Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[BrotherMovesOn]

*** Happy Anniversary President Washington. ***

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yet another day passes with no sign that any court in the United States intends to defend the Constitution against administrative contempt. Or, more prosaically, even to enforce law on behalf of people unjustly seized without due process, and incarcerated in a torture prison abroad.

Make no mistake. With contempt of court flagrantly asserted by the Administration, timidity of the courts to enforce against that contempt invites corrupt national government to consolidate power to impose tyranny.

[Martinned2]

Forget about the courts, when are the *people* of the United States going to defend their Constitution?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned2 — Good question. My guess? Probably not until the people see that leaving defense of American constitutionalism to the courts is hopeless—if then.

That is why I want the courts to act quickly—for the courts to fail sooner if that is to be the nation's fate, and thus stir the people to act sooner in their own defense. Otherwise, the administration gets more time to consolidate power against the people before they get organized.

For instance, the ongoing decay observable in American media institutions I take to be an indicator that a defensive power useful to the people is continuously diminishing. I expect organized labor power, such as it is, to shortly come under focused attack, with its leaders at least under threat of arrest and imprisonment if they act to organize political resistance. I expect an effort to bypass the power of the purse. The Trump administration has yet to fully organize a source to fund armed force against popular resistance, but I expect it to move quickly to get that done too, likely by impounding tariff revenues as it collects them.

The time to stop tyrants is always sooner, not later. History is replete with examples of multi-decade tyrannical regimes which might have been thwarted by prompt resistance at their outset. The American courts, with their everlasting love of protracted process, are thus ill suited to match the present emergency. I would like the courts to succeed, more than anything, but do not think waiting long for that to happen is wise.

[Brett Bellmore]

The courts haven't been any use in defending the Constitution since at least FDR's first term. Once Presidents and the Senate realized that they could escape being bound to the Constitution by the courts by the simple expedient of nominating yes-men to the courts, it was all over.

[Sarcastr0]

Riiiight. Your political philosophy is just empirically true, a fact of reality. You really believe that?

[Joe_dallas]

The faux outrage of the the trump's administration lawless behavior rings hollow when those same people failed to voice complaints about biden's and obama's lawless behavior

[David Nieporent]

Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout.

[Krayt]

Incorrect. It just shows both sides are badly wrong assholes!

[Riva]

Yeah, there’s some stunning legal acumen in that comment, crazy little Davy.

[SRG2]

That is a criticism of people, but it does not rebut the quite legitimate and justified criticism of the Trump regime.

I don't know why the cultists think that an accusation of hypocrisy serves to defend Trump, Bondi, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Shall I explain that for you?

It's because the criticism of Trump is intended to influence election outcomes, and elections are not judgements solely on the incumbent, they are A-B comparisons between the incumbent and challenger.

This means that the nature of the likely challenger actually IS relevant when you're criticizing an office holder. Because you're criticizing him with the goal of putting somebody else in his place, and the nature of that somebody else is, inherently, relevant to the discussion.

Or to put it more crudely, when you complain that my shit stinks, it's not 'whataboutism' to point out that yours does, too. It's just putting it in context.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — That explanation fails. Whatabouters cite wildly, including folks who will never run again for office, and others who never have, and never will run for office. So you have answered a question about whatabout, with a whatabout.

Plus which, Trump is the worst candidate for president in our lifetime. No one else has been comparable. You want Trump anyway. You are a cult member.

And you remain stupid about your own motivation. You are smart enough to see what a mess Trump is; but that is why you like him. The worse he is, the more harm he inflicts on the nation, the more it outrages people you hate. Turns out, outraging people you hate is your entire motivation.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - your deflection with "whataboutism " only confirms your hypocrisy.

[SRG2]

Shall I explain that for you?

"I don't understand why" is - or should be - commonly understood to be a rhetorical device where the speaker does indeed understand why. Your explanation doesn't hold water, regardless.

[David Nieporent]

Or to put it more crudely, when you complain that my shit stinks, it's not 'whataboutism' to point out that yours does, too. It's just putting it in context.

That's literally what whataboutism is. It's the definition of whataboutism.

And your explanation/defense of it is just incorrect. bookkeeper_joe's attack was not on Trump's challenger. (Even if Trump were running for anything, which he isn't.) It was an attack on people who criticize Trump.

[Magister]

It's because the criticism of Trump is intended to influence election outcomes, and elections are not judgements solely on the incumbent, they are A-B comparisons between the incumbent and challenger.

This means that the nature of the likely challenger actually IS relevant when you're criticizing an office holder. Because you're criticizing him with the goal of putting somebody else in his place, and the nature of that somebody else is, inherently, relevant to the discussion.

The last part is largely wrong and irrelevant; lots of whatabouting of Obama, who can't be a challenger, and of Biden, who was already too old to be the 2024 challenger, and of Harris, whose sole opportunity as challenger has now passed. (Democrats last renominated a failed candidate for president in the 1950s.)

The first part is also wrong. The criticism of Trump is intended to influence governance of the country in the earliest time frame. In a few cases, Trump backs off from exceedingly unpopular decisions (e.g., encouraging followers to get COVID vaccines) but more often it's aimed at Congress not cooperating with Trump. You yourself level timid criticisms of Trump that, if embraced by a Senator or Representative, could motivate some form of legislation to restrain his unlawful actions. Is it possible that the small number of Republicans needed to get anything done could go that way? Democrats likely control the House after the next election. More significantly, it's aimed at avoiding the quiet acceptance due to intimidation that is the pathway of the authoritarian ruler; no matter how pointless a single objection (like a single vote), in their numbers they restrain fascist wannabes like Trump who don't yet have enough brownshirts or redhats or whatever to achieve his goals by force.

Of course, mocking dishonest fascists like Brett Bellmore is also fun; hence my longer than Stephen Lathrop response which probably already made the important points.

[Brett Bellmore]

"lots of whatabouting of Obama, who can't be a challenger,"

Right, what Democrats tolerated in Obama obviously has nothing to do with what they'd tolerate in Harris, or Bernie, or Newsome. Completely unrelated. [/sarc]

[Magister]

Nobody attacks actual possible challengers like Newsome because they're going to be like Obama on policy; they just rip into Obama as a whataboutism to defend Trump (and other Republicans). 2010 was a bad year for Democrats in large part because progressives were disappointed with Obama who was not as progressive as his supporters in 2008 had claimed. (A good year for Republicans because of racism and dishonesty, and then a good decade because of gerrymandering and other forms of turning against democracy.) The appeal of Obama today has little to do with his policies (continue Middle East wars, keep Guantanamo open, switch from public option health care to the mandate, etc.) and most to do with nostalgia for a successful charismatic scandal free president.

But people do criticize De Santis or Vance or others for being like Trump because those Trump-wannabes are desperately trying to appeal to the MAGA cult with Trump like policies. That's not whataboutism; that's what you're pretending to talk about.

[DrCoke]

Trump and Obama are proxies for the yet unknown candidates. How obtuse can one be?

Neither party suggests "doing better" than their previous candidates. Instead they hold them up as models, and the models themselves hold forth.

It's just hypocrisy. How dumb are people on this blog?

[Joe_dallas]

We are not defending Trump
We are pointing the double standard / hypocrisy of the typical leftists.

Quite a few leftists resort to "whataboutism" in attempts to hide their leftist double standard and hypocrisy.

[SRG2]

Do you concede the criticism of Trump advanced by these purported leftists?

BTW "leftist" does not mean "anyone who opposes Trump" though that seems to be the cultists' definition particularly here. I am often accused of being a leftist by the ignorant or stupid.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a lot of the criticism is valid; Trump's second term has been characterized by a lot of clumsy mistakes, and a profound disregard for procedural niceties on a scale that sometimes amounts to constitutional violations. Sometimes. OTOH, the resistance to him in the judiciary and bureaucracy hasn't exactly been obsessively rule abiding, either. It's a civil war by other means.

I think he's generally trying to do the right thing, which is refreshing, but our system isn't set up for the President to single handedly do the right thing without cooperation by Congress. And Congress has been largely missing in action these 100 days.

I said a while back that people should have paid more attention to his meeting with Argentina President Milei, that Trump was planning on emulating him here. That still seems to be the case, Milei wasn't exactly scrupulous as to means, either.

Argentina, of course, was pretty far gone by the time Milei took over, and so the public there gave him the slack he needed to show results, and then the results persuaded them to let him keep at it.

Are the American people convinced things were bad enough to justify a home-grown Milei? I suspect not. But if Trump can accumulate enough actual accomplishments before the judicial resistance stops him, the public may decide to let him continue, and then where will the judicial resistance be?

[Darwinnie]

So you believe the American system of governance is so far gone and corrupt that Trump is fine to achieve his goals by any means necessary? What’s your limiting principle, because I see nothing you advocate that would limit Trump’s people from rounding up politician foes and “others” who stand in his way.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think he should be less sloppy, and pay more attention to procedural details. And that Congress should get off their dead ass and start carrying their share of the load.

But I also think he's doing a lot of things that needed doing, even if he's doing them the wrong way. We're not as far gone as Argentina was, but we're pretty far gone in a lot of ways, and only drastic action will save us.

My chief point was that I don't think anybody should be really surprised that he's cutting corners to try to get big things done fast. That he would was the proper take-away from that meeting with Milei.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett wants America to be led by a Latin American strongman.

That's bad.

[Riva]

Wrong branch, and not just one, there are multiple little power hunger jurists abusing their constitutional authority daily.

¡Viva la insurrección judicial!

[not guilty]

No, Brett, President Trump is not trying to do the right thing at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-deported.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20250430&instance_id=153596&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=197023&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

Trump is ignoring the late Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!!

[Magister]

If Trump were aware of such a rule, his response would be "Only weak people follow Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes!" Ignoring and trashing courts and the constitution and anything else when the same result could be achieved otherwise is to show strength, not because Trump has the attention span of a 3 year old. OK, could be that thing too.

[Riva]

“Stop digging” means allowing illegal alien human trafficking illegal gangbanger domestic abusers to remain in this country? Uh no. But you run with that. It’s a political winner. Right up there with the trans insanity.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said he's GENERALLY trying to do the right thing. At a fairly high level abstraction. He's just doing it in a very clumsy and sometimes illegal manner.

The first rule of holes, bluntly, does not apply if you're TRYING to dig a hole, and the person citing it just doesn't want a hole there.

[Sarcastr0]

This looks a lot like he does bad things but you for some reason don’t want to judge him for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

What it looks like is "I like what he's trying to do, but object to how he's going about it" is too nuanced for you to comprehend. Or maybe you can't be bothered to comprehend it because you really just want me to object to what he's trying to do, too.

No. I don't have to give up on supporting a goal just because I dislike how somebody goes about advancing it.

[Sarcastr0]

'Oh, but he means well' is not some deep nuance. It's an excuse.

He also doesn't mean well, and neither do you. But we can talk about that elsewhere.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, here we are: Neither of us likes the means. You dislike the end as well as the means, while I approve of the end.

So you demand that I object to both. and I tell you "No.".

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit, you're still wrong.

I, and others (notably DMN), also reject the entire *idea* of 'he means well' as any kind of excuse.

That is independent of if I like the goals or intent.

[Magister]

A hypothetical example that probably won't stop Brett Bellmore from continuing to pretend he doesn't want fascism with facile ends/means quibbles.

There were things I wanted, very much, out of the Biden administration that Republicans in Congress and conservatives on the Supreme Court would block. If I found out that the Biden administration was poised to achieve those goals through horrific means (blackmail, extortion, or worse), I would not be balancing the horrific means against the good results. If for some reason they actually needed only tacit approval from me, an aging internet commenter, to make the plan work, they would not get it. (Various trolls will claim that of course I would accept it, because you will project your own blackened morals onto me, but you are wrong; good government and a clean conscience/untainted soul are among the most important things I want to achieve and keep, respectively.)

[David Nieporent]

What it looks like is "I like what he's trying to do, but object to how he's going about it" is too nuanced for you to comprehend.

Exterminator comes and finds termites in your house. Pours gasoline all around the house and lights a match. Brett: "I approve of his goal of getting rid of the termites; I just object to how he's doing it. I am Very Nuanced."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Exactly. As with Bellmore, you are not defending Trump. You are not stupid enough to try that. But you are stupid enough, and sufficiently lacking in self-awareness, to like Trump. You like Trump because he is a terrible president, and a worse person. You hope you can count on Trump to do more than anyone else could do to hurt people you hate. Those are bog-standard MAGA politics, and that is all there is to them.

[David Nieporent]

We are not defending Trump
We are pointing the double standard / hypocrisy of the typical leftists.

Weird that you're aware enough to admit that this is your argument, but too unaware to realize how stupid it is.

Normal, sane person: "Trump is awful! He has done X, Y, and Z which are terrible!"
bookkeeper_joe: "Well, you're a hypocrite!"

[Joe_dallas]

DN - Confirming his hypocrisy

[David Nieporent]

You're using a big word you don't understand. But whether I'm a hypocrite has no bearing on whether Trump is Satan, and since Trump is president and I'm a commenter on an Internet blog, Trump's character flaws are a bit more pertinent to and impactful on the world than mine.

[Joe_dallas]

I have never said Trump was a nice guy, nor have other commentators such as Brent

Yet its noted that you never complained about Biden's or obama's unconstitutional actions, demonstrating again your leftist hypocrisy.

[David Nieporent]

I have never said Trump was a nice guy, nor have other commentators such as Brent

Um, yes, that's literally the point! Rather than defending Trump against criticism, you try to deflect and distract from the criticism by changing the subject to the person speaking. That's what whatabouting is!

Yet its noted that you never complained about Biden's or obama's unconstitutional actions, demonstrating again your leftist hypocrisy.

Again: both irrelevant and a lie.

[Riva]

You go crazy Dave, Unleash the crazy. And the shocking thing is the “satan” comment is not really the craziest thing you’ve written.

[A Woman of No Importance]

But if you're going to point out hypocrisy, isn't it hypocritical to only point it out on one side? I don't recall you ever calling out Republican/conservative hypocrisy; it only bothers you when the left does it. For that matter, most of the whataboutism I've seen here comes from the right, yet, again, you only seem concerned when it comes from the left.

Which means you either don't think the Republicans'conservatives do it, in which case you're a fool, or you yourself are the biggest hypocrite here.

[Riva]

Enlighten us all as to your comments on Democrat/liberal hypocrisy.

[Riva]

President Trump and AG Bondi should be applauded. Half the lawyers from the Civil Rights Division have resigned. As more than a few have noted, a good start.

[Martinned]

Indeed. Who needs civil rights anyway?

[Mr. Bumble]

Who knew 100 lawyers quitting meant the end of civil rights?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's the end of only whites NOT having civil rights, anyway. That's what they quit over: The new policy that civil rights enforcement would include those violations the agency had previously had a policy of ignoring.

[Sarcastr0]

whites NOT having civil rights

Amazing how far whites have gotten, being so persecuted.

[Brett Bellmore]

Amazing how openly you can object to civil rights laws being enforced impartially.

[Riva]

You do understand that someone of any race can suffer a violation of their civil rights, don’t you little communist girl who never smiled?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett. I disagree with you and think civil rights have been fine for white people.

You comment often how everyone else is being treated better than you; it's kind of incredible. The poor, other races, women, illegals, legals, gay people, transgender people, and on and on.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I disagree with you and think civil rights have been fine for white people."

Yeah, fine, you're entitled to your delusions. And it IS a delusion, as revealed by multiple recent court cases on racial discrimination by universities.

But the agency had an express policy started under Obama to never take cases where the victim was white, and these people quit because it got rescinded.

I don't know why it bothered them, if white victims were an empty set...

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, 'a bunch of lawsuits got filed' is not proof of anything.

the agency had an express policy started under Obama to never take cases where the victim was white.
I'd like proof of that.

And if it is true, that would be bad. But not proof of your thesis that whites haven't had civil rights until Trump.

[Riva]

I guess the proof is that the DOJ is no longer pursuing the destructive and racist enforcement practices favored by certain Democrat activists.

[Riva]

Nope. We need civil rights enforcement. What we don’t need is the radical and destructive policies the CRD had engaged in. Like the Obama policy not to take cases based on the victim’s race. Maybe now they can focus on combating against things like antisemitism and the trans insanity. And as to those lawyers that left, I should add, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Frank Drackman]

be careful what you ask the people for, they might not give you the answer that you want them to

[Doug Heffernan]

When enough of those who chose this guy can admit to themselves and others that they were sold a bill of goods. Doing that is not easy, especially when it would cause social isolation. It would take a critical mass such that isolation would be more common for those that continued to stick with the guy.

The tariffs may be enough to create such a critical mass. Price increases and product unavailability would be difficult for trump to blame on anyone else, although he will surely try. His best chance at retaining some degree of popularity is to end his run as tariff man immediately. He can continue to ship people to foreign prisons without due process and ignore courts and remain somewhat popular, but not the tariff stuff. Enough people will never care about due process or respect for courts. If you care about those things, you should hope that he doesn't cave on the tariffs anytime soon.

[Brett Bellmore]

My problem last November was that the choice was between one bill of goods and another bill of goods, (The third and fourth bills of goods had no chance of winning.) and I had to decide which would be less destructive.

I still think Trump is largely pursuing the right ends, but his means suck. Or, as Reason put it a few weeks ago, Trump Is Giving Everyone What They Want In the Dumbest Way Possible

But that's maybe still better than having somebody cleverly pursuing ends opposed to mine, which was the alternative I was facing.

[shawn_dude]

The choice was between one bill of goods and another bill of goods according to the right wing news sources I consume who have consistently lied to me and hidden how terrible Trump is and how good the alternatives were in order to continue profiting off my ignorance.

FTFY.

[TaioF920]

Tariffs don't lead to price increases. They lead to lower corporate margins, which is what all the banksters who control the media care about.

You bought their lie, hook, line and sinker.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, it's entirely situational. Depending on circumstances and elasticity of demand, tariffs can hit the corporate margin OR the price, or some mix of them.

[Joe_dallas]

correct - same with any cost increase, whether the cost increase is due to materials, labor, or tax increases. Who absorbs the increase costs is a function of elasticity of demand / supply and demand curves.

[Malika the Maiz]

To be clear, it’s a tax on imported goods that as an empirical matter raises the price ultimately paid by the consumer.

[Joe_dallas]

malika
take a beginners clas in micro economics 101
Brett's and my statement is correct

[Malika the Maiz]

I think a beginner’s class decades ago is all you’ve got.

[Joe_dallas]

take a refresher class in micro economics

[Brett Bellmore]

To a variable extent depending on a lot of factors.

If your foreign producer has been enjoying a high profit margin, and consumer elasticity is low, the foreign producer will be better off swallowing some portion of the tariff, possibly most of it, in order to not lose the market.

[Malika the Maiz]

“the foreign producer will be better off swallowing some portion of the tariff, possibly most of it”

So, “as an empirical matter raises the price ultimately paid by the consumer.”

[Joe_dallas]

as noted above - you are very much due for a refresher course in micro economics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Domestic competitors who pay no tariff will be at liberty to raise prices, whether the foreign importers swallow some of the tariff cost, or choose instead to pass all the tariff costs along. Good times for inflation, no matter what importers choose to do.

And higher inflation, of course, will advantage uptake of AI business models to replace domestic employees, instead of paying them higher wages. Good times for stagflation as well.

And all of it—every bit of massive unnecessary extra costs subtracted from a gigantic world-leading economy—and other subtractions on a scale of multi-trillions—the direct result of stupid choices made by one man. Has any economic blunder comparable to that ever been seen in world history?

Of course not. No system capable to let anything like that happen has ever been designed anywhere, including here in the U.S. Both this nation's system of governance, and its economic system, were purpose-built to rule out one-man catastrophe.

But alas, this nation does have a sordid history of stupid presidents. The only way this one-man catastrophe could have happened was to willfully encourage the stupidest president in this nation's sordid history to disregard all the rules, and to break the system on purpose. And even that would not have done it, if it had not been for still worse willful stupidity by the Supreme Court, to assure no criminal consequences would follow for outright, intentional, illegal system breaking by a president.

But all that said, the worst of it remains to be mentioned. The worst of it is no capacity among the stupidest president's acolytes and boosters to rouse themselves to respond, even after they see this totally avoidable one-man catastrophe put in motion.

Congratulations, Bellmore. In your own small way, you can number yourself among the authors of a world-historical calamity. Bet you never suspected you could achieve such distinction, or sink so low.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because inflation was such an issue during the Depression...

[Joe_dallas]

SL
After reading your first paragraph, I was going to suggest to you take a freshman level micro economics class to clear up your misconceptions.

After reading the rest of your post, the better question is what hallucination drugs are you taking? I didnt realize LSD was still a thing. Nothing you wrote resembles reality

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

Martinned, a foreign actor, is illegally calling for insurrection by US citizens.

Reported to DOGE and the DOD.

[Malika the Maiz]

Send the report by Signal so ‘Hic Hegseth will be sure to see it!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some are using the courts, protesting, speaking up at meet-ups of their representatives, some colleges and law firms are pushing back, and so forth. The people have done a few things.

[shawn_dude]

While mass protests in liberal bastions are a good sign, nothing will change until we see more of them happening in conservative cities in the middle of conservative states. Let's face it, they're not bothered one iota regarding the gestapo-style mass roundups of anyone that speaks Spanish. The only thing they'll respond to is financial pain. That's why Trump freaked out when he thought Amazon was going to note the tariff amount next to all of its imported goods. Too many people still think tariffs aren't US taxes on US citizens.

Another question: what do you think it would take to get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to agree to convict at an impeachment trial? (or to get enough GOP senators to call in sick that day such that 2/3rds of a quorum are Democrats?)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We obviously have much further to go though it takes time -- it took over a decade from the end of the Seven Years War to independence. It is notable that there is some opposition in red districts, so much that many Republicans are scared to meet their constituents. As to 2/3 in the Senate, really hard to say. There has to be some signs of serious Republican opposition first.

[Dr. Ed 2]

7 years war ended in 1763.
Treaty of Paris was in 1783.

That's TWO decades -- and a bullshyte analogy.

[Brett Bellmore]

" what do you think it would take to get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to agree to convict at an impeachment trial?"

A dead girl or a live boy, basically.

OK, seriously, it requires one of two things:

1. a) A real and serious crime of the sort people are routinely prosecuted for,
b) which does not involve any novel legal theories
c) or assumptions that you'd only make if you disliked Trump to begin with.
d) or involve allegations of long ago misconduct without contemporaneous evidence
e) or alleged witnesses who deny it happened.
f) or a remarkably vague time and/or location of the supposed crime.

2. An unconstitutional act in pursuit of a policy goal BOTH Democrats AND Republicans reject.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I am not sure what you expected unless there are cases you can cite in which the government has crated complete roadblock to the case proceeding, or in which the attorneys for the government are being actively insulting to court.
I don't oppose contempt citations, but they should be an infrequently used tool.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nope. The rate of issuance for contempt citations ought to match the rate at which contempt of court happens. But not in a linear way. After evidence shows a systematic resort to contempt, contempt citations ought to skyrocket.

Systematic resort to contempt is already evident. It is already past time for the courts to take notice of contemptuous conduct happening in one court, and treat it as abuse of process everywhere.

No more patient, per-court, step-by-step, tip-toe toward contempt, as if a systematic pattern of massive resistance against judicial constraint by the administration were invisible. That pattern is already evident—opposed by some, cheered on by others, but obvious to everyone.

Few can doubt advocacy to pretend that pattern does not exist, and thus to continue with slow-walking procedures, is coming mainly from people who want judicial constraint of the administration to fail. Those people have already seen judicial constraint fail in the case of Trump v. United States. They want more of the same.

No thanks, not during an existential crisis for American constitutionalism.

[Don Nico]

In that case you advocate a judicial tyranny because it is inevitable that a citation due to every disagreement degenerates into unelected officials imposing their whims and political preferences on whomever is in theor courtroom. That is what the judiciary in Israel has degenerated into, a profoundly anti-democratic institution.
Better that judges maintain a sense of balance and restraint as they have for most of the life of this country.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't even make sense as a criticism; courts are supposed to be anti-democratic. They're supposed to uphold the law, not cater to the will of the majority.

[Don Nico]

I guess that you skipped the "Iraeli courts" or you just did not bother to understand the reference preferring to mouth you criticism. Typical of you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, one of America's greatest presidents anticipated your critique, and disposed of it to my satisfaction:

Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one
be violated? —Abraham Lincoln

I suggest Lincoln proved by example that even an administrative lapse into tyrannical-style governance need not imply permanent loss of American constitutionalism. Lincoln accomplished that by making himself conspicuous as a loyal defender of constitutionalism.

Trump's case is to the contrary. He bruits repeatedly his opposition to constitutionalism. That makes Trump plainly dangerous in a way that Lincoln was not.

Trump seems intent to break every law single-handedly, and to get it done quickly. The Court has power sufficient to check any such lunge toward dictatorial tyranny. But if the Court did intend such a power grab for itself, it would require a sustained effort lasting decades to accomplish it.

Thus, present circumstances do not implicate a lasting judicial tyranny. And Trump's extravagant example will distinguish his case legally throughout foreseeable history.

Or, if Trump's example does not do that, any resulting judicial tyranny can hardly be as bad as the one Trump already intends. With certain catastrophe on one hand, and a chance of vaguely comparable catastrophe on the other, I insist it is wiser to choose the latter and hope for the best.

Keep in mind that if the American People need to reassert sovereign control over either the presidency or the Court, that will require time for the People to organize, reflect, and reassert themselves—a luxury which the pace of present events may not afford the People. And if came to that, for the jointly sovereign People to wrest back control from a tyrannically inclined Court would be the smaller challenge.

To do likewise from a would-be dictator seated on a throne of already-usurped administrative power, including massively organized deadly force, is all but inconceivable. History is replete with examples of tyrants secure in control for life, and not a few who established dictatorial dynasties. Can you think of even one comparable example of a lasting and similarly oppressive judicial tyranny?

[Don Nico]

The only way for the People to assert sovereignty is at the ballot box

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Not really. Government is never sovereign, and this nation is never without a sovereign. Which means of action that sovereign might at any time choose is not up to government to decide.

Most prosaically, the People can pressure politicians politically, to follow Constitutional process to vote Constitutional changes by government initiative. And then the People get to exert sovereign power directly, by ratifying or rejecting whatever changes emerge from that Constitutionally authorized political process.

Also prosaically, grand juries assert sovereign power when they shield from indictment subjects of criminal prosecution targeted by the government. Neither judges nor government prosecutors have legitimate power to interfere in such instances.

Historically, grand juries did more, and arguably ought to be doing more now in the
same vein.

Grand juries have at former times exercised independent powers of petition, to present to government officials demands for action which arrive with a double implication. On the one hand, such grand jury petitions arrived as supplications from subjects of government. But on the other hand, such petitions come with a reminder that the grand jury is a tribune of the sovereign, not under the control of any branch of government, and thus speaks to government officials on the basis of a power greater than government's.

More directly, grand juries throughout history, until quite recently in this nation, have wielded a power of presentment. That amounts to a power without need of any authorization from either a judge, or from the Justice Department, to charge criminally anyone the grand jury has chosen to investigate and found legally sufficient basis to charge.

I do not know whether a power of presentment includes also a power to appoint a prosecutor independent of government. It seems like there is nothing in American constitutionalism to prevent that. I suggest grand jury power to appoint an independent prosecutor is logically implied by co-existence of the power of presentment with the formerly commonplace practice of private prosecutions.

Political evolutions which could follow from this nation's ongoing Constitutional crisis might deliver opportunity for use of a grand jury presentment power. For instance, if there came a time when President Trump remained in open defiance of the Court, and his Justice Department continued to support Trump, but a clear majority of Americans wanted Trump's defiance stopped.

A grand jury in such an instance could indict and prosecute before the judges Trump had defied as many of Trump's minions as necessary. At a minimum, those who had defied the courts could be charged with criminal contempt. Other more serious charges might also be brought, if grand jury investigations showed the defendants' conduct justified them.

Trump could thus be brought under control of the rule of law for want of others willing to do his bidding. Of course whether any of that could happen would depend on clear existence of a substantial majority in support of doing it.

[Speaking for normal people]

Just the opposite !! Some low-level super-liberal Ketanji-Brown clone is stopping the President from doing his job. If due process were the issue, 'Hillary', you would have said something about Obama''s 3 MILLION deportations. Did I miss your outraged postings fromtaht time? No.

[Brett Bellmore]

Obama didn't HAVE 3 million deportations. He just started calling people turned back at the border "deportations", contrary to prior practice.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven’t been able to find a source for this. Where did you hear it?

[Brett Bellmore]

High deportation figures are misleading

"WASHINGTON — Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the “deporter in chief” and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now."

Under Obama you'd get bussed back over the border and counted as a deportation if you were caught near the border, but if you got more than about 100 miles from the border, you were safe, he'd basically stopped deportations from the interior.

This was actually widely complained about at the time, but probably not in sources you were following, which would have actually been complaining about too many deportations because they were taking the new numbers at face value.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks.
Though a focus on the border versus visa overstayers might have been made in good faith, ya know! (and "under most previous administrations" is odd phrasing).

But...has this baseline changed since then? Because for now it looks like we can compare Obama, Trump, and Biden's numbers at least.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I follow the USCIS "Southern border encounters" numbers, which at least have kept a uniform methodology through this period. It's pretty unambiguous that Trump was and is wildly more successful at reducing illegal border crossings than Obama or especially Biden, on account of actually trying to.

I really don't know if the definition of "deportation" kept getting switched back and forth after Obama as administrations changed places. Google is pretty much worthless at this point for that sort of detailed question.

