Assuredly. And I think that would be too far even for many of the cultists - as well as being illegal under the PROTECT act.

I am not saying that this is what Putin has, but it makes sense given both Putin and Trump.

Any other possibilities?

Of course, you can always take the position that Putin has nothing on Trump, but that is far less likely than that he does.

[Mr. Bumble]

So convincing.
Did you ask about what your friend thought of Zelinsky(sp)?

[grb]

SRG2 : "The pee tape?"

For the record, the Trump sex tape actually existed. Per Mueller, criminal elements associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group (which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia) fabricated a Trump sex tape. According to the report, it was definitely a fake.

Nonetheless, Trump wanted it suppressed and tasked Michael Cohen with the job. He used a Russian-American businessman named Giorgi Rtskhiladze as intermediary and GR reported back to Cohen by text on 30 Oct 2016: “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know…”

Both Cohen and Rtskhiladze testified before Mueller’s grand jury. Rtskhiladze told investigators the “tapes” referred to “compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group.” Cohen testified he spoke to Trump “about the issue” after receiving Rtskhiladze’s message in 2016. Both turned over their email and texts from the period to Mueller’s team.

So just for context, in October of 2016 as Election Day approached, here's a few things happening:

1. While Trump ran for president, his representatives were negotiating a secret business deal in Moscow with Kremlin officials. They debated whether to offer Putin a luxury penthouse suite in the proposed building as a sweetener.

2. Meanwhile, Cohen's man in Moscow was paying-off gangsters to suppress a (phony) Trump sex tape.

3. Meanwhile, Russian Intelligence had hacked Clinton friend John Podesta and stolen hundreds of his email messages. They sat on that trove over five months before beginning to release them. And what prompted that first leak?

It was the Access Hollywood story, which knocked the Trump campaign back on its heels. Mueller documented the first release of stolen email came less than an hour after the "gab-em by the pussy" story broke. Their boy was in trouble. The Russians rushed to help.

[bernard11]

I've always suspected that Putin guaranteed or otherwise backed Trump's loans from Deutschebank.

No evidence, of course, but that doesn't stop the Trumpists.

[shawn_dude]

"...what might Putin actually have on Trump..." ...that actually matters?

1. Pee tape -- no sexual depravity that he's known to have committed impacted his ability to get (re-)elected. The GOP doesn't care that he raped a woman so why would they care if he had one pee on a bed? Trump doesn't like to be ridiculed--which such a tape would end up doing, so that's probably the sum total of that issue.

2. Money Laundering. He had a long history of grifting before being elected and it's only got worse and more public since then. The GOP and MAGA voters have convinced themselves that this is normal and they accept it.

3 & 4. No act of sexual depravity he is likely to commit is going to lose him the GOP. Even the most religious supporters have convinced themselves that Trump is being used as a tool by God to smite their enemies or something.

This might be a more interesting conversation if we speculated about what acts Trump might commit that would lose him significant numbers of his core voters. Every time there appears to be a limit to what they'll accept, he crosses that line and keeps on chugging.

[SRG2]

The regime gets rid of voting rights enforcement. I am sure that the white supremacists are happy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/28/trump-doj-voting-rights

Donald Trump’s appointees at the Department of Justice have removed all of the senior civil servants working as managers in the department’s voting section and directed attorneys to dismiss all active cases, according to people familiar with the matter, part of a broader attack on the department’s civil rights division.

Absent enforcement, what is to stop civil and voting rights violations? 2A, presumably. Right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Activist Federal Judges still remain....

[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.”

[SRG2]

Dr Ed, the man who believes that the law is whatever Dear Leader wishes it to be.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For those concerned about the VRA -- read:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0844742694/reasonmagazinea-20/

[SRG2]

If you think that the VRA was not a perfect solution, nonetheless unwinding it and refusing to enforce it takes us back to the J:im Crow days, which would be far far worse.

Refusing to enforce voting rights is of course an invitation to infringe on them, so from the perspective of right wing racists, like Dr Ed, it's a great idea.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In response a reference to "a criminal judge sitting on a criminal bench" by AG Pam Bondi on Fox News, John Pfaff (Fordham law professor, focusing on criminal justice issue) posted this on Bluesky:

From the Florida Bar's disciplinary guide (where Bondi is licensed) [posting "Failure to Maintain Public Trust" guidelines]:

I'd classify smearing the judiciary and perp-walking a judge as arguably prejudicial to the admin of justice.

If the legal system is going to be self-regulating, it needs to actually self-regulate.

Time for disbarments.

See also here on how states have a large role to play:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5080969

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Massachusetts Bar ain't gonna do it, I suspect the same is true for a few other states.

Didn't Justice step in with Jim Crow Judges in the late '60s?

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

The judges breaking the law and NOT being perp walked undermines public trust in the judiciary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Time for disbarments."

LOL Maybe the dumb prof should look at the party make up of the Florida Supreme Court

[shawn_dude]

While I agree that the party makeup of the Florida Supreme Court is relevant, it should not be.

[Kazinski]

I can't think of a better recipe to get an administration to start ignoring the courts entirely that making it impossible to advocate perfectly constitutional policies, like judges being as subject to the law as the people they judge, without sanctions or penalties.

The people voted for enforcing our immigration laws, and now unelected state bars are going to tell them the laws can't actually be enforced?

Go ahead break the system for your partisan political preferences, but you won't like the result.

If you can't point to where Bondi broke the law, then it's you who that is trying to destroy the system.

[Dr. Ed 2]

First Circus ignores Constitution.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/04/maine-rep-laurel-libby-asks-scotus-to-intervene-in-lawsuit-alleging-violations-of-constitutional-rights/

[David Nieporent]

Which provision of the constitution do you think the First Circuit "ignored"?

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

That whole crazy thing about speech and all. She just refused to apologize. They wanted to compel speech and her entire district got disenfranchised because of it.

Do you find that not to be troublesome towards the Constitution?

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside whether free speech applies in this context at all — the floor of the legislature is not a public forum, after all — what ruling do you think the First Circuit made?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Farcebook is not the House floor.

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

They took away her voting power.

She can't vote on legislation.

Do you think disenfranchisement of her entire district over her refusing to be compelled to speak is constitutional?

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you are supposed to have a 2/3 vote to take away a legislator's vote?

[jb]

Were you equally concerned about this?

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/republicans-vote-censure-montanas-first-transgender-state-legislator-rcna81580

(FWIW, I think both situations are bad. Elected leaders shouldn't be prohibited from their duties for engaging in political speech.)

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

Are these things equal?

"The censure sparking this lawsuit came after Libby refused to apologize for a viral social media post depicting a biologically male high school student athlete who took first place in a girls’ track and field contest."
and

"House Republicans voted to bar Rep. Zooey Zephyr from the floor for allegedly encouraging protesters to disrupt proceedings Monday."

Can you detect any differences between the two cases? One that might be significantly more serious than the other? (like an actual insurrection?)

[Dr. Ed 2]

She REposted Greely High School photos.

[jb]

So I guess the answer is: no, you weren't concerned about that and you only care when it's someone on your team who is affected.

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

I was not concerned about someone who made calls of action to disrupt legislative functions being barred from you know, making calls of action to disrupt legislative functions.

What's different from what she was calling for and J6?

[jb]

The complete lack of a bunch of people violently breaking into the Capitol to try to actually disrupt the legislature. Hope that helps!

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

>Tom Homan puts it bluntly to the media:
“Do you know why the Biden administration released millions of people? When you put them in ICE beds, they get a hearing in 35 days. When you release them, it’s 5-9 years. By then, Democrats are back in power and can award mass amnesty.”

Man. Democrats need to be in prison. Every single one from the Biden down to the Sarcastr0 that enabled this. Prison.

[jb]

Just as our latest reminder: Biden was actually deporting people at a faster rate than Trump.

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

Just ask Biden!! lol yeah, sure thing dude. The jump from 100,000 SSNs to 2M SSNs to illegals in one year says differently.

[Kazinski]

Which counts for very little when you are letting in millions illegally and deporting hundreds of thousands.

What was the net?

[jb]

Two things:

1) You're mostly missing the point. If Biden was doing all of these things that supposedly made it harder to deport people (e.g., not keeping them in ICE beds for 35 days), but was still deporting more people than Trump, then either that thing was actually not a problem for deporting people or whatever Trump is doing is even worse.

2) To answer your question, though, Biden allowed about an extra 1.4M people into the country legally through the parole system during his term. He deported 4M, which was 2.1M more than Trump's first term, so the net of those two things is 700K better than Trump's record the first time around.

It's also weird to be conflating legal vs. illegal immigration, though: I thought most of the concern here was about illegal immigration? I'm not sure why the fact that Biden let some people from Ukraine into the country when Russia invaded their country should imply that he needs to try harder to kick out more people crossing illegally. Those seem like totally separate debates/policy discussions.

[David Nieporent]

I thought most of the concern here was about illegal immigration?

It's really not. That's just something that the right wingers who want to pretend they're not racist say. But you know how scratch a self-proclaimed anti-Zionist and you'll find an antisemite 95% of the time? Same is true here: scratch an "anti-illegal immigration" person and you'll find an anti-immigrant person.

Also, most of them are dumb and don't know the difference between legal and illegal immigration, so they'll keep ranting about things done for/given to asylum seekers (legal) but pretend that those things were done for/given to illegals.

[Kazinski]

Most racists that are anti-illegal immigration are also anti -legal immigration.

You claim to believe in the rule of law, but you want to pick and choose which laws should be enforced.

Congress set the immigration visa quotas, and procedures, you and I both don't think they are high enough, where we differ is you think ok to break the law when you disagree with it, and get rewarded.

[David Nieporent]

1. As a libertarian I do have a very different view of legitimate vs. illegitimate crimes, yes. But let's assume for the sake of argument that there is good justification to enforce the immigration laws, that they aren't just victimless crimes, that the rule of law requires that they be enforced. That does not justify the manner in which Trump is enforcing these laws, which is arbitrary, capricious, and with extreme cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

2. I don't see what that has to do with the comment to which you are responding. I am saying that the anti-illegal immigration people also want to get rid of most legal immigrants, too.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't explain why so many Hispanics are anti-illegal, or for that matter people like me. I've sponsored 3 legal immigrants to come here, and filed entries in the annual diversity immigrant lottery for dozens of others.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And you supported Elian Gonzalez remaining with his American kidnappers over his father. I think it comes down to partisan politics and what helps Republicans at any given moment.

[David Nieporent]

Were there "millions of" "ICE beds" available to "put them in"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Millions was cumulative. If held in ICE detention and their status was determined in 35 days there would be a constant turnover.

[David Nieporent]

Which does not change the fact that they would still need to release the vast majority of the people in question. (There are less than 50,000 total ICE beds. Turn them over every 35 days and… you don't come close to the numbers Homan is talking about.)

[grb]

Battle of the Sexes - Part One:

Paula White-Cain, a senior adviser for President Donald Trump’s White House Faith Office, said in a recent interview that she “submits” to her husband and that “God designed” men to be leaders of a household. She continued, “If there’s ever a time that a decision has to be made and we don’t agree on something, he’s the head. It’s not hard to submit.”