[shawn_dude]

Do you think, with Trump's infamous ego, that he would reverse the Obama methodology and thus make his numbers look smaller in comparison? The man is so obsessed with numbers that he held his inauguration ceremony indoors to prevent a repeat of his 2016 embarrassment.

The bottom line with all this dick-measuring on deportation numbers is that the last two Democrats were highly successful at deportations without having to demonize an entire race of people or brag about violating their civil rights. Trump barks so much about his deportations and how brutal they are but, in the end, he's less successful than his predecessors.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Selective editing by Bellmore omitted that his source described how Obama was also fingerprinting and recording data on immigrants caught near the border in the U.S., to build a record to constrain them from returning. The system Bellmore likes just turned them around and released them in Mexico to try again. Or so it says in his source.

[Brett Bellmore]

So limiting my quotes to fair use is now "selective editing"? I gave a link to the original source, Lathrop, which is something your precious newspapers scarcely ever do, lest their own genuinely selective editing or mere paraphrases be exposed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When you refer in a note to me to, "your," newspapers, please limit yourself to the usages my newspapers practiced under my management. Or, because you have no idea what those were, shut up. Or just shut up anyway. You also fail to describe accurately the typical usages of a vast body of well-edited publications.

Also? Fair use is a copyright-related concept, with no relevance at all to your vice for selective editing.

[Frank Drackman]

and put "Kids in Cages" remember the Bullshit when the Fake News published the photos during Trump's first term, not admitting they were from 2014

[Michael P]

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html says that (a) what changed was formally deporting people caught at the border rather than just sending them back, (b) this change started under GWB (but apparently late enough that it didn't change his numbers much) and (c) Obama significantly cut back other deportations, and would have had a large drop without the "bonus" deportations from the Bush policy change.

[Sarcastr0]

Huh. The single exact same story as Brett had.

If this is the main source, no wonder I had trouble.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's another source: Removals vs returns: how to think about Obama’s deportation record

Or Mother Jones: The Obama Administration’s 2 Million Deportations, Explained

As I said, it was probably a matter of the sources you were familiar with not having any interest in the distinction, and taking his numbers at face value. Right wing sources were pretty focused on it at the time.

[Michael P]

"Right wing sources were pretty focused on it at the time."

Definitely so. I suspect we came upon the same source today because it's what search engines (or at least Bing/DDG) return as an early hit now, perhaps because it's the lead source for a Snopes entry on the topic.

[Brett Bellmore]

"this change started under GWB"

And it's worth mentioning that Bush got a lot of grief from Republicans over his lax border enforcement, too.

[Frank Drackman]

More like what "Border Enforcement", "Lax" would have been an improvement. That and his abortion of a Medicare Prescription Drug plan, that even Bill Clinton wouldn't have been able to get through, lucky for him the DemoKKKrats ran Lurch in 2004

[jb]

Of course, all of Trump's deportation numbers also include people aprehended near the border, so the Obama vs. Trump vs. Biden numbers are pretty apples-to-apples.

It is true that border crossings increase a lot during the first half of Biden's administration, but were much lower in the second half. They've decreased further under Trump, but part of this is just removing the CBP One appointments which counted as "border encounters" even though they were scheduled appointments with CBP agents.

[Kazinski]

Well at least the Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided that nobody is above the law, even superior court judges:

Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge accused of obstructing immigration agents

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/29/us/judge-hannah-dugan-suspended-immigrant-arrest/index.html

[Martinned2]

Can someone help me work out the website of the Wisconsin Supreme Court? CNN says there is supposed to be an order, but I can't find it on the court's website:

https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/scorder.jsp?docket_number=&range=This+week&begin_date=04-28-2025&end_date=05-02-2025&party_name=&Submit=Search

[Frank Drackman]

"CNN says"
well THAT's your problem

[Drewski]

Order: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25922648-in-re-dugan-supreme-court-adminstrative-order-04-29-25/

Criminal complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25919404-complaintuscourtswied11162910/

Release conditions: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25919332-20315758913/

[Martinned]

That'll teach me for commenting here instead of working...

This category is blocked: Personal Network Storage and Backup.

[Magister]

You could try
https://www.wispolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/250429SC_Dugan.pdf
when you're on break from work.

[John F. Carr]

I understand the Wisconsin judge to be in the same position as her predecessor in Massachusetts - suspended with pay. The suspension may be a routine consqeuence of a pending felony charge. In Massachusetts all trial judges are state employees and the top court had to decide whether the judge's suspension was with or without pay. Charged with obstructing Trump = with pay.

[AmosArch]

wah wah the government shouldn't obey the will of the President. They should obey the will of some random internet commentator on a law blog almost nobody knows about. Thats like...more democracy or something.

[Martinned2]

Why don't we start with the government obeying the courts? That would already be quite an improvement.

[TaioF920]

Not if the courts are lawless.

[AmosArch]

Unless you think any low ranking (leftwing) Judge in the Country has the authority of a Monarch over the entire country and can issue whatever decree they want and do whatever they want including helping criminals evade the authorities whenever they feel like it then certain courts have not exactly presented themselves as institutions that should be obeyed.

[TaioF920]

Especially when those judges are DEI appointees of Democrat Party presidents.

These judges shouldn't be allowed to hear Trump cases unless they were approved by at least 80 senators

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

He does think that. He's a European serf, used to be lorded over by Royalty.

It's in his genes to be ruled.

[Malika the Maiz]

And yet it’s Magnus lovingly bootlicker federal officials here every day!

[DaveM]

This is an unserious take. You're going to get a bunch of "ataboy" claps on the back from the rest of the players in Left field, and snark from the fans in the stands.

[not guilty]

It appears that we now have our first judicial ruling after an evidentiary hearing on whether anyone whom the Trump administration seeks to deport under the Alien Enemies Act is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172835379/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172835379.27.0_1.pdf

And, I suspect, Pam (Bottle) Blondie's domestic partner John Wakefield and Kristi Noem's husband Bryon Noem now have new orifices to play with when they make whoopee.

The operative provisions of Senior United States District Judge David Briones's Memorandum Opinion and Order specifically relating to the instant habeas corpus petitioners state:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioners’ Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia’s “Amended Verified Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Request for Order to Show Cause,” ECF No. 9, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioners Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia SHALL BE AND ARE RELEASED from federal immigration custody, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pam Bondi are ENJOINED from detaining or re-detaining Petitioners Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia’s on the basis of an alien enemy designation pursuant to “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua”, Pres. Proc. No. 10903, 90 FR 13033, and therefore both Petitioners SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pam Bondi are ENJOINED from detaining or re-detaining Petitioners Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia’s so long as their Temporary Protected States remains valid under law, and therefore both Petitioners SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, Knisti Noem, and Pam Bondi SHALL PROVIDE undersigned counsel with a thirty (30)- day notice and an opportunity to respond if Respondents attempt to re-detain Petitioners Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia on the basis of immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Alien Enemies Act pursuant to the TdA Proclamation.

(Capitalization and boldface in original.)

Glory hallelujah! The Trump administration goons have had a full and fair opportunity to offer “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence of the Petitioners' membership in Tren de Aragua. As the prophet Daniel said to Belshaz'zar the Chalde'an king, interpreting the writing on the wall, "TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting." Daniel 5:27 (RSV). And as Groucho Marx said, time wounds all heels.

In that there are other issues remaining in the case (such as whether the United States is actively in an ongoing military conflict), this does not appear to be a final order for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The Petitioners, though, have filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment. On April 25 the District Court ordered the Respondents to respond within five days. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172835379/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172835379.31.0.pdf

[Martinned2]

American law is procedural law is weird. So the court ordered the plaintiffs to be released immediately, and so naturally they had to file a motion to ask to be released immediately?

[Zarniwoop]

The need for the Apr 28 fling is not crystal clear to me, but it seems like ICE might have released them - but then imposed ankle monitoring and other conditions that Plaintiffs feel is without justification.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I will not celebrate any such appearance of judicial power until the respondents either release their prisoners, or arrive in court to defend themselves against charges of contempt.

Nor will I celebrate much until all the persons illegally seized and deported to a life of torture in CECOT have been returned to the U.S. and afforded due process.

[Frank Drackman]

So you won't be celebrating much

[TaioF920]

Why do you care so much about a non-American who doesn't belong here in the first place?

[David Nieporent]

If it makes you feel any better, I will not shed any tears when you are sent to CECOT without a hearing.

[SRG2]

We don't. We care about the regime acting unconstitutionally in a way which could lead to graver and more dictatorial constitutional infringements down the road,

Why are you so content with the regime breaching the Constitution?

The cultists' inability to see the principles instead of the persons is evidently pathological.

[Krayt]

We don't. We care about the regime acting unconstitutionally in a way which could lead to graver and more dictatorial constitutional infringements down the road,

I concur! All who love liberty should be concerned with unconstitutional behaviors that have been shown, repeatedly through history, to be a grave danger.

Why, just last month, Turkey's dictator arrested his likely opponent, dug into his past to get his college to reject his 30 year old transfer application, declare his degree null, and therefore he can't even be on the ballot, on top of whatever the hell he was arrested for.

God damn, that's some historically evil stuff, faceted to be about rule of law. One commentator here even said he liked that stuff, in reference to Turkey.

[grb]

TaioF920 : "Why do you care so much about a non-American...."

1. I have no doubt a large percentage of those "disappeared" into a Central American gulag were members of Tren de Aragua.

2. But I also have no doubt a large percent weren't. Because this is the kind of incompetent half-ass stunt typical of all Trump's actions; because the "evidence" used to justify such a weighty move is often thin to the point of nothingness; and because press accounts have made clear multiple deportees weren't gangsters.

3. So Trump is unjustly destroying lives in a hellhole foreign prison as a cynical empty stunt.

4. So, yeah, I care. The question is why you don't, and you can see the reason at a rally Trump held yesterday. He showed a video of brown-skinned people in chains and the audience roared with cheers. I bet there were similar scene in Germany back in the late-30s, perhaps with Goebbels describing Jews deported to the Polish border. I bet the people cheering then didn't care whether that action was legally justified or not. I bet they never stopped their mindless "Heil Hitlers" to think about the lives destroyed either.

[shawn_dude]

.. because history shows that it won't remain limited to "non-Americans."

[Speaking for normal people]

That looks about 75% copied from elsewhere ...but let me tell you from the neighborhood "Folks esp those with kids support Pres completely" you have no kids, you have money, this is all just bar chatter for you.

[Michael P]

You really are a garbage person.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no fan of that juvenile nonsense either, but kinda hypocritical of you to call it out, eh?

[Michael P]

Only if you have trouble distinguishing between calling third parties juvenile names based on random personal attributes and making crude speculation about their intimate lives from criticizing people to their faces for behaving badly in direct response to that bad behavior.

In other words, it might seem that way to you, DMN and a few others, but not to normal people.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah crude juvinalia against public figures versus bast personal insults.

I do think there is a difference.

[Michael P]

"bast personal insults"

I have never called anyone a lying cat-faced pony soldier. Even if I had, the important differences are the relevance to the topic and the target's ability to see and respond.

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, Sarc, don’t you know that when Mike calls someone a not normal garbage person it’s (R)eally not the same!

[tylertusta]

Just wait until Mr. Guilty starts explaining that a female attorney's allegedly fake breasts are indicative that she's a liar and a bad attorney.

[not guilty]

Don't put words in my mouth, tylertusta. I never claimed that Ashleigh Merchant's suspicious gain in cup size indicates that she is a bad attorney, only that it evinced deception.

Her conduct regarding inducing Nathan Wade's former divorce attorney to breach confidences, though, indicates that she acted unethically while preparing and presenting her motion.

[tylertusta]

Oh, my bad! I apparently have a hard time remembering precisely the contours of your disgusting statements.

Her conduct regarding inducing Nathan Wade's former divorce attorney to breach confidences, though, indicates that she acted unethically while preparing and presenting her motion.

You're welcome to have your opinions, however wrong they may be.

It came out in the hearing that Bradley himself offered up information on Wade's dalliance with the district attorney, no inducement required. His literal last-minute turnabout in his testimony was due to him realizing that he could lose his law license and not due to anything Merchant did to him.

[David Nieporent]

only that it evinced deception.

Really, doubling (or in this case, quintupling) down on this does not make you look any better. You really should just drop this ludicrous line of argument.

[Bob from Ohio]

"evinced deception"

Like Harris's tinted hair?

Or Pelosi's face lifts?

Or using make up?

Your outrage at "deception" seems directed only at women you dislike.

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

>And, I suspect, Pam (Bottle) Blondie's domestic partner John Wakefield and Kristi Noem's husband Bryon Noem now have new orifices to play with when they make whoopee.

I'm surprised you didn't sprinkle in a "nigger this" or "nigger that" in there given one of them is racially impure.

[Malika the Maiz]

Of course, that sounds like what you’d write (and Mike would not clutch his pearls then, they’d be out for cleaning that day I guess).

[jb]

"And, I suspect, Pam (Bottle) Blondie's domestic partner John Wakefield and Kristi Noem's husband Bryon Noem now have new orifices to play with when they make whoopee."

That's gross. Don't be like that.

[not guilty]

It was a graphic metaphor calling attention to the scathing nature of the District Court's memorandum opinion and order.

Perhaps those two Defendants' menfolk will get some benefit here from the ass-reaming delivered by the judge. The women have not covered themselves in glory.

[jb]

Your point would probably land better without the misogyny.

[Jerry B.]

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioners Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia SHALL BE AND ARE RELEASED from federal immigration custody, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY."

Wanna bet they disappear into the illegal immigrant demimonde?

[Glaucomatose]

While it is true that a petitioner may generally bear the burden of proof in habeas proceedings in other contexts, this is not a typical habeas proceeding. These habeas proceedings encompass the ultimate question of whether removal from the United States is warranted under the AEA and the TdA Proclamation. It is well-established removal proceedings, unless otherwise modified by Congress, require the Government to establish its allegations by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence."

I'm not a habeas expert but find this interesting: while the court shows very clearly that the government lacks the proper evidence to remove the petitioners, I don't know how this extends to saying that the petitioners have satisfied the burden of proof for habeas corpus. In other words: bar on removal, yes, but requirement to release and reinstate TPS? Maybe someone here who practices in this area would know better; I wonder if those requirements will survive on appeal, particularly to the 5th.

[Zarniwoop]

The Court determined that gov’t’s evidence was utterly deficient on the TdA allegations, and also that their Temp Protected Status (TPS) meant the ICE was barred by statute from incarcerating them on any other INA basis during their appeals of TPS issues. I tried to see if the gov’t even tried to argue against that, but courtlistener shows the (late-filed) opposition as “unavailable on PACER”

[Zarniwoop]

TL,DR: the gov’t continues to FAFO when it comes to asserting AEA without actual evidence.

NG’s metaphor is crude, but wow the district court really does not pull its punches on the deficiencies of the gov’t’s case. The discussion of the gov’t’s evidentiary failures at pp.24-33 is pretty stunning to see in a judicial opinion. This judge is not happy.

“The Court would not accept this evidence even in a case where only nominal damages were at stake”
“shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony”
“Respondents don’t have it. It’s not here.” (emphasis in original)
“Like Petitioner Sanchez Garcia’s case, Petitioner Sanchez Puentes’ case is just as concerning, if not more, based on the admitted lack of any evidence whatsoever.” (emphasis in original)
“This Court takes clear offense to Respondents wasting judicial resources to admit to the Court that it has no evidence, yet seek to have this Court determine that Petitioner Sanchez Puentes is ‘guilty by association’. This Court found no need to even allow closing arguments as to Petitioner Sanchez Puentes at the April 23, 2025 Habeas Corpus Hearing.”

And then after expressing unambiguous displeasure at the gov’t, and “unpredictable and inconsistent” prior attempts to deport based on the AEA with 24hr notice … he entered an district wide order that the gov’t shall not deport based on the AEA without providing 21 days notice. He also ordered that such folks can’t be removed from W.D.Tx (presumably to prevent more Three Card Prisoner Monte by ICE). See pp.35-37.

[John F. Carr]

The order concludes with a district-wide anti-removal injunction. I think that is procedurally improper without a pending request for class certification.

As I read the judge's order I thought of the case of Rahina Ibrahim, who got on the no-fly list when an agent made a mistake filling out a badly designed form. The government doesn't really know why the petitioners in Texas are enemy aliens. The computer says they are. And the case of a search warrant for a Massachusetts woman's vagina issued after somebody heard a rumor on the street that she kept drugs in there.

[David Nieporent]

In one of the court cases the TdA gang evaluation form used by ICE was submitted. Basically, it's a point system, with targets getting points for tattoos, alleged TdA symbols on social media, being convicted of certain crimes, being arrested for certain crimes, committing certain crimes, self-identification, hanging out with TdA members, communicating or doing business with TdA members, witness testimony, cops claiming they're TdA members, etc.

If you score enough points, you are deemed a confirmed TdA member. But the threshold is pretty low, rely on the cops not making things up, and rely heavily on guilt by association.

[santamonica811]

That's really interesting. The idea that any of those actions (other than self-identification) could possibly result in "confirmed" TdA membership is bizarre. "Suspected" I'd understand. "Probable" even. But the English word "confirmed" has a meaning that we all understand. And an legal consequence.

Have there been cases where people on this "confirmed" list challenged it, and successfully were removed? I mean, simple probability tells us that there must be X examples of false positives based on error alone.

[Martinned2]

In Canada political parties that lose an election still have a leader, but it will be interesting to see whether Pierre Poilievre will be able to stay on as leader of the Conservatives. As far as I can tell the first civil wars have already broken out, and realistically he can't stay on unless someone gives him a safe seat pretty quickly.

[Kazinski]

If North Texas secedes it won't matter much.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/27/the-quiet-threat-to-canadian-unity-isnt-quebec-its-alberta-00311719K

"The Liberals’ fourth straight federal election win keeps Alberta and Ottawa on a collision course, raising the once unthinkable prospect of a referendum on the Prairie province’s separation from Canada."

[Martinned2]

Don't be silly. (That goes to you and to Politico both.)

[Kazinski]

Well the premier did just change the law to require only 10% of the voters in the last election to vote to sign petitions to schedule a vote on independence.

And the last time a province had a vote to secede was way back in 1995, so its hardly unprecedented.

Maybe the National Post needs to sober up too:

'Hockey and nostalgia' won't keep us together: Some Albertans say they're serious about separation after Liberal win
The Liberals' fourth straight federal election win keeps Alberta and Ottawa on a collision course

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/albertans-say-theyre-serious-about-separation-after-liberal-win

[Martinned2]

O, I'm sure "some Albertans" are serious about seceding, just like "some Texans" are. And I'm sure fiddling with the rules for a referendum (which won't be up to the premier, for the avoidance of doubt) is the sort of thing you can do ahead of a general election to improve your chances. But Alberta is not going to secede. For one thing, even in Alberta they hate Trump more than they hate the Liberal Party: https://edmonton.citynews.ca/video/2025/03/14/just-12-of-albertans-approve-of-trump-poll/

[Kazinski]

Its up to the provincial parliament, and they passed it and the premier signed it.

And what's Trump got to do with it?

The vote is for independence not statehood.

[Martinned2]

The vote is for independence not statehood.

Sure, Jan.

[Krayt]

Independence votes should be by some kind of supermajority. So, too, should joining a new org, like the EU.

Simple majority is not actually the voice of god, and is highly susceptible to the blowing winds of political passion, which is the one thing people with the one real superpower that exists are good at: charismatic demagogues.

In short, no, 51% of the people do not have any justified authority to drag the other 49% away from their current constitutional scheme, and its protections.

Political thugs love 51% because they can hide behind the vox populi vox dei sophistry as justification. While that may be ok for normal laws passed under a constitutional regime, the rules about passing those laws, the constitution, should get buy in from most people. If you can't get most people to agree on that, it probably shouldn't be in your constitution.

Leaving is the same level event as creating a constitution itself. Say no to weasels trying to fast track these things!

[tylertusta]

I agree that a simple majority is insufficient, especially if there is an embittered minority who vehemently opposes independence and/or admission into another nation's sovereignty.

Going by a simple majority (or even a plurality) is a recipe for terrorism, insurgency, civil war, or worse.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, problem with your advocacy is you seem to want to weight the decision scales toward minority rule. Can you ever reconcile yourself to a notion that a majority-supported power is at least a bit more legitimate than a minority-supported power? How would you feel if we divided out especially important political questions from the others, and then decreed a supermajority requirement for inaction on proposals for change? If that is not okay, why is it okay to turn it around, and hand a minority a veto power over change?

Beyond that looms the present reality that multiple minority-based protections can be leveraged to deliver even greater minority power than was designed into any one of them. A lot of the rule making which operates in the Senate creates that effect, simply because the Senate begins as a minority-protective institution in the first place. Thus, a need for a supermajority to deliver cloture on debate empowers an already-advantaged minority to exert power by an additional minority-advantaging lever. Too much of that and genuinely tiny minorities get handed outlandish power.

[Frank Drackman]

IIRC (Big "If") Quebec used to have a pretty strong Secession movement, of course they used to have a Major League Baseball team too before the Expos "seceded" to DC (by way of Puerto Rico), so it was a while back,
Remember crossing the border into Manitoba back in the 70's with all the signs in French and English, when you had more French speaking peoples in Mobile Alabama than the entire province of Manitoba.
but seems they realized they were better off being part of Amurica's Defacto 51st State than actually Independent

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quebec essentially seceded -- it's the only part of Canada that's NOT bilingual -- Quebec is French only, in open defiance of Canada's SCOTUS.

Quebec is also a net recipient of Federal money -- which the West supplies.

[Martinned]

Quebec [is] the only part of Canada that's NOT bilingual

Tell me you've never been to Canada without telling me you've never been to Canada. Seriously, have you ever tried speaking French in downtown Toronto? Or Vancouver?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was right -- the Spanish blackout was caused by their reliance on pixie dust and unicorn flatulance.

"Eduardo Prieto, head of operation services at Red Eléctrica, said two “disconnection events” occurred just a second apart shortly before Monday’s blackout. These took place in Extremadura, in southwestern Spain, a region with significant solar energy production.

“At 12:33, there was a very significant loss of electricity generation in Extremadura. The system managed to recover, but a second and a half later it failed again and didn’t recover,” Prieto said at a news conference. There is no indication the outage was caused by human error, he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cause-of-spain-power-outage-still-unclear-after-mass-blackout-travel-chaos/ar-AA1DRkM3

[Martinned2]

Oh, if the guy from the grid company says that the grid company didn't screw up, that's alright then. Maybe the grid company should build some more interconnectors with France (and Italy), so that the system can better respond to temporary local imbalances.

https://elpais.com/economia/2025-04-30/la-interconexion-entre-francia-y-la-peninsula-iberica-el-talon-de-aquiles-eterno-de-la-red-electrica-espanola.html

[Kazinski]

Well on April 16 Spain went 100% renewable for the first time ever on a weekday, so that gives you an idea of how dependent Spain is on renewables.

Then 9 days later they have an unprecedented 10 hour nationwide blackout?

Must be completely unrelated.

https://x.com/Gabby_Hoffman/status/1916860832878645552

[Martinned2]

For one thing, I'm not sure what the status of the system 9 days before is supposed to prove.

Secondly, the increase in the use of renewables isn't some sudden surprise. It is literally the job of the grid company to build and maintain a grid that can deal with the increased use of renewables. And if they screw that up, that's on them.

[Kazinski]

Well then think about it for a while, do I have to explain everything?

But its just a fact that its harder to stabilize the grid when renewables are a major component. The politicians pass a law saying the grid operator has to prioritize renewables, then the grid operator gets blamed for incompetence when the grid fails.

[Martinned2]

The politicians pass a law saying the grid operator has to prioritize renewables

Did they?

[Michael P]

https://thecorner.eu/news-spain/spain-economy/spain-approves-its-first-climate-change-law-at-least-74-renewable-electricity-production-by-2030/94869/

[Martinned2]

Where does that say that the grid operator has to [unreasonably] prioritise renewables?

It's the job of the grid operators to build and maintain a grid that can connect everything that needs connecting. The fact that the energy mix changes is irrelevant to that general duty. The question is whether policymakers put unreasonable requirements on the grid operator, i.e. an obligation to connect more power stations than it was capable of connecting, or at least more than it was capable of connecting given the resources at its disposal.

A general statute favouring renewables isn't remotely the same thing.

[Joe_dallas]

Everyone agrees that it is the job of the grid operator to insure the grid maintains reliability.

Its the use of renewables, especially at high penetrations, that make maintaining reliability much more difficult.

[Martinned]

True, which is why typically the grid company gets funded extra to increase the capacity of various things, build more interconnectors, etc.

In many European countries the system operator and/or grid company has tenders for reserve capacity, which result in power stations being paid to provide additional generation capacity for use in case of supply problems.

None of that is an insurmountable problem, and there is no reason to skip right past the possibility of Red Eléctrica screwing up.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 37 minutes ago
"None of that is an insurmountable problem, and there is no reason to skip right past the possibility of Red Eléctrica screwing up."

martin -
You are falling for many of the fallacies promoted by renewable advocates. LCOE is a prime example of the distortions made by renewable advocates. LCOE computation claims renewable generation costs are less than fossil fuel generation costs, yet the cost of intermediacy and stability are borne by the fossil fuel plants. As renewable penetration goes higher, the ability to maintain stability is lost because sources providing stability is significantly reduced. Its at least a few decades off before techologly and engineering develop to a point stability can be maintained in a high renewable grid.

[Kazinski]

Why does it need more interconnections?

To be able to get access to base load power sources using Nuclear, or coal or natural gas.

This Net Zero mess is the main reason European electricity prices are about double what they are in the US. .33 cents per KWH v 15.9.

Net Zero is dead in the US, and its what I voted for.

[Martinned]

@Kaz: I'm sure the Russian invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with those electricity prices...

[Michael P]

Just have a district court order the sun to rise in the east, too. Hold Howard Lutnick in contempt because NOAA doesn't implement the order.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you think the Spanish utilities gave up on reliable power plants that were already built and running voluntarily?

You saw this in Germany, too: Spending money to demolish working plants in order to make reconsidering the decision to shut them down impossible.

[Martinned2]

What does that have to do with the grid?

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, I get it: You just don't want to admit that shutting down reliable sources in favor of unreliable sources is bad for grid stability. Carry on, I won't waste your time further.

[Martinned]

Do you mind if I insist that maintaining grid stability is the job of the grid company (or, if that's a separate entity, the system operator) and that if there is a problem with the grid I'm allowed to start by blaming the people who get paid to maintain the grid?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, so long as you understand that the government might not be letting them do what is necessary to accomplish that.

It's all very well and good to say to the grid operators, "Your job was to keep it stable.", but you have to allow them to do their job, not hit them with mandates that make sure it can't be done.

[Martinned]

@Brett: Yes, that's what I was saying.

[Voize of Reazon]

This reminds me of ERCOT and wind turbines being blamed for the Texas power crisis in 2021 when the real culprit was widespread failure of unwinterized natural gas turbine generators and the state's prohibition on increasing connectivity to out-of-state grids (because that would lead to increased federal regulation under the Federal Power Act). When generation began to fail the grid operator pushed the only button they had to push, shedding load to keep the grid from collapsing completely, but they got blamed anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

" when the real culprit was widespread failure of unwinterized natural gas turbine generators"

Not so much the generators themselves, as the system for supplying them with gas, such as pressure boosters, which couldn't handle supplying the generators AND heating needs at the same time.

You can't say that the wind and solar caused the actual blackout, because by the time the actual blackout happened they had already effectively gone away, and the natural gas generators were the last thing keeping the system going since baseline plants had already been largely eliminated from the Texas grid in years past. The nuke plants kept plugging along just fine, but there weren't enough of them to matter.

The real problem, as I've related, was an electricity market that made it impossible to spend any money on making power reliable, because the grid was mandated to buy whatever was cheapest at any given instant, and spending money on weatherizing equipment made your generator too expensive to be able to sell the power.

But, why was that crazy electricity market adopted? It was adopted to get the wind and solar into the grid, because the grid operators would never have bought power that undependable if they'd had any choice. And then the need for something that was actually reliable and which could be turned on and off fast to make up for the 'renewable' energy fluctuations pushed them into heavy reliance on natural gas turbines.

But the gas turbines system couldn't be properly weatherized because it would raise their cost too much, and then their power couldn't be sold to make back the investment.

It was an insane system, and it really had been adopted to pave the way for solar and wind. But, yeah, it wasn't the solar and wind going away that caused the blackout, they were just the reason the rest of the system wasn't permitted to be robust.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"What does that have to do with the grid?"

Are you being serious with that inane question?
Power generation plants are the single biggest component of the "grid".

[Martinned]

No, they are not. Power stations are *attached to* the grid, they are not part of the grid.

[Joe_dallas]

martin -

from AI
Yes, power stations are an integral part of the national grid. The national grid is a network of infrastructure, including power stations, transmission lines, and substations, that delivers electricity from generation sources to consumers.

[Joe_dallas]

wikipedia
"An electrical grid (or electricity network) is an interconnected network for electricity delivery from producers to consumers. Electrical grids consist of power stations, electrical substations to step voltage up or down, electric power transmission to carry power over long distances, and finally electric power distribution to customers.

[Kazinski]

That's like saying reservoirs aren't part of the water distribution system.

The gas tank isn't part part of the fuel system.

The farm isn't part of the food distribution system.

Its really hard to take you seriously sometimes.

I actually have some professional experience in the subject having worked for a couple of major utilities, and I can assure you that monitoring power inputs into the system is and integral part of the grid operators responsibility. Not only the power sources he Grid operator has control over but whatever sources are available, the real time priceing, and how long it would take to bring them online, and that's the biggest part of the job.