(And where was Ms. White-Cain when the Ex decided for divorce? She might have proved useful then)

Battle of the Sexes - Part Two:

Along with chimpanzees, bonobos are our closest living relatives. But whereas chimps are know to be nasty & vicious, bonobos have a more mellow & laid-back reputation. Plus, they're extraordinarily randy creatures. Sex is used as a form of greeting, as means to cement social bonds, for conflict resolution, post-conflict reconciliation, and plain old fun. Per scientists, when a tribe comes upon a particularly rich ground of food, they first have a brief bout of frenzied group sex before settling down to feed. Apparently they find it calming.

Bonobos are the only non-human animal observed tongue kissing and only primates to typically engage in face-to-face genital sex. Males regularly have sex with males; females with females, and oral sex is common all around. Males have been observed using stones as sex toys. Females get together for a bout of tribbing about once every two hours.

Aside from this commitment to constant casual sex, bonobos are also unique in having a matriarchal society. In today's NYT article about a new study, scientists said the ladies use numbers to keep wayward gents in line. Females, they found, form coalitions against males that tip the balance of power in their favor.

"From 1993 to 2021, the researchers observed 1,786 instances of a male starting beef with a female. Examples included acting aggressively toward a female or her infant, or monopolizing food. In roughly 61 percent of these fights, the female teamed up with other females and emerged victorious. Males have been known to lose fingers and toes in such conflicts. In one unfortunate incident, a male bonobo in the Stuttgart Zoo in Germany had his penis bit in half during a battle with two females. A surgeon was able to sew it back together."

(OK, maybe I got off easy with the divorce after all)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/science/bonobos-matriarchies-females.html

[SRG2]

FWIW many years ago at Twycross Zoo I had occasion to play with a bonobo child of about 3, and it was like playing with a good natured human 2yo - and at that point I concluded that other great apes might not have full human rights but were certainly entitled to no fewer rights than we credited human toddlers with.

[Mr. Bumble]

...to be deported?

[grb]

Sigh. Only Bumble would deport a bonobo child. Maybe as a MAGA test, to prove he's properly heartless, inhuman, and cruel (like the bit you always hear about the SS & puppies, though that seems to be a myth).

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're fine with keeping animals which you think should have "rights" in a zoo for your amusement?

[grb]

Yep! (your Woke attempt to guilt me coming up short)

[grb]

Additionally, let me say this : I'm particularly fine with keeping Feathers McGraw safely locked up in a zoo the rest of his days. That evil penguin shouldn't see the remote possibility of parole.

And while we're at it, if you're born a penguin, you stay a penguin. Saying a red rubber glove makes you into a chicken is just crazy talk!

[Commenter_XY]

Sorry you went through a divorce at all, grb. I mean that sincerely. All of heaven cries when a marriage is dissolved.

[grb]

Thank you! It was an ugly time: First all my projects were canceled because of the Great Recession. Then I was laid-off for the first time in 25yrs. Following a year of fruitless job search came the divorce.

But that prompted me to run off into the woods and hike the AT, which was a excellent thing. And recently me and the Ex have been getting together and doing stuff - with talk of a trip to Venice and Florence later this year. What all that means, I'm not sure. The Ex can be rather inscrutable at times, bless her heart....

[Commenter_XY]

Life is full of second chances, grb. I hope you both find happiness.

[not guilty]

Politico has an interesting article about President Trump's threat to involve the Internal Revenue Service in questioning Harvard University's tax exempt status. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/27/trump-harvard-tax-exempt-irs-history-00311729

The article recalls how the IRS during the Carter administration targeted Bob Jones University, as well as private segregated primary and secondary schools, many of which operated under the auspices of "Christian" churches. That sparked a terrific backlash among the segregationist educators and ministers such as Jerry Falwell, Sr, from which the Republican Party has continued to benefit until this day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: There is a BIG difference between small (independent) local churches or even Bob Jones University and the behemoth that is Harvard.

2: Notwithstanding that, could the supporters of Harvard possibly hate Trump any more than they already do?!?
There is no backlash to spark...

[not guilty]

I don't know about that. How many people, who up to now may have supported Trump, hate the IRS?

[bernard11]

Trump is now again claiming that he can replace the income tax with tariffs.

Tell us again what a genius he is, you Trumpist fools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's theoretically possible.

It's what was done before the 16th Amendment.

[shawn_dude]

And if true, the likely reason the 16th was passed in 1913.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what "theoretically" possible means here. None of the physical laws of the universe prevent it, and no provision of the constitution prevents it. So if that's all you mean, it's correct but trivial.

If you meant that it's actually possible to happen in the real world, it is not. There isn't enough volume of trade to do that. Not to mention that Trump can't figure out if he wants tariffs to raise money, or encourage so-called onshoring, or just give him leverage to get other countries to lower tariffs or trade barriers. These are mutually exclusive.

[shawn_dude]

He's been confusing VAT for tariffs already so this doesn't surprise me. He thinks VAT are actually tariffs.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

America already has what is effectively a VAT—employer provided health insurance. So every good and service you purchase in America includes someone else’s health care costs! And Republicans defend that VAT so be very careful about implementing more VATs! 😉

[Commenter_XY]

I call this one last week, LOL. Geez, I wonder how....

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/04/new-trump-executive-order-targets-college-accreditation-agencies/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bingo -- kill three evils at once!

[shawn_dude]

You did!

It wasn't hard, though. Pick a Trump target, like academia, and then select all the components of the system that hold it together and give it value, and then wreck them. Academic freedom, funding, accreditation, etc.

I mean, duh! If the more educated a person is the more likely they are to vote liberal, just demolish education and win more elections!

[BrotherMovesOn]

Speaking (loosely) of mercantilism, my city's Sunday paper had an amusing essay by Pulitzer-winning biographer (Vera) about the feud between Adams and Franklin. Those two did not get along!
" ... wrote Franklin, 'he was always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things absolutely out of his senses.' (Franklin underlined "absolutely") It was an appraisal on which no one has improved and to which any number of contemporaries subscribed. It also made it's way to Adams, who was still gnawing on it decades later."
I think the piece was called America's first frenemies.
Makes me want to get started on that Franklin biography (not her's) I've been procrastinating on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Adams was a Puritan, his father-in-law a minister.
He was scandalized by Franklin's womanizing.

Franklin also understood acoustics and where to stand to hear what others on the far side of the room were saying.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Whoops ... Stacy Schiff

[grb]

Schiff wrote a good book on Cleopatra - who definitely led a book-worthy life. The bio of Franklin sitting on my shelf is by Walter Isaacson, but it's also buried way back in the queue. The HBO series on Adams had a great time with the Franklin-Adams relationship, with Tom Wilkinson (late & very great) playing the former as the shrewdest of dandies - someone who knew how to appeal to the French aristocratic court in all its arrogance and folly. Meanwhile, Giamatti played Adams like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

I wonder at them described as frenemies, as Franklin and Adams seem more like different species of animal altogether. Adams and Jefferson were definitely frenemies though: Close bosom buddies when they were shivving each other in the back.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thank you grb. My biography is the Isaacson one as well but must move it up in the queue. I'd be interested in the Cleopatra book.
Sad to learn that Tom Wilkinson had passed away. He was extraordinary.
Michael Clayton was my favorite but there were so many others.

[grb]

Michael Clayton is an example of an excellent movie with the drabbest of plots. It was driven by glorious acting alone : Clooney, Pollack, Swinton, and Wilkinson.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Adams and Jefferson more than made up in the end.
("arrrggg, at least Jefferson lives, arrrggg", and all that)
Adams resented and trashed Franklin for decades after the guy died. Wasn't there but never thought it was a good look for him.
(agree HBO series was great)

[grb]

BrotherMovesOn : "Adams resented and trashed Franklin for decades after the guy died"

The Founders look very stately all in green (particularly Franklin) but there was a lot of spiteful peevishness and backstabbing back in the day. Hamilton & Jefferson loathed each other and the latter in particular could be a vicious snake if you turned your back on him. Of course Adams was the grouchy curmudgeon-type. The amazing thing is Washington was always Washington. He always tried to rise above the squabbles and back-biting. He always tried to do the right thing. You get so used to seeing these guys as cliches, but they really were extraordinary people.

(And Jefferson was a exceptionally great architect)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Absolutely!

[Martinned2]

That sounds like fun, as long as it's not happening in your own country:

President Donald Trump will have dinner with the top 220 holders of the Trump memecoin, the issuers of the cryptocurrency announced on Wednesday.

At the “intimate private dinner” on May 22 at Trump National Golf Club near Washington, Trump will talk about the future of crypto, according to the organizers. People who want to participate have to register, and a leader board of the top Trump coin holders will be kept to determine attendees. The top 25 Trump coin holders will also be invited to a reception before the dinner with the president, and will be given a tour of the White House.

“From April 23 to May 12, your average $TRUMP balance determines your spot,” according to the Website advertising the dinner. “Get $Trump Memes and climb the ranks.”

I wonder if it has something to do with this:

Last week, crypto traders braced for the start of what are known as unlocks, or releases of a large swathes of the memecoin to its investors and insiders. Some 200 million Trump memecoins became available at launch on Jan. 17, and another 40 million were unlocked last week. CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of the Trump Organization, and Fight Fight Fight LLC collectively own 80% of the coins that are subject to the unlock schedule, according to the coin’s website.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A helpful look at the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan:

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/coming-for-the-judges

[shawn_dude]

Thank you for posting this. It answers some of the questions I had regarding the warrant.

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks. This supports my belief that the administration wanted headlines and will not want to take this to court.

[Life of Brian]

We have split threads going. See here for my take on why the linked article (and the initial write up it appeals to) are simply ungrounded attempts to get in front of the PR cycle, and why I'm comfortable the actual facts would amply support the DOJ going the distance on this.

[not guilty]

I don't know, LoB. This Department of Justice is scared shitless of actually putting on evidence in front of a jury.

Perhaps that is because jurors, unlike the Trump DOJ, tend to take their oaths seriously.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If they want to "go the distance," they are acting in a somewhat dubious manner (to be generous), including the unethical Pam Bondi remarks on television. Likewise, even Andrew McCarthy of NRO, who assumes she "tried to help an illegal alien evade arrest," explains how she has a reasonable defense.

Other less conservative legal analysts provide even more doubts. I will leave the details to others to debate, but yes I doubt this will "go the distance."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, they should have instead harpooned the whale.
Dumb c*nt got what she deserved.

No, she actually deserved the full Jan 6th treatment.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You constantly, weekly, prove that you're a sociopathic Maine-iac, one of society's bitter, old losers, who drunkenly shops at gun shows in flourishing communities like Rumsford and Waldoboro. Please do everyone who still has a life a favor and never cross south of the Piscataqua River. I hope John Calipari still haunts your rage-addled nightmares.
You suck.

[ThePublius]

"Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic."

Yours comment decidedly uncivil and detracts from the tenor of this forum.

[BrotherMovesOn]

LOL

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A data point for the Trump anti-Christian taskforce?

https://religionnews.com/2025/04/28/william-barber-arrested-in-capitol-rotunda-after-prayer-challenging-republican-budget/

Religious Reporter ...

‪Jack Jenkins‬

BREAKING: Police just surrounded Rev. William Barber, prominent activist and pastor, as he and others prayed in the U.S. Capitol Rontunda.

Police then expelled everyone (including press!) from the Rotunda to (presumably) arrest them.