[Martinned]

@Joe_Dallas: That should tell you not to rely on Wikipedia without questioning.

The first sentence you quote is right. An electrical grid (or electricity network) is an interconnected network for electricity delivery from producers to consumers. The things you attach to the grid, like power stations or my laptop, are not part of the grid.

In Europe, where we have competition for these sorts of things, electricity retailers compete by buying electricity from power generators who compete to supply it as cheaply as possible. There is competition at the power generation level, and at the retail level. The one thing that isn't competitive, because it's a natural monopoly, is the grid that sits between the power stations and the consumer. (And, if it's a separate function, the system operator.)

[Joe_dallas]

Martin 's comment - "The things you attach to the grid, like power stations or my laptop, are not part of the grid."

Martin - you have had 2 or 3 other correct you on your misconception. Are you still going with that?

[Martinned]

@joe_dallas: Yes, I'm going to invoke my years of doing European utility regulation for a living as a reason to insist random people on the internet are wrong about a question of utility regulation in Europe.

[Joe_dallas]

martin - your commentary doesnt display the expertise you claim to possess.

[Martinned]

@Joe_dallas: It's always unfortunate when a client isn't satisfied with my expertise. Feel free to submit a request for a refund, because of course I'd be happy to repay you all the sums of money you paid for my expertise.

[Joe_dallas]

martin - judging from your commentary - your were paid the value of your expertise - zero

[Joe_dallas]

Martin - your flippant responses to several internet commentators on the relationship of grid stability and renewable penetration shows that many random people have a better grasp on the issues.

[Kazinski]

I can see why Martinned and Sarcastro are confused, Reuters seems to be confused too:

Reuters: "Don’t blame renewables for Spain’s power outage"

The 2nd sentence: "the issue appears to be the management of renewables in the modern grid."

So evidently renewables are not the problem, as long as you don't connect them to the grid.

https://x.com/SteveGuest/status/1917655435240161627

[Martinned]

...as long as you don't connect them to a grid that hasn't been properly set up to literally do its one job.

[Sarcastr0]

And now you're back to rock-solid causality.

You don't get to push a strong thesis and then when pushed switch to one caveated and easier to support.

Well you do, but then everyone sees you don't much care about fidelity of your argument, you just want to shit on people.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like loading the aircraft with anvils and defective lithium batteries, and then when it crashes saying the pilot had one job: To keep the plane in the air, and you'll blame him for not doing that one job.

And don't care one bit about the anvils and defective batteries.

Do you not grasp that you can give somebody one job, AND make it impossible to DO that job?

[Sarcastr0]

Using an analogy to move from risk factors to certainty is just slight of hand thesis shifting.

[Martinned]

@Brett: Well yes, if a pilot loads too much weight on his plane and then crashes, that's very much the pilot's fault. Pilots are not supposed to take off with more weight than the plane can handle, and it's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

The difference here is that the grid operators were not given any CHOICE about accepting unreliable power sources. They were MANDATED to accept them.

[Sarcastr0]

You set up a scenario where the plane is for sure going to crash, and it's for sure due to the extra weight.

That is a bad analogy.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's actually a perfect analogy for what happened. The government constructively mandated the electric grid being unstable.

[Martinned]

@Brett: First of all, there is no general obligation for grid companies to have to connect anything and everything that wants a connection. Grid companies are allowed (as far as I know based on other jurisdictions than Spain) to refuse to make a connection when that's necessary for the security of supply/resilience of the network.

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/wholesale-energy-market/electricity-network-codes-and-guidelines_en

Secondly, even if there is an obligation to connect, there is no obligation to connect with a specific network. As Sarcastr0 points out, the whole job of the grid company is to constantly upgrade the network so that it can handle the demands society places on it, and ordinarily the relevant authorities should make sure that the grid company has the resources to do that. If the price controls were set too low, you're welcome to make that argument. But so far there's no evidence that they were.

[Mr. Bumble]

An explanation here:
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/did-over-reliance-on-solar-and-lack

[Sarcastr0]

You have done no work to show an actual relation, Kaz.

[Kazinski]

Sure I did, on Monday. You are responsible for previous material.

"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

[Sarcastr0]

That, needless to say, doesn't establish anything.

It has quotes from people saying 'yeah, sure, could be!' People being from energy consulting groups and the fucking Reform Party.

If you're going to put out a hard-and-fast thesis like 'A caused Y' you need to do better than that.

Same author, same publication:
What caused power outages in Spain and Portugal?

Embrace uncertainty.

[Kazinski]

"Embrace uncertainty."

I think you are beginning to understand what solar and wind do to the grid.

Hydro, Nat gas and nuclear and coal are putting out power in steady amounts controlled by the plant operator.

Wind can vary moment by moment with gusts and lulls, solar depending on the day can be pretty reliable, but imagine what happens when its 25-30% cloudy and a front is moving through you can have entire solar fields blocked, then exposed in a matter of minutes and have it happen at random to solar installations across a wide area.

[Sarcastr0]

You have already stepped back from your thesis of 3 hours ago, I see.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe you just didn't understand it in the first place.

[Kazinski]

Didn't step back from anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Well on April 16 Spain went 100% renewable for the first time ever on a weekday, so that gives you an idea of how dependent Spain is on renewables.
Then 9 days later they have an unprecedented 10 hour nationwide blackout?
Must be completely unrelated.

That's pretty rock-solid on cause.

But when pushed suddenly it's all 'can be' and 'can have' and 'uncertain.'

That's a walk-back.

[jb]

So far it still all seems like speculation.

What's the theory, that there was an unexpected solar eclipse in Extremadura? I get that (some forms of) renewables can be less reliable than fossil fuels, but that's going to show up in big trend lines, not in a sudden loss of power and then another one a second and a half later. The sun doesn't just abruptly turn on and off.

[Brett Bellmore]

The theory is that while the major power plants have had all the stability problems worked out, and are generally putting out very consistent amounts of power to begin with, the 'renewable' sources are both putting out highly random amounts of power at a huge number of sites, AND the systems for regulating that power output have not been stress tested in the real world.

So, you get a day when 'renewable' output is high enough to cover all demand, and the very reliable plants get shut down, the system goes unstable, because the regulation at all those distributed sites isn't up to maintaining grid stability at that high a level of penetration.

Now, over time you might improve those regulation systems, but you can't do squat about the fact that neither sunlight nor wind is 'dispatchable', so a 'renewable' based grid is always going to start out with more cause for instability than a conventional grid, and the task of keeping it going will always be harder.

[shawn_dude]

Whose theory is that?

The output of wind and sun in any given location on the planet is known. The output of any given turbine or solar panel manufactured today is known. We even know how much dust, dirt, rain, and clouds impact them. And, we are pretty good at predicting weather events that impact these things. Further, we're great at predicting demand. Given that, we can engineer renewable power plants such that their limitations are compensated for. This is an established field of engineering with established and time-tested methods. We've been managing solar power plants in the US since 1982. Your narrative about "stress testing" is just bogus.

In the 2021 Texas power crisis, the primary source of power failure was the failure to winterize natural gas lines which resulted in them freezing solid and preventing the NG power plants from functioning. This is your example of "stability problems being worked out?" Or can we agree that this is an example of a failure to properly engineer a system for foreseeable events?

Whatever caused the issue in Spain, it is unlikely that it had anything to do with unreliable technology and more likely it had to do with human error.

[Brett Bellmore]

My theory, obviously.

"The output of wind and sun in any given location on the planet is known."

No unavoidable offense intended, but are you that stupid? Seriously, are you?

And you immediately claw it back: "And, we are pretty good at predicting weather events that impact these things."

Sure, as a statistical matter, not in specific detail. You can say something like, "Tomorrow that solar farm will vary between 90% and 10% of full output, but we can't really say which any given minute will produce, and don't ask us about next week." You can say, "In the month of May that windmill will on average produce X KW, but at any given moment may be producing anywhere between 2X and zero."

That's not reliability! That's having statistics describing the unreliability. You still can't use a source like that, by itself, to produce a reliable system. You need to supplement it with either reliable sources that spend a lot of time idle, or huge quantities of storage.

In the case of wind, basically no feasible amount of storage would be enough. The Sun at least rises every day, so that you could get by with about 12 hours of storage and over-building capacity by a factor of maybe eight to ten, so you could deal with gloomy winters while still recharging the batteries to bridge the nights. But is solar ever costed out on this basis? NO. It's either assumed that it gets to free ride on conventional power providing backup, or you just tacitly assume there will be frequent blackouts.

Yes, we know that solar can be useful, at a few percent of the grid, because it happens to show up about the same time as peak demand, and so reduces overall demand for peaking power. A few percent. That doesn't make it a sound basis for 100%!

Now, Texas:

Texas had, and to some extent still has, a VERY badly designed energy market, mandated by law: The grid operators were MANDATED to buy whatever power was cheapest at any given moment, without regard to virtues like reliability or dispatchability.

So, the clouds open and full sun hits that solar farm, you have to stop buying the output of that conventional plant that's just a little more expensive, that has a 98% recorded uptime with the 2% being maintenance scheduled months in advance, and which can't be shut down in a matter of seconds, so they have to go on producing power and dump it.

This is a recipe for making it economically impossible to spend money on reliability.

So, what did they have? They had subsidized solar and windmills, they had coal plants skimping on maintenance, and they had natural gas turbines which could compete because they could be started and stopped really fast. And they had old coal plants that were skimping on maintenance because if they did the maintenance they might be reliable as hell, but they wouldn't sell any power due to being a couple more percent more expensive.

And the natural gas turbines might have been a fine choice, were it not that demand for their power coincided with demand for natural gas heating, overloading the gas distribution system.

So, yes, Texas does demonstrate something: That you can screw up a grid with stupid regulations.

[jb]

At minimum, the Texas situation is a good example of how folks who don't like renewables just instinctively blamed them for the problems when the reality was that fossil fuels were more of the problem, or at the very least there was a much more complex explanation as you lay out.

So I'm going to hold off jumping to conclusions on the Spain/Portugal situation while folks try to speculate their way to blaming the thing they already don't like.

[shawn_dude]

Meh, being called "stupid" by you has zero sting.

Coal has storage. Nuclear fuel has storage. Natural gas has storage. All three store an anticipated amount of fuel based on seasonal averages and weather reports. Because, get this, extreme weather results in increased power consumptions. Hydro dams are, by definition, storage. And when Lake Mead was drying up and Boulder Dam was at risk of failing, that was because extreme weather events reduced its stored energy. You overlook the reliability of other power sources in order to advance your argument against two power sources with one of the lowest LCOE costs.

You are literally tilting at windmills.

[Joe_dallas]

Shaun
You stated - "You overlook the reliability of other power sources in order to advance your argument against two power sources with one of the lowest LCOE costs."

Claiming wind and solar have the lowest costs based on LCOE - is a sure sign the person making those statements simply doesnt have a clue what they are talking about. LCOE is not used in the industry because it only includes the cost of generation and limited distribution costs.

[Joe_dallas]

Shawn -
Your description of the cause of the Feb 2021 texas freeze fiasco is missing a key element which was The WHY of why they the plants werent sufficiently winterized.
As Brett notes, the pricing structure of the electricity purchases diverted funds from proper maintenance.

What is also missing from your description and the advocates talking points is how wind and solar proved they are not a solution during the feb 2021 freeze. See the EIA grid monitor for historical details.
Electric generation from fossil fuels lost about 40% during approx 30 hours and approx 20% for another 30 hours (approx 2.5 days). Fortunately this loss in electric generation was limited to ERCOT.

However electric generation from wind lost approx 60% -70% for 8-9 days across the entire north american continent.
There is a big difference in a loss of 40% for 30 hours which was limited to one state vs a loss of 60-70% for 8-9 days across the entire north american continent.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here are some graphs for the situation in Texas. As you can see from them, if they'd been relying on nuclear, it would have been just another day.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48

Here is source data showing how poorly renewables performed during the Feb 2021 freeze across the continental US. (you will have to select the time period)

The source data also highlights why the advocates talking points as stated by Shawn are very dubious

[Kazinski]

"Given that, we can engineer renewable power plants such that their limitations are compensated for."

No we can't, that requires grid scale battery systems which aren't feasible. Not only that but even the feeble attempts at it in Australia and California are woefully insufficient, incredibly expensive and prone to huge toxic fires.

"After Moss Landing, what's next for battery storage?
Feb 28, 2025 — The fire that destroyed a 300-MW battery installation is a “learning opportunity” for a safety-conscious industry, experts say
http

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/moss-landing-fire-battery-storage-industry-lithium/741283

And Tesla lithium battery fire hits 'landmark' Queensland energy project, sparking political debate
Sep 27, 2023 — A Tesla battery fire at one of Queensland's first large-scale battery storage sites could burn for days, as authorities warn nearby residents to stay indoors

And in South Australia too, but I am out of links.

[jb]

Sure, those factors make it possible that renewables had something to do with it, but it seems wildly speculative to conclude that renewables were the root cause here--and to the extent we have evidence, it doesn't seem to match what I'd expect to see from a failure caused by renewables vs. fossil fuels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, really?
Ever hear of "clouds"?

[Michael P]

https://apnews.com/article/spain-power-outage-france-portugal-europe-grid-electricity-f091ffd3e51dfd3612edb2389eac1e11 says:

Around noon, there was a big jump in the magnitude of the fluctuations, with the voltage measured going up and down by about 15 volts every 1.5 seconds, Marshall said.

“The way I would interpret our data,” Marshall said about Monday’s events, “is that the grid is struggling. Something’s wrong. And it’s showing increasing signs of instability.”

That doesn't by itself mean the instability was due to renewables, but traditional power plants usually have much more inertia than would allow large, short-term swings like that.

[Sarcastr0]

Miles better than Kaz. This is a factual statement, properly caveated.

Thanks.

[Martinned2]

Let's start at the beginning: Do you understand how alternating current works?

[Michael P]

I mostly move paper around now (as a system engineer), but my first degree was in electrical engineering. In context, it is obvious that the system mentioned measures RMS (or less likely peak or peak-to-peak) voltage. In Europe, the standard for a single phase of AC is 230 V at 50 Hz, so the instantaneous voltage referenced to ground normally swings by 650 V (230 V*2*sqrt(2)) every 20 milliseconds. But that's not what the system was reporting or the guy was talking about.

[Brett Bellmore]

Amusingly, if you plot the amount of current necessary to cause a heart attack vs frequency, 60 hz is the frequency that most efficiently stops your heart. Learned that back in one of my bio-safety classes, back in the late 70's. Too bad it's a bit late to switch to a safer standard.

[Dillinger]

220 221 whatever it takes.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not the voltage, it's the frequency: Right around 50-60 Hertz is the exact frequency where alternating current is really good at causing your heart to stop. Also good, (For roughly the same reasons.) at causing your muscles to seize up so that you can't let go of that wire that's electrocuting you.

But though knowing that you might have made home wiring a lot safer if it ran at 600 Hz does us no good, when literally all the infrastructure is designed around 50 or 60 Hz.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a credible argument today for interior use of low voltage DC.

[Martinned]

Somehow the system keeps eating my reply to this comment (under either username).

[Martinned]

I wonder what it is about my longer comment that causes that 403 error.

[Martinned]

Am I not allowed to talk about 50 Hz and 49 Hz?

[Martinned]

Weird.

[Brett Bellmore]

Occasionally Reason's comment system does that to me, too.

[shawn_dude]

I get 403 errors on short and long comments. It's likely a software issue, possibly at the server level.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd think so, since it IS a server error.

[shawn_dude]

It's a server error code but it could be caused by something other than the server itself. Just the other day, I got one of these on a system I maintain and the culprit was my browser cache not passing on the correct session information to the server. The server barfed out a 403 but the fault was actually with the client.

I've written CMS' from scratch. Reason's code seems particularly fragile to me.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Reason's code seems particularly fragile to me."
As are many of the commenters.

[Kazinski]

Maybe EV has put in an AI filter that screens for nonsense.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Somehow the system keeps eating my reply "

The commenting system is just embarrassed for you after Michael's response to you. Be glad.

[Martinned]

I asked a question, and got an uncharacteristically coherent answer. Why would you think that is embarrassing for anyone?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Michael, you do know that we're talking 3 phase here....

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you understand how alternating current works?"

"first degree was in electrical engineering"

Michael from the high rope!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Incandescent lamps would have absorbed a 15 volt swing by using more when voltage increased.

[Michael P]

Most transformers are designed for that kind of variation in supply voltage, too, but the instability was almost certainly induced by supply rather than demand -- for example, a feedback loop where power plants stepped down or switched off their output in response to swings in (something) but did so synchronously enough that they instead contributed to a swing in the opposite direction. Think of soldiers breaking stride when crossing a bridge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or a thunderstorm arrived...

[Frank Drackman]

by "renewable" do you mean Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas?
Because unless you're one of those barefoot "Creationists" who believe Jay-Hay created them all during the first week, they're still being "renewed".

[Brett Bellmore]

Nuclear certainly ought to be considered "renewable", because the supply of fuel is likely to run out only after plate tectonics shuts down on Earth; As long as the crust is moving about, and mountains are being eroded into the sea, the sea will have more than enough fissile material in it to power everything we need on Earth.

Extraction of fission fuel from the sea has already been proven at a commercially viable efficiency, you should not expect any increase in surface mining of Uranium at this point, even if we go sane and do a major build-out of nuclear power.

Oh, and since plate tectonics isn't expected to shut down until after the Sun moves off the main sequence, and consumes the Earth, photovoltaics won't be very useful at that point, either.

[shawn_dude]

This doesn't necessarily work. Within geological timespans, yes, but humans and human-engineered nuclear facilities don't operate within that timeframe. For practical purposes, fissionable material is a fixed quantity on the planet. The amount we can mine is limited even further, just as it is with oil and everything else. And while it is possible to recycle the waste, it's not practical for a number of reasons.

I Googled uranium extraction from seawater and could not find anything to confirm your claim that it has been proven commercially viable. The articles describing the new methods were only dated 2023 which would be an amazing leap to go from "we can show that extraction is theoretically possible" to "commercial viability" in just two years. But if you have a reliable source, I'm interested.

Um... photovoltaics will be "useful" for as long as the sun radiates. Solar panels operate better in space anyway. Plate tectonics, OTOH, don't work without a planet.

[Brett Bellmore]

We actually showed that it was theoretically possible years ago. What happened in '23 was that it was demonstrated to be possible at costs competitive with mining. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't need some time to ramp up production.

The oceans contain about 4.5 billion tons of Uranium, and if that was all that was ever going to be in there, we'd eventually run out. It would take a long while at 100KT per year, though.

But we wouldn't run out, because more is being added by erosion of land all the time, faster than we'd be using it. The reason it runs out after plate tectonics stops is that we stop getting new mountains to erode away, and after a billion years or so the old ones stop contributing.

And the waste recycling is perfectly feasible, the obstacles are political. Basically they derive from the same people promoting 'renewable' energy trying to kill off nuclear by mandating that the wastes not be reprocessed so that they'll pile up and choke the system. Same reason they decided that the nuclear power plants pay for Yucca Flats, and then refused to build it.

"Um... photovoltaics will be "useful" for as long as the sun radiates. Solar panels operate better in space anyway. Plate tectonics, OTOH, don't work without a planet."

Oh, yeah, obviously I meant on Earth.

[shawn_dude]

Having worked in the nuclear field related to waste for over a decade, I know a bit more about this than most. There are two aspects to this decision, financial and political. Financially, recycling fuel rods is difficult, dangerous, and more expensive than just getting new fuel. So if we set aside any political considerations, this is not something a power plant owner operating in a free market would want to do. For the political reasons, it's less to do with some great conspiracy theory, as you suggest, but because one of the byproducts of recycling is plutonium which creates additional risks once it's separated from the old fuel rods.

Also, it's not "Yucca Flats" but "Yucca Mountain" and the Obama administration killed it as a political trade with Nevada Senator Reid to gain his support. Sen Reid, like most Nevada politicians at the time, was anti-Yucca Mountain because his constituency was anti-Yucca Mountain. The state was angry that the Feds had simply declared Nevada the waste dump without completing any sort of reasonable study on the suitability of other locations in other states. (Certainly a NIMBY sort of thing, too.) Nevadans were united against it. They just didn't want all that toxic waste traveling through their cities and being dumped in the desert.

I've actually been to Yucca Mountain and stood in the tunnel (when it was only about 100 feet deep.) There was a lot of interesting science going on there that covered everything from biology (what happens when the ground warms up) and linguistics (how to we warn future people about digging here) and even tectonics (Ghost Dancer fault.)

You've got all the conspiracy stuff surrounding Yucca Mountain down pat, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the meantime the waste just keeps on accumulating at sites all over the country and still no decision on how to handle it.

[Kazinski]

I think Thorium is much more feasible than uranium sea water extraction, from Wikipedia:

Thorium-based nuclear power generation is fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium. A thorium fuel cycle can offer several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle[Note 1]—including the much greater abundance of thorium found on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production. One advantage of thorium fuel is its low weaponization potential. It is difficult to weaponize the uranium-233 that is bred in the reactor. Plutonium-239 is produced at much lower levels and can be consumed in thorium reactors.

The feasibility of using thorium was demonstrated at a large scale, at the scale of a commercial power plant, through the design, construction and successful operation of the thorium-based Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) core installed at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station.[1] The reactor of this power plant was designed to accommodate different cores. The thorium core was rated at 60 MW(e), produced power from 1977 through 1982 (producing over 2.1 billion kilowatt hours of electricity) and converted enough thorium-232 into uranium-233 to achieve a 1.014 breeding ratio.

Between 1999 and 2022, the number of operational thorium reactors in the world has risen from zero to a handful of research reactors, to commercial plans for producing full-scale thorium-based reactors for use as power plants on a national scale."

[hobie]

I toured southwest Spain (Gibraltar area) and it was, in my opinion, the armpit of Europe - completely trashy compared to the rest of Spain (but that topic is for another day). Anyway, down there they have plenty of sustained wind and there are a sea of wind turbines as far as the eye can see, all chugging away. Quite impressive

[Frank Drackman]

Is there any place you don't criticize? My experience in Spain was limited to Rota, but the beautiful women were worth the stench of the Spanish Men (that came out wrong, I mean they had BO) Walked around with a constant boner. (Stealing from Rodney Dangerfield) You'd see this great ass walking down the street, follow it, and find it it's a 75 yr old Granny! (In Rodney's version it's a guy)
and besides, Daniel says it's the best place he's ever seen, and I'll take (Sir) Elton's word over yours any day.
Oh, that "Armpit" smell? the Rat smells his own cheese first

[David Nieporent]

So there's an article that says the cause is "still unclear," and Dr. Ed assumes that means his expertise on Maine history gives him insight into the cause?

[Malika the Maiz]

At least it wasn’t from Ed’s documentary on Maine Justice:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qPkzXvpS8

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

Now if you were talking Nova Scotia Justice, maybe...

[SRG2]

What Dr Ed is really saying: "those foreigners screwed up, that proves that we're #1! Go team!"

What an insecure little fuckwit he is.

[shawn_dude]

Texas says "hold my beer, Y'all!"

[Kazinski]

Well Trump is going to make sure we aren't going to fuck up our energy supply, and he is shutting down wind for at least 4 years.

That should be plenty enough time for that bubble to pop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Ed really is saying is that the Ecofreaks fucked up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm relieved I voted third party this time around rather than for Trump, who I feared would sell out the unborn and ignore the national debt.

Now he's up to other bad stuff which is not only wrong in itself, but might prompt swing voters, in frustration, to hand the country back to the Democrats, thus punishing the United States for Trump's actions.

If there were a way to arrange a peaceful retirement for Trump (I hear Saint Helena is nice at this time of year), then tribunes like J. D. Vance could step up to defend Trump's *legitimate* issues while avoiding his caudillo-like behavior.

Or everyone could just vote Democrat and then find out why they opposed progressive rule in the first place.

Or in other words, I'm not putting my trust in princes.

[Martinned2]

That's one of the many flaws of the US system. In parliamentary systems a leader who is simply unsuited for the job (Liz Truss) or who has lived past their best by date (Trudeau) can be removed at any time. In the US you're stuck with them for years more.

[Speaking for normal people]

Trudeau was around for many years when US would have canned his ass Do you really defend 10 years of the guy in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCY4K9P8ZY

AN UTTER FOOL...10 years !!!

[Frank Drackman]

Sleepy Joe could have been "removed" at any time, it just took a Debate to do it

[Brett Bellmore]

"If there were a way to arrange a peaceful retirement for Trump"

If Democrats had cut out the lawfare against him, he might very well have retired. Instead they made it clear the only way he wasn't going to end impoverished and in prison was if he was reelected President.

[Martinned2]

Yes, isn't it terrible that the (criminal) justice system so inconvenienced Trump that he had no choice but to run for President and make himself immune? Of course, in any proper democracy being elected wouldn't have insulated him from the legal consequences of his actions, but I guess that ship has sailed in the US some time ago.

[Frank Drackman]

July 13, 2024 must have been a horrible day for you, but not for the reason it was a horrible day for most people. When did you realize Kums-a-lot wasn't going to be "47"??

[Kazinski]

The US and India have finalized the framework for a trade deal on April 21. A key component is allowing India access to US natural gas:

"Posing a strategic vulnerability is India’s reliance on imported energy, which includes over 85% of its crude oil and roughly 50% of its natural gas. The government looks to more than double natural gas’s share of the energy mix to 15% by 2030. U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) suppliers have surpassed the United Arab Emirates to become India’s second-largest LNG supplier, trailing only Qatar.

A key player in this unfolding saga is GAIL, Limited, India’s state-owned natural gas company. On April 11, GAIL issued a tender to procure 1 million metric tons per annum of LNG from an existing or new U.S. LNG liquefaction project, with operations commencing by 2030. The agreement, potentially extendable by 5 to 10 years, signals India’s commitment to U.S. supplies.

GAIL had to stall a similar process in 2023 to buy a stake in a U.S. LNG plant after then-President Joe Biden banned export permits for LNG projects. It took the Trump administration’s return to the White House in 2024 to lift the ban."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/29/india-us-deal-signals-energy-sovereignty-and-climate-cults-demise/

[Martinned2]

Is the framework for a trade deal the same thing as a trade deal? If not, when might we expect the actual trade deal? And when will anything actually come into effect? And will this be a US Senate-approved treaty?

[Dr. Ed 2]

We'd best put something about peace with Pakistan in there.

[Martinned2]

Meanwhile, the US business community learned yesterday that ultimately it doesn't matter how much money you pay Trump, he will still not accept anything other than 100% subservience.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/29/business/white-house-calls-report-that-amazon-is-adding-a-tariff-charge-a-hostile-action/index.html

[Kazinski]

I heard it was one sub-site on Amazon that had broached the idea, but no firm plans.

Of course Amazon as a whole would never breakout tariffs as a separate component of the price, it would make no sense whatsoever.

It would tell customers and competitors both of Amazon and its sub sellers and vendors, exactly what the wholesale cost of items are, and their gross margins.

Nobody does that, so it was a bullshit claim anyway.

[Martinned2]

It would tell customers and competitors both of Amazon and its sub sellers and vendors, exactly what the wholesale cost of items are, and their gross margins.

Could you walk me through how it would do that? How is this idea different from US shops that show prices without the sales tax already added?

[Kazinski]

That's easy. Tariffs are based on the cost the importer pays for the item, and of course the tariff schedules are published.

So if I'm buying a Black and Decker blender for 60$ on Amazon, and the cost attributed to the tariff is $12.50, then I know that Black and Decker paid 10$ for the blender, because the tariff is 125% of the price the importer paid. The rest is taxes, distribution, sales and marketing overhead and net profit.

Gross profit is defined as the sales price - cost of goods sold.

[Martinned2]

That assumes that Amazon is the relevant importer, which makes sense when Amazon acts as the seller, but less so when you're buying your blender on Amazon Marketplace. In a lot of situations you, the consumer, might be the importer, and the tariff gets calculated based on the non-tariff price you agreed to pay.

[shawn_dude]

When you order a foreign product from Amazon, you are the importer and you pay the tariff/import tax. When a US company orders from a foreign company and then resells via Amazon, they are the importer and they pay the import tax. That US company may perform some other value-added process on the item or not but they certainly incorporate their own fixed and variables costs as part of their pricing process so the Amazon price cannot give you much information on tariff impacts. Especially since Amazon won't know about the tariff/tax components of items sold from US companies and therefore cannot display them to their buyers.

What Amazon can show are the taxes, as it does not for sales tax. So if I import a widget from China, I can see the tariff/import tax amount I'm paying as part of that deal. In no way does that tell me anything about the cost of production.

[Kazinski]

That's a tiny minority of what Amazon sells, and that is what Amazon Hauls is for.

Anything you are buying from Amazon that you get in a week or less you are not the importer.

[Martinned]

That will be news to HMRC who charged me import tax on the computer screen I ordered on Amazon from the US, which arrived in 5 or 6 days.

[Kazinski]

Well I can't say what's happening with Amazon in Europe, I was talking about China to US.

I thought you weren't in the UK anymore, is this recently?

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding is that they were doing this only for a side thing Amazon runs where you can direct order from another country without Amazon handling the transaction.

So they HAD TO inform the customer of the tariff, because the customer, not Amazon, would be paying it, separately, to the government.

[Martinned2]

So they HAD TO inform the customer of the tariff, because the customer, not Amazon, would be paying it, separately, to the government.

That can't be right. The whole point is that foreigners pay Trump tariffs, not Americans!

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm discussing actual economics here, not political slogans.

[Martinned2]

Are you suggesting that the US government makes economic policy based on "slogans" rather than "actual economics"?

[Brett Bellmore]

Often, yeah.

[TaioF920]

Tariffs are a tax on gross margins, not the consumer.