I've covered protests here a lot. Never seen anything like it

[Dr. Ed 2]

After issuing verbal warnings

How many verbal warnings did the Jan 6th folk get?
And can *I* walk up to the rotunda (for any reason)?

[Martinned2]

That sounds like one of those famous thoughtcrimes that people get arrested for in other countries!

[ReaderY]

I suggest we discuss ways that the Civil Rights Division can obstruct the enforcement of civil rights (except of course for those of white Christians).

For example, the Civil Rights Division normally gives people a right-to-sue letter if it doesn’t take action itself. But what if it simply does nothing? Can it prevent people from suing on their own simply by sitting on complaints, never terminating (or for that matter beginning) investigations? Can it thwart efforts to bypass it by creating evidence it never received complaints, perhaps by a creative misdirection of internal mail? How can it creatively use its powers to prevent people from suing on their own?

[David Nieporent]

For example, the Civil Rights Division normally gives people a right-to-sue letter if it doesn’t take action itself.

No, that's the EEOC.

[Martinned2]

It looks like the Liberals fell short of an outright majority in Canada: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/

If everyone wins the ridings where they're currently leading, the Liberals can govern with the support of the NDP again. (Given how heavily the NDP lost, I'm not sure whether that would be a coalition or just a confidence & supply agreement. Different countries have different customs in that regard.)

If the Liberals and the NDP lose more than two seats where they are currently leading, the Liberals will have to do a deal with the Bloc Québécois instead, which should also be fine.

Meanwhile, the Schadenfreude story in Canada is the question of whether Poilievre will manage to keep his seat. At the time of writing, with 256 of 266 polling stations reporting, he's behind 40,501 to 37,425.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, in the world's largest democratic constituency, all 808,190 sq mi (2,093,190 km2) of Nunavut, aka more than three times the size of Texas, with 63 out of 66 polling stations reporting the NDP candidate is leading the Liberal candidate by 2,691 to 2,613 votes. So that's a real nailbiter.

(Though not even the closest race at the moment. In Terrebonne the BQ candidate is ahead in the count by 28 votes, with the Liberal candidate second.)

[Martinned2]

With 264 out of 266 polling stations reporting, CBC have now called Carleton for the Liberal candidate. The tally is now 42,374 against 38,581.

[BrotherMovesOn]

*I'm not sure whether that would be a coalition or just a confidence & supply agreement."
Martinned2, I'm ignorant of that term/concept.
What distinguishes that from a 'coalition' government in Canada?

[Martinned2]

A confidence and supply agreement is an agreement whereby a small party promises to vote for the government when the question arises whether it should resign ("confidence"), and when there is a vote about the budget ("supply"). In return it will get some concessions on policy, depending on how many votes it brings to the table, but no cabinet seats or anything.

A coalition, on the other hand, usually involves the parties in coalition negotiating a full package of legislation and budget, and dividing up the cabinet seats between them. It's a much more compehensive type of cooperation.

In the last parliament the Liberals governed on the basis of a confidence & supply agreement with the NDP. (Which suggests they'd try to do that again, if the votes add up.)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Thank you.

[Martinned2]

One for A Japanese Student:

On April 15, for the first time in a formal infringement decision accompanied by a cease-and-desist order against a Big Tech company, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) found that Google violated Japan’s competition law, commonly referred to as the Anti-Monopoly Act (AMA), through contracts with smartphone makers and mobile carriers aimed at promoting its search engine and Chrome browser.

For people whose Japanese is better than mine, the press release is here: https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2025/apr/250415_digijyo.html

[Martinned2]

This seems like something the ECJ has just pulled out of its backside this morning.

While the definition of the conditions for granting and losing the nationality of a Member State is a matter of national competence, that competence must be exercised consistently with EU law. The bond of nationality with a Member State is based on a specific relationship of solidarity, good faith and the reciprocity of rights and duties between the State and its citizens. Where a Member State grants nationality, and thus automatically Union citizenship, in direct exchange for predetermined investments or payments through a transactional procedure, it manifestly infringes those principles. Such ‘commercialisation’ of citizenship is incompatible with the basic concept of Union citizenship as defined by the Treaties. It infringes the principle of sincere cooperation and jeopardises the mutual trust between Member States concerning the grant of their nationality, which governed the establishment of Union citizenship in the Treaties.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-04/cp250052en.pdf

[John F. Carr]

The Associated Press translated into English:

The European Court of Justice on Tuesday ordered Malta to close its “golden passport” program, ruling that citizenship in EU countries cannot be sold.

[Martinned2]

Yes, and that would be fine if there was some basis for it in the Treaties, but I don't think there is.

Incidentally, the full judgment is now out. (The ECJ usually announces the judgment in the morning, issues a press release at the same time, and then publishes the judgment around lunchtime. Don't ask me why.)

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=298576&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=17776525

[Brett Bellmore]

This essay at Balkinization is frustrating. On the one hand, in a rare case, I find myself in agreement with every word Balkin has written. On the other, if I weren't bald I'd be tearing my hair out over how oblivious Balkin is to his role in creating this situation.

The Big Picture

How does he not understand that his own living constitutionalism IS the very rot he complains of? That the determination to find that a written constitution 'means' something you like despite all evidence to the contrary is destructive of the rule of law? That you can't run a government on the basis of sophistry, and not staff it with sophists?

He's been fighting diligently on the side of the rot for decades, and he dares to complain of the rot?

[Martinned2]

I don't know that the rot he's describing is constitutional rot. It seems more like he's talking about social rot, which the constitution is unable to withstand.

[tylertusta]

He ascribes constitutional rot to being caused by social decline. The result is constitutional hardball (Naturally, the social decline he describes is the US not implementing leftist social and economic pogroms) and thus the rotting.

I agree with Brett that Balkin has no concept of his own side's part to play; constitutional hardball and 'rot' is an ever-escalating cycle of revenge and reprisals and not due to us not having massive confiscatory taxes.

Conservatives started playing hardball with judges after *Roe* created the right to abort a fetus out of whole cloth. Liberals played hardball to keep their judicially-created right. So conservatives played even harder, and so on.

What a lot of people don't understand is that real political power is the ability to make an exception to the regular order and for that exception to become the new rule.

[Sarcastr0]

Conservatives started playing hardball with judges after *Roe* created the right to abort a fetus out of whole cloth.

Might want to check your history there, chief.

[tylertusta]

The current conservative legal movement and its accompanying politics- including the judicial confirmation wars that have roiled the Senate- are the direct result of the Court's liberal excesses, of which Roe is the worst.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice 'all our wrongdoing is the other guy's fault.' Pretty boring partisanship!

But beyond the tedium, starting at Roe seems really arbitrary. Maybe that's when you had just gotten politically interested? No one forgets their first!
Ginsberg's seat for me stands out, but YMMV.

You neglect FDR's whole thing wih the Court. Most folks trace the modern conservative legal movement to there.

Also Baker v. Carr cannot be neglected in this story.

[tylertusta]

Nice 'all our wrongdoing is the other guy's fault.' Pretty boring partisanship!

Another straw man? Come on. If you had bothered to read my comment instead of blindly shitposting, you would have seen that I didn't exclude either side.

But beyond the tedium, starting at Roe seems really arbitrary.

History rhymes, but we have to start somewhere.

Originalism and the Federalist Society both started as direct reactions to Roe and the Court's liberal opinions of the 70's. Conservatives had finally realized that they couldn't take the Supreme Court and the judiciary for granted; liberals were successfully implementing their social agenda not through the democratic process, but through judicial fiat.

Democrats in turn moved to secure their gains, conservatives countered, and so on. Democrats' successful attacks against Bork and the almost-successful attack against Thomas were motivated by an attempt to keep anti-Roe conservatives off of the bench.

McConnell's blockade against filling Scalia's former seat was revenge for Democrats' antics against Bork and Thomas. Democrats' opposition to Gorsuch was in response to McConnell's blockade the year before. Democrats' hysterical attempt to trump up accusations against Kavanaugh were motivated to preserve Roe as was their unsuccessful attempt to block Barrett in both her appellate court nomination and her Supreme Court one.

[David Nieporent]

McConnell's blockade against filling Scalia's former seat was revenge for Democrats' antics against Bork and Thomas.

"Antics" like scheduling confirmation votes, but then voting against them?

[tylertusta]

Whipping up a public circus absolutely qualifies as antics.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "The current conservative legal movement and its accompanying politics- including the judicial confirmation wars that have roiled the Senate- are the direct result of the Court's liberal excesses"

Me: "Nice 'all our wrongdoing is the other guy's fault.' Pretty boring partisanship!"

How in the hell is that a strawman?

As to your history, originalism was a conservative project that grew from an already existing political movement that predated the Warren Court.
I've seen folks place the start of that movement at FDR's court-packing scheme, though YMMV - the post- Civil War era was also one full of the same debate, with the same passion.

Re: Scalia's former seat, this is more of the same 'it's the libs fault; we had no choice.'
Calling the Democrats hysterical not really defending you much from the charges of being predictably partisan.

[tylertusta]

No, I'm not playing your stupid games today, Sarcastr0. I already got sucked in once and I won't do it again.

You can take your trolling elsewhere.

[Sarcastr0]

Bottom line, boring partisan or no -
History is fun and informative, and you should take a wider view of what it says.

[not guilty]

"Originalism and the Federalist Society both started as direct reactions to Roe and the Court's liberal opinions of the 70's."

I don't think so. As Justice Holmes said in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921), "Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic."

The Federalist Society had its beginnings in law schools in 1982. It was then a primarily academic organization; they didn't start vetting federal judicial nominees until the George W. Bush presidency in the 21st century.

Right wing demands for "massive resistance" to Supreme Court decisions and calls to genuflect to so-called "states' rights" date back to the 1950s in response to desegregation of public schools. The backlash reached a crescendo during the 1960s as to reapportionment, desegregation and criminal procedure decisions of the Warren Court.

Prick Nixon campaigned in 1968 on a promise to nominate "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court. His nominations of two southern racists were rejected by the Senate.

"Originalism" began as a euphemism for old fashioned racism.

[tylertusta]

A reductionist view; one that collects all 'right wingers' into one bucket as through it were a continuous stream and as if nothing happened in American politics between WW2 and today. It may be a well-worn article of faith among modern Democrats, but it is still a wrong one.*

The Federalist Society grew out of the backlash from Roe and other extremist opinions of the Burger court as a legal conference among conservative law students. Their initial meeting included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, and Ted Olsen as a sort of internal resistance to liberal politics that had infected law schools and legal thinking. As Robert Bork put it in that first meeting:

This is a process that is going on. It happens with the extension of the equal protection clause to groups that were never previously protected. When they began to protect groups that were historically not intended to be protected by that clause, what they are doing is picking out groups that should not have any disabilities laid upon them.

The modern conservative legal movement is not the same legal movement from the segregationist Dixiecrats. Originalism isn't trying to be strict constructionalism regardless of what leftists pretend.

*It's especially laughable today as Democrats still see everything in the lens of race. Race-neutral and race-blind are just a code words for racism, you see. No one can have non-racist motives, because racism! Racism everywhere! Except that Democrats won't call it racism when they are discriminating against whites and asians due to the melanin content of their skin. That's acceptable apparently!

[Sarcastr0]

A reductionist view, followed by you reducing everything to post Roe.