[Martinned]

They are definitely not a tax on margins. (Although I guess Trump could theoretically calculate them any way he likes.)

[David Nieporent]

Tariffs are sales taxes, which consumers pay.

[ThePublius]

There's no reason to rename them. Tariffs are tariffs, just that. And sales taxes are sales taxes, and just that. They are not the same, or there wouldn't be two names for them.

No, consumers don't pay tariffs, importers do. Consumers pay sales taxes. If the price of a good goes up because of a tariff, a consumer can choose to not purchase the good.

Why are you conflating them?

[David Nieporent]

There's no reason to rename them.

That's great, then, because I didn't rename them. I merely classified them.

Why are you conflating them?

Because you're wrong; consumers pay sales taxes in exactly the same way they pay tariffs. The fact that the sales tax is itemized on your invoice and the tariff generally isn't does not change the economic realities of the transaction.

[Ska]

Eh, I had a big picture accounting explanation, but it's not helpful.

Sales taxes are a liability to a business and an expense to the consumer. Tariffs are an expense to the business. They are different, and they are accounted for differently.

[shawn_dude]

minor quibble: Tariffs are an expense to the importer, which if a business would be accounted for differently. However, importers, especially in a world with companies like Amazon, Shein, Rakuten, and Temu, can also be individual consumers for whom this is just an import tax.

[Ska]

@shawn_dude: Fair enough, I was looking at it from the one perspective only. Interestingly enough, to take your point a step further, if you were an individual consumer paying the tariff on import you'd technically still be liable for use tax in your jurisdiction if you didn't pay a retailer sales tax (who is really acting as intermediary for the state).

Makes me wonder if there is maybe some rural, nearly uninhabited jurisdiction in Alaska that has neither state nor local use tax.

[ThePublius]

Ska, you know use tax and sales tax are not the same? What do you mean when you say use tax?

[shawn_dude]

@Ska, my great state of California is always eager to enforce tax laws. Please don't give them any new ideas!

Amazon does collect sales tax on those items, though, so the Bear is getting it's toll.

[Life of Brian]

Tariffs are sales taxes

We've been through this ad nauseam. Under your theory, ANY distribution related expense for any particular good is a "sales tax." You're free to have whatever weird mental model you like, but you could at least stop pretending it's commonly understood or even sensical.

[shawn_dude]

Tariffs are import taxes which, to consumers, function like sales taxes. But as Ska correctly points out, are not actual sales taxes since the seller doesn't collect and remit them to the government on the behalf of the buyer.

[Kazinski]

No they are not a sales tax that consumers pay, they are are a wholesale tax that the importer pays, and may very well pass on to the ultimate consumer.

But you could say that about any corporate tax.

[Ska]

You could say that about any business expense if you really want to think of it that way, making the whole discussion kind of worthless.

P&L statements would be three line items.

[Krayt]

Remember many VAT style places are opposed to revealing this info lest the people react.. poorly...to their betters' self-funding mechanisms.

The US tries to hide CC charges from The People.

Margaret Thatcher tried her poll tax, to force The People to realize just how damned much they were actually paying, and it backfired as they didn't wanna know.

Amazon should call out these additional costs. Set it against a prospective income tax cancellation.

[Martinned]

The problem with the Poll Tax wasn't that people don't understand how much they pay in council tax, but that it was the same amount for everyone, rich or poor. It's like taking the US budget of $6.75trn and funding it by sending every man, woman, and child a bill for $20,000.

[shawn_dude]

I wish Amazon would do this because it would:
a) shield Amazon from price complaints created by the Trump administration. (Inflation-causing ones at that.)

b) underscore how bad this administration is and effectively tag a "Trump did this" to all the new, higher prices everyone will pay.

[Brett Bellmore]

But they won't do it, because it would also make it very easy to identify products that were "made in America", and Amazon has been refusing to enable sorting products on that basis for many years.

[David Nieporent]

"Refusing"? Have they also been "refusing" to enable sorting products based on the zodiac sign of the seller?

[shawn_dude]

I prefer to buy North American whenever possible so I do look for country of origin when I'm on Amazon. I rarely fail to find it.

[Life of Brian]

Sure, but seeing the country of origin for a particular product you click on is a vastly different proposition than being able to filter your search to only return products from a particular country. If you've figured out how to do the latter, I'm sure we'd all appreciate a pointer.

[Frank Drackman]

there were Tariffs during Sleepy Joe's term (even if Sleepy Joe didn't know there were Tariffs, or that he had a term)
Why didn't Amazon note the Tariffs in their prices then?
Hmmmmmm??????????
It would actually be a good thing, make it much easier to "Buy Amurican"

[Martinned2]

I dug it up for another reason, but here is Douglas Adams's lizards planet. It's one of the bits of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy that I think about the most, because it identifies a very real problem about (our) democracy.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

[SRG2]

Two of the truest political writers in the English language were Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.

[Martinned]

I'm now reading the Discworld books. I'd started reading the whole series about 10 years ago, but stopped about 16 novels in for some reason. Time to pick it up again.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think I ever got that far in, but it was a good series.

[Zarniwoop]

The Sam Vimes Boots Theory of Economics is always a fave:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that illustrates one of the things that bothered me about Diskworld.

It's a pseudo medieval society, and they have cardboard?

Sure, cardboard, in the sense of especially thick paper, was invented in 15th century China, so maybe they could have it, but cardboard, in the sense of a cheap material that poor people might use in place of leather, is a very modern development dependent on industrial machinery. And the Diskworld, or anyway the part An-Morpork exists in, (Unlike the counter-weight continent, which is apparently at about 1900's level of technology.) is NOT an industrial society!

[SRG2]

And this famous example of unintended consequences + solution:

“Shortly before the Patrician came to power there was a terrible plague of rats. The city council countered it by offering twenty pence for every rat tail. This did, for a week or two, reduce the number of rats – and then people were suddenly queuing up with tails, the city treasury was being drained, and no one seemed to be doing much work. And there still seemed to be a lot of rats around. Lord Vetinari had listened carefully while the problem was explained, and had solved the thing with one memorable phrase which said a lot about him, about the folly of bounty offers, and about the natural instinct of Ankh-Morporkians in any situation involving money: ‘Tax the rat farms.’”

[Martinned]

I just started reading Feet of Clay. It's very weird seeing Commander Vimes wearing really good boots.

[A Japanese Student]

There is one interesting case before the Supreme Court: Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc., docketed 23-7490. This pro se & IFP petition was relisted this week, and it doesn't come from a prison. This case involves when a statute of limitations begins to run in a §1981 case. (Although the petition was filed pro se, and November 23, 2024 letter by the Respondent suggests she was still pro se at that time, a reply brief was filed by an attorney.)

On one hand, the precedent (Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)) seems to foreclose the argument. It specifically ruled that hostile work-environment claim is the exception, and in this particular suit, the plaintiff did not bring that. On the other hand, when the Court later decided that a new paycheck does not restart statute of limitations under Title VII, Congress rejected that interpretation. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), superseded by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (PL111-2).

There is another question: even if the statute of limitations for alleged discriminatory acts in 2014 and 2016 were barred, was the court right in granting summary judgment as to 2017 and 2021 acts, for which the four-year clock hasn't expired (on the theory that the claim accrued upon initial discriminatory act)? Congressional repudiation of Ledbetter suggests that the answer is no.

[Drewski]

Well, the thing about 1981 accrual is this:
[Throws smoke bomb]

[Martinned2]

Because of yesterday's ECJ judgment about Malta's investor citizenship, I took a moment to dig out the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Law Lords talk about how (and whether) judges should make law. It's a weird and obscure case about insolvency law in the British Virgin Islands, but some big hitters get mentioned, particularly in this section:

Judicial law-making

The liquidators are plainly right to say that the common law develops, sometimes radically, to meet changing circumstances. It hardly requires citation of authority to make that point. No-one now doubts that judges make law, although English and Scottish judges were slow to acknowledge it until the seminal writings by Lords Reid, Denning and Devlin, citation of which is unnecessary. But there are limits to their power to make law. In Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349 Lord Goff of Chieveley said (at p 378):

"When a judge decides a case which comes before him, he does so on the basis of what he understands the law to be. This he discovers from the applicable statutes, if any, and from precedents drawn from reports of previous judicial decisions. Nowadays, he derives much assistance from academic writings in interpreting statutes and, more especially, the effect of reported cases; and he has regard, where appropriate, to decisions of judges in other jurisdictions. In the course of deciding the case before him he may, on occasion, develop the common law in the perceived interests of justice, though as a general rule he does this 'only interstitially,' to use the expression of O. W. Holmes J. in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917) 244 U.S. 205, 221. This means not only that he must act within the confines of the doctrine of precedent, but that the change so made must be seen as a development, usually a very modest development, of existing principle and so can take its place as a congruent part of the common law as a whole. In this process, what Maitland has called the 'seamless web,' and I myself (The Search for Principle, Proc. Brit. Acad. vol. LXIX (1983) 170, 186) have called the 'mosaic,' of the common law, is kept in a constant state of adaptation and repair …."
What Justice Holmes said in the passage to which Lord Goff referred was: "I recognise without hesitation that judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only interstitially." The point was developed by Justice Cardozo in The Nature of the Legal Process (1921), at pp 103, 113:

"We must keep within those interstitial limits which precedent and custom and the long and silent and almost indefinable practice of other judges throughout the centuries of the common law have set to judge-made innovations … We do not pick our rules of law full-blossomed from the trees… "[The judge] legislates only between gaps. He fills the open spaces in the law ..."

More recently similar points have been made by eminent judges of our time. Judge Richard Posner said in How Judges Think (2008), at p 86:

"The amount of legislating that a judge does depends on the breadth of his 'zone of reasonableness' – the area within which he has discretion to decide a case either way without disgracing himself."

And Lord Bingham said, in The Business of Judging (2000), p 32:

"On the whole, the law advances in small steps, not by giant bounds."

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2014/36.html

(And yes, what is happening here is that British judges quoted American judges while sitting as a court of appeal in a case about Bermuda law.)

[Commenter_XY]

Today is day 572 of captivity for Edan Alexander, an American citizen held hostage by Judeocidal terrorists.

POTUS Trump: Bring him home.

[Martinned2]

Trump can't do that, because this person isn't in the US. So obviously the US administration is powerless to act here.

[Frank Drackman]

Is there a second in the day your sphincter isn't aching over "47" ass rape of the Kums-a-lot/Sergeant Pepper-Waltz ticket?

[Malika the Maiz]

Zing!

[Michael P]

Martinned now thinks that a district court judge can order the US president to start wars. Figures.

[Martinned2]

Wait, who do you think has the power in the US to start a war?

[Malika the Maiz]

I think we actually have video of Mike answering that question.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/cct6YHveYikAAAAd/leader-cult.gif

[Commenter_XY]

Next up: trial, and jail time. The charges will NOT be dropped quietly.

https://www.breitbart.com/news/wisconsin-high-court-suspends-milwaukee-judge-accused-of-helping-man-evade-immigration-authorities/

One reservation: If Paul Clements is really her lawyer, as reported, then I want to hear more. He is a brilliant lawyer.

[jb]

I think this was posted here the other day, but if you want to read the steelman version of the argument in her favor it's here:

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

I think the fact she took the guy out through the jury room is a bad look, but seems to early to draw firm conclusions, especially without hearing more than the government's version.

Mostly unrelated: does it really take multiple DEA and FBI agents to try and arrest one guy in a courthouse?

[Longtobefree]

"Mostly unrelated: does it really take multiple DEA and FBI agents to try and arrest one guy in a courthouse?"

Yes. Because there are certain judges that are completely lawless and will assist the criminal in an escape attempt.
Just like it takes an entire armed SWAT team in a dawn raid to arrest a person who has informed the police they will surrender at any time to face charges of defending their son from assault.

[jb]

"Yes. Because there are certain judges that are completely lawless and will assist the criminal in an escape attempt."

Seems pretty inefficient since most judges don't do that.

[Life of Brian]

Mostly unrelated: does it really take multiple DEA and FBI agents to try and arrest one guy in a courthouse?

As I was saying the other day, the tendency is likely to err on the side of what might seem like too many when your goal is to make sure you actually get the guy (courthouses often have networks of hallways that form loops, and 1:1 in any layout is a crapshoot if the guy resists at all), and also make sure nobody around you gets hurt in the process (particularly when you're surprising someone with a history of violence and putting them in a not-much-to-lose scenario).

Had they gone in lean and something had gone wrong, the armchair quarterbackers no doubt would be questioning that decision as well.

[jb]

Sure, I can see how people would rationalize it. But since these aren't even ICE agents, it seems like a lot of law enforcement resources being applied to what should be a pretty routine matter. If Trump wants to deport a million people a year, and we need a whole task force to spend a couple of hours trying to arrest people in even pretty routine situations, federal law enforcement isn't going to be able to do much else for the next four years.

Mostly it feels like the Trump administration's general preference to favor spectacle over actually getting things done.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but spectacle gets the job done. Most of the deportation is supposed to be self-deportation; If you snuck in, and sneak back out, you're spared being put on the inadmissible list, and could at least in theory return legally.

Spectacle that convinces people that they WILL be caught and ejected persuades them to save us the trouble.

[jb]

Sure, I guess? We'll see how it works. Seems like an easier way would just be to go after employers so that there were no jobs available.

In the meantime, we're robbing cycles from the DEA and FBI to prevent other types of crime. But given the big crime wave under Trump v1, maybe that's what we should expect this time around as well.

[Life of Brian]

In the meantime, we're robbing cycles from the DEA and FBI to prevent other types of crime.

Not clear how real that actually is without knowing the numbers. But the FBI at least was pretty heavily tasked with tracking down J6 grannies over the past few years, so their overall availability for actual crimes may improve.

[Kazinski]

I think that is on the list.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, exactly this. And though cloaked in the obligatory "those old meanies" rhetoric, even the detractors are taking note that it's starting to work.

[jb]

It's also working to discourage students, tourists, and probably business travelers as well (overall inbound travel is down but I haven't seen a breakout for business travel).

Trump fans probably think it's worth it, but at a minimum, it's certainly not helping the trade deficit to scare away people who previously wanted to come spend money here.

[Life of Brian]

I guess we'll see how it plays out in the longer term. The single-month, context-free tourism stats don't do much for me, and it's hard to see a slightly smaller percentage of foreign students as a bug rather than a feature -- given how selective many universities are I suspect there are plenty of our own citizens who would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to attend.

[jb]

Outside a handful of highly selective universities, there's no shortage of seats available for either foreign or domestic students in the US.

[Life of Brian]

College seats are not generally fungible, of course.

While it's correct that there are a handful of US colleges with a 100% acceptance rate (or close enough to it for this exercise), a quick sampling comports with the common sense notion that those are not the institutions that the lion's share of foreign students currently flock to.

On the flip side, foreign students make up just under 7% of overall U.S. university enrollments, but make up ~27% at Harvard, ~22% at Yale, ~24% at Stanford, ~55%(!) at Columbia, ~14% at Duke, ~16% at Berkeley, and so on.

So the foreign student body is heavily weighted toward higher-selectivity schools, and thus at a given institution an accepted foreign student almost certainly is displacing a domestic one.

[tylertusta]

The percentage of foreign students may explain the prevalence of antisemitism at prestigious universities in the wake of the 10/7 massacres.

Not every country shares our values (I'm looking at the casually antisemitic martinned here). Universities had grown accustomed to letting the mob do as it wished, so they turned a blind eye to foreigners taking over their own campuses and assaulting their own students.

[David Nieporent]

Not every country shares our values (I'm looking at the casually antisemitic martinned here).

There are virulently antisemitic posters here. None of them are martinned.

[shawn_dude]

"In theory"

Trump is also deporting people here legally so that's going to be a hard sell. The upside of not self-deporting is that there isn't a 100% chance of you ending up in the life you worked so hard to escape. Maybe leave the red states (they don't want undocumented workers around anyway, right?) and move to the sanctuary states where the feds will have to do all the work themselves. If you can evade the gestapo for 4 years, you're likely going to be okay.

[tylertusta]

Trump is also deporting people here legally so that's going to be a hard sell

Who was here legally that Trump has deported? Garcia?

Garcia does not have legal status and thus he is not legally permitted to be in the United States. He had an order of removal, meaning that the government could remove him at any time it wanted to.

The problem wasn't that he was kicked out, but rather that he has a withholding of removal to El Salvador, which essentially meant that he could have been scooped up and taken anywhere but there provided other conditions are met. The government's mistake was not noticing the WOR, or for confusing it for a WOR against Guatemala, or for not terminating the WOR before sending him packing.

But he did not have any legal right to remain in the United States nor any legal status to be in the country.

[David Nieporent]

Who was here legally that Trump has deported? Garcia?

His TdA victims. Also a 2-year old child.

[tylertusta]

Which TdA 'victims' had legal status to remain in the United States?

The 2-year old child voluntarily left the country.

[David Nieporent]

Which TdA 'victims' had legal status to remain in the United States?

All of them. Again: the use of the AEA is to allow Trump to deport people who were here legally. If the people are here illegally, there's no need for hearings on whether the fake AEA proclamation has legal force or whether they're members of TdA, because they're deportable anyway.

And two-year olds can't voluntarily do anything.

[tylertusta]

All of them.

I have seen no evidence that any of them had legal status.

And two-year olds can't voluntarily do anything.

It was the mom's decision to take her child with her. That means that in a legal sense, the child's leaving the country was voluntary. The child can return to the United States at any point in time.

[David Nieporent]

It was the mom's decision to take her child with her.

Setting aside the moved goalposts, have you heard her say that? You have not. Have you seen ICE rush her out of the country so the judge couldn't inquire into that? You have.

I have seen no evidence that any of them had legal status.

Have you bothered to read any of the cases filed? (And I repeat: the "Are they a member of TdA?" issue is only a relevant question if they have legal status.)

[Life of Brian]

And I repeat: the "Are they a member of TdA?" issue is only a relevant question if they have legal status.

I'm curious if you're playing Yet Another Word Game, or if you really don't understand the state of play. The previous administration fancied that it would just mass-renew temporary protected status for Venezuelans as a whole, literally over its shoulder on the last business day of Biden's term. The Trump admin undid that before the end of January (and months before the effective date), but thus far the totally-not-forum-shopped judges have dutifully chanted "ha ha - no backsies!" So they at least tried to proceed with getting the bad actors out, and now of course each and every one of those individual cases are being stymied as well because Le Resistance.

Please do let us know if any of these heartthrob gangbangers have any particularized excuses for being in the country beyond the above TPS debacle. I'd be fairly surprised.

[tylertusta]

Setting aside the moved goalposts

What moved goalposts? The child wasn't deported under US law. The mother was given the option but opted to bring the child with her overseas. The parent is making decisions for the child. The government isn't forcing the kid anywhere.

... have you heard her say that? You have not.

No one has presented evidence except screeching from the usual suspects. No one has presented any facts here except the government, and what the government has said aligns with how they've handled similar cases in the past.

Have you seen ICE rush her out of the country so the judge couldn't inquire into that? You have.

A judge already did. Order of removal for the mother granted, requests for asylum denied, appeals also denied. The mother opted to take the child with her, but that was the mother's choice, not the government's.

The usual histronics are not unexpected from folks who on the one hand insist that anchor babies don't exist, but are essentially arguing that they should exist.

Have you bothered to read any of the cases filed? (And I repeat: the "Are they a member of TdA?" issue is only a relevant question if they have legal status.)

Non responsive. You have not provided facts on their legal status. I know what the government said, but I wanted to know what else was out there and you have not provided anything except hurt feelz.

Did they have asylum granted? Did they have visas, like for work or study? Did any of them have refugee status? Which ones?

(I actually read through some of the claims in the initial DC case. None of them argued that they had a legal right to remain in the United States, which speaks volumes as to whether they actually have a legal right to remain in the country.)

[tylertusta]

LOB: The game of mental and linguistic twister that they're playing to maintain de facto open borders would be amusing to watch if it didn't have significant consequences for the nation.

Fighting to keep obvious gang bangers in the country is a stupid hill to die on. I suspect they keep doing it because that's all that they know how to do.

[David Nieporent]

What moved goalposts?

"The child left voluntarily… well, okay, the child didn't leave voluntarily, but the mother took the child with her, so close enough."

The child wasn't deported under US law.

As I said, the judge actually hearing the case seems to believe otherwise.

The mother was given the option but opted to bring the child with her overseas. The parent is making decisions for the child. The government isn't forcing the kid anywhere.

To be clear, you have no basis for any of these claims. It's solely based on the government's say so, and given that the government chose to rush her out of the country rather than letting her tell the judge that, there's strong reason to believe the government is lying.

A judge already did.

A judge already did what? We're talking about the child, not the mother, here. No judge "already" determined the appropriate placement for the child.

The mother opted to take the child with her, but that was the mother's choice, not the government's.

No, it was the government's choice. They didn't give her the chance to say otherwise.

The usual histronics are not unexpected from folks who on the one hand insist that anchor babies don't exist, but are essentially arguing that they should exist.

I don't believe that anyone should be deported w/o a good reason, and that has nothing to do with babies. But that's a policy question, and hence not relevant here. As a legal matter, I accept that the mother can be deported. After the court ascertains who has what rights with respect to the child and what their wishes are.

[tylertusta]

"The child left voluntarily… well, okay, the child didn't leave voluntarily, but the mother took the child with her, so close enough."

You tell your kids that you're going to visit your in-laws. They scream and cry about wanting to staying at home with their friends but you take them on a trip anyways. As a legal matter the children are still being moved voluntarily- because it's your decision, not theirs. As you said, a 2-year old can't make these decisions. The parent does.

So yes, the kid left voluntarily. No 'close enough' about it. It is a voluntarily departure under US law. The kid can return to the United States if the mother chooses to have it return.

As I said, the judge actually hearing the case seems to believe otherwise.

The judge can believe all of the incorrect things and set their hair on fair in the process. We've seen it before when Boasberg rushed to create a class and skipped over the problem of jurisdiction (because the ends justified the means), or how Judge Ali thought that he had jursidiction to order the government to pay out contracts on work that had not been completed (because the ends justified the means)!

. It's solely based on the government's say so, and given that the government chose to rush her out of the country rather than letting her tell the judge that, there's strong reason to believe the government is lying.

Or the government's actions are consistent with past instances and the plaintiffs are lying through their teeth because they know suckers will buy into anything.

No, it was the government's choice. They didn't give her the chance to say otherwise.

Hyperbolic insinuation first! Facts later!

I don't believe that anyone should be deported w/o a good reason, and that has nothing to do with babies.

How much do you want to bet that we're going to find out that the mother argued that she couldn't be deported because her baby was a US citizen, that the child has some rare disease, that she'll face persecution or whatever concocted story she came up with to argue she shouldn't go back?

How much do you want to bet that at the end of it, the government followed the process here and gave the mother the choice on whether the kid went with her?

[David Nieporent]

You tell your kids that you're going to visit your in-laws. They scream and cry about wanting to staying at home with their friends but you take them on a trip anyways.

Not a single native speaker of English would describe that scenario as "the kids voluntarily went to the in-laws."

How much do you want to bet that at the end of it, the government followed the process here and gave the mother the choice on whether the kid went with her?

How much do you want to bet that they told the mother something along the lines of, "No matter what, you're leaving tomorrow. You're free to take the baby with you; if you don't, we'll take her from you right now and then we'll decide what to do with her, and you'll likely never see her again. Choose right now," and never once informed her that there was a court case going on right at that moment where the father was trying to take custody from the government?

[tylertusta]

Not a single native speaker of English would describe that scenario as "the kids voluntarily went to the in-laws."

Yet that's legally what happened.

How much do you want to bet that ... never once informed her that there was a court case going on right at that moment where the father was trying to take custody from the government?

Did the father have custody? No?

Then why are we even talking about it?

The mother and father could be estranged and she made decisions on what she felt was best for the kid. It happens every day in the country. She was given a choice and she made it.

No sense crying about her not getting twenty years for her to make up her mind on the matter.

[David Nieporent]

Did the father have custody? No?

If you have seen some document awarding sole physical and legal custody to the mother, please point it out to me.

The mother and father could be estranged and she made decisions on what she felt was best for the kid. It happens every day in the country.

The father could be a serial killer and ICE may have saved the child's life by deporting her! They could be heroes!

Your argument here rests on both made up facts and made up law. As I mentioned last week when this came up, we recently applied for a passport for my son. When we did, both my wife and I had to go to the appointment, because they don't let one parent take a kid out of the country w/o permission from the other parent, and because they don't, they won't even issue a passport to a kid w/o the consent of both parents.

Unless she had sole rights, she could not make the decision on her own even if it was entirely voluntary — which there's no evidence it was.

She was given a choice and she made it.

Or she wasn't, and she didn't.

No sense crying about her not getting twenty years for her to make up her mind on the matter.

I'd settle for 20 days.

[shawn_dude]

Mahmoud Kahlil, his green card was revoked because of his participation in campus anti-war protests and he's in the deportation process now.

[tylertusta]

A good example but for the fact that he hasn't been deported yet. It remains to be seen whether he will lose his legal status and will be removed.

Looks like the government is going through the correct steps under the INA in his case.

[Life of Brian]

I think the fact she took the guy out through the jury room is a bad look

I think the full picture is really pushing the bounds of "bad look" territory. She 1) gathered up (what she thought was) the whole arrest team and sent them to the chief judge's chambers, 2) went back into her courtroom and adjourned the guy's hearing he had just shown up for, and 3) sent him out through the jury door, all in a span of less than 7 minutes. The only reason he was seen and caught was that one of the arrest team apparently wandered back out of the chief judge's chambers while the rest of the team was still jumping through those hoops.

[BBSquatter]

What's on your mind?

The collapse of our nation is on many peoples minds, which is why they rejected vapid, neurocognitively impaired puppets Biden/Harris, and voted for a moral cripple, entertainer /TV producer, real estate mogul like Donald Trump, a continuation of narcissistic politicians in the mold of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, beta males like George W. Bush and his father George HW Bush, and Hollywood B rated actors like Ronald Reagan.

Earl Warren's SCOTUS started us on this trajectory, and the Left Wing lurch since then, influenced by Marxist thought supplanting Judeo-Christian philosophy in Western civilization, have brought us to where we are

A Milwaukee Judge, a product of the aforementioned Left Wing Marxist lurch, forgot her role, and chose to be driven by the Left's religious dogmas of "social justice principles", a religion Dugan cultivated as an attorney working for non-profit legal agencies like Catholic Charities,

HANNAH DUGAN: TRANSFORMATIONAL LAW
Hannah Dugan: The agency faced challenging times. I helped stabilize finances and operations, and legal restructuring the agency by evaluating its programs for efficiency, mission-focus, and efficacy. I felt rewarded to redirect its path towards successes based not only on evidence-based decision making but also on measuring decisions against social justice principles.
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/profiles/hannah-dugan-transformational-law/

She has now made her narcissistic blunder into a look alike OJ Simpson circus:

Judge Hannah Dugan has all-star legal team, including ‘LeBron James of lawyers’
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/29/see-the-legal-players-in-the-case-against-milwaukee-judge-hannah-dugan/83327855007/

the WI Supreme Court wisely concluded the circus came to town and stopped the theater, for now:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has tonight suspended Dugan from “exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the State of Wisconsin, effective the date of this order,” during the pendency of this matter.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25922648-in-re-dugan-supreme-court-adminstrative-order-04-29-25/

Meanwhile we see (not read) headlines to articles authored by Ilya Somin, Sasha Volokh, David Post, et al that are as predictable as CNN DNC talking points, all reinforcing the intellectual decline within the academy

We no longer have a consensus in this nation, one that existed prior to Earl Warren's SCOTUS as articulated by John Courtney Murray SJ in 1960 with his classic book:

We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition
JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.
SHEED AND WARD
https://library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/whtt_index

The fact that we as a nation can no longer have intellectual discussions on grave matters, and now apparently resort to full throttled amygdala based "gotchas" is extremely worrisome. No wonder Americans have taken up the Second Amendment as their last stand and purchased weapons and ammo in massive numbers to defend their families from the increasing rage rhetoric from the Left, and incitement to violence by Democrats. None of this will end well. Survival of the fittest is here. This is not progression but regression, all predictable and preventable.

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, but 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. You can't predict but whatever survives you will call the fittest. YAAAAWN

[Brett Bellmore]

Since it's fitness to survive, that does kind of make sense.

[Speaking for normal people]

I left this page and my eye caught this utterly strange statement of yours

We no longer have a consensus in this nation, one that existed prior to Earl Warren's SCOTUS as articulated by John Courtney Murray SJ in 1960 with his classic book:

We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition

YIKES...so much insanity in that
The consensus was what Lincoln called civil religion, basically the natural theology of the Bible , open to reason, and condensed in the Declaratin of Independence's 3 'we hold these truths"
NO to John Courtney Murray SJ

This is --- and you are not aware of it --- just the Hanby, Deneen line of argument about the posioned Founding. THE FOUNDING IS OUR SHARED CULTURE.

REad THomas G West, Robert Reilly, Harry Jaffa, Justin Buckley Dyer, etc And esp the late Donald Lutz: Our rights orgininated in the BIble, in Natural Law , and in the 20 Stare Constitutions that were in existence BEFORE the national constitution

It goes off drastically under FDR , Woodrow Wilson ( see Ronald J Pestritto)

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, Earl Warren, the former prosecutor and Republican AG and governor of California, big time Marxist! Lol

[Moderation4ever]

Remember he let black kids in the nice white schools.

[Frank Drackman]

Well he did lock up a bunch of Asian peoples in concentration camps

[Life of Brian]

Judge Hannah Dugan has all-star legal team, including ‘LeBron James of lawyers’

Most interestingly in that list, I would be fascinated to know who's footing the bill for Paul Frickin Clement to grace this rando state judge with his ~$2500/hr services.