Stop using history as a tool, it makes you look ignorant of history.

[tylertusta]

Straw man. Ad hominem.

You should change up your troll toolset.

[David Nieporent]

The Federalist Society does not and has not vetted judicial nominees. Obviously the mere fact of the existence of a conservative/libertarian legal networking group provides the opportunity for someone to use membership or non-membership as a proxy for conservative/liberal legal views. But unlike the ABA (and I'm not criticizing the ABA), it has never graded or endorsed nominees.

This got a little confused in the first Trump admin, because Leonard Leo did do such vetting. But that was his personal project, not a FedSoc one. (He took a leave of absence from FedSoc, in fact.)

[not guilty]

"Conservatives started playing hardball with judges after *Roe* created the right to abort a fetus out of whole cloth. Liberals played hardball to keep their judicially-created right. So conservatives played even harder, and so on."

I suspect that you give too much credit for the rise of the radical right to the abortion issue. The decision in Roe v. Wade had significant support among conservatives at the time. Three justices appointed by President Nixon (including the author of the opinion of the Court) as well as the two Eisenhower appointees still on the Court supported the decision. White evangelicals at that time saw abortion as largely a Catholic issue -- the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976 -- after Roe -- affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter.

The greater catalyst in the culture war was desegregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and open housing legislation in 1968 engendered significant backlash among segregationists, as did the approval of school busing by SCOTUS in 1971. Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968 each carried multiple southern states that had historically supported Democrats for president.

The decision by the IRS during the Carter Administration to withdraw the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University as well as private segregated primary and secondary schools, many of which operated under the auspices of "Christian" churches. That sparked a terrific backlash among segregationist educators and charlatans such as Jerry Falwell, Sr, from which the Republican Party has continued to benefit until this day. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/27/trump-harvard-tax-exempt-irs-history-00311729

One of my favorite bumper stickers from the 1980s read "The Moral Majority is neither."

[tylertusta]

The decision in Roe v. Wade had significant support among conservatives at the time. Three justices appointed by President Nixon (including the author of the opinion of the Court) as well as the two Eisenhower appointees still on the Court supported the decision.

How nice it must be: Republican appointees are conservative when it suits Democrats, and they are not when it doesn't suit them. No one could honestly call Blackmun, Burger, or Brennan "conservative". You can quit it with the shell game because you are not fooling anyone.

I have addressed the formation of the Federalist Society in my other comment.

As an aside: I've observed quite often that leftist Democrats lump all opposition (past and present) into the same boogieman bucket. Unfortunately for them, it is an unforced error which has become a systemic error that has infected their ability to see the world beyond the four corners of the left wing of their party.

If there was one thing that I could credit to the rise of Trump and today's populist moment, it's was that lack of understanding of the nation's politics. Bill Clinton's administration understood this, but the Democratic Party has since forgotten, and Trump has been inflicted on us twice because of it.

[Magister]

Republicans courted the intolerant Christian nationalists, the racists and the rest of, what should we call it, yes, a large basket of deplorables. The scam in service to plutocratic interests eventually collapsed and they lost control, leaving a battle royale between aspiring demagogues to actually deliver to at least one of those.

[not guilty]

William Brennan was no conservative. Warren Burger was by no means a liberal. Harry Blackmun started out as Burger's "Minnesota Twin," (Burger was from St. Paul, Blackmun from Minneapolis,) but he became more liberal after he had served on the Court for a while.

[Zarniwoop]

notguilty said:

White evangelicals at that time saw abortion as largely a Catholic issue -- the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions in 1971, 1974 and 1976 -- after Roe -- affirming the idea that women should have access to abortion for a variety of reasons and that the government should play a limited role in that matter.

I like to check things, even when I agree with them. I was kinda shocked at NG's claim here. But lo and behold:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a high view of the sanctity of human life, and

WHEREAS, The messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis in 1971 adopted overwhelmingly a resolution on abortion, and

WHEREAS, That resolution reflected a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder, and

WHEREAS, That resolution dealt responsibly from a Christian perspective with complexities of abortion problems in contemporary society ...

SBC *was* more reasonable post-Roe than modern absolutists. I learned something new today!

https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-abortion-and-sanctity-of-human-life/

[Sarcastr0]

Yelling rot over and over again doesn't seem to me a very insightful essay.

It does seem tailor made for you to lap up into your political thriller worldview.
I notice that your interpretation leaves you as once again the guy with the political integrity and insight to be the hero among the many man evildoers and stupids!

[Bigcats]

If our goal is to live in a society with less crime, and if legal immigrants commit much less of it than illegal migrants, then why don't we limit immigration to the former?

[Sarcastr0]

But it's the reverse.

So clearly we should only let in illegal immigrants!

[ThePublius]

While being present in the U.S. illegally is a civil violation, entering illegally is a federal crime:

"Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the country, and 8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a crime to re-enter the country after deportation or being denied admission. First offenses under § 1325 are misdemeanors, while § 1326 is a felony. "

So, virtually all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are criminals.

This comparative stuff, illegals vs. citizens, is nonsense. It's not comparative, it's cumulative. We don't need any more criminals here. Deport them.

[David Nieporent]

So, virtually all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are criminals.

So if you ignore the large percentage that are not criminals, then virtually all are criminals.

[ThePublius]

If you entered the country illegally you have committed a crime. That makes you a criminal. Period.

[David Nieporent]

It's a trivial claim, but a correct one. But you are ignoring the large percentage of the subpopulation in question who didn't enter the country illegally, but who overstayed a visa. That is not committing a crime.

[ThePublius]

Do you have the stats for that? I doubt visa overstayers are not at all a large percentage, given the last four years.