Looping back to our discussion on this a couple of days ago, this sort of major-league pile on seems to signal just the slightest bit of concern on the defense side that this might actually go somewhere.

[Jerry B.]

"I would be fascinated to know who's footing the bill for Paul Frickin Clement to grace this rando state judge with his ~$2500/hr services."

Act Blue (George Soros)?

[Malika the Maiz]

The Jews, amirite Jerry?

[TwelveInchPianist]

George Soros is The Jews?

[BBSquatter]

Of course George Soros. The Left have no tolerance for Judeo-Christian principles which is why they arrested, under Biden, elderly Catholics praying the rosary at abortion centers, raided the homes of countless Trump supporters including Trump, and offered no due process and/or launched political lawfare, Biden's FBI targeted a Catholic parish in Richmond, VA, Biden's AG Merrick Garland placed a bullseye on the heads of parents who expressed concerned ag school board meetings about WOKE Leftist educational curriculum, have called for the killing of Jews under the banner of 1st Amendment at "elite universities" where anti-semitism is applauded by Democrats, DNC members since 2016 have incited violence against Trump supporters and Republicans in general, and otherwise turned the US into a blossoming China police state.

Considering the Left idolize Joseph Stalin (who killed 40M Soviets), Mao Zedong (50M Chinese), and countless millions either murdered, incarcerated political prisoners or held authoritarian leadership in nations as atheist tyrants such as Cuba's Marxist Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Marxist Hugo Chavez and Ernesto Maduro, Nicaragua's Marxist Daniel Ortega, Chilean Marxist Salvador Allende, Honduras Marxist Xiomara Castro, Mexico's Marxist Claudia Sheinbaum and many others in Asia and Africa, the Left will stop at nothing to "burn it all down". Democrats hold these authoritarian tyrants as role models while preferring to paint their opposition as a Hitler type because it deflects from their murderous Marxist heroes who have killed more people in one century than all previous centuries combined.

Yes George Soros, as seen in his Marxist District Attorneys where violent crime has mushroomed.

Follow the Money: Mapping Soros Prosecutor Funding

Over the past decade, billionaire George Soros has spent at least $50 million* to elect scores of “social justice” prosecutors across the country. These district attorneys, who represent over 70 million people or more than 1 in 5 Americans, often pursue pro-criminal and anti-police policies. This report tracks Soros Prosecutors’ funding, affiliations, and actions.

*Estimate as of January 2024

https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/

Yes, George Soros is likely paying for Hannah Dugan's legal fees and also the army of Act Blue trolls that use sock puppets to cause chaos. Yes, George Soros

[David Nieporent]

I hope that Trump stops the flow into this country of whatever hallucinogenic drugs you are on.

[shawn_dude]

Or, it could be self-preservation on the part of good people who realize that if they let this judge be ground into hamburger by an authoritarian that they'd be next. Too many of the legal profession have given in to extortion already.

[BBSquatter]

on the part of good people who realize that if they let this judge be ground into hamburger

George Soros people aren't good people.

Grinding Hannah would not amount to hamburger but more likely lard.

It is not surprising your ilk have never mentioned the victims of perp Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, whom he victimized with battery domestic violence charges. The victim and her parents sat in Hannah's court awaiting the hearing. That was until Hannah decided to deprive the victim of due process and enabled the perp to run out the jury door, placing the community at large in danger. She is such a pig, engaging in virtue signaling while a true victim of domestic violence sat in court awaiting justice on her behalf. Its always the same with Democrats: screw the women over be it in bathrooms with men who pose as women, or women athletes pulverized by same. Darn good thing the Feds caught him on foot, and saved the community from the likes of Hannah Dugan ever endangering the community again.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Or, it could be self-preservation on the part of good people who realize that if they let this judge be ground into hamburger by an authoritarian that they'd be next."

You mean the good people want the judge to get away with her crimes so that they, too, can commit crimes with impunity? That's terrible!

[shawn_dude]

It remains to be seen if she committed a crime. The agents had the wrong sort of warrant for the arrest. Can you obstruct an arrest for which there isn't a valid warrant? I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure this is more complicated than I make it out to be but one thing is for certain: it isn't a clear-cut case. But if it does work out that she obstructed a valid arrest, then she's earned the consequences.

OTOH, wow. The hypocrisy in your comment is stunning, even for Reason.

[Life of Brian]

The agents had the wrong sort of warrant for the arrest.

I'm afraid that's something Dugan made up. An administrative warrant is the staple of ICE's removal operations and allows ICE to arrest the named individual in any public place, and indeed after the distraction/near escape they caught and arrested him pursuant to that warrant. If you can point me to anything to the contrary past the red-meat journalism level, I'm happy to read it.

[apedad]

Summary of Fiscal Year 2024 Annual FOIA Reports Published

The Office of Information Policy (OIP) has released its Summary of Annual FOIA Reports for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. This summary provides an overview of FOIA activities across the government during the previous fiscal year, looks at key statistics in FOIA administration, and identifies trends in FOIA processing.

As highlighted in this year's summary, the (Biden) government received yet another record-setting 1,501,432 requests during FY 2024 – a 25.15% increase in requests received over last fiscal year. Agencies largely kept pace with this demand by processing 1,499,265 requests. Agencies received 20,115 administrative appeals and processed 18,575 appeals, with more than two-thirds of federal agencies ending FY 2024 with no pending appeals. In addition to responding to requests and administrative appeals, agencies continued to make vast amounts of information available proactively. Agencies’ FOIA offices and program offices continued to proactively disclose millions of records, with FOIA Offices in particular posting significantly more records in FY 2024 as compared to FY 2023.

https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/summary-fiscal-year-2024-annual-foia-reports-published

While trust and confidence in our govt is reaching all time lows (including during the Biden Adminstration), at least millions of Americans are asking for - and receiving - govt data to keep oversight.

It'll be interesting to see what this report likes next year.

Note: The Trump Administration has been making some positive statements and decisions on FOIA so we'll see next year if they're in earnest.

[Glaucomatose]

“After promising transparency, RFK guts public records teams at HHS
APRIL 3, 20255:02 AM ET”

Seems like it’s off to a good start

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump Becomes The First American President To Lose A Canadian Election

https://bsky.app/profile/thorbenson.bsky.social/post/3lnwa7nkub22o

[Frank Drackman]

Done tole you, ain't got no job, how I sposed to get money to pay dis rent?
Ha! beat you to your obsession with me
Who lost the US erection??? that's all that matters to me,
Seriously, Canada's GDP is about the same as New York State's not insignificant, but not especially noteworthy either.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sad, pathetic person creates fake persona to perform on legal blog comment website. We’re talking Patton Oswald Big Fan levels of desperation and derangement.

If weirdo losers like this are what MAGA attracts no wonder the Canadians wanted none of that!

[Frank Drackman]

It was Lee Harvey Oswald, idiot

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, and it's Patton "Oswalt" not "Oswald", and you have the Balls (literally) to bust mine for my spelling

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, says pathetic person whose performed persona thought JFK’s killer was the the star of Big Fan!

I know you play the Drackman character as a dolt but you might consider some rewrites!

[Frank Drackman]

You remind me of George Constanza flying to Cleveland to give his "Jerk Store" line, and still getting slapped down with a more clever re-tort

[Malika the Maiz]

Checking in on our anti-elites:

“Later Usha enjoyed an evening visit to the Colosseum — which her husband had also been scheduled to attend before a last-minute change of plan — where she was given a personal tour of the arena, famous for its gladiatorial combats and naval battles, by Alfonsina Russo, the director.

Lesser mortals unlucky enough to have booked their own visit had to make do with a refund — but not all of them had got the message. There were chaotic scenes as some would-be visitors tried to open the gates surrounding the building, while others climbed over the fences, ticket in hand, trying to force their way in. Some chanted “shame” or anti-American slogans when they learnt the reason for the closure, Italian media reported.

Among the disappointed was Stephen Fishler, 58, a businessman from New York who arrived with his family in good time for his 6pm slot, but was turned away without explanation. “What does he think he is, special?” complained Fishler, himself a Trump voter. “JD should have waited until the Americans who had tickets had their visit and then gone in.” His wife, Anila, tried to calm him down and blamed the Italians.”

https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/jd-vance-visit-vatican-rome-t2hrm5cc6?region=global

[Armchair]

And in other news...

Chinese national who illegally voted in Michigan...Skips trial

https://www.theblaze.com/news/chinese-national-accused-of-voting-in-us-election-skips-hearing-prompting-bench-warrant

I'm kinda tired of this nonsense.

[Michael P]

As they say:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Well, of course you’d like to forestall what would be obvious replies to the article. Taking the Blaze’s reporting as true, the guy seemed confused about whether his status allowed him to vote and turned himself in and for doing so he was facing a stiff penalty. The system seemed to have worked pretty good.

[Moderation4ever]

This seems to be a common occurrence with the voting violations. Many of the voters were confused about some aspect of voting regulations. Now the number is small and when you consider the votes cast it is not surprising that this sometimes happen. But does provide the opportunity to some to blow it out of proportion.

[SRG2]

As I have noted, it is a common cognitive deficiency of conservatives - indeed it might be almost universal - that they are influenced by specific cases regardless of how rare far more than the general situation as supported by statistics and facts. It's a kind of complement to the availability heuristic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or to put it a different way, a common cognitive deficiency of liberals is that they don't understand the concept of "existence proofs", that if they're denying that something happens, you only have to demonstrate one instance of it to prove they're wrong.

At that point it becomes an argument over whether it happens often enough to care about, and things get complicated and somewhat subjective.

[Moderation4ever]

Nobody is denying that people vote illegally. The fact is that the number of illegal votes is insignificant and not outside what one would expect in the voting system.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have seen people in this very site deny that people vote illegally.

[SRG2]

At that point it becomes an argument over whether it happens often enough to care about, and things get complicated and somewhat subjective.

To some extent, yes, but in practice conservatives run away in these situations. Prove me wrong in your response to the following situation: it is clear that the looser you make voting rules, the more fraudulent or illegitimate voting will occur, but the tighter your voting rules, the more eligible voters will be unable to vote. The question is what is an acceptable ratio of voter fraud to eligible voters deprived? For example, if a given measure prevents 1000 fraudulent votes but deprives 500 eligible voters, that's a 2:1 ratio. If it prevents 200 fraudulent votes but deprives 2,000 eligible voters, that's a 1:10 rato.

So what is an acceptable ratio?

[Brett Bellmore]

First, it's mostly not "eligible voters unable to vote", it's mostly "eligible votes not bothering to vote". The last Voter ID case I looked at, challengers lost because they failed to produce anyone who genuinely couldn't have gotten the ID if they'd bothered to go through the trouble.

So, what is the ratio between difficulty in voting, and vote fraud prevented? That's what I mean by subjective. It's a judgement call, not a constitutional imperative, and Democrats and Republicans just happen to disagree.

[SRG2]

But I didn't ask whether it's a judgment call. I asked for an actual answer.

[Jerry B.]

"...they are influenced by specific cases regardless of how rare..."

Like "Cancer Boy", or "Deported Daughter", Or "Daddy's gone to El Salvador", etc.?

[Armchair]

"The system seemed to have worked pretty good."

Except for the whole "skipping out on the trial" part.

[Malika the Maiz]

That happens for all kinds of offenses.

[Armchair]

That does not mean the system is working good, just because other people break the system.

[jb]

Unless you think that everyone charged with any crime should be held in jail until trial no matter what this is going to happen sometimes.

An interesting question might be do foreign nationals skip trial more than citizens? That might be interesting information to inform bail decisions.

[Malika the Maiz]

It means the system that might be broken isn’t voting, but something like pre-trial detention.

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

Damn dude, that's exactly the stages the Democrats go through on here.

That's like Sacastr0's script.

[Malika the Maiz]

After Helene, N.C. bill could make it easier to declare missing loved ones dead

“North Carolina law states that even if a person has been missing for a long time — “unheard of for seven years, or for any other period” — he or she is not automatically presumed dead. In deciding to make that legal declaration, a judge can take into account whether the person was “exposed to a specific peril of death.” But the law says nothing about the circumstances of a natural disaster.

White wanted to change that — both for Ayers’s family, and for the families of the handful of other victims still missing after Helene. In late January, she created a change.org petition, imploring state lawmakers to amend the statute and shorten the waiting period.

Changing the law, she added, was not about circumventing due process. “It’s about recognizing the unique circumstances surrounding these tragedies and offering a path forward for grieving families,” wrote White, 31. “It’s about acknowledging that waiting 7 years for legal closure after a catastrophic event is unnecessarily cruel and serves no just purpose.

Her plea soon reached state Rep. Dudley Greene (R), whose district includes parts of several counties battered by Helene, including the small community of Relief, where Stephen and Alena Ayers lived… In March, along with another House colleague, he introduced H.B. 537, dubbed “Alena’s Law,” which would amend current law to allow families of missing people to pursue a declaration of death after 90 days if a disappearance coincided with a disaster.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/30/north-carolina-hurricane-helene-missing-persons-law/

[Moderation4ever]

Tomorrow is May 1 and traditionally on May Day The Volokh Conspiracy runs a column in Remembrance of the Victims of Communism. I thought we could celebrate the eve of this day as Remembrance of the Victims of Capitalism. I invite commentors to list people who were victims when the pursuit of profit was put ahead of people and decency.

My own contribution this year will be to the Scottish Highlanders removed during the Highland Clearances which occurred from about 1750 to 1860. People were moved from land that had been inhabited by generations of their ancestors before them, often the evictions were carried out with brute force, resulting in changing the way of life and landscape of the highlands. All done to increase profits for the lairds.

[Martinned2]

The Highlanders fought against the English, lost, and got their asses kicked as a result. How is that different from pretty much the entire rest of human history before the 20th century?

[Moderation4ever]

It is common in history that subjugated people are moved move out to make way for bigger profits. I did not say it was unique, I said it was an example of victims of capitalism.

[Martinned2]

What you're describing would make just about all victims of pre-20th century warfare victims of capitalism. And that seems generous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even the victims of communism are victims of capitalism in that sense, in as much as communism is state capitalism.

Actual capitalism, (Defined as deferring consumption in order to invest instead in increased productive capacity, aka "capital".) is one of those irreversible developments in human history, like the invention of agriculture, which ends up universally adopted. Even the people who purport to be attacking it practice it.

[SRG2]

communism is state capitalism.

It isn't.

[Michael P]

That was Brett's entire point.

[SRG2]

Clearly not. Nor is his definition of capitalism accurate.

[Brett Bellmore]

To the extent communism actually exists in the world, it is state capitalism. The theoretical sort that supposedly wouldn't be state capitalism never ever happens.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How is that different from pretty much the entire rest of human history before the 20th century?

Martinned2 — Strikingly different than the history of the lowland Scots in the borderlands. Those emigrated in large numbers to the U.S.

Here, they settled Appalachia, and lived out their long-accustomed feckless standards of personal liberty, outlandish emphasis on personal honor, plus hostility to everyone else. They managed to spread that ethos westward through the deep South during the antebellum era. Today, they comprise MAGA's backbone.

On the whole, it has been a giant success story. Never before in history has that ethnic tradition been so well positioned to inflict so much damage on everyone else in the world. They take pride in that.

[Martinned]

...in other words, those Scots did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas what the English did to the Highland Scots.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yup. But in fairness to the borderlanders, they got plenty of help from an assortment of other cultural tendencies imported here. Of course, to understand it properly, you have to subdivide even the notion of "English."

[Krayt]

These are victims of governmental thug abuses. It isn't capitalism, which derives from freedom from manipulative thugs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — Is it your opinion that capitalism is somehow formally enshrined in American constitutionalism?

[David Nieporent]

Property rights are.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I agree with you, of course, that property rights get specific protections from America's existing Constitution. I am as happy about that as you are. I hope that protection never falters.

Nevertheless, both of us would be mistaken to let the matter rest with that observation. If we did, we would make ourselves proper objects of the critique from founder James Wilson, who said, "This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it."

Wilson went on to remind:

As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

Thus, any specific Constitution is but an instance of a positive institution. It remains without power to constrain the jointly sovereign People themselves. Any American constitution, or any iteration of one, is a decree authored by an unconstrained sovereign, acting at pleasure, to empower and constrain government.

Which is to say, to constrain government only. If at any time it would please the American People to reconstitute government, and to omit property rights, for instance, that too would be a proper application of American constitutionalism.

The power to do that remains continuously active; passage of the present Constitution did nothing to constrain it, or even to affect what means the jointly sovereign People might choose to make changes. The rules for constitutional amendment set forth in the existing Constitution constrain only government power to initiate and pursue constitutional change, not the power of the People themselves to do so.

Thus, American constitutionalism is never properly understood as an expression of particular policies. It remains always that the jointly sovereign People retain power to choose any system of government whatever, at their pleasure, and without constraint. The idea is political liberty first, with both personal liberties and government powers to follow as agreed upon by the jointly sovereign People. The People agree to constrain government from infringement of whatever personal rights the People choose to vindicate, and thus those rights become legitimized.

The principle of political liberty is of the essence; particular outcomes remain legitimate only to the extent the jointly sovereign People continue to agree with them.

[Martinned]

Incidentally, there is no actual right to property in the US constitution, analogous to art. 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR. There are a few provisions, like the due process clause, the 4th amendment, and the takings clause, that the courts have interpreted into a more-or-less coherent whole, which more-or-less adds up to a comprehensive protection of property, but a right to property as such isn't there.

[Martinned2]

Let's see if the Administration will obey this one: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.447078/gov.uscourts.cand.447078.87.0.pdf

The Court ORDERS as follows:

Defendants are ENJOINED from withdrawing the services or funds provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) as of March 20, 2025, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(5), and ORR’s Foundational Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 410.1309(a)(4), particularly ORR’s provision of funds for direct legal representation services to unaccompanied children. This injunction precludes cutting off access to congressionally appropriated funding for its duration.

[Moderation4ever]

It has been 46 days since the Trump Administration mistakenly sent
Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvator prison. And also, almost a month since they admitted the error. Yet the administration has done nothing to correct the error.

[Armchair]

You would have them invade a sovereign country to steal one of that country's own citizens and forcibly move him back to the US?

[Malika the Maiz]

Have they even asked for him? I know after the order the White House posted online a couple times “he’s not coming back!” Bad faith.

[David Nieporent]

Look, Armchair is making a bad faith argument! Must be a day ending in 'y.'

[Michael P]

Both him and the Dutch guy up-thread who seems confused about the difference between starting and declaring a war.

[SRG2]

The two are different but neither are applicable.

[ducksalad]

Tuesday, 4/29/25: "President Donald Trump acknowledged Tuesday that he has the power to return wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, but has no plans to do so."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/30/us/trump-could-bring-abrego-garcia-back-us-hnk/index.html

In his increasing dementia, Trump doesn't realize that his own statements undermine the arguments his attorneys made in court, as well as the bad faith arguments made by his online supporters.

[Krayt]

This, order invasion, is a fraudulent talking point.

What could, and should, happen. President-to-president, "We sent you this guy by mistake. In the interests of international comity, and because being friends with the US is always helpful for your trade, would you sent him back?" "Sure."

What actually happened, "Pssst, Ok, you keep him and lie you're not gonna send him back, then we will immediately sigh, throw up our hands in resignation, and go 'Oh, well. I guess that's that.' "

[David Nieporent]

Not only did Trump confirm the 'nothing he can do; what do you want him to do, invade El Salvador?' is a lie, but he also all-but-confirmed that 'Trump asked and Bukele said no' is a lie. Trump never asked.

[apedad]

In an Oval Office interview with ABC News’s Terry Moran, Trump was asked about Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who had been living in Maryland under a protective order before being sent to the Central American country’s most notorious prison.

“You could get him back,” Moran said to the president. “There’s a phone on this desk.”

“I could,” Trump replied.

Moran continued: “You could pick it up, and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, ‘Send him back,’ right now.”

“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Trump told the senior correspondent. “But he’s not.”

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if Abrego didn't have "Kill-more" in his name people wouldn't think he was so dangerous.

[David Nieporent]

Since 2015, we've seen this dynamic play out hundreds of times, if not more:

1. Trump says/does something stupid/awful.
2. Decent people criticize him.
3. Trump apologists explain why he didn't really mean that, but instead meant something far more benign and dummy woke leftist libtards are unfairly misinterpreting him.
4. Trump saws the limb off from under his own supporters by saying, "No, I really meant the stupid/awful thing."

And we see it here again:
Trump deports someone unlawfully, gets called on it, and defies a court order. People blast him for refusing to fix his error. His supporters rush to say that he's not refusing, that the judge is crazy to issue that order, that Trump is powerless and that liberals want Trump to start a war. And then Trump admits what every single person with access to the Internet already knew to be true: Trump could easily get him back, and is just refusing to.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "Since 2015, we've seen this dynamic play out hundreds of times, if not more"

Two Points :

1. Yep. I lost count how many times someone like Kazinski or Brett had their legs cut out from under them because Trump decided to brag about some misdeed they were insisting (insisting!) he didn't do. You might as well go back to when Trump decided to boast about firing Comey to the Russian Ambassador & Foreign Minister ("I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."). That got him Mueller's investigation. Trump is such a brainless idiot he never knows when to stop bragging.

2. In another exchange in the ABC interview, Trump was asked about the doctored Garcia photo :

Trump : “It says ‘MS-13”

Morgan : “That was Photoshop, so let me just ....”

Trump : “That was Photoshop? Terry, you can’t do that ...”

He went on to argue that MS-13 is as “clear as you can be” on Abrego Garcia's hand. Some people believe Trump doesn't know himself, which is plausible given his diminished mental state. But it's far more likely he was sticking with the original con. Which means, yes, he cut the legs out from under Brett and Kazinski, who denied that with cult earnestness just two days ago.

[Malika the Maiz]

Just recently Mike P, having not seen the news about ICE loading up the bus and heading to the airport or the government’s lawyer’s comment that they reserved the right to deport the next day was thumping his chest as a good lil’ toady of the Mad King yelling “well, there was no reason to think the government planned to deport these people soon so SCOTUS jumped the gun!”

Those reports were produced and, cut off at the knees once again by his Mad King, he slithered off.

[Kazinski]

Three things obvious to me:

Those letters are meant to be captions.

Albrego Garcia is a member of MS13.

Advocating for Garcia is just a disaster for Democrats, because its obvious to the public that Democrats are fine with importing gang members and giving them asylum and amnesty.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Advocating for Garcia is just a disaster for Democrats, because its obvious to the public ...."

And would that be the same public that has Trump underwater on immigration right along with every other issue? Kinda of hard for it to be a "disaster for Democrats" when the majority of Americans agree with them per the latest polls.

Now I admit he's not underwater by much - particularly compared with the numbers on his economic incompetence. But - hey - give it time! These immigration stunts are the same half-ass bungling gimmicks as DOGE or Liberation Day. They're done with zero thought, zero care, zero concern for the law, and zero regard for responsibility or consequences. Plenty more scandals and embarrassments are sure to follow.

What's clear from the 100-Day polls is just shouting "Tren de Aragua" and piling on crude obvious bullshit won't cut it with people outside of the Cult. Obviously, Kazinski, you can't see that. The Kool-Aid still tastes good to you. But outside your bubble, the efficacity of Trump's lies diminishes with every single day.

Try getting out more.....

[Commenter_XY]

grb, I hope Team D chooses to run on St Abrego, and advocates for keeping illegal alien MS-13 gangbangers here in America. Truly, that sounds like a winning electoral formula! 😉

[grb]

And what do the 100-Day polls say? Do they show the American public happy with Trump's lawlessness, crude injustice, scattershot incompetence, and empty rhetoric (which you repeat like a human tape recorder, XY).

Ya might wanna look at your side of the Cult divide before passing out advice. Trump has fallen more, faster and further, than any modern president. Hell, he's now even outpacing his 2017 self in the race to the abyss.

And doesn't take into account two further factors : First, further decay to his standing is pretty-much guaranteed by all precedence. He's gonna go much, much lower. And Trump's presidency of brainless stunts and gimmicks was supposed to build up popularity out of the gate - with the endless stream of executive orders a lazy stupid president signs as opposed to real difficult work and before the consequences of a destroyed economy and dysfunctional government. It was designed to be frontloaded but miserably failed regardless. It's all downhill from here.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump could easily get him back, and is just refusing to."

And yet, nothing will change. You will fume, pundits will pundit, courts will issue orders. And Garcia will stay in El Salvador.

Frustrating, isn't it?

[Martinned]

Well yes, I can see why Americans might be frustrated to see the rule of law crumbling around them. The more important question is why aren't you?

[Bob from Ohio]

Law is a servant of the people, not their ruler.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "And yet, nothing will change."

Thus the perspective from inside the Cult bubble (fresh Kool-Aid served every day!). But outside that sealed enclosure, normal people see something different:

1. Repeatedl, courts all the way up to SCOUS have ruled Trump must stop his lawlessness.

2. The latest rounds of polls show Trump underwater on immigration too. Bob notwithstanding, it seems public opinion can change.

[Kazinski]

So has there been a single order, that's been upheld, that requires the administration to make any effort to get Garcia back?

The only order I am aware of says that they must facilitate his return, but not so much as lift a finger to effect it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Wilhot’s law as satisfying.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Trump could easily get him back, and is just refusing to."

Well, yes, obviously. Haven't I said repeatedly that he screwed up, and then dug in his heels?

That's not to say that the judiciary has the authority to force him to do the things necessary to get him back. They don't, those things involve "foreign policy", and he just doesn't have to do their bidding in that area.

But observing that that's the case is not defending his stubborn refusal to do the right thing anyway. Even though he's right: Garcia is not a nice guy, and really should have been deported, and Trump just screwed up the details of how he went about it.

I doubt Garcia's defenders would be very happy, though, if Trump brought him back and then deported him again the right way.

[Malika the Maiz]

If they brought him back and had the lesser due process due to him and he was deported, I’d be satisfied.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're very rare in that regard, I suspect.

[Bob from Ohio]

It would trigger 200 more court cases to force everyone back.

[David Nieporent]

You're very rare in that regard, I suspect.

Why? There have been something like 100k deportations in the past few months, and people have only complained about the handful where there were clear due process issues.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, your telepathy sucks once again.

You can't understand standing up for process just for it's own sake. Gotta be outcome oriented for you.

Which is pretty sad.

[Kazinski]

This from today's press gaggle, Trump says he could get Garcia back but is not going to try:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/30/us/trump-could-bring-abrego-garcia-back-us-hnk/index.html

[Bob from Ohio]

He's not a defendant, he doesn't even have to try.

As I suggested, looks like we wrote a letter and they LOLed back.

"The Trump administration recently sent a diplomatic note to officials in El Salvador to inquire about releasing a Salvadoran immigrant whom government officials have been ordered by the Supreme Court to help free, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

But the authoritarian government of Nayib Bukele, the leader of El Salvador, said no, two of the people said. The Bukele administration claimed the man should stay in El Salvador because he was a Salvadoran citizen, according to one of those people." NYT today

It based on alleged leaks from unknown people so may not be true of course.

[Kazinski]

And they will not "correct" it.

Nor has a court ordered them to "correct" it, because the court does not have that authority and knows it.

[Armchair]

What exactly would the court order?

Can the court order an individual to say something to someone else?

[Commenter_XY]

St. Abrego isn't coming back to America.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump was asked about the photoshopped MS-13 on dude’s hand.

He did not react well.

[Currentsitguy]

I've seen the unenhanced blow-up. There are definitely 2 rows of something there, the symbols and something else. What that 2nd row is is difficult to tell. It may say MS-13, it may say something else, I haven't had time to play with Photoshop myself to see what I come up with in enhancement. I'll reserve speculation until a better angle comes out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I took the blowup and expanded it large enough to see individual pixels, and there's a mismatch in color around each of the texts below the actual tattoos. They clearly were photoshopped in, though the individual characters above the tattooes were even more blatant.

[grb]

Yeah, Brett, but the photo wasn't blown-up in the original social media post, was it? It was shown at a scale where you easily see the letters and number as more tattoos. And then Trump said this, " ... he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles."

Ever ask why? If the picture was meant to sell the made-up lie Garcia's existing tattooed symbols were gang iconography, why wouldn't he print the picture at a size so they could clearly be seen? Answer: Because that wasn't the intention. The point was to con the vast majority of people who weren't going to blow up the image.

[Brett Bellmore]

First, I don't actually know that it's a lie that his tattoos were gang iconography. Maybe they are, maybe he just has execrable taste in body art. Maybe they're former gang iconography, that he had modified after getting out of the gang. I really don't know, and don't much care.

I do know that we have extensive evidence that he's a bad dude regardless, and that he was an illegal alien is scarcely disputed at all, that being sufficient cause all by itself to kick him out of the country.

While I think Trump really bungled the details of his deportation, I am entirely satisfied that he should have been deported. After a hearing to get the hold on his deportation specifically to El Salvador canceled as moot, or to someplace other than El Salvador, but deported.

Second, I had no trouble at all discerning that the letters and numbers above the tattoos were merely captions. That much was blatant. I had to do a little work to confirm that the words below the tattooes were photoshopped in, and I'm not impressed with any media outlet that couldn't pick up on that.

But the presence of captions doesn't change the tattooes, or the fact that he was eminently deportable even without them.

[David Nieporent]

I do know that we have extensive evidence that he's a bad dude regardless,

We do not. Let's steelman this, but focus only on facts, not suspicions:

1) His wife accused him of domestic violence a few years ago. (But she didn't follow through on it so he was never charged with, let alone convicted of, anything.)
2) He was driving a car with a bunch of other Hispanic people inside. (Who are totally unidentified; we have no idea about their status. The cops didn't even bother to give him a ticket, let alone arrest him for, this.)
3) He was standing in a Home Depot parking lot in broad daylight near 3 other people, two of whom were believed to be MS-13. Police said he was "loitering." (He was charged with nothing at all.)
4) A dirty cop claimed that an unknown informant claimed that he was MS-13. (Neither the cop nor the informant — if the informant existed — identified any crimes Garcia had ever committed.)

What about that list makes him a known "bad dude"? He has never been convicted of a crime. He has never been charged with a crime. He has never been arrested for a crime. He was never seen in possession of weapons, drugs, or significant amounts of money. He has never been identified as socializing with, communicating with, or doing business with, any gang member, unless you want to count the Home Depot parking lot incident.

and that he was an illegal alien is scarcely disputed at all,

It's not disputed at all; he admits it.

[Brett Bellmore]

There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of being a bad dude, or at least nobody tried.

But as a genuinely illegal alien who would be properly deported even if he were cosplaying Mother Theresa, there was plenty of evidence to deport him as a bad dude. As you know, deportation isn't a criminal penalty, and so doesn't require criminal levels of proof.

[David Nieporent]

This is word salad. "Deport as a bad dude" isn't a thing for illegal aliens; they can be deported simply for being illegal aliens. (Barring the alien's entitlement to withholding for some reason.)

And I just itemized how there was essentially zero evidence of him being a "bad dude." Not "insufficient evidence." None.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you didn't itemize "zero" evidence, you itemized arguably "insufficient" evidence, the problem being that since he can be deported just on the basis of being an illegal immigrant, there's literally no such thing as insufficient evidence to deport him.

I do understand that you don't regard the illegal immigration itself as evidence of him being a bad guy. I do.

[David Nieporent]

But you didn't itemize "zero" evidence, you itemized arguably "insufficient" evidence,

No, I itemized no evidence of him being a "bad dude." Your claim was that we have "extensive evidence that he's a bad dude regardless [of the tattoos]."

I do understand that you don't regard the illegal immigration itself as evidence of him being a bad guy. I do.

Sure, a supposed "libertarian" who thinks that a victimless crime not only should be punishable for practical reasons, but makes the person who did it a "bad guy."

[Commenter_XY]

Illegal alien is just that: illegal. They have intentionally broken our laws. That makes them a bad person, by definition.

[David Nieporent]

So everyone who jaywalks is a bad person, "by definition?"

[Kazinski]

If those were the only facts, maybe it would only reach the preponderance standard.

But once you add in that the vehicle Garcia was driving in Tennessee was registered to someone that was convicted of human trafficking, and Garcia told THP officers he was driving the people to Maryland from for his boss, the owner of the van, now you are in clear and convincing territory.

Its hard to get all the facts in bullet points, but that is a pretty significant omission, and the facts are verified by court and public records and contemporaneous police reports.

[David Nieporent]

But once you add in that the vehicle Garcia was driving in Tennessee was registered to someone that was convicted of human trafficking, and Garcia told THP officers he was driving the people to Maryland from for his boss, the owner of the van, now you are in clear and convincing territory.

Clear and convincing territory of what? That certainly doesn't reflect anything related to MS-13. It reflects that he knows a guy who once employed illegal immigrants. Which is hardly surprising since he himself is one.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I really don't know, and don't much care"

Of course you don't. And you're purposely missing the point: Showing the letters/numbers MS-13 at a scale where they would be seen as tattoos by casual observers and then TELLING people "he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles" was a con to smear Garcia with fake proof. That the lie is easily disproved doesn't prove good intentions.

Trump tells easily disproved lies all the time. He assumes the dupes will mindlessly accept them, the Cultists (take a bow, Brett) will twist themselves into rubbery knots creating spurious excuses, and it will make no difference when the lying is exposed. As I noted before, Trump hasn't come up with a coherent story how the election was "stolen" after years of continual lying. He knows the dupes and Cultists don't care.

[Sarcastr0]

They clearly were photoshopped in,

I encourage you to find the interview with Trump. He got pretty pissed off when that was pointed out!

[Brett Bellmore]

Watching it.

Trump is quarreling over the idea that those symbols MEANING "MS13" were photoshopped. The tattoos absolutely were NOT photoshopped, and everybody knows it.

Again what you're complaining as photoshopping was CAPTIONS.

[David Nieporent]

JFC, you really will pretend that Trump doesn't say what he said, no matter how clearly he says it. Even Trump's hardcore MAGA supporters are admitting that Trump was saying that the tattoos actually saying MS-13 were there.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's not what Trump's mad about!

That's just an unreal parsing of what the interviewer said.

[jb]

Imagine being so in love with Trump that you need to somehow rationalize even the dumbest things he says. Here's an image with a pretty clear view of two of the tattoos:

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/owyXmPvP67Vi.S0doREdNQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD02OTM-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/aol_ny_post_us_news_articles_123/90eda4dca671bd841003165a0c919f8a

There's obviously no "1" or "3" above the tattoos (nor, for that matter, small "cross" or "skull" written underneath them).

[ThePublius]

What are you talking about? The MS13 was a legend added to decode the symbols. He obviously has tattoos on his fingers, and all signs point to them being identified with MS-13. And, more evidence of his gang membership is emerging.

Why are you, and so many on the left, advocating for this thug?

[David Nieporent]

What are you talking about? The MS13 was a legend added to decode the symbols. He obviously has tattoos on his fingers, and all signs point to them being identified with MS-13.

What are you talking about? Literally no signs point to them being identified with MS-13. There is not a single example anyone has cited of any person anywhere in the world who used those symbols (or even a similar rebus) to signify MS-13 membership.

And, more evidence of his gang membership is emerging.

No evidence of any gang membership, let alone "more," has emerged.

Why are you, and so many on the left, advocating for this thug?

We are advocating for the rule of law, and the decent treatment of people.

[ThePublius]

This "no evidence" claim is a common refrain from the left. There is plenty of evidence, reviewed by multiple judges:

"But the judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr Abrego Garcia's gang membership. That finding was later upheld by another judge.

As a result Mr Abrego Garcia was refused bail and remained in custody. During this time he applied for asylum to prevent his deportation to El Salvador.

In October 2019 he was granted a "withholding of removal" order, court documents show - a status different from asylum, but one which prevented the US government from sending him back to El Salvador because he could face harm.

Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyers say that he was granted the status based on his "well-founded" fear of persecution by Barrio-18, the main rival gang of MS-13."

Rival gang? So, he must be in a gang for their to be a rival gang, no?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno

"Kilmar Abrego Garcia was accused of being a gang member in 2018 court papers, The Post can reveal — as the fight continues over whether the deported illegal immigrant dad was a part of MS-13.

Abrego Garcia’s wife’s ex made the claim when he filed documents seeking an emergency court hearing on the custody of the couple’s two children.

“She is dating a gang member,” Jennifer Vasquez Sura’s ex, Edwin Trejo Ramos alleged in the petition filed in Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Maryland."

https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-accused-of-being-gang-banger-in-2018-court-docs/

[Malika the Maiz]

“Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyers say that he was granted the status based on his "well-founded" fear of persecution by Barrio-18, the main rival gang of MS-13.

He said that prior to him entering the US, his family and their business had been threatened and extorted by Barrio-18.”

This entire passage doesn’t prove much of anything. Since the article has a lot about whether he is or was in MS-13 the reference to the “rival” gang, first mentioned here, by itself most naturally means they were introducing Barrio to the reader.

[Krayt]

"See? He was a member of the gang, as evidenced by being threatened by the other gang, judges found that credible, so we gave him temporary asylum! Proof! Don't believe us, believe the judges!"

"Ok, so why did you sent him back?"

"Uhhhhhhh..."

[Malika the Maiz]

Uh, my point is that saying his family and business were threatened by a gang doesn’t necessarily mean he was in one, the “rival@ language could likely be the author introducing what Barrio is.

[David Nieporent]

You notice the one thing not found in your post? Evidence.

[ThePublius]

The testimony of others, and the findings of judges are indeed evidence.

[jb]

The "rival gang" language isn't a statement by his lawyer, it's a statement by the BBC providing context on who Barrio 18 is. In fact, here's the claims about why Abrego Garcia faced persecution in El Salvador:

The Respondent is a 24-year old native of El Salvador. He was born in 1995 in Los Nogales neighborhood, San Salvador, El Salvador. The Respondent testified that he fears returning to his country because the Barrio 18 gang was targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family's pupusa business...

At some point, Barrio 18 realized the family was making money from their family business and they began extorting the Respondent' s mother, Cecilia. They demanded a regular stipend of "rent" money from the business, beginnmg with a monthly payment and then requiring weeky payments. The gang threatened to harm the Respondent, his older brother Cesar, and the family in
general if their demands were not met. Alternatively, they told Cecelia that if she could not pay the extortion money, she could turn Cesar over to them to become part of their gang...

After Cesar left, the gang started recruiting the Respondent. They told Cecilia that she would not have to pay rent any more if she let him join the gang. The mother refused to let this happen. The gang then threatened to kill the Respondent. When the Respondent was around 12-years old, the gang came to the home again, telling Cecilia that they would take him because she wasn't paying money from the family's pupusa business. The Respondent's father prevented the gang from taking the Respondent that day by paying the gang all of the money that they wanted.

As you can see, none of that has anything to do with his membership in MS-13, and in fact says part of the reason he was targeted is that he refused to join a gang.

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Two other points:
1) The judge hearing his case on the merits (i.e., not at a bond hearing) found the above credible, which is why he granted withholding of removal; and
2) Once it got to that point, where the parties had to present evidence, the government made no claim whatsoever about the guy being MS-13 and this being a dispute with a "rival gang."

(Unlike all the MAGA people, I do not pretend to be a gang expert, but it seems implausible to me that such an allegation could be compatible with the court's findings, because I assume that rival gangs would not be willing to recruit each other's members.)

[jb]

Yes, everyone who is not a moron knows that the MS13 was a legend added to decode the symbols. But as Sarcrast0 referred to above, Trump is a moron so when he was asked about them in an interview he insisted that MS13 was actually written in Abrego Garcia's fingers:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/30/does-abrego-garcia-have-ms-13-tattooed-on-his-knuckles-as-trump-claims

And then you have people like Currentsitguy trying to squint at the original pictures and decide that Trump was really onto something because there's some cohort of people who needs Trump to be right in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

FWIW, I find the tattoo iconography to be pretty suspect, but it also doesn't really matter. It's not relevant whether Albrego Garcia is in MS-13 or not. At the time he was deported, there was a judicial finding that he probably was. But also at the time he was deported, there was a judicial finding that he wasn't allowed to be deported to El Salvador! The Trump administration can make some attempt to fix that latter problem and from there it doesn't really matter if he's in a gang or not. He came into the country illegally and if the government can demonstrate that he's not in danger as a result of being deported to El Salvador they can send him back there, or if they can find some other reasonable place to send him they can possibly send him to that country instead. They just can't ignore the rule of law and deport people illegally and refuse to do anything to fix it.

[David Nieporent]

At the time he was deported, there was a judicial finding that he probably was.

That is not a precise description of what happened. It was a bond hearing, not a merits hearing, and as such the burden of proof was on him; the actual finding was that Garcia hadn't produced sufficient evidence to rebut an anonymous accusation that he was an MS-13 member.

[jb]

Okay, sure, but like I said--who cares? Engaging in the debate mostly distracts from the real problem. Whether or not he's deportable doesn't hinge in any way on whether he's an MS-13 member.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are effectively complaining that "MS13" was in the wrong font, so it doesn't count as "MS13".

From Trump's position, the difference between "MS13" in Times New Roman and "MS13" in a Marajuana, Smilely face, 1/cross, skull with 3 Xes is just a difference in font. The dude had "MS13" tattooed across his fingers, and you don't care because the font was wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Difference in font.

You're kind of a joke sometimes.

[David Nieporent]

What font uses a smiley face as an "S"? I've checked some fonts that use symbols, like Wingdings, and none of them match your description.

There was no "skull with 3 Xes," by the way, and the cross was a cross, not a 1.

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

From reddit's front page to your keyboard! Amazing...

Hey maybe I'm missing a step.

From some Soro's/Democrat billion-dollar NGO to Sacastr0's keyboard & to reddit's front page...

[David Nieporent]

Trump was asked about the photoshopped MS-13 on dude’s hand.

Most people thought that Trump ordered the photo doctored because he was trying to deceive the public. But in retrospect, it is entirely possible that one of Trump's aides did it to deceive Trump himself. They needed Trump to be fired up and uncooperative, so they figured that they would just 'show' Trump that the guy actually had the characters "MS-13" as a tattoo.

(Possibility #3: they showed Trump the unaltered photo, and he didn't grasp this insane rebus argument, so they captioned it to explain it to him, and he's so dumb that he thought this was real.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, most people who think the photo was "doctored" think Trump ordered it doctored because, blah, blah, blah.

A lot of people, like me, think it was not "doctored", it was merely captioned.

Nice try to pretend everyone thinks it was doctored, though.

[David Nieporent]

Either those things were present on Garcia's hand, or the photo was doctored. Those are the only possibilities.

And Trump made clear yesterday that he thought those things were present on Garcia's hand.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Doctored" doesn't mean captioned. It means deceptively altered.

I didn't find it deceptive.

[Sarcastr0]

No one cares if you were deceived.

Trumps reaction means either he was fooled, or he didn't want that it was photoshopped to come out.

So he's either stupid or evil. Or, of course, both.

And yet your support remains. Because it's okay so long as the ends are good, even if the means are very bad!

[Estragon]

As I said the other day, the sudden appearance here of experts on the symbology of tattoos on central and South American individuals is stunning. Very reminiscent of the commenters (Armchair was one, but there were others) who suddenly displayed intimate knowledge of traditional and historical Haitian culinary practices trying to justify a similarly ridiculous claim last summer.

One surprise to me at least is that these folks never seem to learn. Publius, Amos, others— The need to reflexively defend Don is so overwhelming that they actually come onto this space— in their own free time— to push this rebus nonsense.

And then in true Trumpian fashion Don pulls the rug out from under all his loyalists in the ABC interview, completely torpedoing the “oh it’s just a caption decoding the rebus” line!

Actually, on the Haitians eating pets thing, JD did the rug pulling when he admitted the claim was an intentional lie (or what some people around here might call “directionally true”). And the cycle repeats.

One of Trump’s more admirable qualities is his ability (wittingly or unwittingly) to humiliate his most sycophantic supporters. And that is once again on display here. Will a lesson be learned? I know how I’d bet.

[Estragon]

Which leads me to the larger point. Why the pseudo intellectual veneer? Why is it so critical to the mental state of some commentators to seize upon these obviously bogus captioned tattoo pictures in order to attempt to rhetorically justify the result they clearly desire and support anyways: unilateral executively-determined removals and internment without hearings?

[Malika the Maiz]

You know the answer. They don’t value the moral worth of any outgroup, in fact they revel in their suffering and they are emboldened to tell people who tell them that’s messed up that it is their critics who are as false and phoney as they are.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think illegal aliens are perfectly entitled to display their moral worth someplace else. "Moral worth" and "entitlement to be in a country" are totally orthogonal.

[Currentsitguy]

Western PA is an absolute wreck this morning after the severe storms yesterday. Half a million without power, trees down and buildings wrecked everywhere. I'm in a little island of light with everything off around me, I'm guessing it's because 300 yards to my West is the highest point in the county and I often get shielded from the worst. I feel awful for the absolute mess I am seeing on the local news this morning.

[Malika the Maiz]

Truly terrible, be safe.

[hobie]

With President Elect Musk cutting woke-ass FEMA, don't expect the hoedowns in the area to resume any time soon. Condolences.

[Currentsitguy]

I doubt it's bad enough it would even qualify under any Admin. No real completely destroyed homes or widespread flooding, just trees down everywhere, mass power outages, lots of roof damage, a lot of mashed cars, one electrocution death...

If they could help in anyway maybe send spare chainsaws.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kind of like Helene in my area: The mountains got FEMA, we got chainsaws out. Because it's flat enough here there wasn't substantial flooding.

There are still houses here around Greenville that are smashed in by falling trees, and have not been fixed yet. I think some people might have skimped on their home insurance. And removal of fallen trees that aren't blocking roads is still hardly begun.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There once were Boy Scouts...

[ThePublius]

And yet, "Trump Administration approves $1.4B plan to help western NC rebuild after Helene," while Biden and team D did pretty close to nothing to help those typically red voters.

[hobie]

I heard Huckabee and Cotton were beseeching Trump to send them woke-ass FEMA money for their floods because Arkansas was denied. I'm not sure Sarah realizes she's joined the group beneath the bus. Remember how them same two people victim-blamed the people of California? Of course you don't

[Martinned]

Hang on, didn't DOGE abolish FEMA?

[ThePublius]

Why do you always have to make it personal?

[hobie]

I haven't said 'hayseed' once today

[Frank Drackman]

there used to be a certain "Conspirator" who persisted (HT Poke-a-hontas) in calling peoples the K-word, until he went all Judge Crater, oh wait, too "Boomer" of me, he went all umm "Jimmy Hoffa"

[Malika the Maiz]

This sad sack wakes up every day and decides to “perform” a made up character on an obscure legal blog comments page.

This is the kind of nut attracted to MAGA. He probably lives with the Qanon Shaman.

[David Nieporent]

This sad sack wakes up every day and decides to “perform” a made up character on an obscure legal blog comments page.

And then you inexplicably and very very very annoyingly respond to it, contributing absolutely nothing except noise pollution.

[Malika the Maiz]

I think you’re confused about a few things.

1. These nuts are marginal.
In fact, they are a critical part of Trump’s movement. You should read Black Pill by Elle Reeve.

2. The best way to deal with wackjob trolls is to ignore and not “feed” them.
Empirically that’s not the case. However, humiliating and tying them to opponents that don’t want that humiliation, does.

[Frank Drackman]

@ David Neverpotent,
"I think this could be the beginning of the beautiful (no Homo) friendship"
I'll talk to you later, gotta talk to these Gestapo Goons, something about one of their Officers getting shot, some Major Strasser or something, shouldn't take too long, the Gendarme already have their "Usual Suspects"

[Malika the Maiz]

What a weirdo. Trump fan, of course!

[Malika the Maiz]

Biden-Harris Administration Provides $860 Million for Hurricane Helene and Milton Survivors and Communities

https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20241014/biden-harris-administration-provides-860-million-hurricane-helene-and-milton

[Frank Drackman]

$860 million? Yeah right, I'd say except for peoples who happened to have "Trump/Vance" signs in what was left of their yards, except the DEI monkeys running FEMA were such fuck ups they fucked everyone over, part of why North Carolina, which was supposed to be a "Toss Up" wasn't, and "45/47" won Florida by over a million votes(1.4 million to be exact, what did "W" win by in 2000? 500? and not 500 thousand, 500 total)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

This guy wakes up and, by his own concession, “performs” this ridiculous character here. A Viking helmet would be normalizing for this weirdo!

MAGA!

[grb]

Malika the Maiz : "Biden-Harris Administration Provides $860 Million for Hurricane Helene and Milton Survivors and Communities"

A question for ThePublius : Why didn't you do a simple internet search before posting the egregious mistake/lie above? You're always chasing after Left-inclined posters, nipping at their ankles for some perceived lack of Forum Etiquette.

Well, posting crude lies is a forum etiquette issue. Physician, heal thyself.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know they provided money. I mean, I live in the Piedmont region of SC. A lot of those areas were day trips for us.

The allegation is that it was going mostly to the areas that voted Democratic, not the ones that voted Republican, and there were a lot of boneheaded bureaucratic obstacles to getting things done, like, "Those temporary shelters aren't up to code!" or "How dare you build an access road along the route of that destroyed road, to get help in without following the full permitting procedure!", or aid being systematically refused in some areas to people with Trump signs on their front lawn.

And, yeah, those things all happened. Do I think they were all directed by Biden?

Hell, no!

Would it have happened if everybody assumed he'd be mad about it? Probably not, it was just partisan bureaucrats being "helpful".

[grb]

And I bet the allegation the aid "was going mostly to the areas that voted Democratic" was a complete & total lie. What's your opinion, Brett? Care to step out of your "safe space" of plausible deniability and put that B.S. to rest?

And your other stuff is just anecdotal gewgaws. Hell, even you know that. Though laughably enough you still still manage a "Brettism", where your 99%-nonexistent issues are still Biden's "fault" because people "assumed" he wouldn't get "mad" if he was told about the tiny little sliver of them that were true.

So why not just admit all the crap about Biden denying aid to North Carolina was phony? Because it was. Or if it's too painful as a Cultist to do so, just sit out an argument where your "evidence" is a wisp of smoke in a hurricane. I don't claim to know the rules, but seriously doubt your Cult membership could be revoked for that. After all, ThePublius claimed Biden "did pretty close to nothing".

There's no need to commit argument-seppuku over that.....

[Armchair]

In other news...Russia continues to advance.

In 2023, Russia gained ~700 square kilometers in Ukraine
In 2024, Russia gained 4100 square kilometers. Equal to the size of Rhode Island.

Pointing out facts isn't propaganda. Ignoring facts and pretending they don't exist is propaganda. Having a real understanding of the situation is important.

[tylertusta]

For context, the Russian gains were spread out over several sectors of the front lines and not one chunk. A couple of square miles here, and a few dozen over there, and that's where the 4,100 km aggregate figure comes from.

It's still not good. Not only does the lost territory start adding up, but it also demonstrates that this is still a war of attrition that Russia is willing (and seemingly capable) of continuing.

[Frank Drackman]

Lands mostly irreverent, Nazi's occupied thousands of square miles of Roosh-a until they didn't. More importantly, how many You-Cranes did they kill last year? how many You-Cranes are joining the Army this year? and Roosh-a doesn't have to worry about their peoples leaving Roosh-a to avoid Military Service, heck, they even have our CIA Officials kids volunteering to fight for them. Roosha gets soldiers from their Prisons? sounds like a good idea.

[Poxigah145]

There is one thing for certain. Polls matter very little in today's political arena. 40% of America's population hates him, 40% loves him, and the middle 20% vacillate from day to day. Meaning that "majority now disapproves of Trump's handling of" whatever issue just means that a few in the middle 20% changed their minds, at least at the moment.

It doesn't mean Trump should change course, as the 40% that hate him will always hate him, no matter what he does.

[hobie]

[snaps out of it] Oh sorry, I was just swapping out Biden for Trump in your comment

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

How'd that work out for you?

[Martinned]

It's not like he's ever going to run for anything again, or cares about anyone else's electoral prospects.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you dense? "45/47" regularly jokes about running in 28'

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is I predict that 2028 will be like 2020 and people will again be sick of Trump. So, it is far more likely that he will lose 2028 and want to run again in 2032. This will of course block out other Republican candidates in 2028 and again in 2032.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the DemoKKKrats can try to put "45/47 " in jail during 2028, worked so well last year.

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing is, 2020 was razor close, the list of but for causes of Trump's defeat is as long as my arm, and "The economy having tanked due to Covid lockdowns" was a lot more than a "but for" cause. So, if 2028 comes around and Vance runs for President, (And, Republicans, do not be so stupid as to anoint him, require him to win hard fought primaries!) and we're not in a deep, deep recession, it's going to come down to just how awful a nominee the Democrats puke up.

And I think the Democrats have hardly plumbed the depths of how awful of nominees they can puke up.

[Moderation4ever]

Can Vance run in 2028 if Trump insists on running? Can any Republican run? As for 2028, if Trump trashes the economy, like he doing now, can he get reelected?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, barring a cosmically unlikely constitutional amendment, he's not running in '28. He's just trolling about that.

And IF Trump trashes the economy, AND it hasn't recovered by late '27, no, the Democrats will probably win. But he hasn't remotely trashed it yet. Looking at the stock market index, it bottomed out at about where it was last May, and is presently about where it was last September.

Were you calling the economy "trashed" during last year's Presidential campaign?

[Frank Drackman]

Trump? Trolling? Market's got another 45 minutes, but for the Hullaballoo about the tariffs, Dows down 3% for the month, S&P less than 2%, S&P went down 10% April 2022, don't remember any rending of garments then

[Poxigah145]

What does the stock market have to do with the economy anyway?

[apedad]

You're you're gay and you might attend drag shows but you're also a Republican so . . . let's run for Lt Gov of Virginia!