While many have entered illegally for a better life, many also entered illegally specifically to engage in illegal activities: Venezuelan gangs, Dominican drug gangs in the Northeast, human traffickers, and so on. Oh, and D.C. organized theft rings, for example, the two illegals who snatched Kristi Noem's purse.

It's not how many criminals who are here, it's how many crimes they each commit. And organized criminal gangs, many illegal immigrants, commit lots of crimes.

That said, while overstaying a visa is a civil violation, they are still subject to deportation.

[Zarniwoop]

I just did some digging, and it's surprisingly hard to find data reporting the percent of undocumented folks that are here broken out by "illegal border crossing" versus "visa overstay".

It's not in gov't data, it's not in Pew Research data. There are apparently reasons - it's apparently really hard to determine those fractions due to lack of robust exit data.

Per DHS:

"At the end of FY 2023, there were 510,363 Suspected In-Country Overstays, which represents 1.31 percent of expected departures, and there were 54,792 Out-of-Country Overstays, representing 0.14 percent of expected departures.
Due to subsequent departures and adjustments of status to lawful permanent resident by individuals in this population, by May 1, 2024, the number of Suspected In-Country Overstays
for FY 2023 decreased to 399,708.

So it seems like a non-trivial number. Probably not a majority of the ~15M undocumented persons currently in the country, but it's definitely non-zero.

[not guilty]

"If you entered the country illegally you have committed a crime. That makes you a criminal. Period."

How much judicial and prosecutorial resources should be devoted to minor crimes? First offense violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) are petty offenses per 18 U.S.C. § 19.

[ThePublius]

"How much judicial and prosecutorial resources should be devoted to minor crimes?"

It doesn't require prosecution, just a deportation hearing.

And, I think we should deport them. It's a. slippery slope, the bottom of which is a third world, banana republic. These people take jobs and housing and government benefits. I don't want to end up ultimately giving them amnesty, and then citizenship. This has been a huge effort (or really, lack of effort) on the part of democrats, to import millions of people who they think will become democrat voters. It's not right.

[David Nieporent]

These people take jobs and housing and government benefits.

Always love the Schroedinger's immigrant who both works and doesn't work. They do not "take" housing; they rent housing. They don't "take" jobs, because there's not a fixed amount of work. And they don't "take" government benefits because they're not eligible for almost any government benefits. But they do work, which means they produce value.

As for "they'll one day become voters and then vote Democratic," (1) the notion that Hispanics are guaranteed democratic voters is a notion that was shared by both Democrats and Republicans for a long time, but 2024 should at least cause you to question it; (2) that seems like kind of a gross reason to kick people out; and (3) have you tried not alienating them?

[ThePublius]

"And they don't "take" government benefits because they're not eligible for almost any government benefits. But they do work, which means they produce value."

That's baloney. If it were so, why is my state, Massachusetts, spending billions housing, feeding, and supporting them? Can you explain that? They have contracted entire hotels to house illegals.

And, they are not legally allowed to work. The ones who do are breaking the law, as are their employers.

[David Nieporent]

That's baloney. If it were so, why is my state, Massachusetts, spending billions housing, feeding, and supporting them? Can you explain that? They have contracted entire hotels to house illegals.

For the trillionth time that this has come up: they're not. Those are legal people — generally refugees — that states are spending money to put up, not illegal immigrants.

(Moreover, if you're going to cite the thing that Dr. Ed keeps citing, those sums are for all homeless housing, not immigrants specifically.)

And, they are not legally allowed to work. The ones who do are breaking the law, as are their employers.

Not sure how that's relevant, but it's also wrong. It is a crime for an employer to knowingly hire someone without work authorization; it is not a crime to work without authorization.

[ThePublius]

"No, it is generally illegal for individuals who are in the United States without legal authorization to work. While some undocumented immigrants may be eligible for work authorization through specific programs like DACA or Temporary Protected Status (TPS), working without authorization is a violation of federal law."

[David Nieporent]

Cite the statute, not an AI claim.

[ThePublius]

"And they don't "take" government benefits because they're not eligible for almost any government benefits."

You're so full of it. Here's just the example of California:

In-state tuition and financial aid
Medi-cal (Medicaid)
WIC
and more.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/CA%20Public%20Benefits%20for%20Noncitizens%20.pdf

Care to retract what you said?

[ThePublius]

Massachusetts:

1. Health Care:
MassHealth: (and this is not all of it.)
.
Undocumented immigrants can access MassHealth Limited, which provides emergency health services. Some may also qualify for other MassHealth programs, including MassHealth coverage for pregnant women, CMSP, or the Health Safety Net.
Health Safety Net (HSN):
.
This program may cover services at hospitals or community health centers for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured.
2. Housing:
Public Housing: Undocumented immigrants are eligible for public housing in Massachusetts.
State Subsidized Housing: Similar to public housing, state-subsidized housing is also accessible to undocumented immigrants.
Rental Assistance Programs: Programs like RAFT and ERMA can provide assistance with rent and housing costs.
3. Food and Nutrition Assistance:
WIC (Women, Infants, and Children):
.
This program provides nutrition assistance for pregnant and postpartum women, and young children, and is generally available regardless of immigration status.
State SNAP Supplement:
.
This program, which provided additional food assistance to certain immigrants, has now ended, but DTA may contact eligible individuals if additional funding becomes available.
4. Other Potential Benefits:
Emergency Assistance (EA):
EA provides support to families with children who are experiencing housing emergencies, and undocumented immigrants may be eligible for this program.
Workers' Compensation:
Massachusetts workers' compensation benefits are available to all workers, regardless of their immigration status.
Massachusetts Application for State Financial Aid (MASFA):
This application allows college students without legal immigration status to apply for state need-based financial aid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget free care in emergency rooms.