Uh oh . . . other Republicans don't like that.

~~~~~

(Current Gov) Youngkin sparks GOP firestorm after wading into Virginia election controversy

On Friday, Youngkin’s team confirmed the governor called Reid to ask him to step down as the nominee following a report that Republican researchers came across sexually explicit photos on Tumblr with the same username Reid uses on other accounts.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5273167-youngkin-virginia-republicans/

[Michael P]

Didn't you people want conservatives to walk the walk after they criticized that legislator from California with a "throuple" and complained about some staffer posting a gay sex video that was recorded in a Senate room?

[hobie]

As long as he doesn't advocate for peace in GAZA, I don't see what the big deal is

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

He has no business being in the public eye.

America needs to restore her standards.

[shawn_dude]

Oh Myyyy!

So much to unpack here.
-Gay Republican who joined the "face-eating leopard party" is shocked that his face is being eaten.
-The party who didn't give a shit about candidate Trump bragging about grabbing women's vaginas without permission nor about his felony convictions for grabbing women's vaginas without permission is squeamish about gay sex? Elect a convicted rapist, sure bet! as long as it was heterosexual rape.
-He went to a drag show. LOL. Rape? Thumbs up! Men in dresses on a stage? Moral depravity!

The only thing that's messed up here (!!) is that the Democrats cannot gain market share for our ideas even with this baffoonery on the other side.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting Jean Carroll. That’s a loss in a civil suit, not a felony conviction. Either way, the lack of concern by Trump supporters is consistent with the “burn it all down” attitude many of them express. They might not actually approve of sexual assault, but if that’s what it takes to get women to know their place...

[John F. Carr]

Meanwhile, out of sight and out of mind, India and Pakistan prepare to fight another war. Some years ago I read that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are deliberately kept in a disassembled state that requires substantial effort to prepare for use. Most of Pakistan does not want a Dr. Strangelove scenario.

[hobie]

I remember in 2020 when some Nixon (the leader of the least racist party in America) tapes were released with him chatting to Kissinger in 1971:

“Undoubtedly the most unattractive women in the world are the Indian women,” said Mr. Nixon.

“The most sexless, nothing, these people. I mean, people say, what about the Black Africans? Well, you can see something, the vitality there, I mean they have a little animal-like charm, but God, those Indians, ack, pathetic. Uch.”

“To me, they turn me off. How the hell do they turn other people on, Henry? Tell me.” “I don’t know how they reproduce!”

“I tell you, the Pakistanis are fine people, but they are primitive in their mental structure.” He added, “They just don’t have the subtlety of the Indians.”

[Frank Drackman]

He one more gone, he one more John who make the mistake,
now any of you Poindexters get that reference, I'll be impressed, even if you use your Google machine.
But except for Jackie K and Melania, has there been a recent First Lady who would inspire any normal male to pleasure himself? Just in my lifetime, "Ladybird" Ugg, "Plastic" Pat Nixon? why do you think Milhouse was such a tight ass? he wasn't getting any, Betty Ford? surprised that Gerald wasn't the Alcoholic in the fambily, Rosalyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, not bad looking broads, but not spank-bank material, Barbara Bush, I guess if you're into women who look like George Washington (or "Sam the Eagle" from the Muppets) Hillary Rodman, Mrs "W", Michelle the O, and Dr Jill? Eureka, I've just discovered the cure for Priapism!

[shawn_dude]

Depending on the nature of the device, nuclear weapons aren't that difficult to complete assembly. Maybe if they were super paranoid they'd not attach rocket boosters to missiles? Or keep the guidance units separate? On ballistic weapons there's usually just fins, the bomb, and a fuse unit intended to break the explosive chain until needed. So screw in the fuse and bolt on the tail... maybe 15 minutes if you're in a rush and have a team of people? The US uses the whole "nuclear codes" thing as our means of avoiding unintended use.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Version I heard is that Pakistan doesn't trust it's intelligence agency.

[hobie]

Trump at the Michigan rally:

“Well, I’ll tell ya, I certainly don’t mind having a tax increase, and the only reason I wouldn’t support it is because I saw Bush where they said, where he said ‘Read my lips’ and he lost an election. He would have lost it anyway, but he lost an election. He got beat up pretty good. I would be honored to pay more, but I don’t want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we’re talking about very little.”

[Frank Drackman]

Another example of 45/47 stealing an Ish-yew from the DemoKKKrats, only people raising the upper rate on would really hurt would be the chumps who make their shekels actually working, i.e. "Progressives", It's Trump's Goebbels (I mean that as a compliment) Steve Banyon who's pushing raising the top rate, add that to the elimination of SALT deductions (if you have to ask what it is you're too stupid for me to explain it), maybe apply FICA to all earned income, not just the first few hundred thousand? Buildings in Manhattan will look like 9-11 with all the Progressives jumping out windows.

Frank

[Martinned]

I know I should be working, but this is just too "sad but hilarious" not to share:

Senate Republicans added an amendment to bipartisan legislation addressing rising antisemitism on college campuses that could be seen as a concession to Christian conservatives who wanted to protect those who preach that the Jews killed Jesus.

The final language of the Antisemitism Awareness Act was posted online on Tuesday ahead of a committee vote.

The added language, which is referred to as a “manager’s amendment” and proposed by the committee’s chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, states that the legislation would not “diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, including the free exercise of religion.”

https://forward.com/fast-forward/716347/antisemitism-bill-congress-jews-jesus/

If this were a Volokh law school exam, that would be good for at least an hour's worth of writing:

Discuss:
1. The free speech clause implications of this proposal.
2. The establishment clause implications of this proposal.
3. The utter insanity of writing the world's oldest antisemitic trope into legislation that is ostensibly about combating antisemitism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Can you clarify this a bit? Are you actually going to claim that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," is an anti-semitic trope? I'm not seeing it.

Because unless that's your claim, they objectively did NOT write an antisemitic trope into the legislation.

[Martinned]

Christian conservatives who wanted to protect those who preach that the Jews killed Jesus

[Bob from Ohio]

"could be seen"

Solid analysis!

[Malika the Maiz]

You should click through on some of the links

[Malika the Maiz]

That definition cites “claims of Jews killing Jesus” as an example of “classic antisemitism,” which sparked opposition from some conservative Republicans. “Religious leaders back home are very concerned about some of the language in that bill, that it pushes against what the scripture said,” Marshall said. “Obviously as a born again Christian I believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God. I think that we’re not supposed to alter the word. So I’m just guessing the House overlooked something.” Marshall, a Kansas Republican, said Thursday that he opposes antisemitism, but if the bill comes up for a vote in the Senate he would offer an amendment that would strike the language.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article288246510.html#storylink=cpy

[not guilty]

Actually, while Jews prosecuted Jesus, it was Romans who killed him.

[Frank Drackman]

not very well apparently

[Malika the Maiz]

“But Greene, posting on X, formerly Twitter, laid out a different concern: that the bill threatened Christian expression.

“Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,”

[Brett Bellmore]

I did, and while certain elements of Christian theology that have been around for nigh 2000 years were cited as examples justifying the clause, you will search the legislation in vain for any anti-semitic tropes, and,

"The utter insanity of writing the world's oldest antisemitic trope into legislation that is ostensibly about combating antisemitism."

kind of does require that the antisemitic trope actually be written into the legislation. Is it that hard to admit you weren't right about that?

Look, Jews don't like Christian theology blaming certain Jews, (Not ALL Jews! Christ's disciples were Jews, for goodness sake!) for Christ being killed. Christians don't like Jews denying that Christ is the son of God, rather than just another prophet. Muslims don't like either of us mentioning that Mohammad was a murderous warlord who bonked underaged girls.

It's just normal disagreements between religions, and you don't get to label Christian theology "antisemitic tropes" any more than you get to label Jewish theology "anti-Christian tropes".

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Look, Jews don't like Christian theology blaming certain Jews, (Not ALL Jews! Christ's disciples were Jews, for goodness sake!) for Christ being killed."

Christians were blaming all Jews soon enough. The exemption for Jesus and his disciples soon expired, leaving multiple millennia for that antisemitic trope to apply to an entire people. Come on, Brett! It's not like Christians have spent century after century blaming a few score people in a Jerusalem crowd. And that blame has been intricately bound to repeated brutal & ugly violence, often on a nauseating scale.

[santamonica811]

"...Mohammad was a murderous warlord who bonked underaged girls...."

probably 'boinked' rather than "bonked," one hopes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bonked can mean to hit someone or something lightly, to have sexual intercourse (especially in UK slang),

[shawn_dude]

Little Bunny Foofoo style, one assumes.

[Sarcastr0]

Underage is a weird term when you are talking about Bedouins nearly 1500 years ago.

Like I’m willing to say everyone kinda sucked back then but age of c majority laws are not in play.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even then they had something like them, though it was mostly a matter of local custom.

But my point is that expression of religious beliefs is constitutionally protected even if members of other religions don't LIKE them.

And, of course, that there wasn't any antisemitic trope written into the legislation, and it would be nice to get that point conceded, even if you think it's irrelevant, because it's simply an objective fact, and if we can't even agree as to objective facts, what's the point in our having any discussion?

[Josh R]

The bill says:

For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

One of those contemporary examples is:

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

[Longtobefree]

Well, the Jews used the Romans to kill Jesus.
And Jesus Himself was a practicing Jew.
In any event, the point is He rose again.

[Michael P]

It's been decades since I really cared, but I thought the Roman judge famously washed his hands of the matter.

[not guilty]

The trial was before the Sanhedrin, who lacked authority to sentence someone to death. The Roman governor then permitted the execution to go forward, despite having found no fault in Jesus.

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

Fuckin' Jews.

[Mr. Bumble]

Jesus was pardoned for your sins doesn't have quite the same ring.

[Frank Drackman]

Lets see, Relativity, Polio Vaccine (Both, Salk & Sabin), Pacemakers/Defibrillators (The "Zoll" pads are named after Paul Zoll, Jewish, thank him next time you get defibrillated) Like your Stainless Steel? thank Hans Goldschmidt, Nuke-ular Weapons? thank the Manny, Moe and Jack (Pep Boys reference) of Oppenheimer, Teller, and Neils Bohr, and on top of that, the guy who (supposedly) died for your sins, Hey-Zeuss,
OK, this is sounding a little like Adam Sandler's Hannukah Song, but borrowing from Vince Vega in "Pulp Fiction"
"A Thank You would be nice"
We should be the ones putting YOU in the Ovens (not you, Bumble, the ones who want me "Driven to the Sea" (I don't even like the beach, I'm a Joshua Tree guy)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

and He saves too,
at Navy Federal!!!

[Griffin Klema]

One of the most damning things I took away from Moran's interview of Trump was his abandonment of journalism in making a statement of fact rather than asking a question, which Trump rightly identified as such:

-------------------------------
TERRY MORAN: -- ... There have been no referrals to the Justice Department on any of this --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, you don't know that, do you? How do you know that?

TERRY MORAN: They generally -- alright. There's been no investigation from the Justice Department --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: How do you know that?

TERRY MORAN: I'm asking you, sir.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, you're not askin' me. You made a statement. You're not asking me --

TERRY MORAN: Now, I'm asking you.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That was a statement that you made. There have been --

TERRY MORAN: Now, I'm asking.
-------------------------------

Oh, so "now" Moran is "asking" only after he was embarrassed by the President? What a hack. He's no journalist and that his conduct passes for journalism these days says a lot about the legacy media. Moran should be fired. So too with his editors that allowed his clear political animus. Moran's questions were surely reviewed by someone higher up before they were greenlighted for primetime. Wouldn't an editor have the same question for Moran first: "That sounds like a statement. Can you back that up with fact?" ABC News is total garbage, and that "interview" showed it. And so I thought this was a amusing exchange:

-------------------------------
TERRY MORAN: Do you trust [Vladimir Putin]?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don't trust you. I don't trust -- I don't trust a lot of people. I don't trust you. Look at you. You come in all shootin' for bear. You're so happy to do the interview.

TERRY MORAN: I am happy --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And then you start hitting me with fake questions. You start tellin' me that a guy -- whose hand is covered with a tattoo --

TERRY MORAN: Alright. We're back to that.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: -- doesn't have the tattoo, you know.

TERRY MORAN: Alright.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I mean, you're being dishonest.

***

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: .... We had a president that was grossly incompetent. You knew it, I knew it, and everybody knew it. But you guys didn't want to write it because you're fake news.

TERRY MORAN: Alright. Thank you --

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And, by the way, ABC is one of the worst. I have to be honest with you --
-------------------------------

Kudos to Trump for maintaining his composure, though maybe it wasn't that hard, knowing that he was dealing with a clear idiot in Moran.

[Malika the Maiz]

You think journalists can’t reference what they think are facts in interviews?

[David Nieporent]

What is amazing is how cultists like this suffering from TDS think this exchange made Trump look good.

[Longtobefree]

The clearest portrayal yet of a battle of wits with an unarmed 'man'.

[santamonica811]

You're talking about Trump being the unarmed man here, yes? It's hard to tell. Trump obviously comes across as an idiot and his usual witless and dishonest and/or uninformed self. But I guess you could possibly have been referring to both Trump and the interviewer. (But you would have written unarmed *men*, not 'man,' in that case, so I'm still confused.)

[ducksalad]

Some of the old timer commenters here are upset that this site has drifted away from analysis of legal issues. So, here's some legal analysis provided by our executive branch:

The case we have against 60 Minutes, CBS, and Paramount is a true WINNER. They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena. Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting. It was a disastrous answer! 60 Minutes and its corporate parents, in order that this not have a negative impact on her, removed and deleted Kamala’s entire answer, every word of it, and replaced it with a response that she gave later on to an entirely different question. The new answer was not good, but it didn’t show Gross Incompetence like the one that was removed by 60 Minutes. In other words, 60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications System. Despite all of the above, and Paramount’s/CBS’/60 Minutes’ admittance to this crime and, with other similar corrupt removals of answers to questions, the Failing New York Times, which is Fake News both in writing and polling, claims that “people” said that the case is baseless. They don’t mean that, they just have a non curable case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, possibly to the point where the Times’ interjection makes them liable for tortious interference, including in Elections, which we are intently studying. The bottom line is that what 60 Minutes and its corporate owners have committed is one of the most egregious illegalities in Broadcast History. Nothing like this, the illegal creation of an answer for a Presidential Candidate, has ever been done before, they have to pay a price for it, and the Times should also be on the hook for their likely unlawful behavior. It is vital to hold these Liars and Fraudsters accountable!

[Martinned]

It would be more compelling if more of it was in ALL CAPS.

[santamonica811]

It's good to see Trump's rants written down. When we just hear them, it's sometimes easy to forget just how fucking insane he often sounds. How detached from reality our current president is much of the time. Kind of depressing.

[Martinned]

More non-terrible news:

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the immediate release of a Columbia University student who was detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation over his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests.

Mohsen Mahdawi was arrested by immigration authorities as part of a crackdown on foreign students who were legally studying in the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a rarely used provision of immigration law to target some of the students for deportation by declaring that their continued presence in the country harms America’s foreign policy interests.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/30/judge-frees-columbia-student-activist-whom-trump-administration-wants-to-deport-00317981

And in this case he's already been freed.

[Zarniwoop]

Docket here (though it’s not well populated yet, and I don’t see today’s order, alas): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888582/mahdawi-v-trump/

[Bob from Ohio]

"non-terrible"

Hamas simp freed!

[Zarniwoop]

Here’s the Court’s order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vtd.39338/gov.uscourts.vtd.39338.54.0.pdf

It’s pretty easy to understand, and I think correct in all aspects. The Court seems to take the 1st Amd. arguments pretty seriously.

The paragraph spanning pp.24-25 is definitely worth a read.

[Zarniwoop]

Opinion at pp.24-25:

The Court also considers the extraordinary setting of this case and others like it. Legal residents--not charged with crimes or misconduct--are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day. Our nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and Palmer Raids of 1919-1920 that led to the deportation of hundreds of people suspected of anarchist or communist views. In Coyler v. Skeffington, 265 F. 17 (1920), Judge Anderson of the District of Massachusetts granted habeas relief to multiple immigrants detained for their political beliefs. His decision was instrumental in bringing and end to the moral panic that gripped the nation and its officials. Similar themes were sounded during the McCarthy period in the 1950s when thousands of non-citizens were targeted for deportation due to their political views.... Again, the fever passed, but not before Justice Jackson was moved to dissent in U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 317 (1950), writing in a habeas case concerning the exclusion of a German war bride:

"Security is like liberty in that many are the crimes committed in its name. The menace to the security of our country, be it great as it may, from this girl's admission is as nothing compared to the menace to free institutions inherent in procedures of this pattern"

The wheel of history has come around again, but as before these times of excess will pass. In the meantime, this case--like Coyler and Knauff--is extraordinary in the sense that it calls upon the ancient remedy of habeas to correct a persistent modern wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

The wheel of history has come around again, but as before these times of excess will pass. In the meantime, this case--like Coyler and Knauff--is extraordinary in the sense that it calls upon the ancient remedy of habeas to correct a persistent modern wrong.

Well then, not having the body is the answer. Just deport him.

[Zarniwoop]

On what grounds? Are you arguing that Mahdawi should be deported because you don't like his speech about a political topic?

TBH it's not exactly clear what you're even trying to say here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mahdawi should be deported because he is a terrorist supporting Jew hater and the Secy of State has statutory authority to deport such rejects.

This is another simple answer to a stupid question.

[Zarniwoop]

Your simplistic answer means you want to ignore the Constitution.

Statutes don't override the Constitution.

None of this is hard to understand.

But yep, there are good little GermansTrumpy Americans who advocate this.

[Commenter_XY]

Not at all. Foreign aliens do not have the same P&I as citizens. That is a fact. SCOTUS will tell us the outer contours of what rights foreign nationals have wrt visas and green cards.

Just deport him, and not have a body to produce to the Court. Mahdawi supports hamas, a Judeocidal terror group who holds Edan Alexander, an American citizen, hostage.

My prediction: SCOTUS will say Congress passed the law, and it might have been a bad idea, ultimately, but it is constitutional (sort of like the Penaltax was constitutional), and the Executive can enforce those laws. The People can change it via the electoral process with a new Congress. Until then, you're stuck.

As for Mahdawi, he can cheer for hamas from his home country.

[Martinned]

Ah, right the P&I clause.

https://theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149/

[Brett Bellmore]

Area man passionate defender of the consequences of a racist Supreme court gutting the central clause of the 14th amendment in order to put a stop to Reconstruction.

It's unambiguous that incorporation was supposed to happen via the P&I clause, which limits P&I to citizens. Substative due process is just some BS the Court came up with when they decided that they might as well incorporate select bits of the Bill of Rights, but didn't want to admit that what the Slaugherhouse Court had done was actually wrong.

[David Nieporent]

On what grounds? Are you arguing that Mahdawi should be deported because you don't like his speech about a political topic?

That's literally what he's saying, yes: he has argued that any non-citizen who criticizes Israel should be deported.

[Malika the Maiz]

So, AG Pam Bondi made this claim:

https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1917311265774727323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1917311265774727323%7Ctwgr%5E0e09aaeb3fc9fbbfdb581c540c1642ba4502fcd0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fbreaking-bad-2

“In President Trump’s first 100 days we’ve seized over 22 million fentanyl laced pills, saving over 119 Million lives.”

That’s like a third of the US population.

I’m curious, would the usual toadies of the Mad King and his viziers like to try to defend that claim?

Maybe more the usual route of whataboutism?

I remember when, I think it was Sotomayer, misstated a statistic wildly in oral arguments and many here said this was conclusive proof of her idiocy. Does Pam’s white skin, blonde hair and/or partisan affiliation make this less worse?

Note: this game can also be played with Trump’s assertion that egg prices have come down under his administration by 93%.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m curious how one pill can take ~5.4 lives.

Multiple lives … wut?

Why the specific number of about 5.4 lives/pill?

[Frank Drackman]

You can kill an Opiate-naive person with 250 micrograms (5cc) of IV Fentanyl, I know, I've seen it done (not by me, my Jobs nothing but giving Opiate-naive persons large doses of Fentanyl WITHOUT killing them, Killing your patients really hurts your HCAHPS scores)
OK, Hunter Biden you'd have to give 20 times that much and he'd probably just yawn, Opiates be like that.
So, this "such and such amount of Fentanyl could kill so many millions of peoples" is based on the first number.

[Glaucomatose]

Is suppose if one thinks that the alternative scenario to seizure was that those 22 million pills were going to be split five ways each, on a million or so pentagonal pill-splitters, and a third of the US population (all of whom, to be clear, are among the opiate-naive) would each have swallowed one of those pill-fifths, except that perhaps one out of every ten split-pill-poppers would have then gotten behind the wheel and sped off into traffic before succumbing to their pill-fifths and taking out another driver, then that number would make sense.

[Zarniwoop]

Aw geez, the penta-splitter is sold out at Walgreens! They only had a 7-way splitter in stock.

How am I going to help kill 119M Americans now?!?!

[grb]

Zarniwoop : "I’m curious how one pill can take ~5.4 lives"

For that matter, there's this recent Trump exchange on tariff deals with a Time reporter :

Trump responded, “I’ve made 200 deals.”
“You’ve made 200 deals?”
“100%”

Now, there are 195 countries in the world today. This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: the Holy See and the State of Palestine. And Trump did impose tariffs on several penguin-infested rocks, so there's that. But I'm still a tad skeptical about this claim.

[Dillinger]

the "one sugar packet full will kill 500 people" stat is confusing when A&E is professing the person doing bong hits on Intervention is smoking fentanyl in rock form

[Zarniwoop]

I have no beef with “1 sugar packet” or “1 gram” or similar volume/mass units being theoretically able to “kill X people”. Often breathlessly sensationalized, but that’s a different issue.

But typically only one person at a time swallows a pill…

[Dillinger]

truth.

[shawn_dude]

Conjoined twins! But that's just 2 per pill...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump says he ‘could’ return Abrego Garcia to US, but won’t

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5274438-donald-trump-abc-news-interview-kilmar-abrego-garcia/

[not guilty]

That kind of admission could get members of Trump's cabinet jailed for civil contempt.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep Hope Alive!

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how. It involved foreign policy, and the courts can't order the administration to adopt a particular foreign policy.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a reason you believe that?

[Brett Bellmore]

The Supreme court, recently: "The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs"

I don't believe the judge can obligate Trump to do everything necessary to get Garcia back, because part of what's necessary is the conduct of foreign policy. Obligating the President to adopt a particular foreign policy exceeds the District court's authority.

If El Salvador does decide to release him, Trump is obligated to do what's reasonably necessary to get him back here, but he's not obligated to ask El Salvador to release him.

[Sarcastr0]

You mix up is and ought.

And what you think ought to be the law is awful - it provides an easy unreviewable way for the President to just exile anyone they want.

[Brett Bellmore]

I never said "ought" once. I said that if Trump doesn't want to get Garcia back, (He apparently doesn't.) the court has no authority to force him to.

I mean, geeze, how many times exactly do I have to say that Trump screwed up, and then got stubborn, and that he should (There's an "ought" there!) bring Garcia back, give him proper due process, (It's not a lot, since Garcia was already a deportable illegal alien.) and then boot him right back out of the country legally?

Garcia should not be in this country, but his absence from this country should have been accomplished via proper procedure, and it wasn't. I don't like that! Even if I like the fact that he's gone, I don't like one bit how it was accomplished.

But that doesn't mean this judge has the authority to order it undone.

[Sarcastr0]

You say I believe. Do you want to revise so that wasn’t opinion but hard fact?

[Brett Bellmore]

What exactly are you demanding here? That I express absolute confidence in something that I actually think mildly uncertain? Sorry, I'm not under any obligation to do that.

The bottom line is that I don't THINK the court has the authority to order Trump to return Garcia, as this involves some stuff that falls into the area of foreign policy.

I also think Trump should have done it without being ordered, and should now do it despite being ordered by somebody without the authority to issue the order.

[Sarcastr0]

You've not lacked in extremely confident factual pronouncements ever before.

But I won't argue if you're going to have a modicum of humility now.

[Michael Ejercito]

Garcia is currently imprisoned under the authority of El Salvador.

That kind of makes it impossible for American courts to order his return to the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Even assuming you're sincerely enough of a sucker to believe this, did you read the OP from JoeFromtheBronx?

Is Trump lying?

[David Nieporent]

Thank you for that hot take from 3 weeks ago. But Trump already admitted he could get Garcia back if he wanted.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme court, recently:

Which part of the words "may" and "deference" make you think that there's some hard and fast rule about the executive's authority?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Judge Xinis ordered the resumption of expedited discovery in the Abrego Garcia case, setting a series of deadlines over the next two weeks.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.107.0_1.pdf

[David Nieporent]

Huh. I thought the unexplained pause based on secret filings suggested that a possible deal was imminent. It appears not.

[Frank Drackman]

I think I know the Judges daughter, "Connie"

[Michael Ejercito]

What relief can the judge possibly order at this point?

[DaveM]

Yada yada yada POLITICS yada yada yada POLITICS yada yada yada POLITICS ...

Not the best open forum, today.

[Dillinger]

my nephew is one decision from chopping his thing off and nobody will stop him ... and I'm relatively certain it's not my place and very difficult to bite my tongue

[Frank Drackman]

well if he changes his mind (women tend to do that, even ersatz ones) he can always have an "Add-a-dick-to-me"
"Dillinger"??? I get it, he was supposedly hung like a horse.

[Frank Drackman]

Preach it Dave, I've referenced (Sir) Elton John, Aaron Spelling, Casablanca, Goebbels, and all anyone wants to talk about is this Kill-more Garcias guy ("a bad Hombre" I've heard)

[Josh R]

There are two things which I hope we all can agree on are a direct result of Trump: 1) the drop in illegal border crossings, and 2) the liberals winning in Canada. Are there others we can all agree on?

[Zarniwoop]

I propose

3) the sudden and precipitous decline in trans-Pacific container shipping from China.

Whatever you might think of it - good/bad, genius/moron, revitalize America/cause a recession, legit emergency/unconstitutional, etc. - I don't think anyone disagrees that it's an observable, objective, and direct market response to tariff uncertainty.

[santamonica811]

The wild fluctuations in the stock market. Obvious reactions to tariff rumors and tariff announcements. The long-term effects will depend on, obviously, a million other factors.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that, unless you restrict yourself to a relatively short time period, these fluctuations are not particularly "wild", unless you want to say that wild fluctuations are actually fairly commonplace.

[shawn_dude]

4) the dramatic drop in foreign tourism in the US accompanied by an increase in tourism to other countries.

[Mr. Bumble]

cite

[apedad]

In West Virginia, Trump’s cuts complicate hopes for a coal revival

Earlier this month, Trump’s federal workforce cuts hit the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), hobbling the work of a black lung surveillance and prevention program, according to union and health workers.

In addition, the administration delayed a new rule set to go into effect April 14 that would cut in half exposure limits of silica dust, a driver of resurgent black lung that now affects one in five coal miners in Appalachia. And the administration has been reviewing ending the leases of more than 30 Mine Safety and Health Administration offices.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-west-virginia-trump-s-cuts-complicate-hopes-for-a-coal-revival/ar-AA1DTXXD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=cda557a80df24520b64863f01ccad03f&ei=67

More coal but less safety oversight for miners - and they voted for Trump.

We can have policy differences but voting to get yourself killed?

#leopardatmyface

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, coal isn't coming back. (Not for power production, anyway. It's not easy to produce steel without it.) Even people who don't give a damn about CO2 emission understand that it's filthy.

I think he'd be better off just pushing for a resumption of nuclear power; It better shows up the hypocrisy of the Greens, because it's great from an environmental standpoint.

[apedad]

Agree on nuke power.

(Way back in 1979, I scored high on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery [ASVAB] test and basically could have chosen any career field. Looking back, I wish I had gone into the nuke field.)

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, that basically "No Homos" policy basically kept out a lot of basically talented peoples. I took the ASVAB, don't know my score, didn't care, no way I was going to enlist, got me out of class for the entire morning

[Zarniwoop]

I am all about improving the U.S.'s use of nuclear power.

I kinda wish some billionaire would throw as much money and people at improving nuclear power as Musk and Bezos do with their phallic object obsessions.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree on nuclear power and also the wish that NP had a high-profile advocate. It would be nice if they were rich, but most important is a high profile for advocacy.

[Dillinger]

chicks who dig nuke power needed for honeypots.

[shawn_dude]

Bill Gates has been doing this. He's just not as flashy as a South African fascist.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nucor doesn’t burn coal…and they were the biggest beneficiary of Trump’s steel tariffs.

[shawn_dude]

I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, I agree that nuclear power can be a considerable good. I'd like to see sort of a reasonable solution that balances rights and practicality when it comes to the damage frivolous lawsuits can do to plant startup costs.

Having said that, coal mining and uranium mining are pretty similar. They do a lot of damage to the environment. The US has massive amounts of it but we opt to import it from Russia. That says a lot right there. Operating plants use a lot of fresh water, which is a dwindling resource in large parts of the country. Nuclear waste is a real issue that ought to be considered as well; it's both hot in temperature and hot in radioactivity for a long period of time. And, more importantly, nuclear plants are more expensive than other options (especially when you account for waste removal and a few thousand years of storage.)

China's thorium reactor is interesting as it applies to the waste issue. Fusion is also interesting as it improves on a number of the issues that fission has. But in the end, I think the right move is to carefully select a new power plant's technology based on the local needs and location and move from there. That might be nuclear and it might be something else.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Having said that, coal mining and uranium mining are pretty similar."

Well, pretty similar except for having to mine three million kg of coal to generate as much energy as 1kg of uranium. Which I think renders uranium mining significantly less damaging in practice even if they're as bad per ton of ore dug up.

The water consumption is roughly comparable, I'll give you that much.

The nuke plants are more expensive than the other options only because they're subject to extreme levels of regulation, and to a degree of regulatory churn that means you never get to finish building a given nuke plant to the plans you started with. You get halfway in, then have to tear up stuff and replace it. Repeatedly.

Back when we were frequently building the plants to the original plans, they were quite affordable.

And the waste problem is rather like the regulatory problems: Foes of nuclear power early on settled on obstructing nuclear waste reprocessing and disposal, with the idea that the plants would eventually choke on waste they wouldn't be permitted anywhere to dispose of, or any chance to recycle into new fuel rods.

And similar to the fuel issue, the amount of waste compared to the power generated automatically renders waste disposal somewhat inconsequential if examined in proportion to the power produced. Especially if reprocessing were permitted, because most of the 'waste' is actually fuel that's just too contaminated with waste isotopes to use anymore; Most of the fuel value is still present.

[Bored Lawyer]

Students for Justice in Palestine held a protest at Yale.

Netanel Crispe, a Jewish senior at Yale, described his experience to The Washington Free Beacon, saying, “Last night, when I should have been completing my senior thesis, I instead found myself being physically blocked—along with other Jewish peers—from walking through sections of Yale’s Beinecke Plaza.”
“Our non-Jewish classmates were allowed to pass freely through the newly formed pro-Palestinian encampment while we were shoved, pushed, and called ‘scum,’” he added.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/yale-revokes-sjp-chapters-status-anti-semitic-encampment/27884

Yale, to its credit, suspended the organization. Should expel the Islamo-Nazis. We will see.

Anyone here claiming that there is no anti-semitism on campus is a liar or willfully blind.

[Ed Grinberg]

The numerous commenters around here who bring up racism when discussing any political topic (however unrelated) are all strangely silent...
What was it that Orwell said about some animals being more important to protect from discrimination than others?

[jb]

Who is claiming there is no anti-semitisim?

I think there's some dispute over how big the problem is, but there's obviously some anti-semitism on campus and in some places it appears to be a fairly big problem. There's also problems with other types of discrimination, but that doesn't diminish the anti-semitism problem. I haven't read Harvard's report yet, but it seems like the kind of thing other universities should be doing to grapple with the problem.

[Commenter_XY]

The better question is what to do about it. How about expulsion?

[Martinned]

Wait, so you're opposed to free speech now?

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, have you not interacted with Commenter before?

Yeah, he unironically opposes freedom these days.
I sometimes wonder if he had a frontal lobe stroke or something.

[Martinned]

Every once in a while I (perphaps vainly) think that checking whether he's hearing himself might help.

[Mr. Bumble]

Something you an Il Douche are incapable of.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm shocked! shocked! to find that Anti-Semitism is going on at Yale!
You know where you won't find Anti-Semitism going on? Auburn, U of Alabama, U of Arkansas, U of Georgia, U of Florida, U of Kentucky, U of Oklahoma, U of Texas, U of South Carolina, U of Missouri, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Texas A&M,

[shawn_dude]

Here's a more reliable source:

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2025/04/23/yale-revokes-yalies4palestines-club-status-citing-protest-policy-violations-antisemitism-concerns/

Looks like Yale is responding fairly well so far.

[The Turtle Dove]

Just a notion, but might the Senate have a bit more collective gumption and be a bit less beholden to the national political machine if senators were appointed by state legislatures? Surprised the Founders didn't think of that.

Mr. D.

[Moderation4ever]

No. If anything, the political parties would have the Senate even more screwed up. Many states are so gerrymandered that state legislatures would have complete control over the Senate. With direct election a Senator is the people choice not the gerrymandered legislatures choice.

[thesafesurfer]

Are the members of the judiciary in the United States so blind that they do not see that America views them as unelected partisan politicians instead of as neutral arbiters of justice?

[grb]

thesafesurfer : "Are the members of the judiciary in the United States so blind ...."

Quick reminder : Per the latest polling, a majority of Americans are concerned about the haste, incompetence, and lawlessness of the Trump Administration. He's underwater on immigration just like everything else.

So maybe you're the one out of step. Maybe the majority of Americans are more worried about the rule of law & justice than you. Maybe you're the one who is blind.

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

Do you actually believe that on a topic where 80% of Americans want what Trump is doing that he's somehow underwater on that topic?

[grb]

What does the polling say, troll?

[Frank Drackman]

Last time I checked, Trump got 312 Electrical Votes

[Dillinger]

whatever the pollster wants it to?

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[grb]

Fine with me. They say Trump is told by his leeches & flunkies that the polling is all a conspiracy; the American public is worshipfully adoring of his every whim. Being mentally ill, he believes that. I guess people in the Cult aren't even allowed the choice. They're required to be mentally ill in step with the Mad King.

But that doesn't offer much hope for long-term success, Bumble.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't speak for America, rando angry guy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hard to believe that going on a month now and the threads are still filled with comments about Kill-More (H/T FD).
To paraphrase Moms Mabley:
He's deported, good!

[SRG2]

Something you don't see every day - 5-4 with the dissent being Thomas, Alito, Kagan and Jackson

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-861_7lh8.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See also: the separate post on the case.

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

In yet another instance of last year's right-wing conspiracy being this years headline:

"Michelle" Obama finally confesses to being a black man.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1917602783143866711

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jennifer Hegseth holds unorthodox role shaping Pentagon affairs

Her activities have included coordinating her husband’s media appearances and meeting with job candidates, say people familiar with the arrangement.

https://archive.ph/95RLH

Two for the price of one.

"Revelations that Jennifer Hegseth was among those who received advance notice of the Yemen attack plans surfaced this month, following a stunning report in March by the Atlantic magazine that exposed Trump officials’ reliance on unclassified group chats to coordinate such highly sensitive matters."

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump’s last SecDef said Melanie was in the Situation Room during the Solemani strike.

[grb]

How 'bout some non-political stuff? I just got two movies, both blu rays from a rather illicit source:

1. Megalopolis is Coppola's latest (and probably last) film. It's a rather unholy mess, including a crude analogy to the last days of the Roman Republic, a ponderous narration, and a mash-up of tone from slapdash humor to seriousness with a capital "S". That said, there's much brilliant filmmaking in its 140mins, even though the overall effect is exhausting rather than exhilarating. Of course, along with The Brutalist, it was the second (very) serious recent film with an architectural theme. But as qua Architect, both disappointed. With The Brutalist, that theme was tied-up with a lot of toxic nonsense. With Megalopolis, it's wrapped-up in formless sci-fi gibberish. Maybe I'm better off going back to The Fountainhead and Gary Cooper. Believe it or not, I've never seen that flick.

2. The second movie is Vengeance Most Fowl, the latest Wallace and Gromit movie. And it was great! - particularly with the return of that evil penguin criminal mastermind, Feathers McGraw. The movie is frequently laugh-out-loud funny and fiendishly clever in a myriad of ways the kiddies will never see. Plus Gromit has to be the all-time most expressive actor never saying a line. Charlie Chaplin stakes a claim and the race is close, but I'm still going with the clay pooch.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Check out Y2K!

[SRG2]

Cracking review there, GRB!

[grb]

(that made me smile)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I enjoyed Conclave which I just saw on DVD in a timely fashion. Good atmosphere, acting, and kept my interest. The messaging was a bit heavy-handed, but I was okay with it.

[grb]

I saw Conclave a couple of weeks back. Being never known for good timing my entire life, this was a rare exception. It would have been interesting to see it get by on just a little less drama, but I guess the subject matter was so dry they thought it needed to be gussied-up by any means whatsoever.

[shawn_dude]

Every Wallace and Gromit movie is enjoyed with a cheese plate and bottle of wine at our place.

I loved the Shaun-the-sheep tie-in, too. (The farmer.)

[grb]

Lancashire cheddar, Philadelphia, or Wensleydale?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've had Wensleydale, (They sell it at ALDI's.) and it's actually pretty good.

According to my son, the company was actually a day away from going bankrupt, when the mention of their cheese by Wallace saved them.

[grb]

Per what I've read, the series creators picked Wensleydale not for any cheesy qualities, but because the word lent itself to a very toothy pronunciation which they thought would animate well.

From that decision, came the salvation of the company!

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

RFK Jr-“We have ended HHS as a principal vector for child trafficking.”

https://x.com/johnrich/status/1917661110809027061

Now we know why the elites are ginning up so much civil unrest. Their kiddie gravy train was snippet.

F U Sarcastr0, those child traffickers at HHS are you.

[grb]

Wanna explain what that means to those of us who are normal, Magnus? Can you translate from QAnon-ese to normal people talk? I understand you freaks have your own language, but please make an effort to communicate in a way an average rational person understands.

And whatever you do, please stay away from pizzeria basements (that don't exist)......

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

>We have ended HHS as a principal vector for child trafficking.

You can't decipher what those words mean for yourself? Do you need to ask permission from your handler or is it a biological limitation?

[jb]

I think it has something to do with this:

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2025/04/30/rfk-jr-accuses-biden-era-hhs-of-role-in-child-trafficking-says-trump-team-now-locating-300000-missing-minors/

I can't quite figure out why the kids are being trafficked out where to, but maybe that makes the conspiracy theory even better!

[shawn_dude]

Have we checked the basements of pizza parlors? Just saying...

[Poxigah145]

Clearly, our public schools have failed in basic economics, as people's understanding of tariffs is shockingly bad.

The demand curve for most things is not inelastic. The financial media is presenting it as a truism that a 20% tariff will lead to a 20% tax increase. But there is no evidence of that.

Is the financial media also ignorant, or are they being intentionally dishonest in the pursuit of higher stock prices?

[jb]

Two things:

1) Somehow I get the feeling that the people suddenly discovering the supply and demand curve are the exact same people who assure us that corporate tax increases or the price of regulations just get passed on to customers.

2) While it's probably true that some of the cost of the tariffs will be borne by suppliers, some of it will be borne by consumers as well, and some of the increased cost will simply result in lower economic activity. So we'll get a fun combination of more inflation and less growth. It's too bad Jimmy Carter just died, because otherwise Trump could ask him how much Americans love that combo.

[Poxigah145]

I am supportive of higher tariffs and higher corporate income taxes, but there's a huge advantage of higher tariffs. Corporate income taxes can be evaded a la Apple in Ireland. Tariffs can't be. Both raise needed revenue for the Treasury, and over time, tariffs will increase production in the United States.

I'm sure the people would rather have low prices effectively paid for by deficit spending (that's what we've been doing now for 20 years), but I don't think $2-3 trillion per year deficits are sustainable. Do you?

[Josh R]

Yes, government revenue will go up and yes, domestic production will go up as well. But, the loss in consumer demand from higher prices will be greater than the sum of those two argues Econ 101.

[Poxigah145]

Yeah, the economics intelligentsia have sold us the lie that globalization will make us all richer through competitive advantage. It hasn't. What is has done is made the top 1% richer, while making everyone else poorer.

[David Nieporent]

No, it's made us all richer.

[shawn_dude]

Taxes on purchased goods are a regressive tax, for starters, so tariffs are going to hit the poorest Americans the hardest. Whereas, corporate taxes have a more complicated and diluted impact on consumer prices. The 2017 Tax Act, according to the CBO, increased the deficit by $2.314 trillion. So clearly, lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy had a significant negative impact. Looks worse than Apple just moving part of its activities to Ireland.

What do you make of the massive financial subsidies by the US government to the oil industry? How much does that add to the deficit? That's the opposite of a corporate tax; we could just not spend that cash and boom, there's a huge chunk of the deficit out of the way. And if you look at where most of the US Federal budget goes, it's to defense spending by a wide margin. Maybe some cuts there would be easier to absorb than cutting school lunches for poor kids.

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

>1) Somehow I get the feeling that the people suddenly discovering the supply and demand curve are the exact same people who assure us that corporate tax increases or the price of regulations just get passed on to customers.

That doesn't refute his argument. He's not claiming costs don't get passed on, he's saying demand is elastic. Meaning for this tariffed products, their prices are going to rise, but that people will choose substitutes.

---
>While it's probably true that some of the cost of the tariffs will be borne by suppliers, some of it will be borne by consumers as well, and some of the increased cost will simply result in lower economic activity.

and thus reducing global warming, no? Shouldn't you celebrate reduced economic activity?

[Poxigah145]

They could choose substitutes or cut back. Either would work. Once they do that, suppliers would have to absorb more of the costs from their profit margin.

[shawn_dude]

Why would they have to do this? Why not raise prices to cover it? Heck, they could just raise prices anyway and blame it on the tariffs and make out like fat cats, right?

[grb]

If you remember back to 2017, Trump required every cabinet official first make obeisance in a pathetic groveling display. That's how every cabinet meetings began, going around the table with each person gushing about the glorious magnificence of Dear Leader.

And as our pet troll Magnus notes above, today's version included some truly wack-job lunacy from that wack-job lunatic, RFK Jr. For the record, his claim was demolished, crushed, shredded, and ploughed under long ago. But I'm more interested in a statement by Trump himself, because it speaks to the question of where his popularity is heading. Of course the economy had to be discussed, given the first projections of negative growth. Here's our president's input:

"The president was asked by a reporter on Wednesday if he had spoken with Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, about the tariffs that have sparked a potentially costly trade war between the countries, and have led to predictions of empty shelves before the end of the year as imports dry up. Trump said he had not, and offered his own prediction as to how Christmas might look for American families. “Somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are gonna be open.’ Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. So maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally,” he said."

We've come a long ways since people voted Trump because he said he'd bring prices down on day-one. It's amazing how many people believed that. But that belief will die as Trump destroys the U.S. economy he inherited - day by day, week by week, month by month. Those believers are gonna make an attitude adjustment.

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

A government official said they stopped child trafficking by the government and you still don't believe it?

[grb]

Speaking of pathetic groveling displays.........

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

So you don't respect our sacred institutions?

[SRG2]

Those believers are gonna make an attitude adjustment.

Many of them will blame the Democrats, not Trump, for nominating someone they couldn't vote for, many others will blame those of us who told them not to vote for Trump for being insufficiently persuasive, and most of the rest will think that it will all turn out well in the long term. Very few will explicitly concede that they made an error.

And almost all of them will deny that in voting for Trump they voted for everything he did.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Senate on Wednesday rejected an effort to undo President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, after only three Republicans joined Democrats in delivering a rebuke to Mr. Trump’s trade policies. The bill to end the national emergency Mr. Trump used to impose the tariffs would have been largely symbolic because it faced certain defeat in the House.

[NYT]

The vote was 49-49, with a majority vote necessary for a victory. Conveniently, Sheldon Whitehouse (D) was out of the country.

Republicans don't even want to symbolically go against Trump. Or, rather, as noted elsewhere, defend congressional power.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Senate agreed to the motion to table the motion to reconsider the failed passage of SJ Res 49, with VP Vance breaking the tie by a vote of 50-49.

GOP Senators voting no: Collins, Murkowski, Paul
Senators not voting: McConnell and Whitehouse (not there)

The last time the VP broke a tie on a motion to table was in 2002.

This is the lengths being taken to not even provide a symbolic limit on Trump's (illegal) actions.

[Kazinski]

Lengths?

It was a vote.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Girths!

[Kazinski]

It would take a heart of stone not to at least smile watching this "temporary" employee tearfully testify in front of Congress about getting fired.

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1917712721891713317

"I didn’t see temporary asst US attorney Sara Levine cry when I watched her prosecute one of the last J6 trials the week before Christmas 2024.

When Biden DOJ forced a single mom charged with 4 misdemeanors who was inside the Capitol for 9 minutes engaged in no violence to stand trial before Jeb Boasberg—who refused to delay the trial despite Trump’s pledge to pardon J6ers exactly like
Levine’s target.

This is your typical crybully J6 prosecutor—never cared about Americans being destroyed or losing their livelihoods over exercising their 1A rights but sheds tears for herself when tables are turned"

[Martinned]

Of course, why wouldn't you want to fire prosecutors for prosecuting? Who needs law enforcement anyway? Or, to be more precise, who needs impartial law enforcement without the possibility for (potential) defendants to buy their freedom with a suitable investment in $Trump?

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

They weren't impartial, Martinned. They had a deliberate strategy to to be as extreme as possible, even, as it turns out, unconstitutionally so.

Had the same thing happen to blacks there would be international outrage as the moral-panic feinting class would be in full gear.

[tylertusta]

I have little sympathy for prosecutors who forgot that they had a charged someone but never arraigned them and never proceeded to trial. Then when called out of their breaking of the law, they then sought to get a superseding indictment in violation of the law as if nothing had happened.

A DOJ that not only permits but endorses such behavior should be razed to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.

[shawn_dude]

Every successful fascist's first move, for sure.

[Kazinski]

Well actually if you read it, it turns out she was a temporary hire just to prosecute Jan. 6th cases, that function is no longer needed.

[SRG2]

We know that all you culitsts think that the J6 rioters were pacifist martyrs imprisoned in the Chateau d'If for years without prospect of a hearing let alone a trial...

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, a crybully *prosecutor*?

It's a stupid olds-try-to-do-slang term to begin with, but whatever it means, you're using it wrong.

[Kazinski]

Not my words.

But I do understand what it means.

[grb]

A report from the carnival freak show (i.e, Trump's cabinet meeting) :

1. Attorney General Pam Bondi credited Trump with saving "258 million lives". No documentation accompanied the claim.

2. Everyone was required to put on their MAGA clubhouse hat just like the Mouseketeers did. Since Elon Musk was already wearing his DOGE gear, he put the MAGA cap on top of that. Everybody laughed and laughed. That Musk is so hilarious!

3. RFK Jr. continued his anti-fluoride jihad. Aside from the well-established problem with our precious bodily fluids, apparently fluoride causes stupidity. "We found that there's a direct inverse correlation between fluoride exposure and low IQ in children," Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy said. "So the more you get, the stupider you are." Has anyone noticed how white his teeth look?

4. Trump's take on the Canadian election was this : "It was the one who hated Trump, I think, the least that won," he said. It's time again for Brett to prove by calculus, alchemy, and the categorical imperative that it's impossible (impossible!) for Trump to be stupid no matter how many brainless things he says.

Note : The HHS sex slave market and Trump telling Cindy Lou Who she's getting nothing for Christmas were covered in comments above.

[Martinned]

4. If Biden had said something that wrong, we'd be talking about his senility all week. (And did.) But apparently Trump's latest examination revealed that he has a soul, so everything is fine, nothing to see...

[grb]

Martinned : "... apparently Trump's latest examination revealed that he has a soul ..."

A question for the lawyers : Is it possible, legally, to sue for malpractice as a third party?

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

Were you bathed in fluoride as a kid? Is that why you are you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, when I was a kid they gave me enough fluoride to cause projectile vomiting, (They never used THAT school toothpaste test in their commercials, I'll tell you!) and I turned out OK.

[grb]

Apparently there are potential health issues with fluoride at exceptionally high doses. So there is a twinge of fact buried down deep in RFK's worm-ridden mind. But at the levels used? No.

But - hey - in terms of wack-a-loon craziness, that's small potatoes. I didn't know this until yesterday, but it seems our Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't believe in the Germ Theory of disease. This was laid out in an entire chapter of his book. A summary:

"In the chapter, Kennedy promotes the "miasma theory" but gets the definition completely wrong. Instead of actual miasma theory, he describes something more like terrain theory. He writes: "'Miasma theory' emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses." Kennedy contrasts his erroneous take on miasma theory with germ theory, which he derides as a tool of the pharmaceutical industry and pushy scientists to justify selling modern medicines. The abandonment of miasma theory, Kennedy bemoans, realigned health and medical institutions to "the pharmaceutical paradigm that emphasized targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition."

According to Kennedy, germ theory gained popularity, not because of the undisputed evidence supporting it, but by "mimicking the traditional explanation for disease—demon possession—giving it a leg up over miasma." To this day, Kennedy writes, a "$1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons, and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology led by 'Little Napoleon' himself, Anthony Fauci, fortify the century-old predominance of germ theory."

https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine-stance-is-rooted-in-a-disbelief-in-germ-theory/

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but it's chronic high doses, not acute high doses, like half my elementary school got. (The controls were fine, of course.) I do have a mild case of dental fluorosis, though. I disguise it with tea stains. 😉

I'd kind of have to see what he says, not what people say about what he says, but he does strike me as kind of a loon.

It's not like the last administration was careful not to hire loons for important positions, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit conflating your partisan telepathy (like debunked accusations of communism) with actual objective chemtrails disbelieving the germ theory of disease inanity.

At this point the scientific integrity of this NIH has been so shredded I'm not going to believe any results they come out with.

And the chronic dose thing was a legit paper. But, so far, one paper. With all the reproducibility and scope and methodology remaining questions that implies.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : " ... disbelieving the germ theory of disease inanity."

If RFK's take on Germ Theory was right, I would think you could look back to an era of unprocessed foods and low environmental toxins. This would be long before evil scientists conned people into believing in germs - say, the Middle Ages - and therefore you'd find an Eden of long lives & perfect health.

If RFK's take on the Germ Theory was wrong, you wouldn't find that at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is objectively true that grb linked to people talking about what RFK says, rather than linking to what RFK actually says.

I don't think hostile 2nd hand accounts are typically reliable when you want to know what somebody actually believes.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're not going to believe it but also won't check.

Welp.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I don't think hostile 2nd hand accounts are typically reliable"

Where's that skepticism when it would actually prove useful? About 99% of your conspiracy theories would whither on the vine if you took that stance consistently.

In this case, my source was a long detailed article on RFK's views. Just out of curiosity, did you bother to open and read it? Either way, even the section I took from the article had long quotes from Kennedy's book that substantively addressed his rejection of Germ Theory. But - hey - you could always claim the book quotes are faked, so there's that....

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "It's not like the last administration was careful not to hire loons for important positions, though."

Two Points :

1. I don't doubt you could find one somewhere. But it's a matter of degree. Trump's entire cabinet is a freak show of loons, leeches, lightweights, and buffoons. There's nothing remotely similar with Biden.

2. That said, the last time you produced a "loon" from the previous Administration, it turned out her CV made her exceptionally qualified. You just didn't like that she was once a he.

[Mr. Bumble]

Day drinking will ruin your liver.

[grb]

Personal experience?
Preach it, brother!

[Mr. Bumble]

Personal observation.

[Kazinski]

You missed the part that got the biggest laugh.

Rubio said the State Department was keeping dossiers of Americans social media posts that were spreading "disinformation". Then he said that one of the attendees was the subject of one of the dossiers.

JD Vance piped up "Was it me or Elon?"

[Michael P]

The WSJ claimed "Dow Headed for Worst April Since 1932". It turned out to be better than both 2022 and 2024.

[Magister]

Economy contracts. Trump blames Biden, and will blame him in all subsequent quarters. Apparently we have to get over the sugar high from back when we could actually afford sugar.

[Sarcastr0]

Probably right, but I'ma wait for another quarter. Especially since this is the initial estimate.
I'm confident enough in my priors on this one.

But I am amused at the Admin's messaging. Turns out when your audience is in the habit of believing only what they want, they key is broad contradictory messaging.

So this GDP number is good, doesn't matter, is wrong, and is Biden's fault.

[Magister]

Trump blamed Biden, and said he would continue to blame Biden. I don't know how likely recession is. But a lot of "fix it on day one" has given way to "nothing we could do because of the last administration", the same excuse for why, after almost 3 years of Trump, the government was not prepared for a pandemic; Obama did it.

[Kazinski]

It seemed like mostly good news to me:

"The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, and a decrease in government spending. These movements were
partly offset by increases in investment, consumer spending, and exports.

Real final sales to private domestic purchasers, the sum of consumer spending and gross private fixed investment, increased 3.0 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 2.9 percent in the
fourth quarter."

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/gdp1q25-adv.pdf

I'm actually a little disappointed I wouldn't mind a mild recession so the fed will lower interest rates, I'm long in bonds so I'd like to realize some capital gains, then put the proceeds back it stocks.

But this isn't going to get the fed to start lowering rates.

[Magister]

To repeat, I'm saying:
1. the economy contracted
2. Trump blamed Biden for it in the same way he always passes the blame on something he perceives as bad for his reputation
3. Trump said he will blame Biden in the future, too

You and Peter Navarro are welcome to root for future harm to other people that might benefit you.

[Kazinski]

Well to be clear, the "contraction" was because of accelerated imports, so that is definitely on Trump, but that's basically just prepaying expenses you would have to pay anyway.

Its also clear this is no recession because consumer spending and private investment increased, that's not what recessions look like.

But aren't you happy we aren't getting the recession I was half heartedly rooting for?

[David Nieporent]

Imports do not reduce GDP.

[grb]

As I note above, AG Pam Bondi credited Trump with saving "258 million lives" in the cabinet meeting today. Now that would seem an impressive accomplishment to this Leftie's eye, but I barely fathom the glorious miracle of Donald Trump.

Because yesterday, Bondi reported in a social media post that Trump had saved "119 million lives". Which means he saved 139 million people overnite! Maybe Lindsey Graham shouldn't be mocked as an ass-kissing buffoon. Maybe he's right, and Trump should be the next pope. After all, he can't screw-up that job any worse than the presidency.

(and think of all the opportunities for selling meme coin from the Vatican)

https://bsky.app/profile/whoweare4change.bsky.social/post/3lo3i5ldaos2u

[Martinned]

I'm reading the latest order in Epic v. Apple, and I notice that that is also an order granting the motion to enforce the injunction.

Until the other day, when it came up in one of the Trump cases, I'd never realised that was a thing before. In my native land the dicta of a court judgment may or may not order someone to do something or not, and if the plaintiff has asked for the remedy to be enforceable even pending appeal, the court may or may not grant that request, but those are all the flavours we've got. If the court said "you've got to do X", and the deadline for appeals is past, or the judgment is upheld on appeal, then the obligation to do X is in force, and the plaintiff can bring out the bailiffs etc to get what they're owed.

[Commenter_XY]

The Drummond case...does this split 4-4?

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

Well Barrett is recused so she can't stab the good guys in the back again, so yes. That's probably the split before the final vote. We can count on Justice Roberts to do the Resistance's bidding and switch over to the liberals.

[Martinned]

An update from European Commission chairwoman Ursula von der Leyen:

We support the fight against devastating fires in Israel.

We have activated our European Civil Protection Mechanism.

Firefighter planes from Greece, Cyprus, Croatia and Italy are on their way to help fight the blaze.

This is EU solidarity in action.

https://bsky.app/profile/vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu/post/3lo42gyi6os2v

[Michael Ejercito]

Interesting article here.

https://archive.md/k7C5H

Colleges also objected that class-based affirmative action would end up helping some poor white and Asian students, as if that were a bad thing. UNC’s expert witness, Caroline Hoxby of Stanford, called socioeconomic affirmative action “inefficient,” apparently seeing value in economic diversity only to the extent it contributed to racial diversity. Hoxby described the admission of “a poor white student” to be “a false positive.” Such an admission decision would be a mistake, she said, akin to a university seeking basketball players instead admitting a “tall person” from a high school with an excellent team who was “not a basketball player” and did not “actually contribute to the basketball team.” This is not an argument likely to fly with the public.

[Sarcastr0]

Following the links down, Here is the source of the quote. A 2018 expert report in the AA Supreme Court case.
https://affirmativeactiondebate.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/hoxby-expert-report-jan-2018.pdf

"It is useful to explain how this analysis relates to alternative admissions plans. A less than-perfectly correlated proxy for race and ethnicity will generate “false positives” and “false
negatives.” A false positive is a student who is falsely identified as a URM [f underrepresented minority] by the proxy. For instance, if the proxy were poverty, then a poor white student would be a false positive. A false negative is a student who is falsely identified as a non-URM by the proxy. For instance, if the proxy were poverty, then a non-poor African American student would be a false negative. The higher the number of false positives and false negatives, the more that the race-blind policy will lead UNC to (i) not admit as many URM students and fail to attain its diversity goals, or (ii)
experience a decline in academic preparedness because it only attain its diversity goals by admitting more students based on the proxy than it would have to admit if it could use race in admissions, or (iii) both of the above."

That's a pretty anodyne analysis, assuming diversity goals are a thing. Which, 7 years ago at the time this was written, they were - and legally so.

If you want to say AA was bad, argue that. Don't do context removal bullshitting like this, it makes it look like you don't actually believe in your thesis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course diversity goals were a thing. Not so much legal, as subject to a policy of ignoring their illegality.

It's only anodyne if you concede the legitimacy of deliberately discriminating on the basis of race in the first place. "But if we don't discriminate we'll miss our quotas!" is what they were saying.

[Sarcastr0]

Not so much legal, as subject to a policy of ignoring their illegality.

BrettLaw is not the actual law.

It's only anodyne if you concede the legitimacy....
Riiiight. Your political philosophy is just empirically true, a fact of reality. You really believe that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Gotta break it to you, but we're not talking Brettlaw here, we're talking Supreme Court law here.

[Sarcastr0]

The Supreme Court did not, in fact, instantiate a 'policy of ignoring [AA policy's] illegality.' It held such policies were not illegal.

Anything other than that, is you taking your political philosophy as just empirically true, a fact of reality.

I've heard that's bad.

[David Nieporent]

Of course diversity goals were a thing. Not so much legal, as subject to a policy of ignoring their illegality.

No, they were actually legal, according to the Supreme Court, until SFFA last year.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Were"!

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder why judges thought that AA was permissible under the Civil Rights Act, when the text itself did not have that exception.

(The Morrill Act, by contrast, did allow separate but equal).

[Sarcastr0]

The entire Bakke Court found that a violation of the Equal Protection Clause is discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even in Students for Fair Admission, the Court analyzed them as coterminous.

Except for Gorsuch!

[SRG2]

The House judiciary committee is happy with Trump deporting US citizens, it seems.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bats-t-crazy-house-dems-012512515.html

Representatives of the minority party proposed multiple amendments to a budget bill currently undergoing the thorny process of reconciliation. The first would have disallowed ICE from carrying out deportations without due process. The second, made in the wake of deportations of US-born children, would have kept ICE from using funds to deport US citizens for any reason.

Because Dear Leader wants to be able to do this, so his wishes must not be opposed.

[tylertusta]

The second, made in the wake of deportations of US-born children, would have kept ICE from using funds to deport US citizens for any reason.

Ah yes. Salon. When they aren't lying, they're just lying a different way.

No US-citizen has been deported. This bill would be a solution in search of a problem.

[grb]

Ah, the Cult! They leave no lie left unsaid. In this case, tylertusta is pretending he doesn't know that Trump and his flunkies have repeatedly talked about deporting U.S. citizens to a third-world gulag.

So, yeah, there's a problem after all....

[tylertusta]

Nothing left to do but parrot lies today, I see.

[Mr. Bumble]

As Malika is so found of saying: cite.

[grb]

President Donald Trump has said openly that he’d favor El Salvador taking custody of American citizens who’ve committed violent crimes, a view he repeated Monday. “We have bad ones too, and I’m all for it because we can do things with the president for less money and have great security,” Trump said during the meeting with Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador. “And we have a huge prison population.” It is unclear how lawful U.S. citizens could be deported elsewhere in the world.

Before the press entered the Oval Office, Trump said in a video posted on social media by Bukele that he wanted to send “homegrowns” to be incarcerated in El Salvador, and added that “you’ve got to build five more places,” suggesting Bukele doesn’t have enough prison capacity for all the U.S. citizens Trump would like to send there.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-reiterates-desire-to-expand-deportation-plans-to-include-u-s-citizens

[grb]

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the Trump administration is not sure it is legal to deport U.S. citizens to El Salvador, but that President Donald Trump has “simply floated” the idea for the sake of transparency.

Leavitt said the president had discussed the idea both privately and publicly for “heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly.” “The president has said if it’s legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that, he’s not sure. We are not sure if there is, it’s an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly as in the effort of transparency,” she said.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-simply-floated-idea-of-deporting-u-s-citizens-white-houses-leavitt-says

[grb]

Last week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was interested in deporting "heinous, violent criminals" who are U.S. citizens to El Salvador "if there's a legal pathway to do that."

"During Monday’s White House meeting, Trump said that Attorney General Pam Bondi is "studying the law.""

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

[grb]

Trump offered no specifics about how his Administration would deport "homegrown" criminals, or if he was only referring to naturalized citizens who were born outside the U.S. But he said that Attorney General Pam Bondi was studying the legality of such a proposal. Deporting U.S. citizens would mark a dramatic escalation of the Trump Administration’s already aggressive approach to immigration and criminal justice, and has raised immediate legal and ethical questions from constitutional experts, who tell TIME that even suggesting the removal of U.S. citizens crosses a line long considered inviolable.

https://time.com/7277884/can-a-u-s-citizen-be-deported-trumps-comments-spark-legal-debate/

[grb]

President Donald Trump is exploring whether he can legally deport U.S. citizens to prisons in Central American countries, the White House said Tuesday. “It’s another question that the president has raised,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said when a reporter asked if Trump currently has the power to send Americans to foreign prisons or would need to change the law to do so.

“It’s a legal question that the president is looking into,” Leavitt answered.

She said that Trump “would only consider this, if legal, for Americans who are the most violent, egregious, repeat offenders of crime who nobody in this room wants living in their communities.” Asked to explain the administration’s view of the law, Leavitt said, “We’re looking at it, and when I have more to share, I certainly will.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/15/trump-deport-citizens-law.html

[Magister]

In fact, children who are US citizens were deported with their mothers; mothers and children were held without communication and quickly deported, without a chance for a legally resident guardian to take them instead.

[David Nieporent]

No US-citizen has been deported.

Very conservative Trump-appointee federal Judge Terry Doughty has a "strong suspicion" that you are wrong.

This bill would be a solution in search of a problem.

Then why oppose it? It doesn't cost a penny to ban spending money on things that don't happen anyway.

[Martinned]

Interesting... Laura Loomer has just fired the US national security adviser and deputy national security adviser. Who knew she could do that?

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1917957428823347259

[grb]

Martinned : "Who knew she could do that?"

Before the '20 election, Rudy Giuliani spent two years rooting thru every unsavory corner of Ukraine with his two low-grade thug henchmen, Parnas & Furman, looking to buy Biden dirt. Along the way, he picked up a client on the side, Ukraine's former chief prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.

Lutsenko was tired of then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's hectoring focus on corruption and wanted her gone. With the aid of Parnas and Furman, Rudy got the job done.

And it was all too simple. All they had to do was tell Trump that Yovanovitch was saying meanie things about him. DJT flew into the entirely predictable rage and immediately ordered her fired. See, when you're as insecure and childlike as Trump, you're easy to manipulate. I suspect that's how a loony-tunes internet flake like Loomer got some of the highest officials in the U.S. government ousted. She just led Trump by the nose until he made the "decision" she decided he should make.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/lutsenko-unnamed-ukrainian-who-led-plot-oust-yovanovitch-says-official-n1065246

[SRG2]

One of the mysteries surrounding the Yovanovich firing was that she was advised to leave Ukraine within 48 hours of her firing else her security could not be guaranteed. It was never clear why not.